DOCSLIB.ORG

2018 Sanitary Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2018 Sanitary Survey LAKE BERRYESSA 2018 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY Final Report October 2018 Prepared for Napa County Flood Control Water Conservation District and Solano County Water Agency Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey FINAL REPORT October 2018 Technical Committee: Napa County Flood Control Water Conservation District Annamaria Martinez Phillip Miller Solano County Water Agency Justin Pascual Prepared By: Leslie Palencia, Palencia Consulting Engineers PREPARED BY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Section 1 – Introduction Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 Objectives of the Update .............................................................................................. 1-1 Constituents and Potential Contaminating Activities Covered in the Current Update ... 1-2 Report Organization ..................................................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 – Watershed and Water Supply Systems Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Watershed Description ................................................................................................. 2-2 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 2-2 Precipitation ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Water Treatment Plants ............................................................................................... 2-3 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District .................................................... 2-3 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District.................................................... 2-4 Section 3 – Water Quality Selected Constituent Review ....................................................................................... 3-1 Turbidity ............................................................................................................. 3-1 General Characteristics and Background ............................................... 3-1 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 3-2 Summary of Results................................................................................ 3-3 Microbial Constituents ....................................................................................... 3-4 General Characteristics and Background ............................................... 3-4 Evaluations ............................................................................................. 3-5 Cryptosporidium .............................................................................. 3-5 E. coli .............................................................................................. 3-5 Total Coliform ................................................................................. 3-7 Summary of Results................................................................................ 3-7 Total Organic Carbon ........................................................................................ 3-8 General Characteristics and Background ............................................... 3-8 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 3-8 Summary of Results................................................................................ 3-9 Cyanotoxins ....................................................................................................... 3-9 General Characteristics and Background ............................................... 3-9 Evaluation ............................................................................................. 3-10 Summary of Results.............................................................................. 3-10 Section 4 – Watershed Contaminant Sources Review Spills ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Lake Berryessa Watershed Sanitary Survey Page i Final Report Background ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Related Constituents ......................................................................................... 4-1 Occurrence in Watershed .................................................................................. 4-1 Regulation and Management ............................................................................ 4-4 Summary of Findings for Spills .......................................................................... 4-4 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 4-5 Background ....................................................................................................... 4-5 Related Constituents ......................................................................................... 4-5 Occurrence in Watershed .................................................................................. 4-5 Putah Canyon Recreation Area .............................................................. 4-7 Berryessa Point Recreation Area ............................................................ 4-8 Spanish Flat Recreation Area ................................................................. 4-8 Steele Canyon Recreation Area ............................................................. 4-8 Pleasure Cove Marina ............................................................................ 4-8 Markley Cove Resort .............................................................................. 4-8 Eticuera Day Use Area ........................................................................... 4-9 Smittle Day Use Area.............................................................................. 4-9 Oak Shores Day Use Area ...................................................................... 4-9 Dufer Point Visitor Center ..................................................................... 4-10 Capell Cove Boat Launch ..................................................................... 4-10 Olive Orchard Day Use Area ................................................................ 4-10 EcoCamp Berryessa ............................................................................. 4-10 Regulation and Management .......................................................................... 4-10 Source Water Protection Activities ................................................................. 4-11 Summary of Findings for Recreation ............................................................... 4-12 Agriculture .................................................................................................................. 4-13 Background ..................................................................................................... 4-13 Related Constituents ....................................................................................... 4-13 Occurrence in Watershed ................................................................................ 4-13 Related Water Quality Issues and Data Review .............................................. 4-15 Regulation and Management........................................................................... 