Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Improvement Projects

Shane O’Nesky, PE ACWD RD3 Fishway & Fabric Replacement Project Manager

Steven Allen, PE GHD, Inc., Project Manager

Michael Love, PE Michael Love & Associates, Hydraulics and

Month,February Day, 8, Year 2018 ACWD Upcoming Fish Passage and Screening Projects

. RD1/BART Fishway . Shinn Diversions and Fish Screens . RD3 Fishway and Fabric Replacement

2/9/2018 2 Fish Passage and Screening Projects

ACWD

LEGEND ACWD & Diversion Pipe ACFCD Rubber

3 Fish Passage Engineering and Design

. Steve Allen, P.E. GHD, Inc. . Mike Love, P.E., Michael Love & Associates

2/9/2018 4 Discussion Overview

. Overview of ACWD Fish Passage Projects . Overview of Project Stakeholders . Design Guidelines . Historical Perspective . Clackamas Example . Example

2/9/2018 5 Shinn Pond Fish Screens (Rendering)

2/9/2018 6 RD3 Fish Ladder (Rendering)

2/9/2018 7 RD1 Fish Ladder (Schematic)

2/9/2018 8 Fish Passage Project Stakeholders . Partner Agency for RD1/BART Weir Fishway . ACFC&WCD . Regulatory/Permitting Agencies . USACE – Readiness & Regulatory, ACFC&WCD, USFW, NOAA/NMFS, CDFW, SFRWQCB, UPRR, BART, EBRPD, DSOD, PG&E . Other Organizations/Funding Entities . Alameda Creek Alliance . Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Work Group . Bureau of Reclamation, NFWF, CNRA

2/9/2018 9 Design Guidelines and References

. Bates, K. 1991. Pool-and-Chute Fishways. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:268-277. . Bates, K. 2001. Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific . Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. . CDFG. 2002. criteria for fish passage. California Department of Fish and Game. 17 pages. . CDFG. 2009. Part XII: Fish passage design and implementation. In the California Salmonid Habitat Restoration Manual. California Department of Fish and Game. . National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings. NMFS SW Region. 14 pages. . National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS NW Region. 140 pages. . USACE. 1994. Hydraulic Design of Control Channels 1110-2-1601. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.

2/9/2018 10 Historical Perspective . In 1890, Washington’s Legislature passed a law requiring fishways to be built at “wherever food fish are wont to ascend.” . Federal Power Act of 1920 required the builders of dams on public waterways to provide either fish passage or hatcheries in compensation for the loss of passage. . The first dam completed on the mainstem Columbia, Rock Island in 1933, included a gently inclining fish ladder. . Columbia River Basin has more than 400 dams , and fish passage ends at Chief Joseph Dam at River Mile 545 . Juvenile salmon and steelhead have been sluiced over dam spillways, collected and transported around dams in barges and tank trucks, diverted past dams in fish bypass systems and even, in one brief-lived experiment in the 1970s, flown down the lower Snake and Columbia and dropped from an airplane, . Snake River dams: Ice Harbor in 1962 and the last, Lower Granite, in 1975. . NOAA Fisheries studies show survival of juvenile fish through the eight dams of the lower Snake and Columbia rivers in the first few years of the 21st century is as good as or better than survival before the Snake River dams were built.

2/9/2018 11 Clackamas River Example . Clackamas River a good example of successful fish passage past three dams. . First fish ladder built in 1907. . Adults move upstream in 1.9 mile long half Ice-Harbor ladder (longest in the world) goes around both Faraday and North Fork dams. . Juveniles travel downstream in a 7 mile pipe past three dams in 2 hours.

2/9/2018 12 Clackamas River Fishway Example

North Fork Fishway (courtesy of California DWR)

2/9/2018 13 Clackamas River Fishway Example

River Mill Dam Fishway Entrances and Routing (courtesy of PGE)

2/9/2018 14 Clackamas River Fishway Example

Trends and timing of on the Clackamas River (courtesy of PGE)

2/9/2018 15 Columbia River Fishway Example

Penny Postcard, ca.1940s, "Fish Ladders, North Side , Washington- Oregon.". Photo by Wesley Andrews. Published by Wesley Andrews Co., Portland, Oregon. In the private collection of Lyn Topinka.

