bucks creek relicensing project ferc project no. 619 ...€¦ · overview of large wood documented...

Bucks Creek Relicensing ProjectFERC Project No. 619

Ramping, Gravel, Large Woody Material, Instream Flows

June 7, 2017

2

Agenda and Safety9:30 – 9:45 pm Safety, Introductions and Agenda review9:45 – 10:45 am Ramping Rate Follow-Up Discussion10:45 – 11:45 am Gravel

Review spawning gravel data in Bucks Creek and Milk Ranch CreekLarge Wood Overview of large wood documented in Project streams and reservoirs and Licensees

current management practices Follow up Questions and Discussion

11:45 am – 12:45 pm LUNCH

12:45 – 1:45 pm Flow Scenario Discussion Agencies Instream Flow Scenario for Grizzly Creek

1:45 – 2:45 pm Licensees’ Instream Flow Scenario for Bucks and Grizzly Creeks (all water year types)

2:45 – 3:15 pmScheduling and Process Check-In June 14 June 15 June 29 June 30

3:15 – 3:30 pm Wrap-up

3

RAMPING RATES

4

5

6

Gravel

7

Results – Grizzly Creek

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Percent Gradient

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

River MileBarrier Potential Barrier

Dam

Pedestrian Aerial Pedestrian Aerial Pedestrian

Wildcat Cr.

French Hotel Cr.

Foreman Cr.

NFFR

8

Grizzly Creek Spawning Gravel – by River Mile

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0‐1 1‐2 2‐3 3‐4 4‐5 5‐6 6‐7 7‐7.4

Est. Num

ber o

f RBT

 Red

ds

Spaw

ning

 Gravel A

vail. Per m

i. (ft2)

River Mile

Spawning Gravel Avail. (2014/2015) Spawning Gravel Avail. (1989)Cum. Est. Number of RBT Redds (2014/2015) Cum. Est. Number of RBT Redds (1989)Est. Number of RBT Redds (2014/2015) Est. Number of RBT Redds (1989)

N.D N.DN.D

Assumes x̄ redd size of 2.15 ft2

9

Grizzly Creek Spawning Gravel – by Sub-Basin

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

G10 G9 G7 G5 G3 G1

0 ‐ 1.2 1.2 ‐ 2.7 2.7 ‐ 3.5 3.5 ‐ 4.1 4.1 ‐ 5.6 5.6 ‐ 7.4

Est. Num

ber o

f RBT

 Red

ds

Spaw

ning

 Gravel A

vail. (ft2)

Sub‐Basin & River Mile

Spawning Gravel Est. (2014/2015) Spawning Gravel Est. (1989)

Cum. Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015) Cum. Est. No. of RBT Redds (1989)

Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015) Est. No. of RBT Redds (1989)

N.D. N.D.

Assumes x̄ redd size of 2.15 ft2

10

Grizzly Creek Spawning Gravel Distribution

Spawning Gravel by River Mile (1989)River Mile Spawning Gravel Avail. Percent of Total

0–1 2,254 42%1–2 1,140 21%2–3 757 14%3–4 496 9%4–5 414 8%5–6 173 3%6–7 120 2%7–7.5 54 1%Total 5,394 100%

11

Grizzly Creek Spawning Gravel Distribution

Spawning Gravel by Sub-Basin (1989)Sub-Basin Length (mi) Percent of Total

G10 1.25 49%

G9 1.49 28%

G7 0.81 5%

G5 0.63 6%

G3 1.50 9%

G1 1.84 3%

Total 7.50 100%

12

Bucks Creek

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Percent GradientEl

evat

ion

(ft)

River MileBarrier Potential Barrier

Dam

Pedestrian Aerial Pedestrian

NFFR

13

Bucks Creek Spawning Gravel – by River Mile

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0‐1 1‐2 6‐7

Est. Num

ber o

f RBT

 Red

ds

Spaw

ning

 Gravel A

vail. Per m

i. (ft2)

River Mile

Spawning Gravel Avail. (2014/2015) Cum. Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015)

Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015)

Assumes x̄ redd size of 2.15 ft2

** Spawning gravel data was not collected during the 1989 surveys in Bucks Creek

14

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

B5 B4 B3 B2 B1

0 ‐ 1.6 1.6 ‐ 3.5 3.5 ‐ 4.8 4.8 ‐ 6.1 6.1 ‐ 7.4

Est. Num

ber o

f RBT

 Red

ds

Spaw

ning

 Gravel A

vail. (ft2)

Sub‐Basin & River Mile

Spawning Gravel Avail. (2014/2015) Cum. Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015)

Spawning Gravel Avail. (2014/2015)

Assumes x ̄redd size of 2.15 ft2

Bucks Creek Spawning Gravel – by Sub-Basin

N.D.

** Spawning gravel data was not collected during the 1989 surveys in Bucks Creek

15

Milk Ranch Creek

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 1 2 3 4

Percent GradientEl

evat

ion

(ft)

River MileBarrier Potential Barrier

Dam

Pedestrian Aerial Pedestrian

NFFR

16

Milk Ranch Creek Spawning Gravel – by River Mile

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0‐0.6 3‐3.6

M3

Est. Num

ber o

f RBT

 Red

ds

Spaw

ning

 Gravel A

vail. (ft2)

Sub‐Basin & River Mile

Spawning Gravel Avail. (2014/2015) Spawning Gravel Avail. (1989)

Est. No. of RBT Redds (2014/2015) Est. No. of RBT Redds (1989)

N.D.

