DOCSLIB.ORG

Kern IRWMP Update\ DOCS\Plan Update\KIRWMP Update FINAL 2020-0311.Docx Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kern IRWMP Update\ DOCS\Plan Update\KIRWMP Update FINAL 2020-0311.Docx Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP Update KERN tRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan .0 a?” FINAL - March 2020 Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Final Update March 11, 2020 Plan Update Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 1800 30th Street, Suite 280 Bakersfield, CA 93301 G:\James Water Bank Authority-2884\288419001 Kern IRWMP Update\_DOCS\Plan Update\KIRWMP_Update_FINAL 2020-0311.docx Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP Update Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction to the Region ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Relationship with Neighboring IRWMPs ................................................... 1-2 1.2 Purpose of the Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP ......................... 1-5 1.3 Stakeholder Involvement ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 Regional Water Management Group ........................................................ 1-5 1.3.2 Executive Committee ............................................................................. 1-11 1.3.3 Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 1-11 1.4 Participation and Outreach .................................................................................... 1-16 1.4.1 Disadvantaged Community Outreach ..................................................... 1-18 1.4.2 Environmental Justice Outreach ............................................................. 1-20 1.4.3 Media Coverage of Plan Preparation ...................................................... 1-20 1.5 IRWMP Development ............................................................................................ 1-21 1.5.1 Ground Rules for Participation ............................................................... 1-21 1.5.2 Operating Procedures ............................................................................ 1-21 1.6 Program Preferences ............................................................................................ 1-22 1.6.1 Include Regional Projects or Programs .................................................. 1-22 1.6.2 Integrate Water Management Programs and Projects ............................ 1-22 1.6.3 Resolve Significant Water-Related Conflicts .......................................... 1-22 1.7 Bay-Delta Program Goals ..................................................................................... 1-22 1.7.1 Address Water Supply and Water Quality Needs of DACs ..................... 1-22 1.7.2 Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning .......... 1-23 1.7.3 Drought Preparedness ........................................................................... 1-23 1.7.4 Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently ................................................... 1-23 1.7.5 Climate Change Response Actions ........................................................ 1-23 1.7.6 Expand Environmental Stewardship ....................................................... 1-23 1.7.7 Practice Integrated Flood Management .................................................. 1-23 1.7.8 Protect Surface Water and Groundwater Quality .................................... 1-24 1.7.9 Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources ......................................... 1-24 1.7.10 Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits ................................................ 1-24 1.8 IRWMP Updates ................................................................................................... 1-24 1.9 IRWMP Organization ............................................................................................ 1-25 Section 2: Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County Region ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction and Overview ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Climate .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Ecological Processes and Environmental Resources .............................................. 2-5 2.5 Social and Cultural Characteristics .......................................................................... 2-2 2.5.1 Demographics and Population ................................................................. 2-2 Final – March 2020 i Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP Update 2.5.2 Economic Factors .................................................................................... 2-1 2.5.3 Disadvantaged Communities .................................................................... 2-1 2.5.4 Social and Cultural Values ....................................................................... 2-2 2.6 Water Supply .......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6.1 Imported Water Supply from the State Water Project ............................... 2-5 2.6.2 Imported Water Supply from the Central Valley Project ............................ 2-9 2.6.3 Local Surface Water ............................................................................... 2-12 2.6.4 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 2-14 2.6.5 Recycled Water ...................................................................................... 2-17 2.6.6 Other Water Supply Opportunities .......................................................... 2-18 2.7 Transfers and Exchanges ..................................................................................... 2-18 2.8 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 2-19 2.8.1 Surface Water Quality ............................................................................ 2-20 2.8.2 Imported Water Quality .......................................................................... 2-20 2.8.3 Groundwater Quality .............................................................................. 2-22 2.9 Water Demand ...................................................................................................... 2-23 2.9.1 Urban Demand ....................................................................................... 2-23 2.9.2 Agricultural Demand ............................................................................... 2-25 2.10 Water Related Infrastructure ................................................................................. 2-27 2.10.1 Imported Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 2-28 2.10.2 Surface Water Infrastructure .................................................................. 2-28 2.10.3 Groundwater Infrastructure..................................................................... 2-29 2.10.4 Water Treatment Infrastructure .............................................................. 2-29 2.10.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water Infrastructure ...................................... 2-30 2.11 Regional Issues, Needs, Challenges, and Priorities .............................................. 2-32 2.11.1 Aging and/or Duplicative Infrastructure ................................................... 