Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Damthe need to maintain the specified approach velocity, the installation and use of fish screens at ACDDwould result in a reduction in the amount of water available for diversion to Calaveras Reservoir for use asmunicipal water supply.It is estimated that a maximum screen area of 1,400 square feet could be accommodated outside of thesediment channel at the ACDD. With any screening installed at ACDD structural supports, baffles, andother infrastructure would cause some structural blinding. Structural blinding typically reduces theeffective screen area by 20 or 30 percent. To account for anticipated structural blinding, a reduction ofapproximately 20 percent was applied to the estimated maximum screen area for a reduced screen area of1,120 square feet. Based on the relationship shown in Figure 5-1, after accounting for structural blinding,the estimated maximum flow rate of the diversion would be limited to approximately 370 cfs. Bycomparing daily average flows in Alameda Creek with the estimated maximum diversion flow rate of370 cfs, the potential reductions in annual water diversions with screening at the ACDT can be estimated.At the time estimates of the cost of this lost water diversion opportunity were first developed, thehydrologic record for upper Alameda Creek (USGS 11172945) extended only from 1995 to 2004. Thisis a relatively short period of record and may not accurately characterize the temporal distribution ofunimpaired flows that could potentially occur above ACDD. To more accurately predict the frequencyand magnitude of unimpaired flows that could potentially be available during the diversion period(November through April), a synthetic hydrology was produced based on a correlation with theunimpaired daily average flows recorded at the Arroyo Hondo gage (USGS 11173200) from 1969 to1981 and 1995 to 2004 (no flow data are available from Arroyo Hondo for the period from 1982through 1994). This analysis was completed to estimate potential water yields above ACDD over abroader range of hydrologic conditions by extending the period of record from 10 years to 24 years.Appendix B contains a description of the model selection process and detailed flow data.In support of the limited record of measured flow data for upper Alameda Creek, predicted dailyaverage flows from the model described in Appendix B were used to estimate an unimpaired flow foreach day of each year in the simulated period. These daily unimpaired flows were then used tocalculate the difference in potential diversion volumes at ACDD between screened and unscreeneddiversions during the typical ACDD operational period of November through April.Table 5-2 is a comparison of the total annual (water year) diversion with and without screening, aspredicted by the model for simulated flows for the time periods 1969 through 1981 and 1995 through2004. The following list describes each column in the table.■■■Total Flow represents the total simulated flow in upper Alameda Creek for the period of recordduring the November-through-April water diversion time period.Unimpaired Diversion (without screens) represents the estimated amount of water that could bediverted under simulated flows if all flows up to 650 cfs were diverted through ACDT during theNovember-through-April time period.Unscreened Diversion with Schedule B Bypass Flows represents the estimated amount of waterthat could have been diverted under simulated flows if bypass flows consistent with the SFPUCproposednormal water year instream flow schedule 10 (Section 2.3.2.2) were bypasseddownstream at ACDD, while other flows up to 650 cfs were diverted during the Novemberthrough-Apriltime period.10 As referred to here and subsequently in this memorandum, the term “SFPUC-proposed instream flow schedule” alsoincludes the WSIP Final PEIR mitigation flows detailed in Section 2.3.2.2.ACDD Passage June 2009 Page 5-4
5.0 Capital and Operating and Maintenance CostsTable 5-2Comparison of Predicted Diversion Amounts with and without Screening(November 1 – April 30)WaterYearTotal Flow(acre-feet)UnimpairedDiversion(acre-feet)UnscreenedDiversionwithSchedule BBypassFlows(acre-feet)ScreenedDiversionwithSchedule BBypassFlows(acre-feet)LostDiversionOpportunitydue toScreening(acre-feet)1969 29,600 29,000 24,900 20,700 4,2001970 13,300 13,300 10,000 8,700 1,2801971 10,500 10,500 7,500 7,300 1801972 2,710 2,710 1,400 1,400 01973 30,500 30,400 25,900 23,900 1,9301974 22,500 22,500 18,000 16,500 1,5601975 23,100 23,000 19,500 18,000 1,4301976 490 490 0 0 01977 360 360 0 0 01978 22,000 21,900 17,900 15,500 2,4001979 9,420 9,420 6,500 6,300 2301980 24,700 22,600 19,000 14,800 4,2001981 8,250 8,250 5,900 5,100 7901995 30,200 27,500 23,500 20,200 3,3001996 23,300 22,500 18,400 16,100 2,4001997 29,500 28,300 24,600 20,700 4,0001998 40,800 39,500 35,000 30,600 4,4001999 13,100 13,100 9,000 8,500 4802000 14,600 14,600 11,500 10,500 1,0002001 7,820 7,820 5,200 5,100 1302002 6,280 6,280 3,500 3,500 02003 10,200 10,200 7,700 7,200 4402004 8,720 8,720 6,200 5,800 420Average 16,600 16,200 13,100 11,600 1,510ACDD Passage June 2009 Page 5-5
Page 1:
T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U
Page 4 and 5:
Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alam
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 11 and 12:
1.0 Introduction1 INTRODUCTION1.1 B
Page 13: 24Alamo680DanvilleAlameda CreekWate
Page 16 and 17: Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alam
Page 18 and 19: oleyriesSanCalaveras Creekalaveras
Page 20 and 21: (a)(b)Alameda Creek Diversion Dam (
Page 23 and 24: 2.0 Setting2.3.2.1 ALAMEDA CREEK DI
Page 25 and 26: 2.0 Settingalmost never submerged;
Page 27 and 28: 2.0 SettingRainbow trout are the sa
Page 29: 2.0 SettingA number of future proje
Page 42 and 43: (a) A view of the navigation lock a
Page 44 and 45: (a) A pickup truck adapted for haul
Page 57: Approximately 1.8 miles toCalaveras
Page 77 and 78: 6.0 Additional Considerations and A
Page 79: 6.0 Additional Considerations and A
Page 89 and 90: 9.0 Report Preparation9 REPORT PREP
Page 91 and 92: 10.0 References10 REFERENCESAACE (A
Page 93 and 94: 10.0 ReferencesHayes, Darrel, 2001.
Page 95 and 96: 10.0 ReferencesSak, B., San Francis
Page 97: 10.0 ReferencesWDFW (Washington Dep
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120:
show all

Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?