DOCSLIB.ORG

Updated 2020 Restoration Allocation & Default Flow Schedule Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Updated 2020 Restoration Allocation & Default Flow Schedule Introduction Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way, MP-170 Sacramento, California 95825 Updated 2020 Restoration Allocation & Default Flow Schedule February 7, 2020 Introduction The following transmits an updated 2020 Restoration Allocation and Default Flow Schedule to the Restoration Administrator for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP), consistent with the January 2020 (version 2.1) Draft Restoration Flow Guidelines (Guidelines). This Restoration Allocation and Default Flow Schedule provides the following: • Forecasted water year Unimpaired Inflow: the estimated flows that would occur absent regulation on the river. This value is also known as the “Natural River” or “Unimpaired Runoff” or “Full Natural Flow,” and is utilized to identify the water year type. • Hydrograph Volumes: the annual allocation hydrograph based on water year unimpaired inflow, utilizing Method 3.1 with the Gamma Pathway (RFG-Appendix C, Figure C3) agreed to by the Parties in December 2008. • Default Flow Schedule: the schedule of Restoration Flows in the absence of a recommendation from the Restoration Administrator. • Additional Allocations: the hypothetical Restoration Allocations that would result from 10%, 50%, 75%, and 90% probability of exceedance Unimpaired Inflow forecast. • Unreleased Restoration Flows: the amount of Restoration Flows not released due to channel capacity constraints, without delaying completion of Phase 1 improvements. • Flow targets at Gravelly Ford: the flows at the head of Reach 2, and estimated scheduled releases from Friant Dam adjusted for the assumed Holding Contract demands and losses in Exhibit B. • Restoration Budget: the volumes for the annual allocation, spring flexible flow, base flow, riparian recruitment, and fall flexible flow. • Remaining Flexible Flow Volume: the volume of Restoration Flows released and the remaining volume available for flexible scheduling. • Operational Constraints: the flow release limitations based on downstream channel capacity, regulatory, or legal constraints. Consistent with Paragraph 18 of the Settlement, the Restoration Administrator shall make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning the manner in which the hydrographs shall be implemented. As described in the Guidelines, the Restoration Administrator is requested to recommend a flow schedule showing the use of the entire annual allocation during the upcoming Restoration Year, categorize all recommended flows by account, and recommend both an unconstrained and capacity limited recommendation. If either an unconstrained recommendation or a capacity limited recommendation is not provided by the Restoration Administrator, the Capacity Constrained Default Flow Schedule (Table 6b) will be implemented. It is requested that the Restoration Administrator return a recommendation on or before February 19, 2020. Forecasted Unimpaired Inflow Unimpaired Runoff represents the natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to or from other watersheds (a.k.a “Unimpaired Inflow” or “Natural River” or “Full Natural Flow”). It is calculated for the period of a water year. The forecast of the Unimpaired Runoff determines the volume of Restoration Flows available for the Restoration Year (i.e. the Restoration Allocation). Information for forecasting the Unimpaired Runoff includes: • Observation of Unimpaired Runoff into Millerton Lake to support the water supply allocation1; • The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 120 latest update for San Joaquin River inflow to Millerton Lake Unimpaired Flow, and/or the most current DWR Bulletin Water Supply Index (WSI)3; • The National Weather Service (NWS) Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP) Water Supply Forecast for the San Joaquin River at Millerton Lake5. • Other forecast models, ground-based observations, remotely-sensed observations, hydrologic models, analysis of historic patterns, and short-term weather forecasts as appropriate. Table 1 shows the water year 2020 (October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020) observed accumulated and forecasted water year Unimpaired Inflows at Millerton Lake. This table also includes the published DWR forecast, the DWR forecast adjusted for an expected runoff for the current month, the NWS forecast with and without a 7-day smoothing function applied to remove the day-to-day variance, and the NWS forecast with 7-day smoothing and adjustment for the runoff for the current month. Figure 1a plots DWR and NWS forecast values over the entire water year, while Figure 1b shows the most recent period in detail. 