2/9/2018 16 Columbia River Fishway Example

Lower Monumental Dam

2/9/2018 17 Next Steps . Construction of RD3 Fishway and Fabric Replacement . Groundbreaking Ceremony Planned . In-Creek Construction from May through October, 2018 . Construction complete December, 2018

. Construction of RD1/BART Weir Fishway and Shinn Diversions and Screens beginning Summer 2019

2/9/2018 18 Recommendations

• 5.4 By motion, 1) waive the minor irregularity in the Syblon Reid Construction, Inc. bid and 2) adopt a resolution awarding the contract for the Rubber Dam No. 3 Fishway Construction and Fabric Replacement Project to Syblon Reid Construction, Inc. in the amount of $7,865,500, Job 21083.

19 Questions?

20 Alameda County Water District Developer-related Charges Update

Month, FebruaryDay, Year 8, 2018 Fees and Charges to Establish Water Service (Facilities Connection Charges) FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Proposed FIF Residential $9,439,192 Single Family Detached $6,714 $6,862 Multiple Dwelling Units $5,372 $5,490 Dormitory $4,030 $4,119 Non-Residential 3/4" $10,071 $10,293 1” $16,784 $17,153 1-1/2” $33,569 $34,308 2” $53,710 $54,892 3” $117,491 $120,076 4” $201,414 $205,845 6” $453,181 $463,151 8” $537,103 $548,919

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 2 Other Development-related Charges

FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Current Proposed GF Meter Installation Charges $74,699 3/4" $173 $176 1” $249 $255 1-1/2” $479 $486 Hydrant Flow Test Charge $238 $247 $26,252

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 3 Questions?

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 4 Alameda County Water District Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Update & Help On Tap: Customer Assistance Program Review

February 8, 2018 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Update Administrative Charges FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Current Proposed GF Field Charge (Account $42 $43 $300,578 Establishment) After Hours Connection Charge $260 $180 $6,928 Damaged Angle Stop Charge $302 $306 $0 Reconnection Charge $6,428 Weekdays – 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 $42 $43 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. Weekdays, $260 $180 Weekends, and Holidays Replacement of a Pulled Meter & $92 $94 Turn-On Returned Checks, Failed EFT, Credit Card Reversals, and $13/check $28/check $2,859 Similar Failures

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 3 Permit Fees for Wells, Other Excavations, and Exploratory Holes FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Current Proposed GF Wells $114,370 Construction or Destruction $605 $670 Repair or Reconstruction $430 $475 (Existing) Classify as Inactive (Per Year) $70 $80 Cathodic Protection Well, Inclinometer, Vibrating Wire Piezometer, or Elevator Shaft Construction or Deconstruction $605 $670 Repair or Reconstruction $430 $475

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 4 Permit Fees for Wells, Other Excavations, and Exploratory Holes FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Current Proposed GF Dewatering Wells, Cleanup Site Excavations, Shafts, Tunnels, Directional Boreholes, Support Piers, Piles, Caissons, Wick Drains, or Other Excavations Construction, Repair, Reconstruction, or Destruction $430 $475 (10 or Less) Construction, Repair, Reconstruction, or Destruction $70 $80 (Each over 10) Other Excavations Classify as Inactive (Per Year) $70 $80 Exploratory Holes and Vapor Wells (casing <2 inches in diameter) Construction and/or Destruction $430 $475 (4 or Less) Construction and/or Destruction $70 $80 (Each over 4)

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 5 Other Fees and Charges FY 2016/17 Fee/Charge Current Proposed GF Inspection/Testing of Backflow $77 $79 $418,319 Prevention Device

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 6 Help On Tap: Customer Assistance Program Review

