Sublette Creek ReservoirMau/Covey Canals Rehabilitation

Level II StudyPresentation By:

RJH Consultants, Inc.Robert J. Huzjak, P.E. Edwin R. Friend, P.E., P.G.

States West Water Resources Corporation

Jack Meena, P.E.Funded By

Wyoming Water Development Commission

In Association With

•States West Water Resources Corporation•Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.•Wyoming Game and Fish•Miller Ecological Associates•Sunrise Engineering

Scope of Meeting Present Conclusions and Recommendations

Storage of compact water Fisheries Wetlands Uplands Identify Beneficiaries Purpose and Need Potable Water Supply Covey Canal Hydrology Recreation Pool

Storage of Compact Water Evaluated other potential uses for 4,100

AF of compact water (storage in other existing reservoirs) Water has been transferred between other

reservoirs in the pastReservoir on Sublette Creek likely best

use of some of compact storage water To increase funding for the project, the

State of Wyoming will maintain control of 1,100 AF

CDC can use 3,000 AF to fill reservoir

Fisheries Impacts and Benefits Habitat Units calculated for all stream segments Preliminary results for change in stream habitat

units with reservoir and recommended release from Sublette Reservoir: Sublette Creek upstream of dam: -69 units Sublette Cr. From dam to Hwy 30: +12 units Sublette Cr. From Hwy 30 to Bear River: +10 units Smith’s Fork: No Change Bear River: No Change Net change in habitat units: -47 units

Habitat units lost on Sublette Creek due to reservoir inundation will need to be mitigated

Fisheries Mitigation

Rehabilitate Sublette Creek between the dam and the Bear River

Install fish passage on Sublette Creek to the Bear River

Install fish passage around the Covey diversion on Smiths Fork

Install fish screen on the Covey diversion on Smiths Fork

Others???

WetlandsWetlands at upper end likely not impacted

Can be inundated for 2-3 months Upper 2 feet not impacted Reduces impacted acres to 21

WGFD could have issues with impacts to wildlife

Possible further reduced impacts based on operations

Performed Functional Assessment Functional Units Lost = 367

Possible Wetlands Mitigation Sites

Terrestrial Wildlife Issues

No Sage Grouse Impacts from WGFD Big game migration does not appear to be an issue

BLM

Had concerns with sheep trail, alleviated with western realignment

Concerned with USFWS and possible impacts to Sage Grouse

Construction can only occur between July 15 and November 15

No net loss of habitat function Federal authorization required to inundate BLM lands

Identify Beneficiaries

Need to obtain from CokevilleDevelopment Company

Direct beneficiaries of the projectCritical to Advancing project

Purpose and Need Statement

Developed initial draft to support project and provide project definition to regulatory agencies Iterative process with multiple revisions

Potable Water Supply

New well near structures Pipeline from Cokeville not feasible and

cost prohibitive

Covey Canal – Big Hill Section and Siphon

• Probable long service life because of low pressures

• Could serve future project with some repairs• Patching linings and coatings

• Cathodic protection repair recommended

Covey Canal Seepage Losses

Revaluated seepage losses for full canal vs measured values

Seepage loss about 22-23 percent (down from 39 percent)

Continue canal maintenanceNo rehabilitation to canal needed for

reservoir filling Rehabilitation to canal, would be tied to

reservoir development

Model Update• Original STATEMOD model developed by Anderson Consulting Engineers and Leonard

Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc.• Completed in 2001 for WWDC.• Uses stream flow data from 1971-1998.• Uses hydrographer reported diversions for same period.• Simulates Bear River Basin from headwaters to Rainbow Inlet Canal.• Calibration within 5% of actual stream gage.

