DOCSLIB.ORG

Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Ferc No. 2299 Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Ferc No. 2299 Final DON PEDRO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT B – DON PEDRO PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION Prepared by: Turlock Irrigation District P.O. Box 949 Turlock, CA 95381 and Modesto Irrigation District P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, CA 95352 April 2014 Table of Contents Section No. Description Page No. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE DON PEDRO PROJECT .................. 1-1 1.1 TID and MID – Joint Don Pedro Project Owners................................................ 1-2 1.2 Overview of Don Pedro Project Benefits............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Overview of the Don Pedro Project Setting ......................................................... 1-3 1.4 Primary Purposes of the Don Pedro Project ........................................................ 1-3 1.5 Overview of Don Pedro Project Operations ........................................................ 1-4 1.6 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................... 1-6 2.0 CURRENT AND PROPOSED OPERATION OF THE DON PEDRO PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Perspective of Tuolumne River Water Uses ....................................... 2-1 2.2 Water Rights Owned by TID and MID ................................................................ 2-6 2.3 Statutes and Agreements Affecting Future Project Operations ........................... 2-6 2.4 Detailed Description of Current Don Pedro Project Operations .......................... 2-6 2.4.1 Hydrology of the Tuolumne River Basin................................................. 2-7 2.4.2 Flood Flow Management ......................................................................... 2-8 2.4.3 Agricultural and Municipal Water Supply ............................................. 2-13 2.4.4 Water Bank Operations .......................................................................... 2-15 2.4.5 Reservoir Releases to Benefit Lower Tuolumne River Fisheries .......... 2-15 2.4.6 Hydropower Generation......................................................................... 2-19 2.4.7 Total Don Pedro Project Outflows ......................................................... 2-29 2.4.8 Don Pedro Reservoir Levels .................................................................. 2-32 2.4.9 Reservoir Recreation .............................................................................. 2-36 2.4.10 Don Pedro Project Operations During Normal, Dry, and Wet Years .... 2-37 2.5 Tuolumne River Operations Model ................................................................... 2-46 2.5.1 Model Overview .................................................................................... 2-46 2.5.2 Model Hydrology ................................................................................... 2-48 2.5.3 Model Simulation of Districts’ Operation of Don Pedro Project .......... 2-49 2.5.4 Model Simulation of City and County of San Francisco System .......... 2-51 2.5.5 Model Base Case.................................................................................... 2-52 2.6 Proposed Future Project Operations .................................................................. 2-52 Exhibit B Page i Final License Application April 2014 Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents 3.0 RESOURCE UTILIZATION ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Existing Powerhouse Hydraulic Capacity ........................................................... 3-1 3.2 Powerhouse Capability versus Head .................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Tailwater Rating Curve ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 Average Annual Energy Production .................................................................... 3-3 3.5 Estimate of Dependable Capacity ........................................................................ 3-3 4.0 POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Turbine Upgrade .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Generator Upgrade ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Energy and Capacity Benefits .............................................................................. 4-1 4.4 Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 5-1 List of Tables Table No. Description Page No. Table 2.4-1. Estimated unimpaired flow at La Grange (acre-feet). ................................... 2-9 Table 2.4-2. Schedule of flow releases to the lower Tuolumne River by water year type contained in FERC’s 1996 order. ......................................................... 2-18 Table 2.4-3. Monthly and annual generation for the period 1997 to 2012 in megawatt-hours (MWh). .............................................................................. 2-21 Table 2.4-4. Total Project weekly summer off-peak and on-peak generation (May through September); 2009 through 2011 (MWs)......................................... 2-22 Table 2.4-5. Historical total Don Pedro Project release for the WY 1971 to 2012 (1,000 AF). ................................................................................................... 2-30 Table 2.4-6. End of month and end of year reservoir levels for each year of the 1972 to 2012 period. .................................................................................... 2-34 Table 3.2-1. Don Pedro Units 1, 2, and 3 turbine performance characteristics. ................ 3-1 Table 3.2-2. Don Pedro Unit 4 turbine performance characteristics. ................................. 3-1 Table 3.5-1. Monthly Project generation for 1997 through 2012 at Don Pedro powerhouse (in MWh). .................................................................................. 3-4 List of Figures Figure No. Description Page No. Figure 2.4-1. ACOE flood management guide curve for the Don Pedro Project. ............. 2-11 Figure 2.4-2. Total canal deliveries from 1997 to 2012 to Modesto Irrigation District.......................................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2.4-3. Total canal deliveries from 1997 to 2012 to Turlock Irrigation District. .... 2-14 Exhibit B Page ii Final License Application April 2014 Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents Figure 2.4-4. Districts’ combined total canal deliveries from 1997 to 2012. .................... 2-15 Figure 2.4-5. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; July 2009. ............... 2-23 Figure 2.4-6. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; July 2010. ............... 2-23 Figure 2.4-7. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; July 2011. ............... 2-24 Figure 2.4-8. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; August 2009. .......... 2-24 Figure 2.4-9. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; August 2010. .......... 2-25 Figure 2.4-10. TID’s portion of Project generation versus TID load; August 2011. .......... 2-25 Figure 2.4-11. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; July 2009. ............. 2-26 Figure 2.4-12. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; July 2010. ............. 2-26 Figure 2.4-13. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; July 2011. ............. 2-27 Figure 2.4-14. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; August 2009. ........ 2-27 Figure 2.4-15. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; August 2010. ........ 2-28 Figure 2.4-16. MID’s portion of Project generation versus MID load; August 2011. ........ 2-28 Figure 2.4-17. Don Pedro Reservoir elevation exceedance curve after initial reservoir filling. ........................................................................................................... 2-33 Figure 2.4-18. Don Pedro area-capacity curve based on 2011 bathymetry. ........................ 2-36 Figure 2.4-19. Don Pedro Project operations – 1997 (wet). ................................................ 2-38 Figure 2.4-20. Don Pedro Project operations – 1998 (wet). ................................................ 2-39 Figure 2.4-21. Don Pedro Project operations – 1999 (above normal). ................................ 2-39 Figure 2.4-22. Don Pedro Project operations – 2000 (normal). .......................................... 2-40 Figure 2.4-23. Don Pedro Project operations – 2001 (below normal)................................. 2-40 Figure 2.4-24. Don Pedro Project operations – 2002 (below normal)................................. 2-41 Figure 2.4-25. Don Pedro Project operations – 2003 (normal). .......................................... 2-41 Figure 2.4-26. Don Pedro Project operations – 2004 (below normal)................................. 2-42 Figure 2.4-27. Don Pedro Project operations – 2005 (wet). ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Indicators of Stream Health in the Tuolumne Watershed
    Assessing Indicators of Stream Health in the Tuolumne Watershed By: Devon Lambert, Robert Miyashiro, Miles Ryan, and Sarah Baird Ecogeomorphology, Spring 2014 University of California, Davis Abstract The Tuolumne River watershed, ranging from Yosemite National Park in the high Sierra Nevada mountains to the central valley floor, contains multiple dams that provide a range of services from water supply and hydroelectric generation to recreation. We studied the impacts of these dams on the Tuolumne river ecology by assessing a series of stream health indicators in regulated and unregulated portions of the watershed. Data was collected on channel bed substrate distributions, algal biomass, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish assemblages as indicators of overall stream health. Our findings indicate that dams, and especially daily pulse flows released below the dams, alter the variables for which we collected data. We provide some information on the costs and benefits to environmental flows in the Tuolumne River and suggest management of water releases below dams can be shaped to sustain essential ecosystem functions, without severely altering the economic and water delivery benefits. Implementing changes to the flow regime that will benefit the ecosystem, such as better mimicking the characteristics of the spring snowmelt recession or limiting pulse flows to the appropriate high flow season, is attainable and affordable within the Tuolumne watershed. Introduction The Tuolumne river watershed lies in the southern portion of the Western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and encompasses 1,958 square miles. There are four dams within the watershed primarily used for hydroelectric power, recreational flows, and a steady water supply during California’s dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • I Sensitivity Analysis of California Water Supply
    Sensitivity analysis of California water supply: Assessment of vulnerabilities and adaptations By Max Fefer B.S. (University of California, Berkeley) 2016 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: Jonathan Herman, Chair Jay Lund Samuel Sandoval-Solis Committee in Charge 2017 i Abstract Long-term changes in climate and population will have significant impacts on California’s freshwater management. Hydro-economic models can address climate change concerns by identifying system vulnerabilities and exploring adaptation strategies for statewide water operations. This thesis combines the new Python implementation of the CALVIN model, a hydro-economic model describing California water resources, with an ensemble of climate scenarios to identify adaptation strategies for managing water in a range of possible climates. A sensitivity analysis is performed by altering the magnitude and the timing of statewide inflows, defined as water availability and winter index respectively, to emulate changes in precipitation and temperature predicted by climate models. Model results show quadratic increases in shortage cost and marginal value of environmental flows, conveyance expansion, and reservoir expansion as water availability decreases. Reservoirs adapt to warmer climates by increasing average storage levels in winter and routing excess runoff to reservoirs downstream with available capacity. Both small and large changes to reservoir operations were observed compared to historical hydrology, showing that no single operating strategy achieves optimality for all reservoirs. Increasing the fraction of winter flow incurs small increases in total shortage cost, showing the state’s ability to manage a changing hydrologic regime with adaptive reservoir operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Ferc No. 2299
    DON PEDRO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION EXHIBIT A – DON PEDRO PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prepared by: Turlock Irrigation District P.O. Box 949 Turlock, CA 95381 and Modesto Irrigation District P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, CA 95352 September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Table of Contents Section No. Description Page No. EXHIBIT A – DON PEDRO PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................... V PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. VII 1.0 DON PEDRO PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................... 1-1 2.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DON PEDRO PROJECT FACILITIES ................. 2-1 2.1 Existing Project Facilities .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Don Pedro Dam........................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.2 Don Pedro Reservoir ................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3 Don Pedro Spillway ................................................................................. 2-4 2.1.4 Outlet Works ............................................................................................ 2-5 2.1.5 Power Intake and Tunnel ......................................................................... 2-7 2.1.6 Don Pedro Powerhouse, Turbines, and Generators ................................. 2-7 2.1.7 Tailrace
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 1St Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 105–190 "!
    105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105±190 "! ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998 JULY 21, 1997.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MCDADE, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2203] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for en- ergy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT Page Number Bill Report Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 4 I. Department of DefenseÐCivil: Corps of EngineersÐCivil: Corps of Engineers civil works mission ..................................... 2 7 General investigations ................................................................. 2 8 Construction, general .................................................................. 4 32 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Il- linois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee .................................................................................. 8 48 Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 8 51 Regulatory program ..................................................................... 9 65 Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... 9 65 Formerly Utilized
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River and San Joaquin River) San Joaquin River Or Proposed San Luis Drain Extension, Sacramento River
    FIGURES Selenium source Organic carbon-enriched sediment deposits Depositional environments Freshwater Seawater Geologic sources Coal Soils and Alluvium Oil Phosphorite Anthropogenic Power Generation Irrigation Refining Mining activity Pollutants Ash, Flue Gas Scrubbing Subsurface drainage Wastewater Tailings, runoff Kesterson NWR, San Francisco Blackfoot San Joaquin River, Receiving waters Belews Lake, Bay-Delta River watershed, (examples) North Carolina Tulare Basin, California Estuary, California Idaho scoter, scaup, coot, duck, grebe Species of bluegill, sunfish, sturgeon, splittail, trout, coot, horse, concern bass, bullhead avocet, stilt, sculpin, splittail, salmon flounder, salmon, sheep, elk, cow Dungeness crab Figure 1. Conceptual model of Se pollution with examples of source deposits, anthropogenic activities, receiving water bodies, and biota at risk. Bay-Delta Selenium Model Composite Source Load ¸ Composite Volume (oil refinery discharges, agricultural drainage via (Sacramento River and San Joaquin River) San Joaquin River or proposed San Luis Drain extension, Sacramento River Composite Freshwater Endmember Concentration (head of estuary) Transformation Phytoplankton, algae, bacteria Dissolved species Partitioning (Kd) suspended particulate material and bed sediment (selenate, selenite, organo-Se) (elemental Se, particulate organo-Se, adsorbed selenite/selenate) bioaccumulation prey clams zooplankton amphipods trophic transfer sturgeon splittail striped bass predators diving ducks flounder splittail effects Impaired reproduction, teratogenesis, selenosis Figure 2. Conceptual model describing linked factors that determine the effects of selenium on ecosystems. The sequence of relations links environmental concentrations to biological effects. The general term “bioaccumulation” can be applied to all of the biological levels of selenium transfer through the food web, but in this report we use the term explicitly in reference to particulate/invertebrate bioaccumulation. 122°30' 122°00' .
    [Show full text]
  • Shutes Testimonybaydeltawkshop3
    Testimony on Water Balance Modeling For the Comprehensive Review And Update to the Bay - Delta Plan Submitted by Chris Shutes FERC Projects Director California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and also submitted on behalf of California Water Impact Network And AquAlliance October 26, 2012 For Workshop 3 Analytical Tools for Evaluating Water Supply, Hydrodynamic and Hydropower Effects November 13 and 14, 2012 Water Balance Modeling for the Comprehensive Review And Update to the Bay - Delta Plan Introduction: Multiple models, technical problems. There is no single existing water balance modeling tool that is adequate to model the water balance impacts of potential measures that the State Water Resources Control Board will adopt in the update of the Water Quality Control Plan (Phases I and II), and any water rights conditions that may be required (Phases III and IV) pursuant to the standards adopted in Phases I and II. There are many available tools. The Board will need to use multiple tools. The diversity of tools, the diversity of people who know how to operate them and interpret their output, and the lack of familiarity with these diverse tools and persons on the part of Board members, Board staff, and stakeholders, create a series of difficult technical problems that the Board will need to confront. CalSim II is the only widely used water balance and operations model that has the geographic coverage of most of the Sacramento – San Joaquin system. However CalSim II works on a monthly time step that is too coarse to understand the operations or the impacts of proposed changes to reservoir operations to meet the requirements of the update of the Water Quality Control Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant-Prepared Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Don Pedro Project Ferc No
    APPLICANT-PREPARED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT DON PEDRO PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 Prepared for: Turlock Irrigation District – Turlock, California Modesto Irrigation District – Modesto, California Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Description Page No. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Essential Fish Habitat Regulatory Framework .................................................... 1-1 1.2 EFH Action Area ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Public Review and Consultation during Relicensing........................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document ..................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Scoping and Study Plan Development ..................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Pre-Filing Consultation Workshop Process ............................................. 1-5 1.3.4 Initial and Updated Study Reports ........................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Draft License Application ........................................................................ 1-6 1.3.6 Post-Filing Consultation and Alternatives Analysis ................................ 1-7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Don Pedro
    LAKE DON PEDRO Rate Comparability Analysis for Private Houseboat Slip and Buoy Mooring Services March 7, 2014 Prepared for: Don Pedro Recreation Agency Turlock Irrigation District Modesto Irrigation City & County of San Francisco Prepared by: Dornbusch Associates Lake Don Pedro – Draft Rate Comparability Analysis Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF STUDY ................................................................................................................. 1 SPECIFIC AREA OF FOCUS FOR RATE COMPARABILITY ............................................................. 1 TECHNICAL APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 2 In‐Depth Evaluation of Marinas at Lake Don Pedro ................................................................................. 2 Selection of Comparable Marina Operations ........................................................................................... 2 Parameters (Services, Amenities and Features) ....................................................................................... 4 OVERVIEW OF LAKE DON PEDRO ............................................................................................. 5 Lake Don Pedro (LDP) Marina ................................................................................................................... 6 Moccasin Point (MP) Marina .................................................................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW OF COMPARABLE MARINAS
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Damage Reduction Technical Appendix Flood Damage Reduction
    Flood Damage Reduction Technical Appendix Flood Damage Reduction UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION Initial Alternatives Information Report Flood Damage Reduction Technical Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1-1 STUDY AREA .........................................................................................................................1-2 SURFACE WATER STORAGE MEASURES CONSIDERED IN THE IAIR ...........................1-3 OBJECTIVE OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX ....................................................................1-5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................1-5 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 2-1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF FLOOD PROTECTION IN THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN ......................................................................................................................2-1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FLOOD MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ...................................2-3 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake ............................................................................................2-3 Hidden Dam and Hensley Lake...........................................................................................2-4 Buchanan Dam and H. V. Eastman Lake............................................................................2-4 Chowchilla Canal Bypass and Eastside
    [Show full text]
  • Tuolumne River Sediment Acquisition and Spawning Gravel Transfusion Project Project Information
    Tuolumne River Sediment Acquisition and Spawning Gravel Transfusion Project Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Tuolumne River Sediment Acquisition and Spawning Gravel Transfusion Project 2. Proposal applicants: Wilton Fryer, Turlock Irrigation District 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Wilton Fryer Turlock Irrigation District 333 E. Canal Drive Turlock, CA 95380 209 883-8316 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: Channel Dynamics Habitat Restoration, Wetland Sediment quality 5. Type of project: Implementation_Full 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: Channel Dynamics and Sediment Transport 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 37.636 Longitude: -120.503 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. The Tuolumne River channel, from river mile 52 (below La Grange Dam) to river mile 41 (at Turlock Lake State Recreation Area) The Joe Domecq County Park and the Zanker family parcels) located in the historic floodway, now separated from the Tuolumne River by Lake Road, and extend from river mile 46.0 to RM 47.5 10. Location - Ecozone: 13.2 Tuolumne River 11. Location - County: Stanislaus 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: Condit No 18 15. Location: California State Senate District
    [Show full text]
  • Pages 6-54 Through 62
    FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 6.6 Major Water Related Infrastructure Major water related infrastructure is depicted in the “Integrated Conjunctive Use Program” map presented as Figure 6‐17. The map illustrates existing and proposed reservoirs, waterways, conveyance systems, irrigation systems, treatment plants, and recharge areas. 6.7 Identification of Supply Sources Water supplies and associated water rights have been secured or have been applied for on most of the stream systems in the region. Water supply sources from the following stream systems are discussed below: Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta American River Mokelumne River Calaveras River Littlejohns Creek /Rock Creek Stanislaus River San Joaquin River 6.7.1 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta The Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta covers more than 738,000 acres in five counties and is comprised of numerous islands within a network of canals and natural sloughs. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers come together in the Delta before they flow to the San Francisco Bay and out to the Pacific Ocean. The Delta is the largest estuary on the U.S. West Coast and is home to over 750 plant and animal species, many of which are threatened or endangered. The Delta provides drinking water for two‐thirds of all Californians and irrigation water for over seven million acres of highly productive farmland. Rivers in the Region all flow through the Delta on their way to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. More detailed descriptions of the rivers and the associated facilities are provided in the following sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I Surface Water Hydrology
    APPENDIX I SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Andrew J. Draper October 15, 2000 INTRODUCTION CALVIN models California’s inter-connected water supply system. In Northern California, this consists of all inflows to the Central Valley originating from the Trinity-Cascade, Sierra Nevada and Coastal Mountain ranges. It also includes many small streams that result from direct runoff within the Valley floor. Much of Southern California is arid or semi-arid and is dependent on imports from the Central Valley, Owens Valley and the Colorado River for majority of its water supply. Local surface water supplies are available only in the South Coast Hydrologic Region, where coastal range streams represent approximately six percent of supply (DWR 1994, Vol. II, p103). CALVIN represents surface water supplies as a time series of monthly inflows. In HEC-PRM terminology, these inputs are referred to as “external flows”, and represent an inflow from the “super source” to a model node USACE (1999). The external flows can be divided into two categories: q Rim flows; and q Local water supplies. Rim flows represent streams that cross the boundary of the physical system being modeled. Typically they represent inflows to surface water reservoirs located in either the Sierra Nevada foothills or the Trinity/Cascade Mountain range. Local water supplies represent surface water that originates within the boundary of the region being modeled, either from direct runoff or through surface water-groundwater interaction. In some models, these local water supplies are called gains or accretions and depletions. The distinction between rim flows and local water supplies is made as two different sources of data have been used for estimating external flows in the Central Valley: one for rim flows, the other for local water supplies.
    [Show full text]