DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 State of California Department of Water Resources November 22, 2019 Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 Lead Agency: California Department of Water Resources Contact: Dean Messer, Division of Environmental Services, Regulatory Compliance Branch 916/376-9844 Responsible Agency: California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 22, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Description of Existing SWP Facilities .................................................................. 2-4 2.1.3.1 Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant ............................................................ 2-4 2.1.3.2 John E. Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility ....................................... 2-4 2.1.3.3 Clifton Court Forebay ............................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3.4 Barker Slough Pumping Plant ............................................................... 2-5 2.1.3.5 Suisun Marsh Operations ...................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3.6 South Delta Temporary Barrier Project ................................................ 2-7 2.1.3.7 Head of Old River Barrier ...................................................................... 2-7 2.1.3.8 San Luis Reservoir ................................................................................. 2-8 2.1.4 Description of Existing SWP Water Service Contracts ......................................... 2-8 2.1.5 SWP Allocation and Forecasting ........................................................................ 2-11 2.1.6 SWP Settlement Agreements ............................................................................ 2-12 2.1.7 Daily Operations ................................................................................................ 2-12 2.2 Existing Regulations ....................................................................................................... 2-14 2.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits ............................................................... 2-14 2.2.2 State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights and D-1641 ..................... 2-15 2.2.3 Federal Endangered Species Act ........................................................................ 2-15 2.2.4 California Endangered Species Act .................................................................... 2-15 2.3 Description of the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 2-16 2.3.1 OMR Management............................................................................................. 2-19 2.3.1.1 Onset of OMR Management ............................................................... 2-21 2.3.1.2 Real-Time OMR Limits and Performance Objectives .......................... 2-22 2.3.2 Minimum Export Rate ........................................................................................ 2-31 2.3.3 Delta Smelt Summer-Fall Habitat Action ........................................................... 2-31 2.3.3.1 Food Enhancement Summer-Fall Actions ........................................... 2-32 2.3.3.2 Delta Smelt Summer-Fall Habitat Action Adaptive Management Planning .............................................................................................. 2-33 2.3.4 Real-time Water Operations Process ................................................................ 2-34 Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project i Table of Contents 2.3.4.1 Annual Process .................................................................................... 2-36 2.3.5 Monitoring Workgroups .................................................................................... 2-38 2.3.6 Four-Year Reviews ............................................................................................. 2-39 2.3.7 Drought and Dry Year Actions ........................................................................... 2-39 2.3.8 Continued Installation of South Delta Temporary Barriers ............................... 2-39 2.3.9 Barker Slough Pumping Plant Operations ......................................................... 2-40 2.3.9.1 Fish Screen Cleaning ........................................................................... 2-40 2.3.9.2 Sediment Removal .............................................................................. 2-41 2.3.9.3 Aquatic Weed Removal ....................................................................... 2-41 2.3.10 Clifton Court Forebay Operations ...................................................................... 2-41 2.3.10.1 Predator Management ....................................................................... 2-41 2.3.10.2 Aquatic Weed Removal and Disposal ................................................. 2-42 2.3.11 Skinner Fish Facility Improvements ................................................................... 2-49 2.3.12 Longfin Smelt Science Program ......................................................................... 2-49 2.3.13 Conduct Further Studies to Prepare for Delta Smelt Reintroduction from Stock Raised at the UC Davis Fish Conservation and Culture Laboratory ......... 2-49 2.3.14 Continue Studies to Establish a Delta Fish Species Conservation Hatchery ...... 2-51 2.3.15 Water Transfers ................................................................................................. 2-52 2.3.16 Adaptive Management Plan .............................................................................. 2-53 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.1 Visual Character .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................................................... 3-3 3.1.1.3 State Scenic Highways........................................................................... 3-3 3.1.2 Discussion............................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources .......................................................................... 3-6 3.2.1.2 Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 3-11 3.2.2 Discussion........................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.1.1 Sacramento Valley Air Basin ............................................................... 3-17 3.3.1.2 San Francisco Air Basin ....................................................................... 3-17 3.3.1.3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ............................................................... 3-18 3.3.1.4 North Central Coast Air Basin ............................................................. 