1 / 16

Hydrologic Analysis for CAMP Environment, Fish and Wildlife Working Group

Hydrologic Analysis for CAMP Environment, Fish and Wildlife Working Group. Briefing for ESHMC May 6, 2008. SWC Opinion.

meris
Download Presentation

Hydrologic Analysis for CAMP Environment, Fish and Wildlife Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hydrologic Analysis for CAMP Environment, Fish and Wildlife Working Group Briefing for ESHMC May 6, 2008

  2. SWC Opinion “…water going into the Snake River … would pass the reservoir system and go beyond Milner Dam, potentially benefitting others who are not parties to this proceeding, including Idaho Power, those concerned with the ESA, the Nez Perce settlement and any other flow augmentation interests, and the State of Oregon.” “Collateral consequences to other interests are for another forum.”

  3. EFW Working Group • Aberdeen Springfield • CDR Associates • IDEQ, IDWR, IFG • Idaho Power • Nature Conservancy • Trout Unlimited • USBR • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  4. Goal “to identify and discuss possible impacts on fish and wildlife resources, positive and negative, from actions to be taken under the ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan”

  5. Concerns • Species and habitats • Reach flows • Spring flows • Water quality and temperature • Other info for evaluating impacts

  6. Meetings • EFW Working Group met on March 17 and April 4 • Presentation to CAMP on April 24 in Rexburg • IDWR and IPCO modelers met on April 16, April 23, and May 2

  7. Goals of Analysis • Evaluate hydrologic impacts of CAMP measures on a seasonal basis • Agree upon a single method of analysis

  8. Method • 3 computer programs • SRPM • ESPAM • Recharge Water Availability • Iterative modeling • SRPM for years 0 and 1  RWA program for year 1  superposition ESPAM to predict reach gains for years 1 through XX  SRPM for years 1 and 2

  9. Assumptions • Conversions • Require diversions of 3 acre-feet/acre • Soft conversions • Phased in over 10 years • Limited by canal capacity • Hard conversions • Initiated in year 10 at full implementation • Not limited by canal capacity • Storage in Lake Walcott increased from 97 KAF to 147 KAF

  10. Assumptions cont’d • Exchange flow • Augmentation flows at Milner decreased for July, August, and September • High lift pump acreage below King Hill reduced by 1.2 acres for every soft conversion acre • CREP • 200 KAF phased in over 10 years

  11. Assumptions cont’d • Recharge • Uniformly distributed along • Egin • Great Western • Aberdeen Springfield • Recharge sites • Milner Gooding (2) • NSCC (4) • 10-year phase-in

  12. Assumptions cont’d • Priority • Hard Conversions • Soft Conversions • Recharge on NSCC • Recharge on Milner Gooding • Recharge on Aberdeen Springfield • Recharge on Egin • Recharge on Great Western

  13. Scenarios • Base • Full CAMP • Full Camp No CREP • CREP only • Other

  14. To Do • Develop database application to facilitate iterative modeling • Verify/evaluate results • Compare results for 1-month and 6-month stress periods

  15. Thank You

More Related