Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 ... · PDF fileContents . ii – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description . 3.8 Project

August 2017

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab

A3: Project Description

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project

This page left blank intentionally.

Contents

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 August 2017 – i Project Description

Contents

Page

CHAPTER 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Description of TFR Project Applicant ........................................................... 1-3 1.3 TFR Project Summary .................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 TFR Project Area ......................................................................................... 1-6

1.4.1 Primary and Extended Project Areas .................................................... 1-6 1.4.2 Relationship to Groundwater Basins ..................................................... 1-7

CHAPTER 2 Without-Project Conditions: Existing Facilities and Operations........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Friant Division Facilities and Operations ...................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake .............................................................. 2-4 2.1.2 Reservoir Flood Storage Operations ..................................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Friant Division Long-Term Water Contracts .......................................... 2-5

2.2 San Joaquin River Restoration Program ...................................................... 2-9 2.2.1 SJRRP Actions Included in Without-Project and With-Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 2-13

2.3 Statewide Water System Facilities ............................................................. 2-14 2.3.1 South of Delta CVP Operations and Facilities ..................................... 2-14 2.3.2 South of Delta SWP Operations and Facilities .................................... 2-18

CHAPTER 3 With-Project Conditions: Description of Proposed Facilities ...... 3-1 3.1 Summary of USJRBSI Plan Formulation Approach ..................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Selection of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and Reservoir .................. 3-2 3.2 Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and Reservoir ............................................. 3-3

3.2.1 Total and Active Water Storage Capacity .............................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Storage Facility Elevation-Capacity and Area-Capacity Curves ............ 3-4

3.3 Storage Facility Outlets, Spillways, and Direct Diversions ........................... 3-4 3.3.1 Low Level Intake Structure .................................................................... 3-4 3.3.2 Tunnel and Valve House ....................................................................... 3-8 3.3.3 Spillway ................................................................................................. 3-8

3.4 Power Facilities ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.4.1 Powerhouse and Transmission Facilities .............................................. 3-8 3.4.2 Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project Facilities .............................................. 3-9

3.5 Recreational Facilities ................................................................................ 3-10 3.6 Reservoir Area Utilities ............................................................................... 3-10 3.7 Construction Related Facilities and Other Features ................................... 3-10

3.7.1 Cofferdams .......................................................................................... 3-10 3.7.2 Quarry, Batch Plants, and Haul Roads ................................................ 3-11 3.7.3 Staging Areas ...................................................................................... 3-11 3.7.4 Access Roads ..................................................................................... 3-11

Contents

ii – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description

3.8 Project Implementation Schedule ............................................................... 3-11 3.8.1 Preconstruction Phase ........................................................................ 3-12 3.8.2 Construction Phase ............................................................................. 3-12 3.8.3 Summary Schedule ............................................................................. 3-13

CHAPTER 4 With-Project Conditions: Preliminary Operating Plan .................. 4-1 4.1 TFR Project Operating Plan Objectives ....................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Preserve Existing Operating Capabilities of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Improve the Management of Flood Flows for Groundwater Recharge ........................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Stabilize South of Delta Water Supplies ................................................ 4-3 4.1.4 Enhance Water Temperature and Flow Conditions in the San Joaquin River ..................................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.5 Provide Water Supplies to San Joaquin Valley Wildlife Refuges........... 4-5 4.1.6 Increase the Recapture of SJRRP Restoration Flows ........................... 4-7 4.1.7 Increase Flood Management Capabilities ............................................. 4-7 4.1.8 Increase Recreational Opportunities ..................................................... 4-8 4.1.9 Provide Water Supply for Emergency Response .................................. 4-8 4.1.10 Provide Flexibility to Integrate with Other Projects ............................. 4-8

4.2 Hydrologic Scenarios Simulated in the Operating Plan ................................ 4-9 4.3 TFR Project Storage Accounts ................................................................... 4-10

4.3.1 East-Side Storage Accounts ............................................................... 4-11 4.3.2 West-Side Storage Accounts .............................................................. 4-13 4.3.1 Refuge Water Supply Storage Account ............................................... 4-14 4.3.2 River Releases Produced by the TFR Project Operating Plan ............ 4-15

4.4 Water Storage Evaporation Losses ............................................................ 4-18 4.5 Sources of Water Supply............................................................................ 4-18

4.5.1 Existing Water Rights .......................................................................... 4-18 4.5.2 Sources of Exchanged Water Supplies ............................................... 4-19

4.6 Reservoir Operations during Construction ................................................. 4-20 CHAPTER 5 Project Governance ......................................................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 Potential Environmental Commitments and Mitigation

Actions .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Environmental Commitments ....................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Develop and Implement Construction Management Plans .................... 6-1 6.1.2 Comply with Permit Terms and Conditions ........................................... 6-2 6.1.3 Provide Relocation Assistance .............................................................. 6-2 6.1.4 Develop and Implement Comprehensive Mitigation Strategy ................ 6-3 6.1.5 Develop and Implement Resource Management Plan .......................... 6-4 6.1.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 6-4 6.1.7 Develop and Implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ............ 6-8 6.1.8 Water Quality Protection ....................................................................... 6-9 6.1.9 Revegetation Plan ............................................................................... 6-10 6.1.10 Invasive Species Management ........................................................ 6-10 6.1.11 Construction Material Disposal ........................................................ 6-11 6.1.12 Asphalt Removal .............................................................................. 6-12

Contents

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 August 2017 – iii Project Description

6.1.13 Reduce Fugitive Dust Emissions ..................................................... 6-12 6.1.14 Reduce Nonroad Diesel Engine Emissions ...................................... 6-12 6.1.15 Batch Plant Operations .................................................................... 6-12 6.1.16 Fire Protection and Prevention Plan................................................. 6-12

6.2 Mitigation Actions ....................................................................................... 6-13 CHAPTER 7 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................ 7-1 CHAPTER 8 References ....................................................................................... 8-1

Tables

Table 2-1. Summary of Friant Division of the Central Valley Project Long-Term Contractors and Amounts .................................................................................. 2-8

Table 2-2. SJRRP Actions Included in Without-Project and With-Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 2-13

Table 2-3. Historical CVP Annual Water Contract Allocations .................................... 2-16

Table 3-1. Low-Level Intake Structure Feasibility Design Criteria ................................ 3-5

Table 4-1. Storage Accounts Represented in TFR Project Operating Plan ................ 4-10

Table 4-3. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Storage Water Rights on the San Joaquin River ................................................................................................................ 4-19

Figures

Figure 1-1. TFR Project Applicant and Partners ........................................................... 1-5

Figure 1-2. Primary TFR Project Area and Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir ......... 1-9

Figure 1-3. Extended TFR Project Area ..................................................................... 1-10

Figure 1-4. Groundwater Basins in the Area Represented by the Applicant and Partners ........................................................................................................... 1-11

Figure 1-5. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the Area Represented by the Applicant and Partners .................................................................................... 1-12

Figure 2-1. Friant Division of the CVP .......................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2-2. Conceptual Representation of Millerton Lake Storage Requirements ........ 2-5

Figure 2-3. Friant Division of the Central Valley Project Allocations and Flood Releases, 1977 – 2011 ...................................................................................... 2-7

Figure 2-4. San Joaquin River Restoration Area ........................................................ 2-10

Figure 2-5. San Joaquin River Restoration Flow Releases from Friant Dam ............. 2-11

Figure 3-1. Process Leading to Selection of Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir Site .................................................................................................................... 3-2

Contents

iv – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description

Figure 3-2. Temperance Flat RM Elevation-Capacity and Surface Area-Capacity Curves ............................................................................................................... 3-4

Figure 3-3. TFR Project Features in the RM 274 Dam Vicinity ..................................... 3-6

Figure 3-4. TFR Project Features in the Upper Portion of RM 274 Reservoir .............. 3-7

Figure 3-5. Project Construction Activities and Implementation Schedule ................. 3-14

Figure 4-1. Conceptual Operation of Millerton Lake and Temperance Flat Reservoir ........................................................................................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2. Millerton Lake Inflow Patterns for Simulated Hydrologic Scenarios ........... 4-9

Figure 4-3. Temperance Flat Reservoir Storage Accounts ........................................ 4-11

Figure 4-4. Annual Objective Release Quantities from Friant Dam Provided by the Operating Plan for Period 1922 through 2003 under Three Simulated Baselines ......................................................................................................... 4-16

Figure 4-5. Monthly Objective Flows Released from Friant Dam Provided by the Operating Plan for Period 1974 through 2003 under Three Simulated Baselines ......................................................................................................... 4-17

Contents

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 August 2017 – v Project Description

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACWA Association of California Water Agencies BCMR Benefits, Monetization and Resiliency BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMS comprehensive mitigation strategy CWA Clean Water Act CWC California Water Commission CVP Central Valley Project CVP Central Valley Operations Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DFR Draft Feasibility Report DMC Delta-Mendota Canal DPM District Project Manager DWR California Department of Water Resources EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPGI Eligibility and General Project Information FMP Fisheries Management Plan FMWG Fisheries Management Work Group FWA Friant Water Authority FNA Friant North Authority GRCD Grassland Resource Conservation District LLIS low level intake structure MAF Million acre-feet M&I Municipal & Industrial MVA megavolt-ampere MW megawatt NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M operations and maintenance QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control PRC Public Resource Code

Contents

vi – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description

Reclamation U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation RM river mile RMP Resources Management Plan ROD Record of Decision SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SJR San Joaquin River SJRECWA San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority SJRG San Joaquin River Gorge SJRRP San Joaquin River Restoration Program SLDMWA San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority SLR San Luis Reservoir SOD South of Delta SRMA Special Recreation Management Area SWP State Water Project SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan WSIP Water Storage Investment Program

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 1 Introduction

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 August 2017 – 1-1 Project Description

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This document presents the Project Description for the Temperance Flat Reservoir (TFR) Project in support of an application to the California Water Commission (CWC) under the Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP). The TFR Project presented in this application is based, in part, on technical studies prepared through the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation (USJRBSI), one of five surface water storage studies recommended in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report (PEIS/R) Record of Decision (ROD) of August 2000. Preliminary studies in support of the CALFED PEIS/R considered over 50 surface water storage sites throughout California and recommended more detailed study of five sites identified in the ROD (CALFED 2000a, 2000b, 2000c). The purpose of this Project Description is to describe the proposed facilities and operations of the TFR Project, as well as its governance, potential environmental commitments and mitigation, and adaptive management. This document provides all of the information required in Section 3.3 of the WSIP Technical Reference Document.

1.1 Project Background The USJRBSI was initiated in 2001 as a joint feasibility study by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), based on direction provided in the CALFED ROD. Progress and results of the USJRBSI are documented in a series of interim Reclamation reports, prepared consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (P&G) (WRC 1983), Reclamation policies, directives and standards; DWR guidance, and applicable environmental laws and policies.

The most recent public documents for the USJRBSI include the Draft Feasibility Report (DFR), released in January 2014 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released in August 2014. The DFR and DEIS address the results of the feasibility study process and builds on the results and findings of previous planning documents, including the Phase 1 Investigation Report (Reclamation 2003), Initial Alternatives Information Report (Reclamation 2005a), Plan Formulation Report (Reclamation 2008a), and DEIS (Reclamation 2014a, 2014b). The DFR, DEIS, and all supporting documents that led to their development are available on-line at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage/docs.html. To the extent relevant, information from these documents was used and updated as necessary in the preparation of this Project Description and other documents in support of the WSIP application for the TFR Project.

The USJRBSI applied a rigorous plan formulation and site selection process that evaluated 22 reservoir sites and resulted in the selection of Temperance Flat River Mile (RM) 274 Dam site and reservoir, as documented through a series of documents and summarized in the DFR.

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage/docs.html


1-2 – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description

Evaluations were conducted in progressively greater levels of detail as the number of sites was reduced, and considered the ability to achieve project objectives, purpose and need, environmental impacts, constructability and cost. Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir was identified in the USJRBSI Plan Formulation Report as the site to be carried forward for more detailed analysis and inclusion in alternative plans presented in the DFR and DEIS (Reclamation 2008a). Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir is referred to as Temperance Flat Reservoir (TFR) in this document and other documents support this WSIP application.

All of the with-project alternatives evaluated in the DFR and DEIS included TFR and a range of potential operating plans that varied based on a mix of beneficiaries, routing of additional water supply, and minimum water storage levels in TFR and Millerton Lake. All of the DFR and DEIS operating plans effectively treated TFR as an expansion of Millerton Lake, thereby comingling existing project obligations and delivery capabilities with additional benefits afforded by TFR.

The DFR and DEIS demonstrated the effects of several alternative operating plans for Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir that focused on storage of San Joaquin River water supplies and did not consider the coordinated operation with other facilities or supplies. These documents acknowledged that additional work was needed to develop a final plan that would be supported by non-Federal partners. Many stakeholders in the San Joaquin Valley also expressed concerns that the DFR and DEIS did not fully consider the range of operational opportunities that could be realized by the TFR Project.

Recent hydrologic conditions that occurred in California since the development of the operating plans presented in the DFR and DEIS have deeply affected water users throughout the state, and caused particularly adverse impacts in the San Joaquin Valley. During the 3-year period from 2014 to 2017, the region experienced both extreme water shortages and wet conditions that revealed a great need for additional surface water storage. As drought conditions extended into 2014 and 2015, water users in the San Joaquin Valley experienced unprecedented consequences of water shortages. Water supplies from northern California were reduced to levels that resulted in the first ever releases from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River to meet downstream water rights obligations at Mendota Pool, resulting in zero surface water deliveries in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The region-wide surface water shortages prompted significant increases in regional groundwater pumping that caused rapid groundwater level declines and re-induced historical land subsidence. In the midst of this crisis, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted during 2014 and fortified convictions to address long-term water management needs and groundwater sustainability in the San Joaquin Valley.

Comparatively wet hydrologic conditions in 2016 provided an opportunity for many water users in the San Joaquin Valley to obtain supplemental water supplies as protection against potential future dry conditions. Much of the supplemental water supply was stored in San Luis Reservoir. The winter of 2017, however, was far from dry. Record-setting precipitation exposed challenges and limitations regarding the operation of statewide water systems and the operation of Friant Dam to manage such hydrologic variability. From January through June 2017, nearly 2 million acre-feet (MAF) of water was released from Friant Dam as flood flows. On the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the capacity of San Luis Reservoir was needed to store CVP and State Water Project (SWP) water imported from Northern California, causing the loss or ‘spill’ of stored supplemental supplies stored in 2016.



In recognition of the long-term need for additional storage and prompted, in part, by these recent experiences, a coalition of stakeholders in the San Joaquin Valley began to organize a regionally-supported strategy to develop the TFR Project. The regional approach is based on development of an operating plan for TFR that can help alleviate some of the water management challenges that were recently experienced and are expected to continue into the future, while providing valuable public benefits for the citizens of California.

1.2 Description of TFR Project Applicant The San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure Authority (SJVWIA) was established in November 2015 to facilitate the advancement of regional water infrastructure projects in the San Joaquin Valley, including to serve as the applicant for WSIP funding for the TFR Project, and grant funding for other regional projects The SJVWIA was initiated based on a recognition of the value of water to the socioeconomic stability to the San Joaquin Valley. SJVWIA members represent a vast portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Members of the SJVWIA include the following entities:

• Merced County

• Madera County

• Fresno County

• Kings County

• Tulare County

• Small cities within the five counties

• Table Mountain Rancheria

• San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority

• San Luis & Delta-Mendota Canal Water Authority

During the past several months, a TFR Project Steering Committee collaborated to prepare this application for submittal by the SJVWIA. The Steering committee includes the SJVWIA, the Friant Water Authority (FWA) acting in association with the Friant North Authority (FNA), the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (SJRECWA), the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) and Reclamation. TFR Project Steering Committee partners provided funding and jointly led the development of the operating plan for the TFR Project presented in this application. The TFR Operating Plan was developed to demonstrate a wide range of opportunities that can be provided by the TFR Project that would be of interest to potential project investors, including the CWC. The TFR Project Steering Committee partners have authorized the SJVWIA to submit this application on their behalf, and will continue to be involved through the CWC evaluation of this application.

The locations of entities comprising the Applicant and partners, including the SJVWIA, FWA/FNA and SLDMWA, which also encompasses the SJRECWA service area, is shown in



Figure 1-1. As shown, the Applicant and partners encompass a large portion of the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake basins in the San Joaquin Valley, and the San Felipe Division of the CVP in Santa Clara and San Benito counties.

The TFR Project presented in this application is based on the infrastructure identified by Reclamation through the USJRBSI combined with the operating plan developed by SJVWIA and partners, in coordination with Reclamation. The operating plan included in this application demonstrates the capabilities of the TFR Project in a manner that is broadly supported by the Applicant and its partners.

As depicted in Figure 1-1, the project applicant, partners, and potential water deliveries evaluated in this application, include the following hydrologic regions:

• San Joaquin

• Tulare Lake

• San Francisco Bay

• Central Coast

Also as depicted in Figure 1-1, the project applicant and partners are located in the following counties:

• Merced

• Madera

• Fresno

• Kings

• Tulare

• Kern

• Stanislaus

• San Joaquin

• Santa Clara

• San Benito



Figure 1-1. TFR Project Applicant and Partners



1.3 TFR Project Summary The proposed TFR Project would be a new reservoir, formed by constructing a new dam within the footprint of the existing Millerton Lake, approximately 20 miles northeast of Fresno, CA. The TFR would provide an additional 1.26 MAF of water storage capacity on the San Joaquin River that would manage water supplies stored from inflow that exceeds the operational capabilities of Millerton Lake and exchanged water supplies developed through coordinated operations with statewide water systems. The combined operation of Millerton Lake and TFR would preserve the existing requirements and delivery capabilities of Millerton Lake for river restoration releases, water deliveries, and flood protection.

Additional storage capacity provided through the construction of the TFR Project would be operated to provide a wide range of public and non-public benefits, as defined in the WSIP application guidelines. The TFR Project can:

• Provide additional water supplies to water users located south of the Delta, including wildlife refuges, located south of the Delta, including lands within and adjacent to the Friant Division of the CVP;

• Increase conjunctive management that can support groundwater sustainability consistent with SGMA;

• Improve ecosystem and water quality conditions for anadromous fish in the San Joaquin River;

• Provide water that could support emergency response needs;

• Increase recreation opportunities;

• Increase flood risk reduction downstream from Friant Dam; and

• Increase the operational flexibility and drought resilience of statewide water systems.

1.4 TFR Project Area The TFR Project is located in the San Joaquin River Basin in Central California. The San Joaquin River is California’s second longest river and discharges to the Delta and, ultimately, to the Pacific Ocean through San Francisco Bay. It is broadly divided between the upper San Joaquin basin extending from the river’s source high in the Sierra Nevada to its confluence with the Merced River, and the lower San Joaquin River basin extending from its confluence with the Merced River to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basins Delta.

