Quality of the Surface Waters of California

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Quality of the Surface Waters of California DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 237 THE QUALITY OF THE SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA BY WALTON VAN WINKLE AND FREDERICK M. EATON IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Outline of investigation................................................ 5 Acknowledgments. ................................................... 8 Methods of examination................................................ 8 Expression of analytical results......................................... 9 Natural features.......................................................... 9 Geography............................................................ 9 Climate.............................................................. 10 Hydrography............................................................. 11 Drainage areas........................................................ 11 Lakes................................................................ 12 Floods................................................................ 13 Industrial development.................................................... 14 North Pacific Ocean drainage.............................................. 16 Description.......................................................... 16 Western subdrainage................................................... 18 Mad River....................................................... 18 Eel River........................................................ 20 Noyo River....................................................... 21 Southern -subdrainage Russian River................................... 22 Notes on municipalities................................................ 24 San Francisco Bay drainage............................................... 26 Description.......................................................... 26 Sacramento River system............................................. 28 Description...................................................... 28 Tributaries........................................................ 29 Sacramento River at Sacramento................................... 30 Cache Creek........................................................ 33 Feather River.................................................... 36 Yuba River....................................................... 38 American River.................................................. 41 San Joaquin Valley................................................... 43 Description.................. 1.................................... 43 San Joaquin River................................................. 44 Mokelumne River..'............................................... 48 Stanislaus River.................................................. 49 Tuolumne River.................................................. 51 Metced River................................................... 53 Kern River...... 1.............................................. 55 Tulare Lake..................................................... 57 Alameda Greek...................................................... 57 Notes on municipalities............................................... 59 South Pacific Ocean drainage. ............................................ 64 Description......................................................... 64 Monterey Bay subdrainage........................................... 66 Description. .................................................... 66 San Lorenzo River.............................................. 66 3 4 CONTENTS. South Pacific Ocean Drainage Continued. Monterey Bay subdrainage Continued. Page. Salinas River system.............................................. 68 Description................................................. 68 Salinas River................................................. 70 San Lorenzo Creek............................................ 74 Gaviota Creek............................................... 75 Indian Valley Creek.......................................... 76 Estrella River............................................... 76 Huer Huero Creek........................................... 78 Arroyo Seco................................................. 79 San Antonio River............................................. 81 Nacimiento River.............................................. 84 San Benito River.................................................. 87 Carmel River...................................................... 89 Santa Maria River..................................................... 90 Santa Ynez River...................................................... 92 Ventura River......................................................... 94 Malibu Creek.......................................................... 96 Valley of Southern California........................................... 97 Description........................................................ 97 San Gabriel River................................................ 98 Rio Hondo....................................................... 102 Santa Ana River.................................................. 103 San Luis Rey River................................................ 108 Santa Ysabel Creek............................................... 109 Cottonwood Creek................................................. 112 Notes on municipalities............................................ 113 Interior basin and Colorado River drainage.................................. 117 Description............................................................ 117 Sierra subdrainage.................................................... 118 Owens River...................................................... 118 Owens Lake....................................................... 121 Mono Lake........................................................ 123 Lake Tahoe...................................................... 123 Minor Great Basin subdrainage Mohave River.......................... 124 Salton Sea............................................................. 125 Notes on municipalities................................................ 126 Features influencing the quality of the surface waters........................ 126 Influence o,f geologic formations......................................... 126 Influence of climatic conditions........................................ 128 Influence of distance from the ocean................................... 130 Summary............................................................ 130 Economic value of the waters............................................... 131 Summaries............................................................... 133 Index.................................................................... 139 ILLUSTRATION. PLATE I. Map of California showing drainage areas and location of sampling stations.................................................. In pocket. THE QUALITY OF THE SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA. By WALTON VAN WINKLE and FREDERICK M. EATON, INTRODUCTION. OUTLINE OF INVESTIGATION. On the 1st of July, 1905, the Director of the United States Geo­ logical Survey made a contract with the state engineer of California for the purpose of carrying on a study of the "natural waters of the State of California, their seasonal variation in composition and in physical characteristics, and the damage which they have sustained by reason of pollution." The agreement provided that the work should be carried on by a member of the United States Geological Survey, and Frederick M. Eaton, hydrographic aid, was detailed for this purpose. Through the courtesy of the University of California, laboratory space was procured in the basement of the chemical build­ ing, and all determinations were made there. In December, 1905, sampling stations were established at the fol­ lowing points: Feather River at Oroville; gaging station at bridge. Yuba River near Smartsville; gaging station at Narrows. Sacramento River above Sacramento; 3 miles above railroad bridge. American River at Fairoaks bridge; gaging station at bridge. Mokelumne River at Clements; gaging station near bridge. Stanislaus River at Knights Perry; above power company's dam. Tuolumne River at Lagrange; gaging station near bridge. Merced River at Merced Falls; gaging station above Merced Falls. Kern River at Oil Center; gaging station known as "First point of measurement." San Joaquin River near Lathrop; Southern Pacific drawbridge. Alameda Creek near Niles; above stone dam. San Lorenzo Creek at Big Trees; at bridge. Arroyo Seco near Soledad; gaging station at Pettit's ranch. San ifeenito River near Hollister; above dam. ' Santa Maria River above Santa Maria; gaging station on Dutard ranch. Santa Ynez River near Santa Barbara; gaging station at Gibraltar dam site. Malibu Creek near Calabasas; gaging station on Chapman ranch. Santa Ana River above Mentone; gaging station near power house. San Luis Rey River near Pala; gaging station near mills. 