DOCSLIB.ORG

American River Group Thursday, April 18Th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American River Group Thursday, April 18Th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave American River Group Thursday, April 18th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821 Conference Line: 1 (866) 718-0082; Passcode 2620147 JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://bor.webex.com/bor/j.php?MTID=m976285cf88d1078f4d1bdb60a280b92a Meeting number (access code): 907 429 279; Meeting password: CmfUCmGm 1. Participant Introductions (1:30-1:40) 2. Fisheries Updates (1:40-1:55) Cramer Fish Sciences Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission CDFW 3. Operations Forecast (1:55-2:10) SMUD PCWA Central Valley Operations 4. Temperature Management (2:10-2:25) Central Valley Operations 5. Discussion (2:25-2:55) Upcoming Presentations May - Climate Change, Dr. Swain 6. Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 16th, 2019 8. Adjourn American River Summary Conditions – March (On-going): • Snowpack is 165% of average for this date. • Flood control diagram now allowing filling of Folsom Reservoir. We are on our way up! Storage/Release Management Conditions • Releases to manage storage during fill and try to avoid excessive flow fluctuations. • Beginning water storage for next years operational needs. • Will be operating to new Army Corps flood control diagram on an interim basis until new Water Control Manual is signed, per letter from USACE. • MRR for April is 1,750 cfs. Temperature Management: • Upper Shutters in place on Units 2 and 3. Unit 1 is not in service. Upper shutters will be placed before it is returned to service. American River Operations Group (ARG) April 18st, 2019 Meeting Notes Attendees: USBR: Spencer Marshall, Levi Johnson, Peggy Manza, Ian Smith CDFW: Jeanine Phillips, Duane Linander, Ken Kundargi Water Forum: Rod Hall SWRCB: Juliana Spector Delta-Mendota/Westlands: Tom Boardman SMUD: Arthur Starkovich, Paul Olmstead PCWA: Ben Barker SARA: Felix Smith CFS: Kirsten Sellheim PSFMC: Eric Bradbury City of Folsom: Marcus Yasutake cbec: Chris Hammersmark DWR: Mike Ford Handouts: • Agenda • American River Summary Conditions, Storage/Release Management Conditions, and Temperature Management (USBR) • Fisheries Update (CDFW) • Bi-weekly Spawning and Stranding Report (CFS) • Lower American River RST Catch Summary (PSMFC) • Upper American River Project Update (SMUD) • Reservoir Storage and Precipitation (SMUD) • MFP Ops Overview (PCWA) • Middle Fork Project – Snowpack and Reservoir Storage (PCWA) • Lake Spaulding (PCWA) • American River Basin Snow Sensor Index (PCWA) • Daily CVP Water Supply Report (USBR) • Temperature Control Report –January 1 through February 20 (USBR) • Folsom Lake Temperature profiles (USBR) • Folsom Lake Isothermobaths (USBR) • Folsom Cold Water Pool • iCPMM 90% Forecast Modeling • iCPMM 50% Forecast Modeling • 90% and 50% Runoff Exceedance Outlook (USBR) • Sign-in sheet Fishery Update: • CDFW o Approximately 200,000 brood year 2018 Chinook salmon experimental release from Nimbus Fish Hatchery into the Lower American River took place on April 12. 100% marked (adipose fin clip) and Coded Wire Tagged (CWT). o Experimental release will help to increase survival. • Cramer Fish Sciences (CFS) - Bi-Weekly Spawning and Stranding Report o During spawning surveys conducted the week of April 2, a total of 2 steelhead and 2 lamprey redds were identified. o During the stranding survey conducted on March 19, a total of 30 stranding pools, 90 steelhead, and 3,190 Chinook were identified. • Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) - Lower American River RST Catch Summary o Total captures as of April 15 are 14,457 length-at-date (LAD) fall-run, 62 LAD spring- run, and 18 LAD winter-run Chinook salmon, and 41 LAD late fall-run Chinook salmon. Operations Forecast: • SMUD o SMUD currently operating to meet minimum elevations. o There is less water in reservoir than this time last year because of the current snowpack o There is a high likelihood that flashboards will be installed this year. • PCWA o PCWA operating to keep reservoir levels low to attenuate future snowmelt. o Modeling shows about 30 thousand acre-feet (TAF) of spill. • CVO o Currently about 805 TAF of water in Folsom Reservoir. o CVO operating to make releases as flat as possible to avoid wide swings in flows Temperature Management: • CVO o No foreseeable temperature management issues in May and June o TCD may need to be adjusted in July o Significant inflows in June expected o Higher releases in August may be required as a result of Fall X2 o September flows selected to avoid potential redd dewatering o Flows near 11,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) may be needed for salinity control o July through