DOCSLIB.ORG

Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37 Madera Canal DA69 North Side & Main 8 Thermalito Depletion: D64 Canals GW-7 D65 Fore/Afterbay Goodwin to 5 SR- 3b GW-7 mouth depletion: San 7 GW-7 GW-12 D63 Joaquin River GW-8 Accretion: 4 D60 C38 Accretion to D64 between Millerton GW-5 D67 D66 Lower Merced 5 Tolomne below 6 2 3 Lake and Mendota GW- River D62 New Don Pedro Pool GW-5 DA 69 GW-7 GW-8 C43 4 CVPM 5 GW-13 Urban D98 depletion: Lower GW-11 D66 D64 C45 Merced River D60 DA 14: BUTTE 4 7 Ind: 6 CREEK & LITTLE C26 C32 C41 T2 CVPM 7G 6 Stockton CHICO CREEK GW- GW- D64 T4 CVPM 13 CVPM 5G GW-8 Urban C30 DA70 7 CVPM 12G C172 CVPM 12 GW-1 C36 GW- Urban D64 Sac East C46 11 Res: 9 Refuges Stockton CVPM 5S Res: CVPM 8G CVPM 11G CVPM 13G Sacramento CVPM 8 CVPM 11 T27 DA 10: ANTELOPE , MILL C31 D42 C34 Urban Urban CVPM 12S DA 58: COW CREEK, 1 BATTLE CREEK & ,DRY, DEER, BIG CHICO & DA 69 Accretion: San Accretion: San Joaquin River Joaquin River Redding ELDER CREEKS D51 CVPM 13S PAYNE CREEK CVPM 8S Ind: 7 below between Merced and CVPM 7S T13 D67 CVPM 11S Tuolomne Tuolomne Eastside Bypass DA 15 DA 15 Sacramento 5 DA 58 & DA Chowchilla Bypass D69 D60 10 D692 C47 C48 Keswick 3 9 Reservoir Mendota Pool LAKE SHASTA SR- D76 D76 C30 D67 D61 D68 D68 D68 D69 D69 D69 D69 D61 D73 D73 D60 4 D5 D73 C2 D74 C5 D77 D75 C1 C4 C69 D66 D30 D31 D61 D43 C67 C7 C8 D44 C42 D616 D687 D698 D697 D731 INFLOW a b 1 ISOLATED FACILITY 6 2 9 8 3 9 5 4 1 9 3 2 8 Shasta Lake D503 C14 depletion: losses THOMES CVPM 4S Delta Cross Depletion: San COTTONWOO YOLO BYPASS CVPM 10 Joaquin River Mud Slough and Eastside Bypass Channel Mendota CREEK Urban below Tuolomne Salt Slough D CREEK D511 D513 Wildlife Area CVPM 4 Knights Landing Freemont Weir Urban Ridge Cut D52 1 Spring Creek Power Conduit C30 Glenn-Colusa Canal C313 C18 C20 D55 C3 CVPM 1S CVPM 2S 6 CVPM 10S Colusa Basin Drain CLEAR CREEK SR- 3 GW-4 GW-10 CVPM 4G Corning Canal CVPM 10G D61 D640 D51 D52 GW- 5 Misc Left & Right Bank Diversions GW-4 4 2 Whiskey D613 Town Lake CVPM 1G DA 15 CVPM 6 C88 C6 ` Urban D507 Tunnel C84 Clear Creek Sac West C30 CVPM 6S C15 Refuges 5 GW-9 GW-1 NORTH BAY GW D52 AQUEDUCT C68 GW-1 9 3 C85 CVPM 2G CVPM 6G C13 C302 C303 CVPM 3S CVPM 2 DA 58 Tehema-Colusa Canal C12 C17 Urban C30 losses upper DMC San Joaquin C11 4 Winters, Moore & CVPM 9G Refuges DELTA MENDOTA CANAL Trinity River C314 West Adams Canals THE DELTA Clifton Court TRINITY Minimum Flows CVPM 3G RIVER SR-1 D94 C171 GW-9 Forebay DA12 Old River D52 C30 D70 D70 D71 D71 D72 D72 GW-6 D550 D59 D723 5 9 1 3 0 2 2 4 Clair Engle GW-9 Lake CVPM 9S losses R4 losses R5 losses R6 Capay Diversion losses R3 CVPM 3 GW-6 C16 Tracy Pumping Dam Putah South O'Neill Pwr Urban Plant Bethany Canal Reservoir LEWISTON C19 C21 C22 GW-3 Rock Slough D80 D80 D81 D81 D81 D82 D74 D74 D74 LAKE INFLOW D803 D74 D74 D74 CVPM 9 1 4 4 6 8 0 2 3 4 5 7 9 Urban Contra Costa GW-2 GW-3 Pumping Plant Harvey Banks DA 55 Pumping Plant Dos Amigos Gianelli GW-2 Pumping Plant losses R1-2 DA 10 South Bay DA 12 DA 65 SR- Pumping Plant CONTRA COSTA C31 22 C70 CANAL 0 San Luis Los Banos SR- SR- Reservoir Grandes 12 BBL Black Butte DA 24 local CU DA 49 Lake C155 SR- DA 16 local CU Mallard C15 LV Pacheco Tunnel 0 Slough Walnut Creek D89 SANTA 1 T1 D50 D52 C71 Los D71 CLARA SR- 4 9 8 Vaqueros Del Valle 4 SR- LB STONY Pumping LOCAL Clear CL- Lake Berryessa Plant CREEK Lake/Indian Monticello Dam DA 11 Valley Res: Napa-Solano Ind: Napa-Solano Reservoir SOUTH BAY SR- Co Urban Co Urban D89 SCV C20 AQUEDUCT 2 1 SR- 15 GW- PUTAH T1 CACHE Lake Del CREEK 5 C31 CREEK Valle 5 DA 16 DA 24 T16 C79 T7 SR- Chabot, Upper San LEGEND EBM Leandro, D89 Res: Contra San Pablo, Briones, 6 Costa Lafayette Reservoirs Existing facilities (a) Nodes (b) Links with no attached values/costs Possible future facilities Ind: Contra Required Delta Costa D54 Res: Oak Flat, Outflow 1 Santa Clara Valley Flow in stream/river Conveyance D89 losses WD, Alameda Co 7 FCWCD Zone 7, C11 Junction (non-storage) node R1 9 Flow in artificial channel Calaveras Reservoir, Ind: Oak Flat, Pumping plant T18 Lower Crystal Springs Santa Clara Valley Pumping plant T17 SR- Flow in pipeline Reservoir, San Andreas ASF WD, Alameda Co Surplus Delta Reservoir, San Antonio FCWCD Zone 7, Reservoir Power plant Surface water reservoir Outflow Ind: EBMUD Inflow to model (from supersource) T2 node 0 C31 T1 T18 Water treatment plant Return flow with gain on link 6 9 Res: T35 EBMUD Res: San Outflow from model (to supersink) GW- SR- Surface water reservoir (storage) node Francisco PUC SC 1 GW-SC Lateral ground water flow Notes: Ind: San T2 GW- Francisco Ground water reservoir (storage) node Integrated Economic-Engineering Analysis of 1 1 Depletion Area (DA) PUC (c) Links with attached values/costs California's Future Water Supply 1. Agricultural demand is divided into (a) demand nodes with return flows to the surface water system and Ghost node (b) demand nodes with return flows to ground water. Link with attached value function Richard E. Howitt, Professor of Agriculture and Resource Economics 2. Urban demand is divided into residential demand (denoted "res") and industrial demand (denoted "ind"). CVPM 10S Agricultural demand node Link with attached cost function Jay R. Lund, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 3. Depletion areas are shown for the Sacramento and San JoaquinValleys only. University of California, Davis The Depletion areas are used by DWR to quantify local water supplies and inflows based on mass Res: San balance. Diego Urban demand node contact: [email protected] or [email protected] Supersink (outflow from July 2,1999 model) Figure 6-4. California's Water Infrastructure Network Configuration for CALVIN (2 of 2) DRAFT UPPER OWENS Parker Imperial Dam Dam RIVER KAWEAH TULE RIVER COLORADO SR- C13 C14 C14 C14 Mexico KINGS RIVER RIVER RIVER CR 4 1 2 3 KERN RIVER Lake Crowley / Long Lake Kaweah Pine Flat Lake SR- Valley Reservoir SR- FRIANT KERN CANAL Terminus Dam Success LC Palo Verde - PF S SR- SR- LK LS Pumping Plant Lake Power Plants Isabella C49 C51 SR-LI C56 C61 C62 C64 C11 Long Valley 4 Ag Res: City of T2 ALL AMERICAN CANAL Fresno 4 GW- C57 GW-17 GW-18 C65 Ind: City of GW-20 Fresno C11 LONG VALLEY GW- 6 GW- GW- C63 TO HAIWEE T25 C52 C11 GW- 7 CVPM 20G GW-16 CVPM 17 Urban CVPM 18G GW-21 GW- El Centro et al C31 CVPM 20S 2 GW- Infiltration and Evaporation Losses C55 C11 Coachella T11 C58 C60 CVPM 21 9 Valley Urban CVPM 17G Urban CVPM 16G C50 C53 COLORADO RIVER CVPM 20 CVPM 21S CVPM 18 GW- Urban AQUEDUCT Urban CVPM 16S CVPM 17S Intake Dam T2 Owens Lake CVPM 18S T31 GW- 9 (dry) C12 21 LOS ANGELES AQUEDUCT James Bypass/Fresno SloughN. Fork Kings 0 SW- GW-CH River 0L COACHELLA C54 C59 C97 C66 CVPM 21G GW- CANAL Crescent Weir Tulare Lake SR- Owens TLB T28 Valley Ag provide outlet GW-15 GW- GW-19 Ind: SR- Bakersfield LA C13 C14 Coachella C14 C14 6 5 Valley Ag -G 7 9 CVPM 19G GW- Res: CVPM 15 Bakersfield C90 Urban Power Plants Coachella D61 Valley Ag -S 3 CVPM 15G GW-14 CVPM 19S C12 Pipeline CVPM 14G CVPM 15S GW- 2 conveyance and WHITEWATER C14 C14 NEW RIVER, GW-AV RIVER 6 SW- 8 ALAMO RIVER SS CROSS VALLEY CANAL Antelope Valley T3 Salton Sea GW- 3 Urban CVPM 14 CVPM 19 C10 Urban 0 GW-MJ Urban GW-IM T3 GW- Imperial C15 2 SR- MJ INLAND FEEDER PROJECT Valley -G GW- 1 Mojave ER C91 CVPM 14S Basin Pipeline Kern-Pixley C95 Kern River Intertie T6 Refuges Imperial C15 Mojave C13 C14 T3 2 EAST BRANCH Urban 8 0 Valley -S AQUEDUCT losses R14A-C losses R15A-18A losses R7 Devil Canyon Alamo Pearblossom Pumping Plant Mojave Power Plant Lake Perris LAKEVIEW PIPELINE Power Plant Power Plant Silverwood Lake D75 D84 D85 D75 D85 D86 D86 D86 D86 D86 C10 D86 D86 D87 C12 D87 D87 C12 D87 C13 C13 D88 C89 C92 C96 1 5 3 2 9 0 1 2 3 4 3 5 8 0 4 1 2 SR- 9 6 0 1 1 SR- EASTSIDE PIPELINE EAST HIGHLINE, CENTRAL 25 27 Edmonston MAIN AND WESTSIDE CANALS Buena Vista Chrisman Pumping Pumping Wheeler Ridge Pumping Pumping Plant Plant Plant Plant OSO Las Perillas Eastside SAN DIEGO CANAL losses R8C-13B pumping losses R17-21 losses R22A-23 Pumping Plant losses R24-28J Reservoir plant GW- Lake WEST BRANCH Lake Skinner MWD Mathews COASTAL AQUEDUCT AQUEDUCT C15 CALIFORNIA 9 T2 Ind: SBV SR- D88 GW- AQUEDUCT 4 LSK T12 MWD Badger Hill SR- Pumping Plant LM D88 Res: SBV ` 5 losses R29A-9F LOCAL T1 SUPPLY Warne Power Plant 0 Res: Eastern & Western D84 Santa Barbara Ind: Central T9 MWD 9 & San Luis MWD Obispo Ind: Eastern & Pyramid Lake C15 C15 SR- T5 T34 3 4 Western 28 MWD Res: Central MWD D88 6 losses R29H-G-J C16 C13 1 9 LOCAL YEAR TYPE SUPPLY VARIATION IN Castaic Power Plant DEMAND LEGEND YEAR TYPE VARIATION IN SAN DIEGO PIPELINES NO.
Recommended publications
  • Folsom50booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This Booklet Was Printed in Cooperation With

    Folsom50booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This Booklet Was Printed in Cooperation With

    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This booklet was printed in cooperation with Folsom50Booklet 2 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 3 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM Dedication I am pleased to offer my congratulations as Folsom Dam celebrates its 50th Anniversary. For half a century, through drought and flood, Folsom Dam has managed American River flows for the benefit of people, farms, industry, and the environment. Since its completion in 1956, it has effectively controlled flooding. Even several months before its final William E. Rinne completion, Folsom Dam prevented flood Acting Commissioner damage when a major tropical storm Bureau of Reclamation triggered rapid snowmelt. The dam impounded so much runoff that Folsom Lake filled in one week rather than the one year anticipated by engineers. It is estimated that this magnificent dam has prevented more than $5 billion in flood damage to downstream agricultural and urban areas, a testament to the foresight of the men and women who envisioned and built it. Today, Folsom Dam provides 500,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation and urban uses annually. It plays an important role in fisheries enhancement and water quality improvement in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The dam also provides clean, renewable electricity. In 2005, it produced more than 690 million kilowatt hours. As a recreational facility, Folsom Lake is one of the most visited recreation areas operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams

    The Fault Line Threatening Dams

    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
  • 3A.12 Parks and Recreation - Land

    3A.12 Parks and Recreation - Land

    3A.12 PARKS AND RECREATION - LAND The two local roadway connections from the Folsom Heights property off-site into El Dorado Hills would not generate direct increases in population that could result in additional demand for parkland facilities in El Dorado County. Therefore, the “Affected Environment” does not contain a discussion of conditions in El Dorado County related to parks and recreation. 3A.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT Folsom Lake Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), located approximately 5 miles north of the SPA, serves the greater Sacramento area for recreation in the form of camping, hiking, biking, boating, and other outdoor recreation activities. The lake also hosts bass fishing tournaments that frequently draw fishermen from throughout the state. California State Parks manages the Folsom Lake SRA, which includes Folsom Lake and the surrounding facilities. The lake features approximately 75 miles of shoreline and 80 miles of trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, nature studies, camping, and picnicking. There are seven major recreation areas with facilities located around the lake. The Folsom Lake SRA, including Folsom Lake, is one of the most heavily used recreational facilities in the California State Park system, with 2 to 3 million visitor days per year. Approximately 75% of the annual visitations to the Folsom Lake SRA occur during the spring and summer, and many (85%) of the Folsom Lake SRA activities are water dependent. The Lake Natoma sub-unit of the Folsom Lake SRA is located adjacent to the City of Folsom, between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Dam, upstream from the Sacramento County-operated portion of the American River Parkway.
  • Folsom City Council Staff Re Ort

    Folsom City Council Staff Re Ort

    Folsom City Council Staff Re ort MEETING DATE: 5/12/2020 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar SUBJECT: Resolution No. I 0434- A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge II/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs FROM: Parks and Recreation Department RECOMMENDATION I CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No.10434- A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge II/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No.
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy

    Mining's Toxic Legacy

    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting

    Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting

    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
  • Appendix B ~ HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN and DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES~

    Appendix B ~ HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN and DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES~

    Appendix B ~ HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES~ Appendix B Visual Resources B.01 VISUAL RESOURCES B.01.01 Regional he Folsom Historic District is located in the central-western portion of the City of Folsom, at T the western edge of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The surrounding region to the east includes primarily grassy rolling hills dotted with oak trees. Elevations increase to 500 ft. above mean sea level (msl) within 10 miles of the Historic District. To the west is the mostly urbanized Sacramento metropolitan area, with elevations near 100 ft. msl. Northeast of the Historic District, Folsom Dam and Folsom Lake are prominent visual features. The lake and surrounding shoreline are part of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA), which offers opportunities to view the lake and the dam. Folsom Prison, including a broad buffer area of open grassland~ and the FolsomEity'Park lie between the Historic District and Folsom Lake. Southeast of the Historic District is a residential and modern commercial zone, while the area directly south includes land scheduled for development which in 1995 was vegetated by grassland, oak woodland, and a narrow riparian strip along Willow Creek. The west and north boundaries of the Historic District are formed by the Lake Natoma section of the American River. The American River, Lake Natoma, and Folsom Lake contribute significantly to the overall visual character of the Folsom area. Much of this lake/river complex is surrounded by the open space of the FLSRA with a fairly intact greenbelt of lush riparian vegetation and unique bedrock outcroppings that lend, a distinct natural quality to the urban landscape.
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4

    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4

    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
  • Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones

    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones

    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones APPENDIX D: Building Descriptions The purpose of the Building Descriptions is to assist the user in selecting an appropriate type of building when using the Air Conditioning estimating tools. The selected building type should be the one that most closely matches the actual project. These summaries provide the user with the inputs for the typical buildings. Minor variations from these inputs will occur based on differences in building vintage and climate zone. The Building Descriptions are referenced from the 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. It should be noted that the user is required to provide certain inputs for the user’s specific building (e.g. actual conditioned area, city, operating hours, economy cycle, new AC system and new AC system efficiency). The remaining inputs are approximations of the building and are deemed acceptable to the user. If none of the typical building models are determined to be a fair approximation then the user has the option to use the Custom Building approach. The Custom Building option instructs the user how to initiate the Engage Software. The Engage Software is a stand-alone, DOE2 based modeling program. July 16, 2013 D-1 Version 5.0 Prototype Source Activity Area Type Area % Area Simulation Model Notes 1. Assembly DEER Auditorium 33,235 97.8 Thermal Zoning: One zone per activity area. Office 765 2.2 Total 34,000 Model Configuration: Matches 1994 DEER prototype HVAC Systems: The prototype uses Rooftop DX systems, which are changed to Rooftop HP systems for the heat pump efficiency measures.
  • Water Supply and Demand in California

    Water Supply and Demand in California

    Water Supply and Demand in California By Stephanie Anagnoson College of the Canyons 2018 Version 1 By StephaniePhoto By Jan Anagi Brumat noson College of the Canyons 2018 Version 1.2 Photo by Nathan Roser on Unsplash 1 | W a t e r S u p p l y Attributions Castaic Lake Water Agency College of the Canyons College of the Canyons - Water Systems Technology College of the Canyons - Open Educational Resources This textbook is licensed under CC BY 4.0 2 | Water Supply Table of Contents Introduction to Water Supply 4 Part One: Water All Around Us 5 Section 1.1 Water Cycle 6 Section 1.2 Water Management Concepts 10 Section 1.3 Water Rights 16 Section 1.4 Stakeholder Concepts 20 Part Two: Supply-Side Management 24 Section 2.1 Los Angeles Aqueduct 26 Section 2.2 Central Valley Project 30 Section 2.3 Colorado River Aqueduct 34 Section 2.4 State Water Project 38 Section 2.5 Alternative Water Supplies 42 Part Three: Demand-Side Management 50 Section 3.1 Regulations 51 Section 3.2 Water Loss 56 Section 3.3 Water Rates 59 Section 3.4 Indoor Water Use 62 Section 3.5 Outdoor Water Use 67 Section 3.6 CII Water Use 73 Section 3.7 Social Marketing Campaigns 78 3 | Water Supply Introduction to Water Supply You’re about to understand water demand and water supply more deeply. This understanding is going to change how you look at your water bill, grass in your yard and around town, and all those canals you see while driving around in California.
  • 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality

    3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality

    3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section describes the drainage features, stormwater quality, flooding hazards, and flood-protection improvements within the City’s Planning Area. Regulatory agencies governing stormwater quality and flooding hazards are also discussed. The City’s Planning Area is comprised of the City’s boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Together the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. With implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies potential impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surface Water Drainage Patterns within City’s Planning Area Surface water drainage patterns are dependent on topography, the amount and location of impervious surfaces, and the type of flood control that is located in an area. The size, or magnitude, of a flood is described by a term called a “recurrence interval.” By studying a long period of flow record for a stream, hydrologists estimate the size of a flood that would have a likelihood of occurring during various intervals. For example, a five-year flood event would occur, on the average, once every five years (and would have a 20 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Although a 100-year flood event is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year.