Program Overview

. The Help on Tap (HOT) program provides qualifying customers a $15 credit toward the bi-monthly service charge . Eligibility is based on 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) . Customers must provide proof of income, address, and District account to be eligible . As of February 5, 2018, 717 customers are receiving the credit . Available revenues estimated at $250K/year

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 8

Program Overview – Demographics . About 18% of residents of the District’s service area are below 200% of the FPL . About 73,000 single-family residential accounts . Only District account holders are eligible, which excludes residents of master-metered multi-family residential buildings . Maximum participation is likely a few thousand customers because many low-income residents live in master-metered buildings

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 9 Program Overview – Public Engagement . Based on the recent survey, 19% of customers are familiar with the program . District staff are taking the following steps: . Bill inserts – 75% of customers surveyed indicated that they were likely to pay attention to inserts in their water bill . Placing program literature and/or applications in local Resource Centers, Senior Centers, and Libraries

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 10

Program Overview – Public Engagement . As of 2/8/18, Help on Tap applications are available at the District, online and the following locations: . Fremont, Union City, and Newark Libraries . Fremont Family Resource Center . Fremont Senior Center . Ralph & Mary Ruggieri Senior Center (Union City) . Clark Redeker Senior Center (Newark) . LIFE Eldercare . Help on Tap-focused bill messages and articles . District staff have made in-person presentations at local events, clubs, and senior centers February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 11 Potential Legislative Impact – AB401 . The State Control Board will report to the legislature plan to establish a State-wide Low-Income Water Rate Assistance program (LIRA). The report has been delayed past the February 1 deadline . Until a plan is approved, the District will not know the impact to the Help on Tap program . Four program scenarios are being considered

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 12 Potential Legislative Impact – AB401 . Scenario 1: All state households below 200% of the FPL are enrolled in a statewide program offering 20% discount on up to 12 hundred cubic feet of water . Program would supersede Help on Tap

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 13 Potential Legislative Impact – AB401 . Scenario 2: All state households below 200% of FPL and paying less than $100 on their monthly water bill receive a 20% discount; households below 200% of FPL paying $100 or more on their monthly water bill receive a 35% discount . Program would supersede Help on Tap

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 14 Potential Legislative Impact – AB401 . Scenario 3: All state households below 200% of FPL who are not served by a CPUC-regulated water system with an existing LIRA are enrolled in a separate, unified program offering a 20% discount on up to 12 hundred cubic feet of water . Program would supersede Help on Tap

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 15 Potential Legislative Impact – AB401 . Scenario 4: All households below 200% of FPL who are served by a system not currently offering a compliant LIRA are enrolled in a separate, unified program offering a 20% discount on up to 12 hundred cubic feet of water . Unknown impact to Help on Tap, potentially none

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 16 Potential Program Updates

. Pending guidance from the State Water Board pursuant to AB401, District staff have reviewed possible HOT program updates, including: . Increasing the bi-monthly credit amount . Raising the income eligibility threshold . Implementing an age-tested component

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 17 Potential Program Updates

Increasing the bi-monthly credit: . At current enrollment levels, Help on Tap distributes roughly $63,000 per year to approved customers. . Adjusting the bi-monthly credit to $20 would increase annual costs by about $21,000 at current enrollment. That amount would be consistent with a 20% discount at 12 hundred cubic feet.

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 18

Potential Program Updates

Raising the income eligibility threshold: . 200% of FPL is typical of LIRA programs, and consistent with program scenarios being considered by the State Water Board . Census data does not provide estimates on the population between 200% and 250% of FPL . Current enrollment level is well below the total number of residents that fall under 200% of FPL February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 19

Potential Program Updates

Implementing an age-tested component:

Estimated Qualifying Accounts

7,688

5,262

3,356

1,950 948

65+ 70+ 75+ 80+ 85+

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 20 Potential Program Updates

Implementing an age-tested component:

Estimated Yearly Cost

$691,882

$473,557

$302,014 $175,465 $85,335

65+ 70+ 75+ 80+ 85+

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 21 Conclusion

. Recommendations: . Increase outreach efforts to enroll more currently eligible customers . Maintain the income guidelines at 200% of FPL . Continue to collect data and assess the impact of AB 401 guidelines before considering additional changes . Additionally, the Board could consider adjusting the benefit amount.