2 Table 1 — San Joaquin River Water Year Actuals and Forecasts at Millerton Lake, in Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF) Forecast Exceedance Percentile 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% Accumulated Unimpaired Runoff (“Natural River”) 110.4 TAF February 4, 2020 1 Accumulated Unimpaired Runoff 2 47% as percent of normal DWR, January 1, 2020 3 855 TAF 1,170 TAF 1,470 TAF 2,040 TAF 2,605 TAF (Published Value) DWR, January 9, 2020 4 825 TAF 1,093 TAF 1,353 TAF 1,846 TAF 2,356 TAF (Runoff Adjusted) NWS, February 5, 2020 534 TAF 584 TAF 830 TAF 1,220 TAF 1,690 TAF (Published Daily Value 5) Smoothed NWS, January 8, 2020 547 TAF 610 TAF 845 TAF 1,265 TAF 1,727TAF (7-day Smoothing 6) Smoothed NWS, January 8, 2020 4 551 TAF 616 TAF 857 TAF 1,267 TAF 1,736 TAF (Runoff Adjusted ) 1 http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/milfln.pdf 2 Based on average accumulation of Unimparired Runoff 3 B120: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir?s=b120, or B120 Update: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir_ss/b120up, or WSI: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSI.2017 4 The adjusted data has been updated with the actual unimpaired inflow through the current date and projected out for the remainder of the month. 5 http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/water_resources_update.php?stn_id=FRAC1&stn_id2=FRAC1&product=WaterYear 6 The NWS smoothed data uses a 7-day triangular weighted moving average, where the most recent day (n) is given greater weight than each previous forecast day (n-1, 2, 3, etc.); this reduces noise stemming from ESP model input. The following formula is used: ((Forecastn* 1) + (Forecastn-1 * 0.857) + (Forecastn-2 * 0.714) + (Forecastn-3 * 0.571) + (Forecastn-4 * 0.429) + (Forecastn-5 * 0.286) + (Forecastn-6 * 0.143)) / 4 7 These are interpolated values as the complete DWR forecast was not available with the most recent issuance The 2020 Water Year has so far produced far less than normal runoff (47%). This is partly the result of colder storms which produced more snow and less rain than typical in the San Joaquin Watershed, with more precipitation as snow and therefore not yet available for runoff. Daily Unimpaired Runoff values have been tracking with the high range of a Dry Water Year Type (about 860 TAF). Runoff ratio to date is currently 36%, calculated by measured Unimpaired Runoff divided by modeled Surface Water Input (also known as watershed yield, this statistic tracks the fraction of water reaching the soil surface that produces runoff). A value of 36% is low for February, indicative of relatively dry soil moisture and/or limited precipitation. Note the relatively steep reduction in all forecast exceedances in Figure 1a and 1b over the past 60 days. Should the dry trend over the last 60 days continue further into spring, one would expect the percent of normal runoff to continue to fall (currently at 47%), and the runoff ratio (currently at 34%) to rise only modestly. 3 Figure 1a — Plot of 2020 Water Year forecasts, including both NWS Ensemble Streamflow Prediction Forecasts and DWR Forecasts Figure 1b — Detail plot of most recent forecasts 4 The January DWR Water Supply Index values are currently higher than the Ensemble Streamflow Prediction values published by the National Weather Service. This is partly due to differences in forecast methods, and partly due to the age of the DWR forecast, being issued base on January 1 conditions. On January 1, the higher DWR values were supported by snow course observations indicating snowpack was 114% of average to date, and approximately 40% of April 1 peak snowpack. Although DWR has not yet released the Bulletin 120 forecast based on February 1 snow course measurements, we know that the February 1 snow condition is currently 45% of April 1 peak snowpack; an increase of only 5% over the past month. Four snowpack models were available on or about February 1. The models are in fairly good agreement, with the NOHRSC model tracking below the CNRFC and ARS snowpack estimates (as it typically does) and good agreement between the latter two models (Table 2). Reclamation leans toward the higher consensus value of 520 TAF given past model performance and recent snow course measures. The distribution of the Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) modeled by ARS iSnobal is shown in Figure 2. Table 2 — Total snowpack volume depicted by four models, earlier Airborne Snow Observatory measures, and a consensus estimate for February 5, 2020. ARS NASA Reclamation Date CNRFC NOHRSC CU Boulder iSnobal ASO Consensus Snow Water Equivalent 567 521 557 8 555 9 N/A 10 550 Volume (TAF) 8 CU Boulder “Real-time SWE” model was dated January 29 9 USDA-ARS “iSnobal” model was dated January 21 10 First ASO surveys of 2020 are expected to be available late March 5 Figure 2 — iSnobal model output from January 21. Substantial volume of snow exists as low as 6000’ elevation. A pronounced bias toward the northern side of the watershed (adjacent to the Merced) is depicted. Snow pillow and snow course data indicates that snowpack in the South Fork of the San Joaquin may be underestimated by the iSnobal model and there may actually be a bias toward the southern side of the watershed (adjacent to the Kings). The long-term weather models, which cover out to a maximum of 16 days, depict minimal precipitation. Although there are a series of cold storms dropping into Central California from the North, they are without much moisture and thus result in little precipitation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions
    PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions Introduction Historically, California’s upper San Joaquin River (SJR) supported stable populations of fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). However, both populations were extirpated from the system in the mid-twentieth century following the development of Friant Dam (Moyle 2002). In response to the San Joaquin River litigation Settlement, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) has implemented an objective to restore a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon, as well as other fishes, in the system. Because the anadromous life-cycle of SJR Chinook salmon requires conveyance of juveniles from a riverine system to the Pacific Ocean to support the return of spawning adults, meeting this objective requires the consideration of environmental conditions and a connected river system. Though there are likely a multitude of environmental parameters that impact emigrating juvenile salmon, flow regime and predation are often cited as having a significant effect on travel speed and survivability (Raymond 1968; Berggren and Filardo1993; Michel et al. 2013). Flows in the SJR are highly regulated as means to support agricultural production, and non-native piscivorous fish in the restoration reach tend to occur more frequently downstream of Reach 1 (Gravelly Ford to confluence of Merced River; SJRRP 2013 I&M Report). Anecdotal evidence collected during SJRRP fish inventory and monitoring efforts suggests many of the non-native piscivores tend to reside in anthropogenic altered habitats (e.g., mine pits, altered channels, etc), which may pose a challenge to emigrating salmon. River flow conditions and water temperatures were managed during spring releases to elicit downstream fish movement with pulse flows and receding flows benches to avoid stranding.
    [Show full text]
  • Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake Between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facili
    Draft FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors FONSI-15-034 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2015 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION South-Central California Area Office, Fresno, California FONSI-15-034 Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors _____________ Prepared by: Rain L. Emerson Date Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist _____________ Concurred by: Shauna McDonald Date Wildlife Biologist _____________ Approved by: Michael Jackson, P.E. Date Area Manager FONSI-15-034 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the facilitation of an exchange of 13,195 acre-feet (AF) between Westlands Water District (Westlands) and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (Exchange Contractors).
    [Show full text]
  • Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Devils Postpile Formation and Talus
    Nature and History on the Sierra Crest: Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Devils Postpile formation and talus. (Devils Postpile National Monument Image Collection) Nature and History on the Sierra Crest Devils Postpile and the Mammoth Lakes Sierra Christopher E. Johnson Historian, PWRO–Seattle National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 2013 Production Project Manager Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Copyeditor Heather Miller Composition Windfall Software Photographs Credit given with each caption Printer Government Printing Office Published by the United States National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. Printed on acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America. 10987654321 As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Luis Reservoir, One of the Largest in California, Stores Water
    SAN LUIS RESERVOIR The San Luis Reservoir, one of the largest in California, stores water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sends it by aqueduct to the Bay Area and Southern California. In midsummer, it held about 20 percent capacity. 74 / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 RUN DRY AFTER THREE HISTORICALLY DRY YEARS, CALIFORNIA’S DROUGHT GROWS MORE CONFOUNDING AND THE FUTURE OF ITS WATER SUPPLY MORE UNCERTAIN. BY BILL MARKEN, HONORARY ASLA PHOTOGRAPHY BY PETER BENNETT/GREEN STOCK PHOTOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 / 75 O TALK ABOUT DROUGHT IN CALIFORNIA, YOU COULD START WITH THE MID-HOLOCENE PERIOD, WHEN A 1,400-YEAR DROUGHT LOWERED LAKE TAHOE 20 FEET AND LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR CONIFERS TO GROW THREE FEET THICK ABOVE THE RECEDING WATERLINE before the lake eventually rose back up water. One spokesperson for a water At my neighborhood market in the over them. Or with the 1930s, when agency said, “We’re technically not in heart of Silicon Valley, Jim the butch- farm families escaped the Dust Bowl a drought”—that agency had enough er told me why the price of lamb has of Texas and Oklahoma and ran up water. Another agency said, “The dis- skyrocketed—rack of lamb, bones, T OPPOSITE against a California dry spell nearly as trict could run out of water by July.” fat, and all, sells for $29 a pound. devastating. Or start with 1976–1977, An operator of sled dog teams in the He said, “We usually get our lamb Water from Northern then the driest rainy season recorded, Sierra has gone out of business from from the Central Valley, where the California is sent south to Los Angeles by way when drastic water-saving measures a lack of snow, and a Modesto golf sheep graze on winter grass.
    [Show full text]
  • Millerton Lake 2004 Survey
    Millerton Lake 2004 Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado March 2007 Millerton Lake 2004 Survey prepared by Ronald L. Ferrari Sharon Nuanes U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Water Resources Services Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group Water Supply, Use, and Conservation Group Denver, Colorado March 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group and the Water Supply, Use and Conservation Group of the Technical Service Center (TSC) prepared and published this report. Ronald Ferrari of TSC and Robert Keller of the Mid-Pacific Regional Office conducted the underwater data collection. Ron Ferrari and Sharon Nuanes of the TSC completed the data processing needed to generate the new topographic map and area-capacity tables. Sharon Nuanes developed the final topographic maps presented in this report. Kent Collins of the TSC performed the technical peer review of this documentation. Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation Report This report was produced by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group (Mail Code 86-68540), PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007. http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/ Disclaimer No warranty is expressed or implied regarding the usefulness or completeness of the information contained in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Millerton Lake Water Supply Forecast and Flood Operations San Joaquin River Forecasting Workshop
    MILLERTON LAKE WATER SUPPLY FORECAST AND FLOOD OPERATIONS SAN JOAQUIN RIVER FORECASTING WORKSHOP Mr. Antonio M. Buelna, P.E. December 15, 2009 Reclamation Mission Statement Is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Overview • Upstream Storage Facilities • Friant Dam • Millerton Lake Operating Parameters • Water Supply Data • Water Supply Forecast • Flood Operations • 2006 Millerton Lake Operations • Upper San Joaquin Basin Model • Water Supply Allocation • Summary Upstream Storage Facilities Southern California Pacific Gas & Electric Edison (SCE) (PG&E) • Edison Lake • Crane Valley Reservoir • Florence Lake • Kerckhoff Reservoir • Huntington Lake • Shaver Lake • Mammoth Pool • Redinger Lake Crane Valley Powerhouse Edison Lake Mammoth Pool 66,801 AF 47,917 AF 125,000 AF 122,000 AF Crane Valley Reservoir 22,428 AF Florence Lake Huntington Lake 45,500 AF 50,455 AF 5,614 AF 64,000 AF 89,000 AF Kerckhoff Reservoir 3,592 AF Shaver Lake 4,188 AF 94,705 AF 136,000 AF Redinger Lake 17,866 AF % December 14, Total % 26,000 AF Capacity 2009 Capacity Capacity Millerton Lake 2008 194,058 AF Total Upstream Storage 309,378 611,688 50% 42% 520,500 AF Millerton Lake Storage 194,058 520,500 37% 36% Total Storage 503,436 1,132,188 44% 39% Historical Information • Average Huntington Lake Precipitation – 44.5 inches* • Average Natural River Runoff – 1.9 million acre-feet* * (WY 1977 – 2009) Friant Dam • Storage Capacity: 520,500 AF • Dead Pool: 135,000 AF • Used for Flood Control & Water Conservation to meet demands.
    [Show full text]
  • B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement FINAL Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIR/SEIS is $1,659,000 December 2020 B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Final Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIR/SEIS is $1,659,000 December 2020 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provide scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honor the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. The mission of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is to operate the Delta-Mendota Canal and related facilities reliably and cost- effectively, and to support member agencies in restoring and protecting adequate, affordable water supplies for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental uses. B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
    Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Topic: Litigation Central Valley Project and the State Water Project CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT I. Central Valley Project 1950 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) Riparians on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued for damages for impairment of their rights to periodic inundation of their “uncontrolled grasslands.” Under reclamation law, the United States had to recognize prior vested rights and compensate for their impairment. 1958 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) Congress did not intend that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, which generally makes state water law applicable to reclamation projects, would make the 160-acre limitation in Section 5 inapplicable to the CVP. If needed for a project, Reclamation could acquire water rights by the payment of compensation, either through condemnation, or if already taken, through actions by the owners in the courts. 1960 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All Parties, 53 Cal.2d 692 (1960) State law conferred legal capacity upon irrigation districts to enter into contracts with federal government for CVP water. Districts could execute the contracts even though they contained the 160-acre limitation under federal law. 1963 Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) Parties claiming water rights along the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued the United States and Bureau of Reclamation officials, seeking to enjoin storage or diversion of water at the dam. The Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction over the United States because it had not consented to suit and the McCarran Amendment did not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE REPORT OF OPERATIONS December 2001 Contact Person: Valerie Ungvari, Hydrologic Technician 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95821 Telephone: (916) 979-2448 E-mail: [email protected] INDEX Page Number Summary of December 2001 .............................. 1 TABLES Table Number Reservoir Storage Summary ................................... 1 Power System Generation Summary .............................. 2 Shasta Lake Daily Operations ................................ 3 Trinity Lake Daily Operations ............................... 4 Whiskeytown Lake Daily Operations ........................... 5 Lewiston Lake Daily Operations .............................. 6 Spring Creek Debris Dam Daily Operations ..................... 7 Keswick Reservoir Daily Operations .......................... 8 Red Bluff Diversion Reservoir Daily Operations .............. 9 Black Butte Reservoir Daily Operations ...................... 10 Folsom Lake Daily Operations ................................ 11 Lake Natoma Daily Operations ................................ 12 New Melones Daily Operations ................................ 13 Goodwin Reservoir Daily Operations .......................... 14 Millerton Lake Daily Operations ............................. 15 State-Federal Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Outflow .......... 16 Consolidated State-Federal San Luis Reservoir Daily Operations 17 Consolidated State-Federal O'Neill Forebay Daily Operations ... 18 Federal-State
    [Show full text]
  • Friant Division Facts
    FFrriiaanntt DDiivviissiioonn FFaaccttss FRIANT DAM Type Concrete gravity Location San Joaquin River above Friant, 17 miles northeast of downtown Fresno Groundbreaking Ceremony November 5, 1939 Basic Construction Period 1939-42 (Outlet gates installed in 1944; spillway drum gates installed in 1947) Outlets To the San Joaquin River, Madera Canal and Friant-Kern Canal Power Plants Operated by the Friant Power Authority (on the river and canal outlets), and by the Orange Cove Irrigation District (on a water line supplying the Friant fish hatchery) Named For The nearby town of Friant, recalling pioneer lumberman Thomas Friant Dimensions Structural Height 319 feet (97.23 meters) Hydraulic Height 296 feet (90.2 meters) Top Width 20 feet (6.1 meters) Maximum Base Width 267 feet (81.4 meters) Crest Length 3,488 feet (1,063 meters) Crest Elevation 581.3 feet (177.2 meters) above sea level Total Concrete Volume 2,135,000 cubic yards (1,632,325 cubic meters) Spillway Overflow section at dam's center controlled by three 18- by 100-foot gates, including two new rubberized air-filled bladder gates and one drum gate Elevation, Top of Gates 578.0 feet (176.2 meters) Spillway Crest Elevation 560.0 feet (170.7 meters) Maximum Release To River 59,770 cubic feet per second, on January 3, 1997 MILLERTON LAKE Total Capacity 520,500 acre feet (elevation 578 feet) Record Maximum Storage 530,452 acre feet, on January 3, 1997(elevation 580.01 feet) "Dead" Storage 135,000 acre feet (capacity below canal outlets) "Active" Storage 385,500 acre feet (maximum available for beneficial Friant Division use) Surface Area At Capacity 4,900 acres (1,983 hectares) Maximum Length 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) First Water in Reservoir October 20, 1941 (after temporary river outlets were closed) First Controlled Storage February 21, 1944 (after outlet gate valves were installed) Named For The town of Millerton, county seat of Fresno County from 1856-74, the site of which is inundated by the reservoir.
    [Show full text]