• Model Update for Sublette Creek Reservoir Project. (Phase 1)• Extended diversion and stream flow record to 2006 in order to model severe drought

conditions.• Verified water rights.• Ran model with base data.• Modeled proposed reservoir with existing canal conditions.• Modeled effect on proposed reservoir with various canal improvements

• Model Update for Sublette Creek Reservoir Project. (Phase 2)• Added Sublette Creek flow and Abrahams diversion.• Correct Covey Canal efficiency as determined by Sunrise Engineering.• Adjusted releases. • Modeled proposed reservoir with existing canal conditions and increased efficiency.• Determined affect on downstream shortages.• Modeled reservoir elevation time series computed to allow wetlands inundation

timing to be calculated.

Covey Canal Mean Diversion and Available Flow

0 623

064

8

01,

182

02,

904

2,61

32,

636

5,11

1 6,32

7

4,27

62,

579

2,34

0

1,10

5

1,10

9

1,35

8

01,

715

0 415

0 208

15,4

48

21,6

97

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Am

ount

(ac-

ft)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalMonth

Mean Diversion and Available Flow

Hist DivAvailable

Canal Capacity

Smiths Fork River Modeled Flow below Covey Canal Diversion

(with Sublette Creek Reservoir Diversion)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Date

Ave

rage

Dai

ly F

low

(cfs

)

Sublette Creek Gaged FlowsAvailable Water in Sublette Creek at Dam Site

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

4500.0

Apr

-58

Apr

-60

Apr

-62

Apr

-64

Apr

-66

Apr

-68

Apr

-70

Apr

-72

Apr

-74

Apr

-76

Apr

-78

Apr

-80

Apr

-82

Apr

-84

Apr

-86

Apr

-88

Apr

-90

Apr

-92

Apr

-94

Apr

-96

Apr

-98

Apr

-00

Apr

-02

Apr

-04

Apr

-06

Month

Ava

ilabl

e W

ater

(Acr

e-ft)

MonthlyAnnual

Reservoir Releases and Stream Flows

Preliminary flow recommendations by month for Sublette Creek, Smiths Fork, and Bear River.

Monthly Flow Recommendation (cfs) Site Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Sublette Creek 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.5[WM1][WM2]

0.5 10 10 10 10 10

Smiths Fork 100

Existing flow

Existing flow

Existing flow

Existing flow

Existing flow

200 604 753 200 100 100

Bear River 106 142 113 105 125 303 361 475 475 100 100 100

Losses• Canal Losses.

• Based on efficiency of canal.• Modeled at 61% and 78% efficient

• Evaporation.• Mean evaporation of 853 ac-ft.

Diversions Associated with ShortagesDitch Station Priority Right

(cfs)Model Station 7001 – Below Woodruff Narrows Res.

Francis Lee 7001 18790000. 9.61Model Station 9004 – Sublette Creek

Abraham Stoner 9004 18820206. 8.94Model Station 10000 – Upper Smiths Fork

Quinn-Bourne 10000 19041126. 3.77Quinn-Bourne 10000 19151118. 1.09

4.86Model Station 11001 – Bear River below Smiths Fork

Wyman No. 1 11001 18860501. 3.35 Wyman No. 2 11001 18861010. 1.00 Garrett 11001 18880901. 2.07George Bourne 11001 19030922. 0.42Rocky Point 11001 19060316. 0.43George Bourne 11001 19070517. 0.43Wyman No. 2 11001 19481110. 2.10 George Bourne 11001 19510111. 0.47Wymn No. 2 11001 19581114. 0.64Rocky Point 11001 19620404. 2.77

13.25Model Station 11002 – Bear River

Lorenzo Sights 11002 18804000. 1.14 Alonzo F. Sights 11002 18840530. 8.19 John Sights 11002 19070306. 0.57 May Sights 11002 19070306. 0.28

10.18Model Station 11003 – Bear River

Oscar F. Snyder 11003 18810530. 5.07 Oscar F. Snyder 11003 19540504. 6.31

11.38

Base ModelSublette Creek Res.

