DOCSLIB.ORG

Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT KINGS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLE SLOUGH-LATON AREA CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER, DISTRICT SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 1975 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 650 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 28 February 1^75 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Kings River Channel Improvement Proj ect Cole Slough - Latcn Area California 1, As District Engineer of the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the information presented in the environmental statement, other documents concerning the King3 River Channel Improvement Project, and the views of other agencies, organizations and individuals on the environmental and other impacts of the proposed work and alternatives. The consequences of constructing the proposed work as well as each of the alternatives, were studied and evaluated for engineering feasibility, environmental effects and social well-being. Specific attention was given to the fulfillment of the flood control, irrigation and related purposes for which the Kings River Project was authorized by Congress, while also considering the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 2* In making my evaluation, the following factors were considered per- "Cinent to the analysis: a. Alternatives. - Of the various alternatives investigated, the levee construction and bank protection alternative provides for the desired flood protection needs more completely and satisfactorily than other methods of flood protection. b. Authority and function. - The proposed work is part of the Kings River Project, which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944, is functionally adequate for current needs and provides flexibility for future flood protection requirements of the area. c. Flood protection. - The proposed work increases the amount of flood protection in the Cole Slough and Laton areas and permits design flow releases from Fine Flat Dam. In addition, 16 sites having severe levee erosion problems would be repaired. d. Environmental impacts. - There will be environmental impacts associated with the project; however, impacts will be less widespread and less critical than the impacts of implementing alternative methods of achieving flood control or from no development. Such impacts will be minimized by incorporating environmental considerations into the construction • program and the project operations. The most significant impact is the removal of about 2.5 acres of riparian habitat to facilitate installation of bank protection features. This will be mitigated by allowing grasses and other low lying vegetation to reoccupy the sites. 3. I find that the environmental statement meets or exceeds the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and that the public interest and general welfare will best be served by completion of the Kings River Channel Improvement Project. The proposed action is based on thorough evaluation of viable alternative courses of action for flood protection. The project is consonant with national policy, statutes, and administrative directives* Further, completion of the project is supported by the Kings River Conservation District, and is consistent with the District's plan for pro­ viding protection from design flood releases from Fine Flat Dam. The total public interest would best be served by implementation of the described plan, which will assist in promoting productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. F. G. ROCKWELL, JR. Colonel, CE District Engineer Sacramento District I have reviewed the subject Statement of Findings and concur in the findings of the District Engineer. ■ - DATE: 14 March 1975 RICHARD M. CONNELL Brigadier General, U. S. Army Division Engineer I concure in the preceding Statement of Findings. DATE: /J./W. MORRIS Major General, USA -'Director of Civil Works FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT KINGS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLE SLOUGH-LATON AREA CALIFORNIA U.S. Army Engineer District Sacramento, California February 1975 t Final Environmental Statement Kings River Channel Improvement Project Cole Slougli-Laton Area California Table of Contents Paragraph Subject Page Summary SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.01 General 1 1.02 Proposed Work 1 * SECTION II - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 2.01 Topography 1 2.02 Geology 1 2.03 Climate 1 2.04 Hydrology 2 2.05 Vegetation 2 2.06 Fish and Wildife 2 2.07 Archeological and Historical 3 2.03 Population 3 2.09 Land Use 3 2.10 Economy 3 2.11 Water Quality 3 2.12 Air Quality 4 2.13 Future Setting without the Project 4 SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS 3.01 4 SECTION IV - PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT 4.01 Changes and Conversions 5 4.02 Beneficial and/or detrimental effects 5 4.03 Mitigation Measures 6 Paragraph Subject Page SECTION V - PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 5.01 6 SECTION VI - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.01 7 6.02 Alternatives to Levee Construction 7 6.03 Alternatives to Bank Protection 7 6.04 Alternatives to Road Surfacing 7 6.05 Recreation Alternative 7 SECTION VII - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.01 8 SECTION VIII - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 8.01 8 SECTION IX - COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 9.01 Public Participation 9 9.02 Comments from governmental agencies 9 9.03 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation 10 Service 9.04 U.S. Department of the Interior 10 9.05 Kings County Planning Agency 14 9.06 Fresno County Planning Department 15 9.07 Kings River Conservation District 16 9.08 Comments from Citizen Groups 16 9.09 Fresno Audubon Society 16 9.10 The Committee to Save the Kings River 21 9.11 Sierra Club - Tehipite Chapter 26 9.12 Fresno County Sportsmen's Club 28 *9*13 The Resources Agency of California 29 List of Appendices I - Environmental Inventory II - Letter from California Department of Parks and Recreation III - References Cited IV - Letters Received by the District Engineer on the Draft Environmental Statement List of Charts Chart 1 General Map Chart 2 Location of Proposed Work (eight sheets) Chart 3 Typical Sections - Lemoore Wein to 3th Avenue Summary Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement ■ Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: About 14,000 lineal feet of new levee and patrol road will be constructed in the vicinity of the Community of Laton, California, on the north side of Cole Slough and part of the Ward Drainage Canal. About 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work will be placed at 16 different sites. About 23 miles of existing levee patrol roads will be gravel surfaced. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Approximately five hundred acres of agricul­ tural land in the vicinity of Laton will be protected from flooding. Sixteen areas of eroded bank will be repaired, maintaining the integrity of the levee system. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Less than two and a half acres of riparian habitat will be cleared. Levee coustruction and bank protection work may cause limited short-term turbidity. 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action; Channel clearing; channel enlarge­ ment; flood plain zoning; levee setbacks; increase of storage in Pine Flat Reservoir; no action. 5. Comments Received; Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service Department of health, Education and Welfare Department of Transportation, Region 7 State of California Fresno County ICings County Kings River Conservation District The Committee to Save the Kings River Sierra Club - Tehipite Chapter Fresno Audubon Society Sportsmen's Council of Central California Fresno County Sportsmen's Club Draft statement to CEQ 22 July ll>74 Final statement to CEQ 1 8 ^ _____ SECTION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.01. General. - The Kings River originates high in the Sierra Nevada and flows in a southwesterly uirection until it reaches a point about 25 niles south of Fresno. There, it splits into north and south forks generally referred to as Kings River North and Kings River South. The Kings River project area is in the south-central portion of the San Joaquin Valley in Kings, Fresno and Tulare Counties (see Chart 1). The Kings River project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (1).* The project was authorized for flood control, irrigation and related purposes. It consists of Pine Flat Dam and Lake and cliannel modifications downstream from the dan. The benefit-cost ratio for the project was 1.5 to 1. Pine Flat Dam was completed in 1954. Pine Flat Lake iias a capacity of one million acre- . feet and is approximately 20 miles long and up to two miles wide. Completed cliannel modifications consist primarily of levee construction, levee recon­ struction, and removal of aown timber from the floodway channel. Work was completed between i960 and 1972 for some 42 miles of channel over several reaches of Kings River North and South, and in the Centerville bottoms area. Detailed information on completed portions of the project is contained in a design memorandum of the Corps of Engineers (2). 1.02. Proposed Work. - This environmental statement describes impacts of proposed project works on main Rings River, Dutch John Cut and Cole Slough between Lemoore Weir and Eighth Avenue. The location of the proposed work is shown on Chart 2 and consists of the following: a. Construction of 14,000 lineal feet of new levee and patrol road on the north side of Cole Slough; b. Surfacing of about 23 miles of existing levee patrol roads and upgrading and surfacing of existing access ramps and turnarounds; c. Intermittent bank protection at locations where erosion endangers existing levees.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mill Creek Reservoir
    Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Mill Creek Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Mill Creek in the Vicinity of the Potential Dam Site Mill Creek Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: Prepared by: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 SURFACE WATER STORAGE OPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM MILL CREEK RESERVOIR UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1-1 OPTION SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1 EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................................................................. 1-1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS............................................................ 1-4 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5-Year Summary Water Bodies
    Lakes 5-Year Total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 County Acc. Inj. Dead Acc. Inj. Dead Acc. Inj. Dead Acc. Inj. Dead Acc. Inj. Dead Acc. Inj. Dead Lake Shasta 242 149 8 48 33 0 57 27 3 60 35 1 51 32 2 26 22 2 Shasta Lake Berryessa 178 118 5 29 21 1 23 21 1 33 20 1 60 33 2 33 23 0 Napa Lake Perris 146 89 5 13 11 1 34 25 0 42 27 1 27 10 1 30 16 2 Riverside Folsom Lake 105 56 3 22 15 0 24 11 1 21 12 0 25 13 2 13 5 0 Placer/El Dorado/Sacramento Lake Tahoe 85 39 6 15 8 0 15 5 0 20 14 0 18 5 4 17 7 2 Placer/El Dorado Castaic Lake 84 61 1 40 34 0 13 9 0 17 7 0 11 11 1 3 0 0 Los Angeles Lake Don Pedro 73 61 2 22 16 2 9 8 0 11 8 0 18 16 0 13 13 0 Tuolumne Lake Nacimeinto 64 40 0 12 5 0 10 5 0 10 3 0 28 24 0 4 3 0 San Luis Obispo Millerton Lake 61 38 6 11 4 0 21 12 1 8 8 3 16 11 0 5 3 2 Fresno/Madera Clear Lake 57 51 5 14 14 0 10 7 1 10 9 3 14 12 1 9 9 0 Lake Lake Oroville 57 31 1 16 8 0 14 11 0 4 1 0 14 10 0 9 1 1 Butte Lake Tulloch 47 24 0 17 7 0 9 6 0 7 1 0 10 7 0 4 3 0 Calaveras/Tuolumne Woodward Lake 43 30 2 9 5 0 12 8 2 8 2 0 10 11 0 4 4 0 Stanislaus Trinity Lake 42 35 0 9 9 0 5 5 0 15 11 0 5 6 0 8 4 0 Trinity New Melones 41 32 7 11 11 1 10 9 1 7 5 3 7 3 2 6 4 0 Calaveras/Tuolumne Bass Lake 36 26 0 5 3 0 14 10 0 13 10 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 Madera Big Bear Lake 35 21 2 13 6 1 9 4 0 2 2 0 9 7 1 2 2 0 San Bernardino Pyramid Lake 35 26 1 9 2 0 11 9 0 9 7 1 2 4 0 4 4 0 Los Angeles Lake Isabella 34 18 1 9 5 0 6 2 1 3 1 0 9 6 0 7 4 0 Kern Lake San Antonio 32 13 1 3 1 0 3 2 0 9 4 0 14 4 0 3 2 1 Monterey Lake Camanche 31 20 2 12 7 2 4 5 0 1 1 0 8 3 0 6 4 0 Amador/Calaveras/San
    [Show full text]
  • Water Budgets for Major Streams in the Central Valley, California, 1961-77
    WATER BUDGETS FOR MAJOR STREAMS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 1961-77 By James R. Mullen and Paul Nady U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 85-401 Regional Aquifer-System Analysis oo i i l o o Sacramento, California 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Services Section Federal Building, Room W-2234 Western Distribution Branch 2800 Cottage Way U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento, California 95825 Box 25424, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 (Telephone: [303] 236-7476) CONTENTS Page Abstract--------- --------------------------------------------------- i Introduction----- ------------------------------------------ ______ i Method --- --- --- --- --- ------- -- - 4 Base period------------------------------------------------------ 5 Acknowledgments-------------------------------------------------- 5 Selected references--------------------------------------------------- 6 Schematics, explanations, and water-budget tables--------------------- 7 Kern River------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Tule River -- - - --- ------- 13 Kaweah River---------------------------------------------------------- 17 Main stem-------------------------------------------------------- 17 St. Johns River --- ------ 21 Kings River----------------------------------------------------------- 25 San Joaquin River-------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Go with the Flow
    ss Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way, MP-170 Sacramento, Calif. 95825-1898 San Joaquin River Restoration Program Water Year 2013 Interim Flow Releases Update and Seepage Hotline Information This notice is to inform you of the current Water Year (WY) 2013 Interim Flow releases scheduled by the Bureau of Reclamation and provide the phone number for Reclamation’s seepage hotline. Reclamation is continuing Interim Flow releases from Friant Dam at Millerton Reservoir, marking the fourth year of the experimental releases. Current Interim Flow Release Schedule From Friant Dam From March 1, 2013, to February 28, 2014 All values are in cubic feet per second (cfs) Estimated Interim Estimated Riparian Total Releases from Date Flow Releases (cfs) Release (cfs) Friant Dam (cfs) March 1 – 21 220 130 350 March 22 570 130 700 March 23 – 31 910 130 1,040 April 1 – 30 910 150 1,060 May 1 – 11 910 190 1,100 May 12 860 190 1,050 May 13 650 190 840 May 14 480 190 670 May 15 350 190 540 May 16 240 190 430 May 17 – 28 160 190 350 May 29 – June 30 160 190 350 July 1 – August 31 120 230 350 September 1 – 30 140 210 350 October 1 – 31 190 160 350 November 1 – 10 570 130 700 Nov. 11 – Dec. 31 230 120 350 Jan. 1 – Feb. 28 2014 250 100 350 These flows are consistent with the Stipulation of Settlement. All Interim Flows will be limited such that no flooding or seepage impacts are expected to occur. Reclamation is prepared to reduce flows, if necessary, if information from the groundwater monitoring network or from local landowners indicates that impacts may occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Kern River Basin
    Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Affected Environme nt ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Characterization of Monument Watersheds ............................................................................................ 14 Climate....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Changes in the Modern Climate Regime .................................................................................................. 19 Kings River Basin........................................................................................................................................ 20 UPPER KINGS RIVER BASIN........................................................................................................................ 20 Kaweah River Basin ................................................................................................................................... 61 UPPER KAWEAH BASIN .............................................................................................................................. 61 Kern River Basin......................................................................................................................................... 75 UPPER KERN RIVER BASIN .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Corps Units Draft 2
    Central Valley Project Integrated Units of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wm. Joe Simonds Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents The United States Army Corps of Engineers.........................................2 Army Corps Units in the Central Valley Project................................3 Authorization...........................................................3 Unit Descriptions........................................................4 Conclusion.............................................................7 About the Author ..............................................................7 Bibliography .................................................................8 Index .......................................................................9 1 The United States Army Corps of Engineers The United States Army Corps of Engineers can trace it's history to the American Revolution. When the Continental Congress established the Army in June 1775, it provided for a Chief Engineer. The first Chief Engineer was Colonel Richard Gridley, who immediately began directing fortification construction during the Battle of Bunker Hill. Congress added several companies of engineer troops, and in 1779, formed a Corps of Engineers. In 1781, the Corps of Engineers played an important role in the Battle of Yorktown, which forced the British to surrender. When war with Britain threatened again in 1794, Congress appointed engineers to fortify key harbor and coastal installations. In 1802, the Corps of Engineers was made a permanent part of the United States military and was given charge of the military academy at West Point. The primary responsibility of the Corp of Engineers was construction of seacoast fortifications. Following the War of 1812, the need to improve the Nation's defense and transportation system led to the General Survey Act of 1824, that gave the President authority to use the Corps of Engineers to survey road and canal routes. In a separate measure, Congress authorized the engineers to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Recreation Sites That Issue Passes
    FEDERAL RECREATION AREAS WHERE INTERAGENCY PASSES ARE ISSUED IMPORTANT! This list is not comprehensive and may include errors; some Federal recreation sites are only open part-time or may change what passes are issued or be out of passes. Please contact the site(s) prior to traveling to obtain the most current hours of operation and information on availability of all passes. KEY: NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; NF = National Forest; NRA = National Recreation Area; NHS = National Historic Site; USACE= Army Corps of Engineers PASSES ISSUED? ANNUAL ACCESS PASS MILITARY SENIOR 4th FEDERAL RECREATION AREA/SITE PHONE CITY STATE WEBSITE PASSES GRADE ALABAMA Mobile District > Missions > Civil Works > Recreation > Alabama River Alabama River Lakes (Site Office) 334-872-9554 Hayneville AL Lakes (army.mil) YES YES Mobile District > Missions > Civil Works > Recreation > Alabama River Alabama River Lakes (Miller's Ferry) 334-682-4244 Camden AL Lakes (army.mil) YES YES Bon Secour NWR 251-540-7720 Gulf Shores AL https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Bon_Secour/ YES YES Mobile District > Missions > Civil Works > Recreation > Black Warrior & BWT (Demopolis) 334-289-3540 Demopolis AL Tombigbee (BWT) Lakes (army.mil) YES YES Mobile District > Missions > Civil Works > Recreation > Black Warrior & BWT (Holt) 205-553-9373 Peterson AL Tombigbee (BWT) Lakes (army.mil) YES YES Eufaula NWR 334-687-4065 Eufala AL Home - Eufaula - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (fws.gov) YES YES Little River Canyon National Preserve (U.S. National Park Service)
    [Show full text]
  • Kings River Special Region 1: 1: Management Area; Kings, Kings South Fork and Kings Middle Fork, Wild and Scenic Rivers
    a'.. 1, :,., - ,- United States ..L -;.L-3..L.. -.<:.,.-I '\ - Department of ._ ,. Record of Decision Forest Service Pacific Southwest Kings River Special Region 1: 1: Management Area; Kings, Kings South Fork and Kings Middle Fork, Wild and Scenic Rivers Sierra National Forest Sequoia National Forest DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Middle Fork, South Fork and the Kings Wild and Scenic River boundary and Classification EA Sierra National Forest, Kings River Ranger District Sequoia National Forest, Hume Lake Ranger District Fresno County, California PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE The Kings River, South Fork Kings River, and Middle Fork Kings River Environmental Assessment documents the analysis of alternatives for establishing boundaries for these designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and the analysis for the classification of the Middle Fork Kings River and a one-mile portion of the Kings River from Garlic Creek to the 1595-foot elevation. Based on the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA), it is my decision to select Alternative B, which would establish boundaries approximately one-quarter mile from the high water line. This alternative will be the most cost-effective to administer because the State Plane coordinate boundary lines and monument points could be scaled off U.S. Geological Survey maps and easily field located if necessary. Since there are no current issues requiring resolution, it is assumed the boundaries would not have to be physically located in the foreseeable future. This EA is available for review at the following Forest Service offices: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 630 Sansome tree t , San Francisco, California 94111; USDA Forest Service, 1130 "0" Street, Fresno, California 93721; and USDA Forest Service, 900 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Infrastructure
    APPENDIX H INFRASTRUCTURE Randall S. Ritzema, Brad D. Newlin, and Brian J. Van Lienden October 2001 INTRODUCTION Modeling California's surface water storage and conveyance facilities requires vast amounts of data, even with CALVIN's aggregated approach. This appendix outlines CALVIN's representation of California surface water reservoirs, specific assumptions necessary in representing certain reservoirs, and CALVIN's representation of conveyance facilities. In addition, data source documentation, a key component of the CALVIN project, is provided. RESERVOIR MODELING METHODOLOGY CALVIN uses capacity, surface area, evaporation, and simple elevation-area-capacity relationships to model reservoir operations in determining its optimal solution. This section describes criteria used to determine which reservoirs are included in CALVIN, calculation of maximum and minimum storage levels, derivation of elevation-area- capacity relationships, and evaporation methodology. Criteria for inclusion in CALVIN Generally, surface water reservoirs are represented in the schematic if they have a maximum total storage of 50 taf or larger. Aggregated reservoirs were developed for smaller reservoirs operating in close proximity or if there were other important factors (e.g., water quality). All aggregated reservoirs assume simultaneous fill and draw down rates. For every reservoir, it was necessary to determine a minimum and a maximum storage, an elevation-area-capacity relationship, and an area-capacity factor. Maximum and Minimum Storage Levels The maximum storage data generally represent either the top of the conservation pool (the total storage minus that reserved for flood control), or the physical capacity of the reservoir if it is not used for flood control. Maximum storages for aggregated reservoirs are simply the total of the physical capacities of the individual reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Avocado Lake Fishing Report
    Avocado Lake Fishing Report Platinous Haleigh basset: he blue-pencilling his paras thuddingly and indicatively. Hendrick usually beat rightwards or stooged therefor when benedictional Nealon hound parallelly and unthinkably. Bowed and agamid Bradford aver his banns undersigns underdrains gawkily. It was not likely to find the kids of avocado lake fishing report on the state holidays through Can you swim in Pine creek Lake? Fresno bee fishing report 2020. Pine Lake Flat California 2021 All You weight to trim BEFORE. Failure to avocado lake only a good reports of quality films about the lakes: the way down past week and fished on road is the local vfw at clemente islands. King's special Report Fresno CA Sportsman's Warehouse. They consume the fishermen to fish deep enough even catch wild salmon rainbow trout in. Mammoth pool reservoir fishing report AIMS Care. Hunting Fishing The Fresno Bee. Mammoth Pool Reservoir Fishing Reports Recently shared catches and. VT Fishing Report February 14 2020 Vermont Fish. Limits reported by the lake got out this long krr will be dedicated to report ca with no recent plant them a camera with three of. Sign in Google Accounts Google Sites. All reported again this moss on wednesday next month printed on holdover rainbows again to start, leech patterns of small midgets. The Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner's Office sort of. Lakes that also with on DFG stocking which could also absorb some we the anglers. Fishing report for event of April 1-7 Most Central California lakes closed By Roger George and Dave Hurley Special tool The Bee March 31 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Flood Analysis of the Kings River at the Vulcan Materials Company Sanger – Centerville Project Prepared for: Vulcan Materials Company Fresno, California July 2004 Technical Memorandum A Flood Analysis of the Kings River at the Sanger – Centerville Project Vulcan Materials Company Contents Project Summary..........................................................................................................................1 Objectives......................................................................................................................................2 Site Description............................................................................................................................2 Kings River....................................................................................................................................2 FEMA Flood Insurance Study ...................................................................................................3 Analysis of the Kings River at the Project Site ......................................................................3 Hydraulic Analysis of the Kings River Channel...................................................................4 Hydraulic Analysis of the Secondary Channels....................................................................5 Results of Hydraulic Analyses..................................................................................................5 Evaluation of Erosion..................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-2022 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations Effective March 1, 2021 - February 28, 2022 Unless Otherwise Noted Herein
    CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SPORT FISHING REGULATIONS 2021-2022 Effective March 1, 2021 through February 28, 2022 Anadromous Fish Identification 2021-2022 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations Effective March 1, 2021 - February 28, 2022 unless otherwise noted herein. contact regional offices wildlife.ca.gov 1 - NORTHERN REGION Headquarters Serving Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento 95814, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties (916) 653-7664 • [email protected] 601 Locust Street, Redding 96001 • (530) 225-2300 License and Revenue Branch [email protected] 1740 North Market Blvd., Eureka Field Office Sacramento, CA 95834, 619 Second Street Eureka 95501• (707) 445-6493 (916) 928-5805 • [email protected] 2 - NORTH CENTRAL REGION State of California Serving Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Governor Gavin Newsom Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sierra, Natural Resources Agency Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties Secretary Wade Crowfoot 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova 95670 • (916) 358-2900 Department of Fish and Wildlife [email protected] Director Charlton H. Bonham 3 - BAY DELTA REGION Fish and Game Commission Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, Peter Silva, President San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Jamul Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo counties Samantha Murray, Vice President Del Mar 2825 Cordelia Road, Ste. 100 Fairfield 94534 • (707) 428-2002 [email protected] Eric Sklar, Member St. Helena Stockton Field Office Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Member 2109 Arch Airport Road, Suite 100 Stockton 95206 • (209) 234-3420 McKinleyville 4 - CENTRAL REGION Member Serving Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Vacant San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Melissa Miller-Henson, Executive Director Tuolumne counties Sacramento 1234 E.
    [Show full text]