September releases selected to meet potential Delta needs o CDFW has requested a model run showing a 56F degree target by November 1st. Reclamation has stated it is not within their capabilities to provide such a model run. Discussion • Upcoming presentation o May – Climate Change, Dr. Swain Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 16th, 2019 at Central Valley Operations Office, 3310 El Camino Ave., Sacramento, CA 95821, in Room 302, at 1:30pm. State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 www.wildlife.ca.gov Date: April 11, 2019 To: Distribution List From: Jay Rowan Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor-Hatcheries North Central Region Subject: Planned release of brood year 2018 Chinook Salmon into the Lower American River at Sunrise Boat Ramp. On April 12, 2019, the Department of Fish and Wildlife will release approximately 200,000 brood year 2018 Chinook salmon from Nimbus Fish Hatchery into the Lower American River at Sunrise Boat Ramp. This release will include 100% marked (adipose fin clip) and Coded Wire Tagged (CWT) fish (Table 1). This experimental early release will help to inform future decisions regarding the timing of in-river releases from the hatchery. For questions concerning this release, please contact Jay Rowan (916) 358- 2883 Table 1 – Planned release summary of Nimbus Fish Hatchery Chinook Salmon. CWT Code Fork length Date Location Fish/lb. With Mark Total Fish or mark (mm) Ad Clip 4/12/2019 Sunrise Boat Ramp 110 78 199,965 199,965 06/19/94 Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 Bi-weekly Spawning and Stranding Report Survey Week Steelhead Chinook Lamprey Unidentified Unknown Test Total 01/07/2019 5 1 0 3 11 0 20 01/21/2019 6 0 0 0 7 2 15 02/04/2019 7 0 0 0 12 1 20 02/18/2019 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 03/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/02/2019 1 0 1 0 2 0 4 04/03/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 1. Different types of redds identified (Pre-DFA) during spawning survey Survey Week # of Stranding Steelhead Chinook Pools 02/18/2019 9 5 90 03/04/2019 7 8 142 03/13/2019 24 7 1,367 3/19/2019 30 90 3,190 Table 2. Stranding survey data Survey Week Steelhead Chinook Lamprey Unknown Test Total 01/07/2019 16 3 0 1 0 20 01/21/2019 11 2 0 0 2 15 02/4/2019 19 0 0 0 1 20 02/18/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 03/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/02/2019 2 0 2 0 0 4 04/03/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 3. Different types of redds identified (Post-DFA) during spawning survey The next scheduled spawning survey will occur 16-18 April Lower American River RST Catch Summary Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Charts summarize cumulative catch data through 4/15/2019 on the American river at the Watt Avenue location. Thus far we have captured a total of 14,457 length-at-date (LAD) fall-run, 62 LAD spring-run and 18 LAD winterrun Chinook salmon, and 41 LAD late-fall run Chinook salmon. Discharge data obtained from the USGS monitoring station at Fair Oaks SMUD Upper American River Project Update Conditions – 16 April 2019: April precipitation through 4/16/2019 7:00:00 AM is 4.36 in., which is 90% of the April average of 4.84”. Precip for the water year to date is 62.16” which is 124% of average to date (50.00”) and 108% of the entire water year average of 57.32”. Reservoir storage for Loon Lake, Union Valley and Ice House Reservoirs: • 286,091 acre feet • 75% capacity • 104% historical average (16 April historical average: 275,969AF / 72.8%) • 4% storage increase since last week Individual reservoir storage: • Loon Lake: 34,847 AF • Ice House: 25,014 AF • Union Valley: 226,230 AF Last year today, storage was at 92.4 % (350,218 AF). *Total capacity of the three reservoirs is 379,174 acre feet. March releases: • 3,328 cfs average flows below Chili Bar • 204,658 total AF released below Chili Bar April releases (Apr 1-16): • 3904 cfs average flows below Chili Bar • 116,171 total AF released below Chili Bar Runoff into the storage reservoir basins is 135% of median to date through Apr 15. The snowpack is 136% of average at selected snow sensors. Operational notes: recreational (boating) flows on weekends, avoiding spill, snowpack peaked on April 1 (as is typical) Historical Max. % from Average RESERVOIR Capacity Maximum Reservoir Spill last STORAGE (acre- Capacity Capacity Elevation Elevation week feet) (%) (%) Loon Lake Reservoir 69,309 49% +5% 59% 6,380.3 6,410.0 Ice House Reservoir 43,496 55% +5% 66% 5,416.6 5,436.5 Union Valley Reservoir 266,369 84% +3% 75% 4,854.7 4,855.0 Total 379,174 74% +4% 71% A year ago, we were at 91.6% of capacity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California
    Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model.
