DOCSLIB.ORG

Optical Observations of Suspended Particle Dynamics in a Tidal Wetland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Optical Observations of Suspended Particle Dynamics in a Tidal Wetland OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS OF SUSPENDED PARTICLE DYNAMICS IN A TIDAL WETLAND John Franco Saraceno B.S., University of California, Davis, 2006 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in GEOLOGY at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SUMMER 2011 © 2011 John Franco Saraceno ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS OF SUSPENDED PARTICLE DYNAMICS IN A TIDAL WETLAND A Thesis by John Franco Saraceno Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair David Evans, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Brian Bergamaschi, Ph.D. __________________________________, Third Reader Scott Wright, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date iii Student: John Franco Saraceno I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Department Chair ___________________ David Evans, Ph.D. Date Department of Geology iv Abstract of OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS OF SUSPENDED PARTICLE DYNAMICS IN A TIDAL WETLAND by John Franco Saraceno Suspended particulate matter (SPM) plays an important role in the biogeochemistry of estuaries and wetlands. Recent wetland restoration efforts have targeted tidal wetlands; yet, many questions pertaining to SPM dynamics s remain. A paired in situ optical and acoustical sensor package was deployed for several weeks during the winter in the main channel at Browns Island, CA, in order to identify processes controlling estuarine and marsh sediment dynamics. Turbidity, particle volume concentration and particulate attenuation were employed as surrogates of SPM concentration. The slope of the particulate attenuation spectra, γ, and laser diffraction were used to study particle size dynamics and flocculation processes. Water samples were collected hourly over one tidal cycle at the end of the study period for SPM concentration and organic content in support of optical measurements. Together these observations helped elucidate the role of tidal wetlands in the cycling of estuarine particles. Tidal action was a driving force of particle dynamics at Browns Island, as fluctuations in tidal water levels controlled wetland inundation and current velocity. SPM surrogates were maximum at the height of the higher high (HH) flood tide and minimum at lower low (LL) tide water level, consistent with the loss of SPM through deposition v and/or flocculation due to the interaction of estuarine water with the island. Following HH slack tide, particles smaller than 133 µm flocculated into larger particle aggregates. The largest aggregates reached a maximum size of 150 µm during the ebb tide. The controlling mechanism for flocculation was likely particle to particle collisions and differential settling in the presence of organic rich pore waters draining from the marsh. The transport of organic rich flocs could be an important mechanism for the export of contaminants and organic matter off of the island and into the estuary. _______________________, Committee Chair David Evans, Ph.D. _______________________ Date vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my committee members Dave Evans, Brian Bergamaschi and Scott Wright for guidance and helpful suggestions. I am appreciative of Bryan Downing for his role in attaining high quality data and for stimulating insightful discussions. I could not have completed this work without the help and expert advice of Emmanuel Boss. I wish to thank the University of Maine at Orono In Situ Sound and Color Lab and the USGS California Water Science Center for the use of the equipment used in this study. I express thanks to Neil Ganju and many other USGS personnel for the collection and processing of hydrodynamic and sediment data. I express the deepest gratitude to my dear old friend Calvin Kenney for nudging me to pursue a graduate degree and in part making it possible through a gracious scholarship. Lastly, I extend my sincere appreciation to my wife, Stacy, for lending her ear, critical eye, and inexhaustible support. The CALFED drinking water program funded this work. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................12 1.1 The Ecological and Societal Importance of Estuaries and Tidal Wetlands ............ 12 1.2 Suspended Particulate Matter Biogeochemistry ..................................................... 13 1.2.1 Size ................................................................................................................... 14 1.2.2 Flocculation...................................................................................................... 15 1.2.3 Settling Velocity .............................................................................................. 16 1.2.4 Contaminate Transport..................................................................................... 17 1.2.5 Optical Properties............................................................................................. 17 1.3 Particle Cycling in Tidal Wetlands ......................................................................... 18 1.4 Previous Work ........................................................................................................ 19 2. SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................22 2.1 Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................... 22 3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................24 3.1 Sampling Procedure and Instrumentation ............................................................... 24 3.2 Turbidity ................................................................................................................. 25 3.3 Attenuation and Absorption .................................................................................... 25 3.4 ac9 Data Treatment ................................................................................................. 26 3.5 cp Spectra and Particle Size .................................................................................... 28 3.6 In Situ Particle Size Distributions ........................................................................... 29 3.7 Discrete Measurements ........................................................................................... 31 3.7.1 Sample Collection ............................................................................................ 31 3.7.2 SPM Concentration .......................................................................................... 31 3.7.3 Particle Organic Content .................................................................................. 31 viii 3.8 Time Series Analysis .............................................................................................. 32 4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................33 4.1 Hydrodynamics ....................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Wind Velocity ......................................................................................................... 34 4.3 SPM Concentration Surrogates ............................................................................... 35 4.3.1 Turbidity .......................................................................................................... 35 4.3.2 Particulate Beam Attenuation .......................................................................... 36 4.3.3 Volume Concentration ..................................................................................... 37 4.4 SPM, POM Concentration and Organic Content .................................................... 38 4.5 Particle Size ............................................................................................................ 39 4.5.1 cp Slope ............................................................................................................ 39 4.5.2 Mean and Median Particle Size ....................................................................... 39 4.5.3 Particle Size Distributions................................................................................ 39 5. INTERPRETATION......................................................................................................42 5.1 Hydrodynamics ....................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Drivers of SPM Concentration ............................................................................... 43 5.2.1 Precipitation ..................................................................................................... 43 5.2.2 Wind ................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.3 Tidal forcing....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project
    Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project Prepared for CSAMP/CAMT Project funded by State and Federal Water Contractors Prepared by Graham Long and Sally Rudd Compass Resource Management Ltd. 604.641.2875 Suite 210- 111 Water Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6B 1A7 www.compassrm.com Date May 4, 2018 April 13th – reviewed by TWG and comments incorporated Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Trade-offs ................................................................................................. 17 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program History and Studies 1983—2012
    State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program History and Studies 1983—2012 November 2013 Edmund Brown Jr. John Laird Mark W. Cowin Governor Secretary for Resources Director State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources State of California Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor California Natural Resources Agency John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources Department of Water Resources Mark W. Cowin, Director Laura King Moon, Chief Deputy Director Office of the Chief Counsel Public Affairs Office Security Operations Cathy Crothers Nancy Vogel, Ass't Dir. Sonny Fong Gov't & Community Liaison Policy Advisor Legislative Affairs Office Kimberly Johnston~ Dodds Waiman Yip Kasey Schimke, Ass't Dir. Deputy Directors Paul Helliker Delta and Statewide Water Management Gary Bardini Integrated Water Management Carl Torgersen State Water Project John Pacheco California Energy Resources Scheduling Kathie Kishaba Business Operations Division of Environmental Services Dean F. Messer, Chief Office of Water Quality Stephani Spaar, Chief Municipal Water Quality Program Branch Municipal Water Quality Investigations Section Cindy Garcia, Chief Rachel Pisor, Chief Ofelia Bogdan, Staff Services Analyst Prepared By Sonia Miller, Project Leader Otome J. Lindsey Foreword The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a major source of drinking water for 25 million people of the State of California. Therefore, the quality of Delta water is an important consideration for its use as a drinking water source. However, Delta water quality may be degraded by a variety of sources and environmental factors. Close monitoring of Delta waters is necessary to ensure delivery of high quality source waters to urban water suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan
    DELTA REGION DRINKING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT FINAL June 2005 Funding for this project was made possible by a CALFED Grant through the Drinking Water Quality Program This document was funded by the CALFED Water Quality Program as an initial effort to create Regional “Equivalent Level of Public Health Protection” Plans and to assist in establishing a uniform framework in such planning. It is not intended to be a final document. California Bay-Delta Authority and CALFED WQP Implementing Agency staff have not had the opportunity to review and comment on this document, and any opinions or interpretations of the CALFED program expressed within the document are solely those of its authors. The CALFED WQP is committed to working with these and other parties to continue development and refinement of Regional Plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) commissioned a pilot program for development of regional drinking water quality management plans (i) to identify the drinking water quality issues and needs of drinking water agencies in different regions of California and (ii) to develop solutions to address those needs. This Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DRDWQMP) was developed jointly by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), the city of Stockton (COS), and Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). Figure ES-1 shows the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) region, with an outline representing Delta boundaries as defined in California Water Code Section 12220, along with the service areas of the three participating agencies. These three agencies represent the largest urban water users within the Delta region.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Model of Sedimentation in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta
    Peer Reviewed Title: A Conceptual Model of Sedimentation in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 10(3) Author: Schoellhamer, David H., U.S. Geological Survey Wright, Scott A., U.S. Geological Survey Drexler, Judy, U.S. Geological Survey Publication Date: 2012 Publication Info: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, John Muir Institute of the Environment, UC Davis Permalink: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2652z8sq Acknowledgements: We thank David Fryberg, Denise Reed, Stuart Siegel, Mark Stacey, the DRERIP review panel, and the other DRERIP model authors for their assistance in developing this model. Justin Ferris, Mick van der Wegen, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on initial drafts of this manuscript. Keywords: Sediment, sediment transport, sedimentation, Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta, conceptual model, feedback, open water, tidal marsh, watershed, vegetation, sea level rise, Central Valley Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_11152 Abstract: Sedimentation in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta builds the Delta landscape, creates benthic and pelagic habitat, and transports sediment-associated contaminants. Here we present a conceptual model of sedimentation that includes submodels for river supply from the watershed to the Delta, regional transport within the Delta and seaward exchange, and local sedimentation in open water and marsh habitats. The model demonstrates feedback loops that affect the Delta ecosystem. Submerged and emergent marsh vegetation act as ecosystem engineers that can create a positive feedback loop by decreasing suspended sediment, increasing water column eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Pacific Charts Catalog Reference
    PANEL A PANEL E 19380 156° 158° 160° S 122° TR 123° A 49° IT CANADA 49° O F SEMIAHMOO BAY UNITED S TATES 19381 GE Blaine Hawai‘ian Islands K 19385 O Point Roberts A RG 18423 U IA Chart Number Title Scale L Hanalei NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN A K 19320 Island of Hawai‘i 1:250,000 A H S 19322 Harbors & Landings on the Northeast & Southeast Coasts of Hawai‘i 22° I KAUA‘I 22° altspring 18421 C 19384 Honokaa Landing 1:2,500 H Waimea 19340 Ni‘ihau A N Honu‘apo Bay 1:2,500 N 19383 E 19386 Kukuihaele Landing 1:2,500 L 19382 Punalu‘u Harbor 1:2,500 19357 I 18424 Kahuku Point sland 19324 Island of Hawai‘i—Hilo Bay 1:10,000 AI CHANNEL 19326 Pa‘auhau Landing—Island of Hawai‘i 1:5,000 Ka‘ula U KA Ka‘ena Point 19327 West Coast of Hawai‘i—Cook Point to Upolu Point 1:80,000 18430 19359 ASS Honokohau Harbor 1:5,000 YP Bellingham Cowichan Bay O‘AHU B Keauhou Bay 1:5,000 19361 19367 E BOUNDAR L 18431 L 19329 Mahukona Harbor and Approaches—Island of Hawai‘i 1:5,000 19366 I 19330 Kawaihae Bay—Island of Hawai‘i 1:10,000 HONOLULU EL N N Sidney G N H 19331 Kailua Bay—Island of Hawai‘i 1:5,000 A 19358 H Orcas I A C 18424 M 19332 Kealakekua Bay to Honaunau Bay 1:10,000 19362 19369 I T W NEL 18432 I B I MO AN A 19340 Hawai‘i to O‘ahu 1:250,000 L H HAR A A OKAI OC OCHE R Y ‘ OL R T K IL S 19341 Hana Bay—Island of Maui 1:5,000 19353 PA 19342 HARBOR O O I 19342 Kahului Harbor and Approaches 1:30,000 19353 UI HARBOR R S A S Kahului Harbor 1:10,000 KAHUL TRAIT 19380 19348 O LANA‘I Friday Harbor R 19347 Channels between Moloka‘i, Maui, Lana‘i and Kaho‘olawe 1:80,000 18427 San
    [Show full text]
  • Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington)
    Tidal Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington) Standard deviation (or accuracy) of Tidal Datum Computations: The time period necessary to incorporate all of the major astronomical tide producing cycles into the computation of a tidal datum is 19-years. All tidal datums are referenced to specific 19-year National Tidal Datum Epochs (NTDE). First reduction tidal datums are determined directly by averaging values of the tidal parameters over a 19-year NDTE. Errors in determination of tidal datums using First Reduction for the 19-year NTDE are theoretically zero. NTDE datums for short-term subordinate stations are computed and adjusted to a 19-year NTDE equivalent using simultaneous comparison with an appropriate nearby control station (NOS, 2003, Swanson, 1974, and Marmer, 1951). See Gill and Fisher, 2008: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Memorandum_NOS_COOPS_0048.pdf for the areas of coverage for tidal datum computation for each National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) control tide station. Errors in determination of tidal datums at short-term stations through the method of simultaneous comparison are known to be generally correlated with the length if the subordinate station observations, with geographic distance from the control station and with difference in range of tide and time of tide between control and subordinate stations. In applied research performed by Bodnar (1981), multiple curvilinear regression equations estimating the accuracy of computed 19-year equivalent tidal datums were developed. The formulas for Mean Low Water were adopted for use in estimating tidal datum errors because the low water differences express the effects of shallow water and bottom friction better than MHW.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Contingency Public Safety
    PUBLIC SAFETY FLOOD CONTINGENCY N ' 121°39'W 121°38'30"W 121°38'W 121°37'30"W 121°37'W 121°36'30"W 121°36'W 121°35'30"W 121°35'W 121°34'30"W 121°34'W 121°33'30"W 121°33'W 2 N ' 121°39'W 121°38'30"W 121°38'W 121°37'30"W 121°37'W 121°36'30"W 121°36'W 121°35'30"W 121°35'W 121°34'30"W 121°34'W 121°33'30"W 121°33'W ° 2 8 ° N 3 ' 8 2 N 3 ' C ° 2 8 a C ° 3 n a 8 a Holland Tract n 3 l 1 a Holland Tract 8 l 1 0 8 + 0 R 0 RD 2025 + d Frank's Tract 0 R 0 RD 2025 d Frank's Tract 0 The symbology presented in the legend below is global to the The symbology presented in the legend below is global to the project area, some symbols may not be present on map project area, some symbols may not be present on map H5 d R d r R TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION r e H3 e QUIMBY ISLAND p N i " Gate p 0 Gate N i " 3 P ' 0 0 1 0 + 3 P ° 0 ' 16 N " 8 1 RD 2090 ° 0 3 N ROADS " 8 3 ' 0 ROADS 3 1 3 ° 2 ' 8 1 1 ° 0 3 2 1 8 BETHEL SL + QUIMBY ISLAND 3 I AND 0 0 0 BETHEL ISLAND + 0 H 0 Major Local Trail, 150+0 Major Local Trail, 0 0 Interstate Highway Trail MUNICIPAL ID 2 RD 2090 Interstate Highway Trail 150+0 Road Road Major 2 o Road Road Major 2 0 MUNICIPAL ID 2 + 0 0 l + H2 0 0 H h l 0 H Gate a way Rd g Ga o a ylo r u te way Rd PS T n o FFM ylo r l R l Ta l FLOOD CONTINGENCY OPTIONS d d S 2 LEVEE INFORMATION Rd a 4 A FFM C N ' d 0 A D D 1 + 0 N 0 ' n u ° n 30+ Flood Contingency Special Flood 0 1 1000-Foot Levee Stationing 1 8 00 ° + 0 t N 0 3 2 3 u ' 300+00 290+00 1 8 d 1 5 N 3 2 Option Consideration o ' 0 ° PS 5 1 8 Levee Centerline + 0 C ° d M 3 R 0 + H3 8 d 3 Effluent
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network
    Innovation in Monitoring: The U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 121˚45' 121˚30' 121˚15' installed the first gage to measure the flow 38˚ of water into California’s Sacramento–San 30' Sacramento Channel Joaquin River Delta (figs. 1, 2) from the River FPT Freeport Sacramento Sacramento- Sacramento River in the late 1800s. Today, r San Joaquin ve San Yolo Bypass i Delta s R a network of 35 hydro-acoustic meters Francisco ne m u s measure flow throughout the delta. This San o Francisco Sutter/ C region is a critical part of California’s Bay Hood Steamboat freshwater supply and conveyance system. San Elk Slough corridor Joaquin Sacramento Deep Water Ship With the data provided by this flow-station River SUT Delta network—sampled every 15 minutes and Sutter transfer Slough HWB flow updated to the web every hour—state Slough SSS SDC and federal water managers make daily 38˚ Creek DWS DLC Mokelumne 15' GES decisions about how much freshwater LIB Walnut Dry can be pumped for human use, at which RYI GSS Grove Steamboat NMR locations, and when. Fish and wildlife Yolo Bypass flow SMR River R scientists, working with water managers, ive r Mokelumne Rio Vista SRV River system also use this information to protect fish exchange Threemile Slough Lodi species affected by pumping and loss of MOK SDI TSL habitat. The data are also used to help LPS to en determine the success or failure of efforts Sacram OSJ SJJ FAL PRI to restore ecosystem processes in what has MAL San Joaquin been called the “most managed and highly Pittsburg ORO River/central delta exchanges altered” watershed in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Suspended-Sediment Concentration Data, San Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2010
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District Summary of Suspended-Sediment Concentration Data, San Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2010 Data Series 808 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Summary of Suspended-Sediment Concentration Data, San Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2010 By Paul A. Buchanan and Tara L. Morgan Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District Data Series 808 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Buchanan, P.A. and Morgan, T.L., 2014, Summary of suspended-sediment concentration data, San Francisco Bay, California, water year 2010: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Current Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Delta
    DRAFT FINAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Current Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Delta ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared for Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board State Water Resources Control Board November 2009 Thomas Jabusch and Alicia Gilbreath Aquatic Science Center DRAFT FINAL Table of Contents List of Acronyms.............................................................................................................. 5 List of URLs..................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 9 Overview of Monitoring Programs, Sites, and Approaches................................................9 Monitoring Drivers ...........................................................................................................11 Data Availability ...............................................................................................................12 Conclusions and Next Steps............................................................................................12 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Suspended-Solids Concentration Data, San Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2000
    Summary of Suspended-Solids Concentration Data, San Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2000 By Paul A. Buchanan and Neil K. Ganju U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 02-146 Prepared in cooperation with the CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, the SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, and the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 3009-44 Sacramento, California 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Placer Hall, Suite 2012 Box 25286 6000 J Street Federal Center Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix W – NOP Comment Letters
    California Department of Water Resources December 2019 Appendix W – NOP Comment Letters. Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration and Flood Improvement Project Draft EIR SCH # 2019039136 California Department of Water Resources December 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration and Flood Improvement Project Draft EIR SCH # 2019039136 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY 235 East Weber Avenue • P.O. Box 1461 • Stockton, CA 95201 Phone (209) 465-5883 • Fax (209) 465-3956 DIRECTORS COUNSEL George Biagi, Jr. Dante John Nomellini Rudy Mussi Dante John Nomellini, Jr. Edward Zuckerman April 22, 2019 Via Email Only to [email protected] Attn: Heather Green Lookout Slough NOP 3500 Industrial Blvd West Sacramento, CA 95691 Re: CDWA Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the Lookout Slough Restoration Project. Dear Ms. Green: On April 15, 2019, the CDWA provided the attached comments on a similar type of project, i.e., the “Partial Recirculation of the Draft EIR for the Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project.” Those comments raise issues and concerns that the upcoming EIR for the Lookout Slough Restoration Project should thoroughly and properly address. As more fully discussed in those attached comments, and in summary fashion, the upcoming EIR for the Lookout Slough Restoration Project, should thoroughly and properly address the following issues: – Piecemealing. The justification for performing piecemealed analysis of the various individual pieces of the broader California EcoRestore project and, especially, the broader 8,000 to 9,000 acre tidal/sub-tidal component of that project must be thoroughly discussed and explained. – Cumulative Impacts. Since DWR appears committed to performing a piecemealed analysis of this Project, it is imperative that DWR thoroughly and meaningfully address the cumulative impacts of this project together with the broader EcoRestore project and the broader 8,000 to 9,000 acre tidal/sub-tidal component of that project.
    [Show full text]