1.4.1 Primary and Extended Project Areas The TFR Project Area is described in two sub-areas; a primary project area which reflects the dam and reservoir project foot print of Temperance Flat RM 274 and adjacent areas, and an extended project area that reflects the large geographic area that can be affected by changes in



water management and receive benefits. This is consistent with the Technical Reference Document Section 2.2.

The Primary TFR Project Area shown in Figure 1-2 encompasses the following:

• San Joaquin River upstream from Friant Dam (about 20 miles northeast of Fresno) to Kerckhoff Dam, including Millerton Lake and the area that would be inundated by the proposed Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir; and

• Areas that could be directly affected by construction-related activities, including the footprint of proposed temporary and permanent facilities for the TFR Project upstream from Friant Dam.

The Extended TFR Project area includes locations of potential project features and areas potentially affected by the proposed operating plan. As described in Chapter 3, the operating plan has been evaluated based on the delivery of water to member entities of applicant organizations. However, it is expected that potential investors in the TFR Project would include a more expansive area that could be served by CVP and SWP infrastructure. Therefore, the Extended TFR Project Area, as shown in Figure 1-3, encompasses the following:

• San Joaquin River downstream from Friant Dam, including the Restoration Area (Friant Dam to Merced River confluence), the lower San Joaquin River, and the Delta;

• Lands served by San Joaquin River water rights, including underlying groundwater basins;

• Friant Division of the CVP, including underlying groundwater basins;

• Areas represented by the SLDMWA, including the San Luis Unit, San Felipe Division, and Delta Division of the CVP, including underlying groundwater basins; and

• South-of-Delta (SOD) water service areas of the SWP, including underlying groundwater basins

1.4.2 Relationship to Groundwater Basins The TFR Project has the potential to provide positive contributions in 13 California groundwater basins that are subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, primarily in three basins in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions (San Joaquin Valley, Panoche Valley, and Vallecitos Creek Valley), and also in 10 basins underlying the SL&DMWA service area in Santa Clara and San Benito counties (Santa Clara Valley, Gilroy-Hollister Valley, Santa Ana Valley, Upper Santa Anna Valley, Quien Sabe Valley, Tres Pinos Valley, San Benito River Valley, Dry Lake Valley, Bitter Water Valley, and Hernandez Valley). A map of groundwater basins that underlie lands represented by the Applicant and partners is shown in Figure 1-4.

The Temperance Flat Reservoir Project can provide benefits to 10 high priority groundwater sub-basins of the San Joaquin Valley Basin that represent more than 50 percent of the area covered by the 40 high priority CASGEM sub-basins statewide.



These basins contain medium or high priority subbasins, as defined by DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. In the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions, the TFR Project can provides benefits to 10 high priority CASGEM subbasins including: Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, Delta-Mendota, Kings, Westside, Kaweah, Tulare Lake, Tule, and Kern County Subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. These 10 subbasins represent more than 50 percent of the area covered by the 40 high priority CASGEM subbasins statewide.

In Santa Clara and San Benito counties, the TFR Project provides benefits to one high priority CASGEM subbasin and four medium priority CASGEM subbasins including: Llagas Area Subbasin of the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Basin (high), Bolsa Area, Hollister Area, and San Juan Batista Area Subbasins of the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Basin (medium), and Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Basin (medium).

Groundwater sustainability management in these basins are led by numerous agencies who have filed with DWR as the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for areas that underlie their jurisdictional boundaries. A map of GSAs within the area represented by the Applicant and partners is shown in Figure 1-5.



Figure 1-2. Primary TFR Project Area and Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir



Figure 1-3. Extended TFR Project Area



Figure 1-4. Groundwater Basins in the Area Represented by the Applicant and Partners



Figure 1-5. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the Area Represented by the Applicant and Partners

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 2 Without-Project Conditions: Existing Facilities and Operations


CHAPTER 2 WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

The proposed TFR Project would be constructed within Millerton Lake (formed by Friant Dam), and operated in coordination with the Friant Division of the CVP and South of Delta statewide water system facilities. This section describes existing facilities that would be affected or potentially affected by the TFR Project, and assumptions regarding their operation that were included in without-project condition evaluations.

The information presented in this chapter is consistent with the Technical Reference Document Section 2 for defining without-project conditions. The Study Area was described in the previous chapter. Defining the water-related conditions or aspects of the environment that may be affected by the TFR Project is critical for establishing the baseline against which changes (benefits or impacts) are measured. This chapter describes the without-project water resources system facilities and operations conditions for the Friant Division of the CVP (including San Joaquin River ecosystem operations and conditions for the SJRRP) and SOD CVP and SWP. Water operations modeling analyses are based on the model products provided by the CWC and described in Benefit Calculation, Monetization, and Resiliency (BCMR), Attachment 5 (A5: Modeling Approach.

2.1 Friant Division Facilities and Operations The Friant Division of the CVP, as illustrated in Figure 2-1, is a large regional conjunctive-use water storage and conveyance projects that was constructed by the Federal Government in the 1940s. The Friant Division was designed to address two problems that faced the eastern portion of California’s San Joaquin Valley in the early 20th century: unsustainable groundwater pumping that had induced ground subsidence, and needed economic development to support the influx of population to California that began with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and continued past the end of World War II. The cost of building projects large enough to address these challenges could not be borne by small family farmers and could only be accomplished through a centralized approach, which was led by Reclamation.

The Friant Division of the CVP, completed in 1951, is comprised of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake on the San Joaquin River, the 152-mile Friant Kern Canal, and the 32-mile Madera Canal. Altogether, the Friant Division provides water to more than 15,000 individual farms that collectively cover more than one million acres of highly productive agricultural land. The Friant Division also serves as the primary water supply for several towns and municipalities in the region.

Access to the San Joaquin River for development of the Friant Division required the provision of replacement water supplies to senior rights holders located downstream of Friant Dam in exchange for alternative supplies. This was accomplished through the construction of the



broader CVP and involves the importation of water from northern California for delivery to the senior water rights holders, collectively referred to as the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (Exchange Contractors). The delivery of water from the northern California to the Exchange Contractors via the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) allows the diversion of San Joaquin River water at Friant Dam. This arrangement is memorialized in an agreement between the United States and the Exchange Contractors, known as the Exchange Contract. Reclamation also purchased some of the senior water rights through what is known as the Purchase Contract. The costs of construction, operations, and maintenance of facilities that supply water imported from northern California to the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division CVP water deliveries are paid by Friant Division long-term water contractors.

Provisions within the Exchange Contract allow the Exchange Contractors to exercise their existing senior rights on the San Joaquin River in the event that Reclamation cannot provide the stipulated supply from northern California. For the first time since construction of the CVP, this provision was invoked in 2014, and again in 2015, resulting in large reductions to Friant Division water supplies during very dry hydrologic conditions.



Figure 2-1. Friant Division of the CVP



2.1.1 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake Millerton Lake was formed by Friant Dam in 1942. Though small relative to the average watershed flow, it is the largest reservoir, by volume and surface area, on the San Joaquin River. Inflows directly into Millerton Lake also occur from Big Sandy Creek, Fine Gold Creek, and several ephemeral streams. Friant Dam is a 319-foot-high concrete gravity dam.

Outlets to the Madera Canal (elevation 448.6 feet above msl) are located on the right abutment; outlets to the Friant-Kern Canal (elevation 466.6 feet above mean sea level [msl] [NAVD 1988 datum]) are located on the left abutment. The spillway consists of an ogee overflow section, chute, and stilling basin at the center of the dam. The spillway is controlled by one 18-foot-high by 100-foot-wide drum gate, and two comparably sized Obermeyer gates. A river outlet works (elevation 382.6 feet msl) is located to the left of the spillway within the lower portion of the dam. River releases are made to satisfy San Joaquin River restoration, downstream water rights, contract diversion, and flood control requirements.

When full, the reservoir extends 16 miles up into the river canyon from Friant Dam, located at RM 267.6, and has more than 41 miles of shoreline. Millerton Lake has a volume of 524 thousand acre-feet (TAF), a surface area of 4,905 acres, and an elevation of 580.6 feet msl (NAVD 1988 datum) at top of active storage. At top of active storage, the reservoir has a maximum depth of 287 feet.

Friant Dam is operated as an annual reservoir, meaning all water supplies available in a given year are allocated with the expectation of delivery in that year. Storage levels in the late summer and early fall months are generally low with little available water in storage above the canal outlet levels.

2.1.2 Reservoir Flood Storage Operations Friant Dam is the principal flood storage facility on the San Joaquin River, with a dedicated flood management pool of 170 TAF during the flood season of October through March (USACE 1980). Under present operating rules, up to 85 TAF of the flood storage required in Millerton Lake may be provided by an equal amount of space in Mammoth Pool from November 1 to February 1, if available. Mammoth Pool is a 123 TAF reservoir upstream from Millerton Lake. Figure 2-2 shows a conceptual representation of an active conservation space of 390 TAF during April through September, when the risk of rain flood is low. Inactive storage is 130 TAF.

During flood conditions, Friant Dam is operated to maintain releases to the San Joaquin River at or below a flow objective of 8,000 cfs. Other flood management facilities of the San Joaquin River Basin include: levees along the San Joaquin River, Chowchilla Canal Bypass, Mariposa Bypass, and Eastside Bypass; levees along the lower portions of the Fresno River and Ash and Berenda sloughs; Bear Creek; and the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers.

Friant Dam and Millerton Lake



Note: Reservoir volumes are approximate Key: TAF = thousand acre-feet Figure 2-2. Conceptual Representation of Millerton Lake Storage Requirements

2.1.3 Friant Division Long-Term Water Contracts The Upper San Joaquin River watershed runoff quantities and patterns were well understood when the CVP was designed. The San Joaquin River upstream from Millerton Lake drains approximately 1,675 square miles and has an annual average unimpaired runoff of 1,818 TAF (Water Years 1901 – 2011), with a range of 362 to 4,642 TAF.

The Friant Division was designed and is operated to support conjunctive water management in an area that was subject to groundwater overdraft before construction of Friant Dam. The area supplied by the Friant Division remains in a state of groundwater overdraft today. Reclamation employs a two-class system of water allocation to take advantage of water during wetter years. Figure 2-1 shows the locations and acreage of Friant Division long-term water service contractors. Table 2-1 lists the total Friant Division contract amounts for each contractor.

Historically, the Friant Division achieved the conjunctive management of ground- and surface-water through a two-class contract system. Class 1 contracts are used to allocate supplies that are reliable in nearly all years and generally delivered to M&I and agricultural water contractors that have limited access to good quality groundwater. Agricultural lands served by Class 1 contracts primarily include upslope areas planted in citrus or deciduous fruit trees. During



project operations, the first 800 TAF of annual water supply is delivered under Class 1 contracts.

Class 2 water is a supplemental supply available during wet conditions that is delivered directly for agricultural use or for groundwater recharge, generally in areas that experience groundwater overdraft. Class 2 contractors typically have access to good quality groundwater supplies and can use groundwater during periods of surface water deficiency. Many Class 2 contractors are in areas with high groundwater recharge capability and operate dedicated groundwater recharge facilities.

Friant Division long-term contracts total about 2.2 million acre-feet (800 TAF for Class 1 and 1.4 MAF for Class 2. The water service contracts were designed to support local sustainability and included consideration of soil suitability classifications and land use based demands at the time the contracts were established. These water service contracts were sized appropriately in conjunction with local supplies, including groundwater. The Friant Division of the CVP infrastructure was designed to manage the hydrology and provide water supplies to entities that could support the conjunctive use of the available supplies.

In addition to Class 1 and Class 2 water deliveries, Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 water is provided in Section 215 of the Act, which authorizes the delivery of unstorable irrigation water that would be released in accordance with flood management criteria or unmanaged flood flows. Delivery of Section 215 water has enabled groundwater replenishment at levels higher than otherwise could be supported with Class 1 and Class 2 contract deliveries, as well as providing water supplies to other CVP contractors.

Prior to implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) (described below), the Friant Division of the CVP delivered an average of about 1,300 TAF of water annually. Since 1949, Reclamation has made annual releases of 117 TAF from Friant Dam to the San Joaquin River to meet downstream water contract diversions between Friant Dam and Gravelly Ford. Additional flows occur during years when releases are made to the San Joaquin River for flood management purposes.

Figure 2-3 shows the historical allocation of water to Friant Division of the CVP water contractors. As shown, annual allocation of Class 1 and Class 2 water varies in response to hydrologic conditions. It is important to note that average allocation percentages in the future would likely be less than the historical data presented because of implementation of the Settlement (discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter). Continued declining reliability of deliveries of CVP water supplies from the Delta increase the risk that Friant Division of the CVP water deliveries could be reduced to meet the conditions of the Exchange Contract.



Figure 2-3. Friant Division of the Central Valley Project Allocations and Flood Releases, 1977 – 2011

From 1957 through 2007, annual allocations of Class 1 water were typically at or above 75 percent of contract amounts, except in 3 extremely dry years. In this same period, full allocation of Class 2 water supplies occurred in about one-fourth of the years. During the extended drought from 1987 through 1992, no Class 2 water was available and Class 1 allocations were below full contract amounts, except in 1 year. During this and other historical drought periods, water contractors relied heavily on groundwater to meet water demands.

In addition to the Class 1, Class 2, and conjunctive management aspects of Friant Division of the CVP operations, a productive program of transfers between districts takes place annually. This program provides opportunities to improve water management within the Friant Division of the CVP service area. In wet years, water surplus to one district’s need can be transferred to other districts with the ability to recharge groundwater. Conversely, in dry years, water is returned to districts with little or no groundwater supply, thereby providing an ongoing informal groundwater banking program within the Friant Division of the CVP.

The Cross-Valley Canal, a locally financed facility completed in 1975, enables delivery of water from the California Aqueduct to the east side of the southern San Joaquin Valley near the City of Bakersfield. A complex series of water purchase, transport, and exchange agreements allows the exchange of equivalent amounts of water between Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, near Bakersfield, and eight entities with contracts for CVP water imported from northern California. Cross Valley Canal contract holders and amounts are listed on Table 2-1. When conditions permit, water is delivered to Arvin-Edison from the California Aqueduct in exchange for water that would have been delivered from Millerton Lake.



Table 2-1. Summary of Friant Division of the Central Valley Project Long-Term Contractors and Amounts

IrrigatedAgency District Class 1 Class 2 Total Acres

1 Arvin-Edison WSD 40,000 311,675 351,675 132,657 2 Fresno (City of) 60,000 - 60,000 - 3 Hills Valley ID 1,250 - 1,250 4,330 4 Kaweah Delta WCD 1,200 7,400 8,600 340,369 5 Kern-Tulare WD - 5,000 5,000 20,963 6 Lindmore ID 33,000 22,000 55,000 27,324 7 Lindsay-Strathmore ID 27,500 - 27,500 15,507 8 Orange Cove ID 39,200 - 39,200 29,000 9 Porterville ID 15,000 30,000 45,000 16,987 10 Saucelito ID 21,500 32,800 54,300 19,721 11 Terra Bella ID 29,000 - 29,000 13,881 12 Tulare ID 30,000 141,000 171,000 67,261 13 Fresno ID (FWA and FNA) - 75,000 75,000 247,562 14 Madera ID (FWA and FNA) 85,000 186,000 271,000 86,533 15 Chowchilla WD 55,000 160,000 215,000 252,364 16 Gravelly Ford WD - 14,000 14,000 8,394

subtotal 437,650 984,875 1,422,525 1,282,853% total 55% 70% 65% 77%

1 Delano-Earlimart ID 108,800 74,500 183,300 56,463 2 Exeter ID 11,100 19,000 30,100 15,112 3 Ivanhoe ID 6,500 500 7,000 11,095 4 Lower Tule River ID 61,200 238,000 299,200 102,987 5 Pixley ID - - - 69,777 6 Shafter-Wasco ID 50,000 39,600 89,600 38,919 7 Southern San Joaquin MUD 97,000 45,000 142,000 61,432 8 Stone Corral ID 10,000 - 10,000 6,878 9 Tea Pot Dome WD 7,200 - 7,200 3,553

subtotal 351,800 416,600 768,400 366,216% total 44% 30% 35% 22%

1 Fresno County 150 - 150 - 2 Tulare County - - - - 3 Garfield WD 3,500 - 3,500 1,809 4 International WD 1,200 - 1,200 736 5 Lewis Creek WD 1,200 - 1,200 1,289 6 Lindsay (city) 2,500 - 2,500 - 7 Madera County 200 - 200 - 8 Orange Cove (city) 1,400 - 1,400 - 9 Tri-Valley WD 400 - 400 5,724

subtotal 10,550 0 10,550 9,558% total 1% 0% 0% 1%

34 Total 800,000 1,401,475 2,201,475 1,658,627

Friant Water Authority J.

Phill

ips

Chie

f Exe

cutiv

e O

ffice

r

Friant North Authority

D. W

elch

Exec

. Dir

.

Friant Division Contract Volume (Ac-Ft)

South Valley Water Assoc. D

. Vin

kEx

ecut

ive

Dir

ecto

r

No Agency Affiliation

Not

app

licab

le



2.2 San Joaquin River Restoration Program In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a lawsuit, known as NRDC, et al., v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and CVP Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, after more than 18 years of litigation, the Settling Parties, including NRDC, FWA, and the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce, agreed on the terms and conditions of a Settlement subsequently approved by the U.S. Eastern District Court of California on October 23, 2006. The San Joaquin River Restoration Act, included in Public Law 111-11 and signed into law on March 30, 2009, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement the Settlement. The Settlement establishes two primary goals:

• Restoration Goal – To restore and maintain fish populations in “good condition” in the main stem San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish.

• Water Management Goal – To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts on all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that may result from the Interim and Restoration flows provided for in the Settlement.

The Settlement is being implemented through the SJRRP, led by Reclamation. Implementing Agencies include Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), DWR, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

The Settlement includes actions to support the reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and the Merced River confluence. This areas is known as the Restoration Area, as shown in Figure 2-4. The SJRRP Implementing Agencies have been conducting various fisheries studies on Chinook salmon survival and habitat conditions in the San Joaquin River in the Restoration Area, and are advancing projects that increase channel capacity, improve fish passage, and provide fishery access to floodplain habitat.

To achieve the Restoration Goal, the Settlement requires releases of water from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River (referred to as Restoration Flows). Restoration Flows vary by hydrologic year type and through the year in support of fish lifestage requirements. A schematic of flows and specific volumes of water to be released from Friant Dam during different year types, as identified in Exhibit B of the Settlement, is shown in Figure 2-5.