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of the Central Valley Project
    The Transfer of the Central Valley Project by Devin Odell In the spring of 1992, after six years of below-average rainfall, the perennial struggle over California's water reached a boiling point. Each of the three major groups of water interests in the state -- farmers, cities and environmentalists -- found themselves vying with the other two. At the center of this three-way tug of war was the biggest water hose in the state, the Central Valley Project (CVP), a massive set of dams, pumps, and canals built and run by the federal government. In February, CVP managers announced they could deliver less than 25 percent of the water normally used for agriculture. Farmers on about 1 million acres of land would get no water in 1992, and the rest were cut back to between 50 and 75 percent of their usual allocations. For the first time in 52 years, the CVP had completely failed some of its irrigators.' The period of low precipitation beginning in 1987 received most of the blame for this drastic step. But the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency in charge of the CVP, had also been forced to limit its agricultural deliveries in favor of other water users -- most notably, the Sacramento River's winter-run Chinook salmon.2 In 1981, 20,000 winter-run Chinook,listed as 'A state task force ... report stated] "threatened" under the federal Endangered that residential, business and Species Act and "endangered" under the state's municipal users might have only act, made the journey from the Pacific Ocean to half the water they would need by the spawning grounds upriver.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of The: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where Is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?
    Overview of the: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? To San Francisco Stockton Clifton Court Forebay / California Aqueduct The Delta Protecting California from a Catastrophic Loss of Water California depends on fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta)to: Supply more than 25 million Californians, plus industry and agriculture Support $400 billion of the state’s economy A catastrophic loss of water from the Delta would impact the economy: Total costs to California’s economy could be $30-40 billion in the first five years Total job loss could exceed 30,000 Delta Inflow Sacramento River Delta Cross Channel San Joaquin River State Water Project Pumps Central Valley Project Pumps How Water Gets to the California Economy Land Subsidence Due to Farming and Peat Soil Oxidation - 30 ft. - 20 ft. - 5 ft. Subsidence ~ 1.5 ft. per decade Total of 30 ft. in some areas - 30 feet Sea Level 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento The Importance of the Delta Water flowing through the Delta supplies water to the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper American River Hydroelectric Project (P-2101)
    Hydropower Project Summary UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CALIFORNIA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) South Fork of the American River Slab Creek Dam Canyon Photo Credit: Sacramento Municipal Utility District This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Upper American, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) DESCRIPTION: The Upper American River Project consists of seven developments located on the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork American River in El Dorado and Sacramento Counties in central California. These seven developments occupy 6,190 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest and 54 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed The Iowa Hill Development will be located in El Dorado County and will occupy 185 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest. Due to the proximity of the Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2155) under licensee Pacific Gas & Electric Company(PG&E) located immediately downstream of the Upper American Project on the South Fork American River (and also under-going re-licensing), both projects were the subject of a collaborative proceeding and settlement negotiations. The current seven developments include Loon Lake, Robbs Peak, Jones Fork, Union Valley, Jaybird, Camino, and Slab Creek/White Rock. White Rock Powerhouse discharges into the South Fork American River just upstream of Chili Bar Reservoir. In addition to generation-related facilities, the project also includes 47 recreation areas that include campgrounds, day use facilities, boat launches, trails, and a scenic overlook. The 19 signatories to the Settlement are: American Whitewater, American River Recreation Association, BLM, California Parks and Recreation, California Fish and Wildlife, California Outdoors, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Camp Lotus, Foothill Conservancy, Forest Service, Friends of the River, FWS, Interior, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Profile of Sacramento River, Freeport to Verona, California, Flood of February 1986
    PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER, FREEPORT TO VERONA, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD OF FEBRUARY 1986 By J.C. Blodgett and J.B. Lucas U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 88-82 CO CM I m r-H CM Sacramento, California 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Federal Building, Room W-2234 Federal Center, Bldg. 810 2800 Cottage Way Box 25425 Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract................ 1 Introduction............ 2 Sources of data......... 4 Vertical control......... 4 Peak stage and discharge 5 Flood profiles.......... 7 References cited........ 7 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Map and profile of Sacramento River, Freeport to Verona, California, flood of February 19 and 20, 1986..........In pocket Figure 1. Map showing location of study area in vicinity of Sacramento................................................. 3 2. Photograph showing Sacramento Weir spill to Yolo Bypass near Sacramento, February 18, 1986.............................. 5 3. Photograph showing Sacramento River at Sacramento gage, February 18, 1986.......................................... 6 TABLES Page Table 1. Gaging stations in study reach............................. 8 2. Annual peak stage and discharge of the Sacramento River at Verona............................................... 3. Annual peak stage and discharge of
