DOCSLIB.ORG

3.3 Water Use and Hydrology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.3 Water Use and Hydrology .............................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.1 Information Sources ....................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.2 Existing Water Uses ....................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................... 3.3-4 3.3.4 References ..................................................................................... 3.3-7 List of Tables Table 3.3-1. Minimum Instream Flow Requirements for Bypass Reaches Associated with the Kaweah Project. Table 3.3-2. Recent History (2002-2016) of Temporary Flow Modifications Requested by SCE and Approved by Resource Agencies. Table 3.3-3. Historic Water Year Types for the Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir Based on Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 May 1 Runoff Forecast (1994-2016). Table 3.3-4. Current Project Flow Gages. Table 3.3-5. Historic Gages in the Project Vicinity. Table 3.3-6. Other Flow Gages in the Kaweah River Watershed. List of Figures Figure 3.3-1. East Fork Kaweah River Inflow at Kaweah No. 1 Diversion Dam in Relation to Minimum Instream Flow Requirements and Water Supply Commitments in Dry (top) and Normal (bottom) Years (May 1994- December 2014). Figure 3.3-2. Kaweah River Inflow at Kaweah No. 2 Diversion Dam in Relation to Minimum Instream Flow Requirements and Water Supply Commitments in Dry (top) and Normal (bottom) Years (May 1994-December 2014). Figure 3.3-3. Distribution of the April 1 to July 1 Forecast of Runoff in the Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir based on the Bulletin 120 May 1 Forecast (1994- 2016). Figure 3.3-4. Annual Inflow to the Kaweah Project (WY 1994-2014). Figure 3.3-5a. Monthly Average Flows in a Representative Dry Year (2014), Normal Year (2006), and “Drier” Normal Year (2009) in the East Fork Kaweah River Southern California Edison Company 3.3-i Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) Bypass Reach and Kaweah No. 1 Flowline, and at the Kaweah No. 1 Powerhouse. Figure 3.3-5b. Monthly Average Flows in a Representative Dry Year (2014), Normal Year (2006), and “Drier” Normal Year (2009) in the Kaweah River Bypass Reach and Kaweah No. 2 Flowline, and at the Kaweah No. 2 Powerhouse. Figure 3.3-5c. Monthly Average Flows in a Representative Dry Year (2014), Normal Year (2006), and “Drier” Normal Year (2009) at the Kaweah No. 3 Powerhouse. Figure 3.3-6a. Monthly Exceedance Flows (10%, 20%, 50%, 80%, and 90%) in the East Fork Kaweah River Bypass Reach and Kaweah No. 1 Flowline, and at the Kaweah No. 1 Powerhouse (WY 1994-2014). Figure 3.3-6b. Monthly Exceedance Flows (10%, 20%, 50%, 80%, and 90%) in the Kaweah River Bypass Reach and Kaweah No. 2 Flowline, and at the Kaweah No. 2 Powerhouse (WY 1994-2014). Figure 3.3-6c. Monthly Exceedance Flows (10%, 20%, 50%, 80%, and 90%) at the Kaweah No. 3 Powerhouse (WY 2002-2014). Figure 3.3-7. East Fork Kaweah River and Kaweah River Inflows and Flows below the Kaweah No. 1 and 2 Diversions and Timing of Generation (2014). List of Maps Map 3.3-1. Current and Historic Flow Gages in the Bypass Reaches and Flowlines Associated with the Kaweah Project and Other Non-Project Flows Gages in the Kaweah Watershed. List of Appendices Appendix 3.3-A. Historic Water Year Types for the Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir Based on Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 May 1 Runoff Forecast (1938-2015). Appendix 3.3-B. Daily Flow in Bypass Reaches and Flowlines Associated with the Kaweah Project. Appendix 3.3-C. Tables of Monthly Summary Statistics (maximum, minimum, average discharge) and Exceedances for Gaging Stations in Bypass Reaches and Flowlines Associated with the Kaweah Project. Appendix 3.3-D. Monthly Average Flows by Year in Bypass Reaches and Flowlines Associated with the Kaweah Project over the Available Flow Data Period of Record. Appendix 3.3-E. Annual Maximum Instantaneous Peak Flows (cfs) for Bypass Reaches and Flowlines Associated with the Kaweah Project. Appendix 3.3-F. Hydrology for Other River Reaches in the Watershed – Daily Flows and Annual Maximum Instantaneous Peak Flows. Southern California Edison Company 3.3-ii Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) List of Acronyms ac-ft acre-feet CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board DWR Department of Water Resources FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission MIF minimum instream flow NPS National Park Service POR period of record Project Kaweah Project SCE Southern California Edison Company SNP Sequoia National Park SUP Special Use Permit USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Watershed Kaweah River Watershed Southern California Edison Company 3.3-iii Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) 3.3 WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY This section describes water use and hydrology associated with Southern California Edison Company’s (SCE) Kaweah Project (Project). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) content requirements for this section are specified in Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter I § 5.6(d)(3)(iii). The FERC regulations require information on water resources, including water use (quantity) and water quality of waters affected by the Project. This section specifically addresses the water use and hydrology components of the FERC regulations. Information on water quality is addressed in Section 3.4 Water Quality. Information on (1) upstream and downstream requirements by other parties that may constrain operations of the Project; and (2) existing water rights and water rights applications that could potentially affect or be affected by the Project is also provided in Section 2.0 Project Description and Section 3.2 Description of the Kaweah River Basin. 3.3.1 Information Sources Existing information regarding water use and hydrology associated with the Project was collected, compiled, and reviewed. Relevant information used to prepare this section was obtained from the following sources: • Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 120 (DWR 2015); • Environmental Assessment, Kaweah Project FERC Project No. 298-000 (FERC 1991); • Errata notice to notice dated 12/17/03 Amending License re Kaweah River Power Authority under P-3947 (FERC 2003b); • Kaweah River Investigation, California, Final Feasibility Report (USACE 1996); • Order amending license re Kaweah River Power Authority's Terminus Dam Project under P-3947 (FERC 2003a); • Order Amending Minimum Flow Release Requirements for Southern California Edison’s Project No. 298 (FERC 1994); • Order Issuing New License (Major) for Southern California Edison’s Project No. 298 (FERC 1992); • Special Use Permit (SUP) for Southern California Edison (NPS 2012); • United States Geological Survey (USGS) Surface-Water Data for the Nation (USGS 2015); and • Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (CRWQCB 2004). 3.3.2 Existing Water Uses This section describes existing water uses associated with the Project and other water uses upstream and downstream of the Project. Southern California Edison Company 3.3-1 Pre-Application Document Kaweah Project (FERC Project No. 298) 3.3.2.1 Existing Project Water Uses Existing and potential beneficial uses that apply to the surface waters within the Kaweah River Watershed (Watershed) are identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) (CRWQCB 2004). Beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan that pertain to the Kaweah River above Lake Kaweah include: (1) municipal and domestic water supply; (2) hydropower generation; (3) water contact and non-contact water recreation; (4) warm freshwater fisheries; (5) cold freshwater fisheries; (6) wildlife habitat; (7) rare, threatened, and endangered species; (8) spawning, reproduction, and/or early development for fisheries; and (9) freshwater replenishment. SCE operates the Project for hydroelectric generation and consumptive use. Consumptive water is delivered to local water users from the Kaweah No. 1 and Kaweah No. 2 flowlines, consistent with SCE’s contractual obligations, and to the Hammond Fire Station near Hammond consistent with SCE’s water rights and agreements. The Project has three powerhouses: Kaweah No. 1 Powerhouse, Kaweah No. 2 Powerhouse, and Kaweah No. 3 Powerhouse. Water is diverted from the East Fork Kaweah River at the Kaweah No. 1 Diversion Dam and conveyed to the Kaweah No. 1 Powerhouse via the Kaweah No. 1 Flowline. Water is diverted from the Kaweah River at the Kaweah No. 2 Diversion Dam and conveyed to the Kaweah No. 2 Powerhouse via the Kaweah No. 2 Flowline. Water conveyed to Kaweah Powerhouse No. 3 is diverted at the Middle Fork and Marble Fork diversions (non-FERC facilities). A summary of the last five years of generation and the Project’s dependable capacity is provided in Section 2.0 Project Description. The Project has two conflicting obligations (demands) associated with operation of the Project. These obligations include providing: (1) domestic water to local users through the Project flowlines based on contractual entitlements; and (2) minimum instream flow (MIF) releases consistent with the flow schedule in License Article 405 of the existing FERC license (Table 3.3-1). SCE must release a maximum of 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) from the Kaweah No. 1 Diversion and 3 cfs from the Kaweah No. 2 Diversion to meet SCE’s contractual obligations to local water users consistent with their pre-1914 water rights. During low-runoff periods, consumptive water is diverted and delivered to local water users, but no water is diverted for generation purposes. Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 illustrate actual inflow compared to MIF release requirements and water supply obligations at the Kaweah No.
Recommended publications
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips

    Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips

    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
  • Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action

    Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action

    Application for New License TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ..................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 8-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 8.1-1. Resource Areas Potentially Affected by Project Operation and Maintenance under the Proposed Action .............................. 8-5 LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PAD Pre-Application Document Project Kaweah Project O&M operation and maintenance SCE Southern California Edison Company SD Supporting Document TSP Technical Study Plan TSR Technical Study Report Southern California Edison Company 8-i Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License This Page Intentionally Left Blank 8-ii Southern California Edison Company Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 INTRODUCTION This section follows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) content requirements at Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B), which specify that “the applicant must present the results of its studies conducted under the approved study plan by resource area and use the data generated by the studies to evaluate the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of its proposed project. This section must also include, if applicable, a description of any anticipated
  • Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California

    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California

    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California By WILLARD W. DEAN fPith a section on GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS IN THE KERN RIVER BASIN By KEVIN M. SCOTT FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-610922 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ Cl Introduction.____________ _ ________________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________________ 3 Precipitation__ ____________________________________________________ 5 General description of the floods___________________________________ 9 Kern River basin______________________________________________ 12 Tule River basin______________________________________________ 16 Kaweah River basin____________________________--_-____-_---_- 18 Miscellaneous basins___________________________________________ 22 Storage regulation _________________________________________________ 22 Flood damage.__________________________________________________ 23 Comparison to previous floods___________-_____________--___------_
  • Revision of the Shrews of the American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C

    Revision of the Shrews of the American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C

    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LIBRARY Book number b52N no. 10-13 1895-1897 500016 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF ORNITHOLOGY AND MAMMALOGY A - » U NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA No. lO Revision of the Shrews of the American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C. HART MERRIAM The Long-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States GERRIT S. MILLER, Jr. Synopsis of the American Shrews of the Genus Sorex C. HART MERRIAM WASHINGTON aOVE]iNMENT PlilNTING OPFICE 1895 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF ORNITHOLOGY AND MAMMALOGY NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA ]N"o. lO [Actual date of iiublicatiou, December 31, 1895] Revision of tlie Shrews of tke American Genera Blarina and Notiosorex C. HART MERRIAM The Long-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States GERRIT S. MILLER, Jr. Synopsis of the American Shrews of the Genus Sorex C. HART MERRIAM WASHINGTON aOVERNMENT PKINTINa OFFICE 1895 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. JJ. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington ^ JD. 0., August 31, 1895. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewitli, for publication as IsTOc 10 of i^orth American Fauna, three pai^ers on Korth American Shrews, embracing results of investigations made by the Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy. Eespectfully, C. Hart Merriam, Chief of .Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy. Hon. J. STERLiNa Morton, Secretary of Agriculture. 3 CONTENTS. Page. Kevision of tlie Shrews of the Americau genera Blarina and NoUosorex. By C. Hart Merriam 5 Tlie Loug-tailed Shrews of the Eastern United States. By Gerrit S. Miller, jr.
  • Andradite Skarn Garnet Records of Exceptionally Low Δ18o Values Within an Early Cretaceous Hydrothermal System, Sierra Nevada, CA

    Andradite Skarn Garnet Records of Exceptionally Low Δ18o Values Within an Early Cretaceous Hydrothermal System, Sierra Nevada, CA

    Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology (2019) 174:68 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-019-1602-6 ORIGINAL PAPER Andradite skarn garnet records of exceptionally low δ18O values within an Early Cretaceous hydrothermal system, Sierra Nevada, CA J. Ryan‑Davis1,2 · J. S. Lackey2 · M. Gevedon3 · J. D. Barnes3 · C‑T. A. Lee4 · K. Kitajima5 · J. W. Valley5 Received: 2 March 2019 / Accepted: 12 July 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Skarn garnets in the Mineral King roof pendant of the south–central Sierra Nevada within Sequoia National Park, Califor- nia, USA reveal variable fuid chemistry with a signifcant component of meteoric water during metasomatism in the Early Cretaceous Sierra Nevada Batholith. We focus on andradite garnet associated with Pb–Zn mineralization in the White Chief Mine. Laser fuorination oxygen isotope analyses of δ18O of garnet (δ18O(Grt)) from sites along the skarn show a large range of values (− 8.8 to + 4.6‰ VSMOW). Ion microprobe (SIMS) analyses elucidate that individual andradite crystals are strongly zoned in δ18O(Grt) (up to 7‰ of variation). Total rare-earth element concentrations (∑REE) across individual garnets show progressive depletion of skarn-forming fuids in these elements during garnet growth. These fndings support 18 18 a skarn model of earliest red high-δ O grandite garnet consistent with a magmatic-dominated equilibrium fuid (δ O(H2O) as high as ≈ + 8‰). Later, green andradite crystallized in equilibrium with a low-δ18O fuid indicating a signifcant infux 18 of meteoric fuid (δ O(H2O) ≈ − 6 to − 5‰), following a hiatus in garnet growth, associated with late-stage Pb–Zn miner- 18 18 alization.
  • Revised Fishery Management Plan for the Little Kern Golden Trout 1984