The stipulated Restoration Flows for each year type represents the total release from Friant Dam required to satisfy SJRRP Restoration Flows, riparian diversions between Friant Dam and Gravelly Ford, and to maintain a minimum 5 cfs of flow at the Gravelly Ford gage station. The Settlement also stipulates that an additional buffer flow of up to 10 percent of the Restoration Flows could be made for: releases to the river; releases to address unexpected seepage losses; flushing flows to enhance gravel conditions for spawning during wet and normal-wet years; and riparian recruitment flows.



Figure 2-4. San Joaquin River Restoration Area



Figure 2-5. San Joaquin River Restoration Flow Releases from Friant Dam

Flow conditions are important for suitable fish habitat, and flow management also influences riverine habitat capacity. The relatively small water storage volume of Millerton Lake provides challenges for operational flexibility and management of multiple objectives with highly variable inflows (annually and seasonally) that are typical of the San Joaquin River.

The success of Chinook salmon populations is known to be affected by water temperature. The SJRRP has developed information on water temperature requirements for Chinook salmon, and the continuing water temperature studies provide the ability to monitor changes to habitat conditions. Water temperatures that are too high, or in some cases too low, can be detrimental



to the various life stages of salmon. Elevated water temperatures are among the factors that can negatively impact spawning adults, egg maturation and viability, and pre-emergent fry. Conversely, water that is too cold can inhibit the growth of juveniles. In-river heating during the summer and fall can also result in less suitable habitat.

Paragraph 16 of the Settlement includes two management actions in support of the Water Management Goal. Paragraph 16(a) provides for the recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the Interim and Restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors caused by the Restoration flows. Recapture of Restoration Flows is possible at three existing diversion points on the San Joaquin River downstream from the Merced River through agreements with the diversion owners, and in the Delta through CVP and SWP pumping facilities. Recirculation, exchange, and transfer of recaptured water is accomplished through the management of existing conveyance and storage facilities, and through agreements with other water users.

Paragraph 16(b) of the Settlement establishes a Recovered Water Account (RWA) and a recovered water program to make water available to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that have or may experience water delivery reductions as a result of Restoration flows, and the ability to purchase water that is unstorable in Millerton Lake at a fixed lower rate.

The SJRRP is being implemented through an adaptive management process that includes several plans and monitoring actions. To achieve this, the Implementing Agencies, in coordination with the Settling Parties, have prepared several implementation plans, including:

• Restoration Flow Guidelines

• Fisheries Management Plan

• Monitoring and Analysis Plan

• Seepage Management Plan

• Vegetation Management Plan

• Sediment Management Plan

• Framework for Implementation

• Unreleased Restoration Flow Guidelines

The Settlement identified a schedule for the completion of structural modifications that would enable the release of full Restoration Flows. This schedule has not been met for a variety of reasons, including the expanded scope of needed channel modifications, funding constraints, and permitting challenges. The Framework for Implementation prepared in 2015 provides a construction and funding schedule that would result in the completion of major construction actions by 2030. As those actions are implemented, Restoration Flow releases will be progressively increased.



2.2.1 SJRRP Actions Included in Without-Project and With-Project Conditions

Implementation of SJRRP actions is ongoing and is expected to be complete on or before the timeframe of that the TFR Project would be implemented. To assure the analyses presented in this application clearly demonstrate the benefits of the TFR Project and do not risk double-counting benefits of ongoing mitigation actions, the same set of assumptions regarding SJRRP implementation were applied in all three without-project conditions scenarios and in all with-project analyses. Most notably, the without-project conditions include implementation of all Phase 1 actions listed in paragraph 11(a) of the Settlement, some Phase 2 actions listed in paragraph 11(b) of the Settlement, the release of full Restoration Flows, the introduction of salmon, and implementation of water management actions described in paragraph of the Settlement and the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. Table 2-2 summarizes SJRRP implementation actions included in the without-project and with project conditions.

Table 2-2. SJRRP Actions Included in Without-Project and With-Project Conditions Settlement Paragraph Action Included

11a Construct Mendota Pool Bypass and modify Reach 2B to convey at least 4,500 cfs Yes1 11a Modify Reach 4B1 to convey at least 475 cfs Yes1, 11a Modify San Joaquin River Headgate Structure to enable fish passage and flow Yes 11a Modify Sand Slough Control Structure to enable fish passage Yes 11a Screen Arroyo Canal and provide fish passage at Sack Dam Yes 11a Modify Eastside and Mariposa Bypasses for fish passage Yes 11a Enable deployment of seasonal barriers at Mud and Salt sloughs Yes 11b Modify Reach 4B1 to convey at least 4,500 cfs No1 11b Modify Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure Yes 11b Fill or isolate highest priority gravel pits Yes 12 Enhance spawning gravel Yes 12 Reduce potential for redd superimposition and/or hybridization Yes 12 Supplement the salmon population Yes 12 Modify floodplain and side-channel habitat Yes 12 Enhance in-channel habitat Yes 12 Reduce potential for aquatic predation of juvenile salmonids Yes 12 Reduce potential for fish entrainment Yes 12 Enable fish passage Yes 12 Modify flood flow control structures Yes 12 Apply various conservation measures to actions above Yes

13a Release Restoration Flows (Base Flows, Buffer Flows, and flexibly manage releases for the best achievement of the Restoration Goal pursuant to Exhibit B) Yes

13b Riparian releases, downstream diversions, seepage losses Yes 13c Acquire and release water supplies to address seepage losses Yes 13d Minimize increases in flood risk as a result of Restoration flows Yes 13e Changes in releases for maintenance of CVP facilities Yes 13f Steps to prevent/address unexpected diversions or seepage Yes 13g Measurement of flows within Restoration Area Yes 13h Protection of water rights Yes 13i Manage unreleased Restoration Flows Yes2 13j Establish Restoration Flow Guidelines Yes



Table 2-2. SJRRP Actions Included in Without-Project and With-Project Conditions (contd.)

Settlement Paragraph Action Included

14 Reintroduce salmon Yes 16a Recapture and recirculate Restoration Flows Yes

16b Establish a Recovered Water Account and manage Friant Dam to make water supplies available to Friant Division of the CVP at a predetermined price Yes3

20 Changes to the Restoration Flows after December 31, 2025 No Act Implement capacity restoration for the Friant-Kern and Madera canals Yes3 Act Construct permanent reverse flow pump-back facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Yes3 Act Provide financial assistance for groundwater projects in the Friant Division of the CVP Yes3

Notes: 1 Constructed floodplains are not represented quantitatively as part of the channel capacity improvement projects in Reaches 2B

and 4B in the Without-Project Conditions, consistent with the SJRRP Minimum Restoration Scenario 2 Provisions in Settlement Paragraph 13(i) pertain to the disposition of volumes of Restoration Flows that cannot be released due to

insufficient downstream capacity. The provisions are anticipated to be available in the future; however, the use of this provision was not evaluated and full Restoration Flows were evaluated as available and fully released

3 Addressed qualitatively in Without-Project Conditions, due to uncertainty regarding the extent of Part III implementation.

Key: Act = San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Public Law 111-11 cfs = cubic feet per second CVP = Central Valley Project EIS = Environmental Impact Statement PEIS/R = Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report ROD = Record of Decision Settlement = San Joaquin River Stipulation of Settlement SJRRP = San Joaquin River Restoration Program SWP = State Water Project

2.3 Statewide Water System Facilities The TFR Project is being designed to be operated in a coordinated manner with other facilities that comprise the statewide water system, as defined by WSIP application guidelines. This section briefly describes facilities located south of the Delta and outside of the Friant Division that could be affected by the implementation of the TFR project. In the evaluation of the TFR Project, the operations of these facilities was based on assumptions embedded in the three operational and hydrologic scenarios provided by CWC staff (2015, 2030 and 2070) for WSIP application preparation. The locations of the CVP and SWP facilities and service areas are shown on Figure 1-3.

2.3.1 South of Delta CVP Operations and Facilities The CVP provides water to about 273 contractors, including: Settlement Contractors in the Sacramento Valley, the Exchange Contractors in the San Joaquin Valley, agricultural and M&I water service contractors in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, and wildlife refuges both north and south of the Delta. Areas served by these contracts is the same as the extent of applicant partner areas shown in Figure 1-1.



Through an Exchange Contract, Reclamation provides a substitute water supply to the Exchange Contractors (Central California Irrigation District, Columbia Canal Company, San Luis Canal Company, and the Firebaugh Canal Water District), in exchange for the use of San Joaquin River water within the Friant Division. Each of the four Exchange Contractor entities has separate conveyance and delivery systems operated independently, although their combined water supply is managed as one unit for performance under the Exchange Contract. The Exchange Contractors, along with eight additional water right contractors, have conveyance and delivery systems that generally divert water from the DMC or Mendota Pool, convey water to customer delivery turnouts, and at times discharge to tributaries of the San Joaquin River.

Each February, and monthly thereafter, Reclamation evaluates hydrologic conditions throughout California to forecast CVP operations and to estimate the amount of water to be made available to Federal water service contractors for the contract year. Allocations vary from year to year, and are based on hydrologic conditions at CVP facilities. In recent years, allocations to CVP water service contractors south of the Delta are lower than allocations to service contractors in the Sacramento Valley.

The CVP water service contracts have varying water shortage provisions. In 2001, Reclamation developed a draft CVP M&I Water Shortage Policy in consultation with the CVP M&I water service contractors (Reclamation 2001). This policy provides M&I water supplies with a 75 percent water supply reliability based on a contractor’s historical use, as defined by the last 3 years of water deliveries unconstrained by the availability of CVP water. Before M&I supplies are reduced, irrigation water supplies would be reduced below 75 percent of contract entitlement. The policy also provides that, when the allocation of irrigation water is reduced below 25 percent of contract entitlement, Reclamation will reassess the availability of CVP water and CVP water demand and, because of limited water supplies, M&I water supplies may be reduced below 75 percent of adjusted historical use. Table 2-3 lists historical CVP annual allocations since 1997. As shown, surface water shortages during the most recent drought from 2012 through 2016 were greater than previously experienced.



Table 2-3. Historical CVP Annual Water Contract Allocations

Water Year

Water Year Type1

CVP Contract Allocation (percent)

Agricultural Urban Wildlife Refuges Settlement/ Exchange Friant Division

NOD SOD NOD SOD NOD SOD NOD SOD Class 1 Class 2 1997 Wet 90 90 90–100 90–100 AS AS 100 100 100 60 1998 Wet 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 1999 Wet 100 70 95 95 100 100 100 100 100 20 2000 Above-Normal 100 65 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 17

2001 Dry 60 49 85 77 100 100 100 100 100 5 2002 Dry 100 70 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 8 2003 Above-Normal 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5 2004 Below-Normal 100 70 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 8 2005 Above-Normal 100 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 US 2006 Wet 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 US

2007 Dry 100 50 100 75 100 100 100 100 65 0 2008 Critical 40 40 75 75 100 100 100 100 100 5 2009 Dry 40 10 75–100 60 100 100 100 100 77 18 2010 Below-Normal 100 45 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 15 2011 Wet 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 20 2012 Below-Normal 100 40 100 75 100 100 100 100 50 0

2013 Dry 75 20 100 70 100 100 100 100 62 0 2014 Critical 0 0 50 50 75 65 75 65 0 0 2015 Critical 0 0 25 25 75 75 75 75 0 0 2016 Below-Normal 100 6 100 55 100 100 100 100 75 0 2017 Wet 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 US

Notes: 1 Reported water year types are based on Sacramento River Index and are applicable to all CVP allocations except Friant Division. CVP

allocations to Friant Division long-term contract are based on available supply at Millerton Lake. Key: CVP = Central Valley Project NOD = north of Delta SOD = south of Delta

San Luis Reservoir/O’Neill Forebay Downstream from the Jones Pumping Plant, CVP water in the DMC and can be either diverted by the O’Neill Pumping-Generating Plant into the O’Neill Forebay, or can continue down the DMC for delivery to CVP contractors. The O’Neill Pumping-Generating Plant generates power from releases from the O’Neill Forebay back to the DMC. The O’Neill Pumping-Generating Plant includes six pump-generating units, each with a capacity of 700 cfs.

The O’Neill Forebay is a joint CVP and SWP facility, with a storage capacity of about 56,000 acre-feet. In addition to its interactions with the DMC via the O’Neill Pumping-Generating Plant, it is part of the SWP California Aqueduct. Several water districts receive diversions directly from the O’Neill Forebay.



The William R. Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant (Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant), also a joint CVP and SWP facility, can pump water from the O’Neill Forebay into San Luis Reservoir, and generate power from releases from San Luis Reservoir to the O’Neill Forebay. The Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant consists of eight units, each with a capacity of 1,375 cfs.

San Luis Reservoir lies at the base of foothills on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The reservoir provides offstream storage for excess winter and spring flows diverted from the Delta. It was sized to reregulate and match Delta pumping to downstream demands, with a total capacity of 2.0 MAF.

The CVP share of the storage at San Luis Reservoir is 965,660 acre-feet; the remaining 1,062,180 acre-feet is the SWP share. During late spring, summer, and early fall, water demands and schedules are greater than the capability of Reclamation and DWR to pump water from the Jones and Banks pumping plants; water stored in San Luis Reservoir is used to make up the difference. Since San Luis Reservoir receives very little natural inflow, water must be stored during late fall through early spring when the two Delta pumping plants can pump more water from the Delta than is needed to meet immediate water demands. The CVP share of San Luis Reservoir is typically at its lowest in August and September, and at its maximum in April.

Reclamation and DWR have the ability to use or exchange the diversion capacity capabilities of the CVP and SWP (i.e., Delta pumping into San Luis Reservoir) to enhance the beneficial uses of both projects. The Joint Point of Diversion (JPOD) capabilities are based on a staged implementation and conditional requirements for each stage of implementation.

The San Felipe Division of the CVP supplies water to customers in Santa Clara and San Benito counties from San Luis Reservoir. Operation of San Luis Reservoir has the potential to affect the water quality and reliability of these supplies if reservoir storage drops below 300 TAF. Low CVP and SWP water levels can affect water quality and reliability by creating conditions for algae growth, or by exposing intake structures.

Delta-Mendota Canal The DMC, completed in 1951, conveys water from the Jones Pumping Plant to the San Luis-O’Neil reservoir complex, and then along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to Mendota Pool. Water is delivered along the DMC and at Mendota Pool to the Delta, West San Joaquin, and San Felipe divisions of the CVP (via San Luis Reservoir); to wildlife refuges; and to replace San Joaquin River water stored at Friant Dam and diverted into the Friant-Kern and Madera canals consistent with the San Joaquin River Exchange Contracts. The canal is about 117 miles long and has an initial diversion capacity of 4,600 cfs, which decreases to 3,211 cfs at the terminus.

CVP Contractor Facilities Exchange Contractors provide water deliveries to over 240,000 acres of irrigable land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, from roughly the town of Mendota in the south, to the town of Crows Landing in the north. Deliveries are also made to the San Luis Wildlife Refuge Complex and the State WMAs. Although unique for each entity, operations generally consist of diverting sufficient flow from the DMC and Mendota Pool to the Exchange Contractors’ main distribution systems. Depending on the particular Exchange Contractor entity, water is either



directly delivered to community ditch systems of the customers from the main canal systems, or water is further conveyed through entity-owned and -maintained community ditch systems to ultimate points of delivery.

2.3.2 South of Delta SWP Operations and Facilities The SWP operates under long-term contracts with 29 public water agencies throughout California. To provide water for the SWP, DWR negotiated settlement agreements to obtain water rights in the Feather River, and to divert that water from the Delta. DWR administers these settlement agreements with Feather River and Delta interests, and delivers about 900 TAF of water each year to Feather River agencies that hold senior water rights.

The SWP contracts between DWR and individual State water contractors define several classifications of water available for delivery under specific circumstances. All classifications are considered “project water.” Table A is an exhibit to the SWP long-term water supply contracts. Table A amounts are used to define each contractor’s proportion of the available water supply that DWR will allocate and deliver to that contractor. Each year, contractors may request an amount not to exceed their Table A amount. Table A amounts are used as a basis for allocations to contractors, but the actual annual supply to contractors varies, and depends on the amount of water available.

Although Table A is given first priority, water delivery capabilities of the SWP are frequently lower than Table A amounts. Each SWP contactor receives a percentage of its Table A contract amount, depending on hydrologic conditions and available SWP water in the system. Table A amounts were designed to increase gradually until the total combined maximum annual Table A amount for all water contracting agencies was achieved. Currently, regardless of location in the SWP system, each contractor is entitled to the same percentage of Table A water.

Many contractors also make frequent use of additional contract water types for deliveries over the approved and scheduled amount allocated to the contractors under Table A. Other contract types of water include:

• Article 21 Water – surplus water available after operational requirements of SWP water deliveries, water quality, and Delta requirements are met.

• Turn-back Pool Water – accounting of SWP supplies is used early in the year for later purchase by other SWP contractors at a set price.

• Carryover Water – unused SWP allocation from the previous year.

The SWP allocation (proportion of Table A to be delivered) for any specific year is made based on a number of factors, including existing storage, current regulatory constraints, projected hydrologic conditions, and desired carryover storage. Since 1997, annual delivery of Table A water has varied between 1.233 MAF (in 2009) to 3.201 MAF (in 2000). Article 21 deliveries have varied between about 3 TAF (in 2008) to 731 TAF (in 2005) (DWR 2013c).

The following subsections describe major SOD SWP facilities.



San Luis Reservoir/O’Neill Forebay Downstream from the Banks Pumping Plant, SWP water flows in the California Aqueduct and into the O’Neill Forebay. The O’Neill Forebay and San Luis Reservoir are described in the Other Central Valley Project Water Service Areas and Facilities section, above.

California Aqueduct The California Aqueduct conveys water 443 miles from the Banks Pumping Plant to areas in Southern California. The concrete-lined canal includes several pumping plants and branches to enable delivery to various agricultural and urban contractors, including the South Bay Aqueduct and coastal branch. South of the O’Neill Forebay, parallel to the DMC, the San Luis Canal (the central portion of the California Aqueduct) is a joint-use facility for the CVP and SWP. It begins on the southeast edge of the O’Neill Forebay and extends about 101.5 miles southeasterly to a point near Kettleman City. The California Aqueduct has a capacity ranging from 8,350 cfs to 13,100 cfs.

SWP Contractor Facilities The SWP operates under long-term contracts with public water agencies throughout California. These agencies, in turn, deliver water to wholesalers or retailers, or deliver it directly to agricultural and M&I water users. These deliveries are made via a variety of entity-owned and -maintained facilities.




Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 3 With-Project Conditions: Description of Proposed Facilities


CHAPTER 3 WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES

This section describes the proposed physical facilities for the TFR Project, based on the plan formulation process, geotechnical investigations, and engineering completed as part of the USJRBSI. It includes descriptions of the Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam, reservoir, hydropower plant, and appurtenant facilities. A description of the operating plan associated with these facilities is presented in Chapter 4. The information presented in chapters 3 and 4 is consistent with the Technical Reference Document Section 3 and Regulations sections 6004(a)(2) and 6003(a)(1)(BB).

