Environmental Engineering Senior Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Geomorphometric Delineation of Floodplains and Terraces From
Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 369–385, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-369-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Geomorphometric delineation of floodplains and terraces from objectively defined topographic thresholds Fiona J. Clubb1, Simon M. Mudd1, David T. Milodowski2, Declan A. Valters3, Louise J. Slater4, Martin D. Hurst5, and Ajay B. Limaye6 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 3School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK 5School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, East Quadrangle, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK 6Department of Earth Sciences and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Correspondence to: Fiona J. Clubb ([email protected]) Received: 31 March 2017 – Discussion started: 12 April 2017 Revised: 26 May 2017 – Accepted: 9 June 2017 – Published: 10 July 2017 Abstract. Floodplain and terrace features can provide information about current and past fluvial processes, including channel response to varying discharge and sediment flux, sediment storage, and the climatic or tectonic history of a catchment. Previous methods of identifying floodplain and terraces from digital elevation models (DEMs) tend to be semi-automated, requiring the input of independent datasets or manual editing by the user. In this study we present a new method of identifying floodplain and terrace features based on two thresholds: local gradient, and elevation compared to the nearest channel. -
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site January 14, 2020 Presentation Overview • Site Overview & History • Updated Conceptual Site Model • Ongoing Work - Mine • Fish Consumption Advisory – Request for input • Ongoing Work - Clear Lake – Collaboration with USGS • Discussion Site Overview Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine • Operated on and off 1865 to 1957 • Added to the Superfund list in 1990 • Mercury and arsenic in soils; mercury in sediment and fish tissue • Fish consumption advisory for Clear Lake; impacts to Elem Tribe Located on Oaks Arm of Clear Lake, south of Clearlake Oaks, adjacent to the Elem Indian Colony Site Overview Terrestrial Mine Site and Residential Soils Operable Unit 1 Lake Sediments and North Wetlands Operable Unit 2 Mine History • Sulphur Bank Mine operated from 1856 to 1957. • First borax, then sulfur, then shifting to mercury in 1873 • Shallow underground tunnels and open pit operations • Cinnabar ore processed on-site • Bradley Mining Corp identified as the responsible party 1/24/2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Photo credit: Lake County Historical Society Major Mine Site Features Source Areas – Waste Rock Piles – Ores Piles – Tailings Pile – Disturbed and Native Rock – Northwest Pit – Mining Facilities/Buildings Herman Impoundment (HI) Waste Rock Dam (WRD) Off-Site Residential Soils – Elem Indian Colony – Sulphur Bank Mine Road neighborhood 6 Superfund Remedial Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preliminary Placement on Remedial Feasibility Proposed Plan Record of Remedial Remedial Long-Term Assessment / the National Investigation Study (PP) Decision Design Action Operations & Site Inspection Priorities List (RI) (FS) (ROD) (RD) (RA) Maintenance (NPL) (O&M) OU-2 OU-1 Community involvement and planning for a site’s future reuse are integral parts of the entire process. -
Clear Lake Watershed Sanitary Survey Is a Report Made by the Clear Lake Water Utilities to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) On
PROJECT TEAM PARTICIPATING WATER UTILITIES Buckingham Park Water District Don Bradley Cache Creek Mobile Home Park Steve Grimshaw California Cities Water Company Paul Harris California Water Service Company Tom Fitzgerald City of Lakeport Mark Brannigan Clearlake Oaks County Water District Ellen Pearson Clearwater Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Michael Reust Crescent Bay Improvement Company Roberta Lyons Highlands Water Company Sam Lambert Konocti County Water District William Kochler Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa Jerry Lykkon Lake County Special Districts Steve Brodnansky Nicholas Ring Peggie King Mt. Konocti Mutual Water Company Alan Farr Nice Mutual Water Company Bradley Granger Richmond Park Resort Sharon Ferriera Rivera West Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Westwind Mobile Home Park John Franco Southern California Water Company* David Lancaster CONSULTANT TEAM Archibald & Wallberg Consultants Jeanne Wallberg MWH Americas, Inc. Bonny Starr Robert Zieman Jenni Haas Design Jenni Haas Engelhardt Word Processing Noreen Engelhardt OTHER PARTICIPANTS Department of Health Services – Mendocino District Bruce Burton Leah Walker *For California Cities Water Company TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1 -
THB Avterican Mtxeralocist
