DOCSLIB.ORG

Wsmp 2040 Water Supply Management Program 2040

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wsmp 2040 Water Supply Management Program 2040 VOLUME II FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SCH # 2008052006 WSMP 2040 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2040 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OCTOBER 2009 Table of Contents Volume I 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the Response to Comments Document 1.2. Environmental Review Process 1.3. Report Organization 2. Comments and Responses 2.1. Master Responses 2.1.1 WSMP 2040 2.1.2 Program-level EIR Analysis 2.1.3 Demand Study 2.1.4 Enlarge Pardee Reservoir Component 2.2. Individual Comments and Responses 2.2.1 Federal Agencies 2.2.2 State Agencies 2.2.3 Local Agencies and Utilities 2.2.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Volume II 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Individual Letters 2.3 Comments from Public Meetings and Responses 2.3.1 Lodi 2.3.2 Sutter Creek 2.3.3 Oakland 2.3.4 Walnut Creek 2.3.5 San Andreas 2.4 Late Comments Submitted After Close of Public Review Period 2.4.1 Federal Agencies 2.4.2 State Agencies 2.4.3 Local Agencies, Utilities and Elected Officials 2.4.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Individual Letters EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments Volume III 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Handwritten Letters 2.4.6 Comments from EBMUD Board Workshop 12 3. Revisions to the WSMP 2040 Draft PEIR EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments Individual Letters EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments From: Friends of the River on behalf of Alexander Gaguine Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 10:13 PM To: Francis, Thomas Subject: Don't raise Pardee Dam Mar 18, 2009 Mr. Thomas Francis 375 11th Street MS 407 Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Mr. Francis, Please do not enlarge the Pardee and Lower Bear reservoirs downing a segment of the Mokelumne River. Highway 49 is one of the most beautiful roads in California. One of its charms - and one of it's most educational aspects - is the many intriguing canyons that the road passes in and out of. And at the bottom of these canyons there always used to be a beautiful river. People from all over the state and the world would slow way down or stop and get out to look at the wonder and beauty of the rivers of the Sierra Nevada flowing out to the valley. It was a free and magnificent gift to people who may never even have given any thought to the geography and hydrology of our home. It was an important way people learned where they lived. One by one those beautiful river crossings have disappeared - the Merced at Bagby, the Stanislaus at Melones, the Tuolumne at Jacksonville. Visitors can come to the foothills and not even know there are such things as rivers. The Mokelumne at Highway 49 would be one more such loss. Please don't take it away. Please revise the Plan to eliminate the Pardee and Lower Bear Reservoir enlargements. The Plan should focus on increased conservation, recycling, and drought year rationing instead. Sincerely, Mr. Alexander Gaguine 220 Laguna St Santa Cruz, CA 95060-6108 Alexander Gaguine (AGag) AGag-1. EBMUD acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir and Enlarge Lower Bear Reservoir components of the WSMP 2040. AGag-2. Impacts on view from State Route 49 are described in Impact 5.2.I-1 of the Draft PEIR and are characterized potentially significant. Visual impacts will be fully examined in a project-level EIR when and if the District decides to move forward with project-level for the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component. AGag-3. EBMUD recognizes the value of water conservation, recycling and rationing, and has included them as components in the Preferred Portfolio. Please see the Master Response on the WSMP 2040. EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:56 PM To: Francis, Thomas Subject: Please drop plans to expand Pardee Reservoir Dear East Bay MUD and local officials: I am grateful that the board and concerned citizens are extensively discussing this important issue of building a new dam. I believe it is critical to exchange ideas and to think outside of the box. We need to examine the much bigger and longer term issue of water usage and future needs. Building another dam would be like applying a band aid to a problem that in the long run will not meet a dramatically rapid growing population. I urge you to drop your plans to build a new Pardee Dam and expand Pardee Reservoir as part of the EBMUD 2040 water plan. With the extensive and rapid melting of our glaciers and the consequence of the raising level of our ocean, why not put all this