DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORT 1St Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–149 " !

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPORT 1St Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–149 104TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±149 " ! ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996 JUNE 20, 1995.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MYERS of Indiana, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 1905] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for en- ergy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT Page Number Bill Report I. Department of DefenseÐCivil: Corps of engineersÐCivil: General investigations ................................................................. 2 6 Construction, general .................................................................. 3 26 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Il- linois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee .................................................................................. 5 36 Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 5 38 Regulatory program ..................................................................... 6 52 Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... 6 52 Oil spill research .......................................................................... 7 52 General expenses ......................................................................... 7 53 Administrative provisions ........................................................... 8 ........... General provision ......................................................................... 8 54 II. Department of the Interior: 91±541 (1) 2 Page Number Bill Report Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 9 55 Bureau of Reclamation: General investigations ................................................................. 10 55 Construction program .................................................................. 11 57 Operation and maintenance ........................................................ 12 63 Bureau of Reclamation loan program account .......................... 13 65 Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 13 67 General administrative expenses ............................................... 14 67 Special funds ................................................................................ 14 ........... Administrative provision ............................................................. 15 ........... III. Department of Energy: Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 69 Energy supply, research and development activities ....................... 15 72 Uranium supply and enrichment activities ...................................... 16 78 Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund 17 79 General science and research activities ............................................ 17 80 Nuclear waste disposal fund .............................................................. 18 81 Atomic energy defense activities: Weapons activities ....................................................................... 18 82 Defense environmental restoration and waste management ... 18 85 Other defense activities ............................................................... 19 88 Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 19 92 Departmental administration ............................................................ 20 92 Office of inspector general .................................................................. 21 93 Power marketing administrations: Alaska Power Administration ..................................................... 21 94 Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 21 94 Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 21 95 Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 22 96 Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 22 96 Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 23 97 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 24 97 IV. Independent agencies: Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 24 111 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 25 111 Delaware River Basin Commission ................................................... ........ 112 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin ....................... ........ 112 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 25 113 Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 27 114 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 28 114 Susquehanna River Basin Commission ............................................ ........ 115 Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... 28 116 V. General Provisions ................................................................................ 29 117 House Reporting Requirements ................................................................ ........ 118 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee has considered budget estimates which are con- tained in the Budget of the United States Government, 1996. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 1995, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 1996. 3 1996 recommendation compared withÐ 1995 appropriation 1996 estimate 1996 recommendation 1995 appropriation 1996 estimate Title IÐDepartment of DefenseÐCivil ...................... 3,408,919,000 3,307,450,000 3,219,610,000 ´189,309,000 ´87,840,000 Title IIÐDepartment of the In- terior ...................................... 881,399,000 833,017,000 857,190,000 ´24,209,000 +24,173,000 Title IIIÐDepartment of Energy 15,701,676,000 16,633,269,000 14,761,611,000 ´940,065,000 ´1,871,658,000 Title IVÐIndependent Agencies 470,408,000 369,063,000 275,870,000 ´194,538,000 ´93,193,000 Subtotal ........................ 20,462,402,000 21,142,799,000 19,114,281,000 ´1,348,121,000 ´2,028,518,000 Scorekeeping adjustments ........ ´169,403,000 ´410,343,000 ´410,343,000 ´240,940,000 ............................. Grand total of bill ........ 