Attachment_8-Coleamn_Intakes_Alternative_Studies_Sverdrup_Final_Rpt.pdf

COLEMAN

National Fish Hatchery

California Intake Alternatives Study

Final Report

INTAKE ALTERNATIVES STUDY

FOR

COLEMAN NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

Final Report

Prepared for:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

PORTLAND, OREGON

May 25, 1999

By:

and

Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 General

1.2 Coleman NFH and the Battle Creek Drainage

Figure 1.1 – Vicinity Map

1.3 Hydroelectric Operations on Battle Creek

1.4 Battle Creek Fisheries Restoration Efforts

1.5 CNFH Water Diversions

2.0 HATCHERY WATER SYSTEM

2.1 Description of Hatchery Water System

Figure 2.1 – Water Delivery Schematic

2.2 Existing Hatchery Water Demand

2.3 Future Hatchery Water Demand

Table 2.1 – Water Demand for Current Production by Species Table 2.2 – Water Requirements for Current Facility Operations

2.4 Hatchery Water Rights

3.0 INTAKE SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA / ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 General

3.2 Evaluation Criteria / Assumptions

4.0 INTAKE SCREEN SYSTEMS

4.1 General

4.2 Screening Criteria and Siting Issues

4.3 Intake Screening Systems

Figure 4.1 – Typical Vertical Plate Screen Installation Figure 4.2 – Typical Drum Screen Installation Figure 4.3 – Typical Vertical Traveling Screen Installation Figure 4.4 – Typical USBR Flat Plate Screen Installation

5.0 EXISTING INTAKE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

5.1 Intake 1 and 2 System

Figure 5.1 – Intake 1 Figure 5.2 – Intake 2 Figure 5.3 – Weir at Intake 1 Figure 5.4 – Outlet Structure on Hatchery Canal

5.2 Intake 3 System

ii

Figure 5.5 – Intake 3 Looking Upstream and Downstream

6.0 INTAKE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

6.1 General

Table 6.1 – Intake System Alternatives Summary

6.2 Battle Creek Hydraulic Design Issues and Parameters

Figure 6.1 – Battle Creek Average Daily Flows (By Month) Figure 6.2 – Battle Creek Peak Flows Figure 6.3 – Battle Creek Minimum Recorded Daily Flows (By Month)

6.3 Alternative 1

Figure 6.4 – Aerial View of Coleman Powerhouse and Tailrace Area

6.4 Alternative 2

6.5 Alternative 3

6.6 Alternative 4

6.7 Alternative 5

6.8 Alternative 6

6.9 Alternative 7

6.10 Alternative 8

6.11 Alternative 9

6.12 Alternative 10

6.13 Summary

Table 6.2 – Intake Alternative Evaluation Summary

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Alternative Selection Process

Figure 7.1 – Criteria Weighting Process Figure 7.2 – Matrix Weighting of Alternatives

7.2 Recommended Alternative and Selected Back-up Alternatives

7.3 Project Schedule

Figure 7.3 – Conceptual Level Schedule (Estimated)

8.0 PLATES

APPENDIX A – Cost Estimates - Construction and O&M

APPENDIX B – Fisheries Design Criteria - CDFG and NFMS

APPENDIX C – Minutes of the Alternative Selection Meeting (April 14 and 15, 1999) iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following study reviews and assesses the water intake diversion and supply system for Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH) and alternatives for improving it to meet the current fish protection standards. CNFH is located in Shasta County, California, on the north bank of Battle Creek. Battle Creek has long been recognized as one of the three remaining Sacramento River Tributaries in which natural spring-run and winter-run chinook salmon, and steelhead trout continue to exist. Hydroelectric development and hatchery operations have seriously reduced annual runs of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in Battle Creek. Efforts are currently under way to enhance habitat conditions and restore naturally reproducing anadromous salmonids to portions of Battle Creek upstream of the CNFH.

As part of the restoration effort, it is required that CNFH intakes conform to all National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and State of California guidelines for the protection of salmonids at water diversions. This study includes an assessment the water supply requirements, a review of the existing intake system, ten alternatives for making improvements to it, and recommendation including selected alternatives to be considered for final design.

The assessment of the existing system concluded that a number of deficiencies existed that required remediation. The evaluation of the hatchery water supply requirements determined that to meet potential future increases in hatchery water demands, any new facilities or upgrades to existing facilities should provide a total of 70,000 gpm to the hatchery with 6,000 gpm going to meet downstream water rights on the hatchery canal.

The ten intake alternatives were developed by the Coleman Intake Working Group (a group consisting of hatchery personnel, USF&WS biological and engineering personnel, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation representatives, and design engineers from the Sverdrup Civil design team.) Although the alternatives utilize various approaches and intake locations, they are each designed to meet the flow and fish protection requirements discussed above. Eight evaluation criteria were developed to guide the design and assessment of each of the alternatives. These criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of the report and include Water Quality and Quantity, System Reliability, Redundancy, Access, Fish Protection, Maintenance, Long-Term Performance, and Water Rights Issues. Section 6.0 of the report includes descriptions of each of the ten alternatives and assessments of each alternative relative to these criteria.

