DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Agenda Central Nevada Regional Water Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Agenda Central Nevada Regional Water Authority AGENDA CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY Nevada Association of Counties Building 304 S. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV March 8, 2019 10:00 a.m. Notes: 1. Items on this agenda on which action may be taken are followed by the term "Possible Action." 2. Items on this agenda may be taken out of order, combined with other agenda items for consideration, removed from the agenda, or delayed for discussion at any time. 3. Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate physically handicapped persons attending the meeting. Please call 775.443.7667 in advance so arrangements can be made. This agenda was transmitted by email March 1, 2019 for posting by the Churchill County Clerk (775.423.6028), Elko County Clerk (775.753.4600), Esmeralda County Clerk (775.485.6309), Eureka County Clerk (775.237.5262), Lander County Clerk (775.635.5738), Nye County Clerk (775.482.8127), Pershing County Clerk (775.273.2208) and the White Pine County Clerk (775.293.6509). ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman’s welcome, roll call, determination of quorum, pledge of allegiance and introductions. (Discussion) 2. PUBLIC COMMENT – This time is devoted to comments by the general public pursuant to NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3). No action will be taken on matters raised under public comment until the matter itself has been included on an agenda as an action item. (Discussion) 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – Approval of the agenda for the Authority’s meeting of March 8, 2019, including taking items out of sequence, deleting items and adding items which require action upon a finding that an emergency exists. (Possible Action) CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine and may be acted upon by the CNRWA Board with one action and without an extensive hearing. Any member of the CNRWA Board may request that an item be taken from the consent agenda, discussed and acted upon separately during this meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Review and approve minutes of the January 11, 2019 Central Nevada Regional Water Authority meeting. (Possible Action) TAB 1 5. FINANCIAL REPORT AND QUARTERLY EXPENDITURES – Recommendation to approve the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority financial report and quarterly expenditures. (Possible Action) TABS 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 2F 6. APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE MONTHLY INVOICES FROM KATHLEEN LAXALT PURSUANT TO HER AGREEMENT WITH CNRWA FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DURING THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION APPROVED ON JANUARY 11, 2019. (Possible Action) TAB 3 END OF CONSENT AGENDA 1 7. APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY LOGO. (Possible Action) TAB 4 8. PRESENTATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY’S FISCAL YEAR 2019 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM – Recommendation to receive and approve a presentation by Nyle Pennington, consultant, on implementation of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority’s fiscal year 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Program. (Possible Action) TAB 5 9. UPDATE ON THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE PROOF OF CLAIM ON VESTED WATER RIGHTS BY 2027 AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 270 ENACTED IN THE 2017 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. (Discussion) TAB 6 10. APPROVAL OF A CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING MONITORING, MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION (3M) PLANS. (Possible Action) TAB 7 11. REPORT FROM THE CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BILLS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. (Possible Action) TAB 8 12. NEVADA WATER FUTURE DISCUSSION AND STRATEGY. (Possible Action) TAB 9 13. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE NEVADA STATE ENGINEER – Discussion and possible action on January, February and March 2019 water right filings and State Engineer Rulings and Orders. (Possible Action) TAB 10 14. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF ACTIVE LITIGATION OF NEVADA WATER ISSUES OF INTEREST TO THE CENTRAL NEVADA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY. (Discussion) 15. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY’S GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO CONVEY WATER FROM EASTERN AND CENTRAL NEVADA – Update on the status of Southern Nevada Water Authority’s application for water rights in Spring, Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar Valleys and construction of pipeline to convey the water to Southern Nevada will be provided. (Discussion) 16. BOARD MEMBER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS – Board members and the Executive Director can make announcements, request information and discuss topics for future agendas. (Discussion) 17. NEXT MEETING – Set date, place, time and possible agenda items for the Authority’s next meeting. (Possible Action) 18. PUBLIC COMMENT – This time is devoted to comments by the general public, pursuant to NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3). No action will be taken on matters raised under public comment until the matter itself has been included on an agenda as an action item. (Discussion) ADJOURN 2 Tab 1 Minutes of the January 11, 2019 Meeting of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority Board of Directors CALL TO ORDER – Chair Eastley called the meeting of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority (Authority) Board of Directors to order at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was held at the Churchill County Administration Building at 155 North Taylor Street, Fallon, Nevada. Teleconference services were also available. Chair Eastley began by welcoming Commissioner Ancho to her first meeting as a Board member, welcoming back Commissioner Steve Stork and Bill Butts, and acknowledged Senator Ira Hansen and Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen in attendance. Directors Present: Churchill County – Norm Frey; Commissioner Pete Olsen; Bjorn Selinder; Jim Barbee (Alternate) Elko County – Commissioner Demar Dahl; Commissioner Rex Steninger Esmeralda County – Nancy Boland (Vice Chair) Eureka County – Commissioner J.J. Goicoechea; Jake Tibbitts (Alternate) Lander County – Commissioner Judith Allan; Commissioner Kathleen Ancho; Frank Whitman Nye County – Midge Carver; Joni Eastley (Chair); Commissioner John Koenig (via teleconference) Pershing County – Roger Mancebo; James Evans; Commissioner Rob McDougal White Pine County – Bill Butts; Gary Perea (via teleconference); Commissioner Steve Stork Jeff Fontaine – Executive Director Alex Tanchek – Executive Assistant Others Present: Leana Litten Carey - The Progressive Rancher Magazine Carl Clinger Patrick Donnelly – Center for Biological Diversity Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen Senator Ira Hansen Simeon Herskovits (via teleconference) Michael Johnson – Churchill County Kathleen “Neena” Laxalt Kevan Laxalt Chris Mahannah – Mahannah and Associates Kerri Jean Ormerod – University of Nevada, Reno Kyle Roerink – Great Basin Water Network Omar Saucedo – Southern Nevada Water Authority Laurel Saito – The Nature Conservancy Mark Sivazlian – Nevada Division of Water Resources PUBLIC COMMENT – No public comment. 1 PRESENTATION ON IMPLICATIONS OF STATE ENGINEER RULING NO. 6446 ON SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY’S APPLICATIONS FOR WATER RIGHTS IN SPRING, CAVE, DRY LAKE AND DELAMAR VALLEYS. – Chris Mahannah, a public engineering consultant for Churchill County, provided a presentation on the implications of the State Engineer Rule No. 6446. Mr. Mahannah stated, while he supports the Authority in their efforts opposing the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s pipeline project, language in recent court rulings needing to be considered when proceeding. Mr. Mahannah also stated the information and data provided in the presentation was reviewed and concurred with by the State Engineer. In recent rulings, the courts stated a recalculation of water available for appropriation from Spring Valley assume the basin will reach equilibrium between discharge and recharge in a “reasonable time,” with no bookends relating to what constitutes a “reasonable time.” Mr. Mahannah stated his belief it would create ambiguity that may have implications for basins throughout the state, specifically with groundwater projects in Dixie Valley. Mr. Mahannah continued, providing details on the process for groundwater flow recharge and discharge, specifically as it related to areas within the Central Nevada region. Mr. Mahannah discussed the relationship between recharge and groundwater wells, as well as the relationship the wells have with aquifers. Models presented by Mr. Mahannah showed the relationship with flow, distribution, evaporation, storage, recharge, discharge, and the removal of water from surface sources. Mr. Mahannah showed examples of phreatophytes in the Dixie Valley and the density of vegetation that can impact recharge. As it relates to court rulings, Mr. Mahannah discussed comments he received from the State Engineer that, given the language of the rulings, he had to deny applications because of the inability to demonstrate recharge equilibrium within a reasonable time. Mr. Mahannah stated, if the court ruling persists and becomes standard, applications in the Dixie Valley would not be viable. Mr. Mahannah went on, reiterating recharge to full capture can, in some cases, take a millennia or more, and that no on-size-fits-all approach can be utilized to fit water capture. Forcing reasonable capture times could affect all groundwater appropriations, Mr. Mahannah stated, suggesting detrimental impacts to users when taken to its extreme limits. Mr. Mahannah also noted a comment from the State Engineer regarding the potential for increased federal control through riparian systems being introduced to prior appropriation, which may create further problems for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Highway Conditions Introduction
    Chapter 4 Highway Conditions Introduction The Ebbetts Pass National Scenic Byway (NBS) began as a trail that American Indians most likely used for trade and a hunting access route, and was later utilized by fur trappers. By the early to mid 1800’s pioneers and miners crossed over the pass. With the discovery of silver and the demand for more supplies to be delivered to the region, so came improvements to the road. Today, the highway itself is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The road twists you further into the mountains narrowing with no centerline near Lake Alpine as it separates both the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Wildernesses, luring the traveler farther away from society. The journey takes one both physically and psychologically closer to wildness. Beyond the crest of Ebbetts Pass, the descent winds through a rugged volcanic landscape overlooking the canyons below. This asphalt ribbon transitions back to a distinct, 2-lane highway with a centerline when you reach the floor of Silver Creek, just east of Silver Creek Campground. This portion of the byway is steep, narrow, and windy, and is not suitable for semi trucks, buses, and most Recreational Vehicles (RV’s). It is best left for smaller vehicle travel. Average Daily Traffic CalTrans collects data annually that reflects the number of vehicles that travel along Highway 4 in a given month. This data is compiled into average annual daily traffic counts (AADT). AADT numbers are calculated using electronic highway counters, determining the yearly figure and dividing by 365 days/year.
    [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]
  • California Water Trust Network
    RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Geographic Response Plan
    Carson River Geographic Response Plan Final Alpine County, California and Douglas, Carson City, Lyon, Churchill Counties, Nevada April 2006 Prepared by: Carson & Walker Rivers Area Committee (CWRAC) Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 Acknowledgements The Carson River Geographic Response Plan (CRGRP) was developed through a collaborative effort between the local, state, and federal government agencies listed below. Local Government • Carson City Fire • Douglas County Emergency Management • East Fork Fire and Paramedic District • Lyon County Sheriff’s Office • Mason Valley Fire • Mono County Conservation District State Government • California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response • California Office of Emergency Services • Nevada Division of Emergency Management • Nevada Division of Environmental Protection • Nevada Highway Patrol Tribal Government • Washo Tribe Federal Government • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Department of Agriculture Carson Valley Conservation District • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX o U.S. EPA Region IX Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), Ecology & Environment, Inc. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 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. 2) Make the initial notification to Dispatch by dialing 911. Dispatch will make the Mandatory Notifications. A list of county dispatch centers is on page R-2 of this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006
    DRAFT Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 DRAFT Table of Contents Page 10.0 CARSON RIVER AQUATIC TRAIL...........................................................................1 10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CARSON RIVER..................................................................... 1 10.1.1 River Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 1 10.1.2 General River Terminology.............................................................................................. 3 10.1.3 River Anatomy and Common River Hazards.................................................................... 4 10.1.4 Hazardous Dams on the Carson River............................................................................. 5 10.2 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 10.2.1 The State of Nevada.......................................................................................................... 5 10.2.2 Property
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Watershed Adaptive Stewardship Plan, Part 1
    CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: CarsonCarson WaterWater SSubconservancyubconservancy DDistrictistrict Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada CarsonCarson RiverRiver CoalitionCoalition CarsonCarson ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict DaytonDayton ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict WesternWestern NevadaNevada ResourceResource ConservationConservation andand DevelopmentDevelopment NaturalNatural ResourcesResources ConservationConservation ServiceService LyonLyon CountyCounty GISGIS DepartmentDepartment C.G.C.G. CelioCelio andand SonsSons Co.Co. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning June 2006 DRAFT CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: Carson Water Subconservancy District Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada Lyon County GIS Department Carson Valley Conservation District Dayton Valley Conservation District Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Natural Resource Conservation Service C.G. Celio and Sons Co. In Cooperation with: Carson River Coalition Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning May 2007 Carson River Watershed Stewardship Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following were
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment
    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Prepared For: Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance P. O. Box 7989 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 Prepared By: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology 1572 East College Parkway, Suite 162 115 Limekiln Road Carson City, Nevada 89706 Santa Cruz, California 95062 River Run Consulting C. G. Celio & Sons P.O. Box 8538 P.O. Box 734 Truckee, California 96162 Minden, Nevada 89423 June, 2004 Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Copies of this report may be requested from: SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE P. O. BOX 7989 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 (530) 542-4546 MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING 1572 EAST COLLEGE PARKWAY, SUITE 162 CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89706 (775) 888-9992 Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through a contract with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13) and any amendments thereto for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment project was performed by a consulting team comprised of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, River Run Consulting, Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, and C.G. Celio & Sons. MACTEC acted as the prime contractor, working directly with representatives of the Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Decree
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVAD A THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No . D-183 BRT Plaintiff, vs. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR COMPANY, a corporation, et al . , Defendants . FINAL DECRE E FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , TABULATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FINDINGS OF FAC T I. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to thi s proceeding . II. The Carson River and its tributaries are interstate streams and the waters of th e Carson River and its tributaries are fully appropriated . III. Under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the United States, acting by th e Secretary of the Interior, on July 2, 1902, withdrew from public entry, excepting under the home - stead laws in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the lands required for the government' s first reclamation project, now known as the Newlands Project . IV. The United States has diligently proceeded with the construction of the Newland s Project and has expended over Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in that construction . The works s o constructed have been used for many years for the storage of Carson River water and the distribu- tion thereof to Project lands . The principal structure of the Project is the Lahontan Reservoi r which was completed at a cost of approximately One Million lour Hundred Thousand Dollar s ($1,400,000) . Lahontan Reservoir has a capacity of 295,149 acre-feet to the spillway crest . With 20 inch flashboards on the crest, the capacity is 317,280 acre-feet .
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2021 Slink Fire by Judy Warren Wickwire Historic Vaquero Camp Was Threatened by the Slink Fire in August
    FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY PO Box 431 Markleeville, CA 96120 Newsletter winter 2021 Slink Fire By Judy Warren Wickwire Historic Vaquero Camp was threatened by the Slink Fire in August. The FS crew wrapped For the all the buildings in a fire retardant foil wrap. We are grateful to the FS for protecting these preservation of the important historical buildings. Dedication to this and moving the allotment permitted sheep scenic, recreational from the area was labor intensive. All the and historic use of building were saved at Vaquero Camp and the Hope Valley and Little Antelope Pack Station buildings and stock Alpine County’s in Coleville survived the fire. eastern Sierra slope. The Slink Fire was managed by the Humbolt- Toiyabe National Forest in coordination with the BLM Bishop Field Office. The lightning BOARD OF DIRECTORS strike burned 27,000 acres and started August 29 in the Slinkard Valley near Coleville. The Friends of Hope Valley want to thank you for your past support. We hope that you will Debbi Waldear continue your membership in this non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of President Fire crews, heavy equipment and helicopters were stationed at the Heenan Lake parking historic, recreational and scenic values of Hope Valley and Sierra Nevada's eastern slope area, while crews worked the fire lines in Bagley and Silver King Valleys. The fire extended in Alpine County. With your help we can continue to address the sensitive environmental Jim Donald south towards Coyote Valley Creek and into the Carson Iceberg Wilderness area. concerns of the eastern Sierra.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Water Science
    USGS Water Science and monitoring in the Carson River Basin Kip K. Allander; Supervisory Hydrologist; NV Water Science Center [email protected] Joint Water Workshop – Churchill and Lyon County Commissioners February 12, 2018, Fallon, NV Carson Water Science Overview . Water for the Seasons and hydrologic models. Groundwater monitoring network. Streamgage network. 2017 runoff summary – a drought busting year. Water for the Seasons Carson and Truckee Rivers . Large collaborative project. Understand changes to water resources resulting from future climate variability. Carson Headwater Surface-water Models . Test resiliency of current management framework. Test alternative management approaches. Water for the Seasons Carson and Truckee Rivers . Truckee River: TROA – DRI & UNR . Carson River: Alpine Decree – USGS Carson Headwater Surface-water Models . Carson River flows into Lahontan Reservoir determine diversions from Truckee River Water for the Seasons Carson River Basin Carson River Team: Richard Niswonger – Carson Team Lead Michael Dettinger – Climate projections Murphy Gardner – Headwater models Carson Headwater Surface-water Models Wes Kitlasten – Carson Valley model Eric Morway – Middle Carson model Carson Headwater Flow Models West Fork 66 mi2 East Fork 357 mi2 West fork Carson River near Woodfords. Photo: M. Gardner Streamflow is simulated for climate scenarios, results are passed to downstream models Downstream models use simulated streamflows to evaluate downstream water resources and changes in allocations and deliveries. Downstream models also test different management strategies to adapt to changing supply characteristics. East fork Carson River near Markleeville. Photo: M. Gardner Carson Valley Hydrologic Model Middle Carson Hydrologic Model . Streamflow from Carson R. at Carson gage to below Lahontan gage. Lahontan Reservoir. Volume, level, ET.
    [Show full text]
  • East Carson River Strategy Carson Ranger District
    East Carson River Strategy Carson Ranger District United States Department of East Carson River Agriculture Strategy Forest Service Carson Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National July 2007 Forest, Alpine County, California and Douglas County, Nevada For Information Contact: David Loomis Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 1536 South Carson St. Carson City, NV 897903 775 884-8132 East Carson River Strategy Carson Ranger District 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. East Carson River Strategy Carson Ranger District East Carson River Strategy Carson Ranger District Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 Objective.......................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts
    4.0 Cumulative Impacts Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement January 2020 Environmental Impact Statement Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..............................................................................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS FOR EACH RESOURCE ............................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 DEFINE THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES AND TIMEFRAME FOR ANALYSIS ..................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 DESCRIBE CURRENT RESOURCE CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ........................................................................ 4-3 4.2.5 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 1, 2, OR 3 THAT MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .. ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.6 IDENTIFY OTHER ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT AFFECT EACH RESOURCE ................. 4-4 4.2.7 ANALYZE POTENTIAL
    [Show full text]