20,292,999,000 20,732,456,000 18,703,938,000 ´1,589,061,000 ´2,028,518,000 INTRODUCTION In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996, the rhetoric of deficit reduction becomes a reality. The Committee has confronted difficult and painful choices, result- ing in substantial reductions in programs throughout the Commit- tee's jurisdiction. Although the task has been monumental, the Committee has acted responsibly to downsize and streamline ac- tivities of the Federal government. Throughout its deliberations, the Committee has established thoughtful priorities and has en- deavored to fund those activities that are necessary, cost-effective, and vital to the Nation's welfare. The Committee has conducted exhaustive hearings on the pro- grams and projects provided for in the Energy and Water Develop- ment Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996. The record of these hearings is contained in eight published volumes containing over 12,000 pages. The Committee received testimony from Members of Congress; cabinet secretaries; federal, state and local governmental officials; and private citizens. These witnesses, and hundreds of others who have contacted the Committee, have requested funding for projects of all sorts. Because of dramatic funding constraints, the Committee has been able to accommodate only a modest num- ber of these requests. The Committee recognizes that funding re- strictions will be even more pronounced in future years and is re- luctant to pursue projects that involve large outyear mortgages. The Committee understands that authorizing legislation for var- ious projects and agencies funded by this bill is in various stages of consideration by jurisdictional committees of the House. The Committee has worked closely with these panels to establish the funding levels recommended in the bill. Funding has been provided for certain programs in anticipation and advance of authorization in order to avoid unnecessary disruptions in the provision of gov- ernment services. TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEÐCIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSÐCIVIL CORPS OF ENGINEERS' CIVIL WORKS MISSION In the fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Administration pro- posed radical changes in the Civil Works mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under these proposals, beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Corps would only be involved in projects and programs of ``national scope and significance.'' While it may at first seem rea- sonable that the Federal Government only be involved in programs of ``national significance'', a closer look at these proposals makes it apparent that they were ill-conceived and are counterproductive to the well-being of the Nation. The most far reaching of these proposals involves the Corps of Engineers' role in protecting our citizens from the devastating ef- fects of floods. Under the Administration's proposal, the Corps would
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]
  • Summary of Floods Ir the United States During 1960
    Summary of Floods ir the United States During 1960 By J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1960 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1790-B Prepared in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies CNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE DTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.G. 20402 - Price 45 cents (pap^r cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_--_____-__-____---_--__-______-___-___.____________ Bl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 Determination of flood stages and discharges_________________________ 6 Explanation of data_________________-__-___________________-_____- 11 Summary of floods of 1960_____________________________________ 13 Floods of: February 8-10 in northern California._______________________ 13 March 7-9 in southern Idaho.______,____-__-__-_-_____-____ 18 March 17-April 5 in central Florida.________________________ 20 March-April in the Skunk River and lower Iowa River basins, Iowa_ _________________________________________________ 24 March 29-April 6 in southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois.----.-.-_____________________________-. 27 March-April in eastern Nebraska and adjacent areas._________ 30 March 30-April 6 in New York___-_-_____---_-__-_-_--__-__ 47 April 15^19 in west-central Missouri.________________________ 51 April and May in northern Wisconsin and Michigan Upper Peninsula. ___ ___________-_-______-__-_-_--___-_-_-_-_-__ 53 May 4-6 in northwestern Arkansas and east-central Oklahoma. _ 58 May 5-9 in southern Mississippi.___________________________ 60 May 6 in south-central Missouri.- __________________________ 64 May 19-22 in southwestern Arkansas and southeastern Okla­ homa.
    [Show full text]
  • C a S E S T U D Y R E P O R T Sherman Island Delta
    C A S E S T U D Y R E P O R T SHERMAN ISLAND DELTA PROJECT November 2013 Written by Bradley Angell, Richard Fisher & Ryan Whipple a project of Ante Meridiem Incorporated with the direct support of the Delta Alliance International Foundation © 2013 Ante Meridiem Incorporated ABSTRACT This report is an official beginning to a model design for Sherman Island, an important land mass that lies at the meeting point of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers of the California Delta system. As design is typically dominated by a particular driving discipline or a paramount policy concern, the resulting decision-making apparatus is normally governed by that discipline or policy. After initial review of Sherman Island, such a “single” discipline or “principle” policy approach is not appropriate for Sherman Island. At this critical physical place at the heart of California Delta, an inter-disciplinary and equal-weighted policy balance is necessary to meet both the immediate and long-term requirements for rehabilitation of the project site. Exhibiting the collected work of a small team of design and policy specialists, the Case Study Report for the Sherman Island Delta Project outlines the multitude of interests, disciplines and potential opportunities for design expression on the selected 1,000 acre portion of Sherman Island under review. Funded principally by a generous grant from the Delta Alliance, the team researched applicable uses and technologies with a pragmatic case study approach to the subject, physically documenting exhibitions of each technology as geographically close to the project site as possible. After study and on-site documentation, the team compiled this wealth of discovery in three substantive chapters: a site characterization report, the stakeholders & goals assessment, and a case study report.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing a High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring Network for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California
    Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Designing a High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring Network for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5058 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California, being serviced by hydrologic technician. Photograph by Bryan Downing, December 19, 2013. Bottom Left: Example of a daily report for the monitoring buoy in Liberty Island, California that is emailed out to interested parties. Report generated by Frank Anderson, 2014. Bottom middle: Photograph showing vertical water quality profiler in the Sacramento River. Photograph by Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Map of nitrate concentrations collected via high speed boat mapping in the Cache Slough Complex/North Delta. Map created by Travis von Dessonneck and Bryan Downing, October 10, 2014. BACK COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom Left: Photograph showing vertical profiling instrumentation, Sacramento River, Freeport, California. Photograph courtesy of Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Photograph showing flow monitoring station in Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom: Photograph showing sunset in the northern Delta, Little Holland Tract, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Designing a High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring Network for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California By Brian A. Bergamaschi, Bryan D. Downing, Tamara E.C. Kraus, and Brian A. Pellerin Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5058 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Restoration Program Agreement
    Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service Cover: Prospect Island, Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, and Liberty Island (Photo Credit: Dale Kolke) State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources March 2012 Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Prepared by: With assistance from: Heidi Rooks Department of Fish and Game Stephani Spaar Dave Zezulak Dennis McEwan Fred Jurick Jason Roberts Laura Flournoy Carl Wilcox Tim Smith Jim Starr Gina Benigno Gina Van Klompenburg Pamela Lindholm Tim Stevens Ling Chu Chandra Ferrari Laurence Kerckhoff Delta Stewardship Council Kristal Davis‐Fadtke PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 FRPA Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Program Description ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Program Structure and
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control
    4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control This chapter addresses the water resources within the Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (Project) area and describes potential effects of Project implementation on those resources. Water resources include hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control. The analysis provided in this chapter includes a description of existing environmental conditions; methods used to assess environmental effects; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Project implementation; and mitigation measures recommended to avoid or minimize adverse effects under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and significant impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal, State of California (State), and local regulations that pertain to flood control, hydraulics, and hydrology are summarized. 4.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment This section presents the environmental setting for hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control in the Project area. 4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Project area for hydrology and hydraulics consists of the Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Rio Vista, the Yolo Bypass, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) in the vicinity of Cache Slough (Figure 4-1). These areas are described below. 4.1.1.1 Sacramento River The Sacramento River has been divided into two reaches, one above the Fremont Weir, and one below the Fremont Weir. These two reaches are discussed separately because they are affected by the proposed project differently. 4.1.1.1.1 Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Fremont Weir Flows in the 65-mile Shasta Dam to Red Bluff (River Mile [RM] 244) reach of the Sacramento River are regulated by Shasta Dam and are reregulated downstream at Keswick Dam (RM 302), as shown in Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California
    Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California, being serviced by hydrologic technician. Photograph by Bryan Downing, December 19, 2013. Bottom Left: Example of a daily report for the monitoring buoy in Liberty Island, California that is emailed out to interested parties. Report generated by Frank Anderson, 2014. Bottom middle: Photograph showing vertical water quality profiler in the Sacramento River. Photograph by Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Map of nitrate concentrations collected via high speed boat mapping in the Cache Slough Complex/North Delta. Map created by Travis von Dessonneck and Bryan Downing, October 10, 2014. BACK COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom Left: Photograph showing vertical profiling instrumentation, Sacramento River, Freeport, California. Photograph courtesy of Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Photograph showing flow monitoring station in Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom: Photograph showing sunset in the northern Delta, Little Holland Tract, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California By Tamara E.C. Kraus, Brian A. Bergamaschi, and Bryan D. Downing Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5071 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lookout Slough Restoration Project Boundary
    California Department of Water Resources December 2019 Appendix O – Baseline Study Deliverable for Flood Conveyance Optimization, Environmental Science Associates, June 2019. 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 BASELINE STUDY DELIVERABLE FOR FLOOD CONVEYANCE OPTIMIZATION LOOKOUT SLOUGH TIDAL HABITAT RESTORATION AND FLOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for: Reclamation District 2098 7178 Yolano Rd. Dixon, CA 95620 On behalf of: Ecosystem Investment Partners 5550 Newbury St. Baltimore, MD 21209 Contact: David Urban [email protected] Prepared by: Environmental Science Associates 2600 Capitol Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 Contact: John Pritchard Date: June 2019 This Page Intentionally Left Blank This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration and Flood Improvement Project Baseline Study Deliverable for Flood Conveyance Optimization Page Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Abstracts
    ORAL ABSTRACTS 2016 Bay‐Delta Science Conference Abstracts for oral sessions presented at the 2016 State of the Bay‐Delta Science Conference are compiled in this document. Abstracts are listed by topic in the order that they appear in the program and are sorted by day, room, and time. In the abstracts, names of presenting authors are underlined. Asterisks (*) indicate the abstract is submitted by a student and eligible for the student presentation awards competition. 2016 Bay‐Delta Science Conference, Oral Abstracts Table of Contents – 2016 Bay‐Delta Science Conference ‐ Oral Abstracts Listed by Presenting Author Plenary Speakers – Tuesday 9:00 AM Lessons from the Ocean for Integrating Science in Policy Decisions, Steve Gaines .......................... 1 The Scientific Challenges of Establishing Appropriate Baselines for Watershed Restoration, Daniel Schindler ................................................................................................................................. 2 Academic Research, Delta Smelt, and Public Policy, Peter Moyle ..................................................... 3 Use of Science in Complex Public Policy Decision‐Making, Felicia Marcus ....................................... 4 A Guide for the Perplexed, Phil Isenberg ........................................................................................... 5 Data, Decisions, Delta Science, and Delta Directions, Cliff Dahm ..................................................... 6 Estuarine Ecology – Tuesday 1:35 PM Regional Selenium Exposures of
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Methodology, Final
    Appendix Y Cumulative Methodology Cumulative impacts are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1508.7 as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.” Cumulative impacts include the direct and indirect impacts of a project together with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects. According to CEQ’s cumulative impacts guidance, the cumulative impact analysis should be narrowed to focus on important issues at a national, regional, or local level. The analysis should look at other actions that have affected or could affect the same resources as the proposed action and alternatives Table Y-1 provides a summary of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that, when combined with the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 through 4, serve as the foundational information for conducting the cumulative impact assessments for many of the resources addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The list reflects projects which have occurred or are expected to occur within the study area and are similar in scope (i.e., water supply, restoration, etc.) to the project alternatives being evaluated in the EIS. The table includes the name of the project, lead agency(s), summary description of the scope of the project, and references to where project documentation may be located.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthesis of Data from High-Frequency Nutrient and Associated Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California
    Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Synthesis of Data from High-Frequency Nutrient and Associated Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5066 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California, being serviced by hydrologic technician. Photograph by Bryan Downing, December 19, 2013. Bottom Left: Example of a daily report for the monitoring buoy in Liberty Island, California that is emailed out to interested parties. Report generated by Frank Anderson, 2014. Bottom middle: Photograph showing vertical water quality profiler in the Sacramento River. Photograph by Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Map of nitrate concentrations collected via high speed boat mapping in the Cache Slough Complex/North Delta. Map created by Travis von Dessonneck and Bryan Downing, October 10, 2014. BACK COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom Left: Photograph showing vertical profiling instrumentation, Sacramento River, Freeport, California. Photograph courtesy of Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Photograph showing flow monitoring station in Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom: Photograph showing sunset in the northern Delta, Little Holland Tract, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Synthesis of Data from High-Frequency Nutrient and Associated Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California By Bryan D. Downing, Brian A. Bergamaschi, and Tamara E.C. Kraus Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5066 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Effects of Wetland Restoration on the Production
    UC DAVIS DELTA MERCURY PROJECT (CALFED Contract No. 97-C05): Effects of Wetland Restoration on the Production of Methyl Mercury in the San Francisco Bay-Delta System EFFECTS OF WETLAND RESTORATION ON THE PRODUCTION OF METHYL MERCURY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA SYSTEM (CALFED Contract No. 97-C05) THIRD YEAR PROGRESS BRIEF August 18, 2001 Darell G. Slottona, Shaun M. Ayersa, and Thomas H. Suchanekb Ron Weyanda, Anne Listona, Chance MacDonaldc, Douglas C. Nelsonc, and Brenda Johnsonb a Department of Environmental Science and Policy b Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology c Section of Microbiology, Division of Biological Sciences University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 Summary of Task Objectives Determine the potential relationship between wetlands restoration projects and methyl mercury (MeHg) production in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Utilize existing wetland tracts of varying ages (caused by breached levees) to identify the potential time sequence of MeHg production enhancement in this system. Determine the spatial patterns of net MeHg bioaccumulation throughout the Delta. Identify potential trends and possible driving variables. Summary of Hypotheses • Organic rich, vegetated wetland habitats in the Delta provide ideal environments for mercury (Hg) methylating microbes. • These marsh environments produce MeHg at enhanced rates relative to other existing Delta aquatic habitats; a ”new flooding” surge of methylation may also exist. • Implementation of large Delta wetlands restoration projects might significantly increase the production and bioaccumulation of MeHg in the Delta, both locally and throughout. • Historic deposition of Hg within the Delta is sufficient to maintain elevated concentrations of biotic MeHg. Approaches/Methods Field and laboratory approaches were developed to test net sediment mercury methylation and biotic mercury accumulation in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
    [Show full text]