DOCSLIB.ORG

Reliability by Design: Integrated Resources Planning at the Alameda County Water District 2014 General Manager’S Message

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reliability by Design: Integrated Resources Planning at the Alameda County Water District 2014 General Manager’S Message ALAMEDA C OUNTY WATER DIS TRIC T Reliability by Design: Integrated Resources Planning at the Alameda County Water District 2014 General Manager’s Message n the early 1990s, ACWD’s water supply outlook was Inside I uncertain. The District depended heavily on annual Introduction to ACWD: deliveries of water from the ACWD Service Area and Facilities .........................Page 2 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta — deliveries that were becoming ACWD’s Water Sources.........................................Page 4 less reliable due to the Delta’s declining ecological health. At Integrated Resources Planning at ACWD the same time, the Tri-City The IRP Process and Planning Criteria ...................Page 6 region was booming, and new homes and businesses needed water. Complicating matters, ACWD’s IRP Strategies..........................................Page 8 ACWD lacked the water storage needed to fulfill customer demand in case of drought, and the District’s water deliv- Implementation of IRP Strategies ery infrastructure was nearing capacity. The result: By 2000, the District projected, a single dry year could force Managing the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin.......Page 10 water restrictions of up to 40 percent, with potential short- Local Supplies.....................................................Page 14 ages only getting worse after that. Imported Water ..................................................Page 16 With no simple way to acquire a new source of water, it was clear that ACWD needed an alternative approach to Demand Management........................................Page 18 meet customers’ needs. So in 1994 and 1995, the District developed an Integrated Resources Plan, or IRP. Working Environment: Restoring Alameda Creek..............Page 22 with the community, ACWD comprehensively analyzed the Preparing for Crisis .............................................Page 24 long-term water needs of the Tri-City area and identified the most efficient ways to meet them. The Results What distinguished the IRP process from previous water Improved Reliability, Lower Costs........................Page 26 planning efforts was that it focused on more than just pro- viding additional water. The IRP looked carefully at the Improved Water Quality......................................Page 28 costs and benefits of dozens of approaches to match water supply to water demand, including conservation, improve- Vision for the Future ments in efficiency, operational changes, and more. Opportunities and Challenges.............................Page 30 The 1995 plan clearly established what ACWD needed to do: develop local water supplies, conserve water, use existing supplies as efficiently as possible, and find a way to store water for dry years. It also set other objectives, including containing costs and improving water quality. Today, ACWD and its customers have met or exceeded nearly all of the goals set in 1995. Per-capita water demand has dropped more than 25 percent. Investments in IRP strategies have allowed ACWD to avoid building capital projects that would have cost tens of millions of dollars. And the District’s overall water supply reliability has improved dramatically, even as deliveries from the Delta have grown more uncertain. Following the principles of the IRP process, ACWD has con- tinued to adapt to changing circumstances and plan for the future. In 2013, the District completed the second major review of the 1995 IRP. This publication tells the story of the IRP process, showing what has been achieved since 1995 and detailing the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. — Walt Wadlow, General Manager 1 ACWD Service Area and Facilities Local investments in water supply infrastructure help to provide secure and reliable water service to the Tri-City community. he Alameda County Water District provides water to businesses, industrial users, and more than 330,000 residents T in the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Newark. It has a full-time staff of approximately 230 and is governed by a ACWD Facts and Figures publicly elected five-member board of directors. ACWD was founded in 1914, making it the first public water agency created Alameda Creek: Flowing out of Niles Canyon, Alameda Creek drains a 633-square-mile watershed extending from Mt. Diablo to Altamont under California's County Water District Law, adopted in 1913. The map below shows the District service area and the Pass to Mt. Hamilton.The creek is a major source of ACWD water many facilities that make up the ACWD water system. and is the focus of ongoing ecological restoration efforts. ■ Population served: 336,000 (cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City) ACWD’s mission is to provide reliable, high quality water at a reasonable price. In the