4-16 Source Water Protection Activities .................................................................. 4-17 Summary of Findings for Agriculture ............................................................... 4-17 Wastewater ................................................................................................................ 4-18 Background ..................................................................................................... 4-18 Seasonal Patterns ........................................................................................... 4-18 Occurrence in Watershed ................................................................................ 4-18 Middletown ............................................................................................ 4-19 Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District ................................. 4-20 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District ........................................ 4-21 Spanish Flat Water District, Berryessa Pines ....................................... 4-23 Spanish Flat Water District ................................................................... 4-25 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District ....................................... 4-25 Turtle Rock Motel and Boat Storage WWTF ......................................... 4-27 Capell Valley Mobile Home Park .......................................................... 4-27 Circle Oaks County Water District ........................................................ 4-28 Lake Berryessa Watershed Sanitary Survey Page ii Final Report Reclamation Administrative Center and Day Use Areas ....................... 4-29 Pleasure Cove Marina .......................................................................... 4-29 Markley Cove Resort ............................................................................ 4-30 Other Recreation Area .......................................................................... 4-30 Regulation and Management..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2017 North Bay and Southern California Fires: a Case Study
    fire Article The 2017 North Bay and Southern California Fires: A Case Study Nicholas J. Nauslar 1,2,* ID , John T. Abatzoglou 3 ID and Patrick T. Marsh 2 1 Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072, USA 2 NOAA/NWS/NCEP Storm Prediction Center, Norman, OK 73072, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Geography, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 April 2018; Accepted: 5 June 2018; Published: 9 June 2018 Abstract: Two extreme wind-driven wildfire events impacted California in late 2017, leading to 46 fatalities and thousands of structures lost. This study characterizes the meteorological and climatological factors that drove and enabled these wildfire events and quantifies their rarity over the observational record. Both events featured key fire-weather metrics that were unprecedented in the observational record that followed a sequence of climatic conditions that enhanced fine fuel abundance and fuel availability. The North Bay fires of October 2017 occurred coincident with strong downslope winds, with a majority of burned area occurring within the first 12 h of ignition. By contrast, the southern California fires of December 2017 occurred during the longest Santa Ana wind event on record, resulting in the largest wildfire in California’s modern history. Both fire events occurred following an exceptionally wet winter that was preceded by a severe four-year drought. Fuels were further preconditioned by the warmest summer and autumn on record in northern and southern California, respectively. Finally, delayed onset of autumn precipitation allowed for critically low dead fuel moistures leading up to the wind events.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Environmental Flows of Putah Creek for Chinook Salmon Reproductive Requirements
    Enhancing environmental flows of Putah Creek for Chinook salmon reproductive requirements Written by: Chan, Brian; Jasper, Chris Reynolds; Stott, Haley Kathryn UC Davis, California ESM 122, Water Science and Management, Section: A02 Abstract: Putah creek, like many of California’s rivers and streams, is highly altered by anthropogenic actions and historically supported large populations of resident and anadromous native fish species. Now its ecosystem dynamics have changed drastically with the Monticello dam, the Solano diversion canal and the leveeing of its banks. Over time the creek has found a balance of habitats for native and non-native fish species that is mainly dictated by species-preferred temperature tolerances (Keirman et. al. 2012). Cooler temperatures and faster flows upstream from Davis prove to be ideal habitats for native species, in particular, the federally endangered Chinook salmon, which is the most widely distributed and most numerous run occurring in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. As water moves downstream, it becomes shallower and warmer, resulting in ideal conditions for non-native species (Winters, 2005). This report analyzes the environmental flows released into putah creek and how much salmon preferred breeding habitat is available from this flow regime based on temperature. Introduction: Figure 1: Teale GIS Solutions Group (1999), US Census Bureau (2002), USGS (1993) [within Winters, 2005] The Putah Creek watershed is an important aspect in the natural, social, and economic livelihoods of the people of Yolo and Solano counties. The Putah Creek watershed begins at the highest point in Lake County, Cobb Mountain, and flows down to the Central Valley where it empties into the Yolo Bypass at near sea level.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019
    REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE EVACUATIONS FROM 2017 TO 2019 STEPHEN WONG, JACQUELYN BROADER, AND SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. MARCH 2020 DOI: 10.7922/G2WW7FVK DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R Wong, Broader, Shaheen 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2019-19-b N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019 March 2020 6. Performing Organization Code ITS-Berkeley 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Stephen D. Wong (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-3651), No. Jacquelyn C. Broader (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-955X), N/A Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3350-856X) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley N/A 109 McLaughlin Hall, MC1720 11. Contract or Grant No. Berkeley, CA 94720-1720 UC-ITS-2019-19 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Covered www.ucits.org Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R 16. Abstract Between 2017 and 2019, California experienced a series of devastating wildfires that together led over one million people to be ordered to evacuate. Due to the speed of many of these wildfires, residents across California found themselves in challenging evacuation situations, often at night and with little time to escape. These evacuations placed considerable stress on public resources and infrastructure for both transportation and sheltering.