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 22

Questions?

February 8, 2018 - Board of Directors 23 Example of Replenishment Assessment Rate Increase Comment Form

SB-5 / Proposition 68: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 Summary Presentation

1 SB-5 / Prop. 68 Basics . $4B State General Obligation Bond . Passed by State Legislature and signed by Governor in 2017 . June 5, 2018 statewide primary ballot . If approved by voters, takes effect immediately as an urgency statute . Reallocates $100M of unissued bonds from previous measures*

*Prop 1 (2014), Prop 40 (2002), and Prop 84 (2006) 2 General Provisions . Administrative costs: up to 5% . Project planning/monitoring costs . Up to 10%; may exceed 10% for DACs . Funds for projects serving SDACs . At least 20%, except Chapters 9 & 10 . At least 15% from Chapters 9 & 10 . Up to 10%* (or more if determined need) for technical assistance to DACs

Key: DAC = Disadvantaged Community *Except as provided in 80008.(c) SDAC = Severely Disadvantaged Community 3 General Provisions . State agencies to adopt solicitation and evaluation guidelines for competitive grants . Encourage water efficiency/conservation, recycled water, capture, safe water for park/open space . Public meetings & comments prior to finalizing guidelines . Preference for projects that include: . Use of a certified conservation corps . Water efficiencies, stormwater capture, carbon sequestration

4

Categories of Funds

Funding, Chapters in millions Investments in Environmental and Social Equity, Enhancing California’s Chapter 2 $725 Disadvantaged Communities Investments in Protecting, Enhancing, and Accessing California's Local and Chapter 3 $285 Regional Outdoor Spaces Chapter 4 Restoring California’s Natural, Historic, and Cultural Legacy $218 Chapter 5 Trails and Greenway Investment $30 Chapter 6 Rural Recreation, Tourism, and Economic Enrichment Investment $25 Chapter 7 California River Recreation, Creek, and Waterway Improvements Program* $162 Chapter 8 State Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, and Authority Funding* $767 Chapter 9 Ocean, Bay, and Coastal Protection* $175 Climate Preparedness, Habitat Resiliency, Resource Enhancement, and Chapter 10 $443 Innovation* Chapter 11 Clean Drinking Water and Drought Preparedness* $250 Chapter 11.1 Groundwater Sustainability* $80 Chapter 11.5 Flood Protection and Repair $550 Chapter 11.6 Regional Sustainability for Drought and Groundwater, and Water Recycling* $290 TOTAL $4,000

*May include programs that could be leveraged for ACWD projects. 5 Regional Water Funding, Sustainability*, $290 in millions

Environmental & Social Equity, $725 Flood Protection, Groundwater $550 Sustainability*, $80 Local & Regional Outdoor Spaces, $285 Drinking Water & Drought*, $250 Restoring California's Legacy, $218 Trails & Greenway, $30 Climate, Habitat & Resource*, $443 Rural Recreation, $25 Conservancy & River & Waterways*, Wildlife*, $767 $162

Ocean, Bay & *May include programs that Coast*, $175 could be leveraged for ACWD projects.

6 Questions?

7 2018 Water Bond Act Initiative

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Status of Prop. 1 funds

$2.7 billion in storage funds to be allocated by California Water Commission in 2018.

Of remaining $4.8 billion, $1 billion is still to be allocated by legislature. Prop. 1 funds will be largely exhausted by 2019.

SB 5 interaction

• June vs November • Small overlap (18%) • Voters forget after 5 months • Need for compatible campaigns IMPACT ON STATE DEBT

• Bond debt service should not substantially exceed six percent of general fund.

