DOCSLIB.ORG

Auburn-Folsom South Unit Central Valley Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Auburn-Folsom South Unit Central Valley Project AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Economic Benefits Update Conducted by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region June 2006 This page was left blank to facilitate two-sided copying. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ECONOMIC BENEFIT UPDATE AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT Table of Contents Item Page SECTION I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... I-1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................I-1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................I-1 ORGANIZATION OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ...........................................................I-2 SECTION II ECONOMIC BENEFITS CITED IN PRIOR REPORTS AND PRICE LEVEL UPDATE ................................................................................................ II-1 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEASIBILITY REPORTS 1960 ...........................................II-1 AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 1963................................II-2 OTHER REPORTS –AUBURN DAM ...................................................................................II-5 PREVIOUS DATA USED FOR BASIS OF BENEFITS UPDATE.........................................II-5 SECTION III UPDATED IRRIGATION BENEFITS......................................... III-1 1963 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR IRRIGATION BENEFITS..............................III-1 CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFIT ESTIMATION..............................................................III-1 METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY UPDATE ..............................................................III-2 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY UPDATE.............................................................................III-8 LIMITATIONS OF UPDATE APPROACH.........................................................................III-10 SECTION IV UPDATED M&I WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS .........................IV-1 1963 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR M&I BENEFITS ........................................... IV-1 CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFIT ESTIMATION............................................................. IV-1 METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY UPDATE ............................................................. IV-1 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY UPDATE............................................................................ IV-2 LIMITATIONS OF UPDATE APPROACH.......................................................................... IV-3 SECTION V UPDATED HYDROPOWER BENEFITS.....................................V-1 1963 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROPOWER BENEFITS ........................ V-1 CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFIT ESTIMATION.............................................................. V-1 METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY UPDATE .............................................................. V-2 Auburn‐Folsom South Unit TOC‐1 Final TM: Economic Benefit Update Central Valley Project June 2006 Section I Introduction RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY UPDATE............................................................................. V-5 LIMITATIONS OF UPDATE APPROACH........................................................................... V-6 SECTION VI UPDATED FLOOD CONTROL BENEFITS..............................VI-1 1963 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR FLOOD CONTROL BENEFITS................... VI-1 CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFIT ESTIMATION............................................................. VI-1 METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY UPDATE ............................................................. VI-5 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY UPDATE............................................................................ VI-9 LIMITATIONS OF UPDATE APPROACH........................................................................ VI-14 SECTION VII UPDATED RECREATION BENEFITS....................................VII-1 1963 RECREATION BENEFITS AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ......................... VII-1 PRIMARY CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFIT ESTIMATION .......................................... VII-5 METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY UPDATE ............................................................ VII-5 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY UPDATE......................................................................... VII-32 LIMITATIONS OF UPDATE APPROACH....................................................................... VII-37 SECTION VIII UPDATED FISH AND WILDLIFE BENEFITS ......................VIII-1 1963 FISH AND WILDLIFE BENEFITS AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ............. VIII-1 PRIMARY CHANGES AFFECTING BENEFITS .............................................................. VIII-3 METHODOLOGY AND DATA NEEDS FOR BENEFIT UPDATE.................................... VIII-3 SECTION IX SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT UPDATE................IX-1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS ................................................................................................. IX-1 FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................... IX-1 SECTION X REFERENCES ............................................................................X-1 Auburn‐Folsom South Unit TOC‐2 Final TM: Economic Benefit Update Central Valley Project June 2006 Section I Introduction LIST OF TABLES TABLE II-1: BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AUBURN DAM AND FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT 1963 REPORT ...........................................................................................................................II-6 TABLE II-2: POPULATION GROWTH FROM 1950 TO 2005 ..................................................II-8 TABLE II-3: PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH TO 2050................................................II-8 TABLE III-1: AVERAGE INCREASES IN IRRIGATION DELIVERIES....................................III-3 TABLE III-2: CVPM REGIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS............................................................III-6 TABLE III-3: CVPM CROP GROUPINGS................................................................................III-7 TABLE III-4: ANNUAL CHANGE IN NET INCOME BY CVPM REGION ................................III-9 TABLE III-5: AVERAGE ANNUAL IRRIGATION BENEFITS..................................................III-9 TABLE IV-1: SUMMARY OF URBAN WATER SUPPLY DELIVERY CHANGES ................. IV-2 TABLE IV-2: AVERAGE ANNUAL M&I BENEFITS.............................................................. IV-2 TABLE V-1: UNIT COST FOR NATURAL GAS POWER PLANT........................................... V-4 TABLE V-2: DEPENDABLE CAPACITY POWER PLANT SIZE............................................. V-5 TABLE V-3: AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATION FOR AUBURN POWER PLANT.............. V-5 TABLE V-4: POWER GENERATION BENEFITS FOR AUBURN POWER PLANT ............... V-6 TABLE VI-1: STRUCTURES AT RISK OF FLOODING, LOWER AMERICAN RIVER; VALUES IN $ MILLIONS, OCTOBER 2006 PRICES............................................................................. VI-8 TABLE VI-2: SINGLE EVENT MEAN DAMAGES UNDER VARYING PROJECT CONDITIONS; VALUES IN $ MILLIONS, OCTOBER 2006 PRICES..................................... VI-9 TABLE VI-3: EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES UNDER VARYING PROJECT CONDITIONS - OPERATIONS ALLOWED BELOW FC ELEVATION FOR DAM SAFETY; VALUES IN $ MILLIONS, OCTOBER 2006 PRICES .................................................................................. VI-11 TABLE VI-4: EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS - FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION FROM AUBURN DAM; VALUES IN $ MILLIONS, OCTOBER 2006 PRICES ................................ VI-12 TABLE VI-5: PROJECT PERFORMANCE STATISTICS - ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY & LONG TERM RISK................................................................................... VI-13 TABLE VI-6: PROJECT PERFORMANCE STATISTICS - CONDITIONAL NON- EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY............................................................................................. VI-14 Auburn‐Folsom South Unit TOC‐3 Final TM: Economic Benefit Update Central Valley Project June 2006 Section I Introduction TABLE VII -1: RECREATION BENEFIT ESTIMATE IN 1963 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT . VII-4 TABLE VII-2: ASRA RECREATIONAL FEATURES, ACTIVITIES, AND FACILITIES ......... VII-8 TABLE VII-3: ASRA VISITATION........................................................................................ VII-11 TABLE VII-4: FLSRA RECREATIONAL FEATURES, ACTIVITIES, AND FACILITIES ..... VII-13 TABLE VII-5: FLSRA FISHING SPECIES REGULATIONS (FOLSOM LAKE AND LAKE NATOMA) ............................................................................................................................. VII-16 TABLE VII-6: FLSRA VISITATION ...................................................................................... VII-16 TABLE VII-7: POINT RATING SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING UNIT DAY VALUE............ VII-19 TABLE VII-8: FY2006 UNIT DAY VALUE TABLE .............................................................. VII-19 TABLE VII-9: STORAGE AT FOLSOM RESERVOIR DURING RECREATION SEASON WITH AND WITHOUT AUBURN DAM........................................................................................... VII-20 TABLE VII-10: AUBURN DAM RECREATION SITES/FEATURES IDENTIFIED IN 1978 GENERAL PLAN.................................................................................................................. VII-22 TABLE VII-11: ASRA WITHOUT-PROJECT RATINGS...................................................... VII-24 TABLE VII-12: ASRA WITH-PROJECT RATINGS.............................................................. VII-25 TABLE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Project Overview July 2013 Central Valley of California
    Central Valley Project Overview July 2013 Central Valley of California TRINITY DAM FOLSOM DAM LV SL Hydrologic Constraints • Majority of water supply in the north • Most of the precipitation is in the winter/spring • Majority of demand in the south • Most of that demand is in the summer Geographic Constraints Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Avg Annual Inflow in MAF (Billion Cu Meters) (5.3) 4.3 (1.7) 1.4 (1.1) 0.9 21.2 (26.2) Sacramento Delta Precip Eastside Streams San Joaquin California Water Projects • State Water Project • Central Valley Project • Local Water Projects Trinity CVP Shasta Major Storage Folsom Facilities New Melones Friant San Luis Trinity CVP Shasta Conveyance Folsom Facilities New Melones Friant San Luis CVP Features Summary • 18 Dams and Reservoirs • 500 Miles (800 Kilometers) of Canals • 11 Powerplants • 10 Pumping Plants • 20 Percent of State’s Developed Water Supply (about 7 million acre-feet, 8.6 billion cu meters) • 30 Percent of the State’s Agricultural Supply (about 3 mil acres of farm land, 1.2 mil hectares) • 13 Percent of State’s M&I Supply (about 2 million people served) CVP Authorized Purposes • Flood Control • River Regulation (Navigation) • Fish and Wildlife Needs • Municipal & Agricultural Water Supplies • Power Generation • Recreation TRINITY CVP - SWP FEATURES LEWISTON SHASTA SPRING CREEK POWERPLANT CARR POWERPLANT TINITY RIVER WHISKEYTOWN OROVILLE (SWP) TO SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA FOLSOM BANKS PP (SWP) JONES PP NEW MELONES O’NEILL TO SAN FELIPE SAN LUIS FRIANT TRINITY CVP - SWP FEATURES LEWISTON SHASTA
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model of Folsom Dam
    Michael Pantell, E.I.T. Peterson Brustad Inc. • Model Folsom Dam Flood Scenarios • During Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) • Varying Folsom Dam Outflows • Multiple Breach Locations and Methods • Results • Floodplain Depths • Mortality • Property Damage • Why? • Information not Available to public • To Obtain Masters Degree Built in 1956 Owned by USBR Storage Approx. 1 Mil Ac-ft 12 structures Concrete Main dam Earthen 2 Wing Dams 1 Auxiliary Dam Reference: USBR “Folsom Dam Facility Map” 8 Dikes Sacramento Folsom River Reservoir Sacramento American River Probable Maximum Flood American River 1000000 900000 Peak ≈ 900,000 cfs Basin 800000 700000 PMF 600000 ) cfs Developed by 500000 Flow ( USACE 400000 300000 Project Design 200000 Flood 100000 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 Approx. 25,000 Time (hours) year event Auxiliary Spillway Powerhouse Folsom Dam Flow = 6900 cfs 8 Tainter Gates 5- Main 3- Emergency Auxiliary Spillway Designed to PMF event Dam Outflow 500 PMF Event 490 Overtopping 480 Elevation 470 460 450 440 430 420 410 400 Elevation (NAVD88 feet) Elevation 390 380 370 360 350 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 650000 700000 750000 800000 850000 900000 950000 1000000 Outflow (CFS) Without Spillway With Spillway Mechanisms Overtopping Piping Earthquake Etc Right Wing Dam Northern Breach Mormon Auxiliary Dam Southern Breach Tallest and longest earthen structures North Earthen structure South Earthen structure LargerMacDonald Breach Von Thun = Longer & MacDonald Formation Von TimeThun & ∝ MacDonald, et. al.et. al. Gillette et. al. Gillette Large Breach Width Long- ft Formation3047 Time 374 3916 331 Von Thun & Gillete Height Small- ft Breach 47 47 76 76 Short Formation Time Formation 4.4 0.8 4.1 0.7 Time (hrs) HEC RAS 5.0 2D Mesh 150 m x 150 m Terrain CVFED 1 m resolution Manning’s n Based on CVFED Land Use Jonkman et.
