Intake Location Analysis

NotetoReader:Thisisaconsultantadministrativedraftdocumentbeingreleasedpriortothepublicdraftthatwillbereleasedforformalpublicreviewandcomment.Itincorporates commentsbytheLeadAgenciesonpriorversions,buthasnotbeenreviewedorapprovedbytheLeadAgenciesforadequacyinmeetingtherequirementsofCEQAorNEPA.Allmembers ofthepublicwillhaveanopportunitytoprovidecommentsonthepublicdraft.Responseswillbepreparedonlyoncommentssubmittedintheformalpublicreviewandcommentperiod.
1 2
Appendix3F
IntakeLocationAnalysis 3F.1 Introduction
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Thepurposeofthisappendixistodescribetheprocess(es)andstepsutilizedtoidentifyandrefine potentialnewintakelocationsforanalysisintheBayDeltaConservationPlans(BDCP) EnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIR/EIS).Theidentificationof potentialintakelocationswasaccomplishedthroughaniterativeprocessinvolvingengineersand resourceexpertsmostfamiliarwithexistingfacilityoperations,riverhydrology,andthebiological resourcesintheDelta.ThisprocessincludedconveningaFishFacilitiesTechnicalTeam,conducting aValuePlanningStudy,andparticipatinginnumerouscollaborativemeetingswithtechnicalstaff fromthevariousagenciesandconsultantscollaboratingintheBDCPprocesstodiscussevolving information. Currently,thecoequalgoalsoftheBDCParerestoringtheDeltaecosystemwhileatthesametime securingareliablewatersupply.ThisobjectiveisalsothepolicyoftheStateofCalifornia,as reflectedinthe2009legislationcommonlyreferredtoastheDeltaReformAct1.TheCalifornia DepartmentofWaterResources(DWR)andUnitedStatesBureauofReclamation(Reclamation)are jointlyseekingtoprotectatriskfishspecieseitherthroughimprovingexistingdiversionfacilities and/orbybuildingnewdiversionfacilitieswithstateoftheartfishscreeningcapabilities. Sincethe1970s,severalvariationsofnewdiversionfacilitieshavebeensuggestedand/orevaluated toaddresstheseissues.Astechnologiesandcriteriahaveevolvedanddatahavebeencollectedover pastdecades,diversionconceptshavedevelopedaccordingly.FortheBDCP,twogeneralapproaches havebeenproposedtodatefordivertingandscreeningwaterconveyedthroughtheDelta.First,the additionofdiversionfacilitiesfurthernorthontheSacramentoRiverhasbeenevaluated.Inthe alternative,theBDCPhasconsidereduseoftheexistingconsolidateddiversionatCliftonCourt ForebaywiththeinclusionofimprovementsthataddressBDCPobjectivesrelatingtospecies concernsandreliabilityofwatersupply.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
3F.2
SacramentoRiverDiversionFacilities
Oneoptionforimprovingsurvivalconditionsfordeltafisheriesistowithdrawwaterfromthe SacramentoRiverupstreamoftheaquatichabitatsmostfavorabletoatriskfishspecies.Byadding newpointsofdiversiontothenorthernlimitsofthelegalDelta,itisexpectedthethreatto vulnerablespeciescanbesignificantlydecreased.Forexample,implementingnewpointsof diversionontheSacramentoRivercouldhelpavoidintakeexposureforsmeltspecies.Throughthe DHCCPandBDCPprocesses,severalconveyanceoptionsusingnewpointsofdiversionhavebeen evaluated,eachincludingimprovedmeansoffishprotection.Theseevaluationshaveindicatedthat whennewSacramentoRiverfacilitiesareoperatedintandemwiththeexistingSouthDeltapumps, theflexibilityofCVPandSWPoperationscanbeincreasedtoallowoperatorstodivertwaterfrom
1SacramentoSanJoaquinDeltaReformActof2009,SBX71.
BayDeltaConservationPlan EIR/EIS
AdministrativeDraft F1
March 2013
ICF00674.11
NotetoReader:Thisisaconsultantadministrativedraftdocumentbeingreleasedpriortothepublicdraftthatwillbereleasedforformalpublicreviewandcomment.Itincorporates commentsbytheLeadAgenciesonpriorversions,buthasnotbeenreviewedorapprovedbytheLeadAgenciesforadequacyinmeetingtherequirementsofCEQAorNEPA.Allmembers willhaveanopportunitytoprovidecommentsonthepublicdraft.Responseswillbepreparedonlyoncommentssubmittedintheformalpublicreviewandcommentperiod. ofthepublic
IntakeLocationAnalysis
1 2
NorthernorSouthernfacilitiesinresponsetotheneedsofvariouslifestagesofaffectedspeciesas theymoveinandoutoftheDelta.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3F.3
FishFacilitiesTechnicalTeam(FFTT)2008 Proposal
In2008,theBDCPbroughttogetherStateandfederalregulatoryagencyandindustryexpertsasthe FishFacilitiesTechnicalTeam(FFTT)andchargedthemwithdeveloping,analyzingandproposing conceptsonfishscreentechnologiesandfacilitiesforintakefacilitieswithamaximumdiversion capacityof15,000cfsaspartofanisolatedconveyancesystem.ThefocusoftheFFTTwasto providetheBDCPConveyanceWorkgroupwithinitialdirectionandrecommendationsregarding location,compositionandarrangementoffishprotectivediversionfacilities. TheFFTTprovideditsrecommendationsinanAugust2008draftreportConceptualProposalfor ScreeningWaterDiversionFacilitiesalongtheSacramentoRiver.TheFFTTdevelopedseveral intakeconceptsthatwouldsuittheconveyanceoptionsbeingexploredundertheBDCP.Itis importanttonotethattheFFTTintakeconceptsweredevelopedstrictlylookingattherequirements ofdivertingwaterfromtheriverandnothowthewaterwouldbeconveyedbeyondthelevees borderingtheriver.Thus,existinglanduse,infrastructureconstraints,andothercriteriawerenot includedforconsiderationduringtheinitialFFTTevaluation.Further,theFFTTwasdirectedbythe ConveyanceWorkgrouptofocusonareachoftheSacramentoRiverbetweentheCityofSacramento andWalnutGroveforlocatingfishscreenintakefacilities.2Basedonthereviewofavailable information,theteamidentifiedtwelvepotentiallysuitablelocations,identifiedaslocationsAL(see mapbelow),forplacingadiversionfacility.Basedontheselectedlocationsandvariousscreening techniquesavailabletheFFTTproposedfourintakeconcepts.
2ConceptualProposalforScreenWaterDiversionFacilitiesalongtheSacramentoRiver,p.9,(FFTT/BDCPAugust
2008).Northernlocationswererecommendedtoreducetheexposureofdeltasmelt,longfinsmeltandother estuarinespecies.(FFTT2008,page5)
March 2013
ICF00674.11
3ProposedNorthDeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S,Figure3.1,p.34(DWR11302010).
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4
TheFFTTproposedintakeconceptsincludedthefollowing4:
Diversion Concept A
FacilityType/Location CombinedInRiver(Dual)andOnBankIntakes atCrossSectionLocationsC(Freeport),F (Hood),andH(Courtland) SeriesofCylindricalScreensatLocationsfrom A(Sacramento)toL(WalnutGrove) CombinedInRiver(Dual)andOnBankIntakesat CrossSectionLocationsfromA(Sacramento)toL (WalnutGrove) CombinedInRiver(Dual)andCylindricalScreensat CrossSectionLocationsfromA(Sacramento)toL (WalnutGrove)
NumberandCapacity Threesitesat5,000cfseach
Tensiteswithfifteenscreenspersitefor amaximumof1,500cfspersite Tensitesat1,500cfseach
Tensitesat1,500cfseach
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
KeyelementsthatwereconsideredbytheFFTTwhenidentifyingpotentialintakeconceptsincluded riverbathymetry,hydraulics,temporalandspatialdistributionofsalmonidandsmeltspecies, opportunitiestominimizepredation,sedimentmanagement,floodcontrol,andnavigational impacts.Severalkeyconclusionsrelativetointakelocationswere:
IntakesshouldbelocatedasfarnorthaspossibletominimizeencroachmentonDeltasmelt habitat.Thisapproachalsoimprovessweepingvelocitiesatintakesasaresultofmutedtidal backwatereffects5. Intakesshouldbelocatedwithinstraightreachesoftherivertoavoidcomplexflowpatterns, scour,andsedimentissuesassociatedwithriverbends. Existingriparianhabitatshouldbeavoided.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3F.4
ValuePlanningStudyTeam
Recognizingthatotherfactorsplayaroleinconstrainingoptionsandcontributingtofeasibleintake locationchoices,aValuePlanningStudyTeam(VPSTeam)wasassembledtoassistinfurther definingintakelocationsandconfigurations.TheVPSTeamcompletedaValuePlanningStudy(VPS) tofurtherevaluatepotentialintakeschemesconsideringfactorsbeyondthelimitsoftheriver boundaries.TheVPTwascomprisedprimarilyofindependentparticipantsspanningabroadcross sectionoftechnicaldisciplines(includingcivilengineers,mechanicalengineers,andbiologists),met foraweeklongworkshopthatincludedahalfdaytourofproposedintakelocationstoprovidethe
4NorthDeltaIntakesFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S.Table3.1FFTTProposedDiversionConcepts.(11302010
Draft).
5Althoughintakelocationswererecommendedtobeasfarnorthaspossibletheymustalsobesufficiently
downstreamfromtheSRCSDdischargeforwaterqualityconsiderationsandalsosouthoftheconfluenceofthe SacramentoandAmericanRiversforflowconsiderations.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
teamwithperspectiveonexistingconditionsandconstraintstointakesiting.Threemembersofthe FFTTwereincludedontheVPTtomaintaincontinuityandinformationtransfer.TheVPSwas developedtoanalyzepotentialoptionsconsideringoperationalflexibility,maintainability, communityimpacts,conveyancerequirements,economics,andinfrastructureimpacts,amongother considerations.Alistofroughlyfortyintakeconceptswasdevelopedfortheeastandwest conveyanceroutes,withvaryingcapacities,locationsandtechnologies.Ultimately,twentythree optionswereadvancedforcomparison,addressingbotheastandwestconveyancealignmentsalong withanadditionaleightoptionsspecifictothewestalignmentonlyandincludinginriver,near bank,andonbankscreenconfigurations.Eightperformancefactorswereapplied:

Operationalflexibility Maintainability Constructability/constructionease Fishprotection/fishbenefits Landownerandcommunityimpacts Riverimpacts Safety Security
TheVPTproducedalistoffeasibleintakeconceptsaswellasperformancefactorsandapproximate costsbywhichtocomparetheoptions.Acriteriaandevaluationmatrixwasdevelopedasadecision supporttooltocomparetheperformanceofaseriesofconceptsusingaweightedlistof characteristicsorfactors.(DWR2009)
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
3F.5
SelectionofIntakeLocationsforEIR/EIS Analysis
BasedonwhatwasanalyzedbytheFFTTandtheVPT,initialintakelocationswereselectedfor evaluationbytheBDCPleadagencies.SubsequenttotheFFTTandVPTefforts,moreindepth evaluationswereconductedtoselecttheappropriatenumberofintakesandapreferred arrangementoflocationsthatwouldmeetavarietyofcriteria,suchasfishprotection,landuse impacts,impactstoterrestrialspecieshabitat,rivergeomorphology,hydraulics,anduseofbest availableintaketechnology.Thisdecisionmakingprocessservedasthebasisfordefiningintake facilitylocationsforevaluationintheBDCPDraftEIR/EIS.Theseevaluationsledtotheidentification offiveseparateintakefacilities,eachwithamaximumdiversioncapacityof3,000cfs,tobelocated betweenFreeportandCourtland. InJanuary2009,asubsetofLeadAgencystaffheldmeetingstorefinelocationsofintakesitesforall conveyancealignmentoptionsaccordingtovariousenvironmentalandlandimpactfactors.A collaborativeprocesswasusedtoadjustintakesitesinanattempttominimizeimpacts.Available geographicinformationsystem(GIS)datasetsusedincluded:

Propertyboundaries/parcellines Rarespecieshabitatzones
March 2013
ICF00674.11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ExistingpointsofdiversionontheSacramentoRiver ExistingLandUse Wetlanddelineation Rivercrosssections UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS)fishtrappingdata Groundlevelsurveillance
Asitetourwasalsoconductedincoordinationwithleadagencystafftogiveparticipantsaviewof thephysicalsettingandexistingsiteconditionsatthevariouspotentialintakelocations.Thistrip wasinstrumentalinprovidingfirsthandperspectiveonthesomewhattypicalsiteconditionsthat existforalloftheintakelocations. Intakelocationsweredifferentiatedbyanevaluationofexposureofspecialstatusfishspeciestothe intakescreens,acreageofspecialstatusterrestrialspeciesimpactedbytheintakelocations,and acreagesoflandwhereexistinguseswouldbechangedbyintakefacilities.Physicallocations identifiedbytheFFTTwereadjustedtominimizelandsideimpacts.Theresultofthisprocessand therespectiveadjustmentsarereflectedinthefigurebelow.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
6ProposedNorthDeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S,Figure3.5,p.318(DWR11302010).
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Aftertherefinementoftheintakelocations,discussionswereheldwithleadagencyrepresentatives andBDCP/DHCCPinDecemberof2009todevelopkeydesignandenvironmentalfactorsthatcould beusedtoscreenintakelocationoptions.Theprimarypurposeofthescreeningprocesswasto determineasmallersetofpotentialintakelocations.Keyfactorsthatweredecideduponwere:
Individualpointsofdiversionshouldbelimitedto3,000cfsbasedonFFTTandVPSstudy results. Omitoptionsexclusivelyinvolvingcylindricalscreentechnologyduetodesignlimitations.7 UseasinglescreeningtechnologyratherthanmultipletechnologiesbasedonO&Mchallenges8. Eliminateoptionsinvolvingtenintakesbecauseoftheincreaseincommunityandspecies impacts. Eliminateoptionsinvolvingsixintakesbecausetheyaresimilartoandrepresentedbyoptions withfiveintakes. Eliminateintakeoptionsatthesouthernendofthestudyreachduetotidalinfluence,higher probabilityofDeltasmeltabundance,andpotentialimpactsonnaturalflowinSutterand SteamboatSloughs.
Theresult,afterapplyingthesefactorsinseveraliterations,wasasetoffivepotentialintake combinations.9
3F.5.1
ConceptualEngineeringReportConceptPlanning Conclusions
Next,basedontheprocessoutlinedabove,LeadAgencystaffselectedinitialintakelocationsforthe EastandWestpreliminaryintakesitesbasedonanalysispreparedinaconceptualengineering report(CER).TheCERrecommendedfive3,000cfscapacityintakes.LocationsA(westofthePocket Area),B(southboundaryofthePocketArea),D(southerneastwestlegoftheFreeportBend),F (justdownstreamofHood),andG(betweenHoodandCourtland)wereselectedforthewestern isolatedconveyancefacility;andlocationsB,D,E(dueeastofClarksburg),F,andGwerechosenfor theeasternisolatedconveyancefacility.FortheThroughDeltaconveyancealignment,two2,000cfs intakeswereselectedatlocationsFandG. LocationC(duewestofFreeport)waseliminatedduetoitsproximitytoanexistingintakeat Freeportanditslocationabout0.5milessouthoftheexistingSacramentoRegionalCounty SanitationDistrict(SacramentoRegional)treatmentplantoutfall.IntakelocationsEandE1were eliminatedfromconsiderationforthewestconveyanceoptionbecauseoftheirproximitytoan
7Cylindricalscreensconsistofaseriesofdualscreens(seeATOCER,Appendix2,Figure215forrendering).The spacebetweenthedualscreenshasthepotentialtoprovideopportunityandareaforusebypredatoryspecies. Drawbackstothisscreenconfigurationalsoincludethenumberofmovingpartsandhydrauliccomponents, exposuretoimpactdamagefromdebris/bedload,singlesourcemanufacturing,andpotentialforproducing structuresinthewatercoursewhichsupportspredation. 8Theuseofauniform(single)screentechnologyforalloftheintakefacilitieshasadvantagesincludinguniformity ofdesign,exchangeableparts,uniformtrainingforoperationsandmaintenanceemployeesandconsolidationof operationsandmaintenanceactivities. 9ProposedNorthDeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S,Table3.4&Figure3.6,p.321(DWR11302010).
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
existingcommunity.IntakelocationBisasfarnorthasanintakecanbefortheeasternisolated conveyancefacilitywithoutsubstantiallyimpactingurbandevelopmentinSacramento. LocationsDandEwerepreferredfortheeasternisolatedconveyancefacilitybecausetheyare locatedatthenorthendofthestudyreachandbecausewaterfromthesetwointakesandanintake atlocationBcanbetransportedtoaneasternconveyancefacilitywithaminimumoflanduse disturbance.IntakelocationsFandGwerepreferred,forbothalignments,becausetheycanalsobe joinedtoasinglecanaltomovethewaterfromallfiveintakestoaconveyancefacilitywitha minimumoflandusedisturbanceandimpactstoterrestrialhabitat. Additionally,existingconditionsandpreliminaryimpactanalyseswereconductedinsupportofthe EIR/EIS.Thisinformationwasavailabletotheleadandresponsibleagenciestofurtherrefineintake locationsduringtheirformulationofEIR/EISalternativesandreviewofpreliminaryimpactanalysis results. InSeptember2009,representativesoftheEIR/EISleadandresponsibleagenciestookasitetour andrecordedtheirfieldobservationsandrecommendationsforintakelocations.Thepurposesof thetourwereasfollows:toincorporateupdatedinformationfromtheadministrativedraftEIR/EIS documentanddraftalternativesdevelopmentanalysis,alongwithrecommendationsbasedonthe professionaljudgmentofagencyrepresentatives;toconfirmtherelativesuitabilityofcurrently proposedintakesites;tomakerecommendationsforadjustments,ifneeded;andtoprovide supportingrationalesexcludingcertainareasfromfurtherconsiderationduetotheirlessfavorable characteristics. Asaresultofthefieldvisit,severalintakelocationswereshiftedslightlytoavoidexisting easements,riparianhabitatrestorationactivities,towns/communities,establishedmonitoring locations,andhighvaluelanduses.Understandingtheiterativenatureoftheintakesitingprocess, alternateintakelocationswerealsorecommendedintheeventthat,basedonfollowupengineering investigations,oneoftheotherrecommendedintakelocationswasdeterminedtobelessfavorable.
3F.5.2
ConsiderationofIntakeLocationsDownstreamof SutterandSteamboatSloughs
Additionalmodelingwasconductedinlate2009tosimulateoperationoftheproposedfiveintake locations.ThiseffortfurtherinformedtheDHCCPteamandtheEIR/EISconsultingteamonhowthe intakesmightbeoperated(e.g.,comparinganoperationalscenariowhereallintakeswouldbe pumpingsimultaneouslywithascenariowhereintakeswouldbeactivatedusingtoptobottom thatis,northtosouthsequencingandhowtheDeltahydraulicswouldbeaffected.Themodeling effortalsoraisedquestionsrelatedtofishexposuretotheintakesandpossiblescenariostoprovide additionalbiologicalprotectionthroughavoidance. In2009and2010,thefishagenciesrequestedadditionalhydrologicandoperationalinformationto determine(i)whetherbiologicalprotectioncouldbeincreasedbylocatingalloftheintakes upstreamoftheconfluenceoftheSacramentoRiverwithSutterandSteamboatsloughsor(ii) whethertwointakeslocateddownstreamofthesloughswouldprovideadditionalprotectionunder certainoperatingconditions.Therationaleforidentifyingpotentialintakelocationsdownstreamof SutterandSteamboatsloughswasbasedontheassumptionthatsomeproportionofthepopulation ofemigratingjuvenilesalmonidsandsmeltthatemigratethroughorgenerallyusethedistributaries duringregularseasonalmovementswouldavoidexposuretotheintakesdownstreamofthe
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
distributaries.Currentinformationsuggeststhatroughly2530%oftheSacramentoRiverflowmay enterSteamboatandSuttersloughs.Iffisharedivertedatthesameratio,then2530%ofthe migratinganadromoussalmonidscouldexperienceexposuretoonly3screens,asopposedto5.Fish thatavoidexposuretointakesarenotsubjectedtotakeassociatedwithincreasedpredation relatedtothepresenceofintakestructures,andentrainmentorimpingementrelatedtooperations. However,increasedtidalinfluenceofdownstreamintakelocationscouldresultinmultiple exposurestothesameintakewithtidalreverseflows.Likewise,intakeslocateddownstreamofthe sloughsandthusdeeperintothetidallyinfluencedreachesoftheDeltacouldresultinreduced waterqualityfordiversions,aconditionthatcouldworseninthefuturewithclimatechangeandsea levelrise.Additionally,thereisapotentialforreducedwaterdiversionsduetodiversionoperation sweepingvelocityconstraintsfromincreasedtidalinfluenceofthefartherdownstreamintake locations. TheBDCPconsultingteamalsoconductedinvestigationsonintakelocationsbelowthesloughsand theirrespectiveeffectsonthesedistributariestidalreverseflow/emigrationdurations.Theintent wastodetermine,ifpossible,whateffectintakeslocateddownstreamofthesloughswouldhaveon 1)theabsoluteflowsandrelativeproportionofflowsenteringSutterSlough,SteamboatSlough,and mainstemSacramentoRiver,2)increasedtidalinfluenceattheselocations,3)hydrologic interactionsbetweendownstreamintakesandGeorgianaSloughortheDeltaCrossChannel,and4) thepotentialforanysuchinteractionstoresultinadverseeffectsoncoveredfishspecies,habitat quality,andwaterquality. Between2009and2011severalmeetingsbetweentheLeadAgencygroupandtheDHCCPteam resultedinrecommendedadjustmentstotheproposedintakelocations.Duetocommunity oppositionexpressedduringscopingmeetings,constructionimpactsinanoverlyconstrained conveyancecorridor,historicbuildingconflicts,andtheprecedentsetbytheFreeportDiversionEIR (a300cfsintakeacrosstheriverfromthePocketAreawasdeterminednotareasonableand prudentalternative),theLeadAgencygrouprecommendedrelocationofthenorthernmostintakes. LocationsdownstreamofSutterandSteamboatSloughswerediscussed,andadditionalanalysiswas conductedbytheBDCPconsultingteamthatdiscourageddownstreamlocationstominimizetidal influenceeffectsonoperation,maximizepositiveoutboundsweepingvelocities,minimize encroachmentonDeltasmelthabitat,andavoidproducingreverseflowsinthesloughs.General recommendationsfromtheFFTTtoprovideapproximately1mileseparationbetweenintakes,to locateintakesonstraightreachesoftheriverasfarnorthaspossible,andtolocatethefurthest northintakeafewmilesdownstreamoftheSacramentoregionaleffluentdischargeremainedintact. However,theprocessdidresultinadjustingphysicallocationsofintakesitesbetweenSacramento andWalnutGrovefromthoseidentifiedintheFFTTstudy,includingtheeliminationofone particularsiteduetoprohibitiveexistingfeaturesandconditions. TheBDCPconsultingteampresenteditsrecommendationsregardingtheupstreamversus downstreamintakelocationstotheBDCPSteeringCommitteeonJanuary20,201010.Insupportof locatingallfiveintakesupstreamofSutterSlough,theteamcitedreducedprobabilityofbi directionaltidalflowsandimprovedsweepingvelocitieswithgreaterriverflowsfurtherupstream (lessflowdivertedtosloughs),whichcouldreduceexposuretimetointakescreens.Theteamalso suggestedthatlocatingintakesfurtherupstreamwouldreducethefutureeffectsofsealevelrise andsalinityintrusiononexportoperationsandprotectionoffish.Intakeslocatedfurtherupstream wouldbelesslikelytoentrainorganicmaterialandfoodproducedintheCacheSloughregion.
