DOCSLIB.ORG

Lagnitude and Frequency of 'Loods in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lagnitude and Frequency of 'Loods in the United States lagnitude and Frequency of 'loods in the United States 'rrt 11. Pacific Slope Basins in California c^ume 2. Klamath and Smith River Basins and Central Valley rainage from the East "... E. YOUNG and R. W. CRUFF HOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAFER 1686 TED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1967 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEW ART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 64-192 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract_______________________________________________________ 1 Introduction..-___________________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope._____-____________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. __--_-_____-___-______--------_-------__-_-- 2 Flood-frequency analysis.___-____-_________-----_----_-_- ______ 4 Selection of gaging-station records.------.----------------------- 4 Flood frequency at a gaging station____________________________ 6 Hydrologic characteristics-------------------------------------- 7 Topography _____________________-__-_-__---__--_-_______- 7 Cli_nate_________________________________-___-----_____-__ 8 Runoff..._____________._______ _______ 9 Multiple-regression procedures.--------------------------------- 9 Regional analysis________________________________________ _ 11 Sierra Nevada region.____________________________________ 11 Lower Klamath River region_____________________________ 12 Upper Klamath River region______-___-_-_--___-----_______ 12 Central Valley region______----------__-__---_----------__- 12 Regression equations___________________________________ 12 Procedure for estimating flood frequency___----___-_-_-------_------- 33 Illustrative problem_________________________________________ 33 Limitations. _____ _________________________________________ 35 Discussion of results----------------------------------------------- 35 Flood records at gaging stations and miscellaneous sites ________________ 36 Maximum known floods__-___-___-________--__----------------- 38 Buena Vista Lake basin.___________________-______--_----_--___ 54 Golden Trout Creek near Cartago, Calif____________________ 54 Little Kern River near Quaking Aspen Camp, Calif ____________ 54 Kern River near Kernville, Calif__-__-_---_-__----------_-_- 55 Kern River at Kernville, Calif._____________________________ 56 Kern River at Isabella, Calif______________________________ 56 South Fork Kern River near Olancha, Calif.__________________ 57 South Fork Kern River near Onyx, Calif.--___-_----______ 57 Kelso Creek near Weldon, Calif-__----_-_-_----------------- 58 South Fork Kern River at Isabella, Calif______ ________ 59 Kern River below Isabella Dam, Calif__-__----_--------_---_ 59 Kern River near Democrat Springs, Calif___________________ 60 Kern River below Kern Canyon powerhouse (near Baker^field), Calif-.________________________________________________- 61 Tumbleweed Creek near Oildale, Calif_____________________ 62 Wagon Wheel Creek near Reward, Calif _____________ 62 Sand Creek near McKittrick, Calif_________________ 62 Shale Creek near Fellows, Calif_____________________ 63 Oil Creek near Taft, Calif_______________________ 63 m IV CONTENTS Flood records at gaging stations and miscellaneous sites Continued Page Tulare Lake basin_____________________________________________ 63 Mon Canyon Creek near Oildale, Calif-___--_-_-___-_________ 63 White River near Ducor, Calif._____________________________ 64 Deer Creek at California Hot Springs, Calif___________________ 64 North Fork of Middle Fork Tule River near Springville, Calif ___ 65 Bear Creek near Springville, Calif___________________________ 66 North Fork Tule River at Springville, Calif_______________ 66 Tule River near Springville, Calif_________________________ 66 Tule River near Porterville, Calif_______________________ 67 South Fork Tule River near Porterville, Calif.___________ 68 South Fork Tule River near Success, Calif._________________ 69 Tule River below Success Dam, Calif____________________ 70 Middle Fork Kaweah River near Potwisha Camp, Calif._______ 70 Marble Fork Kaweah River at Potwisha Camp, Calif__________ 71 East Fork Kaweah River near Three Rivers, Calif ____________ 71 North Fork Kaweah River at Kaweah, Calif.