DOCSLIB.ORG

2010-2011 Sed & Wq Rpt Text Tables Figures App A-E.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010-2011 Sed & Wq Rpt Text Tables Figures App A-E.Pdf CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT STATUS ......................................................1 2.1 Site Infrastructure .......................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Offloading Facility and Sediment Pipeline .........................................................3 2.1.2 Sediment Placement Cells ..................................................................................3 2.1.3 Decant Water Drainage System ..........................................................................4 2.1.4 Makeup Water Pond and Discharge Pipe ............................................................4 2.1.5 Water Supply and Water Management Practices ................................................5 2.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells..........................................................................6 2.1.7 Rehandling Facility ............................................................................................7 2.2 Dredged Sediment Types and Quantities .....................................................................7 2.3 Overview of Project Monitoring .................................................................................8 2.3.1 Groundwater Background Sampling ..................................................................9 2.3.2 Reference Site Sampling ....................................................................................9 2.3.3 Historic Trends in Onsite Monitoring Results.....................................................9 2.4 Sediment Placement History ..................................................................................... 13 2.5 Project Status ............................................................................................................15 2.6 Project Team and Management Structure .................................................................. 15 2.7 Questions to be Answered by the Monitoring Program .............................................. 17 3.0 2010/2011 MONITORING ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 18 3.1 Sediment Monitoring Program .................................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Confirmation of Incoming Dredged Sediment .................................................. 18 3.1.2 Makeup Water Pond ........................................................................................ 19 3.1.3 Methods for Sediment Sampling ...................................................................... 19 3.2 Surface Water Monitoring Program .......................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Influent Water Supply ...................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Makeup Water Pond ........................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 Receiving Waters .............................................................................................20 2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page i 3.2.4 Sediment Placement Cells ................................................................................ 20 3.2.5 Return Water Channel ...................................................................................... 21 3.2.6 Methods for Surface-Water Sampling .............................................................. 22 3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................................ 22 3.3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Wells........................................................................ 22 3.3.2 Off-site Supply Wells ...................................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Methods for Groundwater Sampling ................................................................ 23 4 .0 2010/2011 SAMPLING AND MONITORING RESULTS ................................................. 23 4.1 Sediment Sampling Results ....................................................................................... 23 4.2 Surface and Groundwater Sampling Results .............................................................. 24 4.2.1 Inorganics ........................................................................................................24 4.2.2 Organics ..........................................................................................................30 4.2.3 Conventional Parameters ................................................................................. 