DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model. Sufficient total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and nitrate (NO3) data were available to compare the voluntary and enforcement periods for twelve sites within the lower eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide. Sacramento and San Joaquin basins. Ammonia concentrations and fluxes were evaluated at a subset of these sites. For six of these sites, flow-normalized mean annual concentrations of TP or NO3 decreased at a faster rate during the enforcement period than during the voluntary period. Concentration changes during similar years and ranges of flow conditions suggest that MPs designed for pesticides may also have reduced nutrient loads. Results show that enforceable NPS policies, and accelerated MP implementation, limits NPS pollution, and may control runoff of non-targeted constituents such as nutrients. Supporting material: Appendix A: Fluxes for Selected Constituents in Water Years (October 1 to September 30) 1975-2013 Copyright Information: Copyright 2015 by the article author(s). This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution4.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide. DECEMBER 2015 Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Brandon Schlegel*1 and Joseph L. Domagalski2 an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient Volume 13, Issue 4 | Article 2 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions * Corresponding author: [email protected] 1 California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model. 2 United States Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Sufficient total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), Sacramento, CA 95819 USA and nitrate (NO3) data were available to compare the voluntary and enforcement periods for twelve ABSTRACT sites within the lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies basins. Ammonia concentrations and fluxes were were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the evaluated at a subset of these sites. For six of these authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and even- sites, flow-normalized mean annual concentrations tually for the development of total maximum daily of TP or NO3 decreased at a faster rate during the load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. enforcement period than during the voluntary period. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Concentration changes during similar years and Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, ranges of flow conditions suggest that MPs designed but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and for pesticides may also have reduced nutrient loads. concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The Results show that enforceable NPS policies, and NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated accelerated MP implementation, limits NPS pollution, the use of management practices (MPs). Although and may control runoff of non-targeted constituents TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the such as nutrients. resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This KEY WORDS study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In loads, agricultural drainage general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “vol- untary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY & WATERSHED SCIENCE VOLUME 13, ISSUE 4, ARTICLE 2 INTRODUCTION The goal of this investigation is to relate changes in California’s agricultural NPS control program The two largest rivers of the Central Valley of to the observed changes in nutrient concentrations California, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, and loads in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river drain multiple land use types including extensive basins. To understand how nutrient concentra- mixed agriculture and urbanization (Figure 1). These tions and loads might have changed over time, we 2 two rivers collectively drain over 100,000 km of the used historical nutrient data to produce mass flux State of California, and are the primary sources of and concentration models for long-term monitoring fresh water to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta sites within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River (Delta). Over the years, numerous regulatory actions basins. We used flow-normalized trends in concentra- designated load reductions of various contaminants tions and loads to understand what effects, if any, of concern, mostly pesticides. There have also been California’s various agricultural non-point source changes in land use, cropping patterns, water man- (NPS) control programs, or other processes, might agement, and irrigation methodology, all of which have had. These programs have mostly been imple- may have had some effect on the transfer of vari- mented to control pesticide concentrations and asso- ous constituents from land to water and subsequent ciated toxicity. Like most other parts of the country, transport to the Bay–Delta system. Regulatory actions NPS control in California is achieved through the for pesticides resulted from 303(d) listings (http:// implementation of management (or conservation) www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/ practices. Although agricultural NPS dischargers may integrated2010.shtml) of impaired water bodies as implement MPs for many reasons, pressures from a mandated by the Clean Water Act. Numerous stream regulatory body likely have the greatest effect. segments throughout the Central Valley have listings for various impairments. Although there have been This study examines key “turning points” in few listed impairments specifically for nutrients in California’s plan to control NPS pollution on nutrient the Central Valley, management practices (MPs) for trends in concentration and loads in the Sacramento other contaminants of concern and land use changes and San Joaquin river basins. We used these turning may have affected the loads of nutrients (nitrogen points to define time periods for trend analysis. The and phosphorus) entering the Delta from these the turning points refer to the incorporation of voluntary Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers over the last 2 or MPs and subsequent mandatory practices designed to more decades. reduce loads of specific constituents. Our goal was to understand in what direction, if any, nutrient concen- According to the 2010 Clean Water Act 303(d) list, trations or loads trend, and if those trends are related 51 out of 814 surface water bodies in the Central to time-periods of various management actions related Valley Region (Region 5 in California) are impaired to any type of NPS control. We do not examine any by nutrients (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_ individual management practice or control program issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml). Some in detail, but instead focus on analyzing how nutri- of those listings are for waterways of the Delta. Of ents have changed in these rivers and streams over
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper American River Hydroelectric Project (P-2101)
    Hydropower Project Summary UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CALIFORNIA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) South Fork of the American River Slab Creek Dam Canyon Photo Credit: Sacramento Municipal Utility District This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Upper American, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) DESCRIPTION: The Upper American River Project consists of seven developments located on the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork American River in El Dorado and Sacramento Counties in central California. These seven developments occupy 6,190 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest and 54 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed The Iowa Hill Development will be located in El Dorado County and will occupy 185 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest. Due to the proximity of the Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2155) under licensee Pacific Gas & Electric Company(PG&E) located immediately downstream of the Upper American Project on the South Fork American River (and also under-going re-licensing), both projects were the subject of a collaborative proceeding and settlement negotiations. The current seven developments include Loon Lake, Robbs Peak, Jones Fork, Union Valley, Jaybird, Camino, and Slab Creek/White Rock. White Rock Powerhouse discharges into the South Fork American River just upstream of Chili Bar Reservoir. In addition to generation-related facilities, the project also includes 47 recreation areas that include campgrounds, day use facilities, boat launches, trails, and a scenic overlook. The 19 signatories to the Settlement are: American Whitewater, American River Recreation Association, BLM, California Parks and Recreation, California Fish and Wildlife, California Outdoors, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Camp Lotus, Foothill Conservancy, Forest Service, Friends of the River, FWS, Interior, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • American River Group Thursday, April 18Th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave
    American River Group Thursday, April 18th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821 Conference Line: 1 (866) 718-0082; Passcode 2620147 JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://bor.webex.com/bor/j.php?MTID=m976285cf88d1078f4d1bdb60a280b92a Meeting number (access code): 907 429 279; Meeting password: CmfUCmGm 1. Participant Introductions (1:30-1:40) 2. Fisheries Updates (1:40-1:55) Cramer Fish Sciences Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission CDFW 3. Operations Forecast (1:55-2:10) SMUD PCWA Central Valley Operations 4. Temperature Management (2:10-2:25) Central Valley Operations 5. Discussion (2:25-2:55) Upcoming Presentations May - Climate Change, Dr. Swain 6. Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 16th, 2019 8. Adjourn American River Summary Conditions – March (On-going): • Snowpack is 165% of average for this date. • Flood control diagram now allowing filling of Folsom Reservoir. We are on our way up! Storage/Release Management Conditions • Releases to manage storage during fill and try to avoid excessive flow fluctuations. • Beginning water storage for next years operational needs. • Will be operating to new Army Corps flood control diagram on an interim basis until new Water Control Manual is signed, per letter from USACE. • MRR for April is 1,750 cfs. Temperature Management: • Upper Shutters in place on Units 2 and 3. Unit 1 is not in service. Upper shutters will be placed before it is returned to service. American River Operations Group (ARG)
    [Show full text]
  • Profile of Sacramento River, Freeport to Verona, California, Flood of February 1986
    PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER, FREEPORT TO VERONA, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD OF FEBRUARY 1986 By J.C. Blodgett and J.B. Lucas U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 88-82 CO CM I m r-H CM Sacramento, California 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Federal Building, Room W-2234 Federal Center, Bldg. 810 2800 Cottage Way Box 25425 Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract................ 1 Introduction............ 2 Sources of data......... 4 Vertical control......... 4 Peak stage and discharge 5 Flood profiles.......... 7 References cited........ 7 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Map and profile of Sacramento River, Freeport to Verona, California, flood of February 19 and 20, 1986..........In pocket Figure 1. Map showing location of study area in vicinity of Sacramento................................................. 3 2. Photograph showing Sacramento Weir spill to Yolo Bypass near Sacramento, February 18, 1986.............................. 5 3. Photograph showing Sacramento River at Sacramento gage, February 18, 1986.......................................... 6 TABLES Page Table 1. Gaging stations in study reach............................. 8 2. Annual peak stage and discharge of the Sacramento River at Verona............................................... 3. Annual peak stage and discharge of
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [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]
  • 4-3 Capabiluty Assessments
    Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.3 Mitigation Capability Assessment Thus far, the planning process has identified the natural hazards posing a threat to Sacramento County and described, in general, the vulnerability of the county and communities to these risks. The next step, prior to forming goals and objectives for improving each jurisdiction’s ability to reduce the impacts of these risks, is to assess what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. Doing so provides the county’s ‘net vulnerability’ to natural disasters and more accurately focuses the goals, objectives and proposed actions of this plan. This part of the planning process is referred to as ‘The Mitigation Capability Assessment’. The HMPC took two approaches in conducting this assessment for the County and each of the incorporated communities. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose for this effort was to identify activities and actions that were either in place, needed improvement, or could be undertaken, if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory of existing policies, regulations and plans. These documents were collected and reviewed to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard related losses, or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses. The ‘mitigation capabilities’ of each community are individually identified and included as part of each ‘community element’. This section presents those mitigation capabilities that are common to all communities within Sacramento County. SAFCA The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was formed in 1989 to address the Sacramento area’s vulnerability to catastrophic flooding. This vulnerability was exposed during the record flood of 1986 when Folsom Dam exceeded its normal flood control storage capacity and several area levees nearly collapsed under the strain of the storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson One – the Watershed Connection T Objective: Students Review the Water Cycle and Learn How a Watershed Functions
    5 Lesson One – The Watershed Connection T Objective: Students review the water cycle and learn how a watershed functions. E A Time: 45 minutes C H Key words: watershed, precipitation, runoff, tributaries, species, polluted, condensation, evapora- tion E R Materials: 4 pieces of wide, heavy-duty aluminum foil about 2.5 feet long Large aluminum foil lasagna pan P 1 egg carton A One 9 x 4 x 1.5 inch piece of floral foam (Oasis) [a full sized block cut lengthwise] G Spray bottle of water mixed with blue food coloring E Advance Preparation: • Make a watershed model. An egg carton placed across one end of the lasagna pan makes the Sierra Nevada. A block of foam next to the egg carton forms the Central Valley. The trough at the other end of the pan is the Pacific Ocean. Loosely roll three pieces of foil into hollow tubes. • Gently press the first roll along the Sierra Nevada for added height and shape. • Use the second roll to transition from mountains to valley, creating the foothills. • Press the third tube along the far side of the valley, to make a Coastal Range, much lower than the Sierra Nevada. Use the fourth piece of foil as a skin over the model, gently molding it to your landscape. Create a small gully around the edges of the pan to keep water in the model. With fingertips, gently depress one or two main rivers down the mountains, across the valley, through the Coastal Range, to the ocean. (Leave no gaps or holes, and you can reuse your model again and again.) • Make copies of the Student Pages titled “What is a Watershed?,” and “Sacramento Area Rivers Map” and the Worksheets titled “Your Place in the Watershed” and “Watershed Crossword & Word Search.” Procedure: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project, Folsom and Sly Park Unit, California
    The Central Valley Project The American River Division The Folsom and Sly Park Units The Auburn-Folsom South Unit Wm. Joe Simonds Bureau of Reclamation History Program Denver, Colorado 1994 Reformatted, Edited, and Reprinted: January 2010 by Brit Storey Table of Contents Table of Contents..............................................................1 The American River Division ....................................................2 The Folsom and Sly Park Units.............................................2 The Auburn-Folsom South Unit ............................................3 Project Location.........................................................3 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................8 Folsom and Sly Park Units ..........................................8 Auburn Folsom South Unit .........................................16 Post Construction History ................................................20 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................22 Uses of Project Water ...................................................23 Conclusion............................................................25 About the Author .............................................................26 Bibliography ................................................................27 Manuscript and Archival Collections .......................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of the River California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Memo
    The California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act January 20, 2005, last revision June 29, 2018 For more information, contact: Steven L. Evans or Ron Stork, Friends of the River 1418 20th Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 442-3155, Fax: (916) 442-3396 Email: [email protected], [email protected] The California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (Public Resources Code § 5093.50 et seq.) was passed in 1972 (SB-107, Behr R-Mill Valley) to preserve designated rivers possessing extraordinary scenic, recreation, fishery, or wildlife values. With its initial passage, the California system protected the Smith River and all of its tributaries; the Klamath River and its major tributaries, including the Scott, Salmon, and Trinity Rivers; the Eel River and its major tributaries, including its tributary the Van Duzen River; and segments of the American River. The state system was subsequently expanded by the Legislature to include segments of the East Carson and West Walker rivers in 1989, segments of the South Yuba River in 1999, short segments of the Albion and Gualala Rivers in 2003, and segments of Cache Creek in 2005. In addition, the McCloud River and Deer and Mill Creeks were protected under the Act in 1989 and 1995 respectively, although these segments were not formally designated as components of the system. The Act provides a number of legal protections for rivers included within the System, beginning with the following legislative declaration (§ 5093.50): It is the policy of the State of California that certain rivers which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state.
    [Show full text]