THB AvtERICAN MtxERALocIST JOURNAL OF THE MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Vol. 49 JUL\'-AUGUST, 1964 Nos. 7 and 8 BUDDINGTONITE, AN AMMONIUM FELDSPAR WITH ZEOLITIC WATER1 Rrcn,lno C. Ent, DoNaro E. Wnrro, Josorn J. Faunv eNo Dower-o E. Lno, U. S. Geol,ogicolSurttey, Menlo Park, Calif ., and' Wash'ington,D' C. Arsrn,q.ct Buddingtonite, the first ammonium aluminosilicate found in nature, occurs in Quater- nary andesite and older rocks hydrothermally altered by ammonia-bearing hot-spring waters below the water table at the Sulphur Bank quicksilver mine, Lake county, cali- fornia. Typicaliy, it occurs as compact masses pseudomorphous after plagioclase, and as crystals as much as 0.05 mm diameter lining cavities. Buddingtonite is biaxial (*), a:1.530,0:1'531, r:1.534 all *0'002,2V not de- terrnined,X/1a:4',2:b,Y Ac:19'. H 5+, G2.32+0.01- Chemical analysis of purest separate gave: SiOz,63.80;A1:Or, 19.16; FezOe, 1'85; MgO' 0.21; CaO,0.04; BaO, 0.26; NarO, 0.06; KzO, 0.62; (NHr)rO, 7.95;TiO2,0.99; HzO-, 0'88; HzO+,3.28; S, 1.59;total 100.69(-O+S):100.10 per cent. Buddingtonite is monoclinic; P21or P21fm;a:8.571,b:13.032,c:7.187,A:ll2o44' !l'; a:b:c:0.658:1:0.551; cell volume, 7+0.42fu;ceil contents4[NHdISirOs'1/2HzO]; calculated density, 2.38s gcm-3. From 370" to 430. c, buddingtonite is the ammonium analogue of monoclinic K-feld- spar; below about 370' C with normal atmospheric moisture, buddingtonite adsorbs zeo- Iitic water. -
South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery. -
Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California
Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California By G. PORTERFIELD and C. A. DUNNAM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Paw Abstract___________________________________________ EEl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and general features--___-__-____-_-_-_---__--_--_---_- 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgments ________________'__________________--_-_______ 2 Drainage basin.___________________________________________________ 3 Physiography and soils.._______________________________________ 3 Climate ______________________________________________________ 4 Vegetation__ _--_-_____________-_-___---___-----__-_-_-_-____ 5 Dam and reservoir_____-__-__-_____________-______-___-_-__-_-_-_ 5 Dam_________________________________________________________ 5 Datum.______________________________________________________ 7 Reservoir___________________________________________________ -
Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment
Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment A Document of the Scotts Creek Watershed Council Prepared for: West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd Lakeport, CA 95453 (707) 263-4180 Funded by Proposition 50 through the CALFED Watershed Program Administered by the California Department of Water Resources Prepared by: County of Lake Department of Public Works Water Resources Division 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel. 707-263-2341 and West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd. Lakeport, California 95453 Tel. 707-263-4180 February 2010 Acknowledgements Author Erica Lundquist, Lake County Water Resources Division Plates by Greg Dills, West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts Glossary by Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Project Partners Lake County Division of Water Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service Bureau of Land Management Upper Lake Habematolel Pomo Indians Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Big Valley Watershed Council Middle Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Group Scotts Creek Watershed Council Technical Advisors and Reviewers Frank Arriaza, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Pardee Bardwell, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Voris Brumfield, Lake County Code Enforcement Division Mark Brannigan, City of Lakeport Richard Burns, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Caroline Chavez, Lake County Public Services Department Kim Clymire, Lake County Public -
An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California
AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA By Emily Jeanne Cooper A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Natural Resources: Environmental and Natural Resource Science Committee Membership Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Committee Chair Dr. James Graham, Committee Member Dr. Darren Ward, Committee Member Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Graduate Coordinator May 2017 ABSTRACT AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA Emily Jeanne Cooper In Northern California’s Eel River watershed, the two dams that make up the Potter Valley Project (PVP) restrict the distribution and production of anadromous salmonids, and current populations of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the upper mainstem Eel River are in need of recovery. In anticipation of the upcoming FERC relicensing of the PVP, this project provides an estimation of the extent of potential salmonid habitat and its capacity for steelhead trout and Chinook Salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River watershed above the impassable Scott Dam. Using three fish passage scenarios, potential Chinook Salmon habitat was estimated between 89-127 km (55-79 mi) for spawning and rearing; potential steelhead trout habitat was estimated between 318-463 km (198-288 mi) for spawning and between 179-291 km (111-181 mi) for rearing. Rearing habitat capacity was modeled with the Unit Characteristic Method, which used surrogate fish density values specific to habitat units (i.e. pools, riffles, runs) that were adjusted by measured habitat conditions. -
Sulphur Bank Mine, California: an Example of a Magmatic Rather Than Metamorphic Hydrothermal System?
