DOCSLIB.ORG

Sierra Nevada Network River Hydrology Monitoring Protocol Standard Operating Procedures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sierra Nevada Network River Hydrology Monitoring Protocol Standard Operating Procedures National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Sierra Nevada Network Sierra Nevada Network River Hydrology Monitoring Protocol Standard Operating Procedures 1 ON THE COVER Protection Ranger John Anderson performing a discharge measurement in Boundary Creek at Devils Postpile National Monument. Photograph by: Jennie Skancke. Sierra Nevada Network River Hydrology Monitoring Protocol Standard Operating Procedures Version 1.0 Jennie Skancke1 Andrea Heard1 Leslie Chow2 Alice Chung-MacCoubrey1 1National Park Service, Sierra Nevada Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Hwy Three Rivers, CA 93271 2National Park Service, Sierra Nevada Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Yosemite Field Station P.O. Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 September 2017 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Three Rivers, California This report is available in digital format from the Sierra Nevada Network website. Please cite this document as: Skancke, J. R., A. M. Heard, L. Chow, and A. L. Chung-MacCoubrey. 2017. Sierra Nevada Network River Hydrology Monitoring Protocol: Standard operating procedures version 1.0. National Park Service, Three Rivers, California. These Standard Operating Procedures accompany the following protocol narrative: Skancke, J. R., A. M. Heard, L. Chow, and A. L. Chung-MacCoubrey. 2017. Sierra Nevada Network river hydrology monitoring protocol: Narrative version 1.0. Natural Resource Report NPS/SIEN/NRR—2017/XXX. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (Will update this reference and link to it once the report is published.) ii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................ ix Tables ............................................................................................................................................. xi Appendices ................................................................................................................................... xiii Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... xiv SOP 1: Streamgage Station Overviews........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Preparing and Updating Station Descriptions .............................................................. 2 1.3 Station Overviews ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3.1. Tuolumne River near Hetch Hetchy ............................................................... 4 1.3.2. Tuolumne River at Tioga Road Bridge ........................................................... 8 1.3.3. Lyell Fork of the Tuolumne River below Maclure Creek ............................ 10 1.3.4. Falls Creek .................................................................................................... 12 1.3.5. Merced River at Pohono Bridge ................................................................... 14 1.3.6. Merced River at Happy Isles......................................................................... 16 1.3.7. South Fork of the Merced River at Wawona ................................................ 18 1.3.8. Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River in Devils Postpile ............................ 20 1.3.9. Kern near Kernville ....................................................................................... 22 1.3.10. Middle Fork of the Kaweah River near Potwisha ......................................... 24 1.3.11. Marble Fork of the Kaweah River above Tokopah Falls .............................. 27 1.3.12. Marble Fork of the Kaweah River at Potwisha ............................................. 29 1.3.13. East Fork Kaweah River near Three Rivers, CA .......................................... 31 1.3.14. South Fork Kings River above Roaring River .............................................. 33 SOP 2: Training and Annual Schedule of Tasks .......................................................................... 37 iii 2.1 Annual Schedule of Tasks ......................................................................................... 38 2.2 Training ...................................................................................................................... 39 2.2.1. Required Training ......................................................................................... 39 2.2.2. Recommended Training ................................................................................ 40 SOP 3: Procedures and Equipment for Station Visits ................................................................... 43 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 44 3.2 Equipment Maintenance and Repair for Streamgage Visits ...................................... 44 3.3 Gaging Station Field Visits ........................................................................................ 46 3.3.1. Preparation for Field Visits ........................................................................... 46 3.3.2. Equipment Checklist for Standard Station Visits ......................................... 49 3.3.3. Getting to SIEN-supported Stations.............................................................. 50 3.3.4. Standard Station Visit Procedures ................................................................ 50 3.3.5. Completing the Field Data Sheet .................................................................. 51 3.3.6. Datalogger Download Procedures ................................................................ 55 3.4 Post Gaging Station Visit Activities .......................................................................... 56 3.5 Station Improvements ................................................................................................ 57 3.6 Routine Station Maintenance ..................................................................................... 58 3.6.1. Assessing Winter Ice Effects ........................................................................ 58 3.7 Station Surveys and Datum Corrections .................................................................... 59 3.8 HOBO Temperature Logger Visits ............................................................................ 61 SOP 4: Methods for Streamflow Discharge Measurements ......................................................... 69 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 70 4.2 Overview of Quantitative Methods ........................................................................... 70 4.2.1. Six-tenths-depth Method ............................................................................... 