After development of the ten alternatives, a meeting of the Intake Working Group was held to select the alternatives which best fit the requirements of the hatchery and the goals of the Battle Creek salmon restoration objectives. Details of the selection process and the four alternatives selected for further consideration are discussed in iv

Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the report. A brief description of the four selected alternatives in the order of preference is as follows:

Alternative 10 (preferred alternative):

Intake 1, located on the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace, would be expanded so as to have a capacity of 70,000 gpm. This increase would be accomplished by continued use of the existing intake, which supplies up to 40,000 gpm gravity flow to the hatchery canal. A new intake would be constructed adjacent to the existing intake and would be designed to supply up to 30,000 gpm gravity flow to the hatchery’s existing sand settling basins. Use of this expanded Intake 1 as the primary water source for the hatchery would maximize the use of the high quality water available in the powerhouse tailrace. The existing weir located at Intake 1 is in poor condition and would be replaced with a new structure. Additionally, a new tailrace fish barrier would be located just upstream of the tailrace confluence with Battle Creek. The presence of the powerhouse at the upstream end of the tailrace, and this new fish barrier at the downstream end, will preclude fish from being in the tailrace and thereby eliminate the need to provide fish screening protection at Intake 1.

A powerhouse bypass system would be constructed consisting of a new intake on the Coleman Powerhouse forebay and a bypass pipe capable of supplying up to 40,000 gpm directly to the tailrace (and thereby to Intake 1) during periods when the powerhouse is not operating. This feature is described in the report in Section 6.9, with respect to Alternative 7, and was added to this alternative during the final selection process to further maximize the availability of the high quality tailrace water. Although the powerhouse bypass feature does add increased flexibility and reliability to the alternative as a whole, it is not absolutely required for the overall functionality of this alternative and should be viewed somewhat as an optional feature.

The existing unscreened Intake 2 on the left bank of Battle Creek would be abandoned, and a new emergency intake (back-up for Intake 1) would be constructed on the right bank near the location of the Coleman Powerhouse. This new intake would include fish screens designed to comply with all federal and state guidelines for fish protection. The emergency intake would be capable of supplying up to 40,000 gpm gravity flow to the hatchery canal, and would only be used during conditions when water was not available in the tailrace.

The existing Intake 3 and its associated weir and fish ladder structure would be removed. The removal of this weir is viewed as a habitat improvement measure which will help with the overall Battle Creek restoration efforts.

Estimated Construction Cost: $5,515,400 (1999 dollars) Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $41,800

Alternative 3:

v

Intake 1 would be essentially maintained as it currently exists and would supply up to 40,000 gpm gravity flow to the hatchery canal. Improvements would include the new Intake 1 weir structure and the tailrace fish barrier described for Alternative 10.

Additionally, the 40,000 gpm powerhouse bypass system would be included to maximize availability of the high quality tailrace water.

The existing intake 2 would be abandoned and replaced with a new right bank emergency intake as described for Alternative 10. However, with this alternative the Intake 3 structures (intake, weir and fish ladder) would remain in place and be reconstructed to comply with all federal and state fish screening criteria. The screening facility would be sized so that Intake 3 could provide up to 32,000 gpm gravity flow to the existing sand settling basins.

Estimated Construction Cost: $5,765,600 (1999 dollars) Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $79,400

Alternative 7:

Intake 1 would be essentially maintained as it currently exists and would supply up to 40,000 gpm gravity flow to the hatchery canal. Improvements would include the new Intake 1 weir structure and the tailrace fish barrier described for Alternative 10.

Additionally, the 40,000 gpm powerhouse bypass system would be included.

Intake 2 would be abandoned but, unlike the previous two alternatives described, no new Battle Creek intake would be constructed to replace it. Therefore, the powerhouse bypass system, which maximizes the availability of tailrace water, is more beneficial in this alternative than the others.

Intake 3 structures (intake, weir and fish ladder) would remain in place and be reconstructed to comply with all federal and state fish screening criteria. The screening facility would be sized so that Intake 3 could provide up to 32,000 gpm gravity flow to the existing sand settling basins. Two pumps would also be included with this facility to boost this flow as high as 40,000 gpm for emergency conditions when flow is not available in the powerhouse tailrace. These pumps could be considered somewhat optional in that if an emergency action plan were developed for the hatchery which defined a method allowing the hatchery to operate on a short-term basis with the 32,000 gpm gravity flow available from Intake 3, then the pumps at Intake 3 would not be required. Of course, a more detailed evaluation of the short-term flow requirements that resulted in a design emergency flow rate of less than 40,000 gpm, would likely result in some amount of savings in any of the alternatives described in this report.