With 61% Eff.Sublette Creek Res

with 70% Eff.7001 2,011 2,011 2,0119004 Not Modeled 152 152

10000 77 77 7711001 1,405 140 14011002 460 340 34011003 858 191 191

Total 4,812 2,911 2,911

Mean Shortages in Ac-ft

Reservoir Temperature Model• Model Engine is Army Corp./Portland State CE-QUAL-W2 developed by States West

Water Resources/Wenck Associates• Completed in 2012 for WWDC.• Uses stream flow and water temperature data from 5/2011-6/2012 from Smiths Fork

at Covey Canal and Sublette Creek/Tributary of Sublette Creek gages.• Uses meteorological data from NOAA station at Soda Springs, ID Airport . This

includes air temperature, dew point, wind speed/direction, and cloudiness.• Bathymetric file calculated from USGS topographic maps.

• Limitations/Assumptions• Results dependent on starting values.• Requires daily measurements. Although USGS water temperature measurements

were used for comparison, they were too sporatic for inclussion in model.• Precipitation ignored. Conservative assumption.• Sublette Creek data from 5/2011 to 3/2012 uses collected tributary data.

Conservative assumption since reduces inflows with lower temperature.• Modeled as 12 section (~750 feet wide) with 15 layers (~1 meter)

• Future Model Uses for Sublette Creek Reservoir Project.• Inclusion of Dissolved Oxygen values and fish habitat subroutine. • Estimate other water characteristics in reservoir.• Estimate Algae growth in reservoir.• Estimate affect of variable intake elevations on downstream water temperature.

USGS versus Model Temperature Comparison

Water Temperature vs. Month

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Tem

p (d

F)

At Cokeville, WY

At Border, WY

At Covey Canal Diversion

Temperature vs. Flow

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50 100 150 200 300 400 500 750 1000 1250 1500 >1500

Flow (cfs)Te

mpe

ratu

re (d

F)

Smiths Fork at CokevilleSmiths Fork at Border, WYSmiths Fork at Covey Canal

Reservoir Temperature Model ResultsTemperature versus Depth Section 10 at 120 Days into Simulation (August 28, 2011)

6220

6225

6230

6235

6240

6245

6250

6255

6260

6265

6270

50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0

Temperatuare (Degrees F)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

40 cfs in May~4,100 AF Starting~5,100 AF Starting

Spillway Elevation

Reservoir Operation Arrives from Covey Canal to reservoir = 2,340

Evaporation loss = -850 Available for Use = 1,490

Sublette Creek Flows between Dam and Bear River = -3,000 Average Sublette Creek flow passed through = 1,000

Return flows from Covey and Mau to Sublette Creek = 1,000 Available to release from dam to meet releases = 1,490

Available for discretionary releases = 490

All values in Acre-Feet

SummaryDid not identify fatal flawsConfirmed project appears permittableConfirmed sufficient water supplyReduced potential wetland impacts and

identified feasible mitigation Quantified fisheries impacts and identified

potential mitigation concepts and locationsNo impacts to Smith Fork or Bear River

fisheriesNo Canal improvements needed for water

delivery

Level II Phase III CDC needs to establish a legal entity

Irrigation district Watershed improvement district Water conservancy district

CDC needs to identify potential subscribers to project

Site-specific topographic information should be obtained for the reservoir, wetlands, surrounding areas, and along Sublette Creek between the dam and the Bear River

Level II Phase III Continue stream gaging and temperature

measurements in Sublette Creek, Smiths Fork, and the Bear River and update reservoir temperature model

Update hydrology, reservoir operations, and users Identify potential exchanges (Smiths Fork, Mau,

Covey, ect) Update reservoir temperature model based on 3

years of temperature measurements Update previously identified permitting issues and

mitigation requirements, recommendations and mitigation measures for wetlands and fisheries

Level II Phase III

Perform a Class III cultural resource inventory to evaluate cultural resources that could be impacted by the dam and reservoir

Schedule

Draft Report – October 2012 Final Report – December 2012

Thank you

Any Questions