DOCSLIB.ORG

Delta and Aqueduct Tastes & Odors and Bluegreen Algal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Delta and Aqueduct Tastes & Odors and Bluegreen Algal DeltaDelta andand AqueductAqueduct TastesTastes andand OdorsOdors andand AlgalAlgal CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins JeffJeff Janik,Janik, Ph.D.Ph.D. California Department of Water Resources Delta Nutrient Water Quality Modeling Workshop March 25, 2008 AdverseAdverse effectseffects ofof nuisancenuisance algaealgae ReductionReduction inin waterwater productionproduction (filter(filter clogging)clogging) FormationFormation ofof tastetaste andand odorodor productsproducts IncreaseIncrease inin organicorganic mattermatter (DPB(DPB’’s)s) CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins (Cyanobacteria)(Cyanobacteria) HigherHigher operatingoperating costscosts forfor WTPWTP’’ss HigherHigher chemicalchemical useuse ShorterShorter filterfilter runrun timestimes 2 StateState WaterWater ProjectProject 3 SacramentoSacramento SanSan JoaquinJoaquin DeltaDelta 4 CliftonClifton CourtCourt ForebayForebay 5 ConditionsConditions forfor AlgalAlgal GrowthGrowth HighHigh PhosphorusPhosphorus levelslevels (>(> 5050 ug/lug/l TP)TP) 1 ug/L TP = approx. 1 ug of chlorophyll a StableStable stratifiedstratified conditionsconditions (plankton)(plankton) ContinuousContinuous nutrientnutrient supplysupply (flowing(flowing systems,systems, recycling,recycling, internalinternal loading)loading) CyanobacteriaCyanobacteria presentpresent HigherHigher affinityaffinity forfor NN && PP (outcompete(outcompete others)others) SomeSome speciesspecies fixfix atmosphericatmospheric NN (heterocytes)(heterocytes) 6 Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 2000 Dissolved inorganic N (ug/L) BPP 1800 CK 13 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 7 Total Phosphorus 300 BPP Total Phosphorus (ug/L) CK 13 250 200 150 100 50 High protection potential 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 8 BlueBlue--greengreen AlgaeAlgae (The(The Cyanobacteria)Cyanobacteria) 150 Genera with approx. 2000 species T&O Producers (approx. 3%) Toxin Producers (approx. 1-1.5%) Very few T&O producers also produce toxins 9 TasteTaste andand OdorOdor CompoundsCompounds •• Earthy/mustyEarthy/musty tastestastes andand odorsodors •• GeosminGeosmin •• 22--methylisoborneomethylisoborneo (MIB)(MIB) •• DirectDirect measurementmeasurement (no(no surrogates)surrogates) •• ProducedProduced byby CyanobacteriaCyanobacteria 10 TasteTaste andand OdorOdor AlgaeAlgae BlueBlue--greengreen algaealgae (Cyanobacteria)(Cyanobacteria) MIB and geosmin most difficult to treat FrequentlyFrequently minorminor componentscomponents (hard(hard toto find)find) BenthicBenthic oror planktonicplanktonic StrainStrain specificspecific PhotosyntheticPhotosynthetic –– lightlight controlscontrols distributiondistribution Nutrients:Nutrients: PP andand NN (N(N--fixers)fixers) OpportunisticOpportunistic (like(like allall algae)algae) 11 ConsequencesConsequences ofof MIBMIB andand GeosminGeosmin inin DrinkingDrinking WaterWater Public perception “If the water tastes and smells bad, then it’s not safe to drink” Analytical detection limit (SPME) <1 ng/L Detection by sensitive individuals <5 ng/L Expect complaints/ 10 ng/L Implication: narrow window for detection and response 12 DWRDWR TT && OO MonitoringMonitoring ProgramProgram •• WeeklyWeekly monitoringmonitoring –– EarlyEarly WarningWarning –– IsolateIsolate sourcesource ofof productionproduction •• AdditionalAdditional samplesample duringduring ““episodesepisodes”” •• SolidSolid PhasePhase MicroextractionMicroextraction (SPME)(SPME) –– ReportingReporting levellevel == 11 ng/Lng/L (=ppt)(=ppt) •• DataData distributeddistributed –– 11--33 daysdays 13 TasteTaste andand OdorsOdors –– BanksBanks PumpingPumping PlantPlant 60 MIB Geosmin 50 40 30 20 10 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 14 BanksBanks PPPP –– T&OT&O EventsEvents 30 MIB > 10 ug/l 25 Geosmin > 5 ug/l 20 Weeks 15 10 5 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 15 AlgalAlgal BiomassBiomass –– BanksBanks PPPP Fluorescence (planktonic) 60.0 MIB 50.0 Geosmin Algae (x10) 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 16 TT && OO ImpactsImpacts onon WaterWater TreatmentTreatment •• IncreasedIncreased PowderedPowdered ActivatedActivated CarbonCarbon (PAC)(PAC) •• IncreasedIncreased ozoneozone dosedose •• HigherHigher costscosts forfor chemicalschemicals andand operationsoperations 17 18 SouthSouth BayBay AqueductAqueduct –– WTPWTP’’ss (MGD) Trtm Service Area Zone 7 Del Valle WTP 36 PAC Livrermore - Amador valley Patterson Pass (Conv) 21 PAC (Delta Supply = 100%) Patterson Pass (Mem) 8 ACWD Mission San Jose 8.5 Ozone Fremont, Newark, Union City WTP Number Two 21 Ozone (Delta Supply = ca 55%) SCVWD Penitencia 40 Ozone Milpitas Rinconada 80 PAC Los Gatos, Santa Clara & vic. Mountain View & vicinity Santa Teresa 100 Ozone South San Jose Total 315 19 30 25 MIB at Zone 7 20 customer complaints (8), 7/18, 7/20, 7/24, 15 7/25 10 2007 T&O Season - MIB PAC dose (mg/L) & MIB concentrations (ng/L) 5 DVWTP 0 15-May 22-May 29-May 5-Jun customer 12-Jun complaint (1), 8/16 19-Jun 26-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul 24-Jul plant inlet 31-Jul customer complaint (1), 7-Aug 9/5 clearw ell inlet 14-Aug Date 21-Aug 28-Aug PAC dosage 4-Sep 11-Sep 18-Sep MIB thr es hold 25-Sep 2-Oct 9-Oct 16-Oct 23-Oct 30-Oct 20 PACPAC –– CostsCosts toto removeremove MIBMIB andand geosmingeosmin 300 Days - 250 addition PAC (x $1000) 200 150 100 50 0 2006 2007 21 TasteTaste andand OdorOdor ControlControl -- PACPAC 120 PAC addition -SCVWD 90 Days 60 30 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 22 OzoneOzone andand T&OT&O Applied Ozone Dose 2006 6 5 5.5 4.5 5 4 4.5 1/ 4/1/ 00 4/ 001/ 4/ 00 1/ 4/ 001/ 4/ 001/ 4/ 001/ 4/ 00 1/ 4/ 00 1/ 4/ 001/ 4/ 00 1/ 4/ 00 1/ 4/ 00 3.5 4 3 3.5 2.5 3 2 Applied Ozone Dose (mg/ Dose L) Ozone Applied 2.5 1.5 Energy Cost based on KWh and $0.10/ and KWh on kWh based Cost Energy 2 1 1.5 0.5 1 0 4/ 1/ 2006 5/ 1/ 2006 6/ 1/ 2006 7/ 1/ 2006 8/ 1/ 2006 9/ 1/ 2006 10/ 1/ 2006 O3 APPLIED DOSAG CuSO4 Treatment En er gy Co st 23 WTPWTP FilterFilter RunRun TimesTimes Filter Run Times (Headloss & NTU & >70 hrs running) 80 70 60 50 40 Runtime (hr) 30 20 10 0 1/1/06 2/20/06 4/11/06 5/31/06 7/20/06 9/8/06 10/28/06 12/17/06 4 CuSO4 Treatment 24 JonesJones TractTract 25 JonesJones TractTract ChronologyChronology -- 20042004 •• JuneJune 33 UpperUpper JonesJones LeveeLevee failedfailed – Inflow of 150,000 – 200,000 AF •• JuneJune 2020 LeveeLevee breachbreach closedclosed – High carbon water isolated •• JulyJuly 1212 StartStart ofof pumppump--offoff – 800 cfs •• DecemberDecember 1818 EndEnd ofof pumppump--offoff 26 JonesJones TractTract –– 20042004 27 (ng/L) MIB JT&CC MIB JT&CC 10000 1000 100 10 1 6/2/04 6/9/04 6/16/04 6/23/04 6/30/04 7/7/04 7/14/04 7/21/04 7/28/04 8/4/04 8/11/04 MIB 8/18/04 8/25/04 9/1/04 9/8/04 9/15/04 9/22/04 9/29/04 10/6/04 CC Inlet JT Lower Upper JT 28 28 Jones Tract Delta CCF 29 JonesJones TractTract -- ImpactsImpacts ImmediateImmediate –– elevatedelevated T&OT&O levelslevels inin thethe SBASBA LongLong TermTerm “Seeding” the SWP with a potent MIB producer Skinner Lake annual MIB episodes beginning in 2005 30 TasteTaste andand OdorOdor producerproducer-- JonesJones TractTract •• PlanktothrixPlanktothrix perornataperornata 31 CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins ProducedProduced byby CyanobacteriaCyanobacteria (bluegreen(bluegreen algae)algae) ApproxApprox 3030 speciesspecies containcontain toxinstoxins FormedFormed asas secondarysecondary metabolitesmetabolites (extra(extra stuff)stuff) WithinWithin cellscells oror releasedreleased toto waterwater 32 CyanotoxinCyanotoxin producersproducers Microcystis Anabaena 33 MicrocystisMicrocystis ---- CliftonClifton CourtCourt AugAug 20072007 34 MicrocystisMicrocystis aeruginosaaeruginosa X 84 X 280 35 Cyanobacteria that produce toxins (WHO, 1999) 36 RelevanceRelevance ofof AlgalAlgal ToxinsToxins toto HumansHumans •• SeveralSeveral documenteddocumented outbreaks,outbreaks, somesome deathsdeaths •• SomeSome toxinstoxins knownknown toto bebe tumortumor promoterspromoters •• PossiblePossible linklink toto liverliver cancercancer inin ChinaChina 37 HighHigh PriorityPriority CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins BasedBased onon EPAEPA criteriacriteria (May(May 2001)2001) Occurrence in United States Health effects Susceptibility to drinking water treatment Toxin Stability CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins Microcystins (LR, YR, LA, RR) are most common Anatoxin – a cylindrospermopsin 38 CyanotoxinCyanotoxin -- GuidelinesGuidelines NoNo enforceableenforceable regulatoryregulatory standardsstandards EPAEPA consideringconsidering requiringrequiring monitoringmonitoring (Unregulated(Unregulated ContaminantsContaminants MonitoringMonitoring Rule)Rule) WorldWorld HealthHealth OrganizationOrganization (WHO)(WHO) Provisional Guideline – 1 ug/L microcystin-LR AustraliaAustralia Microcystin-LR 1.3 ug/L Anatoxin –a 3.0 ug/L CellCell abundanceabundance guidelinesguidelines -- useuse withwith cautioncaution 39 CyanotoxinsCyanotoxins -- inin sourcesource waterwater U.S.U.S. SurveySurvey (Carmichael,(Carmichael, 2001)2001) MicrocystinMicrocystin ––LRLR inin 539/677539/677 (80%)(80%) 4.3%4.3% exceededexceeded WHOWHO guidelineguideline (1(1 ug/L)ug/L) 40 DWRDWR CyanotoxinCyanotoxin monitoringmonitoring •• Monitoring - analyzed 60 samples /year – Sampled weekly (2006) to twice monthly (2007) – June to October – Microcystins (LR, LA, YR, RR) – Analyzed by UC Davis CAHSF Lab •• 2006 (3 sites) – Delta -- Inlet to Clifton Court Forebay (Old River) – San Luis Reservoir - Pacheco Pumping Plant – O’Neill Forebay – outlet (Check 13) •• 2007 (5 sites) – 2006 three locations – Banks Pumping Plant – North Bay Aqueduct at Barker Slough Pumping Plant 41 DWRDWR CyanotoxinCyanotoxin monitoringmonitoring 42 DWRDWR CyanotoxinCyanotoxin resultsresults •• 2006 -- – Delta: CCF inlet (n=22) – San Luis Reservoir: Pacheco Pumping Plant (n=19) – O’Neill Forebay outlet (n=19) •• 2007 – Delta: CCF inlet (n=15) – Banks Pumping Plant (n=15) – San Luis Reservoir: Pacheco Pumping Plant (n=9) – O’Neill Forebay outlet (n=10) – North Bay Aqueduct: Barker Slough Pumping Plant (n=10) •• **All microcystin results below reporting level (< 1 ppb) 43 Thanks to Bill Taylor, Rich LoseeLosee andand GeorgeGeorge IzaguirreIzaguirre Metropolitan Water District Lago Frio, near Bariloche Argentina Photo by Jeff Janik 44.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The North Bay Aqueduct Barker Slough Watershed Water Quality