Estimated Construction Cost: $3,725,700 (1999 dollars) Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $49,300

Alternative 9:

vi

Alternative 9 is identical to the description above for Alternative 10, except that the replacement intake for the abandoned Intake 2 would not be located upstream near the Coleman Powerhouse, as in Alternative 10, but rather on the hatchery grounds immediately upstream of the existing hatchery barrier weir. This would be an emergency intake, and would only be used when flow was not available in the powerhouse tailrace. Placing the emergency intake at this location will require that pumps be utilized to lift the flow from the creek up to the sand settling basins.

Estimated Construction Cost: $5,540,700 (1999 dollars) Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $41,800

The Coleman Intake Working Group selected Alternative 10 as the preferred alternative since it best met the hatchery needs and goals of the Battle Creek restoration efforts.

The other three alternatives were determined to be reasonable alternatives to be included in the environmental review process. The construction cost estimates given in the descriptions above do not include costs of permitting or land acquisition.

A probable schedule was prepared for the permitting, design and construction of Alternative 10 which estimates the entire project to take approximately three years from a decision to proceed. Any of the other three selected alternatives would likely require a similar schedule.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 General

This study is submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 14-48-001-93044, Work Order No.

53 between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Sverdrup Civil, Inc.

The study reviews and assesses the water diversion and supply system for Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH). This includes an assessment of the water supply requirements, a review of the existing intake system, and alternatives for making improvements to it.

1.2 Coleman NFH and the Battle Creek Drainage

CNFH was constructed in 1942 as part of the mitigation measures to help preserve significant runs of chinook salmon threatened by the loss of natural spawning areas resulting from the construction of Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River. Construction of the facility was authorized as an integral part of the Central Valley Project (CVP).

The CVP was authorized and established under the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 (49 Stat.115), the First Deficiency Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 1936 (49 Stat.1622), and the River and Harbor Act of 1935 (49 Stat.1028,1083).

CNFH is located in Shasta County, California, on a relatively flat parcel of land on the north bank of Battle Creek approximately 3 miles east of the Sacramento River and 17 miles southeast of the city of Redding, see Figure 1.1. Ground elevations on the hatchery property vary from a low of approximately 405 feet in the creek bed at the west boundary to a high of approximately 480 feet along the north property line. Small valleys and sharp breaks in the land have been produced by numerous seasonal streams draining the area.

Battle Creek, a tributary of the upper Sacramento River, flows along the southern edge of the property before entering the Sacramento River approximately 3 miles to the southwest. Battle Creek is approximately 45 miles long and encompasses a watershed of 357 square miles, fed by rainfall and snowmelt on the western slopes of the Cascade Range. Battle Creek is made up principally of two forks: North Fork Battle Creek and South Fork Battle Creek, each contributing approximately 50% of the total flow in the drainage. The two forks converge about 11 miles upstream of the hatchery to form Battle Creek. The drainage is characterized by steady flowing cold water flowing through deep gorges providing relatively high flows even during dry seasons. Between 1961 and 1996, the average daily flows in Battle Creek as measured at the gaging station just below CNFH ranged between approximately 250 cfs in summer and early fall to approximately 900 cfs in winter 1. The maximum recorded instantaneous peak flow between 1961 and 1996 was approximately 25,000

1 USGS Gage for Battle Creek below Coleman NFH near Cottonwood (No. 11376550) cfs (January, 1970), and the minimum average daily flow recorded was about 100 cfs.

An in-depth discussion of Battle Creek hydrology is presented in Section 6.2.

1.3 Hydroelectric Operations on Battle Creek

Battle Creek has been transformed into a complex hydraulic system, developed during the early 1900s into a highly efficient hydroelectric system. Owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) since the early 1930s, the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC License No. 1121) today consists of five powerhouses, two storage reservoirs, six Battle Creek diversions, a number of small tributary diversions, and a complex network of canals, pipelines, flumes, and tunnels. PG&E’s current FERC license to operate the project expires in 2026.

Of particular relevance to CNFH is Coleman powerhouse. Coleman powerhouse is the final hydroelectric generating facility in the system, supplied by the combined flows from all the upstream diversions. At approximately 12 MW, Coleman is the largest of the five powerhouses in the system with a hydraulic capacity of approximately 350 cfs.

Powerhouse flow is discharged into the Coleman tailrace before it returns to Battle Creek just upstream of CNFH. Operations at the powerhouse affects operation of the CNFH water supply system by influencing the availability of water at Intake 1 located on the tailrace (see Plate 2). During sporadic shutdowns of the water supply to the powerhouse, and consequently the tailrace, CNFH is forced to modify intake operations, relying on an emergency intake on Battle Creek (Intake 2) which takes over from Intake 1. As a part of its operating license, PG&E is required to provide a minimum flow of 150 cfs below the confluence of Battle Creek and the tailrace. This is both for CNFH water supply considerations as well as in-stream fishery considerations.