money into a desalination plant right where the water is needed without destroying miles of river. Enforcing conservation and better use of our water would also make a dramatic difference in wasteful habits. There are other creative solutions to this problem. Let's not be short sighted and rush into a plan will not solve the issue in the long run. This Pardee Dam plan will provide relatively little new water, and harm miles of the Mokelumne River. Enlarging Pardee will drown a part of the Mokelumne popular for kayaking and fishing, submerge or require removal of the historic Middle Bar Bridge and river access facilities, inundate important cultural resources, require construction of a new Highway 49 bridge, and seasonally inundate nearly a mile of river proposed for National Wild and Scenic River designation by the Bureau of Land Management. Enlarging Pardee will destroy decades of work and investment by public agencies and local residents to improve recreational use of the Mokelumne River, thwarting local efforts to use the river for economic development. Creating dead-end roads approaching the river will cut off a critical fire evacuation route for residents of Middle Bar and Gwin Mine roads. There is no reason to destroy more miles of a popular river used by locals and visitors alike and its fish habitat. You can avoid the environmental, social and economic cost by using your water supplies, including the new American River water supply, more efficiently. Please leave these miles of the Mokelumne a river for future generations. alice giuliani 2681 mason road Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245 Alice Giuliani (AGiu) AGiu-1. EBMUD acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component of the WSMP 2040 and general opposition to expanded reservoirs and new dams as a water supply solution. The alternative development process included an in-depth evaluation of over 50 components and a range of portfolios before the Board selected the Preferred Portfolio. Please see the Master Response on the WSMP 2040 for a discussion of the Preferred Portfolio and alternatives. AGiu-2. EBMUD acknowledges the commenter’s support for desalination in the San Francisco Bay Area. EBMUD also supports increased water conservation and has included a high level of conservation in the WSMP 2040. Please see the Master Response on the WSMP 2040 for a discussion of the Preferred Portfolio and alternatives. Please see response Form Letter 2-2. AGiu-3. Please see response Form Letter 3-2. AGiu-4. Please see response Form Letter 3-3. AGiu-5. Please see response Form Letter 2-5. AGiu-6. Please see response Form Letter 2-6. EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments From: Ann Haruki-Pinedo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:04 AM To: Francis, Thomas Subject: We support continuing the current fee structure and not adding to it. 1139 Garden Lane Lafayette, Ca 94549 Ann Haruki-Pinedo (AHa) AHa-1. Comment acknowledged. Please see the response to SCSFB2-17 for a discussion of EBMUD’s rate pricing structure. EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments From: Addie Jacobson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:28 AM To: Dianne and Ron Cc: Francis, Thomas; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alice Trinkl; Bunny Firebaugh; John Trinkl; Susan Robinson; Susan Shoaff Subject: Re: PARDEE RESEVOIR ENLARGEMENT Thanks, Ron. Great letter. By the way, I attended the public meeting in Sutter Creek last night. Pretty powerful. Many participants asked for a public meeting in Calaveras and promised there would be a huge turnout. So-- if that happens -- I hope we can help produce that big turnout. Addie On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Dianne and Ron <[email protected]> wrote: March 16, 2009 EBMUD Water Supply Improvements Division Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Mr. Francis: I oppose the Pardee Reservoir enlargement proposed in EBMUD's Water Supply Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. The justification for increasing Pardee’s water storage capacity is specious, shortsighted and, in the broad perspective, not cost effective. Natural resources are not limitless, even if they are renewable. The Mokelumne River’s capacity to provide water must be determined relevant to all of its users and subsequent ramifications. The era of dam building and/or expansion is archaic, especially when taking into consideration the total dollar cost, the cost to the environment, ecosystem, the cost to the local economy, the cost of destroying river usage, the cost of destroying historical/cultural heritage, to name a few.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Campground (2869 Golden Torch Rd, Tel
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California Byway Highway # "Route 4--Ebbetts Pass Road" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Arnold, California Community of Arnold, California, located in Calaveras County, California. This is where Ebbetts Pass Byway starts.M eadowmont Golf Course, a 9 hole short layout Golf Course, on Ebbetts Pass Highway Route #4. Altitude: 3950 feet 0.4 Dunbar Road Dunbar Road, Blagen Road, White Pines, California, White Pines Lake, San Antonio Circle Altitude: 4029 feet 1.5 Linda Drive Linda Drive, Blue Lake Springs Drive, Sequoia Woods Country Club, in Arnold, Calaveras County, California Altitude: 4265 feet 1.7 Upper Moran Road Upper Moran Road, Oak Tree Parkway, Beaver Creek, North Fork of Stanislaus River, Huge, Bulk trees located in Calaveras Big Trees State Park, in California. Altitude: 4311 feet 3.2 North Grove North Grove, Oak Trees Parkway, Scenic Calavars Big Trees State Park, Tall, Big Trees offer a grand natural scenic area. Altitude: 4682 feet 3.4 Forest Route 7N08 Forest Route 7N08, Summit Level Road, Railroad Flat Road to Independence, California, leads through the Calavaras Big Trees State Park Altitude: 4777 feet 4.2 Dardanelle Vista Snowshoe Lake, Stanilaus River Altitude: 5033 feet 5.3 Snowshoe Springs, Community of Snowshoe Springs, California. Golden Pines RV Resort California & Campground (2869 Golden Torch Rd, Tel. 209-795-2820). Altitude: 4941 feet 5.8 Dorrington, California A resort town on State Route #4, within the Calaveras Big Trees State Park, along Ebbetts Pass Road Byway, California. Altitude: 4783 feet 6.6 Camp Connell, CA Community of Camp Connell, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California
    The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph of more than a dozen salt-evaporation basins at Hams salt spring, which have been carved by Native Americans in granitic bedrock. Saline water flows in light-colored streambed on left. Photograph by J.S. Moore, 2009. The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California By James G. Moore, Michael F. Diggles, William C. Evans, and Karin Klemic Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Moore, J.G., Diggles, M.F., Evans, W.C., and Klemic, K., 2017, The saltiest springs in the Sierra Nevada, California: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report
    Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report July 2013 Prepared by: Jacobs Associates 465 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Distribution To: Bilgin Atalay East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, CA 94607 From: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Todd Crampton, CEG AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Reviewed By: Michael T. McRae, DEng, PE, GE Jacobs Associates Jacobs Associates -ii- Rev. No. 1 / July 2013 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Tunnel Inspections and Evaluation of Seepage .............................................................................. 7 4.1 Previous Tunnel Inspections ............................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Tunnel Inspection, 1962 ......................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Tunnel Inspection, 1982 (from the EBMUD 2003 Seepage Report) ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District Power Line Reliability Project
    Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District Power Line Reliability Project Project Description: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action KMPUD Project Description page 1 of 31 Introduction ____________________________________________ This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Kirkwood Meadows Power Line Reliability Project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared. Alternatives Considered in Detail __________________________ Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest Service developed four (4) alternative proposals that achieve the purpose and need differently than the proposed action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No Action alternative. The proposed action, alternatives, and no action alternative are described in detail below. Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No power line or supporting structures would be constructed to accomplish the purpose and need, and the Kirkwood community and ski resort would continue to be powered primarily by diesel generated electricity. Currently low sulfur dyed diesel fuel #2 is trucked into Kirkwood roughly two to three times per week during the winter months and once per week during the summer months. The number of trips depends on the consumption. Snowmaking, for instance, may consume as much as 5,000 gallons in a 24-hour period. There have been fuel spills during transport and transfer of fuel to the storage tanks.
    [Show full text]
  • 11313500 Salt Springs Reservoir Near West Point, CA San Joaquin River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2007 11313500 Salt Springs Reservoir near West Point, CA San Joaquin River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 38°29′55″, long 120°12′52″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in NW ¼ SE ¼ sec.33, T.8 N., R.16 E., Calaveras County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18040012, in Eldorado National Forest, near center of Salt Springs Dam on North Fork Mokelumne River, 1.8 mi upstream from Cole Creek, and 18 mi northeast of West Point. DRAINAGE AREA.--169 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--March 1931 to current year. Prior to October 1964, records published as usable contents. REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 1930: Drainage area, WDR CA-00-3: 1999 (month-end gage heights). GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Prior to Oct. 1, 1991, nonrecording gage read once daily. Datum of gage is NGVD of 1929 (levels by Pacific Gas and Electric Company). COOPERATION.--Records were collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, under general supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project no. 137. REMARKS.--Reservoir is formed by concrete-faced rock-fill dam, completed in 1931; storage began in March 1931. Capacity, 141,857 acre-ft, between elevations 3,667.75 ft, outlet drain, and 3,958.0 ft, top of radial gates. Storage of 1,860 acre-ft available for release to river only. Water is released through Salt Springs Powerplant (station 11313510) just downstream from dam and discharged into Tiger Creek Powerplant Conduit (station 11314000). Figures given, including extremes, represent total contents. See schematic diagram of Mokelumne River Basin available from the California Water Science Center.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the regulations pertaining to, and the existing conditions of, surface water, groundwater, water quality, and water supply existing within the planning area, and an evaluation of impacts associated with implementation of the Draft General Plan. 4.9.1 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. By establishing water quality standards, issuing permits, monitoring discharges, and managing polluted runoff, the CWA seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of surface waters to support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” EPA is the federal agency with primary authority for implementing regulations adopted pursuant to CWA, and has delegated the state of California as the authority to implement and oversee most of the programs authorized or adopted for CWA compliance through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 described below. Water Quality Criteria and Standards EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan Amador Fire Safe Council
    2016 High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan Amador Fire Safe Council High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 19, 2016 DATE: September 19, 2016 TO: Amador County Board of Supervisors FROM: Amador Fire Safe Council SUBJ: High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan It is with great pleasure that the Amador Fire Safe Council (AFSC) submits the attached High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan (HCCWPP) for approval by the Amador Board of Supervisors. We recommend your approval. This plan is the culmination of many years of work achieved through Title III funding. It incorporates all the public input received during the review process. The plan is the result of cooperation between the USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, CAL FIRE, Sierra Pacific Industries, PG&E, Amador Fire Protection District, and many volunteers, not the least of which is John Hofmann, Natural Resource Advisor to the Amador County Board of Supervisors. John Hofmann worked tirelessly to complete the HCCWPP as he understood that active forest management is the solution to virtually all forest health challenges. For this reason, the AFSC wishes to dedicate this plan to John Hofmann. We will be bringing the CWPP before the Board for final approval action on September 27, 2016. We hope the Board of Supervisors agrees with our recommendation for approval of the plan and its dedication High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 19, 2016 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Plan Introduction – an introduction to the document and the High country Planning Unit .................... 1 Chapter 2 – High Country Planning Process – summarizes the public process used to develop this Fire Plan ...
    [Show full text]
  • Walter R. Mclean Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7779n9g3 No online items Walter R. McLean papers Processed by the Water Resources Collections and Archives staff. Special Collections & University Archives The UCR Library P.O. Box 5900 University of California Riverside, California 92517-5900 Phone: 951-827-3233 Fax: 951-827-4673 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/libraries/special-collections-university-archives © 2008 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Walter R. McLean papers WRCA 077 1 Descriptive Summary Title: Walter R. McLean papers Date (bulk): bulk 1930-1968 Collection Number: WRCA 077 Extent: 19 linear feet40 boxes Repository: Rivera Library. Special Collections Department. Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Languages: English. Access Collection is open for research. Publication Rights Copyright has not been assigned to the Water Resources Collections and Archives. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Director of Distinctive Collections. Permission for publication is given on behalf of the Water Resources Collections and Archives as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the reader. Preferred Citation [identification of item], [date if possible]. Walter R. McLean papers (WRCA 077). Water Resources Collections and Archives. Special Collections & University Archives, University of California, Riverside. Biographical Information Walter Reginald McLean, the son of Walter Reginald and Sarah Jane (Patterson) McLean, was born on July 16, 1903 in the town of Broderick in Yolo County, California. His distinguished career embraces fifty-three years of service to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, plus fifteen years as a consultant to water-related projects in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2018 Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct Sara Chalian San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Chalian, Sara, "Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct" (2018). Master's Theses. 4895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.a7y5-fy24 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4895 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Sara Chalian May 2018 © 2018 Sara Chalian ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY May 2018 Laura Sullivan-Green, Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Manny Gabet, Ph.D. Geology Department Yogesh Prashar, P.E., G.E. Associate Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian The East Bay Municipal Utility District provides water to the eastern region of the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area
    Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area NPS California Science Project The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves ~1.3 million people in a 332 square mile region. The population is the service area is expected to increase to ~1.6 million by 2030. EBMUD is a publicly owned utility established in 1921 by the California Legislature to provide EBMUD water service. EBMUD serves 20 cities and unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. 90% of EBMUD water comes from the protected Mokelumne River watershed. This 627 square mile watershed is located NE of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on the western slopes of the Sierra. EBMUD Snowmelt and runoff from parts of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties contribute to the Mokelumne watershed. EBMUD Most of the watershed is protected and undeveloped - consists of open space and forest land. EBMUD The waters of the Mokelumne River are collected in the Pardee Reservoir by the Pardee Dam (38 miles NE of Stockton). Its capacity is equivalent to a 10- month supply for 1.3 million customers. This reservoir has a maximum capacity of 10 months water supply for EBMUD EBMUD Drinking water supplied to the East Bay is transferred from the Pardee Reservoir by the 2.2 mile Pardee tunnel to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The Mokelumne Aqueducts transport water 82 miles to the East Bay. The Aqueducts consist of 3 steel pipelines ranging in diameter from 5 feet 5 inches to 7 feet 3 inches in diameter. The Aqueducts carry 200 million gallons/day (MGD) by gravity flow but can be increased to 325 MGD with pumping.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mokelumne River Salmonid Redd Survey Report: October 2011 Through February 2012
    Lower Mokelumne River Salmonid Redd Survey Report: October 2011 through February 2012 June 2013 Robyn Bilski and Ed Rible East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1 Winemasters Way, Lodi, CA 95240 Key words: lower Mokelumne River, salmonid, fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus mykiss, redd survey, spawning, superimposition, gravel enhancement ___________________________________________________________________________ Abstract Weekly fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and winter-run steelhead/rainbow trout (O. mykiss) spawning surveys were conducted on the lower Mokelumne River from 19 October 2011 through 28 February 2012. Estimated total escapement during the 2011/2012 season was 18,596 Chinook salmon. The estimated number of in-river spawners was 2,674 Chinook salmon. The first salmon redd was detected on 19 October 2011. During the surveys, a total of 564 salmon redds were identified. Forty-three (7.6%) Chinook salmon redds were superimposed by other Chinook salmon redds and 336 (59.6%) redds were located within gravel enhancement areas. The reach from Camanche Dam to Mackville Road (reach 6) contained 512 (90.2%) salmon redds and the reach from Mackville Road to Elliott Road (reach 5) contained 52 (9.8%) salmon redds. The highest number of Chinook salmon redd detections (161) took place on 22 November 2011. The first O. mykiss redd was found on 22 November 2011. Sixty-eight O. mykiss redds were identified. Nine O. mykiss redds were superimposed on Chinook salmon redds and one O. mykiss redd was superimposed on another O. mykiss redd. Thirty-one (45.6%) O. mykiss redds were located within gravel enhancement areas. Reach 6 contained 51 (75%) redds and reach 5 contained 17 (25%) redds.
    [Show full text]
  • CAWP DEIR Application DRAFT
    Central Amador Water Project (CAWP) Water Right Application Environmental Impact Report DRAFT SCH #2016092008 Lead Agency: Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Contact: Gene Mancebo 209.223.3018 Prepared By: May 2017 Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1 ES-1 Introduction .............................................................................................. ES-1 ES-2 Project Location ....................................................................................... ES-2 ES-3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................... ES-2 ES-4 CEQA Objectives ..................................................................................... ES-2 ES-5 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................ ES-2 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Compliance with CEQA ............................................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 State Requirements ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]