Section 2. Mono Basin Operations

Similar documents
Section 2. Mono Basin Operations

Section 2. Mono Basin Operations

Section 1. Compliance with State Water Resource Control Board Order Nos and 98-07

Section 4. Mono Basin Tributaries: Lee Vining, Rush, Walker, and Parker Creeks. Monitoring Results and Analysis For Runoff Season

Hydrologic Characteristics of the Owens River Basin below the Upper Owens River

GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 157 Short Street, Bishop, California Fax:

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE MONO BASIN PM-10 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. September 2004

Section 4. Mono Basin Tributaries: Lee Vining, Rush, Walker, and Parker Creeks. Monitoring Results and Analysis For Runoff Season

Mono Lake, Walker, Parker, Lee Vining and Rush Creek, and the LA Aqueduct:

Water Supply Board Briefing. Water Operations Department March 22, 2016

Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project Relicensing

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

Reservoir Drought Operations

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hydrological Conditions Report For May 2017 J. Chester, C. Graham, & M. Tsang, June 5, 2017

Chapter VII. Falls Lake Project -- Water Control Plan

OPERATIONS IN THE MONO BASIN*

Water Supply Board Briefing. Water Operations Department January 10, 2017

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Annual Owens Valley Report May Annual Owens Valley Operations Plan for the 14 Runoff Year

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hydrological Conditions Report February 2018 J. Chester, C. Graham, & N. Waelty, March 6, 2018

AGENDA DATE: November 14, 2018

2015 Restoration Allocation and Default Flow Schedule January 20, 2015

Exploring the Possibilities At Prado Dam

Maintaining Water Supply Resilience in Extreme Times

Amendment to EBMUD Retirement System Ordinance (No. 40) - Section 21 First Reading. Board of Directors March 10, 2015

An Investigation into the 2012 drought on Apalachicola River. Steve Leitman, Bill Pine and Greg Kiker

Chapter IV: SUMMARY OF MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS. The quantity of runoff, precipitation, evaporation,

Water Planning and Stewardship Committee Item 6a February 8, 2016

Draft Application for New License for Major Water Power Project Existing Dam

A Case Study: Imperial Valley, California

Chapter 6 Water Resources

San Antonio Water System Mitchell Lake Constructed Wetlands Below the Dam Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis

ROGUE BASIN PROJECT CONSERVATION RELEASE SEASON OPERATING PLAN WATER YEAR 2018

Initial 2018 Restoration Allocation & Default Flow Schedule January 23, 2018

IOP Concept 5 Forecast 03 Apr 2007 to 31 Dec COE HEC-5 Simulation of IOP using hydrologic conditions of 2000 and 2001

..Title Receive Report on Salinas Valley Water Conditions for the Third Quarter of Water Year

Chabot Dam Seismic Upgrade Spec Board of Directors March 8, 2016

CENTRAL ASSINIBOINE INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY REPORT

DES MOINES RIVER RESERVOIRS WATER CONTROL PLAN UPDATES IOWA ASCE WATER RESOURCES DESIGN CONFERENCE

Spring Forecast Based Operations, Folsom Dam, California

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2101) WATER BALANCE MODEL TECHNICAL REPORT

KEY STORAGE FACILITIES

Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. P-2337 Initial Study Report: Ramping May 2015

TRUCKEE BASIN STUDY. Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region. Truckee Meadows Water Authority. April 15, 2015 Reno, NV BOARD Agenda Item 6

Stormwater as a Local Resource

Glades Reservoir Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Virginia and North Carolina (Section 216)

Case Study: Camp Far West Reservoir Spill as an indicator of water supply availability in the Bear River system for Centennial Reservoir

3.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action License Term Project Facilities to be Licensed...

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) Water Use and Quality. PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon

Folsom Dam Water Control Manual Update

Hetch Hetchy Water and Power

Los Angeles 3 rd Regional

Sierra Mountains. LA Aqueduct. Supplies Conservation

Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects

PEACE RIVER MANASOTA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING December 5, 2018 ROUTINE STATUS REPORTS ITEM 1

American River Group Thursday, October 18th, :30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821

Water Supply Reallocation Workshop

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hydrological Conditions Report For June 2015

EXHIBIT B PLANT OPERATION AND RESOURCES UTILIZATION

In Response to the State Water Resources Control Board Order Nos and 98-07

Considerations for Modeling a Water Bank at the Aspinall Unit with Current Environmental Flows

100 years ago, the 110 square mile Owens Lake was one of the largest natural lakes in California.