Coleman powerhouse operates under four scenarios. The first is the normal operating condition of the facility which involves the discharge of flow from the Coleman forebay through the penstocks and through the single Francis-type turbine before being discharged into the tailrace. The second scenario represents a non-typical operating condition caused by a turbine trip event during which normal flow through the powerhouse is diverted from the turbine and is bypassed through a Howell-Bunger valve discharging into the tailrace. Approximately 75% of all non-typical operating conditions results in flow being bypassed through this valve and into the tailrace, not affecting CNFH operations 3. The other approximately 25% of turbine trip events, representing the third operational scenario, results in flow being diverted from the powerhouse altogether resulting in backing up of flow from the forebay up the power canal and into a bypass ditch which cascades into Battle Creek approximately 1 mile upstream of the powerhouse. For the normal powerhouse flow to return to the area of the CNFH intakes usually involves a period of time of about one-half hour. Since flow is

2 FERC License, Project No. 1121, Issued August 13, 1976 3 Personal communication between Gene Terry (PG&E) and Rolf Wielick (Sverdrup) on 12/10/98.

not available at Intake 1 on the tailrace, Intake 2 on Battle Creek automatically assumes a portion of the water supply duties.

The fourth and final scenario involves events which prevent flow from reaching either the forebay or the bypass ditch. This would be caused by a failure of the Coleman Power Canal itself (feeding the forebay) and may be caused by a slide or other catastrophic failure. In this scenario, the gates at the Coleman diversion dam several miles upstream would be closed and the flow would be diverted back into Battle Creek. It is estimated that a failure such as this will cause a delay of as much as eight hours from the time the powerhouse shuts down and the full river flow is realized in the reaches of Battle Creek near CNFH. In the past six to eight years, one such event has occurred.

1.4 Battle Creek Fisheries Restoration Efforts

Battle Creek has long been recognized as one of the three remaining Sacramento River Tributaries in which natural spring-run and winter-run chinook salmon, and steelhead trout continue to exist. Past hydroelectric development and hatchery operations have seriously reduced annual runs of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in Battle Creek. CNFH’s need for a broodstock collection facility and the need for a disease-free water source led to partial blockage of upstream migrating adult fish above the CNFH barrier weir. Additionally, inadequate minimum in-stream flow provisions in the FERC license, reflecting the lower priority that naturally reproducing fish were given in the drainage due to the role of CNFH, at times resulted in sections of the creek with too little flow in the creek to sustain healthy fish runs 4.

In 1993, construction began on water supply treatment facilities at CNFH to control persistent disease problems encountered at the hatchery. Subsequent operation of these facilities, which utilizes ozone as a disinfectant, began in 1994. Expansion of the treatment plant from about 10,000 gpm (22 cfs) to 30,000 gpm (67 cfs) is currently under construction and is scheduled to be completed in late 1999. With the completion of these facilities, opportunities will exist for restoring naturally reproducing fish runs in upper Battle Creek after a few years of monitoring, as the need for a disease-free water source becomes less critical at the hatchery.

Taking advantage of these new opportunities, the Battle Creek Working Group, a group consisting of representatives from the state and federal agencies, and fishery, environmental, local, agricultural, power and urban stakeholder communities, was formed in 1997 to share technical information regarding the progress being made on restoration activities in the Battle Creek Watershed. Issues of concern included the opening up of the 42 miles of Battle Creek above CNFH to winter and spring-run chinook, and steelhead. This will require correcting fishery passage issues associated with six diversion dams due to ineffective ladders, unscreened diversions and inadequate stream flows. Correction of these problems would provide enormous potential for restoring salmonid populations. To this end, the Battle Creek Working

4 Personal communication between Harry Rectenwald (CDF&G) and Rolf Wielick (Sverdrup) on 10/6/98.

Group, PG&E, state and federal resource agencies, as well as other interested parties, have been working on solutions to existing deficiencies to improve conditions in the watershed. In early 1999, a settlement agreement was negotiated regarding removal of several diversion dams on Battle Creek and increases in the minimum flow rates above CNFH. In light of these developments and following AFRP (Anadromous Fish Restoration Program) Actions 5 and 8, CNFH has undertaken a review of its intake system, which consists of existing diversions within the watershed. AFRP Action 5 requires screening of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace to eliminate attraction of adult chinook salmon and steelhead while Action 8 requires screening of CNFH Intakes 2 and 3 to prevent entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead. 5

1.5 CNFH Water Diversions

CNFH is a non-consumptive water user drawing water to support hatchery operations from three distinct locations in the watershed. As noted earlier, Intake 1 draws from the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace which enters Battle Creek approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the hatchery property. Intake 2, an emergency backup to Intake 1, draws from Battle Creek near Intake 1 when flow in the tailrace is interrupted, while Intake 3 draws from Battle Creek approximately 0.4 miles downstream from Intake 2, approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the hatchery. In response to and in support of the Battle Creek Working Group objectives, the Service initiated a review of its water diversions. This study, the CNFH Intake Alternatives Study, commissioned to review the long-term water intake system needs and alternatives at CNFH, represents only a portion of the efforts undertaken by the Service to ensure compliance with fish protection measures at it diversions. The CNFH Intake Working Group, convened in early 1998 to examine the long-term water supply system needs, also executed a number of interim improvements to the CNFH intake system to protect the existing fishery resource in Battle Creek. These interim measures included installation of a flap gate at Intake 2 to block this unscreened intake except under emergency conditions (when Intake 1 is not operational), installation of a finer temporary screen on the existing screen structure at Intake 3, and installation of an experimental stream-bed mounted auxiliary screen system at Intake 3 which, as a prototype screen, is being evaluated for conformance to current fish screening criteria, as well as other operational characteristics at this site. These measures will be discussed in greater detail in Section 5.0. The identification and selection of appropriate long-term improvements to replace these temporary measures is the goal of this study.

