Attachment_2_-Battle_Creek_Water_Temperatures_for_Battle_Creek_Proposed_Alternatives_Memorandum.pdf
PDF 1 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140R2023Q0100
About this file
This memorandum analyzes water temperature modeling results for 10 alternatives proposed for the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project in Northern California. The modeling evaluated how flows and temperatures in Battle Creek and its tributaries would change under each alternative from June through September using 2012 and 2015 hydrologic conditions. Key details include that the alternatives vary the routing of flows from diversions on North Fork and South Fork Battle Creek to hydroelectric facilities. The modeling predicts how these different flow scenarios would affect water temperatures at locations like the Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam, the North Fork Battle Creek confluence, and the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace, which supplies water to the Coleman National Fish Hatchery. The alternatives with the highest flows in North Fork Battle Creek, such as full decommissioning, resulted in the coolest predicted temperatures in that watershed. Tradeoffs exist between minimizing temperatures in Battle Creek versus the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace, which supplies the hatchery. The memorandum provides temperature results to help resource agencies evaluate the alternatives.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
980 9th Street, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: 916‐737‐3000 Fax: 866‐771‐9385
Memorandum
| To: Mary | Marshall, | U.S. | Bureau | of | Reclamation |
| Trang | Nguyen, | U.S. | Bureau | of | Reclamation |
| From: Anne | Huber, | ICF | |||
| Russ | Brown, | Russ | Brown | River | Consulting |
| cc: Colleen | Lingappaiah, | ICF, | Project | Manager |
| Christy | Corzine, | ICF, | Project | Director |
| Sara | Martin, | ICF, | Project | Coordinator |
Date: August 16, 2019
Re: Battle Creek Water Temperatures for Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project Proposed Alternatives
Purpose
| The | purpose | of | this | memorandum | is | to | provide | Battle | Creek | water | temperature | modeling | results | to |
| the | U.S. | Bureau | of | Reclamation | (USBR), | National | Marine | Fisheries | Service | (NMFS), | U.S. | Fish | and | |
| Wildlife | Service | (USFWS), | and | California | Department | of | Fish | and | Wildlife | (CDFW). | These | Resource | ||
| Agencies,1 | along | with | Pacific | Gas | and | Electric | Company | (PG&E) | are | signatories | to | the | 1999 | |
| Memorandum | of | Understanding | (MOU) | for | the | Battle | Creek | Salmon | and | Steelhead | Restoration | |||
| Project | (Restoration | Project).2 | PG&E | is | the | owner | and | operator | of | the | facilities | referenced | in | this |
| memorandum, | all | of | which | fall | under | PG&E’s | Battle | Creek | Hydroelectric | Project | (Hydroelectric | |||
| Project), | Federal | Energy | Regulatory | Commission | (FERC) | Number | 1121. |
| The | Resource | Agencies | are | reviewing | 10 | alternatives | that | have | been | proposed | for | the | Hydroelectric | |||
| Project | and | are | discussed | in | detail | in | the | Battle | Creek | Hydroelectric | Project | Alternatives | Evaluation | |||
| Report | (Alternatives | Evaluation | Report). | The | purpose | of | the | Alternatives | Evaluation | Report | is | to | ||||
| provide | the | Battle | Creek | Resource | Agency | Management | Team | (Management | Team)3 | with | ||||||
| information | relevant | to | the | consideration | of | the | future | disposition | and | operation | of | the | assets | that | ||
| make | up | FERC | Project | No. | 1121. | In | July | 2018, | PG&E | informed | the | Management | Team | that | its | intent |
| was | to | either | transfer | ownership | to | a | willing | buyer | or | decommission | the | Hydroelectric | Project; |
| 1 | The | Battle | Creek | Resource | Agencies | include | USBR, | NMFS, | USFWS, | and | CDFW. | |||||||
| 2 | The | Restoration | Project, | created | by | the | 1999 | MOU | signatories, | was | intended | to | reestablish | 48 | miles | of | salmon | and |
| steelhead | habitat | on | Battle | Creek | and | its | tributaries | while | minimizing | the | loss | of | hydroelectric | power. | ||||
| 3 | The | Management | Team | comprises | management | representatives | from | NMFS, | USFWS, | USBR, | CDFW, | and | the | State | ||||
| Water | Resources | Control | Board. |
Battle Creek Water Temperatures for Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project Proposed Alternatives August 16, 2019
| PG&E | does | not | intend | to | seek | a | new | FERC | license | when | the | current | license | expires | in | July | 2026. |
| PG&E | asked | the | Management | Team | to | consider | taking | over | operation | of | the | Hydroelectric | Project. |
The 10 proposed alternatives in the Alternatives Evaluation Report are listed below.
Alternative 1, Full Decommissioning of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Full Restoration)
Alternative 2, Full Decommissioning of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Safe Abandonment)
Alternative 3, Existing Conditions (2019)
Alternative 4, Restoration Project
Alternative 5, Restoration Project without Inskip Powerhouse and Inskip Diversion Dam
Alternative 6, Volta Diversions Only
Alternative 7, Volta and North Battle Creek Feeder Diversions Only
Alternative 8, Volta and Eagle Canyon Diversions Only
Alternative 9, Eagle Canyon Diversion Only
| Alternative | 10, | Volta | Diversions | Returned | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | and | Eagle | Canyon |
| Diversions | Only |
| In | this | memorandum, | the | evaluation | of | water | temperatures | focusses | on | particular | locations | of |
| interest | and | locations | that | best | exemplify | differences | between | the | alternatives. | Temperature | results | |
| for | additional | locations | are | presented | in | Attachment | A. |
General Conclusions
| In | many | stream | reaches | supplied | by | cold | water | (either | from | springs | or | cold | reservoir | releases), |
| temperature | investigations | are | relatively | straightforward. | The | main | question | is | about | how | much | |||
| flow | is | needed | to | meet | specific | temperature | objectives | without | depleting | coldwater | supplies | and | ||
| diversions. | The | Battle | Creek | system, | however, | is | more | complicated, | with | additional | tradeoffs | to |
consider.