VII - WATER CONTROL PLAN

LAND 2 Multiple Use Opportunity Assessment

Wyoming Water Development Commission Michael K. Purcell, Director 6920 Yellowtail Rd, Cheyenne, WY All Results DRAFT Subject to Change

Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Ecological Modeling Issues and Implementation for the Blind River Fresh Water Diversion Project

Chapter Content. Tables. Figures. Chapter 3 Watershed and Delta Hydrology...33 Precipitation...33 Runoff Index...34 Delta Outflows...

California s s Water Supplies and Uses

RED RIVER FLOODWAY OPERATION REPORT SPRING Manitoba Infrastructure

Dr. Bob Harrington March 3, 2016 Inyo County Water Department 135 South Jackson Street Independence, CA 93526

Environmental Geography

16 September Water Management Wilmington District. US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG

United Water Conservation District November 2016 Hydrologic Conditions Report 2017 Water Year. December 6, 2016

BAWSCA

Appendix 5G Comparison of FEIRS Alternative 4A Modeling Results to the California Water Fix Section BA Proposed Action Modeling Results

Over 150 Years of Irrigation Implications for Montana s Water Resources

NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT

Water Operations 101. Jerry Johns and John Leahigh Department of Water Resources BDCP Steering Committee 5/8/09

Legislative Committee on Public Lands

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report

US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. A Dam Safety Study Involving Cascading Dam Failures

Missouri River Basin Water Management Spring 2013 Public Meetings

Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246

DEAD RIVER DEAD RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-10855)

RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT GROUNDWATER WORKSHOP. Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin

Columbia River Treaty

The primary application of the forecast model is to determine. the effect of water diversions and changes in climate on the

A Tale of Two Dams and a dry river. November 1, 2011 Planning, Resources and Technology Committee Mojave Water Agency

CHAPTER 8 FLOOD CONTROL 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT YUBA REGION

PARR. PARR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PARR HYDRO DEVELOPMENT & FAIRFIELD PUMPED STORAGE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT FERC PROJECT No SC JANUARY 2013

SLIDES: Response of the System to Various Hydrological and Operational Assumptions: Reclamation Modeling Results

Interlake Tunnel Project 10/22/14

This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

GET AHEAD OR GET PARCHED: SIX WAYS TO SURVIVE THE DROUGHT

Section 6: Stormwater Improvements

CRT Operations in Low Water Conditions

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model (URGWOM)

Prepared by: PacifiCorp 825 NE Multnomah Street Portland, OR 97232

March 26, Colorado River Basin States. Colorado River overview and management. Basin States response to drought

OVERLAND RESERVOIR. Prepared for: Overland Ditch and Reservoir Company Redlands Mesa Road Hotchkiss, CO 81419

Transcription:

Section 2 Mono Basin Compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1631 and Order Nos. 98-05 and 98-07 May 2013 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Table of Contents Page No. Introduction... 1 MONO BASIN OPERATIONS PLAN RY 2013-14... 1 Planned Exports for RY 2013-14... 2 Expected Mono Lake Elevations during RY 2013-14... 2 REVIEW OF THE MONO BASIN RY 2012-13 OPERATIONS... 3 Mono Lake Elevations during RY 2012-13... 4 Attachments: Mono Lake Elevation Chart 5 2013 Runoff Year Forecast...........6 Mono Basin, Guideline A...7 Scenario: RY 2013 Forecasted Grant Lake Reservoir Illustration.....8 Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 i Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Introduction Pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1631 and Order Nos. 98-05 and 98-07 (Orders), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) undertakes certain activities in the Mono Basin in compliance with the terms and conditions of its water right licenses 10191 and 10192. In addition to restoration and monitoring activities covered in Section 1 of this report, LADWP also reports on certain required operational activities. MONO BASIN OPERATIONS PLAN RY 2013-14 Forecast for RY 2013-14 The Mono Basin s May 1 st forecast for Runoff Year (RY) 2013-14 for April to March period is 80,600 acre-feet (AF), or 66 percent of average using the 1961-2010 long term mean of 122,333 AF (attached). The May runoff forecast did not change from the April runoff forecast. This value puts the year type within the Dry category. According to the Grant Lake Management Plan (GLOMP) approved under SWRCB Order 98-05, LADWP will follow Guideline A (attached) for the operating requirements during RY 2013-14, with certain variations described below. Rush Creek Baseflows will follow Guideline A of 31 cubic feet per second (cfs) from April 1 to September 30, 2013, and 36 cfs from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, or the equivalent of Rush Creek flow at Damsite, whichever is less. There is no peak flow release requirement for Dry year type. Rush Creek Augmentation In wetter years, LADWP utilizes one or both of its additional facilities to release higher peak flows. These facilities include the 5-Siphons bypass, which can release as tested 100 cfs from Lee Vining Creek, and the Grant Lake Reservoir (GLR) Spillway, which can release large reservoir spills into lower Rush Creek during the wetter years. 5-Siphons Bypass Aside from utilizing the 5-Siphons bypass facility to augment Rush Creek peak flow requirements, LADWP was intending to test the physical capability to augment up to 150 cfs from the Lee Vining Conduit through the 5-Siphons bypass facility. However, Southern California Edison (SCE) operates the upstream reservoirs and their preliminary estimates show that they most likely will not be able to provide in excess of such flow down the Lee Vining Creek due to lack of adequate forecasted runoff and their operating requirements. Grant Lake Reservoir Spill GLR is not forecasted to spill during the RY 2013-14. Lee Vining Creek Baseflows will follow Guideline A of 37 cfs, or flow at Lee Vining Creek Above, whichever is less, from April 1 to September 30, 2013, and 25 cfs, or Lee Vining Creek Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 1 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Above, whichever is less, from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. All flows in excess of these requirements will be diverted to GLR through the Lee Vining Conduit. There is no peak flow passing requirement for Dry year type. Parker and Walker Creeks If there is enough runoff available, Parker and Walker creek facilities will be operated according to Guideline A. If the incoming flow is lower than flows in the Guideline, the facilities will be operated as pass through. If the incoming flow is higher, excess flow will be diverted to GLR. Grant Lake Reservoir (GLR) GLR storage volume was 35,595 AF, corresponding to a surface elevation of 7,118.8 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the start of the runoff year. According to LADWP model, using representative historical data from the 1991 runoff year (64 percent of normal year), and Guideline A baseflows, the model forecasts GLR to be approximately 40,000 AF by the end of the runoff year (see Scenario A at the end of this section). Before selecting a representative historical runoff year for modeling, the year s preceding runoff year is also looked at for similarities with the preceding runoff year of the current forecasted year. Forecasted scenarios will be relatively close only if this year s hydrology turns out to be similar to the hydrology of the selected historical runoff year. are subject to change with variations in actual hydrology during the upcoming runoff year. Planned Exports for RY 2013-14 LADWP plans to export the allowed 16,000 AF this year in accordance with SWRCB Decision 1631 and Guideline A. The plan is to export the 16,000 AF much earlier than common at about 50 cfs until early September. Emergencies and/or maintenance issues may arise and as a result export may need to be halted and resumed later at a different rate to achieve the 16,000 AF before the end of the RY. Expected Mono Lake Elevations during RY 2013-14 Mono Lake began this runoff year at 6,382.2 ft AMSL where it is forecasted to decrease and end the runoff year at approximately 6,381.0 ft AMSL (see attached chart). Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 2 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

REVIEW OF THE MONO BASIN RY 2012-13 OPERATIONS Rush Creek The runoff from Rush Creek was approximately 28,356 AF which amounts to the total water delivered to Grant s Damsite. Rush Creek flows below the Narrows, which consist of Rush Creek releases (Return Ditch, Spill, and 5-Siphons augmentation) combined with Parker and Walker Creek flows, had an approximate total of 31,190 AF. This flow terminated into Mono Lake with the highest flow of 72 cfs occurring on April 25, 2012. RY 2012 was forecasted as a Dry year type and as such, following Guideline A, there was no peak flow released. Rush Creek Augmentation To meet high flow targets for lower Rush Creek, LADWP at times must employ facilities in addition to the Mono Gate One Return Ditch (MGORD) which has a 380 cfs capacity limit. During these wetter years, LADWP utilizes one or both of its additional facilities to release higher peak flows. These facilities include the 5-Siphons bypass, which can release up to 100 cfs (150 cfs is the plan but that has yet to be tested due to lack of runoff) from Lee Vining Creek, and the Grant Reservoir Spillway, which can release large reservoir spills, into lower Rush Creek and during the wetter year types. 5-Siphons Bypass RY 2012 was forecasted as a Dry year type and as such, following Guideline A, there was no peak flow released in Rush Creek and therefore 5-Siphons were not utilized. Grant Reservoir Spill Grant did not spill during RY 2012. Lee Vining Creek RY 2012 was forecasted as a Dry year type and as such, following Guideline A, there was no pass the peak operation. Lee Vining Creek had its highest flow on April 22 with 59 cfs. Total runoff for the year was approximately 24,296 AF. Parker and Walker Creeks Parker and Walker were diverted according to Guideline A. However, they were only diverted a portion of the time due to the lack of enough runoff. Parker Creek had its highest flow on August 19 at 19 cfs. Total runoff for the year was approximately 5,222 AF. Walker Creek had its highest flow on April 27 at 9 cfs. Total runoff for the year was approximately 2,294 AF. Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 3 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Grant Lake Reservoir Grant Lake began the runoff year at approximately 35,496 AF (7,118.8 ft AMSL). The reservoir did not spill during the RY. Final storage volume by the end of the RY of March 31, 2013 was approximately 32,281 AF (7115.5 ft AMSL). Exports during RY 2012-13 During RY 2012-13, LADWP exported 15,839 AF from the Mono Basin, which falls below the allowed 16,000 AF under Decision 1631. Mono Lake Elevations during RY 2012-13 Mono Lake elevations were monitored 32 times during RY 2012-13 as shown in the following table. The Lake elevation was at 6,384.0 ft AMSL at the beginning of the runoff year, and ended the runoff year at 6,382.2 ft AMSL, a decrease of 1.8 ft. RY 2012-13 Mono Lake Elevation Readings YEAR MO DY Mono Elev. YEAR MO DY Mono Elev. 2012 4 10 6,384.0 2012 12 5 6,382.0 2012 4 19 6,383.9 2012 12 13 6,382.0 2012 5 2 6,383.9 2013 1 9 6,382.0 2012 5 15 6,383.8 2013 2 6 6,382.1 2012 6 21 6,383.6 2013 3 5 6,382.1 2012 6 28 6,383.3 2013 3 14 6,382.1 2012 7 11 6,383.4 2013 3 21 6,382.2 2012 7 19 6,383.1 2012 7 25 6,383.0 2012 8 1 6,383.1 2012 8 8 6,382.9 2012 8 15 6,383.0 2012 8 22 6,382.8 2012 8 29 6,382.7 2012 9 5 6,382.7 2012 9 13 6,382.7 2012 9 19 6,382.6 2012 9 26 6,382.5 2012 10 3 6,382.4 2012 10 9 6,382.3 2012 10 18 6,382.3 2012 10 24 6,382.2 2012 10 31 6,382.2 2012 11 7 6,382.2 2012 11 20 6,382.0 2012 11 28 6,382.0 Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 4 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 5 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