    Revised Fishery Management Plan for the Little Kern Golden Trout 1984

    THE REVISED FISHERY MANAGEr·IENT PLAN FOR THE LITTLE KERN GOLDEN TROUT Prepared by Daniel P. Christenson California Department of Fish and Game April, 1984 -2- THE REVISED FISHERY MANAGEr'lENT PLAN FOR THE LITTLE KERN GOLDEN TROUT A?proved by: t1anager of Fish and Game ,t;1 h tJ 18 t:f­ es Crates, Supervisor quoia National Forest ~ BOyd Evison, Superintendent Sequoia-Kings Canyon National park Assistant Regional Director Federal Assistance U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / .,~ .,., , ,',' '-.', ............. ' , -::.' . -3- TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ••••••••••••••••• 4 History. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 Recent Activi ties •••••••••••• 10 Pre-?roject Status ••••••••••• 10 Problems ..•.••.•..•.••.••••.. 13 Management Plan •••••••••••••• 15 Appendix ••.•••••••••••••••••• 25 -4- INTRODUCTION A fishery management plan for the Little Kern golden trout (Salmo aguabonita whitei) was published by the California Department of Fish and Game (Christenson, 1978). This revision supercedes that document and updates the plan to incorporate current information. The purpose of this plan is to summarize the available information on the Little Kern golden trout, and to propose activities to be carried out by the cooperating agencies to enSure the protection of this subspecies and its habitat. The golden trout, of which the Little Kern golden trout is a subspecies, has been designated as the official State Fish by the California State Legislature. It is recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game as a threatened species (Fisk, 1971) and is a subject of con­ sideration by its Threatened Trout Committee. The Little Kern golden trout was proposed for federal listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on September 1, 1977 by the united States Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Register, vol.
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments

    Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments

    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
  • Lagnitude and Frequency of 'Loods in the United States

    Lagnitude and Frequency of 'Loods in the United States

    lagnitude and Frequency of 'loods in the United States 'rrt 11. Pacific Slope Basins in California c^ume 2. Klamath and Smith River Basins and Central Valley rainage from the East "... E. YOUNG and R. W. CRUFF HOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAFER 1686 TED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1967 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEW ART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 64-192 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract_______________________________________________________ 1 Introduction..-___________________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope._____-____________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. __--_-_____-___-______--------_-------__-_-- 2 Flood-frequency analysis.___-____-_________-----_----_-_- ______ 4 Selection of gaging-station records.------.----------------------- 4 Flood frequency at a gaging station____________________________ 6 Hydrologic characteristics-------------------------------------- 7 Topography _____________________-__-_-__---__--_-_______- 7 Cli_nate_________________________________-___-----_____-__ 8 Runoff..._____________._______ _______ 9 Multiple-regression procedures.--------------------------------- 9 Regional analysis________________________________________ _ 11 Sierra Nevada region.____________________________________ 11 Lower Klamath River region_____________________________ 12 Upper Klamath River region______-___-_-_--___-----_______
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15C - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods

    A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15C - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15c - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15c ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15c - Animals of Conservation Concern, HUC Assessment Methods Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15c Daniel Boiano, Daniel Gammons, Erik Meyer Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271 June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This document contains subject matter expert interpretation of the data.
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 3 - Affected Environment Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 describes the affected environment or existing condition by resource area, as each is currently managed. This is the baseline condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Vegetation, including Giant Sequoia Groves Vegetation within the Giant Sequoia National Monument can be grouped into ecological units with similar climatic, geology, soils, and vegetation communities. These units fall within three categories: oak woodlands/grasslands, shrublands/chaparral, and forestlands. The forested category between 5,000 and 7,000 feet in elevation, spanning the Monument from north to south, is dominated by mixed conifer and its variants.