DOCSLIB.ORG

B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement FINAL Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIR/SEIS is $1,659,000 December 2020 B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Final Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIR/SEIS is $1,659,000 December 2020 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provide scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honor the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. The mission of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is to operate the Delta-Mendota Canal and related facilities reliably and cost- effectively, and to support member agencies in restoring and protecting adequate, affordable water supplies for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental uses. B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agencies: San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) and the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Cooperating Agencies and Responsible Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The project is located in the following counties in California: Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Stanislaus and Ventura Counties State Clearing House Number: 2009091004 ABSTRACT Reclamation and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority have made available the B.F. Sisk Dam and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/SEIS). The Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/SEIS) was posted in the Federal Register (Vol. 85, No. 158) on Friday August 14, 2020. The Draft EIR/SEIS evaluates increasing storage capacity in San Luis Reservoir to provide greater water supply reliability for South-of-Delta Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) water contractors. The Draft EIR/SEIS was developed as a subsequent EIR to the B.F. Sisk SOD Modification Project EIS/EIR (SCH number-2009-091004) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15162. Increased capacity within San Luis Reservoir would only be used to help meet existing demands and would not serve any new demands in the South-of-Delta CVP and SWP service areas. In addition to the No Project/No Action Alternative, this EIR/SEIS evaluates a (1) a Non-Structural Alternative under which operational modifications in San Luis Reservoir would be used to provide operation flexibility; and (2) a Dam Raise Alternative under which B.F. Sisk Dam would be raised an additional 10 feet above the 12-foot embankment raise under development by the B.F. Sisk Dam Safety of Dam Modification Project. In accordance with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, Reclamation and San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority have collaboratively selected the Dam Raise Alternative as the preferred alternative/proposed project for implementation. Under the Dam Raise Alternative there are three operational subalternatives. The preferred operational subalternative is not specified in this Final EIR/SEIS. Selection of an operational subalternative requires additional refinement and information on project beneficiaries and will be identified in the Record of Decision. This Final EIR/SEIS has been prepared according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. This Final EIR/SEIS contains all comments on the Draft EIR/SEIS, the responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR/SEIS text based on the issues raised by comments, or corrections. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Casandra Arthur Pablo Arroyave Bureau of Reclamation San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Willows Construction Office 842 6th Street 1140 W. Wood Street Los Banos, CA 93635 Willows, CA, 95988. Phone: 209-833-1034 Phone: (530) 892-6202 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Contents Page Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Overview of the B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project ......... 2-1 2.1 Project Background and History .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Purpose and Need/Project Objectives ............................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Alternative Formulation .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative/Environmentally Preferable Alternative ................. 2-15 2.6 Proposed Project/Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................... 2-15 2.7 Impact Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2-15 Commenters, Comments, and Responses ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Master Responses ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Individuals ........................................................................................................................................ 3-57 Errata Sheets ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 4-6 4.3 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4 Chapter 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.5 Chapter 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.6 Chapter 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-19 4.7 Chapter 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-20 References .......................................................................................................... 5-1 i FINAL – December 2020 B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Tables Table 2-1. Significance Effect Analysis Summary ........................................................................... 2-16 Table 3-1. List of Commenters ............................................................................................................ 3-1 Figures Figure 2-1. San Luis Reservoir and Associated Facilities ................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2. Dam Raise Facilities, Construction, and Staging Areas ............................................... 2-8 Figure 2-3. State Route 152 and Dinosaur Point Facilities and Construction Areas ................... 2-9 Figure 3-1. Modeled Changes in Oroville Storage in 1970 ............................................................ 3-46 Figure 3-2. Modeled SWP Deliveries for the No Action Alternative and CVP Storage Subalternative ............................................................................................................................. 3-48 Appendices Appendix A Comment Letters Appendix B EIR/SEIS Appendix Errata Sheets Appendix C Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan Appendix D Distribution List ii FINAL – December 2020 Introduction The Notice of Availability for the B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Senator James A. Cobey Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf287001pw No online items Inventory of the Senator James A. Cobey Papers Processed by The California State Archives staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Brooke Dykman Dockter. California State Archives 1020 "O" Street Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 653-2246 Fax: (916) 653-7363 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/ © 2000 California Secretary of State. All rights reserved. Inventory of the Senator James A. LP82; LP83; LP84; LP85; LP86; LP87; LP88 1 Cobey Papers Inventory of the Senator James A. Cobey Papers Inventory: LP82; LP83; LP84; LP85; LP86; LP87; LP88 California State Archives Office of the Secretary of State Sacramento, California Contact Information: California State Archives 1020 "O" Street Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 653-2246 Fax: (916) 653-7363 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/ Processed by: The California State Archives staff © 2000 California Secretary of State. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Senator James A. Cobey Papers Inventory: LP82; LP83; LP84; LP85; LP86; LP87; LP88 Creator: Cobey, James A., Senator Extent: See Arrangement and Description Repository: California State Archives Sacramento, California Language: English. Publication Rights For permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the California State Archives. Permission for reproduction or publication is given on behalf of the California State Archives as the owner of the physical items. The researcher assumes all responsibility for possible infringement which may arise from reproduction or publication of materials from the California State Archives collections. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Senator James A.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division
    State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division June 2017 State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY Jeanne M. Kuttel ......................................................................................... Division Chief Joseph W. Royer .......................... Chief, Geotechnical and Engineering Services Branch Tru Van Nguyen ............................... Supervising Engineer, General Engineering Section G. Robert Barry .................. Supervising Engineering Geologist, Project Geology Section by James Lopes ................................................................................ Senior Engineer, W.R. John M. Curless .................................................................. Senior Engineering Geologist Anna Gutierrez .......................................................................................... Engineer, W.R. Ganesh Pandey .................................................................... Supervising Engineer, W.R. assisted by Bradley von Dessonneck ................................................................ Engineering Geologist Steven Friesen ...................................................................... Engineer, Water Resources Dan Mardock .............................................................................. Chief, Geodetic
    [Show full text]
  • Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans John Fleming, Chairman Hearing Memorandum
    Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans John Fleming, Chairman Hearing Memorandum May 20, 2016 To: All Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Members From: Majority Committee Staff , Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans (x58331) Hearing: Legislative hearing on H.R. 5217, To affirm “The Agreement Between the United States and Westlands Water District” dated September 15, 2015, “The Agreement Between the United States, San Luis Water District, Panoche Water District and Pacheco Water District”, and for other purposes. May 24, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in 1334 Longworth HOB H.R. 5217 (Rep. Jim Costa, D-CA), “San Luis Drainage Resolution Act” Bill Summary: H.R. 5217 affirms a recent litigation settlement between the federal government and the Westlands Water District in an attempt to bring about final resolution to decades-long litigation over the federal government’s responsibility to provide drainage for certain lands in Central California. The bill is very similar to H.R. 4366 (Rep. Valadao, R-CA), but adds facets of an agreement between the federal government and three additional water districts. This one-panel hearing will also include consideration of two other legislative proposals. Invited Witnesses (in alphabetical order): Mr. John Bezdek Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. Mr. Tom Birmingham General Manager Westlands Water District Fresno, California Mr. Jerry Brown General Manager Contra Costa Water District Concord, California Mr. Steve Ellis Vice-President Taxpayers for Common Sense Washington, D.C. Mr. Dennis Falaschi General Manager, Panoche Water District Firebaugh, California Background: History of the San Luis Unit Public Law 86-488 authorized the San Luis Unit as part of the Central Valley Project on June 3, 1960.1 The principal purpose of the San Luis Unit, located in California’s San Joaquin Valley, is irrigation water supply for almost one million acres of farmland.
    [Show full text]
  • RK Ranch 5732 +/- Acres Los Banos, CA Merced County
    FARMS | RANCHES | RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES | LAND | LUXURY ESTATES RK Ranch 5732 +/- acres Los Banos, CA Merced County 707 Merchant Street | Suite 100 | Vacaville, CA 95688 707-455-4444 Office | 707-455-0455 Fax | californiaoutdoorproperties.com CalBRE# 01838294 FARMS | RANCHES | RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES | LAND | LUXURY ESTATES Introduction This expansive 5732 acre ranch is ideal for hunting, fishing, your favorite recreational activities, a family compound, agriculture, or cattle grazing. Located in Merced County, just an hour and a half from the San Francisco Bay Area, infinite recreational opportunities await with elk, trophy black tail deer, pigs, quail, and doves. The angler will be busy with catfish, bluegill, and outstanding bass fish- ing from the stock ponds. The South Fork of the Los Banos Creek flows through the property. This property is currently leased for cattle, but the recreational uses are only limited by your imagination. Location The property is located in Merced County, 17 miles from the town of Los Banos, 26 miles from Merced, and 8 miles from the San Luis Reservior. With all the benefits of seclusion, and the conveniences of major metropolitan areas close by, this property is just a 1.5 hour drive to Silicon Valley. Air service is provided by Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, 78 miles from the property, or Norman Y. Mi- neta San Jose International Airport, 83 miles from the property. Los Banos Municipal Airport is lo- cated 17 miles away. The closest schools would be 17 miles away in Los Banos. From the north, take Highway 101 South to CA-152 East, right onto Basalt Road, left onto Gonzaga Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake Between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facili
    Draft FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors FONSI-15-034 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2015 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION South-Central California Area Office, Fresno, California FONSI-15-034 Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors _____________ Prepared by: Rain L. Emerson Date Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist _____________ Concurred by: Shauna McDonald Date Wildlife Biologist _____________ Approved by: Michael Jackson, P.E. Date Area Manager FONSI-15-034 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the facilitation of an exchange of 13,195 acre-feet (AF) between Westlands Water District (Westlands) and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (Exchange Contractors).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SANTA NELLA / VOLTA WATER SUPPLY AND BLENDING PROJECT in the communities of Santa Nella and Volta Merced County, CA February 17, 2017 Prepared for: Santa Nella County Water District 12931 S Hwy 33 Santa Nella, CA 95322 Prepared by: BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. 115 S. School Street, Suite 14 Lodi, CA 95240 209-224-8213 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SANTA NELLA / VOLTA WATER SUPPLY AND BLENDING PROJECT in the communities of Santa Nella and Volta Merced County, CA February 17, 2017 Prepared for: Santa Nella County Water District 12931 S Hwy 33 Santa Nella, CA 95322 Prepared by: BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. 115 S. School Street, Suite 14 Lodi, CA 95240 209-224-8213 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. General Project Information v B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected vi C. Lead Agency Determination vi Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Brief 1-1 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1-1 1.3 Project Background 1-2 1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology 1-3 1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 1-4 Chapter 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Brief 2-1 2.2 Project Location 2-1 2.3 Project Objectives 2-2 2.4 Project Details 2-2 2.5 Permits and Approvals 2-5 Chapter 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FORM 3.1 Aesthetics 3-1 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3-4 3.3 Air Quality 3-6 3.5 Biological Resources 3-10 3.6 Cultural Resources 3-16 3.7 Geology and Soils 3-21 3.8 Greenhouse Gas
    [Show full text]
  • Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Devils Postpile Formation and Talus
    Nature and History on the Sierra Crest: Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Devils Postpile formation and talus. (Devils Postpile National Monument Image Collection) Nature and History on the Sierra Crest Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Christopher E. Johnson Historian, PWRO–Seattle National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 2013 Production Project Manager Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Copyeditor Heather Miller Composition Windfall Software Photographs Credit given with each caption Printer Government Printing Office Published by the United States National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. Printed on acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America. 10987654321 As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Luis Reservoir, One of the Largest in California, Stores Water
    SAN LUIS RESERVOIR The San Luis Reservoir, one of the largest in California, stores water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sends it by aqueduct to the Bay Area and Southern California. In midsummer, it held about 20 percent capacity. 74 / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 RUN DRY AFTER THREE HISTORICALLY DRY YEARS, CALIFORNIA’S DROUGHT GROWS MORE CONFOUNDING AND THE FUTURE OF ITS WATER SUPPLY MORE UNCERTAIN. BY BILL MARKEN, HONORARY ASLA PHOTOGRAPHY BY PETER BENNETT/GREEN STOCK PHOTOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 / 75 O TALK ABOUT DROUGHT IN CALIFORNIA, YOU COULD START WITH THE MID-HOLOCENE PERIOD, WHEN A 1,400-YEAR DROUGHT LOWERED LAKE TAHOE 20 FEET AND LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR CONIFERS TO GROW THREE FEET THICK ABOVE THE RECEDING WATERLINE before the lake eventually rose back up water. One spokesperson for a water At my neighborhood market in the over them. Or with the 1930s, when agency said, “We’re technically not in heart of Silicon Valley, Jim the butch- farm families escaped the Dust Bowl a drought”—that agency had enough er told me why the price of lamb has of Texas and Oklahoma and ran up water. Another agency said, “The dis- skyrocketed—rack of lamb, bones, T OPPOSITE against a California dry spell nearly as trict could run out of water by July.” fat, and all, sells for $29 a pound. devastating. Or start with 1976–1977, An operator of sled dog teams in the He said, “We usually get our lamb Water from Northern then the driest rainy season recorded, Sierra has gone out of business from from the Central Valley, where the California is sent south to Los Angeles by way when drastic water-saving measures a lack of snow, and a Modesto golf sheep graze on winter grass.
    [Show full text]
  • Millerton Lake 2004 Survey
    Millerton Lake 2004 Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado March 2007 Millerton Lake 2004 Survey prepared by Ronald L. Ferrari Sharon Nuanes U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Water Resources Services Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group Water Supply, Use, and Conservation Group Denver, Colorado March 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group and the Water Supply, Use and Conservation Group of the Technical Service Center (TSC) prepared and published this report. Ronald Ferrari of TSC and Robert Keller of the Mid-Pacific Regional Office conducted the underwater data collection. Ron Ferrari and Sharon Nuanes of the TSC completed the data processing needed to generate the new topographic map and area-capacity tables. Sharon Nuanes developed the final topographic maps presented in this report. Kent Collins of the TSC performed the technical peer review of this documentation. Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation Report This report was produced by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group (Mail Code 86-68540), PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007. http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/ Disclaimer No warranty is expressed or implied regarding the usefulness or completeness of the information contained in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Millerton Lake Water Supply Forecast and Flood Operations San Joaquin River Forecasting Workshop
    MILLERTON LAKE WATER SUPPLY FORECAST AND FLOOD OPERATIONS SAN JOAQUIN RIVER FORECASTING WORKSHOP Mr. Antonio M. Buelna, P.E. December 15, 2009 Reclamation Mission Statement Is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Overview • Upstream Storage Facilities • Friant Dam • Millerton Lake Operating Parameters • Water Supply Data • Water Supply Forecast • Flood Operations • 2006 Millerton Lake Operations • Upper San Joaquin Basin Model • Water Supply Allocation • Summary Upstream Storage Facilities Southern California Pacific Gas & Electric Edison (SCE) (PG&E) • Edison Lake • Crane Valley Reservoir • Florence Lake • Kerckhoff Reservoir • Huntington Lake • Shaver Lake • Mammoth Pool • Redinger Lake Crane Valley Powerhouse Edison Lake Mammoth Pool 66,801 AF 47,917 AF 125,000 AF 122,000 AF Crane Valley Reservoir 22,428 AF Florence Lake Huntington Lake 45,500 AF 50,455 AF 5,614 AF 64,000 AF 89,000 AF Kerckhoff Reservoir 3,592 AF Shaver Lake 4,188 AF 94,705 AF 136,000 AF Redinger Lake 17,866 AF % December 14, Total % 26,000 AF Capacity 2009 Capacity Capacity Millerton Lake 2008 194,058 AF Total Upstream Storage 309,378 611,688 50% 42% 520,500 AF Millerton Lake Storage 194,058 520,500 37% 36% Total Storage 503,436 1,132,188 44% 39% Historical Information • Average Huntington Lake Precipitation – 44.5 inches* • Average Natural River Runoff – 1.9 million acre-feet* * (WY 1977 – 2009) Friant Dam • Storage Capacity: 520,500 AF • Dead Pool: 135,000 AF • Used for Flood Control & Water Conservation to meet demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project
    Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 State of California Department of Water Resources November 22, 2019 Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 Lead Agency: California Department of Water Resources Contact: Dean Messer, Division of Environmental Services, Regulatory Compliance Branch 916/376-9844 Responsible Agency: California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 22, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]