DOCSLIB.ORG

System Reoperation Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 -7 1.5.1 Bay-Delta Conservation Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter 2. California Central Valley Water Resources Background and Setting.......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Basin Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................................................................2 -1 2.3 Water Management Facilities .....................................................................................................................................................................2 -9 2.3.1 Reservoirs ...................................................................................................................................................................................2 -9 2.3.2 Sacramento — San Joaquin River Delta Salinity and Flow ...................................................................................................... 2-12 2.3.3 Water Demands ........................................................................................................................................................................2 -15 2.3.4 Surface Water Availability and Time Management ................................................................................................................... 2-17 Chapter 3. Phase I and Phase II SRS Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 SRS Phase I — Plan of Study ....................................................................................................................................................................3 -1 3.2 SRS Phase II - Strategy Formulation and Refinement ............................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Outreach and Vetting Process .................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Tradeoff Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................3 -3 3.2.3 Forecast-Based Operations Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Lake McClure Strategy Formulation and Refinement ................................................................................................................................ 3-7 3.3.1 Lake McClure Conjunctive Management Tradeoff Analysis Assumptions ................................................................................. 3-7 3.3.2 Lake McClure FBO Tradeoff Analysis Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.3 Results of Lake McClure Preliminary Strategy Tradeoff Analysis ........................................................................................... 3-10 3.4 Strategies Advanced to Phase III ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-0 Chapter 4. Phase III Evaluation Approach ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Operational Components ............................................................................................................................................................................4 -1 4.1.1 Forecast-Based Operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Groundwater Conjunctive Management ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Supplemental Spring Flow .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Water Resources System Integration ......................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Evaluation Metrics ......................................................................................................................................................................................4 -2 4.2.1 Water Supply ...............................................................................................................................................................................4 -2 4.2.2 Ecosystem ...................................................................................................................................................................................4 -3 4.2.3 Flood Risk Reduction ..................................................................................................................................................................4 -5 4.3 Evaluation Tools .........................................................................................................................................................................................4 -5 August 2017 | i System Reoperation Study Phase III Report 4.3.1 CalSim-II Model ...........................................................................................................................................................................4 -5 4.3.2 Merced River Water Allocation Spreadsheet Models ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.3 SWP and CVP Integration Spreadsheet Model .......................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.4 HEC-ResSim ...............................................................................................................................................................................4 -7 4.3.5 HEC-RAS ....................................................................................................................................................................................4 -7 4.3.6 Palantir ........................................................................................................................................................................................4 -7 Chapter 5. Phase III Reoperation Components, Strategies and Baseline Conditions .................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Phase III Reoperation Components ........................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Forecast-Based Operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.2 Conjunctive Management ........................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin .....................................................................................................................................
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]
  • Attachment 1 Credentials of Trlia Board of Senior Consultants
    ATTACHMENT 1 CREDENTIALS OF TRLIA BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS FAIZ I. MAKDISI, PH.D., P.E. PRINCIPAL ENGINEER EDUCATION SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE Ph.D., Geotechnical Dr. Makdisi’s 28-year career has combined applied research and Engineering, University of professional practice in geotechnical and foundation/earthquake California, Berkeley, 1976 engineering for commercial, residential, industrial, and critical M.Sc., Geotechnical structures. Recently he has focused on geotechnical studies and safety Engineering, University of evaluations of earth and rockfill dams, embankments, and landfills. His California, Berkeley, 1971 work includes feasibility evaluations and preliminary design studies; field investigation design and planning; borrow area material studies; in B. Eng., Civil, American situ and laboratory testing; and evaluation and interpretation of static University of Beirut: and dynamic material properties of dams and their foundations. Studies Lebanon, 1970 also included stability evaluations of embankment slopes, seepage analyses, and static and dynamic stress analyses to evaluate stability REGISTRATION during earthquakes. Professional Civil Engineer, He has performed studies to determine earthquake-induced permanent CA No. C29432, 1978 deformations in slopes and embankments, and developed and published Civil Engineer, Institute of widely used simplified procedures for estimating dynamic response and Civil Engineers, Lebanon, permanent deformations in earth and rockfill dams and embankments. 1970 He is a lead participant in earthquake ground motion studies and development of seismic design criteria for key facilities such as dams AFFILIATIONS and nuclear power plants. He was principal investigator of the “Stability American Society of Civil of Slopes, Embankments and Rockfalls” chapter of the Seismic Retrofit Engineers Manual for the Federal Highway Project being prepared for the National Earthquake Engineering Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
    [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]
  • Insights Into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident
    geosciences Communication Insights into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident Aristotelis Koskinas 1, Aristoteles Tegos 1,2,*, Penelope Tsira 1, Panayiotis Dimitriadis 1 , Theano Iliopoulou 1, Panos Papanicolaou 1, Demetris Koutsoyiannis 1 and Tracey Williamson 3 1 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechniou 9, Zografou, GR-15780 Zographou Athens, Greece; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (P.T.); [email protected] (P.D.); [email protected] (T.I.); [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (D.K.) 2 Arup Group Limited, 50 Ringsend Rd, Grand Canal Dock, D04 T6X0 Dublin 4, Ireland 3 Arup, 4 Pierhead Street, Cardiff CF10 4QP, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 December 2018; Accepted: 7 January 2019; Published: 11 January 2019 Abstract: In February 2017, a failure occurring in Oroville Dam’s main spillway risked causing severe damages downstream. A unique aspect of this incident was the fact that it happened during a flood scenario well within its design and operational procedures, prompting research into its causes and determining methods to prevent similar events from reoccurring. In this study, a hydroclimatic analysis of Oroville Dam’s catchment is conducted, along with a review of related design and operational manuals. The data available allows for the comparison of older flood-frequency analyses to new alternative methods proposed in this paper and relevant literature. Based on summary characteristics
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • (Entosphenus Tridentatus), California – Sacramento Regional Management Unit
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-34 Regional Implementation Plan for Measures to Conserve Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), California – Sacramento Regional Management Unit Damon H. Goodman and Stewart B. Reid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 May 2018 Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Southwest Region Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program Office, with additional support provided by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. This plan was developed as part of the Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative using information collected through: (1) regional stakeholder meetings hosted throughout the Sacramento Regional Management Unit in 2015-2017, (2) subsequent discussions with various stakeholders, and (3) the authors' experience. New information, as it becomes available, will be incorporated into subsequent revisions of this plan and posted on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office website. Disclaimers: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries and aquatic science journals.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDY of INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY of MERCED RIVER at the CONFLUENCE with SAN JOAQUIN RIVER a Project Presented to the Faculty
    STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER A Project Presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil Engineering (Water Resources Engineering) by Hani Nour SUMMER 2017 © 2017 Hani Nour ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER A Project by Hani Nour Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Saad Merayyan __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Cristina Poindexter, P.E. ___________________________ Date iii Student: Hani Nour I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project. _________________________, Department Chair ______________ Dr. Benjamin Fell, P.E. Date Department of Civil Engineering iv Abstract of STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUNENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER by Hani Nour Flooding in California’s Central Valley is very common and expected to occur every year anywhere throughout the region. The climate and geography of the Central Valley, together, are responsible for over flow streams, rivers, and lakes causing water flooding, particularly at the lower elevation areas. San Joaquin Basin is located between the Sierra Nevada (on the east) and the Coast Ranges (on the west) where flooding is typically characterized by infrequent severe storms during winter season due to heavy rain and snow- melt runoff coming from the foothills, east of Merced County (Jesse Patchett 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Ferguson Rock Slide Buries California State Highway Near Yosemite
    Recent Landslides Landslides Edwin L. Harp . Mark E. Reid . Jonathan W. Godt . Jerome V. DeGraff . Alan J. Gallegos DOI 10.1007/s10346-008-0120-9 Received: 14 June 2007 Accepted: 18 January 2008 Ferguson rock slide buries California State Highway near © Springer-Verlag 2008 Yosemite National Park Abstract During spring 2006, talus from the toe area of a rock- about future movement of the approximately 800,000-m3 slide mass. block slide of about 800,000 m3 buried California State Highway Normally, the highway accommodates about 800,000 vehicles per 140, one of the main routes into heavily-visited Yosemite National year. During the 92 days in 2006 when the highway was completely Park, USA. Closure of the highway for 92 days caused business closed, the nearby city of Mariposa sustained losses in tax and losses of about 4.8 million USD. The rock slide, composed of slate business community revenue of about 4.8 million USD (Rick Benson, and phyllite, moved slowly downslope from April to June 2006, Mariposa County Administrator, personal communication, 2007), creating a fresh head scarp with 9–12 m of displacement. traffic congestion increased on other routes to Yosemite National Movement of the main rock slide, a re-activation of an older Park, and local residents and school children endured greatly slide, was triggered by an exceptionally wet spring 2006, following lengthened commutes. Moreover, future downslope movement of a a very wet spring 2005. As of autumn 2006, most of the main slide large part of the slide mass could potentially impact the highway appeared to be at rest, although rocks occasionally continued to realignment and dam or alter the Merced River, a designated fall from steep, fractured rock masses at the toe area of the slide.
    [Show full text]
  • Power and Energy Technical Report, DEIS
    Draft Power and Energy Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, California Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 1-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Shasta Lake and Vicinity ................................................................................................. 1-7 Upper Sacramento River (Shasta Dam to Red Bluff) ...................................................... 1-9 Lower Sacramento River and Delta ............................................................................... 1-10 CVP/SWP Service Areas ............................................................................................... 1-12 Chapter 2 Modeling Results ................................................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 3-1 Tables Table 1-1. Central Valley Project Power Plants, Capacities, and Historical Annual Generation ................................................................................................................. 1-5 Table 1-2. Major State Water Project Facilities, Capacities, and Historical Power Generation
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Model Studies of the Flood Control Outlet and Spillway for Oroville Dam California Department of Water Resources State of California
    HYO 5 ·10 HYDRAULICS BRANCH tr1 OFFICIAL FIL E COP Y C '---­ .c-.1.v-=-ru-=-.cr-r--v:n-----r.1.~.1= JSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES >- :c STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF RF.CV,HTTON' HYDRAULIC L.ABORATORY, UNITED ST ATES ~ir-f1~r DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR lH ~i.JL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WREN BOBB nww. p RETII:eU PROMPTLY, HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE FLOOD CONTROL OUTLET AND SPILLWAY FOR OROVILLE DAM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES STATE OF CALIFORNIA Report No. Hyd-510 liydraulics Branch DIVISION OF RESEARCH OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER DENVER, COLORADO ·· - i September 30, 1965 r The information contained in this report may not be used in any publication, advertising, or other promotion in such a manner as to constitute an endorsement by the United States Government or the Bureau of Reclamation, either explicit or implicit, of any material, product, device, or process that may be referred to in the report. } '\ ,_.,_,·,· .·-.: \ ~' ... , ,- .. ""·· '\ . ··~. __,,...:.>-. l / .·,( . I ' . "'. 4 z PREFACE Hydraulic model studies of features of Oroville Dam were conducted in the Hydraulic Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. The studies were made under Contract No. 14-06-D-3399 between the California Depart­ ment of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation. The basic designs were conceived and prepared by the Department of Water Resources engineers. Final designs were established through model studies that verified the adequacy of the basic designs, or led to modifications needed to obtain more satisfactory performance. During the course of the studies, Messrs. R. A. Hill, Chairman of the board of consultants; and A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical
    THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark The American Society of Mechanical Engineers September 12, 1976 FACTUAL DATA ON AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION The American River Division, a part of the Central Valley Project, provides water for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelectric power, recreation, and flood control through a system of dams, canals, and powerplants. The Division includes Folsom and Sly Park Units, both in operation, and Auburn-Folsom South Unit in construction stage. FOLSOM UNIT consists of Folsom Dam, Lake, AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT, authorized in and Powerplant, Nimbus Dam, Lake Natoma, and 1986, will provide agricultural and municipal and Nimbus Powerplant on the American River. The industrial water supplies for Placer, El Dorado, Folsom Unit was added to the Central Valley Project Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, together with by Congressional authorization in 1949. hydroelectric power, flood control, fish protection, and new recreational facilities. Principal features of the Unit will be Auburn Dam, Powerplant and Reservoir, FOLSOM DAM AND FOLSOM LAKE. Folsom Dam, the Folsom South Canal, and Sugar Pine and County below a drainage area of 1,875 square miles, was Line Dams and Reservoirs. constructed by the Corps of Engineers and upon completion was transferred to the Bureau of AUBURN DAM presently under construction will Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral be a 700-foot-high, concrete thin arch structure, with part of the Central Valley Project. The dam has a a crest length of 4,000 feet. The dam will create the concrete main river section with a height of 340 feet 2.4 million acre-foot Auburn Reservoir.
    [Show full text]