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control
    4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control This chapter addresses the water resources within the Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (Project) area and describes potential effects of Project implementation on those resources. Water resources include hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control. The analysis provided in this chapter includes a description of existing environmental conditions; methods used to assess environmental effects; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Project implementation; and mitigation measures recommended to avoid or minimize adverse effects under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and significant impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal, State of California (State), and local regulations that pertain to flood control, hydraulics, and hydrology are summarized. 4.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment This section presents the environmental setting for hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control in the Project area. 4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Project area for hydrology and hydraulics consists of the Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Rio Vista, the Yolo Bypass, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) in the vicinity of Cache Slough (Figure 4-1). These areas are described below. 4.1.1.1 Sacramento River The Sacramento River has been divided into two reaches, one above the Fremont Weir, and one below the Fremont Weir. These two reaches are discussed separately because they are affected by the proposed project differently. 4.1.1.1.1 Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Fremont Weir Flows in the 65-mile Shasta Dam to Red Bluff (River Mile [RM] 244) reach of the Sacramento River are regulated by Shasta Dam and are reregulated downstream at Keswick Dam (RM 302), as shown in Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • 4-3 Capabiluty Assessments
    Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.3 Mitigation Capability Assessment Thus far, the planning process has identified the natural hazards posing a threat to Sacramento County and described, in general, the vulnerability of the county and communities to these risks. The next step, prior to forming goals and objectives for improving each jurisdiction’s ability to reduce the impacts of these risks, is to assess what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. Doing so provides the county’s ‘net vulnerability’ to natural disasters and more accurately focuses the goals, objectives and proposed actions of this plan. This part of the planning process is referred to as ‘The Mitigation Capability Assessment’. The HMPC took two approaches in conducting this assessment for the County and each of the incorporated communities. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose for this effort was to identify activities and actions that were either in place, needed improvement, or could be undertaken, if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory of existing policies, regulations and plans. These documents were collected and reviewed to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard related losses, or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses. The ‘mitigation capabilities’ of each community are individually identified and included as part of each ‘community element’. This section presents those mitigation capabilities that are common to all communities within Sacramento County. SAFCA The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was formed in 1989 to address the Sacramento area’s vulnerability to catastrophic flooding. This vulnerability was exposed during the record flood of 1986 when Folsom Dam exceeded its normal flood control storage capacity and several area levees nearly collapsed under the strain of the storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson One – the Watershed Connection T Objective: Students Review the Water Cycle and Learn How a Watershed Functions
    5 Lesson One – The Watershed Connection T Objective: Students review the water cycle and learn how a watershed functions. E A Time: 45 minutes C H Key words: watershed, precipitation, runoff, tributaries, species, polluted, condensation, evapora- tion E R Materials: 4 pieces of wide, heavy-duty aluminum foil about 2.5 feet long Large aluminum foil lasagna pan P 1 egg carton A One 9 x 4 x 1.5 inch piece of floral foam (Oasis) [a full sized block cut lengthwise] G Spray bottle of water mixed with blue food coloring E Advance Preparation: • Make a watershed model. An egg carton placed across one end of the lasagna pan makes the Sierra Nevada. A block of foam next to the egg carton forms the Central Valley. The trough at the other end of the pan is the Pacific Ocean. Loosely roll three pieces of foil into hollow tubes. • Gently press the first roll along the Sierra Nevada for added height and shape. • Use the second roll to transition from mountains to valley, creating the foothills. • Press the third tube along the far side of the valley, to make a Coastal Range, much lower than the Sierra Nevada. Use the fourth piece of foil as a skin over the model, gently molding it to your landscape. Create a small gully around the edges of the pan to keep water in the model. With fingertips, gently depress one or two main rivers down the mountains, across the valley, through the Coastal Range, to the ocean. (Leave no gaps or holes, and you can reuse your model again and again.) • Make copies of the Student Pages titled “What is a Watershed?,” and “Sacramento Area Rivers Map” and the Worksheets titled “Your Place in the Watershed” and “Watershed Crossword & Word Search.” Procedure: 1.
    [Show full text]