• Present ratio is projected to decline below five percent.

•With $16 billion of new debt in 2018, the debt ratio will climb a bit above 5%, and then gradually decline again.

•A lot depends on the growth of the general fund budget.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF WATER BOND ACT OF 2018 TO ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

Alameda Creek Fish Passage, Fish of concern to SWP/Delta: $450 million in competitive programs

Groundwater management: $640 million Wastewater Recycling: $400 million Brackish water desalination: $400 million San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority: $200 million Bay Area Conservancy: $100 million

Sierra Nevada Watershed restoration: $250 million (of importance to SWP and HH/SFPUC)

Bay Area Regional Reliability: $250 million Oroville Repair: $200 million ($2 million savings to ACWD) KEY FUNDING CATEGORIES

• Safe Drinking Water $500 million • Wastewater for DACs $250 million • Urban Water Conservation $300 million • Agricultural Water Conservation $50 million • Wastewater Recycling $400 million • Desalting (inland) $400 million • SGMA Compliance $675 million • Flood Management $500 million • Repair $200 million • Repair Friant Kern $750 million • Salton Sea $200 million • Stormwater $550 million • Fish Habitat & Waterfowl Habitat $1450 million • Watershed restoration $2400 million

History of voting on California Water Bonds

Year 1960 burns porter act. Bond. Established state water project. 1970 recreation at state water project; fish and wildlife enhancement clean water bond act 1974 clean water bond act 1976 safe drinking water bond act 1978 clean water and water conservation bond 1980 amend safe drinking water bond act of 1976 1984 safe drinking water bond act clean water bond act 1986 water conservation and water quality bond safe drinking water bond act 1988 water conservation bond act clean water and water reclamation bond act safe drinking water bond act 1990 water resources bond act 1996 safe reliable water supply bond act 2000 parks, water, air coast bond act water bond act 2002 parks, water, air, coast bond act water quality supply safe drinking water initiative 2006 water bond act initiative Disaster preparedness and flood prevention 2014 water Quality, Supply, Treatment, Storage • Prop. 1 water bond statewide (2014: 67%) • Measure AA SF Bay Restoration (2016: 70%) • Governor position; candidates for Governor • Strong inter-sector support – California Building Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce – Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, Save the Bay, CA Wildlife Fndn. – Association of California Water Agencies – NCWA, So. Cal Water committee – Rice, Fresh Fruit, Pistachio, Dairy, Ag council – Community Water Center, EJ groups

ACWD’s Draft Five-Year Strategic Plan

February 8, 2018 Purpose of the Strategic Plan

. Reaffirm ACWD’s core mission . Establish strategic goals for the next five years . Drive organizational alignment and priorities . Communicate and track goals . Measure success

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 2 Strategic Planning Process . Strategic Planning Workshop Series . September 7, 2017 . October 10, 2017 . December 7, 2017 . Open to the public . Discussed present and future issues, challenges & opportunities

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 3 Topics Covered

Cost- Water Supply Water Quality Effectiveness

Financial Emergency Staffing Stability & Preparedness Resources Resiliency & Response

Community Outreach & Engagement

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 4 Five Strategic Goals

1. Maintain and improve the cost effectiveness and value of District services. 2. Sustain a reliable, high quality water supply for District customers. 3. Improve the District’s financial stability and transparency. 4. Improve workforce recruitment, maintain retention, and enhance employee engagement. 5. Promote clear and open communication, outreach, and engagement with customers and communities.

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 5 Draft Strategic Plan Structure . Introduction . Section for each strategic goal . Goal statement . Objectives . Five-year milestone timeline . Outcomes . Resources & costs . Template for tracking progress

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 6

Next Steps . Receive Board feedback today . Staff to incorporate Board feedback . Finalize plan . Board adoption on March 8, 2018 . Synchronize with District Core Metrics and Strategic Initiatives (Dashboards) . Provide annual updates on progress

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 7 Questions & Feedback

February 8, 2018 Board Meeting 8