2013 EASTERN SIERRA RUNOFF FORECAST May 1, 2013 APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER RUNOFF MOST PROBABLE REASONABLE REASONABLE LONG-TERM MEAN VALUE MAXIMUM MINIMUM (1961-2010) (Acre-feet) (% of Avg.) (% of Avg.) (% of Avg.) (Acre-feet) MONO BASIN: 64,400 62% 74% 50% 103,522 OWENS RIVER BASIN: 140,500 46% 59% 33% 303,903 APRIL THROUGH MARCH RUNOFF MOST PROBABLE REASONABLE REASONABLE LONG-TERM MEAN VALUE MAXIMUM MINIMUM (1961-2010) (Acre-feet) (% of Avg.) (% of Avg.) (% of Avg.) (Acre-feet) MONO BASIN: 80,400 66% 79% 52% 122,333 OWENS RIVER BASIN: 220,900 54% 66% 41% 412,284 NOTE - Ow ens River Basin includes Long, Round and Ow ens Valleys (not incl Law s Area) MOST PROBABLE - That runoff w hich is expected if median precipitation occurs after the forecast date. REASONABLE MAXIMUM - That runoff w hich is expected to occur if precipitation subsequent to the forecast is equal to the amount w hich is exceeded on the average once in 10 years. REASONABLE MINIMUM - That runoff w hich is expected to occur if precipitation subsequent to the forecast is equal to the amount w hich is exceeded on the average 9 out of 10 years. Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 6 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Mono Basin, Guideline A Year Type....... DRY Forecasted Runoff in acre-feet............ 83,655 Lower Rush Creek Base Flows: Peak Flows: Ramping: Lee Vining Creek Base Flows: Peak Flows: Ramping: Diversions: Apr Sep Oct-Mar Flow (cfs) 31 36 Minimum base flows are those specified above unless Grant Lake storage drops below 11,500 acre-feet (7,089.4 elevation), in which case base flows should equal the lesser of Grant Lake inflow or the minimum requirements listed above (D-1631, p 197-198). - None. - None. Apr Sep Oct-Mar Flow (cfs) 37 25 Minimum base flows are those specified above or the stream flow at the point of diversion, whichever is less. - None. - None. - Divert flows in excess of base flows. Augmentation: - None. Parker and Walker Creeks Base Flows: Apr Sep Oct-Mar Parker (cfs) 9 6 Walker (cfs) 6 4.5 Minimum base flows are those specified above or the stream flow at the point of diversion, whichever is less. Peak Flows: Ramping: Diversions: - None. - None. - Divert flows in excess of base flows. Exports 4,500 acre-feet scenario Maintain 6 cfs export throughout the year. 16,000 acre-feet scenario As much as possible, maintain 22 cfs export throughout the year. Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 7 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Scenario A: RY 2013 Grant Lake Reservoir Storage Projection Mono Basin Compliance Reporting May 2013 8 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power