DOCSLIB.ORG

Rec 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rec 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study REC 15 RESERVOIR RECREATION WATER SURFACE ELEVATION STUDY 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Interviews with representatives from resource agencies, reservoir recreation concessionaires, and local stakeholders and active and passive recreation surveys of visitors to the reservoirs within the study area were completed during the summer, 2002. Reservoirs within the Big Creek ALP study area include Shaver Lake, Huntington Lake, Florence Lake, and Mammoth Pool Reservoir. The designed use and functional use of the recreation facilities at each reservoir were determined and relationships between water surface elevations (WSEs) and the operation of each reservoir were examined over time. The influence of WSEs on the functionality of the recreation facilities and the primary recreation uses at each reservoir were evaluated. Recreation use/water elevation curves were developed for the primary activities at each reservoir. Potential conflicts among user groups and reservoir operations that may influence WSEs were identified. The operations of the boat docks and launches at the four reservoirs are the primary recreation facilities affected by changes in WSEs. Boat angling is one of the primary recreation activities at all the reservoirs during the summer recreation season (Memorial Day to Labor Day). Various boating recreation activities, including water skiing and sailing, were also popular at Shaver Lake and Huntington Lake. Recreation use/water stage curves indicate that boating use is high as long as the WSEs are within the functional use range of the recreation facilities. Water skiing and other personal watercraft tended to have steeper declines in recreation use in response to decreases in WSEs than angling (by boat or from the shore). The majority of the surveyed anglers during the 2002 summer recreation season at the four reservoirs did not think that WSEs affected their enjoyment of fishing. Water surface elevations during 1983-2002 were within the functional use ranges of all the boat launches and docks at the four reservoirs greater than 85% of the time during the summer recreation season, except at Mammoth Pool Reservoir during Critically Dry Water-years (WY). The majority of conflicts identified from the interviews and surveys were not dependent on WSEs. Rather, potential conflicts tended to be between different user groups. Few recreationists indicated that existing WSEs negatively impacted their picnicking or camping experience. Copyright 2004 by Southern California Edison REC 15-1 Recreation Working Group REC 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES Determine optimal range of reservoir elevations for recreational and aesthetic uses and determine feasibility of providing advanced information on reservoir water levels. 3.0 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 STUDY ELEMENTS COMPLETED • Identified and quantitatively ranked the relative use of the current recreational activities at each reservoir by season; • Identified all associated support facilities for each recreational activity; • Identified the designed and functional reservoir elevation range for each support facility; • Identified the factors influencing recreational activities at each reservoir by season; • Developed a quality of recreational use/stage relationship curve (USC) for each recreational activity that depicts the relationship between recreational use and reservoir WSE; • Identified the potential conflicts between recreation user groups; • Compiled historical operations data for each reservoir; and • Identified reservoir operational constraints that may influence WSE and recreational activities. 3.2 OUTSTANDING STUDY ELEMENTS Evaluate the potential for increasing recreational opportunities based on modifying reservoir operations or support facilities. 4.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 4.1 RESERVOIR USE AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION The range of reservoir WSEs for recreational uses was evaluated at four reservoirs within the Big Creek ALP study area, including Shaver Lake, Huntington Lake, Florence Lake, and Mammoth Pool Reservoir. Water levels were photo-documented, elevations of reservoir support facilities were surveyed, and interviews were conducted with recreational users or knowledgeable persons at each reservoir. Information from the photographs, surveys, and interviews was compiled and summarized to determine the range of WSEs required to support or enhance the primary recreation activities at each reservoir. Copyright 2004 by Southern California Edison REC 15-2 Recreation Working Group REC 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study Photo-Documentation At each of the reservoirs, photographs were taken from primary use areas at different WSEs to document the physical and aesthetic lake characteristics at each water level. The photographs were also used during the interviews to more clearly portray the relationships among WSEs, recreation activities, and support facility operations. Interviews Data on recreation uses associated with each reservoir was obtained from interviewing various people that have a working knowledge of each reservoir and the primary recreation activities associated with the reservoirs. Members of the Recreation Working Group provided a list of individuals thought to have a working knowledge of the operational and recreational constraints relative to each reservoir. Each of these individuals was contacted and informed of the study process and the specific data needs. Following this initial contact, fifteen individuals participated in the study. The number of interviews for each reservoir differed depending on the availability of willing and qualified individuals associated with each reservoir. For Huntington Lake, eight interviews were conducted, while one was conducted at Mammoth Pool Reservoir (the interviews are provided in Appendix A). The interviewee only answered the survey questions of which they were knowledgeable. The interviewees at each reservoir are: • Shaver Lake: Steve Byrd, technical specialist/scientist of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Camp Edison; John Mount, manager of SCE’s Camp Edison; Greg Powell, manager of Sierra Marina; Sheldon Sandstrom, manager of Shaver Lake Marina; and Jack Yandell, retired Shaver Lake fishing guide. • Huntington Lake: Maureen Barile, representative from the Huntington Lake Historical Society and Huntington Lake Association (HLA); Frank Hoke, representative from the HLA; Toby Horst, representative from the Sierra Nevada Access, Multiple-Use and Stewardship Coalition (SAMS Coalition) and the Sierra Resource Conservation District; Fred Ilcher, representative from the Fresno Yacht Club; Steve Monke, Gold Arrow Camp manager; Mark Richards, manager of Rancheria Marina; Sandra Richey, manager of Huntington Lake Resort; and Steve Sherri, manager of Lakeshore Resort. • Florence Lake and Lake Edison: Retha Gomez, recreation specialist with the United States Forest Service (USDA-FS) and Toby Horst, representative from the SAMS/Resource Conservation District and former operator of Vermilion Valley Resort. • Mammoth Pool Reservoir: Mike LeFevre, USDA-FS ranger, manager of Mammoth Pool Reservoir. Copyright 2004 by Southern California Edison REC 15-3 Recreation Working Group REC 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study A survey instrument, Water Surface Elevation Study Consultation Questions (WSESCQ), was developed and approved by the Recreation Working Group to gather the data needed for the study (refer to Appendix A for the WSECQ Form). The WSESCQ consists of five Water Surface Elevation Threshold (WSETs) definitions and ten questions. The WSESCQ was used for each interview. Five WSETs were defined in the WSESCQ. They are: Maximum Acceptable Water Surface Elevation: The highest stage at which you predict that 50% of the users would be willing to recreate on the reservoir. Minimum Acceptable Water Surface Elevation: The lowest stage at which you predict that 50% of the users would be willing to recreate on the reservoir. Maximum Optimal Water Surface Elevation: The highest stage at which you predict that 90% of the users would be willing to recreate on the reservoir. Minimum Optimal Water Surface Elevation: The lowest stage at which you predict that 90% of the users would be willing to recreate on the reservoir. Minimum Useable Water Surface Elevation: The lowest stage at which you predict that 10% of the users would be willing to recreate on the reservoir. Data gathered in the interviews included: Identification of recreation activities during the main recreation season (Memorial Day through Labor Day); Identification of recreation activities during the spring (April 1 through Memorial Day) and fall (Labor Day through October 31) seasons; Identification of recreation activities during the winter season (November 1 through March 31); Ranking the relative use of each recreation activity by season; Identification of the associated support facilities for primary recreation activities by season; Identification of the primary determinants affecting the function of support facilities for establishing WSETs for each primary recreation activity; Copyright 2004 by Southern California Edison REC 15-4 Recreation Working Group REC 15 Reservoir Recreation Water Surface Elevation Study Identification of the primary determinants affecting recreation use for establishing WSETs for each primary recreation activity; Identification of factors other than WSE and support facility function that affects recreation use; Identification of reservoir operational constraints that influence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydropower Team Trip Report (June 18-20, 2003)
    APPENDIX A.3 Hydropower Team Trip Report (June 18-20, 2003) UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION - PHASE 1 HYDROPOWER ANALYSIS TRIP REPORT - SITE VISITS TO RETAINED SITES June 18 – 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION This field trip report was prepared to document on-site data collection activities in support of an appraisal-level hydropower evaluation of surface storage options under consideration in the Phase 1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation. As part of Task 1, Data Collection, field trips were made to three potential Temperance Flat dam locations on the San Joaquin River at river mile (RM) 274, RM 279, RM 286; and at two potential dam sites for off-steam storage reservoirs at Fine Gold Creek and Yokohl Creek. Field trips were also made to the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) hydroelectric facilities likely to be impacted by dams at RM 274, RM 279 and RM 286. The PG&E facilities included Wishon Powerhouse, Kerckhoff Dam, Kerckhoff No: 1 Powerhouse and Kerckhoff No: 2 Powerhouse. The SCE facilities included Big Creek No: 4 Powerhouse, Redinger Dam and Big Creek No: 3 Powerhouse. The PG&E and SCE facilities are all located on the San Joaquin River. Potential dam locations and existing PG&E and SCE facilities were visited as follows: Wednesday, June 18, 2003: RM 286, Big Creek No: 4 Powerhouse, Redinger Dam, Big Creek No: 3 Powerhouse, and Fine Gold Creek. Thursday, June 19, 2003: Kerckhoff Dam, Wishon Powerhouse, Kerckhoff No: 1 Powerhouse, Kerckhoff No: 2 Powerhouse, and Yokohl Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperance Flat Reservoir
    Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Temperance Flat Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation San Joaquin River looking downstream towards Millerton Lake Temperance Flat Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: Prepared by: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 Surface Water Storage Option Technical Memorandum TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1-1 STORAGE OPTIONS SUMMARY.....................................................................................1-1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS................................................................1-4 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................................................1-4 RM 274 Options..............................................................................................................1-4
    [Show full text]
  • NRDC on the 2014 Draft
    Natural Resources Defense Council The Bay Institute American Rivers Audubon California California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Friends of the River October 27, 2014 Melissa Harris Project Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Planning Division 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1893 Sent via U.S. Mail and via email to [email protected] RE: Comments on the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Harris: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bay Institute, American Rivers, Audubon California, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, and our hundreds of thousands of members and activists in California, we are writing to provide comments on the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”). The DEIS fails to adequately assess the potential impacts of constructing and operating new storage at Temperance Flat, and even its flawed analysis demonstrates that the alternatives will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Yet the document fails to consider feasible mitigation measures to address the significant environmental impacts that are likely to result from the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. Overall, as documented in detail in the pages that follow, the DEIS fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. In particular, the DEIS: Fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives; Fails to incorporate climate change into the operational modeling
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Technical Appendix
    Hydropower Hydropower Technical Appendix UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION Initial Alternatives Information Report Hydropower 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 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................1-3 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS......... 2-1 HYDROPOWER BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2-1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................................2-1 EXISTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN....2-5 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake ............................................................................................2-9 Friant Power Project............................................................................................................2-9 PG&E Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project ..............................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse .........................................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff Dam and Lake................................................................................................2-11
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California
    Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle Abstract Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) formerly were highly abundant and widely distributed in virtually all the major streams of California’s Central Valley drainage—encompassing the Sacramento River basin in the north and San Joaquin River basin in the south. We used information from historical narratives and ethnographic accounts, fishery records and locations of in-stream natural barriers to determine the historical distributional limits and, secondarily, to describe at least qualitatively the abundances of chinook salmon within the major salmon-producing Central Valley watersheds. Indi- vidual synopses are given for each of the larger streams that histori- cally supported or currently support salmon runs. In the concluding section, we compare the historical distributional limits of chinook salmon in Central Valley streams with present-day distributions to estimate the reduction of in-stream salmon habitat that has resulted from human activities—namely, primarily the con- struction of dams and other barriers and dewatering of stream reaches. We estimated that at least 1,057 mi (or 48%) of the stream lengths historically available to salmon have been lost from the origi- nal total of 2,183 mi in the Central Valley drainage. We included in these assessments all lengths of stream that were occupied by salmon, whether for spawning and holding or only as migration cor- ridors. In considering only spawning and holding habitat (in other words, excluding migration corridors in the lower rivers), the propor- tionate reduction of the historical habitat range was far more than 48% and probably exceeded 72% because most of the former spawn- ing and holding habitat was located in upstream reaches that are now inaccessible for salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • AW 20141027 AW TFD DEIS Cmts
    Dave Steindorf California Stewardship Director 4 Baroni Drive Chico, CA 95928 530-518-2729 www.americanwhitewater.org [email protected] October 27, 2014 Melissa Harris, Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1893 Sent via electronic mail to: [email protected] Dear Ms. Harris, American Whitewater appreciates having the opportunity to provide comment on the Bureau of Reclamation’s (“Bureau”) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Project (“DEIS”), which proposes to build the Temperance Flat Dam at river mile 274. Constructing and operating the Temperance Flat Dam would have incredibly high economic, environmental and recreational costs while yielding a small amount of water and doing little to address the extreme drought in California. American Whitewater encourages the Bureau to adopt the No Action Alternative. American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)(3) river conservation organization founded in 1954 with a mission to conserve and restore America’s whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. With over 5,800 members and 100 locally-based affiliate clubs, American Whitewater represents the conservation interests of thousands of whitewater enthusiasts across the nation. A significant percentage of our members reside in and travel to California for its whitewater resources, and enjoy recreating on the San Joaquin River. As a result, American Whitewater has a direct interest in the outcome of the proposal to construct Temperance Flat Dam. The San Joaquin River’s Values The San Joaquin River between Kerckhoff Dam and Millerton Reservoir is a special place that supports a variety of recreational experiences amidst stunning scenery and a unique geologic background.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Ca{Ijornia 'S Wiu{Ije Since 18 70
    IP.iiii'-~ii State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director "olllli~liill Central Region 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, California 93710 (559) 243-4005 www.wildlife.ca.gov October 20, 2014 Melissa Harris, Project Manager United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Planning Division 2800 Cottage Way, MP-700 Sacramento, California 95825-1893 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MP-720/ENV-6.00) Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation (Project) Fresno and Madera Counties Dear Ms. Harris: On September 5, 2014, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) received the above referenced 7,000-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Acting as the federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), your agency has prepared and circulated the DEIS to inform cooperating and other public agencies of the potential environmental impacts which could result from Project implementation. The DEIS indicates that the environmental document was prepared consistent with the substance, format, and process requirements of both NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and could therefore be relied upon by the Department in the event we are involved in approving some aspect of the Project. However, the DEIS has not been circulated through the State Clearinghouse as required under CEQA (Section 15205(b)(4)). The Department provided informal comments to your consultant (MWH Americas, Inc. ) on an administrative draft of the DEIS in April 2013. The Department understands that Project approval would allow for the construction and operation of the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River approximately 6.8 miles upstream of the existing Friant Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS TFD DEIS Cmts
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100 Sacramento, California 95814-4700 OCT 27 2014 Melissa Harris Project Manager Planning Division U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way, MP-700 Sacramento, California 95825-1893 Dear Ms. Harris: This letter is in response to the September 5, 2014, public draft of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation (USJRBSI), California. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the portions of this draft regarding anadromous fishes under our jurisdiction, and we are providing comments on the analysis as it relates to those sections. As a Cooperating Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we propose to work closely with Reclamation to evaluate key sections of the Final Environmental Impact Statement prior to release. We view the analyses presented in the DEIS as foundational for additional analysis necessary to support the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and essential fish habitat (EFH) consultations for the proposed action. Our comments are summarized here and more fully explained in the enclosure: C The San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam is designated as EFH for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). The DEIS does not analyze impacts of the project on fall-run Chinook salmon, which is necessary to analyze adverse effects to EFH. C The DEIS does not include analysis of impacts of the project on California Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Through actions of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP), steelhead are expected to establish in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubled Water of the Sierra
    Troubled Water of the Sierra By Kerri L. Timmer Edited by Joan Clayburgh Sierra Nevada Alliance www.sierranevadaalliance.org Troubled Water of the Sierra 1 Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed comments, insights, experience and hard work to this report, among them Hannah House Gilan, Lynn Sadler, Bill Center, Kris Haddad, Steve Wald, Bob Kelso, Tom Mooers, Terry Manning and Steve Frisch. Special thanks to Kathy Haberman for formatting and editing this report for publication and Cristi Bozora Creegan for providing copy editing and proofing. Thanks to Mark Russell of Amador Web Works for web page assistance. We gratefully acknowledge Peter Moyle for allowing us to reuse his biotic integrity data. We want to thank the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund which supported the work and production of the report. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Recommendations and views expressed are those of the Sierra Nevada Alliance and do not necessarily represent those of funders, reviewers or others who offered assistance to this report. About the Author Kerri Timmer, sole proprietor of Sierra Connections — Community Action Consulting, is a writer, researcher and communications specialist with 20 years’ professional experience in the fields of business communications, community outreach and government relations. For the past 11 years she has worked exclusively with community interests on natural resource assessment, communications, and organizational development projects. Kerri is trained in meeting facilitation and interest-based negotiation and has sat on a number of boards and advisory committees dedicated to collaborative problem-solving, primarily in the environmental and land use arenas. She also authored a guidebook on establishing collaborative water- shed councils in local communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperance Flat Comments
    April 21, 2014 Sharon McHale, Project Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Planning Division 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1893 Sent via email to [email protected] RE: Comments on Draft Feasibility Report for Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation – Temperance Flat River Mile 274 Reservoir Dear Ms. McHale: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bay Institute, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and Friends of the River, we are writing to provide comments on the draft feasibility report for the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation - Temperance Flat River Mile 274 Reservoir (“Investigation”). As discussed in detail below, the Investigation is significantly flawed, does not accurately analyze the economic or ecosystem cost and benefits of the proposed project, and fails to comply with federal guidelines for project evaluation. As such, we strongly recommend that the Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) withdraw the Investigation, and recirculate a valid draft feasibility study once these flaws are addressed. The Investigation evaluates a proposal for Reclamation to construct the Temperance Flat River Mile 274 Reservoir above Millerton Lake/Friant Dam to provide an additional 19-76 TAF of water downstream. Over the past 60 years, Reclamation has conducted a number of studies to assess the feasibility of expanding storage at Friant Dam, including raising Friant dam and adding another dam immediately upstream of Friant dam (e.g. Temperance Flat), and has yet to develop a feasible option.1 It is unclear what new information is available to overturn these previous decisions and spend federal and state funds on a project already deemed infeasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper San Joaquin Basin Storage Investigation
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 OCT 3 \l {'.i;, David G. Murillo Regional Director Bureau ofReclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 Subject: Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Fresno and Madera Counties, California [CEQ# 20140260] Dear Mr. Murillo: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for · the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation. Our review and comments are pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Enviromnental Quality regnlations (40 CFR Pa.tis 1500- 1508), and our NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. This DEIS tiers from the CALFED Record ofDecision signed in 2000, at1d analyzes one of the five surface water storage studies reconm1ended in the 2000 ROD, a dam and reservoir at Temperance Flat River Mile 274. The DEIS evaluates five action alternatives that vary in tetms of the cai-ryover storage targets of Temperance Flat Reservoir at1d Millerton Lalce, allocation and conveyance routing of water among various users, and intake feature configurations. We understand that Reclamation plans to identify a preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Based on our review ofthe DEIS, we have rated all the Action Alternatives and the document as Environmental Objections - lnsiifficient Information (EO-2). Please see the enclosed "Summary of EPA Rating Definitions." Our rating is based on the project's significant impacts to aquatic resources and water quality. The DEIS identifies that the project would impact 245 acres ofwaters ofthe United States, 9 miles ofriverine habitat, and 5,757 acres of oalc woodland; however, the DEIS does not identify or discuss sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Bulletin 179. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. Volumes 1 & 2
    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 179. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. Volumes 1 & 2. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sd4z5b2 Author Brown, Randall L Publication Date 2001-09-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game FISH BULLETIN 179 CCCOOONONNNTTTTRRRRIIIIBBBBUUUUTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS TTTOTOOO TTTHTHHHEEEE B IIIOIOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGYYYY OOOFOFFF C EEENENNNTTTTRRRRAAAALLLL V AAALALLLLLEEEEYYYY S AAALALLLMMMMOOOONNNNIIIIDDDDSSSS VOLUME 1 Edited by Randall L. Brown Department of Water Resources Sacramento, California 2001 This bulletin is not copyrighted. If reproduced elsewhere, such as by photocopying, the authors, editor, and the DFG would appreciate receiving an appropriate acknowledgment. The free mailing list is on an exchange basis and is limited by budgetary considerations to libraries, scientific institutions, and conservation agencies. Individuals may obtain copies of this bulletin by submitting a check or money order in the amount of $25 per copy (includes sales tax and shipping cost) made out to the California Department of Fish and Game and mailing it to: Department of Fish and Game Fiscal and Administrative Services 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 653-6281 Fax: (916) 653-4645 State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game FISH BULLETIN 179 CCCOOONONNNTTTTRRRRIIIIBBBBUUUUTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS TTTOTOOO TTTHTHHHEEEE B IIIOIOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGYYYY OOOFOFFF C EEENENNNTTTTRRRRAAAALLLL V AAALALLLLLEEEEYYYY S AAALALLLMMMMOOOONNNNIIIIDDDDSSSS VOLUME 1 Edited by Randall L. Brown Department of Water Resources Sacramento, California 2001 Contents Preface v Dedication vii In Appreciation xi Acknowledgements xiii Foreword xv Contributing Authors xvii Central Valley Steelhead 1 Dennis R.
    [Show full text]