5 “Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program” USF&WS, May 30, 1997.

2.0 HATCHERY WATER SYSTEM

2.1 Description of Hatchery Water System

The principle features of CNFH include the water treatment and delivery systems, hatchery building, 8 x 80 and 15 x 150 raceways, and the broodstock building. 6 A plan of the hatchery facilities is depicted on Plate 1. A plan of the overall hatchery and intake system is depicted on Plate 2. The hatchery water delivery system consists of two major diversion and conveyance systems, the Intake 1 and 2 system and the Intake 3 system. The Intake 1 and 2 system withdraws water from the tailrace of the Coleman powerhouse and Battle Creek , respectively, and conveys it to the hatchery site in a pipe and canal system (see Figure 6.4). A 30,000 gpm (67 cfs) canal pump station located on the hatchery canal (currently under construction) will lift water from the canal to the water treatment system for filtering and disinfection. Should it be required, the pump station has been designed to incorporate three additional pumps which would increase its capacity to a maximum of 45,000 gpm (100 cfs). The Intake 3 system withdraws water from Battle Creek below its convergence with the powerhouse tailrace, and conveys it to the hatchery site in a separate pipe. At the hatchery site, water from Intake 3 is routed through a sand trap to remove the settlable solids from the water. It is then pumped to the water treatment system by a smaller 20,000 gpm (45 cfs) pumping facility known as the raw water pump station. When the new canal pump station is brought on line, scheduled for late 1999, the raw water pump station will likely take on a backup status. However, the presence of two pump stations will provide for flexibility in operations and the actual balance of pumping from the canal or the sand traps will be an operational decision on the part of the hatchery. Water from the Intake 3 system that is not pumped to the water treatment system flows by gravity to the broodstock pump station where it is pumped into the broodstock facility. The filtered, disinfected water from the water treatment system is then conveyed to the hatchery building, the 8 x 80 raceways and the 15 x 150 raceways (piping to the 15 x 150 raceways from the water treatment facilities is currently under construction). Figure 2.1 is a schematic diagram of the facilities and piping system at CNFH.

As noted earlier, the capacity of the water treatment system at completion of current construction activities will be 30,000 gpm (67 cfs). This is inadequate to treat all of the water required for fish production, however, the broodstock facility does not require disinfected water and untreated water is selectively used to make up the shortfall. The need for additional water treatment capability is currently being assessed and the water treatment system has been designed for expansion to a maximum capacity of 65,000 gpm (145 cfs).

All pipelines and conveyance facilities at the hatchery site have sufficient capacity to meet the current needs of the fish production units they serve. For example, the 15 x

6 For the purposes of this report, water treatment facilities currently under construction at CNFH are assumed to be complete since completion is scheduled for mid to late 1999. Facilities currently under construction are noted as such in the text.

150 raceways are designed for a total flow of 28,000 gpm (63 cfs) and the pipeline from the water treatment system to these raceways has a corresponding capacity. The canal pump station has a capacity of 30,000 gpm (67 cfs) and the raw water pump station capacity is 20,000 gpm (45 cfs). The capacity of the intakes and their conveyance systems is described in detail in Section 5, but is generally equal to or greater than the water right associated with the intakes.

Because of elevation differences between the two water supply systems, less energy is required to pump water from the Intake 1 and 2 system to the water treatment system than is required to pump from the Intake 3 system to the water treatment system. Each pump station is designed to pump the full capacity of its corresponding diversion and conveyance system. Normal operation (after completion of current construction) will be to maximize the use of water from the Intake 1 and 2 system in the treatment system by pumping from the new canal pump station and to supplement this water with water from the Intake 3 system when necessary.

CNFH has numerous piping interconnections between the facilities. These interconnections allow water to be diverted from the canal to the sand traps, to bypass the treatment system, be reused from the 15 x 150 raceways to the 8 x 80 raceways, and to respond to temporary conditions which occur during construction or emergency conditions. These interconnections will not be described in detail because they are not part of the normal operation of the hatchery.

2.2 Existing Hatchery Water Demand

Hatchery water demand is dictated by a number of factors including the species of fish, number and size of fish to be produced, type of rearing units available at the hatchery, influent water quality, and fish cultural techniques to be employed. At CNFH the current release targets for fish production are approximately 12 million fall chinook, 1 million late-fall chinook, and 600,000 steelhead. Prior to 1998, CNFH also produced winter-run chinook, however this program has been transferred to the recently constructed Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery located at Shasta Dam.