________________ 72 Kaweah River at Three Rivers, Calif._______________________ 73 South Fork Kaweah River near Three Rivers, Calif ________ 74 South Fork Kaweah River at Three Rivers, Calif____________ 74 Kaweah River near Three Rivers, Calif._____________________ 75 Sand Creek near Orange Cove, Calif______-___-______--_-____ 76 Kings River near Hume, Calif______________________________ 77 Kings River above North Fork, Calif._______________________ 77 North Fork Kings River below Meadow Brook, Calif __________ 78 Fleming Creek near Blackcap Mountain, Calif ________________ 79 Post Corral Creek near Blackcap Mountain, Calif_____________ 80 Helms Creek at Sand Meadows, Calif___-____________-------- 80 North Fork Kings River near Cliff Camp, Calif_____ ____ 81 Rancheria Creek near Smith Meadows, Calif________________ 82 Teakettle Creek at site No. 3, near Patterson Mountain, Calif __ 82 Teakettle Creek tributary No. 7 near Patterson Mountain, Calif. 83 Teakettle Creek tributary No. 2 near Patterson Mountain, Calif- _ 83 Teakettle Creek tributary No. 2A near Patterson Mountain, Calif.....__._____.____._____________.__-_-__-__..______ 84 Teakettle Creek tributary No. 1 near Patterson Mountain, Calif. _ 84 North Fork Kings River below Rancheria Creek, Calif _________ 85 North Fork Kings River above Dinkey Creek, at Balch Camp, Calif__________________..._______________._-_.__-_-_--._ 85 Dinkey Creek at Dinkey Meadows, Calif.____________________ 86 Deer Creek below East Fork, Calif_________________ 86 Dinkey Creek at mouth, Calif._____________________________ 87 Kings River below North Fork, Calif_____------_-_- _____ 87 Big Creek above Pine Flat Reservoir, Calif.__________________ 88 Sycamore Creek above Pine Flat Reservoir, Calif______________ 88 Kings River below Pine Flat Dam, Calif_____________________ 89 Mill Creek near Piedra, Calif_ ______________________________ 90 Kings River at Piedra, Calif-______-____-_----_---_-_-_----- 90 San Joaquin River basin___________________________--------_-- 91 North Fork San Joaquin River below Iron Creek, Cali*____ .__ 91 San Joaquin River at Miller Crossing, Calif-__________________ 92 Granite Creek near Cattle Mountain, Calif-_________-_---_--- 93 CONTENTS V Flood records at gaging stations and miscellaneous sites Continued San Joaquin River basin Continued Page South Fork San Joaquin River near Florence Lake, Calif _______ 94 Bear Creek near Lake Thomas A. Edison, Calif-__-____-_---__ 94 Mono Creek below Lake Tomas A. Edison, Calif._____--__-___ 95 South Fork San Joaquin River near Hoffman Meadow, Calif__ 96 Jackass Creek near Bass Lake, Calif.________________________ 97 Chiquito Creek near Bass Lake, Calif.___-_---___--_---______ 97 San Joaquin River above Big Creek, Calif.___________________ 98 Big Creek below Huntington Lake, Calif.____-__---_-_-______ 99 Pitman Creek below Tamarack Creek, Calif._________________ 100 Pitman Creek at Big Creek, Calif__________________________ 101 Big Creek near mouth, near Big Creek, Calif.__.___..__.._____ 101 Stevenson Creek at Shaver, Calif,___________________________ 102 San Joaquin River above Willow Creek, near Auberry, Calif__ 102 North Fork Willow Creek near Bass Lake, Calif.____________ 103 Willow Creek at mouth, near Auberry, Calif.________________ 103 San Joaquin River below Kerckhoff powerhouse, near Feather, Calif------_-_---__---__-__-__------------_--_--------- 104 Fine Gold Creek near Friant, Calif----.--.------------------ 104 Cottonwood Creek near Friant, Calif..-.___________________ 105 San Joaquin River below Friant, Calif-______---_-_-_-___---_ 106 Little Dry Creek near Friant, Calif__--__-_-_---_-------_---- 107 Little Dry Creek at mouth, near Friant, Calif________________ 107 San Joaquin River at Herndon, Calif_-_____________________ 108 Cantua Creek near Cantua Creek, Calif._-___---_-_-_-_-_---_ 108 Fresno River near Knowles, Calif___----_------_------------- 108 Fresno River near Daulton, Calif___-____---_---_-----__-_--- 109 East Fork Chowchilla River near Ahwahnee, Calif_____________ 110 West Fork Chowchilla River near Mariposa, Calif.____________ 111 Middle Fork Chowchilla River near Nipinnawassee, Calif ___ 111 Chowchilla River at Buchanan damsite, near Raymond, Calif___ 111 Bear Creek near Catheys Valley, Calif-__-_---_-_-----------_ 112 Mariposa Creek near Catheys Valley, Calif-___________-----__ 113 Los Banos Creek near Los Banos, Calif----------------------- H3 Merced River at Happy Isles Bridge, near Yosemite, Calif______ 114 Tenaya Creek, near Yosemite, Calif-___________--___----_-- 115 Merced River at Yosemite, Calif._______________-----_-_---- 116 Yosemite Creek at Yosemite, Calif._____________-___-__----- 116 Merced River at Pohono Bridge, near Yosemite, Calif. .___ 117 South Fork Merced River at Wawona, Calif-____----_-_-----_ 118 South Fork Merced River near Wawona, Calif___------... __ 118 South Fork Merced River, near El Portal, Calif_________ __ 119 Merced River at Bagby, Calif______________ -- - 120 Merced River at Exchequer, Calif_______________------------ 121 Merced River near Livingston, Calif_-__----__-_------------- 122 Merced River near Stevinson, Calif_____--------------------- 122 San Joaquin River near Newman, Calif_---__--_-------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California
    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California By WILLARD W. DEAN fPith a section on GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS IN THE KERN RIVER BASIN By KEVIN M. SCOTT FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-610922 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ Cl Introduction.____________ _ ________________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________________ 3 Precipitation__ ____________________________________________________ 5 General description of the floods___________________________________ 9 Kern River basin______________________________________________ 12 Tule River basin______________________________________________ 16 Kaweah River basin____________________________--_-____-_---_- 18 Miscellaneous basins___________________________________________ 22 Storage regulation _________________________________________________ 22 Flood damage.__________________________________________________ 23 Comparison to previous floods___________-_____________--___------_
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15C - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15c - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15c ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15c - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15c Daniel Boiano, Daniel Gammons, Erik Meyer Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271 June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This document contains subject matter expert interpretation of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 3 - Affected Environment Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 describes the affected environment or existing condition by resource area, as each is currently managed. This is the baseline condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Vegetation, including Giant Sequoia Groves Vegetation within the Giant Sequoia National Monument can be grouped into ecological units with similar climatic, geology, soils, and vegetation communities. These units fall within three categories: oak woodlands/grasslands, shrublands/chaparral, and forestlands. The forested category between 5,000 and 7,000 feet in elevation, spanning the Monument from north to south, is dominated by mixed conifer and its variants.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatially Distributed Water-Balance and Meteorological Data from the Rain–Snow Transition, Southern Sierra Nevada, California
    Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1795–1805, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1795-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Spatially distributed water-balance and meteorological data from the rain–snow transition, southern Sierra Nevada, California Roger Bales1, Erin Stacy1, Mohammad Safeeq1, Xiande Meng1, Matthew Meadows1,a, Carlos Oroza2 , Martha Conklin1, Steven Glaser2, and Joseph Wagenbrenner3 1Sierra Nevada Research Institute, University of California, Merced, California, USA 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 3USDA Forest Service, Pacifc Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California, USA anow at: Kings River Watershed Association, Fresno, California, USA Correspondence: Roger Bales ([email protected]) Received: 24 May 2018 – Discussion started: 8 June 2018 Revised: 4 September 2018 – Accepted: 5 September 2018 – Published: 9 October 2018 Abstract. We strategically placed spatially distributed sensors to provide representative measures of changes in snowpack and subsurface water storage, plus the fuxes affecting these stores, in a set of nested headwa- ter catchments. The high temporal frequency and distributed coverage make the resulting data appropriate for process studies of snow accumulation and melt, infltration, evapotranspiration, catchment water balance, (bio)geochemistry, and other critical-zone processes. We present 8 years of hourly snow-depth, soil-moisture, and soil-temperature data, as well as 14 years of quarter-hourly streamfow and meteorological data that detail water-balance processes at Providence Creek, the upper part of which is at the current 50 % rain versus snow transition of the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Providence Creek is the long-term study cooperatively run by the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (SSCZO) and the USDA Forest Service Pacifc Southwest Research Station’s Kings River Experimental Watersheds (KREW).
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Resource Information Reports
    Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.11 Recreation .................................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1 Information Sources .................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.2 Setting ......................................................................................... 3.11-2 3.11.3 Existing Project Recreation Facilities .......................................... 3.11-2 3.11.4 Recreation Opportunities ............................................................ 3.11-3 3.11.5 Current Recreation Use of Project Lands .................................... 3.11-5 3.11.6 Existing Shoreline Buffer Zones .................................................. 3.11-5 3.11.7 Shoreline Management Plans ..................................................... 3.11-5 3.11.8 Specially Designated Areas ........................................................ 3.11-6 3.11.9 National Wild and Scenic River System ...................................... 3.11-6 3.11.10 State Protected River Segments ................................................. 3.11-7 3.11.11 National Trail System .................................................................. 3.11-8 3.11.12 Wilderness Areas ........................................................................ 3.11-8 3.11.13 Regionally or Nationally Important Recreation Areas .................. 3.11-9 3.11.14 Current and Future Recreation Needs .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Wilderness Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National
    Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region December 2015 Draft Results of the Wilderness Evaluation for Public Feedback on Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1
    National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1 APPENDIX C WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: STATUS OF EVALUATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLANS Eldorado National Forest The planning record shows that a comprehensive eligibility evaluation was part of the 1988 Eldorado Forest Plan, although suitability studies and recommendations were not completed for several eligible streams. The Plan/ROD recommended a segment of the Rubicon River for designation, found eligible but did not recommend the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River, and deferred the suitability determination of the eligible segments of the North Fork Mokelumne upstream of Salt Springs Reservoir to the Stanislaus Forest Plan (which subsequently recommended the upper segment). The North Fork Mokelumne below Salt Springs was studied in a separate EIS. This separate study/EIS was published in 1994, recommending 6.5 miles of the North Fork for designation, but not recommending another 10.5 miles further downstream due to a perceived conflict with the potential Devil’s Nose dam project. In response to appeals (see decision for appeals #89-13-00-0008 and 0016, dated 7/16/91), the Forest Service agreed to consider eligibility of additional rivers. In a letter dated 3/3/98, the Forest found 11 additional streams to be eligible. In addition, the appeals decision remanded the Forest Plan decision not to recommend segments of the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River and the Forest was directed to reevaluate the suitability of the river segments in either a plan amendment or project level NEPA analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.3 Water Use and Hydrology
    Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.3 Water Use and Hydrology .............................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.1 Information Sources ....................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.2 Existing Water Uses ....................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................... 3.3-4 3.3.4 References ..................................................................................... 3.3-7 List of Tables Table 3.3-1. Minimum Instream Flow Requirements for Bypass Reaches Associated with the Kaweah Project. Table 3.3-2. Recent History (2002-2016) of Temporary Flow Modifications Requested by SCE and Approved by Resource Agencies. Table 3.3-3. Historic Water Year Types for the Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir Based on Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 May 1 Runoff Forecast (1994-2016). Table 3.3-4. Current Project Flow Gages. Table 3.3-5. Historic Gages in the Project Vicinity. Table 3.3-6. Other Flow Gages in the Kaweah River Watershed. List of Figures Figure 3.3-1. East Fork Kaweah River Inflow at Kaweah No. 1 Diversion Dam in Relation to Minimum Instream Flow Requirements and Water Supply Commitments in Dry (top) and Normal (bottom) Years (May 1994- December 2014). Figure 3.3-2. Kaweah River Inflow at Kaweah No. 2 Diversion Dam in Relation to Minimum Instream Flow Requirements and Water Supply Commitments in Dry (top) and Normal (bottom) Years (May 1994-December 2014). Figure 3.3-3. Distribution of the April 1 to July 1 Forecast of Runoff in the Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir based on the Bulletin 120 May 1 Forecast (1994- 2016). Figure 3.3-4.
    [Show full text]