2-32 2.11.2 Urban Growth and Water Demand ......................................................... 2-33 2.11.3 Urban Growth Encroachment on Key Recharge Areas ........................... 2-33 2.11.4 Decreased Imported Water Supply ......................................................... 2-34 2.11.5 Flood Management ................................................................................ 2-35 2.11.6 Groundwater Overdraft and SGMA ........................................................ 2-37 2.11.7 Legislative Water Use Efficiency Requirements ..................................... 2-38 2.11.8 Water Quality/Groundwater Contamination ............................................ 2-41 2.11.9 Water Rights .......................................................................................... 2-45 2.11.10 Watershed Protection ............................................................................ 2-45 2.11.11 Climate Change ..................................................................................... 2-46 Section 3: Greater Bakersfield Subregion ............................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Subregion Introduction ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Subregion IRWMP Participants ............................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 City of Bakersfield .................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 California Water Service Company Bakersfield District ............................ 3-2 Final – March 2020 ii Tulare Lake Basin Portion of Kern County IRWMP Update 3.2.3 Casa Loma Water Company .................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 East Niles Community Services District .................................................... 3-3 3.2.5 Greenfield County Water District .............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Wildlife Service Re-Thinks Protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew
    u)pr hyhyyrivrvrpryhr vps4D92 ""&$ Fish and Wildlife Service re-thinks protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew WASHINGTON, D.C. October 20, 2009 9:27am • Re-proposes 4,649 acres of critical habitat in Kern County • Would reverse earlier decision In another reversal of decisions made during the administration of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing new protections for the Buena Lake shrew, a tiny mammal that lives in a small area of Kern County in the Central Valley. The FWS says it wants 4,649 acres in Kern County declared as critical habitat for the endangered animal, exactly the same acreage that it had first proposed in 2004. The announcement opens a 60-day public comment period. Earlier this month the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed itself on the economic impact of protecting the California habitat of the red-legged frog. It now says it is less than had been calculated. The new report on the frog strips out what some saw as political bias in the earlier estimates prepared for the George W. Bush administration. The new shrew proposal conforms to terms of a legal settlement resolving a challenge to the FWS’s final action on the earlier proposal, when it designated only 84 acres as critical habitat. In its settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, announced last July, the FWS agreed to re-propose the same areas it had proposed in 2004. In its 2005 final critical habitat rule the FWS excluded four areas it had initially proposed, determining at the time that commitments by landowners would provide significantly better protection for the shrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Endangered Buena Vista Lake Shrews
    CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher1, Erin Tennant2, Jesus Maldonado3, Larry Saslaw1, Tory Westall1, Jacklyn Mohay2, Erica Kelly1, and Christine Van Horn Job1 1California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 2California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 3Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park June 16, 2017 Buena Vista Lake Shrew Conservation CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher, Erin Tennant, Jesus Maldonado, Lawrence Saslaw, Tory Westall, Jacklyn Mohay, Erica Kelly, and Christine Van Horn Job California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park CONTENTS Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME II: THE HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE MILITARY IN CALIFORNIA, 1769-1989 by Stephen D. Mikesell Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Prepared by: JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March 2000 California llistoric Military Buildings and Stnictures Inventory, Volume II CONTENTS CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 COLONIAL ERA (1769-1846) .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Spanish-Mexican Era Buildings Owned by the Military ............................................... 2-8 2.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report
    Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report Prepared by Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners for Tulare County Association of Govenments 11 February 2008 Executive Summary As part of an agreement with the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners (TBWP) visited nine potential riparian and wildlife corridors in Tulare County during summer 2007. We developed a numerical ranking system and determined the five corridors with highest potential for conservation, recreation and conjunctive uses. The selected corridors include: Deer Creek Riparian Corridor, Kings River Riparian Corridor, Oaks to Tules Riparian Corridor, Lewis Creek Riparian Corridor, and Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Corridor. For each corridor, we provide a brief description and a summary of attributes and opportunities. Opportunities include flood control, groundwater recharge, recreation, tourism, and wildlife. We also provide a brief description of opportunities for an additional eight corridors that were not addressed in depth in this document. In addition, we list the Measure R transportation improvements and briefly discuss the potential wildlife impacts for each of the projects. The document concludes with an examination of other regional planning efforts that include Tulare County, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, the Tulare County Bike Path Plan, the TBWP’s Sand Ridge-Tulare Lake Plan, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the USFWS Upland Species Recovery Plan. Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, 2/11/2008 Page 2 of 30 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Goals and Objectives………………………...……………………………………………. 4 Tulare County Corridors……………………..……………………………………………. 5 Rankings………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Corridors selected for Detailed Study…………………………………………….. 5 Deer Creek Corridor………………………………………………………. 5 Kings River Corridor……………………………………………………… 8 Oaks to Tules Corridor…………………………………..………………… 10 Lewis Creek East of Lindsay……………………………………………… 12 Cottonwood Creek………………………………………...……………….
    [Show full text]
  • California State Parks
    1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 Pelican SB Designated Wildlife/Nature Viewing Designated Wildlife/Nature Viewing Visit Historical/Cultural Sites Visit Historical/Cultural Sites Smith River Off Highway Vehicle Use Off Highway Vehicle Use Equestrian Camp Site(s) Non-Motorized Boating Equestrian Camp Site(s) Non-Motorized Boating ( Tolowa Dunes SP C Educational Programs Educational Programs Wind Surfing/Surfing Wind Surfing/Surfing lo RV Sites w/Hookups RV Sites w/Hookups Gasquet 199 s Marina/Boat Ramp Motorized Boating Marina/Boat Ramp Motorized Boating A 101 ed Horseback Riding Horseback Riding Lake Earl RV Dump Station Mountain Biking RV Dump Station Mountain Biking r i S v e n m i t h R i Rustic Cabins Rustic Cabins w Visitor Center Food Service Visitor Center Food Service Camp Site(s) Snow Sports Camp Site(s) Geocaching Snow Sports Crescent City i Picnic Area Camp Store Geocaching Picnic Area Camp Store Jedediah Smith Redwoods n Restrooms RV Access Swimming Restrooms RV Access Swimming t Hilt S r e Seiad ShowersMuseum ShowersMuseum e r California Lodging California Lodging SP v ) l Klamath Iron Fishing Fishing F i i Horse Beach Hiking Beach Hiking o a Valley Gate r R r River k T Happy Creek Res. Copco Del Norte Coast Redwoods SP h r t i t e s Lake State Parks State Parks · S m Camp v e 96 i r Hornbrook R C h c Meiss Dorris PARKS FACILITIES ACTIVITIES PARKS FACILITIES ACTIVITIES t i Scott Bar f OREGON i Requa a Lake Tulelake c Admiral William Standley SRA, G2 • • (707) 247-3318 Indian Grinding Rock SHP, K7 • • • • • • • • • • • (209) 296-7488 Klamath m a P Lower CALIFORNIA Redwood K l a Yreka 5 Tule Ahjumawi Lava Springs SP, D7 • • • • • • • • • (530) 335-2777 Jack London SHP, J2 • • • • • • • • • • • • (707) 938-5216 l K Sc Macdoel Klamath a o tt Montague Lake A I m R National iv Lake Albany SMR, K3 • • • • • • (888) 327-2757 Jedediah Smith Redwoods SP, A2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (707) 458-3018 e S Mount a r Park h I4 E2 t 3 Newell Anderson Marsh SHP, • • • • • • (707) 994-0688 John B.
    [Show full text]
  • A.5 A.5.1 Legal and Other Status A.5.2 Species Distribution and Status
    Covered Species Accounts – Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Appendix A A.5 WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO (COCCYZUS AMERICANUS OCCIDENTALIS) A.5.1 Legal and Other Status The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. A.5.2 Species Distribution and Status A.5.2.1 Range and Status Currently, there are two recognized subspecies of yellow-billed cuckoo. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis is found west of the Rocky Mountains, and Coccyzus americanus americanus is found in deciduous forests east of the Rocky Mountains. The ongoing debate over the taxonomic separation of the two subspecies is based primarily on morphological and plumage differences (Banks 1988, Franzreb and Laymon 1993), and more recently on genetics studies initiated by the USFWS during the status review for federal listing. Historically, the range of western yellow-billed cuckoo extended from southern British Columbia in the north to the Rio Grande River in northern Mexico in the south, and east to the Rocky Mountains (Bent 1940). Currently, the only known populations of breeding western yellow-billed cuckoo are located in several disjunct locations in California, Arizona, and western New Mexico (Halterman 1991). Yellow- billed cuckoos winter in South America from Venezuela to Argentina after an August to October southern migration period (Laymon and Halterman 1985). Yellow-billed cuckoos migrate north in late June and early July (DeSchauensee 1970). Studies conducted since the 1970s indicate there may be fewer than 50 breeding pairs in California (Gaines 1977, Laymon and Halterman 1987, Halterman 1991, Laymon et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Promotes a More Efficient
    CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS – VERSION 5 CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS INTRODUCTION This chapter sets forth plans of action for the region to pursue and meet identified transportation needs and issues. Planned investments are consistent with the goals and policies of the plan, the Sustainable Community Strategy element (see chapter 4) and must be financially constrained. These projects are listed in the Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) and are modeled in the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes Forecast modeling methods in this Regional Transportation a more efficient transportation Plan primarily use the “market-based approach” based on demographic data and economic trends (see chapter 3). The system that calls for fully forecast modeling was used to analyze the strategic funding alternative investments in the combined action elements found in this transportation modes, while chapter.. emphasizing transportation demand and transporation Alternative scenarios are not addressed in this document; they are, however, addressed and analyzed for their system management feasibility and impacts in the Environmental Impact Report approaches for new highway prepared for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, as capacity. required by the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(f) and 15126.6(a)). From this point, the alternatives have been predetermined and projects that would deliver the most benefit were selected. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes a more efficient transportation system that calls for fully funding alternative transportation modes, while emphasizing transportation demand and transporation system management approaches for new highway capacity. The Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) includes projects that move the region toward a financially constrained and balanced system.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Willow Flycatcher Population Size and Distribution to Inform Meadow Restoration Priorities in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades
    Produced by The Institute for Bird Populations’ Sierra Nevada Bird Observatory ASSESSING WILLOW FLYCATCHER POPULATION SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION TO INFORM MEADOW RESTORATION PRIORITIES IN THE SIERRA NEVADA AND SOUTHERN CASCADES September 25, 2014 Helen Loffland and Rodney Siegel Chris Stermer The Institute for Bird Populations Staff Environmental Scientist P.O. Box 1346 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 1812 Ninth Street www.birdpop.org Sacramento, CA 95811 Ryan Burnett and Brent Campos Tina Mark Point Blue Conservation Science Wildlife, Aquatics, Rare Plant Program Manager P.O. Box 634 Tahoe National Forest Chester, CA 96020 631 Coyote Street www.pointblue.org Nevada City, CA 95959 Above: Willow Flycatcher (inset) and breeding habitat at Red Lake Peak, Alpine County. The Institute for Bird Populations Willow Flycatcher Population Status in the Sierra Nevada Recommended citation: Loffland, H. L., R. B. Siegel, R. D. Burnett, B. R. Campos, T. Mark, C. Stermer 2014. Assessing Willow Flycatcher population size and distribution to inform meadow restoration in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank countless agencies and individuals for conducting recent and historic Willow Flycatcher surveys and sharing data for this synthesis. This project was made possible by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and was conducted by The Institute for Bird Populations’ Sierra Nevada Bird Observatory. This is Contribution No. 483 of The Institute for Bird Populations. i The Institute for Bird Populations Willow Flycatcher Population Status in the Sierra Nevada Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]
  • Kern Storm Water Resource Plan
    Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California Report prepared by: December 2016 Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California December 2016 Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 1800 30th Street, Suite 280, Bakersfield, California 93301 COPYRIGHT 2016 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights. Report Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Jeff Eklund, PE Len Marino, PE Mike Day, PE Gretchen Heisdorf, PE Hilary Reinhard, PE Trilby Barton Cheryl Hunter Contact: Jeff Eklund, PE Telephone: (661) 616-5900 G:\Buena Vista WSD-1048\104816001-Kern Storm Water Resource Plan\_DOCS\Reports\1215-2016 Kern SWRP Final.docx Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Table of Contents List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]