DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Water Resources Bulletin 17-93 Dams Within

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 17-93 Dams Within Copies of this repoft at $5 each may be ordered from: State of California DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RO. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-a001 Make checks payable to Department of Water Resources. California residents add current sales taw. ON THE FRONT COVER: Mcbys Point Diversion Dam is owned by tha Calaveras County Water Dlstrln It is part of the Dlrtrtci's North Fork Stanirlaua fllver Hydroelecbfc Dmlopment Prolea Thlm constant radlru arch dam ir 189 feet hlgh wtm 8 crest length of 870 ha The dam Is on me North Fork ct me Stanislaus Wwr appmlmateiy 11 milw northeast of MUrphyS. It was completed In 1989. Photo pmvlded by Northern Callfornla Power Agency, Murphy., California. ON THE BACK COVER: O'Shaughnauay Dam It on thq Tuolumna Rlver In YosamiU National Park. The 312-foot hlgh cuwed gravity dam with a 9M)-tool cmst length Impounds tha 350,000 we-foot Hetch Hetchy R~HNo~~,th. keystone Of the City and Caurriy oi $an Francisco's water aupp)yaystom. Tho dam war inHlally completed in 1923. Enlargement to it. present helphi war completed I; 1938. photo pmvlded by Hatch Hoichy Water and Pawr System, Moccasin, Caiifornla. Department of Water Resources Bulletin 17-93 Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California June 1993 DOUGLAS P. WHEELER PETE WILSON DAVID N. KENNEDY Secretary for Resources Governor Director The Resources State of Department of Agency California Water Resources During construction, they identify conditions disclosed during site development which may require design changes: they check for compliance with approved plans and specifications; and they approve foundations before material is placed. The Department of Water Resources must have issued a certificate of approval based upon the findings of its personnel, before water can be impounded behind a new dam or behind an existing dam which has been enlarged, altered, or repaired. These certificates may contain restrictive conditions and may be amended or revoked by the Department of Water Resources. Operating dams are periodically inspected to assure that they are adequately maintained and to direct the owner to correct any deficiencies found. The Division conducts investigations of selected dams which include a comprehensive review of all pertinent material contained in the Division's files, a visual project inspection, technical studies when necessary and preparation of a comprehensive report. Information in this bulletin relating to dams under State jurisdiction was obtained from applications and plans submitted by owners and from surveys and supplementary information acquired during inspections and special studies. Some information on federal dams and reservoirs within California, which are not subject to State jurisdiction, is also included in this bulletin. The Department welcomes suggestions for additions and improvements from users of the Bulletin 17 series. comments may be addressed to the Division of Safety of Dams, Department of Water Resources, P. 0. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236-0001. David N. Kennedy, Director Department of Water Resources The Resources Agency State of California FOREWORD On March 12, 1928, the sudden failure of St. Francis Dam in Southern California resulted in a major disaster. Because of this failure and because of the exposure to potential risk to the general populace from a number of water storage dams in California, the Legislature in 1929 enacted legislation providing for supervision over non-federal dams in the State. Before the enactment of this legislation, State supervision over dams was exercised by either the State Engineer or the State Railroad Commission. This supervision was limited in scope and extended to less than half of the dams in the State. The statute enacted in 1929 provided for (1) examination and approval or repair of dams completed prior to the effective date of the statute, August 14, 1929: (2) approval of plans and specifications, and supervision of construction of new dams, and of the enlargement, alteration, repair, or removal of existing dams; and (3) supervision over maintenance and operation of all dams of jurisdictional size. Dams under jurisdiction are artificial barriers, together with appurtenant works, which are 25 feet or more in height or have an impounding capacity of 50 acre-feet or more. Any artificial barrier not in excess of 6 feet in height, regardless of storage capacity, or that has a storage capacity not in excess of 15 acre-feet, regardless of height, is not considered jurisdictional. In 1963, the failure of the ~aldwinHills Dam, in Southern California, caused the Legislature to amend the Water Code to include within State jurisdiction, both new and existing off- stream storage facilities. The statutes governing dam safety in California, Division 3 of the Water Code, place the supervision of the safety of non- federal dams and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources' Division of Safety of Dams. In administering Division 3 of the Water Code, the Department must comply with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. In compliance with that Act, all formal approval and revocation actions must be preceded by appropriate environmental documentation. The Division of Safety of Dams reviews plans and specifications for the construction of new dams or for the enlargement, alteration, repair, or removal of existing dams, under application, and must grant written approval before the owner can proceed with construction. Professional engineers and geologists from the Division evaluate each project, investigate proposed sites, and check available construction materials. iii STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pete Wilson, Governor THE RESOURCES AGENCY Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES David N. Kennedy, Director John J. Silveira Robert G. Potter Carroll M. Hamon Deputy Director Chief Deputy Director Deputy Director L. Lucinda Chipponeri Assistant Director DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS Vernon H. Persson...........................................Chief This report was prepared under the supervision of Donald H. Babbitt ..............Chief, Design Engineering Branch Ronald F. Delparte .............Chief, Field Engineering Branch by Floyd Brooks........................Water Resources Technician I1 with special assistance from Ernie Tapia ...................................Assistant Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.................................................... iii ORGANIZATION AND CREDITS..................................... Vi PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE AFFECTING JURISDICTION OVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS (Graph).... vii EXPLANATION OF TABULATED DATA... .............................viii ABBREVIATIONS....................................... xi CLASSIFICATION OF DAMS WITHIN STATE JURISDICTION (Chart).. ... X~V DAMS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY NAME OF DAM....................... 1 DAMS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND DAMS OWNED OR OPERATED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY LISTED ALPHABETICALLY WITHIN COUNTY........................ 79 RESERVOIRS WITH NAME DIFFERENT FROM NAME OF DAM.............. 111 DAMS WITHIN CALIFORNIA OWNED OR OPERATED BY AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.............................. 115 EXPLANATION OF TABULATED DATA This bulletin includes the name of dam, dam number, name of owner, county, stream, location, type, storage capacity, drainage area, reservoir area, crest elevation, crest length, height, total freeboard, operating freeboard, crest width, volume of dam, and year completed of each dam under jurisdiction of the State of California. All units of measure are given in the English System and the International System. Column headings introduce the data as indicated below. Abbreviations are used where necessary because of space constraints. Name of Dam as assigned by owner on application. Dam Number as assigned by the Department of Water Resources. Name of Owner as it appears on application. Natid -- National Inventory of Dams Identification Number. Parapet Code/Heiqht as measured above the dam crest in feet. If a parapet exists it is either (1) a structural wall adequate to impound water, or (2) a wall not capable of storing water. If parapet code is 1, the dam crest is the top of the parapet wall. If there is no parapet wall, the code is 3. County in which dam is located. Stream on which dam is located as named by the owner on original application or as revised to conform with USGS topographic maps. Location is section, township, range, and base line and meridian, as used in llThe System of Rectangular surveys''. Also included are latitude and longitude of the center point of the dam. TvPe of main dam only. unit for dimension items, middle line in the English System and the lower line in the equivalent SI (metric). Storase Capacity in acre-feet and decametres, including dead storage. Drainase Area in square miles and in square kilometres. viii PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE AFFECTING JLrRISDICTION OVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS 15 50 Acre - Feet * RESERVOIR CAPACITY 1.83 metres = 6 feet 18.50 cubic dclamclrti = IS asrc-isel 7.62 metres = 25 iea 61.68 cuhic dcksmc,rcr = iO asrc~kcl vii EXPLANATION OF TABULATED DATA (Continued) Reservoir Area is acres and hectares at spillway crest elevation, or at a higher maximum water storage elevation if headworks controls are continuously used. Crest Elevation in feet and metres (USGS datum, when available: approximate USGS datum: or local datum). Crest
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Facility Name
    Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix G – Orange County Dams City of Newport Beach, California APPENDIX G: MAJOR DAMS IN ORANGE COUNTY Res. Drainage Crest Free Dam Dam National Latitude, Year Capacity Height Length Width Volume Owner Stream Area Area Elev. Board Type Comments Hazard Name No. ID Longitude Built (Ac-Ft) (Ft) (ft) (ft) (yd^3) (Acres) (mi^2) (ft) (ft) County of 33.688, Agua Chinon Agua Chinon 1012 -017 CA01361 Orange -117.7 Wash 1998 256 16 2.17 636 10.5 41 480 20 ERTH 176,000 Significant Bee Canyon Retention County of 33.708, Bee Canyon Basin 1012-009 CA01360 Orange -117.71 Wash 1994 243 14 1.29 581 11.5 62 570 25 ERTH 66,000 High City of 33.61, Tributary Big Big Canyon 1058-000 CA00891 Newport Beach -117.86 Canyon Cr 1959 600 22 0.04 308 5.5 65 3824 20 ERTH 508,000 High Bonita The Irvine 33.632, Canyon 793-004 CA00747 Company -117.848 Bonita Creek 1938 323 50 4.2 151 8 51 331 20 ERTH 43,000 Brea Dam (Brea Federal - 33.8917, Reservoir) CA10016 USCOE -117.925 Brea Creek 1942 4,018 162.7 22.0 295 16 87 1,765 20 ERTH 680,472 Carbon Federal - 33.915 Carbon Canyon CA10017 USCOE -117.6433 Canyon Creek 1961 7,033 221 19.3 499 24 99 2,610 20 ERTH 150,000 30 MG Central Reservoir 1087-000 CA01113 City of Brea Offstream 1924 92 5 0 392 30 1596 ERTH Metropolitan Water District 33.912, Diemer No.
    [Show full text]
  • Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area
    Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan August 2016 Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (This Page Intentionally Blank) August 2016 ii Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan I. Emergency Management Council and Operational Area Executive Board Letter of Approval August 2016 iii Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan II. County of Orange Board of Supervisors Resolution August 2016 iv Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan III. California Office of Emergency Services Letter of Acceptance August 2016 v Unified County of Orange and Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan IV. Record of Changes Date of Revision Section or Component Reviewed by Revision Revision Description Completed By Emergency EMC Sub- Operations Plan County of Orange Committee and Emergency 2014 revision to new Emergency Operations Plan DAFN Working Management Division template Group EMC Sub- Updated hazard Chapter 2, section 2.2 Committee and Emergency 2014 assessment Hazard Assessment DAFN Working Management Division Group Update reference to EMC Sub- Disabilities and Committee and Throughout the Emergency Emergency 2014 Access and DAFN Working Operations Plan Management Division Functional Needs Group laws and regulations Updated hazard Section 2.2.1 Aviation Emergency Emergency 2014 information and Accident and 2.2.19
    [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]
  • 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5
    5.6 Westside5.6 Groundwater 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources This section describes the potential effects of the WSIP water supply and system operations and associated WSIP projects on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related water resources, including Lake Merced. The proposed water supply sources under the WSIP include 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply every year in all years (including nondrought periods) from implementation of conservation, water recycling, and groundwater supply programs in San Francisco; in addition, the proposed water supply option includes a long-term conjunctive-use program in the San Mateo County portion of the Westside Groundwater Basin, referred to as the South Westside Groundwater Basin, as part of the drought-year water supply for the regional system. The recycled water and groundwater components of this supply would be achieved through two WSIP projects, the Local and Regional Groundwater Projects (SF-2) and the Recycled Water Projects (SF-3), which are described in Chapter 3. The potential effects of the WSIP on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related resources are discussed in the context of ongoing activities in this area occurring among the SFPUC, City of Daly City, California Water Service Company (Cal Water, the municipal water purveyor to South San Francisco), and the City of San Bruno. 5.6.1 Setting 5.6.1.1 Westside Groundwater Basin The Westside Groundwater Basin extends from San Francisco south to San Mateo County (Figure 5.6-1). With an area of about 45 square miles, this groundwater basin is the largest in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
    2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT APRIL 2016 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Brea FINAL DRAFT Prepared for: Ron Krause Project Manager City of Brea [Signature 1 Name] 1 Civic Center Circle [Title] Brea, CA 92821 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3650 Los Angeles California 90071 Tel 213 486 9884 Fax 213 486 9894 Our Ref.: 4109039.0000 Date: April 2016 arcadis.com 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Urban Water Management Plan Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Agency Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Service Area and Facilities .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 The City of Brea Service Area .......................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 City of Brea Water Facilities ............................................................................................. 1-5 2 Demands .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tectonic Geomorphology of the Santa Ana Mountains
    Final Technical Report ACTIVE DEFORMATION AND EARTHQUAKE POTENTIAL OF THE SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES BASIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Award Number: 01HQGR0117 Recipient’s name: University of California - Irvine Sponsored Projects Administration 160 Administration Building, Univ. of CA - Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-1875 Principal investigator: Lisa B. Grant, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Analysis & Design 262 Social Ecology 1 University of California Irvine, CA 92697-7070 Program element: Research on earthquake occurrence and effects Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 01HQGR0117. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. p. 1 Award number: 01HQGR0117 ACTIVE DEFORMATION AND EARTHQUAKE POTENTIAL OF THE SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES BASIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Eldon M. Gath, University of California, Irvine, 143 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697-7070; tel: 949-824-5382, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] Eric E. Runnerstrom, University of California, Irvine, 143 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697- 7070; tel: 949-824-5382, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] Lisa B. Grant (P.I.), University of California, Irvine, 262 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697- 7070; tel: 949-824-5491, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] TECHNICAL ABSTRACT The Santa Ana Mountains (SAM) are a 1.7 km high mountain range that form the southeastern boundary of the Los Angeles basin between Orange and Riverside counties in southern California. The SAM have three well developed erosional surfaces preserved on them, as well as a suite of four fluvial fill terraces preserved in Santiago Creek, which is a drainage trapped between the uplifting SAM and a parallel Loma Ridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
    Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality SECTION 5.8 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrological and water quality conditions within the City of Buena Park. The potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update are analyzed, and where significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This section includes information contained in the Hydrology Impact and Water Quality Assessment prepared by RBF Consulting (February 2010) (Appendix F). 5.8.1 EXISTING SETTING GROUNDWATER The City relies on two major water supply sources, which include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The groundwater basin receives water via the Santa Ana River. Each year OCWD sets a basin production percentage (BPP) for the agencies that pump from the basin. The BPP is the ratio of water produced from the groundwater to all water produced by the agency. The BPP provides a limit on how much each agency can pump from the Orange County Groundwater Basin without paying a penalty. According to the City of Buena Park 2005 Water Master Plan Study Final Report (Water Master Plan) (February 2007), the City’s basin pumping percentage is 66 percent and is anticipated to increase to the historical value of 75 percent. However, water supply conditions have changed over recent years and according to the City’s Public Works Department, the current BPP is 62 percent and the BPP is not anticipated to rise above the current rate for a number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • County of Orange & Orange County Fire Authority
    County of Orange & Orange County Fire Authority Local Hazard Mitigation Plan November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan This page intentionally left blank. Page ii November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan Record of Changes Date of Revision Revision Description Section/Component Revision Completed By Page iii November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan This page intentionally left blank. Page iv November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan Board of Supervisors Resolution Page v November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan Board of Supervisors Resolution (Continued) Page vi November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan State OES Formal Review Letter Page vii November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan This page intentionally left blank. Page viii November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan FEMA Letter of Acceptance Page ix November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan This page intentionally left blank. Page x November 2015 County of Orange and Orange County Fire Authority Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Record of Changes ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Long Range Plan
    Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD) 2019-2024 Long Range Plan INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District’s (”District”) Long Range Plan is to describe the District, identify its priority natural resource issues, establish long-range district goals, and develop a framework to identify priorities for annual district activities. The long range plan also serves as a method of providing information to government agencies, community-based organizations, watershed stakeholders and individual members of the public regarding District programs and goals. The 2019-2024 Long Range Plan establishes the areas of focus for the District using the Board’s knowledge and understanding of current and forecasted circumstances, and lists goals and strategies for addressing these priority areas. The Board then develops an annual work plan each year listing scheduled and planned activities to guide implementation of the strategies during the course of each fiscal year. ABOUT GCRCD Mission The District’s mission is to provide education and technical assistance to constituents and watershed stakeholders to sustainably manage soil, water and wildlife with the best available science. Organization The District is a non-regulatory independent special district of the state of California dedicated to the conservation of natural resources within Santa Clara County. The District is regulated by Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code, and is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors. State law provides
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Flows for Fish Below Dams
    ASSESSING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE 5937 THEODORE E. GRANTHAM PETER B. MOYLE CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS ONE SHIELDS AVENUE DAVIS, CA 95616 OCTOBER 22, 2014 This report was prepared by: Theodore E. Grantham and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Corresponding author: Theodore (Ted) Grantham [email protected] Copyright ©2014 The Regents of the University of California All rights reserved The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Please cite this report as: Grantham, T. E. and P. B. Moyle. 2014.
    [Show full text]