DOCSLIB.ORG

Year 1 Monitoring Report Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Year 1 Monitoring Report Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity OCTOBER 2016 MARIN COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM AND CITY OF PETALUMA Year 1 Monitoring Report Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity TMDL Monitoring Program in Urban Creeks submitted to SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD prepared by LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES ~ This Page Intentionally Left Blank ~ Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Monitoring Methods, Stations, and Parameters ................................................................ 2 2.1. Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................................ 2 2.2. Monitoring Events .......................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Monitoring Constituents ................................................................................................. 4 2.4. Stream Flow Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4 2.5. Analytical Methods ......................................................................................................... 5 3. Event Summaries .................................................................................................................. 7 3.1. Event 1: January 5, 2016 ................................................................................................. 7 3.2. Event 2: March 5, 2016 ................................................................................................... 9 3.3. Event 3: June 9, 2016 .................................................................................................... 12 4. Data Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................ 15 4.1. Water Quality Measurements ....................................................................................... 15 4.2. Stage Height and Surface Water Velocity .................................................................... 15 4.3. Conventional Parameters .............................................................................................. 16 4.4. Pesticides....................................................................................................................... 16 4.5. Recommendations for 2016-2017 ................................................................................. 19 Attachments: Attachment A: Applied Marine Sciences Event 1 Field Report, Field Data Sheets, and Chain of Custody Forms Attachment B: Applied Marine Sciences Event 2 Field Report, Field Data Sheets, and Chain of Custody Forms Attachment C: Applied Marine Sciences Event 3 Field Report, Field Data Sheets, and Chain of Custody Forms MCSTOPPP and City of Petaluma i October2016 2015-2016 Urban Creek Monitoring Report List of Tables Table 1. Proposed Pesticide Monitoring Locations ........................................................................ 2 Table 2. Monitoring Constituents .................................................................................................. 4 Table 3. Stream Flow Data Sources ................................................................................................ 5 Table 4. Parameters Monitored in 2015-2016 ................................................................................ 6 Table 5. Event 1 Quality Control Samples ..................................................................................... 7 Table 6. Event 1 Results – January 5, 2016 .................................................................................... 8 Table 7. Event 1 Flow at Marin County Urban Creek Sites – January 5, 2016 .............................. 9 Table 8. Event 2 Quality Control Samples ..................................................................................... 9 Table 9. Event 2 Results – March 5, 2016 .................................................................................... 11 Table 10. Event 2 Flow at Marin County Urban Creek Sites – March 5, 2016 ............................ 12 Table 11. Event 3 Quality Control Samples ................................................................................. 12 Table 12. Event 3 Results – June 9, 2016 ..................................................................................... 13 Table 13. Event 3 Flow at Marin County Urban Creek Sites – June 9th, 2016 ............................. 14 Table 14. General Water Quality Parameters ............................................................................... 15 Table 15. Stage Height and Surface Water Velocity .................................................................... 16 Table 16. Summary Statistics for Pesticide Results in East Marin Creeks and Petaluma River (ng/L) ......................................................................................................................... 17 Table 17. Pesticide Water Quality Thresholds and Comparison with Year 1 Results ................. 18 List of Figures Figure 1. Monitoring Stations and Surrounding Watersheds.......................................................... 3 MCSTOPPP and City of Petaluma ii October2016 2015-2016 Urban Creek Monitoring Report 1. Introduction The Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) agencies as well as the City of Petaluma (Petaluma) are subject to the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Phase II General Permit (Phase II Permit).1 MCSTOPPP and Petaluma are conducting regional monitoring efforts to satisfy Phase II Permit monitoring requirements for all MCSTOPPP member agencies and Petaluma. MCSTOPPP consists of the individual cities within Marin County and the unincorporated County areas. MCSTOPPP and Petaluma must comply with the 2005 Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity in Urban Creeks Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring requirements as described in Attachment G of the Phase II Permit: Monitor water and sediment for pesticides and associated toxicity in urban creeks via an individual or regional program designed to answer the following questions: 1) Are the TMDL toxicity targets being met? Is toxicity observed in urban creeks caused by a pesticide? 2) Is urban runoff the source of any observed toxicity in urban creeks? 3) How does observed pesticide-related toxicity in urban creeks (or pesticide concentrations contributing to such toxicity) vary in time and magnitude across urban creek watersheds, and what types of pest control practices contribute to such toxicity? 4) Are actions already being taken to reduce pesticide discharges sufficient to meet the targets, and if not, what should be done differently? All monitoring activities are conducted in accordance with the August 2015 MCSTOPPP and City of Petaluma Monitoring Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan: Diazinon and Pesticide- Related Toxicity TMDL Monitoring Program in Urban Creeks (QAPP), unless otherwise noted in this report. The QAPP outlines the management aspects of the monitoring program, the design of the sampling process, the sample collection and handling processes, the analytical methods, the quality control, and the data management, validation, and review. The program aims to characterize pesticide concentrations and other water quality parameters during wet and dry season conditions in East Marin County creeks and the Petaluma River. This report describes the monitoring stations, methods used for sample collection and analysis, field activities conducted during the monitoring events, and the results of field and laboratory measurements produced during sampling season 2015-2016, the first year of a minimum two- year monitoring effort. The report relies on findings gathered by Applied Marine Sciences (AMS), the MCSTOPPP and Petaluma contractor for the sampling project. AMS produced field reports for each monitoring event (see Attachment A through C). 1www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phsii2012_5th/order_final.pdf MCSTOPPP and City of Petaluma 1 October 2016 2015-2016 Urban Creek Monitoring Report 2. Monitoring Methods, Stations, and Parameters Monitoring stations and methods used during the 2015-2016 monitoring program are summarized in this section. Field services in 2015-2016 were provided by AMS for MCSTOPPP while Petaluma used in-house staff. 2.1. MONITORING STATIONS Water quality samples were collected at locations in Novato Creek, San Rafael Creek, Ross Valley, Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, and Petaluma River watersheds. The stations are located downstream of urban areas at locations that can be safely accessed during storm runoff events. Along the Petaluma River, samples were also collected at a site upstream of most urban development in the area (PET310). Table 1 shows the monitoring stations and naming conventions. A map of the stations is provided in Figure 1. Characteristics of the tributary watersheds have been previously detailed in the QAPP. Table 1. Proposed Pesticide Monitoring Locations Creek Station Name Location ID Latitude Longitude Novato Creek Lee Gerner Park 206NOV160 38.1070 -122.5786 Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio La Goma Bridge 203ACM070 37.8976 -122.5350 Corte Madera Creek Lagunitas Road Bridge 203COR060 37.9632 -122.5571 San Rafael Creek D Street Overcrossing 203SNR180 37.9706 -122.5325 Petaluma River, Upstream Outlet Mall PET310 38.2558 -122.6515 Petaluma River, Downstream 500ft upstream of Ellis Creek
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840
    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds
    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds Presentation Summaries (in order of appearance) Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service Steelhead as Threatened Species: The Status of the Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." To assist NMFS apply this definition of "species to Pacific salmon stocks, an interim policy established the use of "evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The listing of steelhead as "threatened" in the California Central Coast resulted from a petition filed in February 1994. In response to the petition, NMFS conducted a West Coast-wide status review to identify all steelhead ESU’s in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. There were two tiers to the review: (1) regional expertise was used to determine the status of all streams with regard to steelhead; and (2) a biological review team was assembled to review the regional team's data. Evidence used in this process included data on precipitation, annual hydrographs, monthly peak flows, water temperatures, native freshwater fauna, major vegetation types, ocean upwelling, and smolt and adult out-migration (i.e., size, age and time of migration). Steelhead within San Francisco Bay tributaries are included in the Central California Coast ESU.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Planning Area Description, Map and Boundaries
    3.2 Planning Area Description Southern Sonoma County SWRP/Sonoma County Water Agency 3.2 Planning Area Description, Map and Boundaries Justification of Planning Area Boundaries The planning area addressed by the Southern Sonoma Storm Water Resource Plan will include the watersheds of two neighboring tributaries to San Pablo Bay: Petaluma River and Sonoma Creek (see Figure 1). These two watersheds are well suited for coverage under a single comprehensive Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP) because they are substantially identical to the jurisdictional areas of Sonoma County which drain into San Pablo Bay and the larger San Francisco Bay and share water quality goals driven by similar impairments in shared receiving waters. Petaluma and Sonoma watersheds also share similar and consistent typified land uses and flooding patterns that generate collaboration across watersheds. The Southern Sonoma County SWRP uses the CalWater 2.2 Hydrologic Area delineation for both watersheds in order to utilize the vast amount of existing data to support the project prioritization and quantification process. Supporting documents to be referenced within this plan have used this boundary for justification as have existing and original data sets and spatial layers. Concurrent planning efforts in the County, including the future Groundwater Sustainability Plans, pursuant to Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District’s (SCAPOSDs) Vital Lands Initiative, will utilize the same planning area boundary allowing collaborators to maintain consistency between regional efforts to promote land use planning and storm water management objectives, as well as potential opportunities for recharge. The hydrologic area scale was used for both watersheds as limited existing data was found through an initial analysis that would provide a comprehensive look at smaller cataloging units.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality
    12 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes local and regional hydrology, flooding and water quality in and around Novato, as well as the applicable federal, State and local regulations. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Regulations a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), also known as the CWA, was enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The two-phase National Stormwater Program was established as part of the CWA. Phase 1 of the program requires discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) serving over 100,000 people to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City of Novato is considered a permittee under California’s statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) for MS4s. Permitees must develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing discharged pollutants to the maxi- mum extent. The City of Novato’s NPDES Storm Water Program prevents illicit discharges into drains, waterways and wetlands, and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 16, Utilities. b. National Flood Insurance Program Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 to address the increasing cost of flood-related disaster relief. The intent of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is to reduce the need for large, publicly-funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations and limit development on floodplains.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration SONOMA COUNTY Petaluma River Watershed The Petaluma River watershed lies within portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties. The river flows in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction into San Pablo Bay. Petaluma River In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that the Petaluma River was an historical migration route and habitat for steelhead (Skinner 1962). At that time, the creek was said to be “lightly used” as steelhead habitat (Skinner 1962). In July 1968, DFG surveyed portions of the Petaluma River accessible by automobile from the upstream limit of tidal influence to the headwaters. No O. mykiss were observed (Thomson and Michaels 1968d). Leidy electrofished upstream from the Corona Road crossing in July 1993. No salmonids were found (Leidy 2002). San Antonio Creek San Antonio Creek is a tributary of Petaluma River and drains an area of approximately 12 square miles. The channel is the border between Sonoma and Marin Counties. In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that San Antonio Creek was an historical migration route for steelhead (Skinner 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion
    June 4, 2020 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2020-00090 James Mazza Regulatory Division Chief San Francisco District Corps of Engineers 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-3406 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Novato Creek 2020 Maintenance Sediment Removal and Wetland Enhancement Project (Corps File No. 2004-28601N) Dear Mr. Mazza: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2020, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.), for the Novato Creek 2020 Maintenance Sediment Removal and Wetland Enhancement Project (Project). This consultation was conducted in accordance with the 2019 revised regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402, 84 FR 45016). NMFS also reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the action would adversely affect the EFH of federally managed fish species under the Pacific Salmon, Coastal Pelagic, and Groundfish Fishery Management Plans. Therefore, we have included the results of that review in Section 3 of this document. The enclosed biological opinion is based on our review of the proposed Project and describes NMFS’ analysis of potential effects on threated Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and designated critical habitat for those species, in accordance with section 7 of the ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 3 Feasibility Report (Sections 1 & 2)
    Section 1 Introduction This report, prepared in coordination with the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (Authority), presents an engineering evaluation and an economic and financial analysis of a proposed project for a regional approach to recycled water distribution in the North San Pablo Bay area of California. The report has been prepared by the Authority’s consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the U. S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation Public Law 102-575, Title XVI (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992, as amended). Title XVI provides a mechanism for Federal participation and cost-sharing in approved recycled water projects and provides general authority for appraisal and feasibility studies. The Authority, established under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in August 2005, is comprised of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), as Administrative Agency, together with four wastewater utilities as member agencies – the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD), the Novato Sanitary District (Novato SD), the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD), and the Napa Sanitation District (Napa SD). North Marin Water District (NMWD) and Napa County are providing technical and financial support to the Authority. Under the MOU and its amendment, the Authority is exploring “the feasibility of coordinating interagency efforts to expand the beneficial use of recycled water in the North Bay Region thereby promoting the conservation of limited surface water and groundwater resources.” The proposed North San Pablo Bay Restoration and Reuse Project (Project), the subject and intended outcome of the Authority’s work, would alter the disposition of wastewater in the North Bay Region by reducing the volume of treated wastewater discharged into San Pablo Bay and its tributaries and instead providing increased recycled water supply to agricultural, urban, and environmental uses.
    [Show full text]