3-18 3.3.1.5 South Central Coast Air Basin ............................................................. 3-18 3.3.1.6 South Coast Air Basin .......................................................................... 3-19 3.3.1.7 San Diego Air Basin ............................................................................. 3-19 3.3.2 Discussion........................................................................................................... 3-19 Initial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus Thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened Species Account Status and Description. The longfin smelt is listed as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission. Abundance of the longfin smelt has reached record lows in the San Francisco-Delta population, and the species may already be extinct in some northern California estuarine populations, resulting in an overall threat of extinction to the species within California (Federal Register 2008). The longfin smelt was also proposed for federal listing, but on April 8, 2009 the USFWS determined that the San Francisco Bay Estuary population does not qualify for listing as a distinct population segment under federal regulations. Further assessment of the entire population is being conducted, however, and future listing may be considered. Photo courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game Longfin smelt, once mature, are slim, silver fish in the family Osmeridae (true smelts). Moyle (2002) describes the species as being 90-110 mm (standard length) at maturity, with a translucent silver appearance along the sides of the body, and an olive to iridescent pinkish hue on the back. Mature males are often darker than females, with enlarged and stiffened dorsal and anal fins, a dilated lateral line region, and breeding tubercles on paired fins and scares. Longfin smelt can be distinguished from other California smelt by their long pectoral fins (which reach or nearly reach the bases of the pelvic fins), incomplete lateral line, weak or absent striations on the opercular bones, low number of scales in the lateral line (54-65) and long maxillary bones (which in adults extent just short of the posterior margin of the eye).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Wildlife Service Re-Thinks Protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew
    u)pr hyhyyrivrvrpryhr vps4D92 ""&$ Fish and Wildlife Service re-thinks protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew WASHINGTON, D.C. October 20, 2009 9:27am • Re-proposes 4,649 acres of critical habitat in Kern County • Would reverse earlier decision In another reversal of decisions made during the administration of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing new protections for the Buena Lake shrew, a tiny mammal that lives in a small area of Kern County in the Central Valley. The FWS says it wants 4,649 acres in Kern County declared as critical habitat for the endangered animal, exactly the same acreage that it had first proposed in 2004. The announcement opens a 60-day public comment period. Earlier this month the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed itself on the economic impact of protecting the California habitat of the red-legged frog. It now says it is less than had been calculated. The new report on the frog strips out what some saw as political bias in the earlier estimates prepared for the George W. Bush administration. The new shrew proposal conforms to terms of a legal settlement resolving a challenge to the FWS’s final action on the earlier proposal, when it designated only 84 acres as critical habitat. In its settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, announced last July, the FWS agreed to re-propose the same areas it had proposed in 2004. In its 2005 final critical habitat rule the FWS excluded four areas it had initially proposed, determining at the time that commitments by landowners would provide significantly better protection for the shrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Genome of the Korean Smelt Hypomesus Nipponensis and Its Transcriptomic
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437215; this version posted March 28, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 2 3 Draft Genome of the Korean smelt Hypomesus nipponensis and its transcriptomic 4 responses to heat stress in the liver and muscle 5 Biao Xuan1,2, Jongbin Park1,2, Sukjung Choi2, Inhwan You1,2, Bo-Hye Nam3, Eun Soo 6 Noh3, Eun Mi Kim3, Mi-Young Song4, Younhee Shin5, Ji-Hyeon Jeon5,6 and Eun Bae 7 Kim1,2,# 8 1 Department of Applied Animal Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National 9 University, Chuncheon 24341, Kangwon-do, Republic of Korea 10 2 Laboratory of Microbial Genomics and Big Data, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon 11 National University, Chuncheon 24341, Kangwon-do, Republic of Korea 12 3 Biotechnology Research Division, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Busan 46083, Korea 13 4 Inland Fisheries Research Institute, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Gapyeong 12453, 14 Korea 15 5 Research and Development Center, Insilicogen Inc, Yongin 16954, Republic of Korea 16 6 Department of Biological Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea 17 18 # Corresponding author 19 Mailing address: Department of Applied Animal Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, 20 Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200-701, Republic of Korea. 21 Tel: +82-33-250-8642 22 Fax: +82-33-259-5574 23 E-mail: [email protected] 24 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437215; this version posted March 28, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee San Diego County Water Authority Board Meeting