10DHCCPIntakeFacilityLocationandTechnologySelection(PowerPoint).DHCCP,January20,2011.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LocatingintakesdownstreamofSutterSloughcouldresultinreducedexposureofjuvenile salmonidsandothercoveredfishproducedupstreambecausesomeproportionofthefishwould migratedownstreamthroughthesloughsandthusnotbeexposedtothetwodownstreamintake structures.However,downstreamlocationscouldincreasedeltasmeltandlongfinsmeltexposureto thescreens,anincreasethatcouldbeexacerbatedovertimebysealevelrise.Locatingtwointakes downstreamwouldalsolengthenthedistancetheintakesarespreadalongtheSacramentoRiver, providingincreasedrefugeareasbetweenstructures,buttheincreasedprobabilityofbidirectional tidalflowswouldincreaseexposuredurationforthetwodownstreamintakes.TheBDCPconsulting teamalsopointedoutthatrevisionstothebypasscriteriawouldbeneededtoaccountforflows enteringSutterandSteamboatsloughs;andthesebypassflowsanddiversionrateswouldbe complextomodel.Basedonaconsiderationoftheprosandconsofthetwoalternativeintake locationconfigurations,theBDCPconsultingteamrecommendedthatallfiveintakestructuresbe locatedintheSacramentoRiverinthereachupstreamoftheconfluencewithSutterSlough. However,thepotentialintakelocationsdownstreamofthesloughscontinuedtointerestthe fisheriesagencies.Aninteragencyconceptualdiscussionoftherelationshipoftheintakelocationsto smeltandsalmoniddistributionandexposuretotheintakesresultedinacalculationofsmeltand salmonidexposuresunderthetwoconfigurations11.Theprimaryconcernofthelocationofthe intakesrespectivetothesmeltpopulationdistributioninthediversionplanningreachistoavoid smelteggandlarvallifestageexposuretotheintakesinwhichentrainmentorimpingementcould occur.Presumably,sincetheeggandlarvaarefreefloating,thesmeltlosseswouldbeproportionate totherateofexposureandtheproportionofdiversionflowstothetributaryflowsatthetimeof exposure.Therationaleforplacingtheintakesasfarupstreamasfeasibleforsmeltdistributionis thattheportionsofthesmeltpopulationinthisreachthatreproducedownstreamoftheintake locationswouldnotbeexposedtotheintakes,orincasesoffishproducedfromthemiddleportion ofthereach,smelteggandlarvawouldbeexposedtoareducednumberofintakes.Usingcollected fish/stationdatafromtheplanningreach,thedownstreamconfigurationresultedinacalculated 23%increaseinsmeltscreenexposureswhilethedownstreamconfigurationresultedina calculated16%decreaseinsalmonidscreenexposures.
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
3F.6
RefinementofIntakeLocationsforEIR/EIS Analysis
PreviouslytheFFTTidentified12sitesaspossibleintakelocationsextendingfromnorthofFreeport toSutterSlough.FurthereffortrefinedtheintakesitesproposedbytheFFTT.Sitevisits,scoping comments,andlanduseconsiderationspromptedtheEIR/EISconsultingteamtoadjustitsoriginal fiveproposedsites.Indevelopingproposedsitesfortheintakes,thefollowinggeneral considerationswereused:
PositionthemasfarupstreamaspracticaltobestavoidencroachmentonpotentialDeltasmelt habitatandtominimizeprobabilityofsmeltexposure; Positionthemasfarupstreamaspracticaltobestavoidtidalinfluenceandtoachievethe greatestopportunityforpositiveoutboundflowswithambientsweepingvelocitiesminimizing fishexposureduration;
11EvaluationoftheEffectsofBDCPIntakeSites6and7onCoveredFishSpeciesDraftmemo.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Siteintakestoavoidhighestconcentrationoffishinthewatercolumn,foundtobetowardthe outsideradiusofabendperUnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyClarksburgBendpilotexperiment conductedin20052006; LocateintakesupstreamofSteamboatandSutterSloughstoavoidproducingunnaturalreverse flowsinthesloughs,prolongingemigrationofsalmonidsenteringthesewaterways,and increasingexposuretopredationbycirculatingyoungfishbackandforthpastaquaticandavian predators; Maintainaonemilebufferdistancebetweenintakefacilitiestoprovideforfishrestingand redistributionwithintheriversection; Minimizevisualandnoisedisturbance,aswellasconstructionrelatedimpacts,tolandowners, residents,andcommercialareas; Avoid/Minimizedisplacinglandownersandresidents; Avoidknownareaswithhighconcentrationofculturalandhistoricresources; Preserveriparianhabitatwheneverpossibleandminimizeimpactstospecialstatusterrestrial speciesandhighvaluehabitats; Avoidplacingintakeswherehydraulicconflictswithexistingfacilitiescouldoccur;and Whenpossible,usesiteswereleveestabilityiscompromisedandrequireseventualrepaireven withoutnewintakes(thethoughtbeingthat,becauseintakeconstructionrequiresmovementof existinglevees,longtermcostsavingscouldbeachievedbyusingintakeconstructionasan opportunitytostrengthenleveesalreadyinneedofstrengthening).
TheproposedfiveintakestructurelocationswerereviewedbytheLeadAgencygroupandits AnadromousFisheriesMiniEffectsTeam,theBDCPSteeringCommittee,andtheNationalMarine FisheriesService.TheAnadromousFisheriesMiniEffectsTeamanalyzedtheproposedlocations andidentifiedaconcernthattheintakestructureswouldpotentiallyattractpredatoryfishand increasethevulnerabilitytopredationmortalityofjuvenilesalmonidsandothercoveredfish species.Toofferalternatepathwaystomigratingsalmonidsandotherfish,itwasagainproposedto locateoneormoreintakesdownstreamofthejunctionswithSutterandSteamboatsloughs.The EIR/EISconsultingteamrecognizedtheneedtoincludedownstreamintakesintherangeof alternativesevaluatedintheEIR/EIS.
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
3F.7
LeadAgencySuggestedLocations
InMay2010,theLeadAgencygroupguidingdevelopmentoftheEIR/EISsuggestedthatfivespecific sitelocationsnorthofSutterandSteamboatsloughsandtwositelocationssouthofthesloughsbe movedforwardforanalysis,witheachsitecapableofdiverting3,000cfsfromtheSacramentoRiver. Meanwhile,theDWRengineeringteamobtainedbathymetricdatafortheentireriverreachand beganevaluatingtheproposedsitelocationsforappropriaterivergeometry,resultinginsuggested alternativesitesforseveraloftheintakelocations. InJuly2010,theBDCPSteeringCommitteereceivedapresentationentitled,EvaluationofNorth DeltaIntakeLocations,whichaddressedpotentialoptionalintakelocations,includingintakesboth
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
upstreamanddownstreamfromthefiveproposedintakelocationssuggestedbytheEIR/EIS consultingteam.Keyfindingsfromthepresentationwere:
Allconfigurationsanalyzed,withinthereachupstreamoftheSacramentoAmericanRiver confluencetodownstreamofSutterandSteamboatSlough,appeartohavesimilarsalinitylevels attheintakes. Diversioncapabilityappearsinsensitivetotheintakeconfigurationsanalyzed. Operationsandoperationalpreferencearemoreimportantthanlocationoftheintakesfor effectsontidaldynamics. Intakelocationsprimarilyinfluenceexposureriskandtoalesserextentmigrationpathways.
ThispresentationindicatedthatlocatingtwointakessouthofSutterandSteamboatSloughsmay provideasignificantbenefittooutmigratingsmolts.Thisbenefitwasbasedinpartontheresultsof aonedimensionalparticletrackingmodelthatindicatedthatabouthalftheparticlesmoveddown SutterandSteamboatSloughsandtheotherhalfmovedpastWalnutGrove.Sincesmeltlarvaeare muchmorelikelythansalmonidstobeentrainedthroughascreen,thepossiblebenefitsassociated withavoidingthelowerintakesmightprovideanoverallgreaterbenefitforthesealternativeintake locations.However,itwasnotedthatfishdonotnecessarilybehavelikeparticlesandtheactual percentageofdownstreammigrantsenteringthesesloughsisuncertain.Assumptionsmayalsobe affectedbywherethefishareduringlowversushighflowsintheriver.Forexample,fishmaybe morebankorientedduringlowflows,whiletheymaybemorecenterorientedwithhigherflowsor withchangesinturbidity.Juvenilesalmonidemigrationbehaviorandhabitatpreferencemayinturn beafunctionofwhetherfisharewildorareproducedbyahatchery,ashatcheryfishmaybemore bankorientedduetofeedingpatternsatthehatcheries. AnacoustictrackingstudyconductedbyDavidVogel(2008)monitoredlarge(107mmto181mm smoltsized)juvenileChinooksalmonastheyemigratedthroughthisregionoftheDelta.Vogel reportedthat26%oftaggedsmoltsenteredSutterandSteamboatSloughsduringaseriesof releasesinDecember,and37%enteredthesloughsduringJanuaryreleases.Itisproblematictotry tointerpretthesedatatoestimatehowsmallerfishsuchaslarvaldeltasmeltorfrysizedsalmonids mightbehaveatthesechanneljunctions,asthesesmallerfishwouldhavemuchweakerswimming abilitiesthanthelargerfishusedinVogelsstudy.
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
3F.8
FurtherDWRStudies
Inlate2010DWRcontributedtworeportssummarizingstudiesandanalysisrelevanttoselectionof intakelocations.Thefirst,TwoDimensionalHydraulicModelingStudiesofDHCCPIntakes12, summarizedpreliminarytwodimensionalhydraulicmodelingresultsoftheSacramentoRiver sectioncoveringtheproposedintakesitesfortheDHCCP.Theobjectiveofthesemodelingstudies wastoquantifythenearfieldimpactsoftheproposedintaketechnologiesonSacramentoRiver hydraulics.Thisstudyconcludedthatbasedonthetwodimensionalmodelingruns,bothinriver typeintakes(withandwithoutsetbacklevees)wouldhavesevereadverseimpactsonchannel hydraulics.Theonbankintakes,however,werefoundtohaveminimalimpactsontheriver hydraulicsandwereviablealternativesfortheDHCCPprogram.
12ProposedNorthDeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S,AppendixG(DWR11302010).
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Inresponsetothebathymetricstudy,DWRDivisionofEngineering(DOE)preparedareport entitled,EvaluationofDHCCPProposedIntakeLocations,toreevaluatethelocationsofthe proposedDHCCPintakes.Atotalof17locationsalongtheSacramentoRiverbetweenFreeportand SteamboatSloughwereincludedinDOEsstudy:fivesitesrecommendedbytheDHCCPConceptual EngineeringReportsfromMarch2009,fivesitesrecommendedbytheDHCCPfromTechnical Memorandum3RecommendedDeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S(Draft),andsevensites chosenbyDOEbasedonthenewbathymetricstudydata.ThesiteswerenamedIntakeSite1(IS1) throughIS17,fromthemostnorthernsitetothemostsouthernsite.Allofthesesitesalsosatisfied recommendationsmadebytheFFTTsfirstreportforproposedintakelocations.Allseventeenofthe siteswereevaluatedusingaerialmaps,landusemaps,recentlycollectedbathymetrydata,river crosssections,andwatersurfaceelevationsatthe99%exceedancelevel.Thesiteswerethen analyzedandcomparedbasedonthefollowingcriteria:

LocationontheeastorthewestbankoftheSacramentoRiver Impacttoexistingstructures,businesses,historicalinterestsandcurrentuseoftheland, Thepotentialfordepositofsedimentsatthefaceoftheintakefishscreens,and Potentialencroachmentintotherivercrosssectionandcorrespondingwaterdepth,and preliminaryscreenheightandintakefacilitylengthestimates.
Afterevaluatingallseventeenpotentialsites,thereportidentifiedtwopreferredcombinationsof fiveintakelocations.OnesetoffivewasallontheeastbankoftheriverandnorthofCourtland.A secondsetallowedforflexibilityinlocatingtheintakesontheeastorwestbank.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
3F.9
ReconveningtheFishFacilitiesTechnicalTeam
Basedonnewinformationproducedandgatheredduringtheeffortsdescribedabove,aswellas discussionsoccurringinvariousotherworkinggroups(suchastheBypassSubgroup,theHabitat andRestorationTechnicalTeam,andtheAnadromousFishTeam),theFFTTwasreconvenedto revisititsinitialrecommendations.InJanuary2011,aformalchargewasgiventotheFFTTbythe EIR/EISfiveagencygroup,madeupofrepresentativesfromDWR,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishand Game(CDFG),Reclamation,USFWS,andtheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS).Aseriesof meetingswereconductedtoaddresstheissuesasassignedintheformalchargeandtodrafta technicalmemorandumoftheteamsrecommendationsandrationale(BDCPFishFacilities TechnicalTeamTechnicalReport,July2011). Amongothertasks,theFFTTwaschargedwith:
ReviewingnewinformationdevelopedsincethelastFFTTmeetingsheldin2008,includingthe SeparateAnalysispresentedtotheBDCPSteeringCommitteeinJanuary2010andany constructioncostestimationsfortheseparateconfigurationsprovidedintheSeparateAnalysis conductedbytheBDCPconsultingteam; ReviewingadditionalinformationandstudiesgeneratedsincetheFFTTlastconvened;and Basedonthosereviews,toconsideranyadjustmentstoitspreviousrecommendations regardinglocations,individualsize,andconfigurationofintakesforthebenefitoflistedand unlistedfishorforwaterquality.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Inconsideringanyoptionsforintakes,theFFTTwasinstructedtoconsiderchangesinflood potential(bothlocalandregional),preliminarycosts,andconstructabilityforatotal15,000cfs diversioncapacity.ToaidintheanalysisofadditionalintakelocationssouthofSutter/Steamboat Sloughs,theFFTTaskedDWRtoprovideSacramentoRiverbathymetricplotsbetweenthesloughs andWalnutGrove.Theteamlookedatthebathymetricplotsaswellassomecrosssectionsoftwo locationsinthereachthatweremorethanamileapartandhadariverbottomofabout22feet meansealevel(MSL).TheFFTTagreedthatoptionalintakelocationssouthofSutter/Steamboat Sloughsshouldbereviewed. AdditionalrecommendationsfromtheFFTTin2011include:

Locatediversionstructuresupagainstthebankoftheriverratherthanoutinthechannel. LocateintakesdownstreamofthetownofFreeportduetopublicscopingcommentsreceivedin March2009citingconstructionimpactsinanoverlyconstrainedconveyancecorridor,historic buildingconflicts,andtheprecedentsetbytheFreeportRegionalWaterProjectEIRindicating thatintakesinthePocketareawouldproducesignificantimpacts. Targetapproximately1mileofseparationbetweenintakes,thoughcloserspacingmaybe acceptabletoassurethateachlocationmeetsthecriticalsitingconditions(e.g.,adequateriver depthandbankgeometry). Locateintakeswithinstraightreachesoftheriverormildoutsidebendstoavoidcomplexflow patterns,sedimentation,andexcessivescour. Locatethefurthestupstreamintakedownstreamofwherecompletemixingisreportedtooccur witheffluentdischargefromtheSacramentoRegionalWastewaterTreatmentFacility.
TheFFTTreviewedbathymetricdataforboththeEIR/EISlocationsandtheseveraladditional locationsidentifiedbytheDWRengineeringteamwhichwerepotentiallybettersuitedfora diversionfacilityduetowaterdepthandrivercurvature.Theadditionalintakelocationsevaluated bytheFFTTincludedtheoriginalEIR/EISSites1through5,theAlternateSites1through5as refinedbyDWRfortheFFTT,andthetwositesbelowSteamboatSlough,FFTTSites6and7. Duringtheprocess,itwasdiscoveredthatconflictingcoordinatesandfacilityfootprintsexistedfor intakes15.AninitialsetofGPScoordinateshadbeendevelopedforthe2010DHCCPConceptual EngineeringReports(CER).AfterthereleaseoftheCER,DWRdevelopedrevisedcoordinateslargely reflectingthechangefrominrivertoonbankintakefishscreentechnologiesanddatafromthe newbathymetricsurvey.ThedifferencesbetweenthetwoeffortscanbeseenonTable1below.For thetwolocationsfurthestupstream,intakes1and2,thealterationswereminimalincomparisonto theinitialcoordinatesidentifiedintheCERprocess.However,thelocationsforintakes3,4,and5 differedappreciably,whichpromptedtheFFTTtorecommendafieldvisittothosealterativeintake siteswithagencyandconsultantstaffknowledgeableinthebiology,engineering,botany, community/landuse,andhydrologyforthearea.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1
Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Table1:PotentialNorthDeltaIntakeSiteLocationCoordinatesComparison
Location Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude EIR/EISSites 38.43411 121.51855 38.405342 121.514319 38.374924 121.523036 38.355213 121.527962 38.345037 121.548789 38.296029 121.565009 38.281036 121.546916 DWR/DHCCP AlternativeSites 38.434058 121.519510 38.405542 121.514390 38.383023 121.517813 38.362588 121.519945 38.349777 121.533840 OffsetfromEIR/EIS Site 270Downstream 70Upstream 3,730Upstream 3,650Upstream 4,780Upstream
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2
PotentialNorthDeltaIntakeLocationsReviewedbytheFFTTin2011
3
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Alloftheintakesitesarelocatedontheleftbanklookingdownstreamwithanearbankbed elevationofapproximately15orgreater.Sitesonorjustbelowanoutsidebendintheriverare preferable.Itisanticipatedthatthesesiteswillbedeeper,havehighersweepingflowvelocities,and belesssubjecttosedimentation.Conversely,itisanticipatedthatsitesonorjustbelowtheinsideof ariverbendwillbeshallower,haveslowersweepingflowvelocities,andbemoresusceptibleto sedimentation. Aspartofitscharge,theFFTTrevisitedaccumulatedinformationrelativetolocatingintakessouth ofSteamboatandSuttersloughs.Thesecontinueddiscussionscenteredaroundthepotentialeffects onSacramentoRiverspawningdeltasmeltfromhavingintakesfurthersouth.TheFFTTwasalso uncertainofthepotentialeffectstosalmonidsfromplacingintakesbelowSteamboatandSutter Sloughs.Aspreviouslydescribed,theuseofparticletrackingmodelingindicatesabouthalfthe particlesmovedownthesloughs;however,fishdonotnecessarilybehavelikeparticlesandthe actualpercentageofdownstreammigrantsenteringthesesloughsisuncertain.TheFFTTechoed previousconcernsaboutslowerflowvelocitiespasttheselowerintakesasfishtravelingpastthese intakescouldbenegativelyaffectedbyslowervelocities.However,theproposedoperationalcriteria underdevelopmentbytheDHCCPwouldhavetheselowerintakesoperatingonlyduringrelatively highflowperiods,andtheywouldberequiredtoshutdownanytimesweepingvelocitieswerenot meetingtheminimumdeemedtobesafeforjuvenilesalmonidsandadultdeltasmelt. Concernwasalsoraisedforgreensturgeonatalloftheintakes,regardlessoftheirlocationrelative tothesloughs.Juvenilesturgeon(alongwiththeothercoveredfishspecies)mayfacehigher predationduetothepresenceofthestructuresalone(regardlessoftheiroperations).Theinterface betweenthefishscreenfacilityandtheriverbottomwillneedtobeevaluatedtominimizeimpacts tosturgeon.TheFFTTagreedthatmoreinformationwasneededtodeterminethepotentialeffects foreachofthecoveredspeciesfromplacingstructuresbelowthesloughs,andrecommendedthat theEIR/EISevaluatetheoptiontositeintakesbelowSteamboatandSutterSloughs.
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
3F.10 FiveAgencyRecommendationsforBDCP Intakes17

InDecemberof2011,technicalstaffrepresentingthefiveleadagencies,alongwithconsultantstaff, participatedinanadditionalsitevisittotheproposedintakelocationsandmettoreviewselection criteria.Thismeetingresultedinrecommendationstomanagementforthesitingofintakes17for theBDCPaffectsanalysis.Thisgroupusedthefollowingcriteriaindeterminingtheir recommendations:

Minimizeimpactstoaquaticandterrestrialspecies, Maintainadiversionstructuresfunctionality, Provideadequateriverdepth(bedelevationsfromLIDARandbathymetrydata), Provideadequatesweepingflows(positioningalongtheriver), Maintainfloodneutrality,and Minimizeimpactstolanduseandcommunity.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Theirfinalrecommendationswereasfollows:

Intake1UseofCER1(orEIR1) Intake2UseofCER2(orEIR2) Intake3UseofAlt3 Intake4LocateintakeinbetweenAlt4andCER4 Intake5UseofAlt5 Intakes6and7Uselocationsfor6and7developedbytheFFTT
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3F.11 PhasedConstruction
Basedonpotentialimpactstosalmonidsfromlargescreeneddiversions,suchasthoseconsideredin theBDCP,theNationalMarineFisheriesServices(NMFS)proposedphasedconstructionofthe intakestoreduceuncertaintysurroundingtheimpactsofsimultaneousconstruction.Inresponse DWR,preparedawhitepaperevaluatingtheimpactstothecosts,scheduleanddeliveriesifphased constructionwasimplemented.Thispaperconcludedthatphasedconstructionasproposedby NMFSwouldincreasetheconstructiondurationfrom7.25yearstoabout17.520.5years.The constructioncostwouldincreasefromapproximately$12.068billionto$13.2914.236billion. Inaddition,onOctober12,2011,DWRheldaPhasedConstructionWorkshopheldtoaddressthe uncertaintiesassociatedwiththeconstructionandoperationofthefiveproposedintakesalongthe SacramentoRiverbetweenFreeportandCourtland.Theobjectiveofthisworkshopwastobetter definethescopeandscheduleofaphasedapproachforconstructiontobeincludedasapotential alternativeintheEIR/S.Basedonaseriesofassumptionsregardingintakelocations,intake capacity,sizeandlocationoftheForebay,sixphasingscenarioswereproposed.However,theEIR/S evaluatesconstructionofallintakesregardlessofphasinginordertosupportthetotalimpactinthe analysis.
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
3F.12 IntakeLocationsAnalyzedintheEIR/EIS
TheintakelocationsevaluatedintheEIR/EISreflecttheongoinganditerativeprocessbetweenthe environmentalandtheengineeringteamsandrepresentareasonablerangeofalternativeintake locations,includingintakelocationsdownstreamofSutterandSteamboatsloughstoevaluate potentialeffectsoncoveredfishspecies.Figures32,34,and36intheDraftEIR/EIS,Chapter3, DescriptionofAlternatives,showthesevenintakelocationsforthetunnel,east,andwestalignments respectively,asanalyzedintheEIR/EIS. AttheJune20,2012,BDCPpublicmeeting,itwasannouncedthattheproposedprojectwould consistofthree3,000cfs(totalof9,000cfs)diversionintakesalongtheeasternbankofthe mainstemSacramentoRiver.The7intakelocationsunderevaluationintheEIR/Scouldbelocated betweenClarksburgandWalnutGrove.Asthedescriptionfortheproposedprojectwasmodifiedto reducethemaximumnorthDeltadiversioncapacityfrom15,000cfsto9,000cfs,thenumberof requiredintakeswasreducedfromfivetothree.Ingeneral,therehasbeenapreferencetolocate sitesasfarnorthontheSacramentoRivertoreducetheareaofoverlapbetweendeltasmeltand
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
directexposuretotheintakescreens.However,salmonidsemigratingalongthemainstem SacramentoRiverwouldencountersomeoralloftheintakesproposedforconstruction,unlessthey traveldownstreamthroughtheYoloBypassorSutterandSteamboatSloughs.Shorterscreen lengthshavebeendesirabletoreducetheexposuretimeforfishswimmingpastthefrontofa screen.AllintakelocationswouldbelocatedatleastonemileapartasrecommendedbytheFFTTto providerestsorbreaksforfishpassingmultiplescreens.Potentialintakelocationsupstreamof Scribnersbendwereeliminatedfromconsideration,duetotheconcernofproximitytoa wastewatertreatmentplantlocatedafewmilesupstream. CurrentLeadAgencydiscussionshavenarroweddownthelocationsofthethreeintakestoinclude intakes2,3,and5foranalysisundertheproposedproject.Intake2isthesecondmostnorthern intakelocationsiteofthesevensitesunderconsiderationandislocatedtowardsthemiddleofa gentleoutsideriverbendwithshallowerdepthsthanotherintakelocationsunderconsideration. Thereforetheshallowerdepthswillrequirealongerscreenlength.However,intake2wouldhave reducedcostswhencomparedtothecostsassociatedwithIntake1duetoitscloserproximitytothe intermediateforebay(IF)locatednearHood.And,asdiscussedbelow,Intake1wouldcreatefewer potentialimpactstonearbysandhillcranepopulations,comparedwithIntake2.Intake3islocated ontheouterbendatthedownstreamendofacurvenearingthecommunityofHood.Deepbed elevationsresultinginshorterscreenlengthsatIntake3makeitastrongercandidatethanIntake4. Bothintakes3and5bookendthecommunity,butavoidmanyofthestructuresthatIntake4would directlyimpactwithinthesmallcommunity.ForthesereasonsIntakes2,3and5willmoveforward foranalysisundertheproposedproject.ThefootprintforIntake5overlapswiththetipof SnodgrassSloughthatservesashabitatforbothaquaticandterrestrialspecies.Thereisalsoa naturalgasfieldnearbythatwillneedtobefurtherexaminedintheprocess.However,thelocations ofIntakes2,3,and5beingincloseproximityfortunnelingtotheIFhavemadetheselocationsa priorityforconsideration. IntakelocationsnotmovingforwardforanalysisintheproposedprojectincludeIntakes1,4,6,and 7,thoughtheywillbeaddressedinconnectionwithotherEIR/EISalternatives.Thoselocationshave suitableattributesforplacementofanintake;however,theydidnotmakeitasbeingthetopthree sitesunderanalysisfortheproposedproject.Intake1isthemostnorthernlocatedsiteoftheseven sitesunderconsideration.Intake1isconsideredtohaveoneoftheshortestscreenlengthsofthose underconsideration,duetodeepriverbedelevationsthatoccuralongthetoeofthebank,which havethepotentialtominimizeimpactsaquaticspecies.Incontrast,projectfeaturessuchas transmissionlines,borrow/spoil/muckareas,andintakefacilityfootprintsareincloseproximityto anexistinggreatersandhillcraneroostsitelocatedjusteastoftheIntake1location.Although craneshavebeenknowntoadaptovertimetoloudnoisesandotherdisturbances,thepotentialfor constantutility,maintenance,andoperationofIntake1couldresultinnestabandonmentbythe craneswhichcouldcausestresstoanalreadylimitedoverwinteringpopulationofcranesthatuse thecentralDelta.TheEIR/Salternativesevaluationwillprovideacomparisonofpotentialeffects associatedwitheachintakelocationwhichshouldidentifyrelatedaquaticandterrestrialimpacts. Intake1isalsothefurthestawayfromtheIF,thereforebeingthemostcostlyofthesevenlocations. ThefootprintforIntake4encroachesuponpartsofthedevelopedarea,whereitwouldbeexpected tohaveagreaterimpacttothecommunitythantheothersurroundingintakelocations.Also,a naturalgasfieldisclosetothefootprintforIntake4thatwouldrequirefurtherexaminationifthe sitewaschosen. ThealternateconfigurationoftheNorthDeltaintakesthatincludesintakes6and7wasderivedby theagenciesasawaytopotentiallyreduceexposureofoutmigrantstoincreasedentrainment,
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
impingement,predation,andanyotheradverseeffectsassociatedwiththeintakes.Thereductionin exposurewashypothesizedtoresultfromaportionofthedownstreammigratingjuvenilefish populationenteringSutterandSteamboatsloughs(i.e.,analternativemigrationpathway)rather thanstayinginthemainstemSacramentoRiver.BecauseIntakes6and7wouldbelocated downstreamofSutterandSteamboatsloughs,thefishthatmigratedownSutterandSteamboat sloughswouldnotpasstheseintakesand,therefore,wouldnotbeexposedtoanyadverseeffects fromthesetwointakes.BecauseintakelocationcouldinfluencethehydrodynamicsofDelta channels,particletrackingwasusedtodeterminewhethertheconfigurationofintakeswould potentiallyaffectmigrationpathwaysformigratoryspecies.Thisanalysisassumedthat outmigratingfishbehavedaspassive,neutrallybuoyantparticles,whichisnotlikelytrueformost species,althoughfishgenerallyfollowflowpatterns.Forthisanalysis,particleswereinsertedjust downstreamoftheAmericanRiverconfluenceontheSacramentoRiver. ResultsindicatethatthepercentageofparticlesthatwouldtravelintoeitherSutterandSteamboat sloughsortheDeltaCrossChannelandGeorgianaSloughdiffersverylittlebetweendiversionsfrom intakes1,2,3,4and5andintakes1,2,3,6,and7.Basedontheseresults,itwasconcludedthatthe probabilityoffishmigratingintothesealternativepathwayswasindependentofthelocationof proposedintakesbetweenIntakeSites4and5andIntakeSites6and7.Itwasfurtherconcluded, moreover,thattheuseofIntakes6and7couldcreateaseriesoftradeoffsratherthanjustbenefits foraffectedspecies.Movingtheintakeswouldprovideabenefittothoseoutmigratingspeciesthat woulduseSutterandSteamboatsloughsasanalternativemigrationpathwaybecauseexposureto thesetwointakeswouldbereduced,althoughoverallbenefitsaresmall(0%to6%increasein overallsurvival).Attimes,survivalofindividualsinSutterandSteamboatsloughsislowerthanthat inthemainstemSacramentoRiver.ForthoseindividualsthatstayinthemainstemSacramento River,increasedeffectsoftidalconditionsonriverhydrodynamicsnearIntakeSites6and7(e.g., reduceddownstreamvelocityunderfloodtideconditionsthatcouldcontributetoincreased durationofexposureormultipleexposurestointakes)wouldincreasetheexposuretothese intakes.MovingtheintakestoSites6and7wouldincreaseexposureriskofdeltaandlongfinsmelt totheintakes,particularlyinthefuturewithsealevelrise.
March 2013
ICF00674.11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
3F.13 References
CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(BDCP/FFTT).ConceptualProposalforScreeningWater DiversionFacilitiesalongtheSacramentoRiver,August2008. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DHCCP).DeltaHabitatConservationandConveyance Program,ValuePlanningStudyforDiversionFacilitiesalongtheSacramentoRiver,Revision B(FinalDraft),January2009. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DHCCP).DeltaHabitatConservationandConveyance Program,IntakeFacilityLocationandTechnologySelection(PowerPointPresentation), January20,2011. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DHCCP).EvaluationoftheEffectsofBDCPIntakeSites6 and7onCoveredFishSpecies(DRAFT). CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(FFTT).FishFacilitiesTechnicalTeamTechnical Memorandum,July,2011. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources.PhasedConstructionofNorthDeltaIntakeFacilities, October12,2011. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DHCCP).ProposedNorthDeltaIntakeFacilitiesforthe DraftEIR/S,November30,2010. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DOE).EvaluationofDHCCPProposedIntakeLocations, September2010. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DHCCP).TechnicalMemorandum202:ProposedNorth DeltaIntakeFacilitiesfortheDraftEIR/S,(FinalDraft),November30,2010. CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(BDCP).5AgencyTechnicalRecommendationsforthe LocationofBDCPIntakes17,December13,2011. Vogel,David.NorthDeltaHydrodynamicandJuvenileSalmonMigrationStudy,2008.
March 2013
ICF00674.11

Intake Location Analysis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Intake Location Analysis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IntakeLocationAnalysis 3F.1 Introduction

Tensiteswithfifteenscreenspersitefor amaximumof1,500cfspersite Tensitesat1,500cfseach

Operationalflexibility Maintainability Constructability/constructionease Fishprotection/fishbenefits Landownerandcommunityimpacts Riverimpacts Safety Security

TheVPTproducedalistoffeasibleintakeconceptsaswellasperformancefactorsandapproximate costsbywhichtocomparetheoptions.Acriteriaandevaluationmatrixwasdevelopedasadecision supporttooltocomparetheperformanceofaseriesofconceptsusingaweightedlistof characteristicsorfactors.(DWR2009)

ExistingpointsofdiversionontheSacramentoRiver ExistingLandUse Wetlanddelineation Rivercrosssections UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS)fishtrappingdata Groundlevelsurveillance

Afterevaluatingallseventeenpotentialsites,thereportidentifiedtwopreferredcombinationsof fiveintakelocations.OnesetoffivewasallontheeastbankoftheriverandnorthofCourtland.A secondsetallowedforflexibilityinlocatingtheintakesontheeastorwestbank.

3F.10 FiveAgencyRecommendationsforBDCP Intakes17

Minimizeimpactstoaquaticandterrestrialspecies, Maintainadiversionstructuresfunctionality, Provideadequateriverdepth(bedelevationsfromLIDARandbathymetrydata), Provideadequatesweepingflows(positioningalongtheriver), Maintainfloodneutrality,and Minimizeimpactstolanduseandcommunity.

Intake1UseofCER1(orEIR1) Intake2UseofCER2(orEIR2) Intake3UseofAlt3 Intake4LocateintakeinbetweenAlt4andCER4 Intake5UseofAlt5 Intakes6and7Uselocationsfor6and7developedbytheFFTT

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi