DOCSLIB.ORG

SFPUC Calaveras Dam Replacement Project DEIR December 21, 2009 Technical Comments on Fishery Resources Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SFPUC Calaveras Dam Replacement Project DEIR December 21, 2009 Technical Comments on Fishery Resources Issues Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses Volume 6 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT San Francisco Planning Department File No. 2005.0161E State Clearinghouse No. 2005102102 Draft EIR Publication Date: October 6, 2009 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: November 10, 2009 in Fremont, CA November 12, 2009 in San Francisco, CA December 14, 2009 in Sunol, CA Draft EIR Public Comment Period: October 6, 2009 through December 21, 2009 Comments and Responses Publication Date: January 5, 2011 Final EIR Certification Date: January 27, 2011 City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Planning Department Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses Volume 6 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT San Francisco Planning Department File No. 2005.0161E State Clearinghouse No. 2005102102 Draft EIR Publication Date: October 6, 2009 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: November 10, 2009 in Fremont, CA November 12, 2009 in San Francisco, CA December 14, 2009 in Sunol, CA Draft EIR Public Comment Period: October 6, 2009 through December 21, 2009 Comments and Responses Publication Date: January 5, 2011 Final EIR Certification Date: January 27, 2011 City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Planning Department CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT −−− COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUMES 4 AND 5 8. INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................... 8-1 8.1 Purpose of the Comments and Responses Document ........................................ 8-1 8.2 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 8-2 8.3 Document Organization ..................................................................................... 8-3 8.4 Organization of Comments and List of Commenters ......................................... 8-5 9. PROJECT VARIANT ........................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 Introduction to CDRP Variant ............................................................................ 9-1 9.2 Description of CDRP Variant ............................................................................. 9-3 9.3 Environmental Effects of CDRP Variant ......................................................... 9-40 9.4 Mitigation Measures Applicable to the CDRP Variant .................................. 9-161 9.5 Cumulative Impacts of the CDRP Variant ..................................................... 9-162 9.6 CDRP Variant and Consideration of Alternatives .......................................... 9-179 9.7 Summary of Impacts of the Variant Compared to the Draft EIR Project ....... 9-181 9.8 References ...................................................................................................... 9-198 10. MASTER RESPONSES ................................................................................. 10-1 10.1 Potential Future Enlargement of Calaveras Reservoir ..................................... 10-1 10.2 Baseline Used in the Environmental Analysis ................................................. 10-9 10.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 10-21 10.4 Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 10-63 10.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 10-111 11. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Federal, State, Regional, and Local Agencies ............................................... 11.1-1 11.2 Organizations ................................................................................................ 11.2-1 11.3 Individuals ..................................................................................................... 11.3-1 12. DRAFT EIR REVISIONS ................................................................................ 12-1 12.1 Changes in Response to Comments ................................................................. 12-1 12.2 Staff-Initiated Text Changes .......................................................................... 12-65 VOLUME 6 APPENDICES L. Comment Letters M. Transcripts of Draft EIR Public Hearings N. Proposed Instream Flow Schedules and Adaptive Management Implementation Plan O. Variant Air Quality Modeling P. Hydrology Modeling for the Variant Comments and Responses i 2005.0161E/Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure 9.1: Location of CDRP Variant Project Elements Differing from the Draft EIR Project ....................................................................................................... 9-13 Figure 9.2: Proposed Fish Screen at Alameda Creek Diversion Tunnel – CDRP Variant .............................................................................................................. 9-15 Figure 9.3: Proposed Fish Ladder at the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam – CDRP Variant .............................................................................................................. 9-18 Figure 9.4: Proposed Intake Tower Modifications – CDRP Variant .................................. 9-20 Figure 9.5: PG&E Power Line Upgrade Alignment – CDRP Variant ................................ 9-23 Figure 9.6: Work Areas for Proposed Fisheries Improvements at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam – CDRP Variant ...................................................................... 9-28 Figure 9.7a: Modeled Calaveras Reservoir Storage and Releases to Calaveras Creek, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ............................................................................. 9-90 Figure 9.7b: Modeled Calaveras Reservoir Storage and Releases to Calaveras Creek, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ............................................................................. 9-91 Figure 9.8: Modeled Storage in Calaveras Reservoir, Annual Average and Range in Storage Volume ................................................................................................ 9-92 Figure 9.9a: Modeled Flow in Alameda Creek Downstream of the ACDD, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ............................................................................. 9-96 Figure 9.9b: Modeled Flow in Alameda Creek Downstream of the ACDD, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ............................................................................. 9-97 Figure 9.10a: Analysis of 15-Minute USGS Gage Data from Alameda Creek above the ACDD and Flow Past the Dam (March 1996, December 1996, and February 1999) – CDRP Variant ...................................................................... 9-98 Figure 9.10b: Analysis of 15-Minute USGS Gage Data from Alameda Creek above the ACDD and Flow Past the Dam (February 2000, December 2002, and March 2006) – CDRP Variant .......................................................................... 9-99 Figure 9.11a: Modeled Flow in Alameda Creek Downstream of the Calaveras Creek Confluence, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ....................................................... 9-104 Figure 9.11b: Modeled Flow in Alameda Creek Downstream of the Calaveras Creek Confluence, 1920-2002 – CDRP Variant ....................................................... 9-105 Figure 10.1.1: Dam Cross-Section ........................................................................................... 10-7 Figure 10.4.1a: Proposed CDRP Variant Flow Schedules in Alameda Creek Below ACDD............................................................................................................. 10-71 Figure 10.4.1b: Proposed CDRP Variant Flow Schedules Below Calaveras Dam ................. 10-72 Figure 10.4.2a: Relationship of Spawning Habitat to Flow for Rainbow Trout and Steelhead in Alameda Creek Upstream of the Calaveras Creek Confluence ..................................................................................................... 