    San Diego County Water Authority Board Meeting Documents April 25, 2019 Committee Administrative and Finance Engineering and Operations Imported Water Legislation and Public Outreach Water Planning and Environmental Formal Board On April 9, Congress passed implementing legislation for the Drought Contingency Plan, capping years of collaborative efforts among the seven Colorado River Basin states and the Bureau of Page 1 of 146 Reclamation to minimize the impacts of long-term drought in the river basin. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ AND STANDING COMMITTEES’ REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2019 BOARD ROOM WATER AUTHORITY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 4677 OVERLAND AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 1. UNIFIED AGENDA: This unified agenda provides a brief description of each item to be considered by the Board and its Administrative and Finance, Engineering and Operations, Imported Water, Legislation and Public Outreach, and Water Planning Committees. For convenience, the agenda for each of the Committees and for the formal Board meeting are stated separately; however, all agendas shall be considered as a single agenda and any item listed on the agenda of any Committee may be acted upon by the Board. All items on the agenda of any Committee, including information items, may be deliberated and become subject to action by the Board. 2. DOCUMENTS: Staff reports and any other public information provided to the Board or Committee before the meeting relating to items on the agenda are available for public review at the San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 during normal business hours. Additional documents may be distributed at the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions and Answers About Water Diversions and Delta Smelt Protections
    Questions and Answers about Water Diversions and Delta Smelt Protections California Natural Resources Agency February 12, 2013 What’s the problem? Over the course of the last decade, populations of several fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have declined to extremely low levels. In some cases, particularly Delta smelt, these declines have triggered requirements under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act to curtail pumping rates at the federal and state water project pumping facilities in the south Delta. Starting in mid-December, the appearance of smelt at the fish-salvage operations near the pumping plants has triggered a significant reduction in the volume of water the water projects can convey to farms and cities in Southern California, the Central Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Significant winter storms in the next couple of months could change the situation, but the pumping curtailment of recent weeks makes it more likely that in the coming year, many urban and farm water districts will have to either rely more heavily on other water sources or make do with a reduced supply by, for example, planting fewer acres of crops. How are decisions regarding pumping cuts made? Operations of the water project pumps are regulated to comply with endangered species law through “biological opinions” issued by federal regulatory agencies. In 2007, a federal court found that existing biological opinions written to protect Delta smelt and several runs of anadromous fish were inadequate. As a result, two new biological opinions were written. The biological opinion that is controlling pumping rates now is a 2008 biological opinion by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr. Diana L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River Aqueduct
    Fact Sheet: Our Water Lifeline__ The Colorado River Aqueduct. Photo: Aerial photo of CRA Investment in Reliability The Colorado River Aqueduct is considered one of the nation’s Many innovations came from this period in time, including the top civil engineering marvels. It was originally conceived by creation of a medical system for contract workers that would William Mulholland and designed by Metropolitan’s first Chief become the forerunner for the prepaid healthcare plan offered Engineer Frank Weymouth after consideration of more than by Kaiser Permanente. 50 routes. The 242-mile CRA carries water from Lake Havasu to the system’s terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside. This reservoir’s location was selected because it is situated at the upper end of Metropolitan’s service area and its elevation of nearly 1,400 feet allows water to flow by gravity to the majority of our service area The CRA was the largest public works project built in Southern California during the Great Depression. Overwhelming voter approval in 1929 for a $220 million bond – equivalent to a $3.75 billion investment today – brought jobs to 35,000 people. Miners, engineers, surveyors, cooks and more came to build Colorado River the aqueduct, living in the harshest of desert conditions and Aqueduct ultimately constructing 150 miles of canals, siphons, conduits and pipelines. They added five pumping plants to lift water over mountains so deliveries could then flow west by gravity. And they blasted 90-plus miles of tunnels, including a waterway under Mount San Jacinto. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA // // JULY 2021 FACT SHEET: THE COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT // // OUR WATER LIFELINE The Vision Despite the city of Los Angeles’ investment in its aqueduct, by the early 1920s, Southern Californians understood the region did not have enough local supplies to meet growing demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life History and Management
    Winter Chinook salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life history and management Wim Kimmerer Randall Brown DRAFT August 2006 Page ABSTRACT Winter Chinook is an endangered run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Central Valley of California. Despite considerablc efforts to monitor, understand, and manage winter Chinook, there has been relatively little effort at synthesizing the available information specific to this race. In this paper we examine the life history and status of winter Chinook, based on existing information and available data, and examine the influence of various management actions in helping to reverse decades of decline. Winter Chinook migrate upstream in late winter, mostly at age 3, to spawn in the upper Sacramento River in May - June. Embryos develop through summer, which can expose them to high temperatures. After emerging from the spawning gravel in -September, the young fish rear throughout the Sacramento River before leaving the San Francisco Estuary as smolts in January­ March. Blocked from access to their historical spawning grounds in high elevations of the Sacramento River and tributaries, wintcr Chinook now spawn below Kcswick Dam in cool tail waters of Shasta Dam. Their principal environmental challcnge is temperature: survival of embryos was poor in years when outflow from Shasta was warm or when the fish spawned below Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), where river temperature is higher than just below Keswick. Installation of a temperature control device on Shasta Dam has reduccd summer temperature in the discharge, and changes in operations of RBDD now allow most winter Chinook access to the upper river for spawning.
    [Show full text]
  • Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
    March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]