District’s early years, meeting these goals meant securing legal rights to what was then the region's only source of water, runoff from the Alameda ■ ACWD service area: 104.8 square miles Creek Watershed. Today, ACWD has a broad portfolio of water sources: runoff from the Alameda Creek Watershed; the ■ Average rainfall: 18.4 inches local groundwater basin, which the District continually recharges; desalinated water produced from the brackish water (varies from ~14" near the bay pumped by the District’s Aquifer Reclamation Program wells; the State Water Project; and the San Francisco Public Blending Facility: This plant blends local groundwater, to ~20" in the eastern hills) Utilities Commission (SFPUC) water system. This mix of sources, along with customer conservation, provides high which is relatively hard, with soft water (see pages 28-29) from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission system. ■ Number of customers (water resilience to drought and has allowed the District to improve water reliability even as the Tri-City area has added new The blended water is distributed to ACWD customers in accounts): 82,533 homes and businesses. Union City, Newark, and north Fremont. ■ Average daily water use per person: ~133 gallons Quarry Lakes Groundwater Recharge System: ACWD fills ■ The ACWD Service Area these deep pits — former gravel quarries — with water from Treatment Plant 1 (Mission San Jose Water Average daily water deliveries: Alameda Creek and the South Bay Aqueduct. The water percolates Treatment Plant) and Treatment Plant 2: 39.2 million gallons into the local groundwater basin, helping to replace the water These facilities treat South Bay Aqueduct water pumped out by ACWD and local private wells. for distribution to ACWD customers in central ■ Miles of water mains in ACWD Production Well Fields: and south Fremont. service area: More than 850 These 16 wells can supply as much as 47.5 ■ Number of water quality samples million gallons of fresh analyzed at ACWD laboratories groundwater per day to the Blending Facility. annually: About 45,000 ■ ACWD annual budget: $104.1 million ■ Number of full-time employees: ~230 Tanks and Reservoirs: Locally, the District operates six tanks and All figures current as of 2013 six reservoirs. Together they hold up Aquifer Reclamation Program Wells: to 80 million gallons of water that is These wells remove brackish water from the ready for delivery to customers. Water use by category, local groundwater basin, helping to prevent 2011-2012 fiscal year: salty water from the Bay from contaminating ACWD’s water supply wells and local private Industrial wells. The water extracted is piped to the Residential 30,887 acre-feet* 3,857 acre-feet Newark Desalination Facility. (8.8%) (70.4%) Other Business 2,946 acre-feet 6,167 acre-feet (6.7%) (14.1%) South Bay Aqueduct: This pipeline, part of the State Water Project, carries water from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta and Lake Del Valle to ACWD and other Total: 43,857 acre-feet water districts in the region. Newark Desalination Facility: Brackish water from the Aquifer Reclamation Program wells is treated to Sources of ACWD water: remove salts, blended with groundwater to achieve an appropriate hardness, and then delivered to customers State Water Local Rainwater Runoff in Newark and parts of Fremont. Project and Percolation ~40% ~40% Production Facility San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Storage Tank Pipelines: Through this system, ACWD receives water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park along with Alameda Creek Watershed runoff. Well San Francisco PUC ~20% Reservoir * One acre-foot is enough water to serve 3.3 average homes in the ACWD service area for one year. An acre-foot is equal to 325,851.4 gallons, the amount of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. 2 3 ACWD’s Water Sources ACWD’s diverse water supply portfolio protects District customers against drought and helps minimize the risk of water shortages. or a system of its size, ACWD has a remarkably complex water supply portfolio: two imported water sources, local runoff, groundwater recharge, local ground- F water pumping, remote groundwater banking, and an aquifer reclamation program combined with brackish groundwater desalination. ACWD manages these sources so that they complement one another, optimizing water reliability and quality. For instance, the District recharges the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin with local runoff and imported State Water Project supplies and pumps water as needed for delivery to customers. By using the basin as an underground reservoir, ACWD can provide water to customers consis- tently even as the availability of local runoff and State Water Project imports varies from season to season and year to year. This