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project
    -BUREAU OF - RECLAMATION Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project Background Folsom Dam was authorized in 1944 as a 355,000 acre-foot flood control unit and then reauthorized in 1949 as an almost 1 million acre-foot multiple-purpose facility. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) completed construction in 1956 and then transferred the dam to the Bureau of Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral part of the federal Central Valley Project. Folsom Dam regulates flows in the American River for flood control, and releases from Folsom Reservoir are used for municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, power, fish and wildlife management, recreation, navigation and water quality purposes. Recreation at Folsom Reservoir is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation under an agreement with Reclamation. The Folsom Facility Managed by the Central California Area Office (CCAO), the Folsom Facility comprises Folsom Dam and Reservoir, left and right earthfill wing dams, Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam and eight earthfill dikes that protect the surrounding communities and the cities of Folsom and Granite Bay. The Sacramento metropolitan area sits in a valley at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers; the valley is a huge floodplain which has flooded countless times over the centuries, and Folsom Dam is the area’s key flood control structure. The Folsom Dam spillway is divided into eight sections, each controlled by a 42-by 50-foot radial gate. The spillway capacity is 567,000 cubic feet per second. Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Program Under the Safety of Dams Program, Reclamation is working to reduce hydrologic (flood), seismic (earthquake) and static (seepage) risks at the Folsom Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • System Reoperation Study
    System Reoperation Study Phase III Report: Assessment of Reoperation Strategies California Department of Water Resources August 2017 System Reoperation Study Phase III Report This page is intentionally left blank. August 2017 | 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.1 Study Authorization ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 -2 1.3 Planning Principles .....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.4 Related Studies and Programs...................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.5 Uncertainties in Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5.1 Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • A Gravel Budget for the Lower American River
    A GRAVEL BUDGET FOR THE LOWER AMERICANRIVER David Fairman B.S., University of California, Davis, 1996 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in GEOLOGY at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SPRING 2007 A GRAVEL BUDGET FOR THE LOWER AMERICANRIVER A Thesis by David Fairman Approved by: , Committee Chair Dr. Timothy C. Horner , Second Reader Dr. David Evans , Third Reader Dr. Kevin Cornwell Date: ii Student: David Fairman I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. Dr. Timothy C. Horner, Graduate Coordinator Date Department of Geology iii ABSTRACT of A GRAVEL BUDGET FOR THE LOWER AMERICANRIVER by David Fairman The gravels of the Lower American River (LAR) provide spawning habitat for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout. To sustain or enhance populations of these fish, gravel of appropriate quantity and quality needs to be maintained. Historic perturbations – including mining, levees, and dams – have changed the sediment loads and transport conditions of the river; and the volume of gravel has declined since the construction of Folsom and Nimbus Dams in the 1950’s. This study examines geomorphic changes to the river since dam construction, the effects of discharge on gravel depletion, the depths of gravel on the LAR, and uses this information to construct a gravel budget to assess the rates and significance of gravel losses. Photos and maps indicate that the overall planform of the LAR has changed little since 1865.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California the Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region
    State of California The Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region Sugar Pine Reservoir, Placer County General Fish Survey October 4th, 2017 Mitch Lockhart Environmental Scientist December 28, 2017 Introduction Sugar Pine Reservoir is located in Placer County, approximately seven miles north of Foresthill, California (Figure 1) and sits amongst dense mixed-conifer forest at an elevation of 3,600 feet above mean sea level. The dam was built in 1979 to impound North Shirttail Creek and Forbes Creek, tributaries to the North Fork American River. When full, the reservoir stores approximately 6,900 acre-feet and has a surface area of 165 acres that services the community of Foresthill. The Tahoe National Forest manages the land and facilities around the reservoir, including a trail system, boat ramp, and two campgrounds to accommodate visitors. Figure 1: Google Earth overview image of Sugar Pine Reservoir, Placer County, California (retrieved Dec. 2017). The dam face is visible in the lower left corner of the photo. Shirttail Creek is visible in the upper right corner of the image and flows into the northern arm of the reservoir. Forbes Creek flows into the east arm of the reservoir and is visible in the right side of the image. Fish species known to occur in Sugar Pine Reservoir include: rainbow trout (RT; Oncorhynchus mykiss); brown trout (BN; Salmo trutta); spotted bass (SPB; Micropterus punctulatus); largemouth bass (LMB; Micropterus salmoides); smallmouth bass (SMB; Micropterus dolomieu); green sunfish (GSF; Lepomis cyanellus); bluegill (BG; Lepomis macrochirus); and bullhead catfish (BB; Ameiurus nebulosus). CDFW plants approximately 5,000 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [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]
  • The Genesis of the Placer County Water Agency
    a Heritage of Water: The Golden Anniversary of the Placer County Water Agency 1957-2007 Prepared by the Water Education Foundation Placer County History Book WEB1 9/10/2007, 3:08 PM Credits This book was prepared and published by the Water Education Foundation in conjunction with the Placer County Water Agency. The book tells the story of Placer County water from its role in the Gold Rush to the formation of the Placer County Water Agency, which has managed the county’s water resources for 50 years. Editor: Sue McClurg Authors: Ryan McCarthy, Janet Dunbar Fonseca, Ed Tiedemann, Ed Horton, Cheri Sprunck, Dave Breninger and Einar L. Maisch Design and Layout: Graphic Communications Printing: Paul Baker Printing Photos: Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • William Briner • California State Archives (F3757:3) • California State Library • California State Parks – Auburn State Recreation Area Collection • Dave Carter • City of Rocklin • Placer County Water Agency • Ryan Salm/Sierra Sun • Special Collections, University of California, Davis • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) • U.S. National Forest Campground Guide • Karina Williams/Lincoln News Messenger • Bill Wilson On the cover: Hell Hole Reservoir (top) and building the Middle Fork Project PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY P.O. Box 6570 717 K Street, Suite 317 144 Ferguson Road Sacramento, CA 95814 Auburn, CA 95604 (916) 444-6240 (530) 823-4850 www.watereducation.org www.pcwa.net Copyright 2007 by Water Education Foundation • All rights reserved ISBN 1-893246-97-3 2 Placer County History Book WEB2 9/10/2007, 3:09 PM Foreword by David A.
    [Show full text]
  • INSIDE for Construction of Power Plants
    L State Moves to Streamline Permits INSIDESince the passage of the For Construction of Power Plants Clean Air Act in 1970, and the With only one dissenting vote, proposed site, then an alternate site inform utilities and the public early by the ARB this month was a "pol- creation of the Environmental the State Air Resources Board and can be added to the original three in the planning stages for new lution banking" policy designed to Protection Agency, the battle the Energy Commission approved sites submitted to the energy power plants of the chances for provide economic incentives for I between ''ecology and econ- a sweeping new policy statement commission. acceptance-before large amounts industry to clean up the air. The omy" has taken on immense this month aimed at streamlining The new agreenient would re- of money are spent, Quinn said. proposal is a modification of the proportions. Environmental- government permit procedures for quire public agencies involved to Another proposal approached (Continued on Page 9) ists, armed with legions of power plants. 111"liti lawyers, lobbyists and their ARB Chairman Tom Quinn de- own breed of "earth scien- scribed the policy statement as "an I .'rsr»*= tists" have captured the voice effort to bring together statutes of the public on Capitol Hill into a framework that will guaran- i Qut.'/il.l/*1 and manipulated the judicial . tee airquality and still allow power /*Ift,Ol \01~01 system. plant sitings." He claims that izomil..;4 '1= 1 As overzealous env iron- adoption of the new policy will cut 11~~~ PUBLISHED TO PROMOTE THE GENERAI WELFARE OF ALL ENGINEERS AND THEIR FAMILIES mental demands become en- by six months the time needed by trenched in EPA's regulatory government agencies to review \9eL--i-,41 Jurisdiction· N.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS
    Biological Opinion for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS and Its Effects on Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon, and Central Valley Steelhead Consultation Conducted by: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region October 12, 2000 -17442- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmaspheric Admlnililtratian NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long eaoch, Calffomia 90802-421:3 F/SWO:DRR OCT J 2 2000 Michael J. Spear Manager, CalifornialNevada Operations Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606 Sacramento, CA 95825 Lester A. Snow Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region U.S. B:ureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Messrs. Spear and Snow: Enclosed is the National Marine Fisheries Services's (NMFS) biological opinion addressing the preferred alternative described in the October 1999 Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration draft Environmental Impact StatementIReport (TRMFR DEIS), responding to your June 6, 2000, request for formal consultation (and enclosed June 5, 2000, biological assessment) regarding the: effects of the proposed restoration program on listed salmon and steelhead, and reinitiation of the 1992-1993 consultation concerning Central Valley Project operations, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Based on a review of the TRMFR DEIS, the Trinity River Flow Evaluation (TRFE) Final Report, and other available information, NMFS has concluded that implementation of the TRMFR DEIS preferred alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Southern OregonINorthern California Coast coho salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley Spring-run chinook salmon, or Central Valley steelhead.
    [Show full text]