71 4.2.2. Two-point Method ........................................................................................ 72 iv 4.2.3. Safe Conditions for Wading Measurements ................................................. 73 4.2.4. Selection of Methods and Equipment to Measure Discharge ....................... 73 4.3 Field Data Sheet ......................................................................................................... 73 4.4 Preparing to Make a Wading Measurement .............................................................. 74 4.4.1. Selection of Appropriate Cross-section ........................................................ 74 4.4.2. General Performance Checks for Current Meters ......................................... 74 4.5 Quantitative Discharge Measurements ...................................................................... 75 4.5.1. AquaCalc Method ......................................................................................... 75 4.5.2. FlowTracker Method .................................................................................... 78 4.5.3. Salt Dilution Method..................................................................................... 81 4.5.4. Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler ................................................................ 82 4.6 Semi-quantitative Methods: Floats ............................................................................ 88 SOP 5: Safety Procedures ............................................................................................................. 93 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 94 5.2 Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 94 5.3 Backcountry Travel including Daily and Emergency Communications ................... 99 5.4 Training Requirements .............................................................................................. 99 5.4.1. Protocol and Park Leads ............................................................................... 99 5.4.2. Field Technicians ........................................................................................ 100 5.5 Wading Measurement Safety Procedures ................................................................ 101 5.5.1. Knowledge of Rivers Protocol Narrative and SOPs ..................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology
    EXHIBIT 89 The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Desert Research Institute May 2007 Revision 01 May 2008 Publication No. 41231 DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE DRI Publication Number: 41231 Initial Issue Date: May 2007 Document Title: The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Author(s): Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Revision History Revision # Date Page, Paragraph Description of Revision 0 5/2007 N/A Initial Issue 1.1 5/2008 Title page Added revision number 1.2 “ ii Inserted Document Change Notice 1.3 “ iv Added date to cover photo caption 1.4 “ vi Clarified listed species definition 1.5 “ viii Clarified mg/L definition and added WRPT acronym Updated lake and TDS levels to Dec. 12, 2007 values here 1.6 “ 1 and throughout text 1.7 “ 1, P4 Clarified/corrected tui chub statement; references added 1.8 “ 2, P2 Edited for clarification 1.9 “ 4, P2 Updated paragraph 1.10 “ 8, Figure 2 Updated Fig. 2007; corrected tui chub spawning statement 1.11 “ 10, P3 & P6 Edited for clarification 1.12 “ 11, P1 Added Yardas (2007) reference 1.13 “ 14, P2 Updated paragraph 1.14 “ 15, Figure 3 & P3 Updated Fig. to 2007; edited for clarification 1.15 “ 19, P5 Edited for clarification 1.16 “ 21, P 1 Updated paragraph 1.17 “ 22, P 2 Deleted comma 1.18 “ 26, P1 Edited for clarification 1.19 “ 31-32 Clarified/corrected/rearranged/updated Walker Lake section 1.20
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1
    Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters
    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
    Application for New License TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ..................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 8-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 8.1-1. Resource Areas Potentially Affected by Project Operation and Maintenance under the Proposed Action .............................. 8-5 LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PAD Pre-Application Document Project Kaweah Project O&M operation and maintenance SCE Southern California Edison Company SD Supporting Document TSP Technical Study Plan TSR Technical Study Report Southern California Edison Company 8-i Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License This Page Intentionally Left Blank 8-ii Southern California Edison Company Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 INTRODUCTION This section follows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) content requirements at Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B), which specify that “the applicant must present the results of its studies conducted under the approved study plan by resource area and use the data generated by the studies to evaluate the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of its proposed project. This section must also include, if applicable, a description of any anticipated
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California
    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California By WILLARD W. DEAN fPith a section on GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS IN THE KERN RIVER BASIN By KEVIN M. SCOTT FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-610922 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ Cl Introduction.____________ _ ________________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________________ 3 Precipitation__ ____________________________________________________ 5 General description of the floods___________________________________ 9 Kern River basin______________________________________________ 12 Tule River basin______________________________________________ 16 Kaweah River basin____________________________--_-____-_---_- 18 Miscellaneous basins___________________________________________ 22 Storage regulation _________________________________________________ 22 Flood damage.__________________________________________________ 23 Comparison to previous floods___________-_____________--___------_
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of the Shrews of the American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LIBRARY Book number b52N no. 10-13 1895-1897 500016 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF ORNITHOLOGY AND MAMMALOGY A - » U NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA No. lO Revision of the Shrews of the American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C. HART MERRIAM The Long-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States GERRIT S. MILLER, Jr. Synopsis of the American Shrews of the Genus Sorex C. HART MERRIAM WASHINGTON aOVE]iNMENT PlilNTING OPFICE 1895 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF ORNITHOLOGY AND MAMMALOGY NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA ]N"o. lO [Actual date of iiublicatiou, December 31, 1895] Revision of tlie Shrews of tke American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C. HART MERRIAM The Long-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States GERRIT S. MILLER, Jr. Synopsis of the American Shrews of the Genus Sorex C. HART MERRIAM WASHINGTON aOVERNMENT PKINTINa OFFICE 1895 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. JJ. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington ^ JD. 0., August 31, 1895. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewitli, for publication as IsTOc 10 of i^orth American Fauna, three pai^ers on Korth American Shrews, embracing results of investigations made by the Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy. Eespectfully, C. Hart Merriam, Chief of .Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy. Hon. J. STERLiNa Morton, Secretary of Agriculture. 3 CONTENTS. Page. Kevision of tlie Shrews of the Americau genera Blarina and NoUosorex. By C. Hart Merriam 5 Tlie Loug-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States. By Gerrit S. Miller, jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Andradite Skarn Garnet Records of Exceptionally Low Δ18o Values Within an Early Cretaceous Hydrothermal System, Sierra Nevada, CA
    Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology (2019) 174:68 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-019-1602-6 ORIGINAL PAPER Andradite skarn garnet records of exceptionally low δ18O values within an Early Cretaceous hydrothermal system, Sierra Nevada, CA J. Ryan‑Davis1,2 · J. S. Lackey2 · M. Gevedon3 · J. D. Barnes3 · C‑T. A. Lee4 · K. Kitajima5 · J. W. Valley5 Received: 2 March 2019 / Accepted: 12 July 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Skarn garnets in the Mineral King roof pendant of the south–central Sierra Nevada within Sequoia National Park, Califor- nia, USA reveal variable fuid chemistry with a signifcant component of meteoric water during metasomatism in the Early Cretaceous Sierra Nevada Batholith. We focus on andradite garnet associated with Pb–Zn mineralization in the White Chief Mine. Laser fuorination oxygen isotope analyses of δ18O of garnet (δ18O(Grt)) from sites along the skarn show a large range of values (− 8.8 to + 4.6‰ VSMOW). Ion microprobe (SIMS) analyses elucidate that individual andradite crystals are strongly zoned in δ18O(Grt) (up to 7‰ of variation). Total rare-earth element concentrations (∑REE) across individual garnets show progressive depletion of skarn-forming fuids in these elements during garnet growth. These fndings support 18 18 a skarn model of earliest red high-δ O grandite garnet consistent with a magmatic-dominated equilibrium fuid (δ O(H2O) as high as ≈ + 8‰). Later, green andradite crystallized in equilibrium with a low-δ18O fuid indicating a signifcant infux 18 of meteoric fuid (δ O(H2O) ≈ − 6 to − 5‰), following a hiatus in garnet growth, associated with late-stage Pb–Zn miner- 18 18 alization.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transportation Plan
    MONO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mono County Local Transportation Commission Mono County Community Development Department Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department MONO COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS Fred Stump, Chair (Mono County) Shields Richardson, Vice-Chair (Mammoth Lakes) Jo Bacon (Mammoth Lakes) Tim Fesko (Mono County) Larry Johnston (Mono County) Sandy Hogan (Mammoth Lakes) STAFF Mono County Scott Burns, LTC Director Gerry Le Francois, Principal Planner Wendy Sugimura, Associate Analyst Jeff Walters, Public Works Director Garrett Higerd, Associate Engineer Courtney Weiche, Associate Planner C.D. Ritter, LTC Secretary Megan Mahaffey, Fiscal Analyst Town of Mammoth Lakes Haislip Hayes, Associate Civil Engineer Jamie Robertson, Assistant Engineer Caltrans District 9 Brent Green, District 9 Director Ryan Dermody, Deputy District 9 Director Planning, Modal Programs, and Local Assistance Denee Alcala, Transportation Planning Branch Supervisor Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) John Helm, Executive Director Jill Batchelder, Program Coordinator TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 Transportation Directives .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Needs and Issues ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East Walker River Watershed Assessment
    East Walker River Watershed Assessment March 2012 Contributors and Acknowledgements Assessment and plan written by Rick Kattelmann Ph.D., retired hydrologist who specialized in watershed management and snow hydrology. He worked and contracted for a variety of agencies, public utilities, and conservation groups. Rick was the principal hydrologist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project in the mid-1990s and authored more than 150 scientific and technical papers. He served two terms on the Mono County Planning Commission and wrote watershed assessments for the other principal watersheds of Mono County. Rick holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry and watershed hydrology at U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in snow hydrology from U.C. Santa Barbara. Assessment and plan production managed by Eastern Sierra Land Trust: Aaron Johnson, Lands Director, Heather Freeman, Office Coordinator, Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director Assistance with cartographic design and spatial analysis: Kimberly Forkner Funders/Support: Funding for this project has been provided by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an agency of the State of California. The maps and cartographic products included in this report were made possible through a generous grant of the ArcGIS software by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) through the ESRI Conservation Program. Disclaimer Watershed Assessments are a snapshot in time of a location, synthesizing all the known information concerning that area. Omissions, errors, an d misunderstandings can occur. The authors request that corrections, additions, and suggestions be sent to the address below. Eastern Sierra Land Trust P.O. Box 755 Bishop, CA 93515 East Walker River Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]