M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project

1. M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project WORKSHOP #5, 9-3-08 A CALFED BAY-Delta Authority Funded Project Sponsored by: Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

2. MEI

3. M&T PROBLEM • Fish Screen Velocity and Intake Burial • Solutions 1. Relax the fish screening criteria 2. Evaluate a range of solutions that meet fish screen criteria (in-channel) or eliminate the need for fish screens(out-of-channel)

4. Progressive meander migration • Downstream • By 1942, outside of bend reaches pump site • Continues to move downward • Outside of bend “slides” along pump site Eric Larsen UC Davis

5. Progressive migration continues downstream • By 1997, apex of bend reaches pump site • Continued migration will cause apex to migrate downstream • Channel moves away from pump site Eric Larsen UC Davis

6. 2003 Photo 1979 Photo 1979 Photo MEI

7. HEC-RAS Cross Sections

8. Average Annual Bed Material Load

9. Gravel Bar – 2007 Condition Eroding Bank M&T Pumps

10. MEI

13. 1996-2006 VELOCITIES

14. CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM • Downstream bar migration 850 ft in 6 yrs (1995-2001): Rate = 140’/yr (Stillwater Sciences, 2001) – 60’/yr (Larsen/DWR) – 60-80’/yr (Corollo) Recent rates reduced by dredging of gravel bar (2001, 2007): 300,000 t. • Bank erosion and river migration ~ 400 ft in 10 yrs (1996-2006)

15. Project Objectives 1. To obtain an authoritative and unbiased description of the state of scientific knowledge related to Sacramento River meander, fish screen and pumping plant technology by convening a multidisciplinary team of experts in the fields of fluvial geomorphology, sediment transport, hydraulic modeling, fish screen and pumping plant technology. 2. To provide an opportunity for stakeholders and scientists to test and refine an understanding of the potential for unintended effects between managing the natural riverine system, fisheries requirements and pumping requirements.   3. To conduct an exhaustive literature search, fill identified data gaps and conduct modeling to provide important data essential to answering specific questions that support a strong research approach in accomplishing the primary project goal. 4. To determine performance measures/indicators that will guide the long-term solution in meeting the primary project goal. 5. To fully document the investigative process of determining, identifying and justifying the long-term solution that will meet the primary goal of the project.

16. Project Conceptual Model

17. RANKING CRITERIA • Ability to provide reliable water supply (150 cfs; 40,000 A-F/YR) • Ability to let river meander • Ability to meet fish screen criteria • Engineering Feasibility • Capitol Costs • Operation and Maintenance Costs • Compatibility with City of Chico wastewater outfall needs

18. Scientific Panel • Yantao Cui, Ph.D. Research Scientist -Hydrology/Geomorphology • Michael Harvey, Ph.D., P.G. FluvialGeomorphologist • Eric Larsen, Ph.D. Research Scientist-Geology • Robert Mussetter, Ph.D., P.E. Hydraulic Engineer • Dennis Dorratcague, P.E. Civil Engineer (MWH)has assisted with engineering analysis and costing throughout the project

19. Project Stakeholders • M&T Chico Ranch • Llano Seco Ranch • U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Sacramento National Refuge Complex • California Department of Fish & Game • City of Chico

20. WORKSHOP 1 Nov. 2003 • Alternative Water Supplies -Groundwater wells -Ranney Collector -City of Chico Wastewater -Butte Creek Diversion • Change Point of Diversion -Upstream & Big Chico Creek • Additional “T” fish screens -Upstream & across-stream • Bank Stabilization

21. FOLLOW-ON STUDIES • Feasibility of groundwater wells • Costs for alternatives • Feasibility of “T” screens • Economic and legal issues • Evaluation of water supply & demand • Impacts on City of Chico WWTP outfall • River meander and sediment transport modeling

22. WORKSHOP 2 March 2004 • Infiltration galleries • Extended intakes d/s and across-stream • In-conduit fish screens • Dredging w/ modified fish screens • Rock Dikes • Multiple production wells • Ranney Collectors

23. OUTCOME • Reject - Extended intakes - In-conduit screens - Infiltration galleries - Multiple production wells • Carried Forward - Dredging & modified screens - Spur dikes - Ranney Collectors

24. ADDITIONAL STUDIES • Two-dimensional modeling • Meander modeling • Drilling of test wells

25. Workshop 3: February 2005 • 3-4 Ranney wells • Dredging/fish screen modification • Spur dikes • ADDITIONAL STUDIES • 4 Feasibility studies to inform alternatives • Refine meander analysis (50-yrs) (impacts) • Enviro. Documentation- gravel bar dredge • Feasibility of interim stabilization

26. WORKSHOP 4: April 2006 • No Action • 3-4 Ranney wells ($20-26M) ($~ 30 A-F) • 1-2 Ranney wells (can’t supply 30,000 AF) • 8 Dikes • 9 Dikes • 9 dikes extended ($7.5 -$12M) ($13 AF) • 3 dredge alternatives ($8.6M) ($15 AF)

27. Alternatives Evaluation

28. ADDITIONAL STUDIES & ACTIONS • 2-D model to evaluate u/s and d/s impacts of dikes and removal of rock revetments • Additional meander modeling to predict impacts of rock removal • Physical modeling to evaluate dredging and spur dikes • Interim bank stabilization • Removal of gravel bar

29. CALFED EXPENDITURES • 1997 New pumping plant and screens $5M • 2001 Gravel bar dredging $400,000 • 2007 Gravel bar dredging $ 409,000 • 2007 Interim bank stabilization $620,000 • 2003 – 2008 Studies $1.4M • TOTAL EXPENDITURE (1997-2008) $8.3M

30. INTERIM STABILIZATION

31. INTERIM STABILIZATION

32. 2007 DREDGING

33. Existing Revetments MEI

34. Meander Modeling of Revetment Removal (Larsen,2008)

35. 2-D Modeling to evaluate upstream and downstream impacts of dikes and to evaluate effects of river meandering on the M&T overflow weir MEI M&T Weir

36. PHYSICAL MODELING1:75 Froude-scale Model

37. DIKES

38. CURRENT STATUS • No Action alternative • Eliminated dredging alternatives • 9 Dike alternative • Move pumping plant - ~ 2,200 ft - ~ 3,500 ft

39. Proposed Dike Field (100-200 ft-long ) MEI

40. RED RIVER, LA DIKE

41. Sacramento River Bridge @ Butte City Br. No. 11-0017 Before Dikes 2004

42. During high flows Feb, 2006

43. BUTTE CITY DIKE

44. RED RIVER, LA DIKE ~ 200 FT LONG

45. RED RIVER, LA DIKE ~ 200 FT LONG

46. Larsen (2006) Meander Modeling W/ Dikes W/O Dikes

47. 2200 ft 3600 ft MEI

48. Bank and Bar Migration RM 192.4