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Divisions of Boating and Waterways, Historic Preservation and Off-Highway Vehicles News Release For Immediate Release Contact: Apr. 5, 2017 Aaron Wright Sector Superintendent [email protected] (530) 538-2200 Summer Recreation at Lake Oroville State Recreation Area OROVILLE, Calif. -- The emergency effort to repair the Lake Oroville spillways will not interfere with most outdoor recreation this summer at the lake, and with the exception of the Spillway Boat Launch Ramp, all boat launch ramps are open, announced California State Parks (DPR) and the Department of Water Resources. All campgrounds also are open and floating campsites are back on the lake and available for rental. Some areas near the dam will continue to be off-limits to visitors as crews work to repair or replace spillways damaged in February during high runoff. Outdoor activities available at Lake Oroville this summer include: Campgrounds: All campgrounds are now open with site-specific reservations available at Bidwell Canyon, Loafer Creek and Lime Saddle. Campers without reservations are still welcome on a day-to-day basis to any campsites that have not been previously reserved. Campground showers have been equipped with token machines. Each site will have a unique, collectable token which can also be used at other participating state parks. Trails: Lake Oroville has a number of trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use. Trails around the Diversion Pool and Hyatt Power Plant likely will be closed throughout the summer, although DPR may make changes to other trails to accommodate more hikers and help compensate for the closures.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Insights Into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident
    geosciences Communication Insights into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident Aristotelis Koskinas 1, Aristoteles Tegos 1,2,*, Penelope Tsira 1, Panayiotis Dimitriadis 1 , Theano Iliopoulou 1, Panos Papanicolaou 1, Demetris Koutsoyiannis 1 and Tracey Williamson 3 1 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechniou 9, Zografou, GR-15780 Zographou Athens, Greece; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (P.T.); [email protected] (P.D.); [email protected] (T.I.); [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (D.K.) 2 Arup Group Limited, 50 Ringsend Rd, Grand Canal Dock, D04 T6X0 Dublin 4, Ireland 3 Arup, 4 Pierhead Street, Cardiff CF10 4QP, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 December 2018; Accepted: 7 January 2019; Published: 11 January 2019 Abstract: In February 2017, a failure occurring in Oroville Dam’s main spillway risked causing severe damages downstream. A unique aspect of this incident was the fact that it happened during a flood scenario well within its design and operational procedures, prompting research into its causes and determining methods to prevent similar events from reoccurring. In this study, a hydroclimatic analysis of Oroville Dam’s catchment is conducted, along with a review of related design and operational manuals. The data available allows for the comparison of older flood-frequency analyses to new alternative methods proposed in this paper and relevant literature. Based on summary characteristics
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting
    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2021
    ITEM NO. 15d ORIGINATING SECTION: Integrated Planning CONTACT: Sal Segura/Amparo Flores AGENDA DATE: August 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Monthly Water Inventory and Water Budget Update SUMMARY: In support of Zone 7’s mission to “deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water…services,” for Strategic Plan Goal A – “Reliable Water Supply and Infrastructure;” this report summarizes water supply, usage and storage conditions as of the end of July 2021. An overall analysis of the annual water supply takes place in April of each year with the Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply. Long-term water supply planning is summarized in the Urban Water Management Plan, which is updated every five years and assesses water supply reliability on a 20-year horizon. The report considers the various sources of supply and storage available to Zone 7 locally and in State Water Project facilities, as well as in remote groundwater storage banks. Figure ES 1: At-a-Glance Summaries of Water Supplies, Deliveries, and Available Water (as of July 2021) Annual Yield: Imported and Local Water Supplies vs. Delivered Water Year-To- 400,000 50,000 Date Yield 300,000 feet) - 0 Annual Imported Local Average feet - (acre 200,000 Annual Yield Water Water Yield acre Water Deliveries: 100,000 2021 feet) - 10,000 0 5,000 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (acre 0 Water Deliveries Total Water Treated Untreated 2021 Projected Deliveries Delivered Water Water Actual Water Deliveries Water Storage Treated Water Deliveries: Treated Water Deliveries: Imported Water (via Delta) 11% 0% Surface Water 43% Local Water (Lake Del Valle) Groundwater 57% Imported Water (Stored As Groundwater) 89% JULY 2021 Zone 7 Water Inventory and Water Budget Supply and Demand (See Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4) • Monthly totals: 5,150 AF delivered to customers (4,150 AF treated, 1,000 AF untreated) • The total treated water production increased by 6% compared to last month.