As described in the Technical Reference Document, with-project conditions include:

• “a detailed description of a proposed water storage project’s physical features” (included in this chapter); and

• “a preliminary operations plan that describes how the water storage project may be operated to provide the public and non-public benefits.” (included in Chapter 4)

Consistent with Regulations sections 6004(a)(2), the with-project conditions for the TFR Project are based on the without-project conditions and include all additions and modifications specific to the proposed project. This chapter describes proposed changes in infrastructure compared to the without-project conditions.

3.1 Summary of USJRBSI Plan Formulation Approach A set of primary and secondary planning objectives were established for the USJRBSI on the basis of a defined set of problems, needs, and opportunities identified in the USJRBSI, study authorities, and other pertinent direction, including information contained in the August 2000 CALFED Programmatic ROD (2000a) and supporting documents. Primary objectives are those for which specific alternatives are formulated to address. The primary planning objectives are considered to have coequal priority, with each pursued to the maximum practicable extent without adversely affecting the other. Secondary planning objectives are actions, operations, or features that should be considered in the plan formulation process, but only to the extent possible through pursuit of the primary objectives. The objectives for the USJRBSI are:

• Primary Planning Objectives:

− Increase water supply reliability and system operational flexibility for agricultural, M&I, and environmental purposes in CVP San Joaquin Valley areas, and other regions of California.

− Enhance water temperature and flow conditions in the San Joaquin River downstream from Friant Dam for salmon and other native fish.



• Secondary Planning Objectives:

− Reduce flood damages downstream from Friant Dam.

− Maintain the value of hydropower attributes in the study area.

− Maintain and increase recreational opportunities in the study area.

− Improve San Joaquin River water quality downstream from Friant Dam.

− Improve quality of water supplies delivered to urban areas.

3.1.1 Selection of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and Reservoir As illustrated in Figure 3-1, the selection of the Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and Reservoir resulted from a multiple-phase plan formulation process that evaluated 22 potential surface water storage sites in the upper San Joaquin River Basin that was described in a series of USJRBSI planning documents (Reclamation and DWR 2003, 2005, and 2008).

Multiple sizes and configurations were considered at several sites. Evaluations considered water supply operations, general environmental consequences, construction costs, and energy generation and use.

Figure 3-1. Process Leading to Selection of Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir Site

Historical Dam Site Selection

In 1930, Hyde Forbes, an engineering geologist, issued a geological report on three potential dam sites on the San Joaquin River for the State of California. The report evaluated geologic conditions at the Friant, Fort Miller, and Temperance Flat (RM 274) sites. The geologic study contributed to planning efforts that led to construction of Friant Dam (Forbes 1930).

From a water storage perspective, the RM 274 site was considered superior to the two other sites, but the Friant location was selected because constructing a dam at RM 274 would have required extending canals around or through the current Millerton Lake area, or constructing a second dam at Friant for diverting water to the canals (Reclamation and DWR 2003).



Evaluations conducted through the USJRBSI led to selection of the Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir as the preferred surface water storage measure for further development and inclusion in all alternative plans presented in the DFR and DEIS. Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would include construction of a dam in the upstream portion of Millerton Lake at RM 274. The dam site is located approximately 6.8 miles upstream from Friant Dam and 1 mile upstream from the confluence of Fine Gold Creek and Millerton Lake. With a top-of-active-storage capacity at elevation 985, Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would provide 1,260 TAF of new storage capacity and extend about 18.5 miles upstream from RM 274 to Kerckhoff Dam.

At top-of-active-storage capacity, the reservoir level would reach about 12 feet below the crest of Kerckhoff Dam. Reservoir sizes up to elevation 1,100 at this site were considered in previous phases of the Investigation but were dropped from further consideration because the incremental water supply provided did not appear justified in light of substantial additional effects to environmental resources, additional effects to hydropower generation, and higher construction costs (Reclamation and DWR 2005).

3.2 Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and Reservoir The proposed dam at Temperance Flat RM 274 would be a roller compacted concrete (RCC) arch gravity dam. The dam site is located 6.8 miles upstream from Friant Dam and about 1 mile upstream from the confluence of Fine Gold Creek and Millerton Lake. The dam would be approximately 665 feet high, from a base elevation 340 in the bottom of Millerton Lake (San Joaquin River channel) at the upstream face, to the dam crest at elevation 1,005. The length of the dam crest would be approximately 3,360 feet and the dam would be constructed based on a 1,600-foot radius measured to the vertical upstream face. The downstream face would be sloped at 0.5H:1V at the major (central) section of the arch. The proposed reservoir would have a maximum surface area of about 5,700 acres and would extend about 18.5 miles upstream from RM 274 to Kerckhoff Dam. At the top of active storage, the new reservoir would reach to about 12 feet below the crest of Kerckhoff Dam. The location of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam and the extent of TFR, in relationship to existing Millerton Lake, is shown in Figure 1-2.

Construction of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam within Millerton Lake would require the construction of upstream and downstream cofferdams and a diversion tunnel to convey water from the upper portion to the lower portion of Millerton Lake. Descriptions of the cofferdams, diversion tunnel, and all other associated construction facilities are provided in the discussion of appurtenant facilities later in this section.

3.2.1 Total and Active Water Storage Capacity At a top-of-active-storage elevation 985, Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would provide about 1,330 TAF total storage, of which 70 TAF would overlap with the existing Millerton Lake, reducing the net total storage to 1,260 TAF. The proposed Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would have a minimum operating storage of about 110 TAF (elevation 600). The TFR Project does not include additional dedicated flood control space, therefore, the total additional storage capacity provided through the development of TFR would be 1,220 TAF, which represents net total storage minus minimum operating storage.



3.2.2 Storage Facility Elevation-Capacity and Area-Capacity Curves Storage facility elevation-capacity and area-capacity curves were prepared using light-detecting and ranging (LiDAR) aerial surveys (topographic data), and Millerton Lake sonar surveys (bathymetric data) for Millerton Lake. These relationships were used in operations models and dependent analyses, to calculate water surface elevation and reservoir surface area. The elevation-capacity and area-capacity curves are shown in Figure 3-2.

Elevation-Capacity Curve Surface Area-Capacity Curve

Figure 3-2. Temperance Flat RM Elevation-Capacity and Surface Area-Capacity Curves

3.3 Storage Facility Outlets, Spillways, and Direct Diversions

Water would be released from Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir to Millerton Lake through an outlet works consisting of a controlled low level intake structure (LLIS), tunnel and valve house, or through an uncontrolled spillway. No direct diversions of water supply from TFR are proposed. After water from Temperance Flat Reservoir is conveyed to Millerton Lake, all water would be diverted through existing facilities at Friant Dam, including outlets to the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals (including releases for the San Joaquin River Fish Hatchery), a low-level outlet to the San Joaquin River, and the Friant Dam spillway. A detailed map of proposed facilities in the vicinity of the TFR dam site is provided in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4.

3.3.1 Low Level Intake Structure Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would include an inclined, reinforced-concrete LLIS located approximately 1.4 miles upstream from the dam and adjacent to and upstream from the outlet works entrance on the left abutment. The LLIS would consist of a 726-foot-long by 69-foot-wide concrete structure, sloped at 37 degrees from horizontal, with a total facility footprint of approximately 3.6 acres.

The LLIS would have two low-level fixed-wheel gates, which in combination are sized to pass up to 20,000 cfs during high-flow conditions (Table 3-1). Each low-level gate would be 16.5 feet

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Stor

age

Capa

city

(t

hous

and

acre

-feet

)

Elevation (feet)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Stor

age

Capa

city

(t

hous

and

acre

-fee

t)

Surface Area (acres)



wide by 33 feet high and operated by submerged hydraulic cylinders and hydraulic power units. Each gate and hydraulic cylinder operator would be capable of being installed and removed as a unit to the surface, through a wire-rope hoist and lifting beams that would travel on tracks down and up the inclined structure.

Each gate would be protected with fixed trash racks. Water through each gate would flow directly into the outlet works tunnel. Because the lower gates would function to release higher flood flows, both are necessary. Only one gate would be opened, as necessary, for low pool releases; the other would remain closed. Both LLIS gates could be closed if the LLIS structure and downstream tunnel needs to be dewatered.

An intake gantry hoist would be located at the operating deck level of the LLIS (elevation 1,005), to enable installing and removing hydraulic cylinders and gates. An equipment building would also be constructed at elevation 1,005 to house the gate control panels. The pad at elevation 1,005 would be fenced and about 180 feet wide by 200 feet long, which would be a sufficient size to allow access by delivery trucks and storage of equipment. The gates and hoisting equipment would need major maintenance at various intervals (painting, component replacement). Replacement of electrical and mechanical equipment would occur less often, with intermittent maintenance and component replacement, as required.

Table 3-1. Low-Level Intake Structure Feasibility Design Criteria

Item Capacity (cfs) Invert Elevation1 (feet)

Allowable Port Velocity

(feet per second)

Design Head (feet)

Low-level Gates 20,000 2 570 18−20 405

Low-level Trash racks 20,000 N/A 10−12 10

(differential)

Notes: 1 Elevations are in North American Vertical Datum of 1988. 2 Low-level gate capacity at a Temperance Flat Reservoir elevation of 985 feet. Key: cfs = cubic feet per second N/A = not applicable



Figure 3-3. TFR Project Features in the RM 274 Dam Vicinity



Figure 3-4. TFR Project Features in the Upper Portion of RM 274 Reservoir



3.3.2 Tunnel and Valve House A 30-foot-diameter, concrete-lined tunnel would be constructed through the left abutment, approximately 1.4 miles upstream from the main dam. The tunnel would be used to divert Millerton Lake around the dam site during construction and would later serve as the outlet works tunnel to convey water from TFR to Millerton during project operations. The tunnel would be approximately 2,900 feet long, with an upstream invert at elevation 530 and a downstream invert at elevation 520. Tunnel capacity would be about 25,000 cfs (under a 10-year flood event with a peak inflow of 31,484 cfs) during construction. Controlled releases from the Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would flow through the outlet works tunnel and valve house for discharge into Millerton Lake.

The valve house would be sized to pass up to 20,000 cfs. Water would be directed from the tunnel in a 30-foot-diameter penstock to be diverted through the valve house and/or a new powerhouse, depending on operations. The powerhouse could pass a design flow of 6,000 cfs. The powerhouse is described in Section 3.4.1.

The valve house would be an at-grade reinforced-concrete structure connected to the powerhouse superstructure (above elevation 584), located approximately 650 feet southwest from the tunnel portal. The valve house would be a 132-foot by 92-foot concrete structure that is 40 feet high, featuring four 144-inch penstocks with butterfly valves and four 96-inch fixed-cone valves. The valve house would share the control room, electrical gallery, and mechanical gallery located in the powerhouse. External features would include a stepped river outlet works chute, approximately 600 feet long and at an average grade of 11 percent, releasing into Millerton Lake. The valve house facilities would have 24-hour outside lighting near walkways and entranceways for safety and security of operations personnel.

3.3.3 Spillway The overflow section of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam would consist of a 665-foot-wide uncontrolled ogee crest spillway at elevation 985. The conventional reinforced concrete spillway would include a flip at elevation 900 centered on the river channel. The flip bucket would divert spillway flows away from the toe of the dam to plunge into between 125 and 250 feet of water depth, depending on Millerton Lake elevations. The spillway would have a discharge capacity of 153,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) with the reservoir at elevation 1005, allowing the dam to safely pass the 0.2 percent, or 500-year, return frequency flood event.

3.4 Power Facilities The TFR Project includes construction of a new powerhouse and transmission facilities and the decommissioning of two powerhouses, tunnels and associated transmission facilities. It also would result in increased generation at existing hydropower generation facilities on Friant Dam, however no modifications to these facilities are required.

3.4.1 Powerhouse and Transmission Facilities The Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir powerhouse would be located approximately 750 feet southwest from the diversion tunnel outlet portal and consist of a 126-foot-long by 98-foot-wide



by 85-foot-deep reinforced-concrete substructure and a 180-foot-long by 46-foot-wide by 64-foot-high clad steel superstructure. Substructure features inside the main powerhouse structure would include a control room, electrical gallery, and mechanical gallery. The control room (elevation 570) would house the protection and computer control units for the powerhouse. Below the control room, the electrical gallery (elevation 545) would house the electrical governor and distribution panels. A 300-ton bridge crane would be provided to install and remove generating equipment and service other interior powerhouse equipment. On the tailrace deck a 25-ton gantry crane would be provided to install and remove draft tube bulkhead gates.

The powerhouse would contain two 80 megawatt (MW) turbines, which in combination are sized to pass a design flow of 6,000 cfs. Water would be diverted from the powerhouse in a 22-foot-diameter penstock and distributed to the two turbines. Hydraulic head and flow from diverted water would be converted to electrical energy using two 125-megavolt-ampere (MVA) generators, which would then transfer power to a generator bus and step-up transformer to be distributed to a 4,200-square-foot aboveground switchyard. After water has passed through the turbine units, it would then flow through an approximately 490-foot-long tailrace channel to Millerton Lake, regulated by a concrete weir to maintain a minimum tailwater elevation of 550 feet. The total footprint of the powerhouse and valve house facilities would be approximately 9.3 acres.

Overhead power transmission lines would deliver generated power to the existing grid. A new Temperance Flat transmission line would traverse approximately 4.42 miles southeast from the new Temperance Flat RM 274 Powerhouse to the existing double circuit (DC) Kerckhoff-Sanger 115 kilovolt (kV) line. The Temperance Flat transmission line would connect to the existing 115 kV line via two single-circuit dead-end structures. One of these structures would use a three-way switch to connect to the existing line. Other structures would consist primarily of steel monopoles with arms. The new Temperance Flat transmission line would accommodate crossing the existing 70 kV Wishon-Coppermine line.

3.4.2 Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project Facilities Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would inundate the existing Kerckhoff Project powerhouses (Kerckhoff Powerhouse and Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse), both of which would be decommissioned as part of the TFR Project. Kerckhoff Powerhouse is an aboveground facility and would be removed and the area restored to near-natural conditions. Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse is an underground facility and would be abandoned in place. The majority of mechanical and electrical equipment for both powerhouses would be removed and salvaged.

Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir top-of-active storage would be just a few feet below the top of the Kerckhoff Dam spillway gates (elevation 988.5). The top of Kerckhoff Dam would be modified, including: removal of all mechanical operators on the existing deck; addition of pillars on the existing deck to bring the top of the dam above the dam crest of Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam; and installation of new mechanical operating equipment for gate operations. The radial spillway gates on Kerckhoff Dam would remain closed, consistent with current operations. Inundated sections of the Kerckhoff-Le Grand and Kerckhoff-Sanger transmission lines (approximately 4 miles) would be reconstructed as the Le Grand-Sanger transmission line.



3.5 Recreational Facilities Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would affect several recreational features found along the existing Millerton Lake shoreline (Figure 1-2). Recreational facilities upstream from RM 274 include the Temperance Flat Boat-In Campground within the Millerton Lake SRA, and the San Joaquin River Trail, which connects the SRA and the BLM SJRG SRMA. Within the SJRG SRMA are: hiking, biking, and equestrian trails, including an extension of the San Joaquin River Trail; two footbridges; primitive campgrounds; and a cultural heritage learning center, which includes a reproduction of a Native American village, simulated archaeological dig, authentic bedrock mortars, and a nature trail. Reclamation would protect such facilities from inundation, modify existing facilities to replace affected areas (i.e., relocate facilities on site), or abandon existing facilities and replace them at other suitable sites to the extent feasible (i.e., relocate facilities off site and upslope).

The TFR Project would maintain the quality of visitor experiences by replacing affected recreational facility capacity with facilities providing equivalent visual resource quality, amenities, and access to the Millerton Lake SRA and SJRG SRMA, as well as Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. This includes new Wellbarn Road and Smalley Road boat ramps and associated upgrades to access roads; and a San Joaquin River and Pa'san Ridge trails seasonal water taxi, or equivalent. Inundated recreational facilities and associated utilities would be relocated before demolition, with the exception of facilities identified for abandonment. Additional details on proposed recreational facilities are included in EGPI A4 Engineering Summary Attachment. Recreation facility relocations and improvements related to Temperance Flat Reservoir are shown on Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4.

3.6 Reservoir Area Utilities A majority of the infrastructure adjacent to Millerton Lake above RM 274 is located in the Temperance Flat area off Wellbarn Road, and PG&E and BLM facilities off Smalley Road. Utilities in the area include potable water, power distribution, telecommunications, and wastewater facilities. All utilities that would be impacted by inundation would be demolished and relocated (if an associated facility is relocated or required to maintain distribution) prior to inundation. Reservoir area utilities affected by the TFR Project are shown on Figure 3-4.

3.7 Construction Related Facilities and Other Features Several construction related facilities and features have been defined for the TFR Project, including cofferdams, quarry sites, batch plants, haul roads, staging areas, and access roads. These construction-related facilities are shown in Figure 3-3.

3.7.1 Cofferdams Upstream and downstream cofferdams will be required to divert stream flows during construction and to prevent inundation of the dam site from Millerton Lake. Both cofferdams would require a minimum crest elevation 580 and height of 240 feet to accommodate normal reservoir operation of Millerton Lake and to pass diversion flows. After completion of the RCC



arch gravity dam, cofferdams would be removed to elevation 525. Remaining material below elevation 525 would remain in place.

3.7.2 Quarry, Batch Plants, and Haul Roads An aggregate quarry would supply aggregate for the main dam and cofferdams. The USJRBSI did not evaluate conditions in alternative quarry locations at a level of detail that would support selection of the final quarry site(s). Therefore, three quarry options with varying locations are included in the current project description. Batch plant locations and connecting haul roads would vary depending on quarry option. The specific location, size, and geometry of features would be subject to change based on final engineering and geotechnical analyses.

Regardless of the quarry option selected, final quarry development would typically include benched or terraced rock faces in sound rock, with 40-foot vertical faces and 20-foot horizontal bench widths. Quarry sites would be approximately 60 to 90 acres in size. An estimated 10 million cubic yards of material would be excavated from the proposed quarry site(s). The RCC and conventional concrete batch plant for the main dam would be about 19 acres in size. The potential conventional batch plant for the diversion tunnel, powerhouse, valve house, and intake structure would be located east of Sky Harbour Road between the powerhouse and intake structure sites, and would be about 9 acres in size.

3.7.3 Staging Areas The dam staging area would be located directly above the left abutment, outside the proposed inundation area, and be approximately 21 acres in size. This area would be used for construction staging and aggregate stockpiling. An in-water staging area for constructing the cofferdams would be located between the proposed haul roads and Millerton Lake shoreline downstream from the downstream cofferdam. An additional area, slightly upstream from the upstream cofferdam, would be used to stage and construct the cofferdams. Excavated material from the in-water staging area would be used in the cofferdams.

3.7.4 Access Roads Up to five temporary haul roads would be constructed to provide access to the aggregate quarry, batch plant, dam and cofferdams, staging area, and intake structures. The total length of temporary haul roads would be between 9 and 15 miles, depending on quarry configuration, with two lanes ranging from 12 to 20 feet in width.

Three permanent access roads would provide operations and maintenance (O&M) staff with access to the dam, intake structures, and valve house/powerhouse. Permanent access roads would leave Sky Harbour Road near the valve house and have a total length of approximately 3.5 miles. These roads would consist of two, 12-foot wide lanes.

3.8 Project Implementation Schedule Implementation of the TFR project would involve a number of preconstruction activities for advanced planning, environmental compliance, permitting, and design, followed by project construction. It is anticipated that Reclamation’s Final Feasibility Report will be completed in late



2018 and Congressional Authorization for federal participation in the TFR Project could be in place by early 2019. These actions would facilitate start of advanced planning, permitting, and detailed design activities beyond those that have been completed as part of the federal feasibility study and WSIP application process. A scope of work, schedule and budget for an early funding request to support completing environmental documentation and permits is provided in the Early Funding Request provided with this application. These activities would be integrated into the overall project implementation activities as the process advances

3.8.1 Preconstruction Phase The Applicant and partners would initiate preconstruction activities in coordination with project partners, lead federal and state agencies, and stakeholders. Preconstruction activities include conducting and completing required advanced planning, permitting, and design activities before construction of the project would begin. Key activities include the following:

• Complete additional surveys and geotechnical investigations for final design.

• Develop advanced planning studies, including refining designs and cost estimates; updating analyses of economics and financing; and preparing an initial cost allocation.

• Complete environmental analyses, documentation, and permitting.

• Prepare detailed plans, specifications, and bid packages.

• Establish agreements with key project partners and stakeholders related to planning, design, and construction activities.

• Complete all outstanding requirements under the WSIP, such as funding commitments for 70 percent of non-public funding and agreement with CDFW for ecosystem benefits

• Establish agreements for reimbursable project purposes and State funded activities, including contributed funds agreements and repayment contracts.

• Develop a final operating plan and determine maintenance, and related plans.

• Acquire required lands, easements, and rights-of-way.

• Acquire water right permits.

3.8.2 Construction Phase After the feasibility study and resultant decision making, post-authorization environmental compliance, advanced planning and design efforts described above, project implementation efforts would transition to the construction phase. This will include preparing and executing construction contracts, implementing mitigation measures and/or construction activities, completing such construction activities, commissioning new facilities, and, finally, operating and establishing and/or transferring O&M responsibilities.

Various technical assessments of activities, methods, and material production rates were conducted to develop the construction schedule for project features. Construction activities and



schedules are based on design drawings, quantities, and cost estimate information documented in the EGPI A4 Engineering Summary Attachment. The activities and schedule summarized below give specific attention to high-risk activities and sequencing related to the diversion works needed to start and complete dam construction. Construction work packages have been defined based on construction timing and feature proximity, and include:

• Pre-construction Design Data Collection – Surveying and geotechnical investigations.

• Work Package 1 – Site access and staging, cofferdam construction, and diversion tunnel construction.

• Work Package 2 – Powerhouse/valve house and intake structure construction.

• Work Package 3 – Dam construction.

• Work Packages 4 through 6 – Reservoir clearing, Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project decommissioning, utility relocations, and recreation relocations.

3.8.3 Summary Schedule A timeline of project implementation activities including major preconstruction planning and design, construction phases, and work packages is shown in Figure 3-5. The schedule delineates preconstruction- and construction-phase activities at a summary level. It does not explicitly include the detailed activities (and durations) that are included in the scope of work and schedule for completing environmental documentation and/or permits in the Early Funding Request Tab.

Project implementation would take place in two phases. The preconstruction phase is estimated to span approximately six years and would include: developing detailed project designs, acquiring necessary permits, acquiring required real estate interests, and relocating displaced parties. Once these initial phase activities are complete, the construction phase would be initiated. Construction activities for project features would likely span 8 to 10 years. Estimated timelines assume availability of sufficient funding on an annual basis.



Figure 3-5. Project Construction Activities and Implementation Schedule

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 4 With-Project Conditions: Preliminary Operating Plan


CHAPTER 4 WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS: PRELIMINARY OPERATING PLAN

This application is based on a preliminary operating plan for the TFR Project that demonstrates the broad benefits the project can provide, both for the public at large and the direct water users served by public water agencies and private water companies.

The information presented in this preliminary operating plan is consistent with the Technical Reference Document Section 3.4 and describes how the TFR Project may be operated to provide the public and non-public benefits. Consistent with Regulations sections 6004(a)(2), the with-project conditions for the TFR Project are based on the without-project conditions and include all additions and modifications specific to the TFR Project. This chapter describes proposed changes in operations of proposed new and existing infrastructure. The water supply developed by the TFR Project would be delivered to meet current or future level demands that are unmet in the without-project conditions. These demands are based on the shortages relative to CVP and SWP water contracts identified in without project condition simulations. No changes in land use, regulations, or CVP and SWP contract amounts were assumed between the without-project and with-project conditions.

The TFR Project Preliminary Operating Plan was developed though a collaborative process jointly led by a Steering Committee comprised of the SJVWIA, the FWA, the SJRECWA, and the SL&DMWA. These groups possess deep knowledge of water management needs and objectives in the San Joaquin Valley, understand the statewide water systems, and have a history of coordination among themselves and with other water users throughout California.

The Steering Committee includes both technical and policy groups that provide direction regarding the principles that guided the plan, and assumptions regarding details of the Operating Plan. On the basis of their experience, relationships, and knowledge, the Steering Committee developed an operating plan that highlights the capabilities of the TFR Project in a manner that reflects the anticipated objectives of likely investors in the TFR Project. As the TFR Project continues to develop, the Operating Plan will be refined based on the preferences of the project investors, including the State of California.

4.1 TFR Project Operating Plan Objectives The TFR Project Operating Plan was developed to preserve the existing operational requirements and benefits of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake, and achieve multiple complementary objectives that provide a wide array of public and non-public benefits, as identified in the WSIP application guidelines, as described below.



4.1.1 Preserve Existing Operating Capabilities of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake

The TFR Project Operating Plan provides assurances to existing water supply beneficiaries of Millerton Lake and Friant Dam by preserving the current operating and delivery capabilities of the existing project, and all contractual rights of the existing project stakeholders as a baseline operating requirement. Baseline operating requirements include the release of SJRRP Restoration Flows; existing delivery capability of water under Friant Division Class 1 and Class 2 contracts and water rights; existing delivery capability of water under Section 215, RWA, Paragraph 16(b) and unreleased Restoration Flows (URFs); existing power generation capabilities of facilities located at Friant Dam; and flood control operations at Friant Dam.

As described in Chapter 2, Temperance Flat RM 274 Dam would be constructed within Millerton Lake and would create a reservoir upstream of Friant Dam. To assure the preservation of existing Millerton Lake capabilities, the operating plan analyses conceptually treats Temperance Flat Reservoir as though it were located downstream from Friant Dam, receiving inflow from flood flows released from Friant Dam, as illustrated in Figure 4-1. This approach is reflected in the accounting and management of the combined Millerton Lake and Temperance Flat Reservoir.

Figure 4-1. Conceptual Operation of Millerton Lake and Temperance Flat Reservoir

4.1.2 Improve the Management of Flood Flows for Groundwater Recharge The Friant Division covers all or a portion of the Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern County subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. A primary goal for the initial development of the Friant Division was to facilitate the conjunctive use of water supplies in the region to address severe groundwater overdraft and associated land subsidence. The importance of the Friant Division in supporting conjunctive management remains of vital importance in the ongoing implementation of the SGMA in the San Joaquin Valley.



As described above, the Friant Division provides water supplies for groundwater replenishment and storage. These supplies occur during wet conditions and often coincide with the availability of water from other local sources. The Friant-Kern and Madera canals extend nearly 180-miles along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, crossing several rivers and streams. Many Friant Division water users have access to a portfolio of water supplies that includes groundwater, surface water from local watersheds, and water contracts for deliveries from Friant Dam. Historical operations of Friant Dam demonstrate that demand for water under wet conditions often declines because water users have access to local supplies, recharge facilities are already full, or ground saturation precludes that application of additional water for irrigation or recharge purposes.

Friant Division long-term contractors continue to seek opportunities to develop local surface water supplies that can be managed in coordination with Friant Division deliveries and other sources. Several projects have already been developed, including local and regional groundwater recharge and banking facilities, conveyance interconnections, and the coordinated management of water supplies by water districts. Many opportunities for additional development and coordinated management of local surface water supplies were identified through preparation of 10 Integrated Regional Water Management Plans that involved Friant Division long-term contractors.

The additional storage capacity provided by the TFR Project will provide greater flexibility to Friant water users for coordinating local sources with the delivery of Friant water supplies. It also would allow for exchanges that would enhance the ability to infiltrate wet year supplies into aquifers throughout the entire Friant Division. Currently, high inflows to Millerton Lake that exceed both the storage capacity of Millerton Lake and conveyance or recharge capacity of existing ground water recharge facilities are not available for groundwater replenishment in the region. Similar circumstances can occur when unstorable flows occur in other reservoirs that provide local supplies to Friant Division long-term contractors or when local streams are in flood conditions. The additional surface water storage capacity provided by TFR would allow more efficient use of existing groundwater recharge facilities in the Friant Division, and facilitate the development of additional surface water and groundwater facilities that improvement the conjunctive management of water supplies. TFR could capture currently unstorable water on the San Joaquin River, and also be operated in coordination with existing and future local surface water and groundwater facilities. Through this integrated operation of east side facilities, the TFR Project would greatly enhance conjunctive management and contribute to sustainable groundwater management in the region.

4.1.3 Stabilize South of Delta Water Supplies Many SOD water users, both CVP and SWP, use available capacity in San Luis Reservoir to store carried-over conserved, developed, and acquired water supplies as protection against potential drought conditions. Over the past several years, the reliance on San Luis Reservoir to store supplemental drought protection supplies has increased significantly, however these supplies are stored at risk of loss. The TFR Project would provide additional and more secure SOD storage capacity for these supplemental supplies.

SOD allocations to CVP water service contractors are subject to great variability from year to year as a result of regulatory restrictions and hydrologic conditions. Increasing SOD storage



capacity at TFR provides opportunities to manage multiple-year supplies by increasing and diversifying storage. For example, in water years with relatively high SOD allocations, water users may elect to store a portion of their allocated supply in TFR for future use in drier conditions.

Similarly, Westside water users that develop or acquire supplemental water supplies from other sources need a location to store that water. In late 2016, many water users held supplemental water supplies in anticipation of continuing drought protection needs for 2017, and stored a portion of these supplies in San Luis Reservoir. In early 2017, the risks of relying on San Luis Reservoir to store supplemental water supplies were highlighted. As the year developed into one of the wettest in California history, water users were challenged to remove supplemental water from San Luis Reservoir before losing their investments under a condition known as ‘San Luis spill’. Wet conditions throughout the San Joaquin Valley during winter and spring of 2017 limited the opportunity to move stored supplemental supplies out of San Luis Reservoir and significant losses resulted. When ‘San Luis spill’ conditions occur, permitted Delta pumping must be reduced to match demand, resulting in lost opportunity to import permitted supplies from northern California.

The TFR Project Operating Plan increases the flexibility in managing the storage of supplemental water supplies in San Luis Reservoir. At the time of their development, or in anticipation of ‘San Luis spill’ conditions, supplemental supplies stored in San Luis Reservoir could be ‘transferred’ to TFR through exchanges with Friant Division long-term contractors. Water exchanges would be accomplished using existing or future trans-valley conveyance facilities, or through exchanges with local watershed sources that serve SOD water users and are accessible to Friant Division contractors. Transferring supplemental water supplies from San Luis Reservoir to TRF protects the investments made to develop supplemental supplies and reduces the risk of their loss.

To reflect the range of conditions described above, the TFR Project Operating Plan includes provisions to exchange water into Temperance Flat Reservoir from SOD sources under a variety of hydrologic conditions.

4.1.4 Enhance Water Temperature and Flow Conditions in the San Joaquin River

The development of the TFR Project can provide ecosystem improvements in addition to those being achieved through the SJRRP. Implementation of the SJRRP is included in the current, 2030, and 2070 with-out project conditions, and all ecosystem improvements resulting from the TFR Project will be measured in relationship to those baselines.

The storage of additional water supplies on the San Joaquin River upstream from Friant Dam would allow for greater flexibility in managing water that would be beneficial for ecosystem improvements in the San Joaquin River. The TFR Project could improve operational flexibility to manage the release of Restoration Flows from existing Friant Dam at suitable temperatures to support fish lifestages, and provide additional flows and water temperature management that produce ecosystem improvements in addition to those provided through the SJRRP.



The added operation flexibility provided by the TFR Project would produce temperature- and flow-related ecosystem improvements in the San Joaquin River that are compatible with ecosystem improvements being implemented in support of the Restoration Goal. The TFR Project would also provide additional flow in reaches downstream from Friant Dam for delivery to water users, including wildlife refuges. These additional flows would be released in a manner that is consistent with and complimentary to flows released in support of the Restoration Goal, and would further contribute to restoring and maintaining naturally reproducing and self-sustaining salmon and other native fish. The TFR Project could provide ecosystem improvement in the San Joaquin River in the following manner:

• The storage of water in TFR would improve temperature management of water that would be released as SJRRP Restoration Flows, thereby improving conditions for salmon and other native fish.

• The increased storage capacity provided by the TFR Project can improve the management of Restoration Flows for natural process objectives such as gravel mobilization, gravel cleaning, and riparian habitat establishment. Many of the challenges currently experienced in managing for these objectives during high flow periods would be reduced.

• Releases of additional water supplies from TFR for downstream diversion and delivery would improve habitat downstream from Friant Dam by increasing available physical habitat and extending cold water farther downstream. These releases would be in addition to the Restoration Flows and would provide environmental benefits. Released water could be delivered to SOD water users via diversions along the San Joaquin River between Mendota Pool and the Merced River confluence. Water could also be delivered through the Delta, providing additional ecosystem benefits. These flows would be scheduled for delivery during the irrigation season and could be managed during that time frame in a manner that is beneficial for environmental improvement.

• Flows released for delivery to wildlife refuges also could be scheduled for release during a broad time period, ranging from spring to fall, depending on the needs of the refuges and preferences for providing ecosystem improvements on a real-time basis.

4.1.5 Provide Water Supplies to San Joaquin Valley Wildlife Refuges Securing a reliable water supply of sufficient quality has long been recognized as an important component for sustaining wetland habitats in the Central Valley and waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway, and supporting other wildlife species that depend on wetland habitat (Reclamation et al. 2001). Ten SOD refuges and managed wetlands are served via Mendota Pool along the San Joaquin River. These refuges and managed wetlands include: Grassland Resource Conservation District (GRCD), Los Banos Wildlife Area (WA), Mendota WA, Volta WA, the North Grasslands WA Complex’s Salt Slough and China Island units, and the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s San Luis, West Bear Creek, Freitas, and Kesterson units (Reclamation et al. 2001).

The CVPIA Refuge Water Supply Program (Section 3406(d)), aims to advance the objectives of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture by providing firm water supplies of suitable quality and water-related facilities to maintain and improve wetland habitat on 19 specific Central Valley wildlife refuges. Numerous biological benefits have resulted from a reliable year-round water



supply that adequately meets the delivery schedule for wetland management on CVPIA refuges (Reclamation 2012a). Water supplies developed through the Refuge Water Supply Program also allow refuge managers to “flush” excess salts from wetlands while improving soil quality (Reclamation 2012a).

Section 3406(d) specifies that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide, either directly or through contractual agreements with other appropriate parties, firm water supplies for certain wildlife refuges. These water supplies are referred to as Level 2 and Incremental Level 4, as defined in the "Dependable Water Supply Needs" table in the Refuge Water Supply Report. The CVPIA also directs the Secretary to endeavor to diversify sources of refuge water supply in order to minimize possible adverse effects upon CVP contractors.

Level 2 is a supply provided through long-term CVP contractual agreements. Incremental Level 4 is a supply acquired by the Secretary in cooperation with the State of California. The CVPIA mandated that the full increment of Level 4 be provided by October 2002, but this mandate has never been fully realized due to funding constraints, lack of adequate conveyance facilities, unavailability of storage facilities, and competition for water supplies.

The TFR Project would provide dedicated storage space for the management of refuge water supplies. This space can be used to store allocated inflow during wet years or water stored through exchange agreements for release downstream and delivery to refuges during dry years,. The availability of storage would allow the Refuge Water Supply Program to acquire wet year water at a much lower cost than if water were purchased during dry conditions. Releases for downstream diversion and delivery to refuges during dry years would provide ecosystem improvements in addition to those provided by SJRRP Restoration Flows at times most beneficial for salmon incubation, rearing, and migration. Water stored in the Refuge Water Supply Account could also be delivered to wildlife refuges in the Tulare Lake Basin that could be served directly or through exchange, including the CVPIA-designated Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges.

The TFR Project would deliver up to 10 TAF/yr or Incremental Level 4 water supplies to wildlife refuges during dry years and up to 15 TAF/yr during critical-high and critical-low years. For the purposes of simulations for this application, releases from Friant Dam for Incremental Level 4 refuge water supplies are assumed to occur during the month of April and diverted at Mendota Pool. These releases would contribute to ecosystem improvements related to flow and temperature in Reaches 1 and 2 of the Restoration Area. The deliveries would be coordinated with SOD operations, including storage in San Luis Reservoir. Timing for delivery to wildlife refuges would vary, and could range from mid- to late-spring for irrigation of forage crops, or mid-fall for flood-up of wetland areas. Deliveries for fall flood-up could be made via the San Joaquin River from Mendota Pool downstream to units of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge or the Grasslands Wildlife Management Area providing additional water to increase the duration or magnitude of fall attraction flows, including ramping requirements.

The TFR Project also provides opportunities to diversify Level 2 refuge water supplies, particularly through the coordinated operation with San Luis Reservoir and other statewide water system facilities, in a manner that also can provide ecosystem improvements to the San Joaquin River and wildlife refuges. While the delivery of required Level 2 water supply would not be considered a public benefit under WSIP regulations, the release of these supplies from Friant



Dam to the San Joaquin River for downstream delivery to wildlife refuges would provide ecosystem improvements in the San Joaquin River.

Water could be released from the TFR Project for delivery as Level 2 supplies to wildlife refuges in exchange for water imported from northern California. The exchange operation would be coordinated with SOD water users and would provide greater flexibility in the management of statewide water systems. Delivery of Level 2 supplies from the TFR Project also would increase flows in the San Joaquin River that provide ecosystem improvements compatible with and complimentary to the SJRRP. Under some hydrologic conditions, the quality of water available to refuges through this operation would be of better quality than water available from Delta sources.

4.1.6 Increase the Recapture of SJRRP Restoration Flows Pursuant to paragraph 16(a) of the Settlement, controlled releases from Friant Dam that meet Restoration Flow targets are eligible for downstream recapture; however, flood releases that meet Restoration Flow targets are not. The TFR Project would reduce the frequency and magnitude of flood releases from Friant Dam, and increase the ability to release Restoration Flows at specified rates, including the pulse flows. This would increase the volume of water eligible for downstream recapture as Restoration Flows, which would contribute to the SJRRP Water Management Goal of reducing or avoiding adverse effects to Friant Division long-term contractors resulting from the release of Restoration Flows.

Downstream recapture and recirculation of Restoration Flows would be subject to several conditions, including the availability of diversion facilities on the lower San Joaquin River and in the Delta, available conveyance capacity in the DMC, California Aqueduct and other statewide water system facilities, and exchange agreements with potentially affected water users. Currently, a group of Friant Division long-term contractors, in partnership with Reclamation, are working on plans and agreements for the recapture of Restoration Flows at existing pumping facilities along the lower San Joaquin River. These plans and agreements will identify operating conditions for the recapture and recirculation of Restoration Flows that may be applicable to the increased opportunity created by the TFR Project.

4.1.7 Increase Flood Management Capabilities Friant Dam and Millerton Lake provide flood protection to downstream areas through the management of dedicated rain-flood space and controlled releases to the San Joaquin River. Dedicated flood space in Millerton Lake (and shared in Mammoth Pool) was established at the time Friant Dam was authorized, and associated construction costs were appropriately allocated.

Historical operations have shown that flood releases are frequently required from Friant Dam because the total storage capacity is relatively small in comparison to the San Joaquin River watershed. All flood releases increase the risk of flood damage, which rises when flood releases exceed objective releases to the San Joaquin River and downstream areas are subject to flooding. The TFR Project will provide flood benefits to downstream areas by increasing the availability of reservoir capacity that would fill before flood space is encroached during high inflow periods, which would significantly reduce the frequency and magnitude of flood releases.



The TFR Project Operating Plan does not include a change in the amount of dedicated flood space in Millerton Lake. The Operating Plan applies total required rain flood control storage and operation rules at Millerton Lake to the combined operation of Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir and Millerton Lake to maintain the same level of regulatory rain flood control. It is assumed that the available rain flood control storage could be in either reservoir, provided the required rain flood control storage space is available between the two reservoirs. With Millerton Lake operated at elevation 550 (340 TAF) or lower, a rain flood space requirement of 85 TAF would be maintained in Millerton Lake with a similar amount available in Mammoth Pool).

4.1.8 Increase Recreational Opportunities As the population of the State continues to grow, demands will increase for water-oriented recreation at and near lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers in the Central Valley. According to the California Water Plan Update 2013 (DWR 2014), the Central Valley is experiencing dramatic population growth, but currently has insufficient access to recreation opportunities. Demands for water-based and land-based recreational opportunities in the San Joaquin River Basin are high. Some of these demands are served by reservoirs on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Regional population growth is expected to result in increased demand for recreation at Millerton Lake and increased visitation (Reclamation and State Parks 2010).

Millerton Lake supports several recreation opportunities and is a regional recreation destination. Recreation use at Millerton Lake State Park is directly correlated to water storage levels in Millerton Lake. Under normal operating conditions, Millerton Lake is rapidly drawn down between mid-July and late August, resulting a corresponding decrease in recreational use.

The TFR Project would provide increased recreational opportunities, through a combination of higher storage levels, the development of new or replacement recreation facilities in TFR and Millerton Lake, and increased flows in the San Joaquin River downstream from Friant Dam. Increased water storage amounts could be stored in Millerton Lake and/or Temperance Flat Reservoir. The Operating Plan includes provisions to maintain Millerton Lake at higher storage levels through the recreation season, which would increase recreational opportunities and expected use.

4.1.9 Provide Water Supply for Emergency Response The TFR Project is uniquely located both upstream from the Delta and south of the Delta. Stored water could be made available for emergency response to address a variety of needs, including delivery of water to areas impacted by a Delta outage or drought, releases to the San Joaquin River for Delta inflow to control salinity resulting from a Delta levee failure, or to support firefighting in the San Joaquin River watershed. The amount of water in TFR to be made available for emergency response would be at the discretion of individual storage account owners. For the purposes of the evaluations presented in this application, it is assumed that up to 50 percent of stored water would be made available for emergency response.

4.1.10 Provide Flexibility to Integrate with Other Projects The TFR Project is one of several major water projects under consideration in California. The WSIP application requirements consider the benefits provided by individual projects which, once selected, will likely operate in conjunction with one another and potentially other projects, such



as the California WaterFix. Recently, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) completed a study that demonstrates the combined effects of multiple water storage projects, both without and with the WaterFix. Funding for the ACWA study was provided by numerous participants, including FWA.

4.2 Hydrologic Scenarios Simulated in the Operating Plan The TFR Project was evaluated under three hydrologic scenarios to provide information in support of this application; the Current-Condition, 2030, and 2070. The Current-Condition evaluation is based on the CWC-provided DCR 2015 simulation, which is generally based on historical hydrology over the period of the 1922 through 2003 water years, and very closely corresponds with the No-Action and Without-Project simulations presented in the USJRBSI DFR and DEIS. The 2030 evaluation is based on CWC-provided 2030 simulation with climate change modifications, and the 2070 evaluation is based on the CWC-provided 2070 simulation with climate change modifications.

Hydrologic conditions on the upper San Joaquin River vary considerably between these three scenarios. The Current-Condition simulation is most similar to historical inflows, which tend to peak during the month of June due to the delayed runoff from a large snow pack. The climate change scenarios for 2030 and 2070 reflect the effect of warmer conditions that produce precipitation events with more rainfall and less snowpack than the Current Condition scenario, resulting in peak runoff earlier in the year. As a result, peak runoff into Millerton Lake occurs in May for the 2030 scenario, and in April for the 2070 scenario, as illustrate in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2. Millerton Lake Inflow Patterns for Simulated Hydrologic Scenarios



4.3 TFR Project Storage Accounts The TFR Project Operation Plan is based on the allocation of new storage space in TFR through storage accounts. Conservation storage in TFR would be purchased by investors and managed through individual accounts. It is expected that investors would be public agencies that are involved in water management in California and have access to statewide water systems. In the TFR Project Operating Plan, the total volume of storage accounts is 1,150 TAF. This volume was determined by deducting the storage necessary to provide the current operational capabilities of Millerton Lake from the combined capacity of Millerton Lake and TFR.

The principles for management of storage accounts in the TFR Project are based, in part, on the principles that have been successfully applied for many years in the management of storage accounts in Pine Flat Reservoir on the Kings River. For the TFR Project, each investor would have flexibility in determining the operation of their own account within defined operating criteria. Owners would have the ability to store allocated inflow and water obtained through exchanges with other sources. Inflow would be allocated in proportion to the size of the storage account and would only accumulate to the extent that space is available in an owner’s account. Allocated inflow that exceeds the capacity of an owner’s account would become available to other account owners.

The TFR Project Operating Plan presented in this application includes a set of operating rules for the delivery of water for non-public purposes that contribute to the provision of public benefits. The development of a final operating plan will be coordinated with the State of California, Reclamation, project investors, and other relevant entities to define specific operating criteria that would be applied to the management of all storage accounts, including those managed exclusively for public benefits.

For the purposes of illustrating the operational capabilities and range of benefits that could be provided by the TFR Project, the Operating Plan identifies three types of storage accounts; East-Side, West-Side, and Refuge, as shown in Figure 4-3. The size of the Refuge account was selected to provide delivery of a desired quantity of water as Level 4 water supply to wildlife refuges, and the balance of available storage capacity was divided equally between East-Side and West-Side accounts, as summarized in Table 4-1. Storage account sizes were not changed between the Current-Condition, 2030, and 2070 simulations of the TFR Project.

Table 4-1. Storage Accounts Represented in TFR Project Operating Plan

Storage Account Storage Space (TAF) East-Side 550 West-Side 550 Refuge Level 4 50 Total 1,150 Key: TAF = thousand acre-feet TFR = Temperance Flat Reservoir



For the purposes of illustration, all water in each type of account is assumed to be managed in the same manner. It is expected that numerous accounts would be established, generally as East-Side or West-Side accounts, and that each would managed by a different investor, or account holder. Each account holder will make decisions on the management of their own account in accordance with their specific objectives and overall TFR Project operating objectives.

Figure 4-3. Temperance Flat Reservoir Storage Accounts

4.3.1 East-Side Storage Accounts East-Side Storage Accounts are defined as those that would be managed for delivery of water to Friant-Kern and Madera canals. These accounts would be owned by any investor that could receive delivery of water from TFR via the Friant-Kern and Madera canals. For the purposes of this application, the Operating Plan assumes that water in East-Side storage accounts would be delivered to Friant Division long-term contractors. New water supplies developed through inflow or exchange in these accounts would be used to meet shortages in Class 1 and Class 2 deliveries that occur under the without-project conditions. This approach would result in the storage of water in East-Side storage accounts for relatively short durations, often within a year, until conveyance capacity and demand could take delivery for surface water use or groundwater recharge.

The Friant Division of the CVP is crossed by seven rivers (Chowchilla, Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, Tule, Kaweah, and Kern) and several local streams. All of these rivers and many streams provide local surface water supplies to some of the Friant Division long-term contractors. Water users manage these local surface water supplies in conjunction with Friant Division deliveries, groundwater, and imported water from other sources, such as through Cross Valley Canal contract deliveries.



The coordinated management of local surface water facilities and supplies with the TFR Project provides opportunities to increase regional water supply reliability. To illustrate the potential for coordinated management of east-side water supplies, the TFR Project Operating Plan includes a water exchange operation based only on a portion of Kings River flood flows. Storage account owners would develop agreements for the exchange of flood flows from other sources into TFR and would be responsible to obtain permits, water rights, and agreements with affected water users to support the water exchange.

The East-Side exchange operation in the TFR Project Operating Plan focuses on periods when Kings River flood releases arrive at James Bypass and flow into Mendota Pool on the San Joaquin River. During these conditions, Kings River flood water would be delivered to Friant Division long-term contractors in lieu of releases from Friant Dam and the avoided releases would accumulate in TFR East-Side Storage Accounts. The opportunity for this operation would be constrained by the following conditions: Kings River inflow to Mendota Pool; exchangeable demand in the Friant Division; and the capacity of infrastructure to convey Kings River supplies to the Friant-Kern Canal. Recently, Fresno Irrigation District (FID), a Friant Division long-term contractor, installed an intertie between their canal and the Friant Kern Canal. The analysis presented in this application is based on an intertie capacity of 250 cfs, and combined exchangeable demand and available canal capacity up to 150 TAF/month, during April through September.

It should be noted that that the Kings River flood flow exchange opportunity described above is presented to demonstrate the ability to operate the TFR Project in support of exchanges with local water supplies. The analysis is limited to exchanges from one of many possible sources that currently serve Friant Division long-term contractors, and therefore understates the extent of the full opportunity. In addition, the evaluated operation only addresses exchanges of flood flows and does not address additional exchanges that may occur during non-flood periods to move stored water to TFR for greater long-term water storage security.

Water in East-Side Storage Accounts that accumulates from inflow and exchange sources would be delivered to Friant Division long-term contractors, generally based on historical demand patterns and available canal capacity. The additional water supply provided by the TFR Project would be gradually delivered during the irrigation season, in support of the regional conjunctive management program already in place that coordinates the management of surface water and groundwater sources. Delivering additional surface water to the Friant Division allows for the direct use of surface water in lieu of groundwater pumping, which avoids pumping costs, or for direct recharge to groundwater. This approach is compatible with long-term water management objectives that have been in place for several decades and will intensify under the implementation of SGMA.

The simulated operational approach results in increased surface water deliveries primarily during wetter years. Conveyance capacity, demand limitations, and storage objectives result in the carry-over of some stored water in TFR for delivery in subsequent years, producing additional surface water deliveries during all year types in comparison the with without-project scenario for all three evaluated conditions. Regardless of the timing for delivery, additional surface water deliveries in the Friant Division increase groundwater storage, which is used in greater quantities during drier years.



Criteria for the management of East-Side Storage Accounts was developed to reflect the conditions under which account owners could exchange water into the accounts and call on stored water for delivery. Operating criteria for East-Side Storage Accounts are primarily influenced by the availability of water in the San Joaquin and Kings river watersheds, objectives to delivery water supplies to Friant Division long term contractors, and include:

• San Joaquin River hydrology affects inflows to Millerton Lake and the resulting delivery of water supplies to Friant Division long-term contractors in the without-project condition. Criteria were defined to specify the amount of water to be delivered toward un-met Friant contract amounts on a monthly basis for each SJRRP water year type.

• Kings River flood flows at Mendota Pool are used as an indicator of the potential to develop exchanges with Friant Division contractors for local surface water supplies. Criteria were defined to specify the capacity of intertie facilities, and the amount of exchanged water that would be delivered toward un-met Friant contracts on a monthly basis for each SJRRP water year type.

4.3.2 West-Side Storage Accounts West-Side Storage Accounts are defined as those accounts that would be managed for the release of water from the TFR Project to the San Joaquin River and diversion at locations downstream from Friant Dam. These accounts would be owned by any investor that could receive delivery of water from the TFR Project via the San Joaquin River through diversion for direct delivery or exchange. Water would accumulate in West-Side Storage Accounts as a proportion of inflow (without-project spills from Millerton Lake) plus water that could be stored in TFR through exchange.

Exchanges into TFR from West-side sources could be made in wet years, when SOD allocations are high, to store for subsequent dry years, or during other periods to store supplemental water that is conserved, developed, or acquired by water users. Exchanges to store water in West-Side Storage Accounts would be provided through agreements between West-Side Storage Account owners and Friant Division long-term contractors that could take delivery of water from Westside sources in lieu of Friant deliveries. The amount of transferred Friant water delivery would accumulate in the owner’s West-Side Storage Account in TFR. For the analysis presented in this application, it is assumed that water exchanges with West-side water users would be on an acre-foot for acre-foot basis (i.e. no exchange rate was applied). Specific details will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

West-Side Storage Account owners could exchange water into the TFR Project under both wet and dry conditions. During wet periods with relatively high SOD CVP allocations, the Operating Plan assumes that West-Side Storage Account owners would exchange some of their allocated CVP supply to the TFR Project to provide more secure storage of supplemental water supplies than may be available in San Luis Reservoir. During dry periods, when CVP allocations are low, the Operating Plan assumes West-Side Account Owners would transfer supplemental water supplies that have been obtained as a hedge against future dry conditions. These acquired supplies are typically stored in San Luis Reservoir.

Water would be released from West-Side Storage Accounts to the San Joaquin River for downstream deliveries to supplement SOD allocations during dry conditions, while also



providing ecosystem improvements in the San Joaquin River. The operating plan evaluated for this application assumes the release of water from West-Side storage accounts to the San Joaquin River for diversion at Mendota Pool. The amount of water released would vary, depending CVP SOD allocation amounts. Water diverted at Mendota Pool would be used to offset delivery requirements from the DMC, thereby providing water supplies to other SOD water users that could receive water from either the DMC or the California Aqueduct. For the purposes of this application, it is assumed that water supplies developed through management of West-Side accounts would be delivered to CVP SOD agricultural and M&I water users, in proportion to their CVP contract amounts.

Deliveries from West-Side accounts would be made to supplement CVP SOD water allocations in all year types. The monthly pattern for release and diversion would be based on demand patterns at Mendota Pool, which are highest during spring and summer months. For the purposes of this evaluation, deliveries would begin in May and continue until the annual amount of water to be delivered is released, the storage account is empty, or DMC demands are met.

Criteria for the management of West-Side Storage Accounts was developed to reflect the conditions under which account owners would exchange water into the accounts and call on stored water for delivery. Operating criteria for West-Side Storage Accounts are primarily influenced by SOD CVP agricultural allocation percentages, which are based on hydrologic conditions in the Sacramento Valley and Delta operational requirements, and include rules for:

• Monthly delivery of water in West-Side Storage Accounts that originated from inflow to TFR based on SOD CVP agricultural allocation percentages

• Exchange of water into TFR West-Side Storage Accounts based on SOD CVP agricultural allocation percentages and San Luis Reservoir end-of-year storage levels

• Monthly delivery of water in West-Side Storage Accounts that originated from water exchanges based on CVP SOD agricultural allocation percentages

4.3.1 Refuge Water Supply Storage Account The Refuge Water Supply Storage Account would be managed by the CVPIA Refuge Water Supply Program to store allocated TFR inflow and supplies acquired through exchanges. Water would be released from the Refuge Storage Account for delivery of Incremental Level 4 water supplies to downstream refuges during dry and critical years.

The TFR Operation Plan presented in this application assumes Incremental Level 4 water deliveries would be made during April for diversion at Mendota Pool, and water would be provided to refuges throughout the year. Additional flows in the San Joaquin River during April in dry and critical years would improve habitat conditions during rearing, upstream migration and outmigration periods. Incremental Level 4 Refuge water supplies released from the TFR Project could be diverted at Mendota Pool or conveyed farther downstream at other diversion points.

TFR Project releases for Incremental Level 4 refuge water supplies could be conveyed through the San Joaquin River and Eastside Bypass to San Luis National Wildlife Refuge unit or the Grasslands Wildlife Management Area, or downstream of the Merced River for diversion at an existing pumping plant on the lower San Joaquin River or in the Delta. Diversions on the lower



San Joaquin River and the Delta would result in increased pumping and conveyance costs, but would also provide ecosystem improvements through the entire Restoration Area and all or portions of the lower San Joaquin River. An example of an operating approach to provide this effect would involve diversion of up to 8 TAF at the West Bear Creek Unit and conveyance of the balance for downstream diversion.

4.3.2 River Releases Produced by the TFR Project Operating Plan The physical effects described in this application are based on model results from the three operating plan scenarios. Under each scenario, the Operating Plan was developed to provide operational effects that would produce public benefits, particularly those related to ecosystem improvements that would be compatible with the delivery of water from East-Side and West-Side storage accounts. The criteria described above were adjusted to achieve desirable conditions for reservoir water temperature management and releases to the San Joaquin River that would provide ecosystem improvements in addition to those provided by the SJRRP. Figure 4-4 shows the objective annual releases of water to the San Joaquin River under the three conditions evaluated, illustrating Restoration Flows, releases from West-Side Storage Accounts, and releases for Incremental Level 4 refuge supplies. As shown, the TFR Project Operating Plan would provide additional flows in the San Joaquin River in nearly all years, including through extended droughts.

The annual water volume available for additional flow and subsequent diversion could be released from Friant Dam under a range of patterns that focus on ecosystem improvements under a variety of conditions. The TFR Project Operating Plan presented in this application emphasizes the addition of flow that extends the duration of spring flows into summer months. Figure 4-5 shows the simulated monthly distribution of these releases in relationship to existing SJRRP Restoration Flows during the 1980 through 2003 portion of the evaluation period. In real-time operations, the timing of releases from West-Side Storage Accounts could be shifted to other times during the irrigation season, within established guidelines.



Current Conditions

2030 Conditions

2070 Conditions

Figure 4-4. Annual Objective Release Quantities from Friant Dam Provided by the Operating Plan for Period 1922 through 2003 under Three Simulated Baselines



Current Conditions

2030 Conditions

2070 Conditions

Figure 4-5. Monthly Objective Flows Released from Friant Dam Provided by the Operating Plan for Period 1974 through 2003 under Three Simulated Baselines



4.4 Water Storage Evaporation Losses Evaporation from Millerton Lake and Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir is computed in the CalSim II model based on an evaporation rates and mean monthly surface area. Each of the three hydrologic scenarios evaluated for this application included scenario-specific data sets that provide temperature and other meteorological data that were used to calculate evaporation. Monthly values computed in CalSim II were converted to a daily time-step using a disaggregation tool that was developed based on historical data and trends. A detailed description of the model process, including the application of meteorological data sets, is provided in BCMR, Attachment A5: Modeling Approach.

4.5 Sources of Water Supply Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir would be an on-stream reservoir and that would store water that would otherwise be released as flood flows from Friant Dam. The TFR Project Operating Plan is based on preserving the current delivery and operational capability of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake. This approach assures that existing water supply benefits of the current project are not changed and that all flow releases to the San Joaquin River required by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement and Act are provided before water could be stored. Water supply could also be developed in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir through exchange with Friant Division long-tram contractors.

The TFR Operating Plan demonstrates the potential for this operation by simulating operations that would provide Kings River flood flows that arrive at Mendota Pool in exchange for an equal Millerton Lake delivery to Friant Division long-term contractors at the time the flood flow occur. No new conveyance facilities would be required to deliver water to the proposed reservoir. With the exception of a diversion tunnel connecting TFR with Millerton Lake, no new conveyance facilities would be required to delivery water from the proposed reservoir to water users or for release from Friant Dam to the San Joaquin River.

4.5.1 Existing Water Rights Reclamation holds three permitted water rights for storage issued by the State Water Board pursuant to Water Right Decision 935 (D-935), dated June 2, 1959, as listed in Table 4-3. Total permitted Millerton Lake storage under Reclamation’s existing water rights is the sum of all three storage rights (2,210,000 acre-feet per year); there is no other, lower, cumulative diversion restriction for storage.

During preparation of the USJRBSI DFR and DEIS, Reclamation initiated coordination with the State Water Board to identify the process to add new points of diversion to the existing water rights and redistribute storage between the two reservoirs. In securing water rights for the TFR Project, Reclamation or a project-specific implementation entity would comply with the California Water Code requirements to obtain necessary water rights for implementing the portion of the TFR Project that affects the storage and release of San Joaquin River water. Additional components of the TFR Project, such as transfers, exchanges, hydropower operations and modifications, release for fishery habitat enhancement and downstream diversion, and



emergency supply may require subsequent water right actions, which would be taken by the individual storage account owners or a project-specific implementation entity.

Before approving new water right applications, the State Water Board will take into account all prior rights and the availability of water in the basin, and the considerations of flows needed to preserve instream uses such as recreation and fish and wildlife habitat. The San Joaquin River at the project location is a currently designated as a Fully Appropriated Stream. By letter dated August 7, 2014, State Water Board staff informed Reclamation that it will need to seek revision of the Fully Appropriated Streams Declaration. On the basis of information provided by the State Water Board, Reclamation identified the following actions in the DFR and DEIS:

• Continue with efforts toward the State Water Board’s licensing of the current water right permits on the San Joaquin River for the operations of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake based on diversion and use information

• Petition the State Water Board to adopt an order amending the Fully Appropriated Steam Declaration for the San Joaquin River at the project location

• Submit a new water right application for the project that will satisfy water availability analysis requirements.

The new water right application could not be accepted by the State Water Board until the State Water Board issues an order amending the Declaration. The Final EIS and EIR, including associated modeling results, will provide the environmental review and demonstration of requisite findings under the California Water Code in order for the State Water Board to approve the water right application.

Table 4-3. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Storage Water Rights on the San Joaquin River

Application Permit Quantity in acre-feet (AF) Storage Season (“about”)

234 11885 500,000 November 1 to August 1 1465 11886 500,000 November 1 to August 1 5638 11887 1,210,000 November 1 to August 1

4.5.2 Sources of Exchanged Water Supplies The TFR Operating Plan includes the storage and management of water supplies in TFR that would be developed through exchanges. Two types of exchanges are anticipated; east-side supplies that derive from rivers that intercept the Friant Division long term contractors, and west-side supplies that can be delivered to Friant Division long term contractors from statewide water system infrastructure, such as the California Aqueduct and Cross Valley Canal.

East-Side Water Exchange Sources As described above, the Friant Division is crossed by seven rivers and several local streams that provide local surface water supplies to Friant Division long-term contractors. To illustrate the potential for coordinated management of east-side water supplies, the TFR Project Operating Plan includes a water exchange operation based only on the portion of Kings River flood releases that arrive at James Bypass and flow into Mendota Pool. During these



conditions, Kings River flood water would be delivered to Friant Division long-term contractors in lieu of releases from Friant Dam and the avoided releases would accumulate in TFR. This operation would be constrained by Kings River inflow to Mendota Pool; exchangeable demand in the Friant Division; and the capacity of infrastructure to convey Kings River supplies to the Friant-Kern Canal. Decisions on the management of flood flows for exchange would be made by individual investors and would require permits, water rights, and agreements with affected Friant Division long-term contractors to support water exchanges.

West-Side Water Exchange Sources As described above, water exchanged into TFR from West-side sources would derive from SOD allocations that provide the opportunity to store allocated water as supplemental supplies, or water that is conserved, developed, or acquired by water users. All exchanges to store water in West-Side Storage Accounts would be provided through agreements between West-side account owners and Friant Division long-term contractors that could take delivery of water from west side sources in lieu of Friant deliveries. Exchange amounts assumed in the TFR Operating Plan evaluated for this application were selected by West-side participants based on their long-term and recent experience in managing supplemental water supplies in San Luis Reservoir.

4.6 Reservoir Operations during Construction The operations of Millerton Lake would not be substantially changed during construction of TFR Project facilities. The diversion tunnel would connect the upper portion of Millerton Lake (above the upstream cofferdam) to the main portion of Millerton Lake (below the downstream cofferdam) allowing inflow to be diverted through the tunnel and maintain normal operations. To accommodate final river diversion and flow routing changes through the tunnel, it is assumed that Millerton Lake levels would be controlled at Friant Dam, either up or down a few feet, without impacting normal operations. Friant Dam would not be relied on to otherwise lower or control Millerton Lake water surface elevations to accommodate construction.

The construction schedule anticipates that Temperance Flat Dam would be sufficiently complete after six years to allow water impoundment. During the final three years of construction, water would be stored in TFR while remaining construction activities on the dam and appurtenant facilities is completed. The storage capacity of TFR would gradually increase to full capacity during this time.

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 5 Project Governance


CHAPTER 5 PROJECT GOVERNANCE This application was prepared and submitted by the SJVWIA in partnership with several public water agencies that serve the San Joaquin Valley, San Benito, and Santa Clara counties. It is based on a set of facilities that were formulated by Reclamation through the USJRBSI and an operating plan that illustrates the range of regional and statewide benefits, both public and non-public, that the TFR Project could provide.

The TFR Project Operating Plan evaluated in this application is based on an assumption that storage space in Temperance Flat Reservoir is owned in equal amounts for East-Side and West-Side storage accounts. A final operating plan that reflects the objectives of project investors including, potentially, the CWC will be developed as part of future environmental compliance documentation.

Concurrent with preparation of this application, work has begun to identify other potential investors in the TFR Project. Given the complexity of any project of this magnitude, the Applicant expects a new, TFR Project implementation delivery system will be formulated to identify investors and lead project implementation. The new TRF Project implementation delivery system could be an entity based upon contractual agreements among existing public agencies or a new Joint Powers Authority comprised of public agencies. Regardless of its form, the new entity is expected to satisfy the eligibility requirements identified in the WSIP regulations and to serve as an applicant for WSIP funding for the public benefits provided by storage projects. This application would be transferred to the new TFR Project-specific implementation entity through necessary agreements and resolutions, and in close coordination with the CWC.

The Applicant and partners expects the new TFR Project entity will be in place prior to the award of WSIP funding and will be responsible for implementation of the TFR Project, and administration of WSIP funds and funding from other non-Federal sources. This will include completing regulatory compliance and permitting, preparing design documents, developing financing for costs allocated to non-public project purposes, entering into funding agreements with the State of California for the public benefits of the project pursuant to WSIP regulations, and agreements with Reclamation regarding the ownership and operation of the TFR Project.

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 5 Project Governance



Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 6 Potential Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Actions


CHAPTER 6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND MITIGATION ACTIONS

This section describes potential environmental commitments and mitigation actions that may be required for the TFR Project. They were identified and developed through preparation of the USJRBSI EIS by Reclamation. Information presented in this section presents excerpts from the DEIS, as amended in the in-progress Final EIS, following receipt of public and agency comments on the DEIS.

This entire section has been italicized to indicate that the information presented is based on a NEPA document prepared by Reclamation as the lead agency. Descriptions of actions that would be taken by Reclamation are written on the basis of Reclamation implementing the project, as described in the DEIS and in-progress Final EIS.

As described in Section 5, a final determination on the implementation framework for the TFR Project has not been made. Descriptions provided in this section may be considered indicative of the type of mitigation requirements that would be expected to be performed by a project implementing entity or entities, and should not be considered a statement of commitment by Reclamation and/or TFR Project Applicant and partners. It also should be recognized that additional or different mitigation actions than those described in this section could be identified through the final NEPA, CEQA and permitting processes, and that no decisions or commitments have been made on the responsible entity for their implementation. A final set of environmental commitments, mitigation actions, and responsible entities will be developed through preparation of the Final EIS and EIR.

6.1 Environmental Commitments Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would incorporate certain environmental commitments and best management practices (BMP) into any alternative plan identified for implementation to avoid or minimize potential impacts. Reclamation would also coordinate planning, engineering, design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of any authorized project modifications with applicable resource agencies.

The environmental commitments for project-related construction activities are described below.

6.1.1 Develop and Implement Construction Management Plans Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would develop and implement Construction Management Plans to avoid or minimize potential impacts on public health and safety during project construction, to the greatest extent feasible. The Construction Management Plans would inform contractors and subcontractors of: work hours, modes and locations of transportation and parking for construction workers, location of overhead and underground utilities, worker health and safety requirements, truck routes, stockpiling and



staging procedures, public access routes, terms and conditions of all project permits and approvals, and emergency response services contact information.

The Construction Management Plans would also include construction notification procedures for the police, public works, and fire department in the cities and counties where construction would occur. Notices would also be distributed to neighboring property owners. The health and safety component of the Construction Management Plans would be monitored for implementation of the plan on a day-to-day basis by Certified Industrial Hygienists.

6.1.2 Comply with Permit Terms and Conditions If any alternative plan was approved and authorized for construction, Reclamation would require its contractors and suppliers, its general contractor, and all of the general contractor’s subcontractors and suppliers to comply with all of the terms and conditions of all required project permits, approvals, and conditions attached thereto. If necessary, additional information (e.g., detailed designs and additional documentation) would be prepared and provided for review by decision makers and the public. Reclamation would ultimately be responsible for the actions of its contractors in complying with permit conditions. Compliance with applicable laws, policies, and plans for this project is discussed in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” and Chapter 28, “Other Regulatory Considerations” of the accompanying EIS.

6.1.3 Provide Relocation Assistance All Federal, State, and local government agencies, and others receiving Federal financial assistance for public programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property, must comply with the policies and provisions set forth in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act) (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 24). All relocation and property acquisition activities, such as those associated with temporary easements during construction or condemnation for permanent changes in the Study Area, would be performed in compliance with the Uniform Act. Any individual, family, or business displaced by implementation of any alternative plan would be offered relocation assistance services for the purpose of locating a suitable replacement property, to the extent consistent with the Uniform Act.

Under the Uniform Act, relocation services for residences would include: providing a determination of the housing needs and desires, a determination of the amount of replacement housing each individual or family qualifies for, a list of comparable properties, transportation to inspect housing referrals, and reimbursement of moving costs and related expenses. For business relocation activities, relocation services would include: providing a determination of the relocation needs and requirements; a determination of the need for outside specialists to plan, move, and reinstall personal property; advice as to possible sources of funding and assistance from other local, State, and Federal agencies; listings of commercial properties; and reimbursement for costs incurred in relocating and reestablishing the business. No relocation payment received would be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code.



6.1.4 Develop and Implement Comprehensive Mitigation Strategy Reclamation would develop and implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy (CMS) to minimize potential impacts to physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources described in the accompanying EIS. The CMS described in this section is still under development at this stage in the planning process. The CMS is being developed consistent with the guidance provided in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508). The CMS is intended to minimize the potential adverse impacts associated with alternative plans described in this chapter, as required under NEPA.

The CMS will be multi-faceted in terms of spatial and temporal scales. Based on the nature of some impacts described in the accompanying EIS, the CMS may include one or more of the following types of mitigation as defined under CEQ Guidelines, Section 1508.20–Mitigation:

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

• Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

At this stage in the planning process, the following components are being considered for the CMS:

• Land acquisition

• Conservation easements

• Upland habitat improvements

• Wetland mitigation

• Riparian habitat improvements (riparian reserves)

• Construction noise mitigation for impacts on wildlife species

• Aquatic habitat improvements (river and tributaries)

• Water quality actions (metals, temperature, and sediment)

• Air quality actions (Tier 4 emission standards)

• Visual and aesthetics-actions



Reclamation will address CEQ's guidance on establishing, implementing, and monitoring mitigation, which specifies that when environmental analyses are premised on commitments to mitigate environmental impacts of alternative plans, agencies should adhere to those commitments during project implementation and monitor the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation (CEQ 2011). The CMS will incorporate elements intended to comply with these requirements, specifically those requirements directing agencies to also publicly report on these efforts, and a framework for mitigation implementation and monitoring.

6.1.5 Develop and Implement Resource Management Plan Reclamation would lead development of an RMP, in collaboration with BLM and State Parks, for the TFR area and lands potentially affected by implementation of alternative plans. The RMP would be prepared as a long-term plan to coordinate management of resources in the area and define the roles and responsibilities of each agency. The RMP would include establishment of management objectives, guidelines, and actions to achieve an integrated, long-term vision for recreation and development, as well as resource protection and enhancement, within the reservoir area.

Example management objectives currently addressed by the Millerton Lake RMP/General Plan (Reclamation and State Parks 2010) that may be applicable for implementation of the alternative plans include:

• Enhancing natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations.

• Providing recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population.

• Ensuring recreational diversity and quality.

• Protecting natural, cultural, and recreational resources, as well as providing resource education opportunities and good stewardship.

• Providing management considerations for establishing management agreements.

6.1.6 Cultural Resources If a project was authorized, Reclamation would implement regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 to identify historic properties (including traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and sacred areas, as appropriate), assess effects, and resolve adverse effects through the consultation process. Reclamation would consult to develop methods to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. Consulting parties for the NHPA Section 106 process would include: the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if it chose to participate); other Federal agencies, where applicable; tribal representatives; and other interested parties (including non-Federally recognized Native Americans, members of the public, and other State or local agencies). Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects would be funded through the project. Reclamation could enter into a Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if it chose to participate), SHPO, and other consulting parties that would identify how the Section 106 process would be



completed for the authorized project. The Programmatic Agreement could include alternative methods for compliance or phased identification efforts/phased finding of effects efforts, as agreed upon with the consulting parties.

Any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony that were removed from federally managed or tribal lands during any project activities would be treated consistent with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). If human remains were removed from non-federally managed lands, they would be subject to the California PRC regarding the treatment of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery.

To further avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources, Reclamation would implement the following actions, as part of the Section 106 process, or independently:

• Develop a Cultural Resources Data Recovery Plan.

• Conduct subsurface archaeological investigations before ground disturbing activities.

• Stop work for discovery of previously undiscovered cultural resources during project construction.

• Stop potentially damaging work if human remains are uncovered during construction.

• Document buildings that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the NRHP consistent with the Heritage Documentation Programs (HDP) specifications for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (Secretary’s Standards).

These actions are further described below.

Develop a Cultural Resources Data Recovery Plan If feasible, Reclamation would protect cultural resources in place. If resources cannot be protected in place, Reclamation would implement data recovery consistent with 14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)(3)(c) and with the guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines (Standards I through IV). California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(c) states that a data recovery plan shall be prepared and adopted before any excavation is undertaken. Because the historical significance of most archaeological sites lies in their potential to contribute to scientific research, the data recovery plan would make provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential data from and about the historical resource.

The Secretary of Interior’s standards include:

• Following an explicit statement of objectives and employing methods that respond to needs identified in the planning process.

• Using methods and techniques of archaeological documentation (data recovery) selected to obtain the information required by the statement of objectives.



• Assessing the results of the archaeological documentation against the statement of objectives and integrating them into the planning process.

• Reporting and making public the results of the archaeological documentation.

To this end, data recovery findings would be documented in a data recovery report, which would follow guidelines set forth by SHPO for such reports.

Conduct Subsurface Archaeological Investigations Before Ground Disturbing Activities Before ground disturbing activities, Reclamation would conduct subsurface investigations (i.e., archeological testing) for undiscovered cultural resources in the portions of the primary study area for the project elements that are identified as having moderate to high potential for undiscovered subsurface cultural resources.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Public Law 95-96) would be followed to protect archaeological resources and sites that are located on public lands. The act makes it unlawful: to excavate, remove, or deface archaeological resources; to sell, purchase, or exchange those resources without applicable permit; and establishes criminal and civil penalties for any such violation.

In accordance with the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, Reclamation would prevent irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data involving activities in connection with any Federal construction project or federally-licensed project, activity, or program through the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data, including preliminary survey or other investigation, as needed.

Stop Work for Discovery of Previously Undiscovered Cultural Resources During Project Construction If previously undiscovered cultural resources (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, structure/building remains, etc.) are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, Reclamation would authorize the construction contractor to stop work in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find according to the NRHP and, if applicable, CEQA (including the California Register of Historic Resources) criteria. If necessary, Reclamation would develop appropriate treatment measures for significant and potentially significant resources which may include, but would not be limited to: no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or project design, and implementing a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with California PRC Section 21083.2. This action would ensure proper identification and treatment of any significant cultural resources uncovered as a result of project-related ground disturbance and would reduce the potential impact resulting from inadvertent damage or destruction of unknown cultural resources during construction.

Stop Potentially Damaging Work if Human Remains are Uncovered During Construction Any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony that were uncovered on federally managed lands during any project activities would be treated consistent with NAGPRA. If human remains or associated items of patrimony were uncovered on non-federally managed lands, they would be subject to the California Health and Safety Code



Section 7050.5 and Section 7052 and California PRC Section 5097, regarding the treatment of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery.

In accordance with NAGPRA, if any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are uncovered on federally managed lands during ground-disturbing activities, including construction, all such activity would cease in the area of the discovery. Reclamation would make a reasonable effort to protect the items discovered before resuming such activity, and provide notice in writing to the Secretary of the department having primary management authority of the land. Following the notification, and upon certification by the Secretary of the department, or the appropriate Indian tribe, that notification has been received, the activity may resume 30 days after the certification.

Reclamation would provide any Native American human remains uncovered on federally managed lands to the lineal descendants of the Native American. If such lineal descendants cannot be ascertained, and in the case of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, Reclamation would provide the remains or objects to the Indian tribe which has the closest cultural or aboriginal affiliation with such remains or objects and which states a claim for such remains or objects. Native American cultural items not claimed would be disposed of in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, Native American groups, representatives of museums, and the scientific community.

California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and associated items of patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Section 7052 and California PRC Section 5097.

In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered on non-federally managed lands during ground-disturbing activities, including construction, all such activities at the site and within a 100-foot radius of the find would be halted immediately and a designated representative would be notified. The representative would immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]).

If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The NAHC would contact the persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant, in cooperation with the property owner and Reclamation, would determine the ultimate disposition of the remains in accord with the provisions of California PRC Section 5097.98. If NAHC cannot identify any likely descendants, if the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation, or Reclamation disagrees with the recommendation and mediation fails to resolve the issue, then Reclamation would reinter the human remains with appropriate dignity on a part of the property not subject to further subsurface disturbance, as is specified in Section 5097.98(b) and 14 CCR Section 1064.5(e)(2).



Document Buildings that are Listed, or are Eligible for Listing, on the NRHP Consistent with the HDPs Specifications for the Secretary’s Standards Under the provisions of Sections 106 and 110b of the amended NHPA of 1966, Federal agencies must produce documentation to HDPs standards for buildings that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the NRHP, to reduce or mitigate adverse effects of federal actions, such as demolition or substantial alteration. National Park Service regional offices oversee this aspect of HDP documentation, which is submitted to the Washington, D.C., office for final review and inclusion in the collections for the Historic American Buildings Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, and Historic American Landscapes Survey.

6.1.7 Develop and Implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Any project authorized for construction would be subject to construction-related stormwater permit requirements of the Federal CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Reclamation would obtain any required permits through the Central Valley Water Board before conducting any ground-disturbing construction activity. According to the requirements of Section 402 of the CWA, Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) before construction, identifying BMPs to prevent or minimize erosion and the discharge of sediments and other contaminants with the potential to affect beneficial uses or lead to violations of water quality objectives of surface waters.

The SWPPP would include site-specific structural and operational BMPs to prevent and control impacts on runoff quality, and measures to be implemented before, during, and after each storm event. BMPs would also control short-term and long-term erosion and sedimentation effects, and stabilize soils and vegetation in areas affected by construction activities (i.e., an erosion and sediment control plan). The SWPPP would contain a site map that shows: the construction site perimeter; existing and proposed buildings, lots, and roadways; stormwater collection and discharge points; general topography both before and after construction; and drainage patterns across the project. Additionally, the SWPPP would contain: a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if a BMP fails, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the CWA 303(d) list for sediment. BMPs for the project could include, but would not be limited to: earth dikes and drainage swales, stream bank stabilization, sediment basins, sandbag barriers, silt fencing, straw bale barriers, fiber rolls, storm drain inlet protection, hydraulic mulch, and stabilized construction entrances.

Develop and Implement Spill Prevention and Hazardous Materials Management Measures As part of the SWPPP, Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would develop and implement a Spill Prevention and Control Plan to minimize effects from spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances for project-related construction activities occurring in or near waterways. The accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and nonstorm drainage water into water bodies would be prevented to the extent feasible. Spill prevention kits would always be in close proximity when hazardous materials were being used (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). Feasible measures would be implemented so that hazardous materials would be properly handled and the quality of aquatic resources would be protected by all reasonable means during work in or near any waterway.



No fueling would be done within the ordinary high-water mark, immediate floodplain, or full pool inundation area, unless equipment stationed in these locations could not be readily relocated. Any equipment that could be readily moved out of the water body would not be fueled in the water body or immediate floodplain. As for stationary equipment, for all fueling done at the construction site, containments would be installed so that any spill would not enter the water, contaminate sediments that may come in contact with the water, or damage wetland or riparian vegetation. Any equipment that could be readily moved out of the water body would not be serviced within the ordinary high-water mark or immediate floodplain.

Additional BMPs designed to avoid spills from construction equipment and subsequent contamination of waterways would also be implemented. These could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Storage of hazardous materials in double-containment and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure.

• Disposal of all hazardous and nonhazardous products in a proper manner.

• Monitoring of on-site vehicles for fluid leaks and regular maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage.

• Containment (using a prefabricated temporary containment mat, a temporary earthen berm, or other measure) of bulk storage tanks.

Haulers delivering materials to the project site would be required to comply with regulations on the transport of hazardous materials codified in 49 CFR 173, 49 CFR 177, and CCR Title 26, Division 6. These regulations provide specific packaging requirements, define unacceptable hazardous materials shipments, and prescribe safe-transit practices, including route restrictions, by carriers of hazardous materials.

6.1.8 Water Quality Protection The measures discussed below would be implemented to minimize potential adverse effects to water quality.

Implement In-Water Construction Work Windows All in-water construction activities within Millerton Lake would be conducted during months when water levels are low and within cofferdams, where feasible, to protect water quality.

Comply with All Water Quality Permits and Regulations Project activities would be conducted to comply with all additional requirements specified in permits relating to water quality protection. Relevant permits anticipated to be obtained for the proposed action include a California Fish and Game Code 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, CWA Section 401 certification, and CWA Section 404 compliance through the USACE.



Implement Water Quality BMPs BMPs that would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts associated with dam construction are described below.

Minimize Potential Impacts Associated with Equipment Contaminants For in-river work, all equipment would be steam-cleaned daily to remove hazardous materials before the equipment entered the water.

Minimize Potential Impacts Associated with Access and Staging Existing access roads would be used to the greatest extent possible. Equipment staging areas would be located outside of the San Joaquin River ordinary high water mark or the Friant Dam full pool inundation area, and away from sensitive resources.

Remove Temporary Fills, as Appropriate Temporary fill for access, side channel diversions, and/or side channel cofferdams, would be completely removed after completion of construction.

Remove Equipment from River Overnight and During High Flows Construction contractors would remove all equipment from the river at the end of each workday. Construction contractors would also monitor Reclamation’s Central Valley Operations Office Web site daily for forecasted flows posted there to determine and anticipate any potential changes in releases. If flows were anticipated to inundate a work area that would normally be dry, the contractor would immediately remove all equipment from the work area.

6.1.9 Revegetation Plan Reclamation, in conjunction with cooperating agencies and private landowners, would prepare a comprehensive Revegetation Plan to be implemented in conjunction with other management plans (e.g., SWPPP). This plan would apply to any area included as part of an alternative plan, such as inundation, relocation, or mitigation activities. Overall objectives of the Revegetation Plan would be to: reestablish native vegetation to control erosion, provide effective ground cover, minimize opportunities for nonnative plant species to establish or expand, and provide habitat diversity over time. Reclamation would work closely with cooperating agencies, private landowners, and revegetation specialists to develop the sources of native vegetation and site-specific planting patterns and species assemblages necessary for a revegetation effort of this magnitude.

6.1.10 Invasive Species Management Reclamation would develop and implement a control plan to prevent the introduction of zebra/quagga mussels (Dreissena polymorpha/Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), invasive plants, and other invasive species to project areas. The control plan would cover all workers, vehicles, watercraft, and equipment (both land and aquatic) that would come into contact with Millerton Lake, the shoreline of Millerton Lake, the San Joaquin River, and any riverbanks, floodplains, or riparian areas (Reclamation 2012c). Plan activities could include, but would not be limited to:



• Pre-inspection and cleaning of all construction vehicles, watercraft, and equipment before being shipped to project areas.

• Reinspection of all construction vehicles, watercraft, and equipment on arrival at project areas.

• Inspection and cleaning of all personnel before work in project areas.

All inspections would be conducted by trained personnel and would include both visual and hands-on inspection methods of all vehicle and equipment surfaces, up to and including, internal surfaces that have contacted raw water.

Approved cleaning methods would include a combination of the following:

• Precleaning – Draining, brushing, vacuuming, high-pressure water treatment, and/or thermal treatment.

• Cleaning – Freezing, desiccation, thermal treatment, high-pressure water treatment, and/or chemical treatment.

Onsite cleanings would require capture, treatment, and/or disposal of any and all water needed to conduct cleaning activities.

6.1.11 Construction Material Disposal Reclamation’s contractors would take measures to recycle or reuse demolished materials, such as steel or copper wire, concrete, asphalt, and reinforcing steel, as required and where practical. Other demolished materials would be disposed of in local or other identified permitted landfills in compliance with applicable requirements.

To reduce the risk to construction workers, the public, and the environment associated with exposure to hazardous materials and waste, Reclamation would implement the following:

• A Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be developed and implemented to provide information regarding hazardous materials to be used for project implementation and hazardous waste that would be generated. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan would also define employee training, use of protective equipment, and other procedures that provide an adequate basis for proper handling of hazardous materials to limit the potential for accidental releases of and exposure to hazardous materials. All procedures for handling hazardous materials would comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations.

• Soil to be disposed of at a landfill or recycling facility would be transported by a licensed waste hauler.

• All relevant available asbestos survey and abatement reports and supplemental asbestos surveys would be reviewed. Removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials would be performed in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.



• A lead-based paint survey would be conducted to determine areas where lead-based paint is present and the possible need for abatement before construction or demolition.

6.1.12 Asphalt Removal Per California Fish and Game Code 5650 Section (a), all asphaltic roadways and parking lots inundated by project implementation would be demolished and removed according to Fresno County or Madera County standards, as applicable. Asphalt would be disposed of at an approved and permitted waste facility. Dirt roads inundated by project implementation may remain in place.

6.1.13 Reduce Fugitive Dust Emissions Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would comply with Regulation VIII. Construction activities would not commence until SJVAPCD has approved the plan. Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would also implement the following SJVAPCD-recommended enhanced and additional control measures to further reduce fugitive dust emissions:

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from adjacent project areas with a slope greater than 1 percent.

• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 miles per hour.

• Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

6.1.14 Reduce Nonroad Diesel Engine Emissions Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would require all applicable construction equipment to meet the EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards and certification requirements for nonroad diesel engines in 40 CFR Part 1039. In addition, Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would comply with 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068 for exhaust emission test procedures and general compliance provisions.

6.1.15 Batch Plant Operations Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners will require the use of the best available control technology for all concrete batch plant equipment. This includes maintaining wet storage and aggregate piles, and the use of a baghouse and/or enclosures for all silos, weigh batchers, mixers, or loaders.

6.1.16 Fire Protection and Prevention Plan Reclamation, its contractors, and/or its construction partners would prepare and implement a fire protection and prevention plan, addressing the following topics (found in 29 CFR 1926.150), to minimize the risk of wildfire or threat to workers, property, and the public:

• Dispensing of flammable/combustible liquids.

• Welding and cutting.



• Use, storage, and transport of compressed gas cylinders.

• Managing open and enclosed storage yards or facilities.

• Fire prevention measures.

• Fire emergency response.

6.2 Mitigation Actions A list of mitigation actions, which were developed through preparation of the in-progress Final EIS, is provided as an attachment to the Feasibility and Implementation Risk Tab for this application. Please refer to FIR A5: Project Impacts on Environmental and Cultural Resource and Mitigation. Pursuant to Section 15097 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA lead agency, in coordination with responsible agencies, will also prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR are implemented to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.



This page left blank intentionally

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 7 Adaptive Management Plan


CHAPTER 7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The TFR Project provides ecosystem improvements to the San Joaquin River through the storage and release of additional water supplies in a manner that improves reservoir water temperature and river flows for the benefit of anadromous fish. The ecosystem improvements provided by the Project will be supplemental to ecosystem conditions established and maintained by the SJRRP. To assure the continued provision of ecosystem improvements from the TFR Project, the adaptive management plan will need to include close coordination with the SJRRP, project investors, Reclamation, and federal and state resource agencies participating through the SJRRP and on behalf of the State of California for the administration of WSIP funds. The large storage capacity of the TFR Project provides flexibility in adapting operations and timing to balance multiple needs and provide ecosystem benefits as conditions change, while still maintaining non-public benefits funded by investors.

The Operating Plan presented in this application includes releases from Friant Dam to the San Joaquin River for downstream delivery to San Joaquin Valley water users that provide in-river flow and temperature conditions that are beneficial for anadromous fish. It also includes releases for delivery of Incremental Level 4 water supplies to wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin Valley. Releases to the San Joaquin River for downstream delivery to water users evaluated in the Operating Plan would be made predominately during the irrigation season under all water year types.

The TFR Project Adaptive Management Plan will involve close coordination with the existing SJRRP monitoring programs, which are consistent with the adaptive management framework, and provide additional supplemental monitoring when necessary. The SJRRP has a well-established adaptive management and monitoring program that was developed by the Fisheries Management Work Group (FMWG), comprising representatives of the USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, and DWR.

The FMWG developed a Fisheries Management Plan (FMP), a living document which provides a roadmap to adaptively manage efforts to restore and maintain naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of Chinook salmon and other fish in the Restoration Area. In general, the SJRRP adaptive management framework is structured in the following manner:

• Define problems and develop goals and objectives

• Utilize conceptual and quantitative models

• Develop performance measures and metrics of success

• Monitor and evaluate

• Assess the results of monitoring



• Adapt as necessary

At this time, the need for additional monitoring stations or data beyond that already implemented for the SJRRP, is not known. The adaptive management of the TFR Project would include access to SJRRP-collected data and evaluations, such as water temperature, quality, and flow. The monitoring and management plans included in the SJRRP Physical Monitoring and Management Plan include the following:

• Flow

• Groundwater

• Aerial and Topographic Surveys

• Vegetation Surveys

• Sediment Mobilization

• Seepage

• Channel Capacity

• Spawning Gravel

The SJRRP Physical Monitoring and Management Plan does not include a specific temperature monitoring and management plan, but the SJRRP Fisheries Management Plan recognizes unsuitable water temperature as a limiting factor for fish species. Therefore, maintaining suitable water temperatures for spring-run Chinook salmon at each lifestage throughout the Restoration Area comprises several Habitat Objectives in the Fisheries Management Plan. The recommended monitoring and evaluation includes monitoring water temperature real-time at several locations throughout the Restoration Area. The SJRRP Fisheries Management Plan can be found at: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=7569.

More detailed monitoring and management programs would be developed for the TFR Project, as necessary, to identify specific methods for implementation, including exact monitoring locations, standards for data collection, and guidelines for implementation of long-term management actions.

The TFR Project Adaptive Management Plan also will include provisions to adjust the timing of deliveries for downstream diversion and to refuges on a real time basis to achieve ecosystem improvements. The TFR Project releases to the San Joaquin River and subsequent downstream diversion would be scheduled by the account owner based on timing parameters identified in their agreements. The schedule would be coordinated with the SJRRP to identify the relationship of the releases with the planned schedule for Restoration Flows. Potential adjustments to timing will be identified that could help contribute to desired water temperature flow effects. Adjustments to the TFR Project releases would be possible within the established framework for water delivery to storage account owners, which would specify available timeframes for delivery, release and delivery quantities, timing and flow rates during the delivery period, and points of diversion. The schedule also would be coordinated with Central Valley

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=7569



Project Operations (CVO), Friant Division operators, CDFW, and other affected entities. Through this coordination, the TFR Project would be integrated with the operation of statewide water systems.

TFR Project releases to the San Joaquin River for delivery of Incremental Level 4 water supplies to refuges would be scheduled by the CVPIA Refuge Water Supply Program. The release schedule evaluated in this application assumes deliveries to Mendota Pool in April and the management of the supply by the Refuge Program either for direct delivery to refuges or exchanges for deliveries later in the year. Actual operations, however, could vary widely with releases for refuge exchange or delivery throughout the irrigation season, or deliveries to refuges for flooding in mid-fall, typically November. This operational flexibility would be defined in the storage account agreement held by the Refuge Water Supply Program. In developing the annual schedule, the Refuge Water Supply Program would be coordinated with SJRRP to identify the relationship of the releases with planned schedule for Restoration Flows. Potential adjustments to timing will be identified that could help contribute to desired water temperature flow effects. The schedule also would be coordinated with CVO, Friant Division operators, CDFW, and other affected entities.




Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 8 References


CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED). 2000a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento, California. July.

______. 2000b. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. August.

______. 2000c. CALFED Initial Surface Water Storage Screening. August.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2014. The California Water Plan, Update 2013, Bulletin 160-09. Sacramento, California. October.

Forbes, H. 1930. Geological Report on Friant, Fort Miller, and Temperance Flat dam sites on San Joaquin River. For State of California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. March.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1980. Report on Reservoir Regulation for Flood Control, Friant Dam and Millerton Lake, San Joaquin River, California. December.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2012. Draft CVPIA Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Work Plan: Refuge Water Supply Program – Water Acquisition Component (CVPIA Section 3406 [d] [2]). Prepared by T. Rust (Reclamation), Dale Garrison Service (FWS) and Brian Cary (DFG). August.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources (Reclamation and DWR). 2003. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Phase 1 Investigation Report. Mid-Pacific Region. Sacramento, California. October.

______. 2005. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Initial Alternatives Information Report. Mid-Pacific Region. Sacramento, California. June.

______. 2008. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Plan Formulation Report. Mid-Pacific Region. Sacramento, California. October.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Grassland Water District (Reclamation et al.). 2001. Refuge Water Supply, Long-Term Water Supply Agreements – San Joaquin Basin, Final NEPA Environmental Assessment and CEQA Initial Studies. Sacramento, California. January.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Parks & Recreation (Reclamation and State Parks). 2010. Millerton Lake Final Resource Management Plan/General Plan EIS/EIR. April.

Temperance Flat Reservoir Project Chapter 8 References



Documents

Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 ... · PDF fileContents . ii – August 2017 Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A3 Project Description . 3.8 Project