10-76 Figure 10.4.2b Relationship of Spawning Habitat to Flow for Rainbow Trout and Steelhead in Alameda Creek Downstream of the Calaveras Creek Confluence ..................................................................................................... 10-77 Figure 10.4.3a: Map Depicting Rearing Habitat Functions Associated with Proposed Final Flow Schedules ..................................................................................... 10-78 Figure 10.4.3b: Map Depicting Spawning Habitat Functions Associated with Proposed Final Flow Schedules ..................................................................................... 10-79 Figure 11.1.1: CDRP Temporary Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Habitat ........ 11.1.3-28 Figure 1: Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and Mitigation Areas Locator Map (New) ............................................................................................. 11.1.15-28 Figure 2: Mitigation Areas and Regional Land Cover (New) ............................... 11.1.15-29 Comments and Responses ii 2005.0161E/Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Table of Contents Attachment A: Photographs of the Calaveras Dam Replacement Dam Project Mitigation Areas: South Calaveras, San Antonio, Sage Canyon, and Goat Rock ... 11.1.15-30 Figure 11.3.1: Average Daily Flow in Alameda Creek above the SFPUC’s Alameda Creek Diversion Dam, 2009-2010 ............................................................ 11.3.14-2 Figure 2.2: SFPUC Water Service
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting
    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones
    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones APPENDIX D: Building Descriptions The purpose of the Building Descriptions is to assist the user in selecting an appropriate type of building when using the Air Conditioning estimating tools. The selected building type should be the one that most closely matches the actual project. These summaries provide the user with the inputs for the typical buildings. Minor variations from these inputs will occur based on differences in building vintage and climate zone. The Building Descriptions are referenced from the 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. It should be noted that the user is required to provide certain inputs for the user’s specific building (e.g. actual conditioned area, city, operating hours, economy cycle, new AC system and new AC system efficiency). The remaining inputs are approximations of the building and are deemed acceptable to the user. If none of the typical building models are determined to be a fair approximation then the user has the option to use the Custom Building approach. The Custom Building option instructs the user how to initiate the Engage Software. The Engage Software is a stand-alone, DOE2 based modeling program. July 16, 2013 D-1 Version 5.0 Prototype Source Activity Area Type Area % Area Simulation Model Notes 1. Assembly DEER Auditorium 33,235 97.8 Thermal Zoning: One zone per activity area. Office 765 2.2 Total 34,000 Model Configuration: Matches 1994 DEER prototype HVAC Systems: The prototype uses Rooftop DX systems, which are changed to Rooftop HP systems for the heat pump efficiency measures.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds
    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds Presentation Summaries (in order of appearance) Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service Steelhead as Threatened Species: The Status of the Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." To assist NMFS apply this definition of "species to Pacific salmon stocks, an interim policy established the use of "evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The listing of steelhead as "threatened" in the California Central Coast resulted from a petition filed in February 1994. In response to the petition, NMFS conducted a West Coast-wide status review to identify all steelhead ESU’s in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. There were two tiers to the review: (1) regional expertise was used to determine the status of all streams with regard to steelhead; and (2) a biological review team was assembled to review the regional team's data. Evidence used in this process included data on precipitation, annual hydrographs, monthly peak flows, water temperatures, native freshwater fauna, major vegetation types, ocean upwelling, and smolt and adult out-migration (i.e., size, age and time of migration). Steelhead within San Francisco Bay tributaries are included in the Central California Coast ESU.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
    [Show full text]
  • Calaveras Dam Fact Sheet Bcj 091511 V2.Indd
    Calaveras Dam Replacement Services of San Francisco Fact Sheet Public Utilities Commission www.sfwater.org/sunolvalleywww.sfwater.org/ulistac 866-973-1476 Calaveras Reservoir Project Summary The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, operator of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, is rebuilding Calaveras Dam, our largest local Bay Area drinking water reservoir. The existing earth fi ll dam is located near the active Calaveras earthquake fault. We lowered water levels in the reservoir in response to seismic concerns in 2001. The project will construct a new dam equal in height next to the existing seismically-vulnerable dam so that the historic capacity of the reservoir can be restored. The new Calaveras Dam will be one of only a few major dams built in the State of California in the last 30 years. The $416 million project breaks ground in September 2011. The Calaveras Dam Replacement Project is the largest project among the 81 projects of our $4.6B Water System Improvement Program. The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System delivers drinking water to 2.5 million Bay Area customers. Construction Began: August 2011 Projected Completion: August 2015 Total Project Cost: $416 Million Construction Contractor: Joint Venture of Dragados USA, Flatiron Construction, and Sukut Construction Project Details The project consists of building a new zoned earth and rock fi ll dam immediately downstream of the existing dam. This work will restore the Calaveras Reservoir to its historic capacity. The reservoir provides approximately half of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System’s local Bay Area water storage. This storage is crucial to providing adequate water to our customers in times of drought and when Sierra Nevada resources are not available.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality
    12 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes local and regional hydrology, flooding and water quality in and around Novato, as well as the applicable federal, State and local regulations. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Regulations a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), also known as the CWA, was enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The two-phase National Stormwater Program was established as part of the CWA. Phase 1 of the program requires discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) serving over 100,000 people to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City of Novato is considered a permittee under California’s statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) for MS4s. Permitees must develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing discharged pollutants to the maxi- mum extent. The City of Novato’s NPDES Storm Water Program prevents illicit discharges into drains, waterways and wetlands, and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 16, Utilities. b. National Flood Insurance Program Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 to address the increasing cost of flood-related disaster relief. The intent of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is to reduce the need for large, publicly-funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations and limit development on floodplains.
    [Show full text]