| Under | historic | conditions, | coldwater | powerhouse | releases | have | helped | reduce | temperatures | in | |||||
| South | Fork | Battle | Creek. | However, | even | with | these | coldwater | inflows, | temperatures | in | South | Fork | ||
| Battle | Creek | are | relatively | warm | compared | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek, | which | has | cooler | upstream | |
| inflow | temperatures, | more | shade, | and | more | spring | inflows. | All | proposed | alternatives, | except | the | |||
| existing | conditions | alternative | (Alternative | 3), | eliminate | coldwater | inflows | to | South | Fork | Battle | ||||
| Creek | at | South | Powerhouse | and | Inskip | Powerhouse, | and | allow | those | flows | to | either | remain | in | North |
| Fork | Battle | Creek | or | flow | directly | to | Coleman | Powerhouse. |
| From | a | temperature | perspective, | the | main | tradeoff | between | the | proposed | alternatives | is | how | much | ||||
| water | to | leave | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | versus | how | much | water | to | allow | to | flow | through | the |
| powerhouses | directly | to | Coleman | Canal | and | Coleman | Powerhouse. | Leaving | water | in | North | Fork | |||||
| Battle | Creek | may | help | fish | in | the | creek | but | may | cause | an | increase | in | water | temperature | at | the |
| Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace. |
evanseeters Highlight
| This | tradeoff | can | be | seen | by | comparing | the | temperatures | in | Battle | Creek | upstream | of | Coleman | |
| Powerhouse | to | those | temperature | in | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace. | Temperature | differences | |||||
| between | the | alternatives | tend | to | be | largest | from | June | through | August, | the | months | that | typically | have |
| the | warmest | water | temperatures. | The | tradeoff | between | minimizing | temperatures | in | Battle | Creek | ||||
| versus | minimizing | temperatures | in | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | are | exemplified | by | the | ||||
| calculated | monthly | average | July | temperatures | with | 2012 | hydrology | (Table | 1) | and | 2015 | hydrology | |||
| (Table | 2). | The | alternatives | that | produce | cooler | temperatures | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | and | ||
| upstream | of | Coleman | Powerhouse | are | generally | the | same | alternatives | that | produce | warmer | water | |||
| temperatures | in | the | powerhouse. |
| Coleman | National | Fish | Hatchery | can | obtain | water | from | Battle | Creek | and | from | the | Coleman | |||
| Powerhouse | tailrace. | For | Alternatives | 3 | through | 10, | the | calculated | temperatures | are | generally | |||||
| cooler | in | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | than | in | Battle | Creek | upstream | of | the | tailrace. | Even | ||
| though | the | canals | have | less | shade | than | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | and | the | mainstem | of | Battle | Creek, |
| the | water | can | move | quickly | through | the | canals, | causing | less | warming. | If | the | goal | for | the | proposed |
| alternatives | is | to | deliver | cold | water | to | the | Coleman | National | Fish | Hatchery, | then | the | |||
| recommendation | would | be | to | divert | cold | water | into | the | canals | (e.g., | not | from | the | downstream | end | of |
| South | Fork | Battle | Creek) | with | flow | high | enough | to | limit | warming | in | the | canals. |
| If | the | goal | of | the | proposed | alternatives | is | to | reduce | water | temperature | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek, |
| then | the | recommendation | would | be | to | run | all | water | through | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | (Table | 1 | and |
| Table | 2). | The | full | decommissioning | alternatives | (Alternatives | 1 | and | 2) | would | move | the | most | water | ||
| through | North | Fork | Battle | Creek, | and | the | existing | conditions | alternative | (Alternative | 3) | would | move | |||
| the | least | water | through | North | Fork | Battle | Creek, | with | flows | for | the | other | alternatives | falling | in | |
| between. | The | Restoration | Project | alternatives | (Alternatives | 4 | and | 5) | would | move | only | slightly | more | |||
| water | through | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | than | Alternative | 3. | The | Restoration | Project | alternatives | ||||
| could | provide | increased | flows | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek, | similar | to | the | other | alternatives, | by | ||
| increasing | MOU‐prescribed | instream | flows | and | allowing | water | to | be | released | from | the | Volta | 2 | |||
| tailrace | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | to | attain | those | targets. |
| To | provide | more | accurate | results, | additional | improvements | could | be | made | to | the | water | temperature | |
| model, | including | further | calibration | adjustments | to | channel | geometry, | spring | temperatures, | and | ||||
| spring | flows; | evaluation | of | additional | years | of | hydrology; | cosmetic | improvements | to | the | |||
| spreadsheet | and | graphs; | further | evaluation | of | the | historic | and | proposed | alternative | flow | |||
| calculations; | and | incorporation | of | any | new | channel | geometry | and | water | temperature | data | collected | ||
| from | the | canals. | These | improvements | would | be | unlikely | to | change | the | conclusions | that | can | be |
| drawn | from | the | temperature | results | presented | in | this | memorandum. | Additional | evaluation | of | |||
| temperature | effects | upstream | of | the | temperature | model’s | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | boundary | at | the | |
| North | Battle | Creek | Feeder | (NBCF) | Diversion | Dam, | however, | could | influence | decisions | about | |||
| whether | to | curtail | diversions | to | the | Volta | powerhouses | and | whether | to | release | Volta | 2 | tailrace |
| water | flows | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | downstream | of | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam. |
evanseeters Highlight evanseeters Highlight evanseeters Highlight
Table 1. Calculated Average July Water Temperatures and Flow for the 10 Proposed Alternatives with 2012 Hydrologic Conditions
Location
Alternatives
1 and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Water Temperature (ºF)
Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam 57.9 59.0 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 57.9 57.9
Wildcat Diversion Dam Site 58.3 61.1 60.7 60.7 59.1 59.1 60.5 59.1 59.1
North Fork Battle Creek‐Mouth 59.5 64.3 63.6 63.6 60.8 60.8 63.5 61.1 61.1
South Fork Battle Creek‐Mouth 68.8 66.6 69.7 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8
Battle Creek Confluence 63.5 65.9 67.8 67.3 65.0 65.0 67.3 65.6 65.6
| Battle | Creek | upstream | of | Coleman |
| Powerhouse | Tailrace |
66.1 70.9 71.3 70.7 68.2 68.2 70.7 68.8 68.8
Coleman Powerhouse Tailrace NA 65.3 63.2 63.7 66.5 66.5 63.8 63.7 63.7
| Battle | Creek | downstream | of |
| Coleman | Powerhouse | Tailrace |
66.7 68.0 67.9 68.2 68.3 68.3 68.2 67.8 67.8
Battle Creek‐Mouth 68.9 70.0 69.9 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 69.8 69.8
Flow (cfs)
Volta Powerhouse 0 47 47 47 47 47 47 0 47