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into the I.19-06-015 Maintenance, Operations and Practices of (Filed June 27, 2019) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E) with Respect to its Electric Facilities; and Order to Show Cause Why the Commission Should not Impose Penalties and/or Other Remedies for the Role PG&E’s Electrical Facilities had in Igniting Fires in its Service Territory in 2017. JOINT MOTION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E), THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES, AND THE OFFICE OF THE SAFETY ADVOCATE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PUBLIC VERSION (ATTACHMENTS 1-7 AND 9-13 CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION) AMY C. YIP-KIKUGAWA ALYSSA KOO EMILY FISHER ELLIOTT SEALS CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMMISSION COMPANY 505 Van Ness Avenue Law Department San Francisco, California 94102 77 Beale Street, B30A Telephone: (415) 703-1327 San Francisco, California 94105 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (415) 973-4590 Facsimile: (415) 973-0516 Attorneys for the Email: [email protected] SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION Email: [email protected] RACHAEL E. KOSS JOSHUA HILL ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CHRISTINE Y. WONG CARDOZO MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 601 Gateway Blvd, Suite 1000 425 Market Street South San Francisco, California 94080 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (650) 589-1660 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (650) 589-4062 Facsimile: (415) 772-7522 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY Attorneys for EMPLOYEES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY REBECCA VORPE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-4443 Email: [email protected] Attorney for the OFFICE OF THE SAFETY ADVOCATE Dated: December 17, 2019 Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004
    Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004 Lower Chiles Valley, Napa County Putah Creek Drainage Prepared By: Phillip Blake, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Napa Sandy Elles & Jennifer Kopp, Napa County Farm Bureau Dave Whitmer, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Bob Zlomke, Napa Co. Resource Conservation District Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Group Steering Committee: Sally Kimsey Jim Frisinger Tucker Catlin Robert Craig Jack Todeschini Don Clark Advisor: Diane Dillon, Supervisor, Dist. 4 1 2 Introduction In July, 2003, the Napa County Farm Bureau organized an informational meeting of landowners and farm agency representatives, to discuss local ramifications for the removal of agricultural waste discharge waivers in the Putah Creek watershed. Following this initial exploration of information known about Irrigated Lands Waivers, the NC Farm Bureau invited farmers in the Napa County Putah Creek area to join a coalition and apply for a group waiver. The group would organize to share best management practices and conduct water quality monitoring. Since that initial meeting, representatives from Napa County Farm Bureau, USDA Natural Resouces Conservation Service, (NRCS) Napa County Resource Conservation District, (NCRCD), UC Cooperative Extension, and the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner have further studied the issue and determined that irrigated lands in the area are primarily drip-irrigated wine grape vineyards. These farm operations typically employ minimal use of chemical inputs and utilize farm cultural practices that present a very limited potential to impact downstream waters with pollutants of concern. Water quality issues have been extensively discussed and addressed through various processes, including 2 different county watershed task forces and several technical advisory bodies, since 1989.
    [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]
  • The Biological Resources Section Provides Background Information
    4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Biological resources section provides background information on sensitive biological resources within Napa County, the regulations and programs that provide for their protection, and an assessment of the potential impacts to biological resources of implementing the Napa County General Plan Update. This section is based upon information presented in the Biological Resources Chapter of the Napa County Baseline Data Report (Napa County, BDR 2005). Additional information on the topics presented herein can be found in these documents. Both documents are incorporated into this section by reference. This section addresses biological resources other than fisheries which are separately addressed in Section 4.6. 4.5.1 SETTING REGIONAL SETTING The Napa County is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Great Valley geomorphic province. A dominant characteristic of the Coast Ranges Province is the general northwest- southeast orientation of its valleys and ridgelines. In Napa County, located in the eastern, central section of the province, this trend consists of a series of long, linear, major and lesser valleys, separated by steep, rugged ridge and hill systems of moderate relief that have been deeply incised by their drainage systems. The County is located within the California Floristic Province, the portion of the state west of the Sierra Crest that is known to be particularly rich in endemic plant species (Hickman 1993, Stein et al. 2000). LOCAL SETTING The County’s highest topographic feature is Mount St. Helena, which is located in the northwest corner of the County and whose peak elevation is 4,343 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Instituting Investigation
    L/mal Date of Issuance June 27, 2019 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into the FILED Maintenance, Operations and Practices of PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E) JUNE 27, 2019 with Respect to its Electric Facilities; and SAN FRANCISCO Order to Show Cause Why the Commission I.19-06-015 Should not Impose Penalties and/or Other Remedies for the Role PG&E’s Electrical Facilities had in Igniting Fires in its Service Territory in 2017. ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE By this order, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission or CPUC) institutes a formal investigation to determine whether Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), violated any provision(s) of the California Public Utilities Code (PU Code), Commission General Orders (GO) or decisions, or other applicable rules or requirements pertaining to the maintenance and operation of its electric facilities that were involved in igniting fires in its service territory in 2017. These fires have been termed the “October 2017 Fire Siege.” This investigation addresses 15 of the 17 fire incidents investigated by the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED).1 Additionally, this investigation will review systemic concerns, including those identified by SED in the 1 We are not including in this investigation the incidents associated with the Lobo Fire and the McCourtney Fire. Information concerning these two fires remains confidential. SED plans to issue a supplemental report once the information for the Lobo Fire and the McCourtney Fire is no longer confidential, and we will address any violations found by SED associated with these two fires at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Solano Project History