    1 State ,of California rl The Resou rces Agency Department of Water Resources r"l Division of Planning and Local Assistance Division of Operations and Maintenance r"-"j MWQI Copy Photocopy and RETURN The North Bay Aqueduct Barker Slough Watershed Water Quality Pete Wilson Douglas P. Wheeler David N. Kennedy Governor Secretary for Resources Director State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources State of California n The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Planning and Local Assistance D Division of Operations and Maintenance D [J The North Bay Aqueduct/Barker Slough D Watershed Water Quality D Phase I Report D D D o u. n D D ~ July 1998 D D [J [J n FOREWORD The California State Water Project Sanitary Survey Update Report, 1996 was written to fulfill the California Department of Health Services requirement of all large n utilities to assess their source surface waters and appropriate watersheds. The State Water Project's sanitary survey update was conducted by the Municipal Water Quality [J Investigations Program within the Division of Planning and Local Assistance. This study identified North Bay Aqueduct drinking water quality as being perhaps the most o vulnerable in the State Water Project. The MWQI Committee (comprised of the urban member of the State Water Contractors and staff from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California o Department of Health Services, State Water Resources Control Board, and Department of Water Resources' Division of Planning and Local Assistance and Division of Operations and Maintenance) directed the MWQI Program to begin D conducting follow-up activities in the NBA Watershed to further assess the water quality .
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • RK Ranch 5732 +/- Acres Los Banos, CA Merced County
    FARMS | RANCHES | RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES | LAND | LUXURY ESTATES RK Ranch 5732 +/- acres Los Banos, CA Merced County 707 Merchant Street | Suite 100 | Vacaville, CA 95688 707-455-4444 Office | 707-455-0455 Fax | californiaoutdoorproperties.com CalBRE# 01838294 FARMS | RANCHES | RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES | LAND | LUXURY ESTATES Introduction This expansive 5732 acre ranch is ideal for hunting, fishing, your favorite recreational activities, a family compound, agriculture, or cattle grazing. Located in Merced County, just an hour and a half from the San Francisco Bay Area, infinite recreational opportunities await with elk, trophy black tail deer, pigs, quail, and doves. The angler will be busy with catfish, bluegill, and outstanding bass fish- ing from the stock ponds. The South Fork of the Los Banos Creek flows through the property. This property is currently leased for cattle, but the recreational uses are only limited by your imagination. Location The property is located in Merced County, 17 miles from the town of Los Banos, 26 miles from Merced, and 8 miles from the San Luis Reservior. With all the benefits of seclusion, and the conveniences of major metropolitan areas close by, this property is just a 1.5 hour drive to Silicon Valley. Air service is provided by Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, 78 miles from the property, or Norman Y. Mi- neta San Jose International Airport, 83 miles from the property. Los Banos Municipal Airport is lo- cated 17 miles away. The closest schools would be 17 miles away in Los Banos. From the north, take Highway 101 South to CA-152 East, right onto Basalt Road, left onto Gonzaga Road.
    [Show full text]
  • CA-Waterways-Map.Pdf
    O R E G O N S rk m o it F h e dl R Mid . Goose Lake S o ut k h r o F C K l O O a m a N t h r Sa e c v r er i a Riv R m d e u A A aterways n o l t o o C c R W M E V A D i v e R i r r t v i e Some of the water you use every day has probably traveled T P r S S r i n i Trinity Lake ty M a d T T R iv er great distances and over high mountain ranges before reaching E UREKA R i v e r Shasta Lake Va n your faucet. This is because water is not always where we need R EDDING Du Clear zen Whiskeytown River Creek Lake Tunnel it. In California, most of the rain and snowfall is in the north. But Lake Antelope E Almanor Lake e l most of the people live in the south. The solution is to distribute S a R c i v r e a r m Corning R k Lake Frenchman e r n o Canal F Davis Lake the water to where it is needed through delivery systems such t o h t r o A R N rk Black i Fo v e e Butte r dl id as the State Water Project (SWP). Lake M Lake k N or F Oroville h t u So G Thermalito New Bullards The SWP delivers water from Lake Oroville in the north to the T Forebay and Bar Reservoir e h Lake Oroville Afterbay F e a a Visitors Center Indian m t h r a a e Valley e iv E R R r a San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern b u u Y Reservoir - s s i Clear Lake R a C i n o v e l u r S R sa i California.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Quality Certification of Hydroelectric Projects in California Andrew H
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 25 | Issue 3 Article 5 1-1-1994 Rock Creek Revisited: State Water Quality Certification of Hydroelectric Projects in California Andrew H. Sawyer California State Water Resources Control Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew H. Sawyer, Rock Creek Revisited: State Water Quality Certification of Hydroelectric Projects in California, 25 Pac. L. J. 973 (1994). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol25/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rock Creek Revisited: State Water Quality Certification of Hydroelectric Projects in California Andrew H. Sawyer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 974 II. WATER QUALITY/WATER QUANTITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS .... 975 A. Water Quality Impacts of Water Development Projects ... 975 B. Consolidation of Water Quality and Water Right Authority. 980 1. Water Quality Control ....................... 981 2. Water Rights ............................... 984 C. Rock Creek .................................. 986 III. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 .................... 992 A. State Authority under the Clean Water Act ............ 993 B. Matters Within the Purview of Water Quality Certification . 996 1. Point Source vs. Nonpoint Source Impacts .......... 996 2. Applying Water Quality Standards: Water Chemistry vs. Beneficial Use Protection ................... 999 3. Other Appropriate Requirements of State Law ...... 1007 4. State Proceduresfor Certification .............. 1008 C. ProceduralLimitations ......................... 1010 1. Waiver ................................. 1010 2. Project Modifications ........................ 1013 3. Multiple Federal Permits ....................
    [Show full text]
  • The San Luis Reservoir, One of the Largest in California, Stores Water
    SAN LUIS RESERVOIR The San Luis Reservoir, one of the largest in California, stores water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sends it by aqueduct to the Bay Area and Southern California. In midsummer, it held about 20 percent capacity. 74 / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 RUN DRY AFTER THREE HISTORICALLY DRY YEARS, CALIFORNIA’S DROUGHT GROWS MORE CONFOUNDING AND THE FUTURE OF ITS WATER SUPPLY MORE UNCERTAIN. BY BILL MARKEN, HONORARY ASLA PHOTOGRAPHY BY PETER BENNETT/GREEN STOCK PHOTOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SEP 2014 / 75 O TALK ABOUT DROUGHT IN CALIFORNIA, YOU COULD START WITH THE MID-HOLOCENE PERIOD, WHEN A 1,400-YEAR DROUGHT LOWERED LAKE TAHOE 20 FEET AND LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR CONIFERS TO GROW THREE FEET THICK ABOVE THE RECEDING WATERLINE before the lake eventually rose back up water. One spokesperson for a water At my neighborhood market in the over them. Or with the 1930s, when agency said, “We’re technically not in heart of Silicon Valley, Jim the butch- farm families escaped the Dust Bowl a drought”—that agency had enough er told me why the price of lamb has of Texas and Oklahoma and ran up water. Another agency said, “The dis- skyrocketed—rack of lamb, bones, T OPPOSITE against a California dry spell nearly as trict could run out of water by July.” fat, and all, sells for $29 a pound. devastating. Or start with 1976–1977, An operator of sled dog teams in the He said, “We usually get our lamb Water from Northern then the driest rainy season recorded, Sierra has gone out of business from from the Central Valley, where the California is sent south to Los Angeles by way when drastic water-saving measures a lack of snow, and a Modesto golf sheep graze on winter grass.
    [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]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 137/Wednesday, July 17, 2002
    Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Notices 46999 the format of the box to allow census are also used by the Office of the identifying themselves as checkmark indications for the options of Inspector General, General Accounting representatives or officials of ‘‘dry cropped’’, ‘‘fallow’’, and ‘‘idle’’, in Office, and the Congressional Research organizations or businesses, available addition to the number of acres. Service to independently evaluate our for public disclosure in their entirety. • Within each subsection (i.e., program and to estimate the impacts of Dated: July 1, 2002. Cereals, Forage, Vegetables, etc.) in proposed legislation. These data are Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison, Section III on both forms, ‘‘Crop supplied to other Federal and State Production‘‘, we are placing the items in agencies to evaluate the program and Deputy Director, Office of Policy. alphabetical order. provide data for research. [FR Doc. 02–17944 Filed 7–16–02; 8:45 am] • In Section III on both forms, we are Description of Respondents: Irrigators BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M moving ‘‘Cantaloupe’’, ’’Watermelon’’, and water user entities in the 17 and ‘‘Honey Ball, Honeydew, etc.’’ from Western States who receive irrigation the ‘‘Vegetables’’ subsection to the water service from Bureau of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Reclamation facilities. Also included are ‘‘Fruits’’ subsection. Bureau of Reclamation • In Section I on Form 7–332, entities who receive other water ‘‘Irrigator Information’’, we are services, such as municipal and San Luis Reservoir Low Point including a box that asks for the industrial water through Bureau of Improvement Project, California respondent’s telephone number so any Reclamation facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Warning Light Upgrade at San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area EA 08-12
    Draft Environmental Assessment Wind Warning Light Upgrade at San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area EA 08-12 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region South Central California Area Office Fresno, California September 2008 Contents Page Section 1: Purpose and Need for Action............................................................... 1 1.1 Background............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 4 1.3 Scope... ………………………………………………………………… 4 1.4 Potential Issues........................................................................................ 4 Section 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives...................................................... 5 2.1 No Action Alternative............................................................................. 5 2.2 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 5 Section 3: Affected Environment........................................................................... 9 3.1 Biological Resources .............................................................................. 9 3.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 11 3.3 Recreation............................................................................................... 12 3.4 Socio-Economic Resources ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft San Luis Reservoir Expansion Appraisal Report
    San Luis Reservoir Expansion Draft Appraisal Report Central Valley Project, California Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation December 2013 Mid-Pacific Region - Planning Division U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation December 2013 Mid-Pacific Region - Planning Division 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. Cover Image: Aerial view, looking west, of B.F. Sisk Dam and San Luis Reservoir. Image courtesy of DWR. San Luis Reservoir Expansion Draft Appraisal Report Central Valley Project, California Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region - Planning Division San Luis Reservoir Expansion - Appraisal Report December 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Purpose of the Appraisal Study ........................................................................................ 4 2.2 Need for the Appraisal Study ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project
    Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 State of California Department of Water Resources November 22, 2019 Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 Lead Agency: California Department of Water Resources Contact: Dean Messer, Division of Environmental Services, Regulatory Compliance Branch 916/376-9844 Responsible Agency: California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 22, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]