North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion
0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross‐Country Canal 0 87 79 79 60 65 60 0 0
Eagle Canyon Canal 0 35 34 34 0 0 48 64 64
| Downstream | of | Eagle | Canyon |
| Diversion | Dam |
130 30 35 35 83 83 35 66 66
Inskip Diversion Dam 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
Downstream of Coleman Diversion Dam
68 30 54 68 68 68 68 68 68
Coleman Powerhouse 0 148 118 104 56 56 104 73 73
Table 2. Calculated Average July Water Temperatures and Flow for the 10 Proposed Alternatives with 2015 Hydrologic Conditions
Location
Alternatives
1 and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Water Temperature (ºF)
Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam 59.4 61.6 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 59.4 59.4
Wildcat Diversion Dam Site 59.4 62.1 61.6 61.6 60.1 60.1 61.2 60.8 60.8
North Fork Battle Creek‐Mouth 60.8 65.2 64.4 64.4 62.0 62.0 64.1 63.5 63.5
South Fork Battle Creek‐Mouth 71.6 68.1 71.8 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6
Battle Creek Confluence 65.4 67.2 69.3 69.3 67.0 67.0 69.2 68.7 68.7
| Battle | Creek | upstream | of | Coleman |
| Powerhouse | Tailrace |
68.3 72.1 72.7 72.6 70.4 70.4 72.6 72.1 72.1
Coleman Powerhouse Tailrace NA 68.2 66.0 66.2 69.3 69.3 66.3 64.7 64.7
| Battle | Creek | downstream | of |
| Coleman | Powerhouse | Tailrace |
68.9 70.5 70.5 70.7 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.0 70.0
Battle Creek‐Mouth 71.3 72.6 72.7 72.7 72.7 72.7 72.7 72.2 72.2
Flow (cfs)
Volta Powerhouse 0 36 36 36 36 36 36 0 36
North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion
0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross‐Country Canal 0 67 52 52 38 38 38 0 0
Eagle Canyon Canal 0 10 19 19 0 0 33 64 64
| Downstream | of | Eagle | Canyon |
| Diversion | Dam |
104 30 35 35 68 68 35 41 41
Inskip Diversion Dam 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
| Downstream | of | Coleman |
| Diversion | Dam |
56 30 53 56 56 56 56 56 56
Coleman Powerhouse 0 107 79 76 43 43 76 70 70
Background
| With | four | Chinook | salmon | runs | now | utilizing | Battle | Creek | (winter | run, | spring | run, | fall | run, | and | late‐ | |
| fall | run) | the | thresholds | for | the | various | life | stages | are | applicable | almost | year‐round. | Winter‐run | ||||
| Chinook | salmon | egg | incubation | is | the | most | vulnerable | to | elevated | temperatures | because | adults | |||||
| spawn | over | the | spring | and | summer | months | (April | through | August) | and | egg | incubation | requires | the | |||
| coolest | temperatures. | For | egg | incubation, | average | temperatures | of | 56 | degrees | Fahrenheit | (ºF) | to | |||||
| 60ºF | represent | a | transition | from | 100% | to | 50% | survival | (Kier | Associates | 1999). | At | the | Coleman | |||
| National | Fish | Hatchery, | water | temperature | is | a | concern | during | the | late‐spring | and | summer | months. | ||||
| Coded‐wire | tagging | of | Chinook | salmon | and | steelhead | may | need | to | be | suspended | prematurely | in | May | |||
| or | June | if | water | temperature | reaches | 65ºF. | Water | temperature | in | the | adult | collection | pond | is | also | a | |
| concern | from | May | through | July | when | adult | spring | and | winter | Chinook | salmon | are | collected. | When | |||
| the | average | daily | water | temperature | reaches | 68ºF, | adult | collection | is | discontinued | and | all | fish | are | |||
| allowed | to | ascend | the | fish | ladder | into | upper | Battle | Creek. | This | is | a | concern | because | the | Battle | Creek |
| Winter‐run | Chinook | Salmon | Jumpstart | Project4 | calls | for | all | winter‐run | Chinook | salmon | to | be | |||||
| intercepted | for | tissue | collection | (genetic | analysis) | and | for | a | subset | to | be | transferred | to | the | |||
| Livingston | Stone | National | Fish | Hatchery | near | Shasta | Dam | for | inclusion | in | the | broodstock | program. |
| Since | 2000, | Battle | Creek | water | temperatures | have | been | measured | at | more | than | 25 | locations | by | the | ||
| California | Department | of | Water | Resources | (DWR) | and | USFWS. | Suitable | temperatures | for | Chinook | ||||||
| salmon | and | steelhead | spawning, | egg | incubation, | and | rearing | are | limited | by | the | historical | inflow | and | |||
| temperatures | at | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | and | the | South | Diversion | Dam. | The | Restoration | Project | ||||
| final | environmental | impact | statement/environmental | impact | report’s | (Jones | & | Stokes | 2005) | ||||||||
| evaluation | of | monthly | hydrology | indicates | that | NBCF | inflow, | largely | from | Rock | and | Bailey | Creeks, | ||||
| varies | from | 20 | to | 40 | cubic | feet | per | second | (cfs) | during | the | low‐flow | summer | months | of | June | to |
| September, | when | water | temperature | is | warmest. | This | is | less | than | the | 1999 | MOU | prescribed | flow | of | ||
| 47 | cfs | for | summer; | therefore, | no | diversions | would | be | allowed | at | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | with | the | |
| Restoration | Project. | South | Diversion | Dam | inflow | also | varies | from | 20 | to | 40 | cfs | during | the | low‐flow | ||
| summer | months | of | June | to | September. | Because | of | differences | in | spring | inflows | and | shading, | water | in | ||
| North | Fork | Battle | Creek | is | generally | cooler | than | water | in | South | Fork | Battle | Creek. |
| PG&E’s | hydroelectric | power | facilities | are | designed | to | release | South | Powerhouse | tailrace | water | into | ||||
| South | Fork | Battle | Creek, | then | divert | the | water | into | Inskip | Canal | and | Inskip | Powerhouse | (Figure | 1). | |
| Inskip | Powerhouse | tailrace | water | is | released | to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | and | rediverted | into | |||
| Coleman | Canal | and | Coleman | Powerhouse. | The | Restoration | Project | would | separate | North | Fork | Battle | ||||
| Creek | water | in | Cross | Country | Canal | and | Eagle | Canyon | Canal | from | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | water | by |
| constructing | tailrace | connectors | from | South | Powerhouse | to | Inskip | Canal | (still | to | be | constructed) | ||||
| and | from | Inskip | Powerhouse | to | Coleman | Canal | (construction | completed). | Because | North | Fork | Battle | ||||
| Creek | water | released | to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | provides | cooling, | the | general | effect | of | the | ||
| Restoration | Project | would | be | slightly | warmer | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | water | temperatures | below | ||||
| the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam. | However, | because | the | Restoration | Project | would | also | eliminate | |||||
| diversions | at | the | South | Diversion | Dam, | flows | downstream | of | the | South | Diversion | Dam | would | be |
4 The Battle Creek Winter-run Chinook Salmon Jumpstart Project was initiated in an effort to establish a second population of winter-run Chinook salmon outside of the Sacramento River because of poor returns following the 2012–2015 drought. The project was implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to expedite reintroduction efforts in Battle Creek using the progeny of captive broodstock from Livingston National Fish Hatchery.