30 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................31 6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................34 TABLES 1 Phase I Cell Acreage 2 Water Criteria 2000 – Nov. 2012 3 Updated Water Criteria (as of Nov. 2012) 4 Sediment Criteria 5 Action Level/Background Exceedance Summary 6 Site Water Management Summary 7a Summary of Inorganics in Sediment 7b Summary of PAHs in Sediment 7d Summary of PCBs in Sediment 7e Summary of Conventional Parameters in Sediment 8a Summary of Inorganics in Surface and Groundwater 8b Inorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Surface Water 8c Inorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Groundwater 8d Summary of Pesticides in Surface and Groundwater Page ii 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0 8e Summary of Conventional Water Quality Parameters in Surface and Groundwater B-1 Analytical Methods B-2 Required Quantitation Limits D-1 Precision and Accuracy Goals FIGURES 1 Site Vicinity 2 Created Habitat 3 Site Overview 4 Reference Sites 5 Cell Filling Timeline 6 Approximate Sampling Locations, Phase I 7 Approximate Sampling Locations, Operations Area 8 Mean Concentrations of Inorganics in Water from Sediment Placement Cells, 2010 – 2011 9 Inorganics in Cell 1 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011 10 Inorganics in Cell 1 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2006 – 2011 11 Inorganics in Cell 2 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011 12 Inorganics in Cell 2 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2006 – 2011 13 Inorganics in Cell 3/4 (Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011 14 Inorganics in Cell 3/4 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2006 – 2011 15 Inorganics in Cell 6/7 (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011 16 Inorganics in Cell 6/7 (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011 17 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011 18 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011 19 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011 20 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011 21 Inorganics in Cell 8/9 (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011 22 Inorganics in Cell 8/9 (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011 23 Inorganics in Cell 10 (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011 24 Inorganics in Cell 10 (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011 25 Inorganics in Cell 11 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011 26 Inorganics in Cell 11 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2006 – 2011 2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page iii 27 Arsenic in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 28 Chromium in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 29 Copper in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 30 Mercury in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 31 Nickel in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 32 Selenium in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 33 Zinc in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011 34 Salinity in Cell 1 Water, 2004 – 2011 35 Salinity in Cell 2 Water, 2004 – 2011 36 Salinity in Cell 3/4 Water, 2004 – 2011 37 Salinity in Cell 6 Water, 2006 – 2011 38 Salinity in Cell 7 Water, 2006 – 2010 39 Salinity in Cell 8/9 Water, 2005 – 2011 40 Salinity in Cell 10 Water, 2005 – 2011 41 Salinity in Cell 11 Water, 2006 – 2011 APPENDICES A Sample Identification Numbers B Analytical Methods C Data Management D Data Validation E Audits and Corrective Action F 2010 – 2011 Sediment Data G 2010 – 2011 Water Data Page iv 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0 1.0 INTRODUCTION On behalf of Montezuma Wetlands LLC (MWLLC), Acta Environmental (Acta) in collaboration with Lipton Environmental Group (LEG) has prepared this Monitoring Report (“the Report”) on sediment and water quality at the Montezuma Wetlands Project site (“Montezuma” or “the project”) during 2010 and 2011. This monitoring effort was based on the project’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP; LEG 2003a), Sediment Confirmation Sampling Plan (SCSP; LEG 2003b), and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP; LFR 2000). In accord with the QAPP, SCSP, MMRP, and project permits, concentrations of chemicals of concern (COCs) in sediment, surface water, and groundwater were monitored and compared to relevant criteria to assess project performance and inform adaptive management decisions. Adaptive management options and decisions are reviewed with Montezuma’s Technical Review Team (TRT) that is administered by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Performance criteria and contingency measures for sediment, water, and tissue are described in project permits and the MMRP (see MMRP Table 5, lines 15-18, 36- 39, 45, and 54; and MMRP Appendix B). This report presents monitoring data for 2010 and 2011. A report on project operations for this same time period will be prepared by FarWest Restoration Engineering (FRE), Montezuma’s Chief Engineer. This report is organized as follows: Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 Project Description and Current Status Section 3.0 2010/2011 Monitoring Activities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection
    PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Performance Measure 4.12: Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection Performance Measure (PM) Component Attributes Type: Output Performance Measure Description 1 Subsidence reversal 0F activities are located at shallow subtidal elevations to prevent net loss of future opportunities to restore tidal wetlands in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. Expectations Preventing long-term net loss of land at intertidal elevations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh from impacts of sea level rise and land subsidence. Metric 1. Acres of Delta and Suisun Marsh land with subsidence reversal activity located on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. This metric will be reported annually. 2. Average elevation accretion at each project site presented in centimeters per year. This metric will be reported every five years. Baseline 1. In 2019, zero acres of subsidence reversal on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. Short-term elevation accretion in the Delta at 4 centimeters per year. 1 Subsidence reversal is a process that halts soil oxidation and accumulates new soil material in order to increase land elevations. Examples of subsidence reversal activities are rice cultivation, managed wetlands, and tidal marsh restoration. DELTA PLAN, AMENDED – PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOVEMBER 2019 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Target 1. By 2030, 3,500 acres in the Delta and 3,000 acres in Suisun Marsh with subsidence reversal activities on islands, with at least 50 percent of the area or with at least 1,235 acres at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. An average elevation accretion of subsidence reversal is at least 4 centimeters per year up to 2050.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance
    The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance Volume 7, Issue 6 — June 2017 Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. PO Box 7441 Fishing the Klamath River with Jerry Lampkin Auburn, CA 95604 The multi-talented Rooster Tail Fishing Club The Klamath is special among many rivers in 530-887-0479 member and Pro River Guide, Jerry Lampkin California. It is only second by out-flow to the www.roostertailsfishingclub.org invites all members and their guests to a spe- Sacramento River and flows 263 miles cial presentation at the third Friday breakfast through Oregon and northern California emp- Fishing the meeting on June 16th to share his experi- tying into the Pacific Ocean. It drains an ex- Klamath River for ences on the Klamath River. Jerry has been tensive watershed of almost 16,000 square fishing the Klamath for salmon and steel- miles from both states. salmon and head for over 25 years and brings with him a steelhead unique perspective about the river you will Unlike most rivers, the Klamath begins in the want to hear. Jerry and his wife Sherry will be high desert and flows toward the mountains July 12th— available to fisher men and women inter- carving a path through the rugged Cascade ested in fishing the ‘Springer Salmon Run’ and Klamath mountains before reaching the Rooster Tail Day during the week of July 10 – 14. Jerry has sea. The scenery and wild life are varied and spectacular. The area is a nature lover’s on the Klamath set aside Wednesday, July 12th, as Rooster dream and a panacea for photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Plan-Chap 5
    Chapter 5 Physical Environment This chapter provides environmental analyses relative to physical parameters of the project area. Components of this study include a setting discussion, impact analysis criteria, project effects and significance, and applicable mitigation measures. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 5.1, “Water Supply, Hydrology, and Delta Water Management”; Section 5.2, “Water Quality”; Section 5.3, “Geology and Groundwater”; Section 5.4, “Flood Control and Levee Stability”; Section 5.5, “Sediment Transport”; Section 5.6, “Transportation and Navigation”; Section 5.7, “Air Quality”; Section 5.8, “Noise”; and Section 5.9; “Climate Change.” Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, November 2011 Preservation, and Restoration Plan 5-1 Final EIS/EIR ICF 06888.06 Section 5.1 Water Supply, Hydrology, and Delta Water Management Introduction This section describes the existing environmental conditions and the consequences of implementing the SMP alternatives on water supply, hydrology, and Delta water management. Delta water management for agriculture, water supply diversions, and exports and the salinity of water diverted for waterfowl habitat in the managed wetlands of the Marsh officially became linked in the 1978 State Water Board Delta Water Control Plan and the water right decision (D-1485) Suisun Marsh salinity standards (objectives). D-1485 required DWR and Reclamation to prepare a plan to protect the beneficial use of water for fish and wildlife and meet salinity standards for the Marsh. Initial facilities included improved RRDS facilities to supply approximately 5,000 acres on Simmons, Hammond, Van Sickle, Wheeler, and Grizzly Islands with lower salinity water from Montezuma Slough, and the MIDS and Goodyear Slough outfall to improve supply of lower salinity water for the southwestern Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960
    Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960 W. R. Swagerty and Reuben W. Smith, University of the Pacific Swagerty & Smith 1 Stitching a River Culture: Communication, Trade and Transportation to 1960 An essay by William R. Swagerty & Reuben W. Smith The Delta Narratives Project Delta Protection Commission, State of California June 1, 2015 California’s Delta California’s Delta is a unique environment, created by the natural drainage of the state’s Sierra Nevada range into the Central Valley, which in turn delivers the runoff of rain and snowmelt into river basins that meander and spill into sloughs, bays, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. According to environmental historian Philip Garone, “Rising sea levels between six thousand and seven thousand years ago impeded the flow of the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, creating a labyrinthine network of hundreds of miles of sloughs surrounding nearly one hundred low-lying islands—the historic Delta.”1 Today, the original 738,000 acres of the Delta are among the most engineered lands in the state; and yet, they still have environmental, social, and economic attributes that merit recognition and protection. By the State of California Delta Protection Commission’s own introductory definition: The Primary Zone of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Delta) includes approximately 500,000 acres of waterways, levees and farmed lands extending over portions of five counties: Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. The rich peat soil in the central Delta and the mineral soils in the higher elevations support a strong agricultural economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Schools, Hospitals, Fire Stations
    nA! *# n n *# *#! n ! ! n n A!! n A nn A A ! n ! A # nn !n n n n n nA*# n n A n " * nn An n n Legend *# n 80 n u n A! n n n n n *#n*#n ¨¦§ A!nnnu" *#n n n n nn nn A! A! Potential Intake Site (Only Two of Three Sites Required) n n n n n ! ! n !n n A !n An A! n nA n n A! nn n*# nA n n Boundary of Potential Facility Corridors nn n nnn ! nn nn n n n"A n n nn *# n ! u n nn n n Public Schools n *# A Americann Rivern West A! A! *# n nn A! A! n*# *#*# n n n n n A!*# u" Hospitals A! Sacramentonn *#A*#!Sacramenton *# A!n n nn ! A!*# n! n n *# ! Port*#A! nA u"u"Anu" u" ! n nA!u" n A Fire Stations u" n A!nn n A n! n nn ! n n n of Sacramento nn ¤£50 n nA ! Annnnn nn n *#*#nnu"" n *# ! A *# Local Law Enforcementn n! n *# A!n n A! n nn *#u" n n nn nA n nA n n n u" A! ! n n *#A! n n n nA! nn *# An nn nn A! n A! nA!n nnn n nn*#A! ABH113 n nn *#n n n 505 n A!n n ¨¦§ ! n*# n n *# A n n n ABH16 ABH84 n n A! *#n nn n n n n ! n n n *#n n Yolo County nA n n ! GLIDE n ! nnn A n n n nAnn !n nA! DISTRICT n n A S a c r a m e n t o nn n n A! n n nnnu"*# nCA! o u n t y n n A! n n n A! Freeport nu" A!n n n n n n nn LISBON nn*# n n n*# DISTRICT nn n nn n ! n nA! A nn ABH99 n ! n n!n A ClarksburgA! ! A ¨¦§80 nn A! n nA nn *#nn n n n !n 5 An *# A! ¨¦§ n n n nn A!n u" n ! n n nAnn nA! n n NETHERLANDS n n A! ! n ! Cosumnes River A A!n n ! A nn Au"n MERRITT Hood *# n Solano! County ISLAND nnn n A n ! RANDALL A n CACHE ISLAND ! HAAS ! A LITTLE !nnnCourtland A n MOORE A HOLLAND TRACT TRACT PETERS GLANVILLE TRACT POCKET LIBERTY PIERSON ABH104 ISLAND SUTTER n LIBERTY ISLAND
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Suisun Bay Genetics Comparison Study
    Technical Report in Fulfillment of Agreement No. A07-0008 between AECOM Technical Services Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, and Agreement No. 4600011293 between Department of Water Resources and the Regents of the University of California Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Landscape Genetics and Connectivity within the Suisun Bay Area Recovery Unit A salt marsh harvest mouse from Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, Goodyear Slough, Suisun. Photo: Katie Smith. August 2018 Technical Report in Fulfillment of Agreement No. A07-0008 between AECOM Technical Services Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, and Agreement No. 4600011293 between Department of Water Resources and the Regents of the University of California Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Landscape Genetics and Connectivity within the Suisun Bay Area Recovery Unit Prepared by: Mark J. Statham University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab Benjamin N. Sacks University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab Other Project Partners: Laureen Barthman-Thompson Suisun Marsh Unit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sarah Estrella Suisun Marsh Unit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Caitlin Roddy Suisun Marsh Planning Section California Department of Water Resources Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services, Suisun Marsh Branch 3500 Industrial Boulevard West Sacramento, CA 95691 Contact: Cliff Feldheim, Chief Suisun Marsh Branch (916) 379-9693 [email protected] June 2019 State of California Gavin Newsom, Governor California Natural Resources Agency Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources Department of Water Resources Karla Nemeth, Director Cindy Messer Chief Deputy Director Michelle Banonis, J.D. Assistant Chief Deputy Director Kasey Schimke Erin Mellon Spencer Kenner, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Ridgway's Rail Survey Report
    California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2020 Report to: The State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1515 Clay St., 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by: Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1001 42nd Street, Suite 230 Oakland, California 94608 Contact: [email protected] February 1, 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was designed and prepared under the direction of Jen McBroom, the Invasive Spartina Project Ridgway’s Rail Monitoring Manager, with considerable hard work by other OEI biologists and staff, including Brian Ort, Jeanne Hammond, Kevin Eng, Nate Deakers, Pim Laulikitnont, Simon Gunner, Stephanie Chen, Tobias Rohmer, Melanie Anderson, and Lindsay Faye. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Data Management ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]