Goff et SULPHUR BANK MINE, CALIFORNIA: AN EXAMPLE OF A MAGMATIC RATHER THAN METAMORPHIC HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM? Fraser Goff’, Cathy J. and James A. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA Keywords: magmatic, metamorphic, geothermal, isotopes, Sulphur Bank ABSTRACT REGIME Sulphur Bank mine hydrothermal system (218°C) is Sulphur Bank mine is surrounded by the youngest basaltic to surrounded by the youngest eruptions in the Clear Lake volcanic rhyolitic eruptions (90 to -10 ka) in the Clear Lake volcanic field. field, and nearby conductive thermal gradients exceed 1 at Although Clear Lake volcanism has occurred within the San Andreas 1-3 km depth. values for He in Sulphur Bank gases are 7.5. transform zone instead of within an arc, the volcanic rocks are Hydrothermal fluids are highly enriched in deuterium as well as distinctly calc-alkaline and most units display classic mixed-magma oxygen-18 relative to local meteoric waters and resemble magmatic features (Stimac and Pearce, 1992). Practically all magmas of this waters discharged from many arc volcanoes. However, we show volcanic field, including basalts, also show evidence of contamination herein that magmatic, connate, and metamorphic fluids are with crustal rocks (Stimac et al., submitt.). Although the volume of indistinguishable based on and plots. Sulphur Bank the youngest extrusive rocks near Sulphur Bank is relatively small waters have and ratios of metamorphic fluids and nearby conductive gradients and heat flow are high, Sulphur Bank gases are strongly influenced by marine, organic-rich exceeding 1 and 170 at depths of 1-3 km (Walters source rocks. -
Lake County CEDS 2014
COUNTY OF LAKE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 5, 2013 APPROVED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION: MARCH 7, 2014 Lake County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy - 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................2 SECTION ONE: ANALYSIS...............................................................................................3 I. BACKGROUND: THE AREA AND ITS ECONOMY...........................................................3 A. General Description of the Area ..................................................................................................... 3 B. Economy........................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Natural Resources............................................................................................................................ 9 D. Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................... 12 E. Political Geography....................................................................................................................... 17 F. Employment in Lake County........................................................................................................ -
Initial Study Report for FERC Projects
Potter Valley Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank POTTER VALLEY PROJECT NOTICE OF INTENT PARTIES Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank Potter Valley Project, FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 FERC Requirements for Proposed Modification to Approved Studies and New Studies .................................................................................................... 1-4 SECTION 2.0 STATUS OF FERC-APPROVED STUDIES AND PROPOSED STUDY MODIFICATIONS .............................................. 2-1 2.1 AQ 1 – Hydrology .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 AQ 2 – Water Temperature ........................................................................... 2-5 2.3 AQ 3 – Water Quality ................................................................................... -
Toxic Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and Their Possible Biological Effects
TOXIC CONTAMINANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA AND THEIR POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS DAVID J.H. PHILLIPS AQUATIC HABITAT INSTITUTE 180 Richmond Field Station 1301 South 46th Street Richmond, CA 94804 (415) 231-9539 August 26, 1987 CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................ (i) I . INTRODUCTION ................. 1 I1 . TRACE ELEMENTS IN THE BAY-DELTA . 5 A . Silver .................. 7 B . Copper .................. 40 C . Selenium ................. 68 D . Mercury .................111 E . Cadmium .................133 F . Lead ...................148 G . Zinc ................... 163 H . Chromium .................171 I. Nickel ..................183 J . Tin ...................194 K . Other Trace Elements ...........200 111 . ORGANOCHLORINES IN THE BAY-DELTA .......202 A . Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........205 B . DDT and Metabolites ...........232 C . Other Organochlorines ..........257 IV . HYDROCARBONS IN THE BAY-DELTA ........ 274 A . Introduction ..............274 B . Hydrocarbons in the San Francisco Estuary . 281 C . Summary .................304 V . BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BAY-DELTA CONTAMINANTS . 306 A . The Benthos of the Bay-Delta ...... 307 B . Fisheries of the Bay-Delta ........ 319 C . Bird Populations ............ 351 D . Mammalian Populations. Including Man . 354 E . Bioassay Data ............. 359 VI . CONCLUSIONS ................. 377 Literature Cited .............. 382 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to a large number of people for their contributions to this document. Staff at the Aquatic Habitat Institute have provided their support, encouragement and talent. These include Andy Gunther, Jay Davis, Susan Prather, Don Baumgartner and Doug Segar. Word processing services were provided by Ginny Goodwind, Emilia Martins, Renee Ragucci, Audi Stunkard, Lori Duncan, and Susan Prather. Tat Cheung and Johnson Tang of the County of Alameda Public Works Agency contributed their time and talent to the preparation of figures. Melissa Blanton copy-edited the text, surviving the requirements of the author in respect of Anglicisation of local terminologies.