| increased | from | a | minimum | flow | of | 5 | cfs | to | full | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | inflow; | therefore, | the |
| warming | in | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | below | the | South | Diversion | Dam | would | be | less. |
| A | daily | flow | and | hourly | water | temperature | model | of | Battle | Creek | was | developed | by | ICF | (funded | by |
| the | State | Water | Resources | Control | Board) | to | evaluate | the | effects | of | increased | flows | on | water | ||
| temperatures. | The | model | was | calibrated | with | 2012 | historical | flows | and | measured | water | |||||
| temperatures | (ICF | 2019) | and | included | Battle | Creek, | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | downstream | of | NBCF | |||
| Diversion | Dam, | and | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | downstream | of | South | Diversion | Dam | (Figure | 2). | This | ||
| original | model | was | recently | modified | to | calculate | water | temperatures | in | PG&E’s | hydroelectric | |||||
| power | canals | and | the | effects | of | rerouting | flows | under | the | 10 | different | alternative | scenarios | |||
| proposed | for | PG&E’s | Hydroelectric | Project | for | 2012 | and | 2015 | hydrologic | conditions | (i.e., | measured | ||||
| flows | and | temperatures | from | 2012 | and | 2015 | were | used | to | estimate | the | boundary | conditions | for | the | |
| model). | The | temperature | effects | from | Soap | Creek, | Digger | Creek, | Baldwin | Creek, | Darrah | Creek, | the | |||
| springs | along | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | near | the | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam, | and | the | springs | on | |
| South | Fork | Battle | Creek | downstream | of | Soap | Creek | were | also | added | to | the | new | Battle | Creek | |
| temperature | model. |
Figure 1. Restoration Project (Showing Elements to be Removed/Decommissioned)
Figure 2. Battle Creek River Segments and Diversion Dams
| Geographic | information | system | (GIS) | mapping | of | the | wetted | channel | was | used | to | make | adjustments | |
| to | channel | widths | at | some | locations. | Vegetation | coverage | information | from | GIS | mapping | was | used | to |
| estimate | shade | factors | for | each | 1‐mile | stream | segment. | Many | of | the | newly | estimated | shade | factors |
| were | greater | than | the | original | estimates, | particularly | on | North | Fork | Battle | Creek. | The | increased | |
| shade | values | reduced | average | water | temperatures | as | well | as | daily | variations | in | North | Fork | Battle |
| Creek. | The | daily | variations | were | increased | to | match | the | measured | daily | variations | by | reducing | the |
| estimated | water | depth. | Calculated | longitudinal | monthly | temperatures | (minimum, | average, | and | |||||
| maximum) | were | compared | to | measured | monthly | temperatures, | along | with | monthly | average | flows | |||
| from | June, | July, | August, | and | September, | to | provide | a | visual | summary | of | the | calculated | temperature |
| patterns | for | each | of | the | proposed | alternatives. |
Temperatures for 2012 Historic Flows
| Weather | data | collected | by | USFWS | at | the | PG&E | substation | in | Manton, | California, | between | March | |
| 2008 | and | April | 2019, | allow | a | characterization | of | the | 2012 | and | 2015 | meteorological | conditions | near |
| Battle | Creek | (Table | 3). | Monthly | precipitation | during | calendar | year | 2012 | was | similar | to | average | |
| values | with | the | exception | of | November | and | December, | which | had | precipitation | 2.0 | inches | and | 6.4 |
| inches | greater | than | average | (Table | 3). | Monthly | average | air | temperatures | during | 2012 | also | were | |
| similar | to | the | average | with | the | greatest | deviation | occurring | in | March, | when | temperatures | were | |
| 3.1ºF | cooler | than | average. |
Table 3. Comparison of 2012 and 2015 Manton Meteorological Conditions to Average Values Measured between March 2008 and April 2019
Month
Precipitation (inches) Air Temperature (ºF)
Average
Deviation from Average
Deviation from Average Average
Deviation from Average
Deviation from Average
Jan 3.2 1.6 ‐2.9 46.1 ‐1.5 3.3
Feb 3.5 ‐1.9 ‐1.2 46.6 ‐0.8 6.6
Mar 3.7 1.3 ‐3.0 49.5 ‐3.1 6.9
Apr 2.2 0.2 ‐0.8 54.7 ‐1.0 1.7
May 1.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.7 62.7 0.9 0.1
Jun 0.9 0.2 ‐0.6 71.8 ‐2.6 5.3
Jul 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1 ‐2.6 ‐0.4
Aug 0.1 ‐0.1 ‐0.1 76.9 2.0 ‐0.3
Sep 0.4 ‐0.4 0.0 72.1 2.4 ‐0.6
Oct 1.7 0.3 ‐1.1 60.8 0.0 4.2
Nov 3.2 2.0 ‐0.8 50.0 0.9 ‐3.2
Dec 5.2 6.4 1.7 43.5 ‐2.1 ‐2.2
Total 25.3 9.3 ‐9.5
‐7.5 21.5
| Figure | 3 | shows | the | measured | and | calculated | monthly | average | temperatures | of | the | 2012 | historic | |||
| flows | from | June | through | September. | The | 2012 | historic | flows | below | the | South | Diversion | Dam | were | ||
| low | (more | than | 10 | cfs); | therefore, | the | downstream | temperatures | increased | fairly | rapidly. | The | ||||
| combination | of | Soap | Creek | and | the | nearby | unnamed | springs | provided | cooling | upstream | of | the | South | ||
| Powerhouse | releases | at | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam. | South | Powerhouse | and | Inskip | Powerhouse | |||||
| tailrace | flows | were | released | to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | in | 2012 | and | provided | substantial | cooling | ||
| with | respect | to | South | Fork | temperatures. | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | were | less | than | 25 | cfs | |
| upstream | of | Inskip | Powerhouse | releases | at | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam, | with | interim | instream | ||||
| releases | of | about | 40 | cfs | to | 50 | cfs | downstream | of | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam. | The | average | South |
| Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | were | generally | greater | than | 60°F | in | all | four | months | (June | to |
September).