    Solano Project Zachary Redmond Bureau of Reclamation 2000 Table Of Contents The Solano Project.............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Prehistoric Setting .................................................3 Historic Setting ...................................................5 Project Authorization.....................................................8 Construction History ....................................................10 Post-Construction History................................................17 Settlement of the Project .................................................21 Uses of Project Water ...................................................22 Conclusion............................................................24 About the Author .............................................................24 Bibliography ................................................................25 Archival Collections ....................................................25 Government Documents .................................................25 Articles...............................................................25 Books ................................................................25 Web Sites.............................................................26 Index ......................................................................27 1 The Solano Project The Solano Project is a water
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Home: a Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail at Putah Creek Exploring Home: a Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail for Putah Creek
    Exploring Home: A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail at Putah Creek Exploring Home: A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail for Putah Creek Sage Millar Senior Project June 2008 University of California, Davis Department of Environmental Sciences Landscape Architecture Program A Senior Project Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture program University of California,Davis in fulfillment of the Requirement Exploring Home: for the Degree of A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Bachelors of Science of Landscape Architecture Trail for Putah Creek Rob Thayer, Senior Project Advisor Presented by: Patsy Owens, Senior Project Advisor Sage Millar at University of California, Davis Steve McNeil, Committee Member on the Thirteenth day of June, 2008 This senior project consists of background research and site analysis as well as a final site plan for a recreational day use area and interpretive trail on Putah Creek. This document contains the background research, site analysis, and program develop- Abstract ment I completed before designing the final site plan. The site is 10 miles west of Winters on Hwy 128 at the base of Monticello Dam where Cold Creek enters Putah Creek. The site is in the Pu- tah Creek Wildlife area and is approximately 25 acres. Because of it’s location near the trailhead into Stebbins Reserve, and Putah and Cold Creeks, the site provides and excellent opportunity to create an educational and interpretive experience for visitors to the area. Hiking trails, informational kiosks and signage will highlight the history and various natural processes that are occur- ring on and around the site. A small interpretive center or outdoor teaching area will enhance the experience of visitors, and also provide an outdoor classroom for gatherings such as field trips.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigated Negative Declaration Putah Creek Energy Farm Use Permit Parcel 030-200-016
    Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Putah Creek Energy Farm Use Permit Parcel 030-200-016 Zone File # 2019-006 Lead Agency Yolo County Department of Community Services Planning Division 292 West Beamer Street Woodland, CA, 95695-2598 Technical assistance provided by September 2019 Yolo County Department of Community Services CONTENTS Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2. Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................... 1 CEQA 1 Yolo County ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Environmental Checklist Form ..................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................... 5 Environmental Determination .............................................................................................................. 5 4. Detailed Project Description ........................................................................................................ 6 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces
    Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces Accepted and Approved by A Senior Project Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program University of California, Davis Steve Greco, Faculty Committee Member in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture Tara Hanlon, Committee Member Rich Marovich, Committee Member Presented by: Claire Napawan, Senior Project Faculty Advisor Kathryn Salfen at University of California, Davis on the Tenth Day of June, 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my senior project committee members for their tremendous help. They all provided me with their knowledge, time and encouragement. THANK YOU! Claire Napawan Steve Greco Rich Marovich Tara Hanlon In addition to my senior project committee members, I would like to thank my parents for all their help not only during this project but for helping through everything! i Abstract This project focuses on Putah Creek as it runs from Lake Berryessa to the Yolo Wildlife Area. It examines the corridor as both a wildlife corridor and as a local trail corridor. With many existing patches of wildlife reserves located along Putah creek, the restoration of riparian forest along the channel will provide full connectivity and functionality to the corridor. On the social scale Putah Creek runs between Winters and Davis. Connecting the existing trails of the UC Davis Riparian Reserve and Winters Putah Creek Nature Park will establish a local trail corridor. This project also examines the need of the design of the trails at Win- ter’s Putah Creek Nature Park to Preserve linear corridors and creating multi-use trails that can allow wildlife movement across the landscape.
    [Show full text]