Assumes x ̄redd size of 2.15 ft2

17

Large Woody Material

Grizzly Forebay – 93 cfs

18

Large Woody Material

• Bucks and Milk Ranch Creeks -Highest Amount of LWM

• Grizzly Creek Lowest Amount of LWM

• Upper Stream Reaches Have More LWM than Lower Reaches

StreamSegment ground mapped

Stream distance

mapped (mi)

Volume (ft3/hectare)

Abundance(No./100m)

Milk Ranch Creek

Total Reach 0.6 9,677 25.9

Upper Reach 0.23 43,889 24.8

Lower Reach 0.36 3,622 29.6

Bucks Creek

Total Reach 2.73 12,706 32.3

Upper Reach 0.86 46,290 34.9

Lower Reach 1.87 4,026 26.9

Grizzly Creek

Total Reach 2.81 3,558 3.9

Upper Reach 0.73 3,289 2.2

Middle Reach 0.72 2,299 3.9

Lower Reach 1.36 1,852 4.9

19

PM&E – LWM Passage

Measure: Continue current practice of passing LWM over Lower Bucks Lake and Grizzly Forebay dams

– Along with the channel maintenance flows, increases delivery of LWM to the downstream reaches

20

PM&E – Channel Maintenance Flows

Measure: Continue to implement channel maintenance flows downstream of Lower Bucks Lake and Grizzly Forebay dams (per License Article 13 [FERC 2006b]):

– Releases of 50 (Grizzly) and 70 (Bucks) cfs in March if a natural spill in excess of the 50-70 cfs has not occurred in the previous 18 months

– May be accomplished by any combination of release, spill, and accretion flow

– During Normal and Wet years

21

Discussion – Large Woody Material - Sediment

22

Instream Flow: Bucks and Grizzly Creeks

“Grizzly Migration Barrier”

23

Grizzly Creek Model Scenarios 3CD (Critically Dry)

• Adapted from Scenario #3N

• Lower monthly maxWUA target (70%) than Normal Year

• Fry/Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (82%)

• Achieved average of 82% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• Same as FLA flows

24

Grizzly Creek Model Scenarios 3D (Dry)

• Same monthly maxWUA target (80%) as Normal Year for Fry/Juv/Adult, lower for spawning

• Fry/Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (86%)

• Achieved average of 85% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• Intermediate between CD and Normal Year flows

25

Grizzly Creek Model Scenario 3W (Wet)

• Same release flows as Normal Year

• Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (87%)

• Achieved average of 85% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• WUA for spawning and other life stages showed marginal or no improvement with higher flows due to high accretion in a wet year

26

Scenario 3CD/D/N Output: Grizzly Creek RBT Adults

27

Grizzly Creek Model Scenario 3 Summary

SummaryMonth 3‐CD 3‐D 3‐N 3‐WJanuary 4 4 4 4February 4 4 4 4March 4 8 12 12April 4 8 14 14May 8 8 12 12June 8 8 9 9July 6 7 9 9August 6 7 9 9September 6 7 9 9October 6 7 9 9November 4 5 9 9December 4 4 4 4

28

Bucks Creek Model Scenario 3CD (Critically Dry)

• Adapted from Scenario #3N

• Lower monthly Juv/Adult maxWUA target (75-80%, depending on month) than Normal Year

• Fry/Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (87%)

• Achieved average of 85% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• Same as FLA flows

29

Bucks Creek Model Scenario 3D (Dry)

• Higher Juv/Adult monthly maxWUA target (80%) than CD Year

• Fry/Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (87%)

• Achieved average of 85% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• Intermediate between CD and Normal Year flows

30

Bucks Creek Model Scenario 3W (Wet)

• Same release flows as Normal Year, except for small increase during March-May for spawning

• Juv/Adult Rainbow monthly average over 80% maxWUA river-wide (87%)

• Achieved average of 85% maxWUA over all sub-basins, months, and life stages (including spawning)

• WUA for spawning and other life stages showed marginal or no improvement with higher flows due to high accretion in a wet year

31

Scenario 3CD/D/N Output: Bucks Creek RBT Adults

32

Bucks Creek Model Scenario 3 Summary

Summary

Month 3‐CD 3‐D 3‐N 3‐WJanuary 4 4 4 4February 4 4 4 4March 4 8 10 12April 4 8 10 12May 8 8 10 12June 8 8 8 8July 6 6 8 8August 6 6 8 8September 6 6 8 8October 6 6 8 8November 4 4 6 6December 4 4 4 4

33

Clarifying Questions & Next Steps

34

Upcoming PM&E Meetings

• June 14: (Sacramento-ERM Office)

– Aquatic invasive species discussion

– PM&E measure review

– Management plan check-in and overview

• June 15: WebEx (9-11 am)

– Willow Flycatcher PM&E discussion

– PM&E status update and schedule follow-up meetings

35

Upcoming PM&E Meetings, Continued

• June 29: Process Team meeting (PG&E Office-Sac)

• June 30: Instream Flow

– Instream Flow (agenda topics TBD)

Refer to the Calendar located on the Project Website for complete list of updated meeting dates/topics