| North | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | were | cooler | than | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | |||||
| because | temperatures | at | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | were | cooler, | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | shade | ||||
| (vegetation | coverage) | was | higher, | and | flows | were | higher. | From | June | through | September, | the | North | ||||
| Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | below | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | were | measured | or | estimated | to | be | between | ||
| 25 | cfs | and | 45 | cfs. | The | amount | of | water | available | for | diversion | at | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam | was |
| the | sum | of | these | flows, | flow | from | Digger | Creek, | and | flow | from | nearby | springs, | minus | the | 30 | cfs |
| interim | instream | flow | objective | below | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam. | The | springs | near | the | Eagle | ||||
| Canyon | Diversion | Dam, | with | an | estimated | flow | of | 10 | cfs | (PG&E | 2015), | cooled | the | water | below | the | |
| dam; | average | temperatures | below | the | dam | remained | at | cooler | than | 60°F | in | July | and | August. | The | ||
| average | June | and | September | temperatures | at | the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam | site | (stream | segment | NF2) | ||||
| were | cooler | than | 60°F, | but | the | average | July | and | August | temperatures | at | the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam | ||
| site | were | close | to | 60°F. |
| Some | of | the | proposed | alternatives | would | increase | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | by | increasing | flow | ||
| targets, | decommissioning | all | hydroelectric | power | facilities | to | provide | full | natural | flows | along | North | ||||
| Fork | and | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | (Alternatives | 1 | and | 2), | eliminating | diversions | at | the | NBCF | ||
| Diversion | Dam | or | the | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam | (Alternatives | 6 | through | 9), | or | releasing | all | of | the |
| Volta | tailrace | water | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | (Alternative | 10). | The | expected | North | Fork | Battle | ||
| Creek | temperature | effect | is | an | important | consideration | for | selecting | an | alternative | because | of | the | |||
| importance | of | this | habitat | to | the | recovery | of | spring‐run | and | winter‐run | Chinook | salmon. |
| During | 2012, | Battle | Creek | temperatures | downstream | of | the | confluence | of | North | Fork | and | South | ||
| Fork | Battle | Creek | increased | gradually; | flows | were | slightly | cooled | by | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | |||
| releases. | The | calculated | warming | gradient | (°F | per | mile) | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | was | similar | to |
| the | calculated | warming | gradient | in | Battle | Creek. | The | maximum | temperatures | upstream | of | Coleman | |||
| Powerhouse | tailrace | remained | cooler | than | 70°F | during | the | low‐flow | summer | months | of | June | |||
| through | September. | Some | of | the | proposed | alternatives | would | reduce | Coleman | Powerhouse | flows. | ||||
| The | effects | of | reduced | Coleman | Powerhouse | flows | on | tailrace | temperatures | are | important | ||||
| considerations | for | selecting | an | alternative | because | water | from | the | tailrace | is | diverted | to | the | ||
| Coleman | National | Fish | Hatchery, | and | the | temperature | of | the | water | received | by | the | hatchery | needs | |
| to | be | suitable | for | rearing | fish. |
Figure 3a. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2012 Historic Flows for June
Figure 3b. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2012 Historic Flows for July
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek June Temperatures ‐ 2012 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek July Temperatures ‐ 2012 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman DamEagle
Dam Coleman
PH
Figure 3c. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2012 Historic Flows for August
Figure 3d. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2012 Historic Flows for September
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek August Temperatures ‐ 2012 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek September Temperatures ‐ 2012 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Temperatures for 2015 Historic Flows
| Monthly | precipitation | during | calendar | year | 2015 | was | substantially | lower | than | average, | with | the | |||
| annual | total | being | 9.5 | inches | less | than | average | (Table | 3). | During | 2015, | monthly | air | temperatures | |
| were | substantially | warmer | (i.e., | warmer | than | 5ºF) | than | average | during | February, | March, | and | June. | ||
| Generally, | the | warmest | water | temperatures | in | the | northern | hemisphere | occur | during | July | and | |||
| August. | However, | the | exceptionally | warm | air | temperatures | that | occurred | during | June | 2015, | caused | |||
| Battle | Creek | water | temperature | to | peak | during | June | and | July | 2015, | instead | of | the | more | typical |
| months | of | July | and | August. |
| Figure | 4 | shows | the | measured | and | calculated | monthly | average | temperatures | for | the | 2015 | historic | |||
| flows | from | June | through | September. | Because | South | Canal | was | damaged, | 2015 | historic | flows | below | |||
| the | South | Diversion | Dam | were | about | 25 | to | 50 | cfs. | Higher | flows | downstream | of | South | Diversion | Dam |
| relative | to | 2012, | meant | that | Soap | Creek | at | stream | segment | SF11 | and | the | unnamed | springs | at | stream |
| segment | SF10 | had | a | reduced | effect | on | temperatures | in | South | Fork | Battle | Creek. | South | Powerhouse | ||
| and | Inskip | Powerhouse | tailrace | flows | were | released | to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | in | 2015 | and | ||
| provided | substantial | cooling | with | respect | to | South | Fork | temperatures. | Nevertheless, | average | South | |||||
| Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | were | generally | warmer | than | 60°F | in | all | four | months | (June | through |
September).
| North | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | were | cooler | than | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | |||||
| because | the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | temperatures | were | cooler | and | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | shade | ||||
| (vegetation | coverage) | was | higher. | From | June | through | September, | the | 2015 | North | Fork | flows | below | ||||
| the | NBCF | Diversion | Dam | were | 15 | to | 20 | cfs, | and | the | flows | below | the | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam |
| were | about | 35 | cfs | for | the | summer | months. | The | springs | near | the | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam, | with | |
| an | estimated | flow | of | 10 | cfs, | cooled | the | water | below | the | dam; | average | temperatures | below | the | dam | |
| remained | near | 60°F | or | below. | The | average | September | temperatures | at | the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam | ||||
| (stream | segment | NF2) | were | lower | than | 60°F, | but | the | average | June | through | August | temperatures | at | |||
| the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam | were | 60°F | or | warmer. |
Figure 4a. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2015 Historic Flows for June
Figure 4b. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2015 Historic Flows for July
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek June Temperatures ‐ 2015 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek July Temperatures ‐ 2015 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman DamEagle
Dam
Figure 4c. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2015 Historic Flows for August
Figure 4d. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for 2015 Historic Flows for September
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek August Temperatures ‐ 2015 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek September Temperatures ‐ 2015 Historic Conditions
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
| The | 2015 | measured | water | temperature | data | for | Eagle | Canyon | Canal | indicated | that | water | must | have |
| been | flowing | through | the | canal. | Several | adjustments | were | made | to | the | Battle | Creek | temperature | |
| model | for | it | to | calculate | enough | diversions | to | Eagle | Canyon | Canal | to | replicate | the | measured |
temperatures:
| Spring | inflows | near | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam | were | allowed | to | contribute | to | the | attainment | |
| of | flow | objectives | downstream | of | the | dam. | This | modification | was | retained | for | the | 2012 | historic |
| calculations, | as | well | as | for | all | alternatives. |
| The | partitioning | of | measured | Inskip | Powerhouse | flows | between | Eagle | Canyon | Canal | and | Inskip | ||
| Canal | was | altered | to | maximize | Eagle | Canyon | Canal | flow | instead | of | Inskip | Canal | flow. | This |
| modification | is | only | relevant | to | the | historic | calculations | because | the | calculations | for | the | ||
| alternatives | do | not | rely | on | measured | Inskip | Powerhouse | flows. |
| Digger | Creek | diversions | were | discontinued. | This | modification | was | only | used | for | the | 2015 |
| historic | calculations. |
| During | 2015, | Battle | Creek | temperatures | downstream | of | the | confluence | of | North | Fork | and | South | |||
| Fork | Battle | Creek | increased | gradually; | they | were | not | cooled | much | by | Coleman | Powerhouse | releases | |||
| because | the | flows | were | low | and | the | tailrace | temperatures | were | relatively | high. | The | average | |||
| temperatures | upstream | of | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | were | approaching | 70°F | in | June | and | July | |||
| but | closer | to | 65°F | in | August | and | September. | The | calculated | warming | gradient | (°F | per | mile) | in | Battle |
| Creek | was | similar | to | the | calculated | warming | gradient | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek. |
| Figures | 5a | and | 5b | show | the | measured | and | calculated | temperatures | at | the | downstream | end | of | Inskip | ||||
| Canal | and | at | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | for | 2012 | and | 2015. | In | general, | the | temperature | |||||
| model | was | able | to | match | the | measured | temperatures | at | the | downstream | ends | of | Inskip | and | |||||
| Coleman | Canals. | During | 2015, | no | calculated | values | are | shown | for | Inskip | Canal | during | periods | when | |||||
| estimated | flows | were | zero. | There | are | other | periods, | however, | when | estimated | flows | were | relatively | ||||||
| low | but | not | quite | zero, | such | as | during | the | beginning | of | May. | During | periods | with | very | low | estimated | ||
| flow, | calculated | canal | temperatures | may | be | unrealistically | high | because | the | assumption | of | constant | |||||||
| width | and | depth | in | the | canals | may | become | unrealistic | at | these | lower | flows | and | because | it | is | unlikely | ||
| the | canals | would | be | operated | with | very | low | flow. | For | most | of | the | alternatives, | points | of | diversion | |||
| are | limited | and | the | canals | tend | to | run | with | higher | flows, | so | low | canal | flow | is | less | of | a | concern. |
| There | was | a | mismatch | between | the | measured | and | calculated | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | ||||
| temperatures | when | Coleman | Canal | flows | were | low | (during | August | 2012 | and | June | and | July | 2015). | |
| During | these | periods, | when | measured | temperatures | were | much | higher | than | calculated | |||||
| temperatures, | it | is | likely | that | water | was | being | spilled | from | Coleman | Forebay | instead | of | flowing | |
| through | Coleman | Powerhouse; | therefore, | the | tailrace | water | temperature | was | not | representative | of | ||||
| temperatures | at | the | downstream | end | of | Coleman | Canal. | During | August | 2015, | when | there | was | no | |
| flow | in | Coleman | Canal | or | through | Coleman | Powerhouse, | the | measured | tailrace | temperatures | ||||
| continued | to | not | be | representative | of | temperatures | at | the | downstream | end | of | Coleman | Canal. | At | this |
| time, | the | model | calculated | high | canal | temperatures | because | it | assumed | close | to | zero | flow | in | the |
canal.
Figure 5a. Measured and Calculated Temperatures in Inskip Powerhouse and in Coleman Powerhouse
Tailraces in 2012
Figure 5b. Measured and Calculated Temperatures in Inskip Powerhouse and in Coleman Powerhouse
Tailraces in 2015
1/1/2012 2/1/2012 3/1/2012 4/1/2012 5/1/2012 6/1/2012 7/1/2012 8/1/2012 9/1/2012 10/1/2012 11/1/2012 12/1/2012
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Warming in Hydropower Canals ‐ 2012 Historic Conditions
Calculated Inskip Canal‐Min Calculated Inskip Canal‐Max Measured Inskip Canal‐Min Measured Inskip Canal‐Max Calculated Coleman Tailrace‐Min Calculated Coleman Tailrace‐Max Measured Coleman Tailrace‐Min Measured Coleman Tailrace‐Max Coleman Powerhouse Flow
1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/1/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 12/1/2015 1/1/2016
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Warming in Hydropower Canals ‐ 2015 Historic Conditions
Calculated Inskip Canal‐Min Calculated Inskip Canal‐Max Measured Inskip Canal‐Min Measured Inskip Canal‐Max Calculated Coleman Tailrace‐Min Calculated Coleman Tailrace‐Max Measured Coleman Tailrace‐Min Measured Coleman Tailrace‐Max Coleman Powerhouse Flow
Instream Temperatures by Alternative This section describes the Battle Creek water temperature model results for the 10 proposed alternatives.
Alternative 1, Full Decommissioning of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Full Restoration)
Alternative 2, Full Decommissioning of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Safe Abandonment)
Alternative 3, Existing Conditions (2019)
Alternative 4, Restoration Project
Alternative 5, Restoration Project without Inskip Powerhouse and Inskip Diversion Dam
Alternative 6, Volta Diversions Only
Alternative 7, Volta and North Battle Creek Feeder Diversions Only
Alternative 8, Volta and Eagle Canyon Diversions Only
Alternative 9, Eagle Canyon Diversion Only
| Alternative | 10, | Volta | Diversions | Returned | to | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | and | Eagle | Canyon |
| Diversions | Only |
| The | primary | way | these | alternatives | would | affect | water | temperature | is | by | changing | flow | routing. |
| Table | 4 | summarizes | the | flow | controls | used | by | the | temperature | model. |
| Longitudinal | temperature | patterns | for | Alternatives | 1 | and | 2 | (full | decommissioning | or | full | natural | |||
| flow | alternatives), | Alternative | 3 | (existing | conditions), | and | Alternatives | 4 | and | 5 | (the | Restoration | |||
| Project) | are | described | in | detail | to | show | a | full | range | of | general | temperature | patterns | and | effects. |
| Longitudinal | temperature | patterns | for | Alternatives | 6 | through | 9 | are | not | described | in | detail | because | ||
| the | effects | of | these | alternatives | on | flows | and | temperatures | in | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | would | be |
| intermediate | between | Alternative | 3 | and | Alternatives | 1 | and | 2. | However, | results | for | these | alternatives | ||
| are | included | in | the | following | section | that | compares | all | 10 | alternatives | at | key | locations, | which | |
| include | the | following. |
North Fork Battle Creek at Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam
North Fork Battle Creek at the downstream end (i.e., confluence with South Fork Battle Creek)
Battle Creek upstream of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace
Coleman Powerhouse tailrace
Battle Creek downstream of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace
Table 4. Flow Controls for the Proposed Battle Creek Alternatives (cfs)
| Alts. | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| and | 2 | Alt. | 3 | Alt. | 4 | Alt. | 5 | Alt. | 6 | Alt. | 7 | Alt. | 8 | Alt. | 9 | Alt. | 10 |
D ec om m is si on in g
Ex is ti n g Co n d it io n s
R es to ra ti on P ro je ct
R es to ra ti on P ro je ct w it h ou t In sk ip
P ow er h ou se o r
D iv er si on D am
V ol ta D iv er si on s
O n ly ta a n d N or th
B at tl e Cr ee k
Fe ed er D iv er si on s
O ta a n d E ag le
Ca yo n D iv er si on s
O
Ea gl e Ca n yo
D iv er si on s O ta D iv er si on s
R et u rn ed t o N or th
Fo rk B at tl e Cr ee k an d E ag le C an yo
D iv er si on s O
Keswick Bypass NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 NA 3
Max Volta Diversion 0 115 115 115 115 115 115 0 115
NBCF Dam Bypass NA Historic 47–88 47–88 NA 47–88 NA NA NA
Max NBCF Diversion 0 Historic 50 50 0 50 0 0 0
Digger Bypass NA 10 10 10 NA NA NA NA NA
Max Digger Diversion 0 14 14 14 0 0 0 0 0
Max Cross Country Canal 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 0
Eagle Dam Bypass NA 30 35–46 35–46 NA NA 35–46 35–46 35–46
Max Eagle Diversion 0 64 64 64 0 0 64 64 64
Max South Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max Soap Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inskip Dam Bypass NA NA 40–86 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Max Inskip Diversion 0 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coleman Dam Bypass NA 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Max Coleman Diversion 0 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baldwin Creek Bypass NA 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Max Darrah Diversion 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Notes:
| NBCF | = | North | Battle | Creek | Feeder | NA | = | Not | Applicable | ||||||||||||
| “Max” | = | Maximum | |||||||||||||||||||
| “Bypass” | refers | to | target | flow | in | the | creek, | which | will | bypass | the | hydropower | canal | system. | |||||||
| “Historic” | indicates | that | the | input | values | were | the | same | as | those | used | for | the | modeling | of | historic | 2012 | and | 2015 | water | temperatures. |
| If | a | range | of | bypass | values | is | provided, | it | means | the | bypass | objective | varies | by | month. |
980 9th Street, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: 916‐737‐3000 Fax: 866‐771‐9385
Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
| Figure | 6 | shows | measured | 2012 | temperatures | and | calculated | monthly | average | temperatures | for | the | |||
| existing | conditions | alternative | (Alternative | 3) | with | 2012 | flows. | Alternative | 3 | includes | no | diversions | |||
| at | the | South | Diversion | Dam | because | South | Canal | was | inoperative. | In | addition, | Alternative | 3 | includes | |
| releases | of | South | Powerhouse | flows | to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek, | diversion | of | South | Fork | Battle | Creek |
| flows | at | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam | to | Coleman | Canal | and | Coleman | Powerhouse, | and | releases | of | |
| interim | instream | flows | of | 30 | cfs | below | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam | (Inskip | Powerhouse | and | Inskip | |
| Canal | were | inoperative). |
| Because | there | were | no | diversions | at | the | South | Diversion | Dam | or | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam, | the | |||
| calculated | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | were | higher | than | historic | flows | and | greatly | increased | |||||
| between | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | and | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam. | Calculated | South | Fork | Battle | |||||
| Creek | flows | were | about | 50 | cfs | at | the | South | Diversion | Dam | but | increased | to | 100 | cfs | to | 200 | cfs |
| between | Inskip | and | Coleman | Diversion | Dams | in | the | summer | low‐flow | months | of | June | through | |||||
| September. | The | calculated | flows | were | reduced | to | 30 | cfs | at | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam | (interim | ||||
| instream | flows), | with | the | remainder | of | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flow | diverted | to | Coleman | Canal | and | |||
| Coleman | Powerhouse. | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | at | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam | were | ||||||
| warmer | than | the | measured | 2012 | temperatures. | The | cooling | effects | from | South | Powerhouse | releases | ||||||
| persisted | at | the | Coleman | Diversion | Dam | but | were | not | enhanced | by | cool | releases | from | Inskip |
Powerhouse.
| The | 2012 | historic | temperatures | above | the | Inskip | Powerhouse | tailrace | were | much | warmer | than | the | ||
| calculated | Alternative | 3 | temperatures. | Higher | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | for | Alternative | 3 | |||
| provided | cooler | temperatures | without | the | rapid | warming | between | the | South | Diversion | Dam | and | |||
| South | Powerhouse | releases | or | between | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | and | Inskip | Powerhouse | releases | |||
| to | South | Fork | Battle | Creek. | Nevertheless, | during | July | and | August, | the | calculated | average | South | Fork | |
| Battle | Creek | temperatures | for | Alternative | 3 | were | greater | than | 60°F | for | most | of | the | channel | length |
| evaluated | by | the | water | temperature | model. | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperature | and | flow | patterns | ||
| for | Alternative | 3 | with | 2015 | hydrology | were | similar | to | 2012 | patterns, | except | flows | were | generally | |
| lower | and | temperatures | were | generally | higher | (Figure | 7). |
| The | calculated | Alternative | 3 | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | were | very | similar | to | the | historic | flows. |
| North | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | were, | therefore, | very | similar | to | the | 2012 | and | 2015 | historic | |
| temperatures | (Figures | 6 | and | 7), | although | during | some | periods, | the | Alternative | 3 | flows | in | the | lower |
| portion | of | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | were | lower | than | the | historic | measured | values, | resulting | in | |
| slightly | higher | temperatures. |
| In | mainstem | Battle | Creek, | the | main | difference | between | Alternative | 3 | and | the | historic | 2012 | and | 2015 | ||
| temperatures | was | that | the | upstream | end | of | Battle | Creek | was | warmer | due | to | the | warmer | inflow | from | |
| South | Fork | Battle | Creek | that | is | associated | with | the | use | of | the | Inskip | Powerhouse | connector. | The | use | |
| of | the | connector | prevented | relatively | cool | water | from | Inskip | Canal | from | entering | South | Fork | Battle | |||
| Creek | and, | instead, | conveyed | the | cool | water | to | the | Coleman | Powerhouse. | When | this | cooler | water | |||
| returned | to | the | river | at | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace, | it | had | more | of | a | cooling | effect | on | Battle |
| Creek | temperatures | than | under | historic | conditions | (Figures | 6 | and | 7). |
Figure 6a. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for June 2012
Figure 6b. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for July 2012
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 10
SF 11
SF 12
SF 13
SF 14
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek June Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2012
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 10
SF 11
SF 12
SF 13
SF 14
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek July Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2012
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman DamEagle
Dam
Figure 6c. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for August 2012
Figure 6d. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for September 2012
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 10
SF 11
SF 12
SF 13
SF 14
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek August Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2012
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek September Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2012
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Figure 7a. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for June 2015
Figure 7b. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for July 2015
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek June Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2015
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
SF 1
Fl o w cf s)
Te m p er at u re °F
Battle Creek July Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2015
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman DamEagle
Dam
Figure 7c. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for August 2015
Figure 7d. Measured and Calculated Battle Creek Temperatures for Existing Conditions (Alternative 3)
Flows for September 2015
BC 0
BC 1
BC 2
BC 3
BC 4
BC 5
BC 6
BC 7
BC 8
BC 9
BC 10
BC 11
BC 12
BC 13
BC 14
BC 15
BC 16
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 10
SF 11
SF 12
SF 13
SF 14
Fl ow cf s)
Te m pe ra tu re F)
Battle Creek August Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2015
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Coleman
PH
BC 0
BC 1
BC 2
BC 3
BC 4
BC 5
BC 6
BC 7
BC 8
BC 9
BC 10
BC 11
BC 12
BC 13
BC 14
BC 15
BC 16
N F 0
N F 1
N F 2
N F 3
N F 4
N F 5
N F 6
N F 7
N F 8
N F 9
SF 0
SF 1
SF 2
SF 3
SF 4
SF 5
SF 6
SF 7
SF 8
SF 9
SF 10
SF 11
SF 12
SF 13
SF 14
Fl ow
(c fs
Te m pe ra tu re F)
Battle Creek September Temperatures ‐ Alternative 3 ‐ Existing Conditions ‐ 2015
Calculated Avg Min Calculated Avg Calculated Avg Max
Measured Avg Min Measured Avg Measured Avg Max
Flow
Inskip Dam
Coleman Dam
Eagle Dam
Temperatures for the Restoration Project (Alternatives 4 and 5)
| Figure | 8 | shows | the | measured | 2012 | temperatures | and | calculated | temperatures | for | the | Restoration | ||||
| Project | (Alternative | 4) | from | June | through | September. | Temperatures | for | the | Restoration | Project | |||||
| without | diversions | at | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | or | power | generation | at | Inskip | Powerhouse | |||||
| (Alternative | 5) | would | be | only | slightly | different | from | Alternative | 4 | as | a | result | of | higher | flow | |
| downstream | of | Inskip | Dam. | The | calculated | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | were | higher | than | the | 2012 | |
| historic | flows | because | the | South | Diversion | Dam | would | be | removed, | and | no | diversions | would | be | ||
| made | to | South | Canal. | Both | the | South | Powerhouse | and | Inskip | Powerhouse | tailrace | connectors | would | |||
| be | operating; | therefore, | there | would | be | no | cooling | effect | from | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | water | ||
| entering | South | Fork | Battle | Creek. | Additional | diversions | would | be | made | at | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | ||
| for | Alternative | 4 | (but | not | for | Alternative | 5 | since | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | would | be | removed); | however, | |
| the | MOU‐prescribed | instream | flow | below | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | is | 40 | cfs | during | the | summer | months, | ||
| so | diversions | at | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | for | Alternative | 4 | may | often | be | minimal | (Tables | 1 | and | 2). |
| Calculated | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures | for | Restoration | Project | flows | were | slightly | warmer | |||
| upstream | of | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | (with | no | releases | from | South | Powerhouse). | In | addition, | flows | |
| increased | downstream | (with | no | releases | from | Inskip | Powerhouse) | and | ended | slightly | warmer | than | |||
| the | 2012 | historic | temperatures | at | the | confluence | of | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | with | South | Fork | Battle |
| Creek. | The | highest | water | temperatures | above | Inskip | Powerhouse | measured | in | 2012 | were | ||||
| eliminated | due | to | higher | flow | objectives | below | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | (40 | cfs | in | the | summer) | with |
| the | Restoration | Project | (Alternatives | 4 | and | 5). | The | average | Restoration | Project | temperatures | were | |||
| warmer | than | 60°F | in | most | of | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | during | June | through | September | with | 2012 |
| hydrologic | conditions. | The | Restoration | Project | temperatures | were | even | higher | with | 2015 | hydrology | ||||
| (Figure | 9). |
| The | calculated | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | summer | flows | for | the | Restoration | Project | were | about | 40 | cfs | ||
| to | 50 | cfs | with | both | the | 2012 | and | 2015 | hydrologic | conditions | and | similar | to | the | historic | 2012 | flows. |
| The | calculated | temperatures | at | the | Eagle | Canyon | Diversion | Dam, | the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam, | and | at | |||
| the | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | confluence | were | nearly | the | same | as | the | measured | 2012 | and | 2015 | ||
| temperatures. | Calculated | average | temperatures | at | the | Wildcat | Diversion | Dam | were | close | to | 62°F, | or | ||||
| less, | from | June | through | September | with | the | 2012 | hydrology | and | slightly | higher | with | the | 2015 | |||
| hydrology. | Several | of | the | proposed | alternatives | would | increase | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | by | ||||
| either | releasing | all | of | the | Volta | 2 | tailrace | water | into | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | downstream | of | the | |
| NBCF | Diversion | Dam | or | eliminating | the | Volta | diversions. | The | maximum | possible | temperature | ||||||
| benefits | from | higher | North | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | can | be | identified | with | the | calculated | ||||
| temperatures | for | the | full | decommissioning | alternatives | (Alternatives | 1 | and | 2), | which | are | described | |||||
| in | the | following | section. |
| Alternative | 5 | (Restoration | Project | without | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | or | Inskip | Canal) | would | not | ||
| include | diversions | at | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam; | therefore, | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | flows | |||
| downstream | of | the | Inskip | Diversion | Dam | would | be | slightly | higher | than | Alternative | 4 | flows | (the | |
| currently | proposed | Restoration | Project). | The | calculated | average | temperatures | from | June | through | |||||
| September | at | the | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | confluence | for | Alternative | 5 | flows | would | be | slightly | cooler |
| (generally | less | than | 1°F | cooler) | than | the | calculated | temperatures | for | Alternative | 4 | flows. |
| As | compared | to | Alternative | 3 | (existing | conditions), | temperatures | at | the | upstream | end | of | mainstem | |
| Battle | Creek, | upstream | of | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace, | were | expected | to | be | warmer | with | the |
| Restoration | Project | alternatives | due | to | the | increases | in | temperature | in | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | |||||
| associated | with | using | the | South | Powerhouse | connector | in | addition | to | the | Inskip | Powerhouse | ||||||
| connector. | The | Restoration | Project | alternatives | would | have | slightly | cooler | temperatures | in | North | |||||||
| Fork | Battle | Creek | than | with | Alternative | 3, | but | at | the | confluence | these | slightly | cooler | temperatures | ||||
| would | not | provide | much | compensation | for | the | increases | in | South | Fork | Battle | Creek | temperatures. | |||||
| However, | by | the | time | water | in | Battle | Creek | arrived | upstream | of | the | Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace, | ||||
| water | temperature | for | Alternatives | 3, | 4, | and | 5 | would | be | similar, | although | the | temperatures | in | the | |||
| Coleman | Powerhouse | tailrace | would | be | warmer | for | Alternative | 3 | (as | described | in | more | detail |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .