DOCSLIB.ORG

Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment Technical Appendix Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation October 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Technical Appendix Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment Prepared for Reclamation by CH2M HILL under Contract No. R12PD80946 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Michael K. Tansey, PhD, Mid-Pacific Region Climate Change Coordinator Arlan Nickel, Mid-Pacific Region Basin Studies Coordinator By CH2M HILL Brian Van Lienden, PE, Water Resources Engineer Armin Munévar, PE, Water Resources Engineer Tapash Das, PhD, Water Resources Engineer U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation October 2014 This page left intentionally blank Table of Contents Table of Contents Page Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................... xvii Preface ......................................................................................................... xxi 1.0 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 1 2.0 Socioeconomic-Climate Future Scenarios.............................................. 3 2.1 Scenario Development 3 2.1.1 Objective and Approach............................................................. 3 2.1.2 Socioeconomic and Climate Scenario Summary ........................ 4 3.0 Water Supply Assessment ..................................................................... 17 3.1 Objective and Approach 17 3.1.1 Assessment of Historical Supply ...............................................18 3.1.2 Assessment of Future Water Supply ..........................................33 3.2 Summary of Results 46 3.2.1 Historical Supply ......................................................................46 3.2.2 Future Projected Supply ..........................................................50 4.0 Water Demand Assessment ................................................................... 68 4.1 Objective and Approach 68 4.1.1 Assessment of Recent Historical Demand .................................68 4.1.2 Assessment of Future Demand ..................................................68 4.2 Summary of Results 69 4.2.1 Recent Historical Demand ........................................................69 4.2.2 Future Projected Demand ..........................................................74 5.0 System Risk and Reliability Assessment ............................................... 86 5.1 System Risk and Reliability Metrics 86 5.1.1 Objective and Approach............................................................86 5.1.2 Summary of Results ..................................................................86 5.2 System Risk and Reliability Assessment 88 5.2.1 Objective and Approach............................................................89 5.2.2 Delivery Reliability Results ......................................................89 5.2.3 Water Quality Results ........................................................... 115 5.2.4 Hydropower and GHG Emissions Results ............................. 124 5.2.5 Flood Control Results ........................................................... 131 5.2.6 Recreation Results ................................................................ 134 Technical Appendix – Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment v Table of Contents 5.2.7 Ecological Resources Results ............................................... 138 References ................................................................................................... 149 Technical Supplement: Baseline Assumptions for the Impact Assessment CVP IRP CalLite Model .............................................................................. 153 List of Tables Figure P-1. Impact Assessment Study Area ................................................. xxi Table 2-1. Climate Scenarios Used in the Impact Assessment ...................... 7 Table 2-2. Sea Level Rise Projections Relative to 2000 in San Francisco .... 14 Table 3-1. Mean Annual Flows at Major Locations ..................................... 23 Table 3-2. Annual Temperature change (in degrees C) in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions in Each Climate Scenario (2012–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071-2099) ........................ 42 Table 3-3. Annual Precipitation (in mm) for the NoCC Scenario and Percent Change in Each Climate Scenario in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions (2012–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071-2099) ........................................................................ 43 Table 3-4. Natural Flows Key Statistics in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Eight Rivers Index, Sacramento 4 Rivers Index, San Joaquin 4 Rivers Index, and Tulare 2 Rivers Index ............................................................................ 49 Table 3-5. Summary of Annual Streamflow Changes (%) in the Sacramento River System, Eastside Streams and Delta, San Joaquin River System, and Tulare Lake Region (2012–2040, 2041–2070, 2071-2099, and 2012–2099) ........................................................................................... 66 Table 4-1. Historical Applied Water Use in the Central Valley (in TAF/year) .............................................................................................. 70 Table 4-2. Average Annual Agricultural and Urban Applied Water Historical Demand (in TAF/year) in each Scenario ...................................... 70 Table 4-3. Average Annual Agricultural Applied Water Demand in Each Scenario (in TAF/year) ................................................................................ 75 Table 4-4. Average Annual Urban Applied Water Demand in Each Scenario (in TAF/year) ................................................................................ 77 Table 5-1. Resource Categories and Attributes of Interest ........................... 86 Table 5-2. Models Used for Resource Category Assessments ..................... 89 Table 5-3. Average Annual Unmet Demands in Each Scenario (in TAF/Year) .............................................................................................. 97 vi Technical Appendix – Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment Table of Contents Table 5-4. Percentage of Years with End-of-September Storage Less than the 10th Percentile of Storage in the CTnoCC Scenario for Each Scenario ....................................................................................................... 107 Table 5-5. Average Annual Exports at Banks PP, Jones PP and Total Exports for Each Scenario (in TAF/year) ..................................................... 114 Table 5-6. Average April-August EC (µS/cm) at Emmaton and Jersey Point and Average Annual EC at Rock Slough in Each Scenario .................. 117 Table 5-7. Percentage of End-of-May Storages Less than the 10th Percentile of Storage in the No-Climate Change Scenario ............................ 122 Table 5-8. Average Annual Net Energy Generation (GWh/year) for the CVP and SWP Systems in Each Scenario ..................................................... 126 Table 5-9. Average Annual GHG Emissions or Potential GHG Offsets (mTCO2e/year) for the CVP and SWP Systems in Each Scenario ................ 130 Table 5-10. Percentage of Months from October through June that Storage Is Within 10 TAF of the Flood Conservation Pool in Each Scenario ....................................................................................................... 132 Table 5-11. Percentage of Months from October through June that Releases Exceed Penstock Capacities in Each Scenario ................................ 133 Table 5-12. Percentage of Months in Each Scenario from May through September that Reservoir Surface Area Is Less than the Monthly Median in the CTnoCC Scenario .............................................................................. 135 Table 5-13. Percentage of Months that Lake Shasta Storage Is Less than 2,200 TAF in September and 3,800 TAF in April in each Scenario .............. 139 Table 5-14. Percentage of Months that Lake Shasta Storage Is Less than 2,200 TAF in September and 3,800 TAF in April in each Scenario ....... 141 Table 5-15. Percentage of Months that the February-to-June X2 Position Is Greater than Metric Values in Each Scenario ............................................ 144 Table 5-16. Percentage of Months in Each Scenario that March- through-June OMR Flow Is Less (more negative) than 3,500 cfs ................. 145 Table 5-17. Percentage of Months that September-through-November X2 Position Is Greater than Metric Value in Each Scenario ............................... 146 Table 5-18. Percentage of Months that October-through-December OMR Flow Is Less (more negative) than -5,000 cfs in each Scenario ..................... 147 Table 5-19. Percentage of Months that July-through-September OMR Flow Is Less (more negative) than -5,000 cfs in Each Scenario .................... 148 Table 6-1. Reference Information for Citations on Figure 4-7 ....................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yosemite National Park U.S
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Merced Wild & Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Designated in 1987, the The Merced Wild and Scenic River Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Merced Wild and Scenic River includes 81 miles The Merced Wild and Scenic River, designated in Management Plan and Environmental Impact State- in Yosemite National 1987, includes 122 miles of the Merced River on the ment (Final Merced River Plan/EIS) is the National Park and the El Portal Park Service’s response to these requirements. Administrative Site. western side of the Sierra Nevada in California. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 81 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River through Yosem- The Final Merced River Plan/EIS will be the guid- ite National Park and the El Portal Administrative ing document for protecting and enhancing river Site, including the headwaters and both the Mer- values and managing use and user capacity within ced River’s main stem and the South Fork Merced the Merced River corridor for the next 20 years. As River. As the Merced River flows outside Yosemite’s such, it evaluates impacts and threats to river values western boundary, the U.S. Forest Service and the and identifies strategies for protecting and enhanc- Bureau of Land Management manage the next 41 ing these values over the long-term. The plan fol- miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. lows and documents planning processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Why a Comprehensive Management Plan? the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires and other legal mandates governing National Park comprehensive planning for all designated rivers to Service decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDY of INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY of MERCED RIVER at the CONFLUENCE with SAN JOAQUIN RIVER a Project Presented to the Faculty
    STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER A Project Presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil Engineering (Water Resources Engineering) by Hani Nour SUMMER 2017 © 2017 Hani Nour ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER A Project by Hani Nour Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Saad Merayyan __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Cristina Poindexter, P.E. ___________________________ Date iii Student: Hani Nour I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project. _________________________, Department Chair ______________ Dr. Benjamin Fell, P.E. Date Department of Civil Engineering iv Abstract of STUDY OF INCREASING CONVEY CAPACITY OF MERCED RIVER AT THE CONFLUNENCE WITH SAN JOAQUIN RIVER by Hani Nour Flooding in California’s Central Valley is very common and expected to occur every year anywhere throughout the region. The climate and geography of the Central Valley, together, are responsible for over flow streams, rivers, and lakes causing water flooding, particularly at the lower elevation areas. San Joaquin Basin is located between the Sierra Nevada (on the east) and the Coast Ranges (on the west) where flooding is typically characterized by infrequent severe storms during winter season due to heavy rain and snow- melt runoff coming from the foothills, east of Merced County (Jesse Patchett 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Vegetation Classification and Mapping of Peoria Wildlife Area
    Vegetation classification and mapping of Peoria Wildlife Area, South of New Melones Lake, Tuolumne County, California By Julie M. Evens, Sau San, and Jeanne Taylor Of California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 In Collaboration with John Menke Of Aerial Information Systems 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 November 2004 Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1 Vegetation Classification Methods................................................................................................................ 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1. Survey area including Peoria Wildlife Area and Table Mountain .................................................. 2 Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Locations of the field surveys. ....................................................................................................... 4 Existing Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 5 Cluster Analyses for Vegetation Classification .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Water & Sierra Nevada Hydrology
    - Adaptive management - California water & Sierra Nevada hydrology - SNRI & UC Merced Roger Bales Sierra Nevada Research Institute UC Merced Forest adaptive management: water 3 objectives: Measure changes in water quality & water budget in representative areas subjected to Framework/SPLATS treatment Estimate the impact of forest treatments on water quality, water budget & aquatic habitat at three levels: watershed, forest, bioregion Provide basis for continuing operational assessment of how Framework treatments will impact streams, water cycle & forest health Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu Tasks: Water Quality & Quantity Field measurement program – before/after treatment – controls in parallel w/ treatment – stream temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity – stream stage/discharge, soil moisture – meteorology, erosion, soil temperature, snowpack, precipitation Modeling & spatial scaling – integrate observations using hydrologic model – estimate model parameters from satellite & ground data – extend impacts across hydrologic & watershed conditions – couple watershed, erosion, stream responses Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu Tahoe NF catchments Hydrology focuses on 3 smaller catchments: − treatment − control − higher elevation, future treatment Same strategy in Sierra NF California’s water resources challenges: increasing pressure on mountain resources 1. Changing urban & agricultural water demand 2. Sea level rise 3. Reduction of average annual snowpack
    [Show full text]
  • Ad-Hoc Drought Management on an Overallocated River: the Ts Anislaus River, Water Years 2014-15 Philip Womble
    Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 23 | Number 1 Article 16 2017 Ad-hoc Drought Management on an Overallocated River: The tS anislaus River, Water Years 2014-15 Philip Womble Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Philip Womble, Ad-hoc Drought Management on an Overallocated River: The Stanislaus River, Water Years 2014-15, 23 Hastings West Northwest J. of Envtl. L. & Pol'y 115 (2017) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol23/iss1/16 This Series is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ad-hoc Drought Management on an Overallocated River: The Stanislaus River, Water Years 2014-15 Philip Womble* *J.D., Stanford Law School, 2016; Ph.D. Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University. Many thanks to stakeholders who took the time to share their thoughts with me in interviews and to Leon Szeptycki, Jeffrey Mount, Brian Gray, Molly Melius, Ellen Hanak, Ted Grantham, Caitlin Chappelle, John Ugai, and Elizabeth Vissers for their feedback and support. This publication was developed with partial support from Assistance Agreement No. 83586701 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency to the Public Policy Institute of California. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide to the Sierra National Forest
    Sierra Traveler A Visitor’s Guide to the Sierra National Forest Photo by Joshua Courter by Joshua Photo Anne Lake, Ansel Adams Wilderness - Sierra National Forest What are you interested in doing in the Sierra? Can we help you find what you want to do in the Sierra? Visit Your National Forest! Destinations ......................................................................................................... 2 Sierra National Forest Supervisors Office Camping Guide .................................................................................................. 3 1600 Tollhouse Rd. Clovis, CA 93611 Helpful Hints ........................................................................................................ 4 (559) 297-0706 Merced River Country ...................................................................................... 5 Yosemite South/Highway 41 .......................................................................... 6 High Sierra Ranger District Bass Lake ............................................................................................................... 7 29688 Auberry Rd. Prather, CA 93651 Mammoth Pool Reservoir ............................................................................... 8 (559) 855-5355 San Joaquin River Gorge Management ..................................................... 9 Bass Lake Ranger District Sierra Vista National Scenic Byway ...................................................... 10-12 57003 Road 225 North Fork, CA 93643 Dinkey Creek/McKinley Grove ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Things to Do and See in Yosemite SUGGESTIONS ACCORDING to the TIME YOU HAVE
    Yosemite Peregrine Lodge Encouraging Adventure And Defining Relaxation. Things to do and see in Yosemite SUGGESTIONS ACCORDING TO THE TIME YOU HAVE A man reportedly visited the park and approached John Muir to inquire what he should see as he only had one day to visit the park. John replied, “Sit down and cry lad”. I don’t know what the man ended up seeing or doing, but one thing is for sure no matter how long you have in the park you will be able to see a little bit of one of the most amazing places on earth. And that is worth any time you will spend here. The following are some suggestions on what to see and do given a certain amount of time. ONE HOUR Location: Yosemite Valley 1. Explore the Visitor center exhibits. Learn about Yosemite’s geology, history, and resources 2. Tour the reconstructed Native American Village behind the visitor center. Experience Ahwahnechee life. 3. Walk along the self guided changing Yosemite nature trail. Begin trail outside visitor center. 4. Visit the fascinating Native American cultural museum. See Yosemite’s extensive basket collection. 5. Walk to the base of the lower Yosemite Falls, best time of year is April-July, and October-November. 6. Ride the free shuttle bus around the east Valley with views of Half Dome and the Merced River. 7. Walk an easy trail to the base of Bridalveil Fall. 8. Enjoy Tunnel View on Highway 41. This is an awesome scenic view of the entire Yosemite Valley. TWO HOURS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Merced River Hiking
    PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION Restoring, Enhancing and Sustaining Forests in California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands Sierra National Forest Hiking the South fork of the Merced River Bass Lake Ranger District Originating from some of the highest ranges in Bicycles and horses are not allowed on the trail. As the Sierra, the Merced River begins its journey you meander along the trail, you will discover the from Mt. Hoffman and Tenaya Lake on the north, remains of the old Hite Mine that produced over $3 the Cathedral range on the east and the Mt. Ray- million in gold and a gold mining town that once mond area south of Yosemite. It has two stood on the banks of the river. Please remember branches: the main fork and the south fork. The that historic and prehistoric artifacts are not to be main fork flows through the Sierra National For- disturbed or removed as they are protected by est and Yosemite Valley. The South Fork flows law. Violators will be prosecuted. through Wawona, winding its way through the Sierra National Forest to Hite Cove where it joins DEVIL GULCH the main river at Highway 140. Road (3S02) to the South Fork of the Merced River. This section of the trail is 2.5 miles long and HITE COVE TRAIL fairly easy to hike. Dispersed campsites are at Devil A spectacular early spring wildflower display is Gulch, the river and Devil Gulch Creek both need to along the Hite Cove Trail from February to be forded in order to continue on the trail. Caution April, with over 60 varieties of wildflowers along during high water spring runoff.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of the Merced River and Historic Bridges in Eastern Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California
    Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of the Merced River and Historic Bridges in Eastern Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California Open-File Report 2013–1016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of the Merced River and Historic Bridges in Eastern Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California By J. Toby Minear and Scott A. Wright Open-File Report 2013–1016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey ii U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 Revised and reprinted: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Minear, J.Toby, Wright, Scott A., 2013, Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of the Merced River and Historic Bridges in Eastern Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California: Sacramento, California, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2013-1016, 74 p. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
    [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]
  • Biological, Habitat and Water Quality Conditions in the Upper Merced River Drainage, Yosemite National Park, California, 1993-1996
    uses fence for a changing world i cooperation with the National Park Service Water Resources Division nd Yosemite National Park Biological, Habitat and Water Quality Conditions in the Upper Merced River Drainage, Yosemite National Park, California, 1993-1996 l/ater-Resources Investigations Report 99-4088 .S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR .S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Biological, Habitat, and Water Quality Conditions in the Upper Merced River Drainage, Yosemite National Park, California, 1993-1996 /tyLarry R. Brown and Terry M. Short U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4088 In cooperation with the National Park Service Water Resources Division and Yosemite National Park ITJ O CO Sacramento, California 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 Placer Hall Denver, CO 80225-0286 6000 J Street Sacramento, California 95819-6129 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Improve understanding of the primary (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the natural and human factors that affect earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the development ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]