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones
    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones APPENDIX D: Building Descriptions The purpose of the Building Descriptions is to assist the user in selecting an appropriate type of building when using the Air Conditioning estimating tools. The selected building type should be the one that most closely matches the actual project. These summaries provide the user with the inputs for the typical buildings. Minor variations from these inputs will occur based on differences in building vintage and climate zone. The Building Descriptions are referenced from the 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. It should be noted that the user is required to provide certain inputs for the user’s specific building (e.g. actual conditioned area, city, operating hours, economy cycle, new AC system and new AC system efficiency). The remaining inputs are approximations of the building and are deemed acceptable to the user. If none of the typical building models are determined to be a fair approximation then the user has the option to use the Custom Building approach. The Custom Building option instructs the user how to initiate the Engage Software. The Engage Software is a stand-alone, DOE2 based modeling program. July 16, 2013 D-1 Version 5.0 Prototype Source Activity Area Type Area % Area Simulation Model Notes 1. Assembly DEER Auditorium 33,235 97.8 Thermal Zoning: One zone per activity area. Office 765 2.2 Total 34,000 Model Configuration: Matches 1994 DEER prototype HVAC Systems: The prototype uses Rooftop DX systems, which are changed to Rooftop HP systems for the heat pump efficiency measures.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • CA-Waterways-Map.Pdf
    O R E G O N S rk m o it F h e dl R Mid . Goose Lake S o ut k h r o F C K l O O a m a N t h r Sa e c v r er i a Riv R m d e u A A aterways n o l t o o C c R W M E V A D i v e R i r r t v i e Some of the water you use every day has probably traveled T P r S S r i n i Trinity Lake ty M a d T T R iv er great distances and over high mountain ranges before reaching E UREKA R i v e r Shasta Lake Va n your faucet. This is because water is not always where we need R EDDING Du Clear zen Whiskeytown River Creek Lake Tunnel it. In California, most of the rain and snowfall is in the north. But Lake Antelope E Almanor Lake e l most of the people live in the south. The solution is to distribute S a R c i v r e a r m Corning R k Lake Frenchman e r n o Canal F Davis Lake the water to where it is needed through delivery systems such t o h t r o A R N rk Black i Fo v e e Butte r dl id as the State Water Project (SWP). Lake M Lake k N or F Oroville h t u So G Thermalito New Bullards The SWP delivers water from Lake Oroville in the north to the T Forebay and Bar Reservoir e h Lake Oroville Afterbay F e a a Visitors Center Indian m t h r a a e Valley e iv E R R r a San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern b u u Y Reservoir - s s i Clear Lake R a C i n o v e l u r S R sa i California.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 75/Thursday, April 17, 2008/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Notices 20937 The determination that this item is an evidence, to have been removed from a Department of Parks and Recreation unassociated funerary object is based on specific burial site of a Native American Committee on Repatriation and museum documentation, consultation individual. Officials of the American professional staff in consultation with information provided by the tribe and Museum of Natural History also have representatives of Mechoopda Indian expert opinion. Though museum determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; documentation does not specifically 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared Round Valley Indian Tribes of the indicate that this cultural item was group identity that can be reasonably Round Valley Reservation, California; associated with a burial, the condition traced between the unassociated and United Maidu Nation, a non- of the item and its type are consistent funerary objects and the Caddo Nation federally recognized Indian group. The with a funerary context. Based on of Oklahoma. Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians ceramic style, this cultural item dates to Representatives of any other Indian of California; Enterprise Rancheria of between CE 1500 and 1750. Historical tribe that believes itself to be culturally Maidu Indians of California; and and archeological evidence indicates affiliated with the unassociated funerary Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians that the Ouachita River valley region objects should contact Nell Murphy, of California were contacted to was occupied by the Caddo during the Director of Cultural Resources, participate in the consultations. historic period, and that this group American Museum of Natural History, In February and April of 1963, human emerged from pre-contact Caddoan Central Park West at 79th Street, New remains representing a minimum of 25 culture dating back to approximately CE York, NY 10024, telephone (212) 769– individuals were removed from the 850.
    [Show full text]