D--048966 - CALFED Bay-Delta Program - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

857 Hydrotogy and Water Resources of Planning and Research (Kahrl 1978). The history of water gathered varied widely between river basins throughout the development in California is treated by Hundley (1992). The range. Important sources were undoubtedly overlooked becondition of California’s rivers is assessed by the California cause of ignorance of their existence and inability to actually State Lands Commission (1993). Possible scenarios of the fu- locate all known sources. One of the critical assumptions of ture of water resources in California have been developed by this assessment was that the reported material was indeed the California Department of Water Resources (1994) and the reliable. Multiple sources of information that were consistent Pacific Institute (Gleick et al. 1995). Although all these books provided greater confidence in most material. Information deal with the Sierra Nevada as a critical part of the California was organized by resource, by impact, and geographically waterscape, and books devoted to the Sierra Nevada (e.g., by river basin. Use of natural hydrologic areas was a central Peattie 1947; Lee 1962; Johnston 1970; Webster 1972; Bowen tenet of this effort. Consideration of nested catchments from 1972; Palmer 1988) at least mention water resources, a thor- headwaters to large river basins provides a logical hierarchy ough treatment of water in the Sierra Nevada has yet to be that makes physical and ecological sense. Watersheds are bewritten. Thousands of articles, chapters, and reports address coming a more common unit of analysis and planning. The the various aspects of hydrology and water resources in the California Resources Agency is organizing many of its pro- Sierra Nevada, but there has been little synthesis of this vast grams on a watershed basis and has adopted a watershed work. The isolated, topical work provides a wealth of infor- delineation scheme called Calwater. This system was used marion about specific details but does not inform society about in this study and by other parts of SNEP. River basins the context of that work at the scale of the mountain range or and major streams of the study area are identified in figures even of a river basin. In addition, there are serious gaps in the collection of information about Sierra Nevada waters. Al- 30.1-30.3. though knowledge is far from complete for most aspects of the water-resource situation, the most troubling gap is the Attributes of Water virtual absence of experimental research on hydrologic im- There are several attributes of water and streams that are impacts of land management activities. Because of this near lack pacted by management activities. The physical attributes are of local research, we usually had to infer the likely conse- briefly described in the following paragraphs (see Moyle 1996; quences of disturbance from studies done outside the Sierra Moyle and Randall 1996; Erman 1996; Moyle et al. 1996; Nevada. In addition, the state does not have a thorough de- Jennings 1996 for biological impacts). The present study did scription of each river basin that would be adequate for envi- not perform any systematic analyses of these attributes. Such ronmenta! assessments. Comprehensive lists of environmental analyses (within the constraints of readily available data) problems in each river basin do not exist. There is no consis- would not provide clear indications of the health of the hytent method for chai’acterizing watersheds. Absence of con- drologic system of the Sierra Nevada. Instead, synthesis of sistent criteria for evaluating ecological conditions along existing analyses originally performed for various other purstreams or in watersheds inhibits assessment of management poses provided the basis of this assessment. consequences or need for restoration (California State Lands Stream flow (or stream discharge) is the most fundamental Commission 1993). aspect of watershed hydrology. Stream flow will usually be addressed in this assessment just as a concept: volume of water passing by a point on a stream over some period of time. Fortunately, this concept is also measured at hundreds of sites within the SNEP study area. However, the number of sites OVERALL APPROACH AND S O U R C E S with data useful to this study is much more limited, numbering in the dozens. Most stream-flow measuring stations are located in association with some water management project This assessment was primarily a literature review augmented rather than for scientific study. Therefore, most information with the author’s experiences throughout the Sierra Nevada is available on highly regulated streams that suggest little over the past two decades and a few weeks of specific field about hydrologic response to changes in the landscape other checking during the SNEP period. The libraries of the Uni- than the direct manipulation of water in the channel. Gauges versity of California and the Water Resources Center Archives on unregulated (often called unimpaired) streams often have at Berkeley, in particular, were critical to the effort. Offices of short or incomplete records or are sited in locations inapprothe national forests in the Sierra Nevada also provided a priate for any particular after-the-fact study. The number of wealth of documents. Other materials were provided by .doz- such gauges in the Sierra Nevada has decreased with time as ens of agencies and individuals. Newspapers were essential costs have risen. Stream gauging stations are operated by the sources of current information. Interviews with agency per- U.S. Geological Survey, utilities, irrigation districts, and a few sonnel and private parties augmented the written word. The other public agencies. Many of the records are published as primary challenges were to compile and synthesize the di- daily values in annual volumes by the U.S. Geological Surversity of material. The quantity and quality of information vey (USGS). Most of these records are now available on CD- D--048969 D-048969
Sacramento --- SNEP study area boundary ~ Core Siena Nevada ecoregion -- River basin boundaries Nevada Source: Calwater watersheg bounda~; California Depa~ment of ~rest~ ~d Nre Protection FIGURE 30.1 Major river basins of the SN~P corn study area. 858 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 Feather Honey Lak \, American 0 I0 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 ~ ~ 70 80 D--048970 South Mer~ D-048970
Page 1 and 2: D--048966 D-048966
Page 3: 856 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 extensive
Page 7 and 8: FIGURE 30.3 0 ~0 20 a0 40 86O VOLUM
Page 9 and 10: 862 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 However,
Page 11 and 12: 864 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 tible to
Page 13 and 14: ~ "~been maximized in the absence o
Page 15 and 16: 868 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 ,_ teleme
Page 17 and 18: VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 ground water.
Page 19 and 20: 872 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 Pesticide
Page 21 and 22: VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 additions. Do
Page 23 and 24: ¯ 876 o VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 of r
Page 25 and 26: TABLE 30.3 Sediment yields from res
Page 27 and 28: 88O VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 decades u
Page 29 and 30: 882 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 sources C
Page 31 and 32: 884 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 (Slotten
Page 33 and 34: I!"., 886 ¯ VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30
Page 35 and 36: 888 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 16 14 12
Page 37 and 38: 890 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 cases, lo
Page 39 and 40: 892 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 Failure 1
Page 41 and 42: 894 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 standard
Page 43 and 44: 896 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 The prese
Page 45 and 46: 898 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 are most
Page 47 and 48: 900 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 (e.g., Ha
Page 49 and 50: 902 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 Sewage ¯
Page 51 and 52: 904 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 Artificia
Page 53 and 54: 906 VOLUME I|, CHAPTER 30 3. How do
Page 55:
908 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 30 ties and
show all

D--048966 - CALFED Bay-Delta Program - State of California

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?