For each of the three species produced at CNFH the rearing cycle is similar. Eggs from returning adults are taken and fertilized in the spawning building and immediately moved to the incubators in the hatchery building. As the eggs hatch, the fry are transferred to either the start tanks in the hatchery building or directly to the 8 x 80 raceways. Fry which are initially placed in the start tanks are moved outside to the 8 x 80 raceways as necessary to provide suitable rearing conditions. As the fry grow, they are periodically split, or divided, from one raceway into two or more raceways to maintain adequate space and water for healthy rearing conditions. When the fish require more space than is available in the 8 x 80 raceways, they are transferred to the 15 x 150 raceways and finally are released either directly to Battle Creek or are trucked to the Sacramento River. These fish movements are timed to provide optimum use of the available facilities while meeting management requirements at the hatchery and have been developed over the 50 plus years of fish cultural activity at CNFH.

Because the adults return and are spawned at CNFH over a nearly six month time period, the individual facilities are used for more than one species each year. Fall chinook are the earliest returning species with spawning beginning about the first of October and continuing through the end of December. The fall chinook reach their target release size by late April and are then released. Late-fall chinook and steelhead spawning begins in January and continues through mid March. These fish are reared at CNFH until January of the following year when they are released. The timing of their release has been selected to minimize the impact of the hatchery fish upon wild fish production in the Sacramento River system.

Table 2.1 presents the water demand for the current fish production program. This table is broken down by species and rearing unit to assist with understanding the movement of the various species through the hatchery 7. The flow rates for the raceways are based primarily upon the number of raceways in use and the optimum flow rate for the raceway. Typical flows at CNFH are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) in each 8 x 80 raceway and 1,000 gpm in each 15 x 150 raceway. Lower flows are typically used in the 8 x 80 raceways when the fry are initially placed in them to reduce the water velocity through the raceway. The number of raceways required for each species at any given time is determined either by the space and flow required to maintain good fish cultural conditions or by the need to maintain groups of fish in separate raceways for management or experimental reasons. Additional factors affecting the number of raceways in use and the resulting flow requirements are the number of raceways of each size which are available at any given time and the desire to minimize the number of times the fish are handled.

In addition to the water required for fish cultural purposes relating to the incubation and rearing of juvenile fish, water is required seasonally for operation of the adult holding ponds and the fish ladder. From October 1 through March 15, the flow rate required for these facilities is 10,000 gpm (22 cfs). Finally, between 1,000 and 2,000 gpm is required for “operational spill”. This is water which is used for a wide variety of purposes throughout the hatchery such as cooling the ozone production equipment, watering the hatchery grounds, washing down the spawning building during and after spawning, and other housekeeping activities. Another component of operational spill is water which is wasted over weirs at various locations in the piping system to assist with maintaining the hydraulic balance of the piping system and to allow minor adjustments in flow in individual rearing units without upsetting the flows in adjacent units.

Table 2.2 presents the total water requirements for the current facility operations on a semi-monthly basis. The peak flow requirement of 47,550 gpm (106 cfs) occurs in early January immediately before the release of the late-fall chinook and steelhead and the minimum flow requirement of 4,900 gpm (11 cfs) occurs in early May following

7 USF&WS CNFH, 1998

release of the fall chinook. For the purposes of this study, a current hatchery water demand of 48,000 gpm (107 cfs) will be used.

2.3 Future Hatchery Water Demand

Future water demand at CNFH is largely a matter of speculation. Recent Endangered Species Act listings and concern over impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish have led to a reduction in the number of fish produced at CNFH8. Concurrently with this, the need to rear better quality fish in a more natural environment has led to the adoption of lower rearing densities which result in rearing fewer fish in each raceway while maintaining the same water flow. Experimental results generally support the conclusion that lower rearing densities and higher flow indexes result in a higher juvenile survival rate and a higher return rate for adults.

Rather than speculate on what the future holds, this report will simply make the planning assumption that an increase in water demand of one third could occur in the future.

This increase may be required as a result of an increase in the number of fish produced, an increase in the duration the fish are reared at CNFH, an increase in the number of species reared at CNFH, changes in rearing techniques which increases the demand for water, or other future events. No specific fish production scenario has been identified as the basis for this assumption, it is just an allowance for the uncertainty that the future may bring. Using the current peak flow of 47,550 gpm (106 cfs) as the base and adding 33% results in a future hatchery water demand of 63,250 gpm (141 cfs).

For the purposes of this study, a future hatchery water demand of 64,000 gpm (143 cfs) will be used.

2.4 Hatchery Water Rights

Surface water rights for CNFH were obtained by appropriation with priority dates ranging from 1950 through 1965. The rights total 122 cubic feet per second (cfs) however, under a contract from 1944, 13.13 cfs must be delivered to downstream water users without being used at the hatchery. An additional 9.6 cfs must be delivered for irrigation after use in the hatchery. The 122 cfs total right is allocated among the three existing intakes as follows:

Intake No. 1 39 cfs 17,510 gpm Intake No. 2 22 cfs 9,880 gpm Intake Nos. 1 & 2 (Combined right) 11 cfs 4,940 gpm Intake No. 3 50 cfs 22,450 gpm

Subtotal 122 cfs54,780 gpm Downstream right -13 cfs -5,840 gpm

Total available for hatchery operations 109 cfs 48,940 gpm

8 Personal communication between Ed Forner (USF&WS) and Bill Cutting (KCM) on October 5, 1998.

In order to settle protests against their water right applications for the diversions at Intakes 1 and 2, the Service entered into agreements which acknowledged the prior rights of several downstream appropriators.

In addition to the prior appropriation doctrine under which the above mentioned water rights for CNFH were established, California law recognizes riparian surface water use and overlying ground water use inherent in the ownership of land. The rights of each landowner to use surface water on riparian land or ground water on overlying lands are equal and correlative to all other owners similarly situated, but are generally given a higher priority than appropriative water rights. To date, the Service has not claimed a riparian right for CNFH, but this remains an option if water demand increases in the future.

Another option for meeting an increased future water demand is to make application to the State for additional appropriative water rights. Additionally, if a reconfiguration of the intake system is needed as part of a new application or simply to make better use of the water under existing water rights, it will be necessary to petition the State for a change in the point or points of diversion. In either instance, notice of the request will be made and the public will be given an opportunity to protest. If protests are filed it will at a minimum delay a decision by the State, and it could require either negotiations or a hearing to reach a resolution. Because of the non-consumptive nature of CNFH’s water use and the low potential for impact on other water users, it is likely that any concerns raised in a protest will be resolvable. For planning purposes, it should be assumed that the process will require at least two years to complete.

If water demand at CNFH increases in the future, then additional water rights will be required. The options mentioned above will be considered along with any other viable options which might be identified. Whether or not additional water is needed in the future, it may be necessary to reconfigure the intake system or reallocate diversion rates between the existing intakes. If this is the case, then the Service will petition the State to make the necessary changes to the existing appropriative water rights.

3.0 INTAKE SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA / ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 General

Prior to the initiation of this study, the Coleman Intake Work Group established a set of intake system evaluation criteria. These criteria were established for the purpose of evaluating potential intake alternatives as to the extent to which they meet the project goals and objectives. The criteria are defined in this section, and subsequently utilized in Section 6.0 to make individual assessments of each alternative. A second set of criteria, referred to as the selection criteria, was established for the purposes of making final selections of recommended alternatives. These criteria are addressed in Section

7.0. In most cases the criteria are the same, however, there are some differences, for example, if every alternative fulfills a particular criterion equally there would be no need to include that criterion in the selection process. Additionally, although cost was not considered an evaluation criterion for the purposes of developing and assessing the alternatives, conceptual level cost estimates were developed for each alternative and would obviously be a consideration in the selection process.

3.2 Evaluation Criteria / Assumptions

The following is a listing of the evaluation criteria used to assess the existing intake system and the alternatives developed for improvement of that system. Assumptions related to these criteria are also presented.

a. Water quality and quantity. The quality and quantity of the water delivered from the intake system shall meet the operational requirements of the hatchery.

With regards to water quality, it is assumed that water to be used at the hatchery for rearing purposes in critical life-stages will be treated. Otherwise, until water treatment is developed for all the water supply needs of the hatchery, untreated water from Battle Creek is assumed to be adequate for non-critical rearing phases. Obviously, under this scenario, the less disease-prone the water source, the less the risk to the hatchery. For example, due to the lack of access by adult salmon to Coleman Canal water prior to exiting the Coleman powerhouse (both currently and under a restoration plan), this water, the source of water for Intake 1, is assumed to be somewhat less disease-prone than main stem Battle Creek water.

The quantity of water required for current and future hatchery production operations at CNFH (and the locations on the hatchery grounds where this water is required) are as presented in Section 2.0. For the purposes of this study, the combined design water supply capacity for the entire water supply system from all intakes will be 64,000 gpm (143 cfs) plus 6,000 gpm (13 cfs) for downstream water rights for a total supply of 70,000 gpm (156 cfs). The target optimal flow capacity for any single intake will be 40,000 gpm (89 cfs).

b. System reliability. The intakes shall have a high degree of reliability for all reasonably anticipated environmental and operational conditions at the hatchery and with respect to anticipated changes to the water supply configurations in the upper watershed due to the Battle Creek restoration efforts, changes to the hydropower systems and other water resource management proposals.

System reliability relates not only to the physical integrity of the intakes themselves (resistance to mechanical breakdowns, flooding, erosion, sedimentation, vandalism, etc.), but also to the reliability of the water source supplying these intakes. Issues related to the physical integrity of the intakes are quite predictable and can be effectively planned for during the design process.

The reliability of the water source, on the other hand, is much less predictable and is largely beyond the control of the hatchery making planning much more difficult. One issue that affects water source reliability is possible changes in watershed management and operations associated with the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project. Ongoing deregulation of the power generation and distribution industry has increased this uncertainty, possibly leading to changes in ownership and facility operational goals and objectives. A related issue is the reliability of the hydroelectric project infrastructure to predictably deliver water to the hatchery intakes. This is especially true in light of the many miles of canals, pipelines and numerous mechanical equipment installations required to maintain a steady flow of water through the hydroelectric system. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the current configuration and operation of powerhouses (especially Coleman Powerhouse which currently serves as the water source for Intake 1), will remain in place and in operation largely as it does currently, at least until 2026 when the current PG&E license is up for renewal. Turbines at Coleman powerhouse were replaced in 1978 and are assumed to be viable through the term of the current license. It is also assumed that if problems should occur with the hydroelectric project infrastructure, repair of the failed components (for example, failure of the Coleman Power Canal) would be a high priority for PG&E in order to minimize loss of power generation.

The one aspect of the system reliability issue that is in the hatchery’s control is risk minimization and mitigation. Intake configurations that minimize risks associated with unforeseen changes in the hydroelectric project operations, or mitigate for them, have advantages in this regard.

Another issue affecting system reliability from a water source perspective is the status of in-stream flow requirements for the various water courses near the hatchery. Changes in in-stream flow requirements for various reaches of Battle Creek may be subject to changes in the future, depending on the priorities established for the drainage. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the minimum in-stream flow requirements agreed to in current negotiations with PG&E will be maintained for the foreseeable future. In the main stem of Battle Creek, below the confluence of the North and South Forks of Battle Creek, this minimum in-stream flow is assumed to be 35 to 88 cfs, adjusted seasonally, with current minimum flow obligations of 150 cfs being maintained below the confluence of the Coleman powerhouse tailrace and Battle Creek as required by the PG&E operating license.

c. Redundancy. The water system shall have alternative intakes to allow for

Redundancy of operation (including emergency backup).

In the development of redundant systems, it is assumed that redundancy applies to the overall intake system and not the individual components such as the conveyance pipe or screening system. Thus, in the context of the existing Intake 1 & 2 system, which shares a common pipeline, these intakes are currently redundant to each other and therefore the system has greater redundancy than the Intake 3 system which has a single intake. Although many hatcheries operate successfully with a single intake supplying 100% of the water demand of the facility, it was agreed by the Intake Working Group during the development of intake criteria that the optimum situation at CNFH will be two largely independent intake systems each with a minimum capacity of approximately 40,000 gpm (89 cfs). Alternatives which have less than 40,000 gpm will still be acceptable, provided that the overall demand of the hatchery is met, but will be considered to have a lower redundancy value than those which meet this criteria.

d. Access. The intakes should be located within reasonable response perimeter from Coleman NFH and shall be easily accessed for maintenance.

To qualify as being easily accessible, it is assumed that access must be by conventional hatchery vehicle (truck) and that a reasonable response perimeter from Coleman NFH is a distance and location that allows for effective resolution of emergency situations at the intakes without jeopardizing hatchery operations or creating a safety hazard. Locations that are nearer the hatchery are assumed to be more desirable than ones farther away.

e. Fish Protection. The intakes should provide minimum risk to anadromous salmonids and resident species where these are anticipated to be present.

Fish screening criteria shall meet or exceed 1998 California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines.

Protection measures will be designed for anadromous fish. The critical fish species from a facility design and fish protection standpoint is assumed to be steelhead trout which requires the most stringent screen design criteria.

Resident fish and other aquatic biological organisms, if present, are not specifically designed for.

In addition to fish protection at the intakes, compliance to AFRP Action 5 (screening of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace) is assumed to be included in alternatives which continue to utilize Intake 1. For those alternatives which do not include Intake 1, it is assumed that fish exclusion measures at the tailrace will be constructed, but will be the undertaken by others in conjunction with other fish protection improvements.

f. Maintenance. Both regularly scheduled annual maintenance and the minor routine maintenance activities of either the intake or water conveyance facilities should be easily accommodated and reasonably accomplished.

Intake system designs which facilitate and minimize maintenance activities are assumed to be more desirable. It is, however, assumed that any screening system will require some degree of maintenance and that this maintenance will be performed as required to ensure the continued protection of in-stream fish and operation of the hatchery.

g. Long-term performance. Major components of the intake system shall have a design life of 50 years.

Major components are assumed to include those that constitute the greatest value to replace. These include civil works (foundation systems, walls, pipelines, etc.) but are assumed not to include any mechanical systems such as screen cleaner assemblies, water control gates or actuators, screen systems, debris racks, etc. Mechanical systems such as these inherently require rehabilitation and/or replacement.

h. Water Rights. The diversion and water intake system should be designed to fully utilize the hatchery’s existing water rights, or expanded rights as deemed necessary. Consolidation or relocation of water rights can be considered.

Water right issues and assumptions are as discussed in Section 2.0.

4.0 INTAKE SCREEN SYSTEMS

4.1 General

The screening of water intakes for fish and debris has historically been approached by a variety of different methods. Debris screening is accomplished to preclude floating or entrained organic material from entering water supply systems where it can clog filter systems, pipes, and other critical components.