DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix C Technical Memo 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix C Technical Memo 3 Technical 3 Memo C Appendix Appendix C Technical Memo 3 Hydrology and Hydraulics Review TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REVIEW September, 2008 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate the fresh water and recycled water facilities owned and operated by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) in Alpine County, California. The hydraulic capacity and operational management of the existing conveyance and storage structures will be evaluated, as well as the capacity required for potential new operational scenarios. In addition, the hydrology of the watershed areas that affect the District’s facilities will be reviewed. The components of the District’s fresh water system that were reviewed in this analysis include the West Fork of the Carson River, the Snowshoe Thompson #1 and #2 Ditches, Indian Creek, the Upper Dressler Ditch, Millich Ditch, the Upper and Lower Harvey Channels and Indian Creek Reservoir. The components of the District’s recycled water system reviewed in this analysis include the Harvey Place Reservoir and the Diamond Ditch system to the Upper Celio Dressler Ditch Diversion. SITE DESCRIPTION The District’s fresh water and recycled water facilities are located in northeastern Alpine County on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. The facilities analyzed in this memorandum extend from approximately Woodfords, California and Indian Creek Reservoir to the California/Nevada State line (Figure 1). The fresh water system begins with a diversion from the West Fork of the Carson River near Woodfords at an elevation of approximately 5,750 feet above sea level. Fresh water diverted from the West Fork of the Carson River is conveyed to Indian Creek Reservoir via the Snowshoe Thompson #1 and Upper Dressler Ditches (reference Figure 1). Freshwater is diverted from Indian Creek into the Upper Dressler Ditch. The minimum and maximum pool elevations for Indian Creek Reservoir are approximately 5,588 feet and 5,600 feet above sea level, respectively. The recycled water system begins at the wastewater treatment plant in South Lake Tahoe. Secondary treated wastewater (recycled water) is pumped out of the Lake Tahoe basin over Luther Pass and into Alpine County. Recycled water is conveyed in an open channel from the outlet of the District’s C-Line pipeline to Harvey Place Reservoir. The elevation of the primary spillway Harvey Place Dam is approximately 5,563 feet above sea level. Recycled water from the reservoir is conveyed in the Diamond Ditch (Figure 1, at the end of this memorandum) through Diamond Valley and applied for agricultural reuse to several properties located between the reservoir and the State line. Recycled water reuse facilities are located in Wade Valley and the Fredericksburg area. The recycled water irrigation system was developed to provide Technical Memorandum 3 1 of 28 Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan Hydrology and Hydraulics Review Appendix C TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REVIEW additional treatment of wastewater through land application and to augment the supply of irrigation water in a water-short area (CWC-HDR, 1988). Two major drainage areas contribute stream flow and runoff to the District’s fresh water and recycled water facilities in Alpine County, the West Fork of the Carson River and Indian Creek watersheds. The West Fork of the Carson River watershed above the Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch diversion is approximately 66 square miles. The Indian Creek watershed above Harvey Place and Indian Creek Reservoirs is approximately 10.4 square miles (Parsons et. al., 1982). The majority of the precipitation that falls on these watersheds occurs as snowfall from November through March. The annual average precipitation for Woodfords, California is approximately 21 inches (WRCC, 2001). The depth of snowfall varies significantly throughout the area, with the higher elevations (above 9,000 feet) receiving up to 50 percent more snowfall than the lower elevations. The District’s facilities reviewed in this analysis range in elevation from approximately 5,680 feet at the Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch diversion to approximately 5,245 feet at the Upper Celio Dressler Ditch Diversion. The elevation of Woodfords is approximately 5,640 feet. Therefore, precipitation totals for Woodfords should be relatively representative of the majority of the project area. Monthly and annual averages of temperature, precipitation and snowfall for the National Weather Service meteorological station at Woodfords, California are included in the Appendix. Stream flows in the West Fork of the Carson River and Indian Creek depend on the snowpack at the higher elevations of the watersheds. A deep snowpack and a cool spring characterize a wet year. This scenario results in relatively high stream flows continuing into June or July. A normal year is characterized by a moderate snowpack with a warm spring and high stream flows continuing until early June and dropping off throughout the remainder of the summer. A dry year is characterized by a poor snowpack with a warm spring and high stream flows only through early May (CWC-HDR, 1988). METHODOLOGY The methods used to evaluate the conveyance and storage capacity of the District’s existing facilities were based on existing data, information provided in the District’s Operation and Maintenance Manual (CWC-HDR, 1988), calculations and computer analysis of reconnaissance level survey data, personal communications with District staff and several assumptions. The hydraulic capacity of the existing conveyance system was evaluated, as well as the capacity required for potential new operational scenarios with increased flows. The maximum capacity of all existing and proposed channels was assumed to include 1 foot of freeboard. Unless otherwise noted, concrete lined and unlined channels were assigned, assumed Manning’s coefficients of 0.015 and 0.040, respectively. The relatively high Mannings coefficient for unlined open channels reflects the fact that existing channel surfaces are rough with numerous loose boulders and cobbles. Existing channel side slopes with woody vegetation were assigned an assumed Mannings coefficient of 0.060. Existing and proposed High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Technical Memorandum 3 2 of 28 Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan Hydrology and Hydraulics Review Appendix C TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REVIEW pipelines were assigned standard Mannings coefficients of 0.010. It was assumed that all proposed unlined open channels should be designed for subcritical flow. The capacity of existing and proposed channels and pipelines was estimated using reconnaissance level survey data and the computer program FlowMaster (Haestad Methods, 1995). The maximum capacity of all existing culverts was calculated by assuming maximum allowable headwater elevations equal to the difference in elevation between the invert and the top of the bank in the upstream channels. Tailwater depths were assumed to equal the normal depth in the downstream channels. Therefore inlet control conditions were assumed. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) culverts were assigned a standard Mannings coefficient of 0.024. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) culverts were assigned a standard Mannings coefficient of 0.013. The capacity of the existing culverts was estimated using reconnaissance level survey data and the computer program CulvertMaster (Haestad Methods, 1994). The maximum capacity of the existing siphons under Indian Creek was also evaluated. The capacity of the existing siphons was estimated based on assumptions of pipe length, geometry and head losses. Fresh water is diverted by the Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch/Upper Dressler Ditch system (Figure 1) and conveyed to Indian Creek Reservoir from the West Fork of the Carson River and Indian Creek. There is a gauging station at the three-foot flume at the take out from the West Fork for flow that goes to both Snowshoe Thompson #1 and the Millich Ditch. The U.S. District Court Federal Water Master gage C76 (Figure 1) monitors the fresh water that is diverted from the West Fork of the Carson River for use in both the Millich Ditch the Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch. The gaging station is located at the three-foot flume at the take- out from the West Fork of the Carson River for flow that goes to both Snowshoe Thompson #1 and the Millich Ditch. Historical records of flow have been collected at gage C76 from 1 April 1984 to 15 October 2000. Average monthly percentages of the total water diverted during this period were calculated to estimate the historical monthly average diversion scenario. This analysis indicates that the historical average monthly diversion scenario at gage C76 has been approximately 18, 25, 21, 16, 11, 8 and 1 percent during the months of April, May, June, July, August, September and October, respectively. As noted above, this is the average monthly diversion percentages of fresh water from the West Fork of the Carson River that have been historically supplied to both the Millich Ditch and the Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch. The District has indicated they would like to evaluate the potential of increasing its entitlement at Indian Creek Reservoir. In addition, they would like to evaluate different operational scenarios that would allow it to divert its entire entitlement when water is available in the West Fork of the Carson River. The District believes ditch losses in the current system are as high as 50 percent. The District would like to evaluate the alternative of enlarging existing unlined channel sections or replacing them with pipelines. Existing lined channel sections will continue to be used until they fail, at which time they will most likely be replaced with pipeline. The District has indicated they would eventually like to replace the majority of the open channel system with pipelines, which require much less maintenance. Technical Memorandum 3 3 of 28 Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan Hydrology and Hydraulics Review Appendix C TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REVIEW The potential increased entitlements assumed in this analysis are 750, 1000 and 1200 acre- feet/year.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 31. Grass Lake (Beguin and Major 1975, Burke 1987, Berg 1991A
    31. Grass Lake (Beguin and Major 1975, Burke 1987, Berg 1991a) Location This established RNA is in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in the Eldorado National Forest. It lies immediately W. of Luther Pass on State Highway 89 and is approximately 12 miles (19 km) SSE. of South Lake Tahoe. It lies within sects. 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 24 T11N, R18E MDBM (38°47'N., 119°59'W.), USGS Freel Peak quad (fig. 64). Ecological subsection – Glaciated Batholith and Volcanic Flows (M261Ek). Target Element Moss Bog Distinctive Features Significance of the Bog: Peatlands and bogs are rare in California. Grass Lake is Figure 64—Grass the largest Sphagnum bog in California and is considered the best representative Lake RNA floating bog in the Sierra Nevada (fig. 65). Grass Lake has been the focus of several scientific surveys including palynological and phytosociological research. Dashed line = Ecological study area; Solid gray line Varied and Pristine Environment: This is a large site with a complex association = RNA Boundary of habitats ranging from aquatic and meadow types through upland forest types. This diversity, along with a largely intact watershed surrounding the marshlands and meadows, contributes to the value of this site. This site supports a number of boreal plant species unusual in the Sierra Nevada. In addition, several species of plants occur locally at substantially lower elevations than typical elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada. Along with a few uncommon or disjunct plants, the wetlands support three species of carnivorous plants and four species of orchids. The plant associations are relatively pristine with virtually no introduced plants in the bog and meadow associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan
    Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan El Dorado and Placer Counties, California and Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada September 2007 Prepared by: Lake Tahoe Response Plan Area Committee (LTRPAC) Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan September 2007 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. First On-Scene (Fire, Law, EMS, Public, etc.) will notify local Dispatch (via 911 or radio) A complete list of Dispatch Centers can be found beginning on page R-2 of this plan Dispatch will make the following Mandatory Notifications California State Warning Center (OES) (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911 Nevada Division of Emergency Management (775) 687-0300 or (775) 687-0400 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Dispatch will also consider notifying the following Affected or Adjacent Agencies: County Environmental Health Local OES - County Emergency Management Truckee River Water Master (775) 742-9289 Local Drinking Water Agencies 2) After the Mandatory Notifications are made, use Notification (Red Tab) to implement the notification procedures described in the Immediate Action Guide. 3) Use the Lake Tahoe Basin Maps (Green Tab) to pinpoint the location and surrounding geography of the incident site. 4) Use the Lake and River Response Strategies (Blue Tab) to develop a mitigation plan. 5) Review the Supporting Documentation (White Tabs) for additional information needed during the response.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 5, 2019 - 2:00 P.M
    SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 5, 2019 - 2:00 p.m. District Board Room 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California Randy Vogelgesang, President BOARD MEMBERS Kelly Sheehan, Vice President Chris Cefalu, Director James R. Jones, Director Nick Exline, Director John Thiel, General Manager Shannon Cotulla, Assistant General Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (At this time, please silence phones and other electronic devices so as not to disrupt the business of the meeting.) 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Board on any short non-agenda items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. No discussion or action can be taken on matters not listed on the agenda, per the Brown Act. Each member of the public who wishes to comment shall be allotted five minutes, and no more than three individuals shall address the same subject.) 3. CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR (For purposes of the Brown Act, all Action and Consent items listed give a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed. Recommendations of the staff, as shown, do not prevent the Board from taking other action.) 4. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR (Any item can be removed to be discussed and considered separately upon request. Comments and questions from members of the public, staff or Board can be taken when the comment does not necessitate separate action.) 5. CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION/ACTION 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (Eips) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed
    Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (EIPs) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed: General Background The Upper Truckee River Community Watershed (UTRCW) is located in the southern side of the Lake Tahoe Basin primarily in eastern El Dorado County and partially in northern Alpine County. The UTRCW contains the subwatersheds of Camp Richardson (2,652 acres) as well as the Upper Truckee River (36,224 acres), of which is the largest watershed in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The total drainage area of the UTRCW is 69.7 square miles, and the main drainages are The Upper Truckee River, Angora Creek, Sawmill Pond Creek, Big Meadow Creek, and Grass Lake Creek. The northern portion of the watershed consists of the urban areas of South Lake Tahoe and Meyers, whereas the southern portion is primarily US Forest Service land managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The main channel of the Upper Truckee River is 21.4 miles long and originates in the volcanic bluffs surrounding Meiss Meadow near Carson Pass. The river then flows northward through a series of meadows and lakes until it reaches an 800-foot glacial step over, where it enters the head of Christmas Valley. The river flows through Christmas Valley until is it met by Angora Creek, downstream of the present-day Lake Tahoe Golf Course (LTGC). After converging with another unnamed tributary near the tenth hole of the LTGC, the UTR continues to flow northward through Sunset Ranch, the Lake Tahoe Airport, and to the eastern side of the Tahoe Keys through Cove East where it drains to Lake Tahoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe's Seven Summits
    Birds return to Lake Tahoe, page 4 Summer 2014 Drought offers TAHOE’S SEVEN SUMMITS good news, bad By Jeff Cowen news for Lake Tahoe In Depth By Jim Sloan The Lake may be this Region’s Tahoe In Depth most famous geographic feature, but it is Tahoe’s peaks that define our From the shoreline, a long-term landscapes and, at times, the course or severe drought seems to put of our lives. Daily, we glimpse them Lake Tahoe in dire straits. The water towering over our tedium, indelible recedes, streams dry up and the reminders of nature’s greatness and our shoreline beaches expand to expose own impermanence. Succumbing to a bathtub ring along the 72-mile their power, we climb them. shoreline. Some climbers are peak collectors, But from the water, things don’t “bagging” the major summits one by always look so bad. During a one. Others climb on a lark, impulsively drought, many of the pollutants joining friends and unprepared for the that affect Lake Tahoe’s clarity can’t Photo © Steve Dunleavy experience ahead. Regardless of our Pyramid Peak rises above the fog-choked Tahoe Basin. find their way to the Lake. Droughts paths, once we reach their summits, we slow down the rate of urban runoff, feel at once tiny and expansive, earth and rodents. Trees become shorter and neighborhoods. reducing erosion and the flow of fine and time stretching in all directions wider, until they disappear entirely. Our Climbers of even our most benign sediment and other water-clouding below us, the experience undeniably bodies change too.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.0 Evaluation of Environmental Effects
    SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Environmental Checklist and discussion describes the impacts of the Project, as detailed in the Project Description. The Environmental Checklist is based on the questions provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Revised 2016). This checklist focuses on 17 different categories. If substantial evidence exists for impacts not described in the checklist, these impacts should also be considered. Potential environmental impacts are described as follows: Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. Less than Significant with Mitigation: An environmental impact that requires the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to less than significant level. Less than Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur; however, the impact would not be considered significant based on CEQA environmental standards. No Impact: No environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Project. 56 | Page SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST I. Aesthetics Would the Project: Environmental Issue Impact Impact Less Than Than Less Than Less Mitigation NoImpact Significant Significant Potentially Incorporated Significant with a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings, within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d.
    [Show full text]
  • Round Lake | El Dorado County | Tahoe Rim Trail
    Facebook Twitter Instagram DFW Fishing Guide DFW Fish Plants E. Sierra Fishing Guide Sierra Web Cams Sierrash.com HOME ABOUT LAKES STREAMS CONTACT SUBMIT REPORT Alpine glow at Round Lake PDFmyURL easily turns web pages and even entire websites into PDF! Fishing: Round Lake - (El Dorado County) 2/10 Tahoe Rim Trail Hiking: July 7, 2018 3/10 Scenery: 6/10 Getting There Solitude: To reach Round Lake in El Dorado County (Tahoe Rim Trail), drive to the Big Meadow Tahoe Rim trailhead by 2/10 taking Highway 89 towards Luther Pass. The trailhead parking lot is situated roughly 60 yards uphill from the actual trailhead. So park and walk down 89 until you see the sign on the lefthand side of the road. The parking Distance: can be sparse on weekends and holidays due to the trailhead being very popular. 3 mi 1-way Map: The Hike The hike to Round Lake is a moderate trek with a quick uphill, switchbacked section at the start. Once you have zigzagged up the intitial hill, you will be rewarded with some easy hiking through the ats of Big Meadow. Elevation Profile: Check out the plentiful Brook Trout in the stream while crossing the wooden bridge. Once you are through Big Meadow the ascents begin again and intensify until you reach the top of the hill. This section can be tiresome but it's worth it as you will be rewarded again with easy downhill trekking as you reach the next valley. Another mile of hiking brings you to the north side of Round Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River Between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California
    LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California Prepared by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ California Tahoe Conservancy (with assistance from ENTRIX, Inc.) Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Sarah Muskopf/Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Richard Vacirca/LTBMU Journey Level Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Shay Zanetti/LTBMU Journey Level Wildlife Biologist Approved by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Journey-level Fish/Wildlife Biologist Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project 1 LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION The Upper Truckee River is the largest source of sediment and nutrients to Lake Tahoe. The USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) and the California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) own and manage land along the Sunset Stables Reach of the Upper Truckee River. The Sunset Stables Reach has experienced active bank failures, channel widening, and degraded aquatic, riparian and meadow habitat. As a result, the
    [Show full text]
  • California Trail W R O MOUNTAINS H P I S Mount Jefferson Ive S SALMON MONTANA CORVALLIS E R M L E 10497Ft S E L MOUNTAINS a DILLON Orn 25 Er WISC
    B DALLAS S La Creole Creek R N E tte S ALEM I N O A B OZEMAN B ILLINGS e Y V r S T. PAUL C om plex m A WALLOWA 90 ive r MINNEAPOLIS 94 T N E R e la Y l N A ello iv M i SALMON RIVER R w sto n e iss U C R issip California Trail W r O M O U N TA IN S H p i S Mount Jefferson ive M S S ALMON MONTANA C OR VALLIS E R L E 10497ft s E L MOUNTAINS A DILLON orn 25 er WISC. te U E B igh iv Designated routes of the E Mary’s River Crossing 3200m u B L H D EA R TO O B R h TH M r California National Historic Trail sc M TS e G e d Riv D B AK ER O ow er G Long Tom River Crossing McC ALL U N P Additional routes T A SOUTH DAKOTA M INNESOTA N A I B B N N I S G S HER IDAN B e 29 90 S A H lle Scale varies in this north-looking EUGENE Jo Fourc he River A BEND h n Da R O perspective view spanning about A y River R Yellowstone O R 35 1,500 miles (2,400 km) from east N C loud Peak PIER R E B orah Peak Lake K to west. Topography derives from Pleasant 5 13187ft R R 12662ft A C ODY GREYBULL M GTOPO30 digital elevation data.
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan's Tahoe
    MORGAN’S TAHOE By William A. Morgan 2nd Edition All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 Published by Memdewee Books LLC Cover Photo by Craig Morgan Printed in the United States of America FOREWORD The following is sort of a memoir, a series of articles about some of the experiences of the author while he lived and worked in the Lake Tahoe Basin of California and Nevada. During the period from the spring of 1965 to the fall of 1989, he was involved in a wide range of activities, some of which had considerable influence on the environment and the political situation in the Basin. As Forest Supervisor of the National Forest lands at Tahoe for nine years, followed by four and a half years as the Executive Director of the most controversial agency in existence at Tahoe during this period, he provides his unique perspective of happenings and accomplishments with which he was associated. Some of these tales might satisfy the curiosity of residents of Tahoe as well as those who visit the area and wonder, “How did that come about?” Or “What’s the story behind the 64 Acres?” Or “What happened to the Jennings Casino?” You can learn about those things in this book. Some of you will come across familiar names, too. Maybe your own. ~ 2 ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS These people provided me information and/or assistance, that helped make it possible for me to write this book, and I’m indebted to them. Dave Allessio – Retired USFS Lori Allessio – Retired USFS Virgil Anderson – Retired USFS Gary Cooper – Retired USFS Bill Craven – Fallen Leaf Jonathan Cook-Fisher Tom
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Accounts of Focal Aquatic Ecosystems And
    APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS Matthew D. Schlesinger and Erik M. Holst, editors Focal Aquatic Ecosystem: Upper Truckee River Upper Truckee River watershed, harvested land was By Erik M. Holst being grazed by dairy cattle, and indiscriminate, unregulated sheep grazing was occurring in those General areas not suitable for cattle (see Chapter 2; From its headwaters at approximately 2,804 Supernowicz pers. comm.). During this same period, m (9,200 ft), near Red Lake Peak, the Upper Truckee land use activities in the headwaters of the Upper River flows north for a distance of 34.6 km (21.5 mi) Truckee River were primarily limited to grazing; no into Lake Tahoe (CDFG 1987). Within the 146.6 commercial logging occurred. By the 1910s, the km2 (56.6 mi2) drainage, 24 tributaries flow into the development of a seasonal grazing allotment system Upper Truckee River (CDFG 1987). The Upper throughout the watershed dedicated land to specific Truckee River and the tributaries which make up the uses and limitations. The allotment system attempted Upper Truckee River Watershed comprise the to reduce the previous levels of resource damage and largest contribution to the waters of Lake Tahoe essentially eliminated indiscriminate sheep grazing (CWQCB 1999). (Supernowicz pers. comm.). However, four decades Using Moyle’s (1996) aquatic habitat later the California Department of Fish and Game classification, the Upper Truckee River can be noted the Upper Truckee River was experiencing divided into two aquatic habitat types: alpine streams erosion problems due to past cattle grazing (CDFG and mainstem rivers and their larger tributaries.
    [Show full text]