5 6 QUALITY OP CALIFORNIA SURFACE WATERS. At each of these nineteen places some person was engaged and in­ structed to take regular daily samples from the stream at the point selected and forward them to the laboratory at Berkeley. The work was begun on January 1, 1906, with the intention of continuing it, as far as possible, without interruption until December 31, 1906; but the earthquake of April not only interrupted
Recommended publications
  • Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Acquisition
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation September 6, 2018 SANTA MARGARITA RIVER TRAIL PRESERVE ACQUISITION Project No. 18-015-01 Project Manager: Greg Gauthier RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $9,750,000 to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River for conservation and recreation purposes. LOCATION: Santa Margarita River, County of San Diego PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Protection EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location, Site Map, and APN Numbers Exhibit 2: Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Photographs Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Chapter 5.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed nine million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($9,750,000) to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River, as shown in Exhibit 1, for conservation and recreation purposes. This authorization is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to disbursement of any funds for acquisition of the property, The Wildlands Conservancy shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy: a) all relevant acquisition documents, including the appraisal, agreement of purchase and sale, escrow instructions, deeds, and documents of title; b) a baseline conditions report; c) a monitoring and reporting plan; and d) evidence that sufficient funds are available to complete the acquisition. 2. The Wildlands Conservancy shall not pay more than fair market value for the property acquired pursuant to this authorization, as established in an appraisal approved by the Executive Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Hollister San Benito River Greenway
    INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF HOLLISTER SAN BENITO RIVER GREENWAY DECEMBER 2008 Lead Agency: City of Hollister Engineering Department 375 Fifth Street Hollister, CA 95024 Prepared By: Analytical Environmental Services 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, Ca 95811 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF HOLLISTER SAN BENITO RIVER GREENWAY DECEMBER 2008 Lead Agency: City of Hollister Engineering Department 375 Fifth Street Hollister, CA 95024 Prepared By: Analytical Environmental Services 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, Ca 95811 TABLE OF CONTENTS SAN BENITO RIVER GREENWAY PROJECT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Evaluation Terminology ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Organization of the Initial Study ......................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year
    SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED ANNUAL WATERMASTER REPORT WATER YEAR 2013-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB CHARLES W. BINDER WATERMASTER P. 0. BOX 631 FALLBROOK, CA 92088 (760) 728-1028 FAX (760) 728-1990 August 2015 WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Authority .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Scope .................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 - SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ......................................... 7 3.1 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Surface Water Diversions .................................................................................. 13 3.3 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4- SUBSURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY ................................................. 19 4.1 General .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Summaries
    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Populations Are in Danger of Extinction Within the Next 25-50 Years, Due to Anthropogenic and Environmental Impacts That Threaten Recovery
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Southern steelhead populations are in danger of extinction within the next 25-50 years, due to anthropogenic and environmental impacts that threaten recovery. Since its listing as an Endangered Species in 1997, southern steelhead abundance remains precariously low. Description: Southern steelhead are similar to other steelhead and are distinguished primarily by genetic and physiological differences that reflect their evolutionary history. They also exhibit morphometric differences that distinguish them from other coastal steelhead in California such as longer, more streamlined bodies that facilitate passage more easily in Southern California’s characteristic low flow, flashy streams (Bajjaliya et al. 2014). Taxonomic Relationships: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) historically populated all coastal streams of Southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous trout, or both. Due to natural events such as fire and debris flows, and more recently due to anthropogenic forces such as urbanization and dam construction, many rainbow trout populations are isolated in remote headwaters of their native basins and exhibit a resident life history. In streams with access to the ocean, anadromous forms are present, which have a complex relationship with the resident forms (see Life History section). Southern California steelhead, or southern steelhead, is our informal name for the anadromous form of the formally designated Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Southern steelhead occurring below man-made or natural barriers were distinguished from resident trout in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, and are under different jurisdictions for purposes of fisheries management although the two forms typically constitute one interbreeding population.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Transport of Southern California Stormwater Ocean Discharges ⇑ Peter A
    Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul An assessment of the transport of southern California stormwater ocean discharges ⇑ Peter A. Rogowski a, , Eric Terrill a, Kenneth Schiff b, Sung Yong Kim c a Coastal Observing R&D Center, Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093-0214, USA b Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA, USA c Division of Ocean Systems Engineering, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Systems Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea article info abstract Article history: The dominant source of coastal pollution adversely affecting the regional coastal water quality is the sea- Available online xxxx sonally variable urban runoff discharged via southern California’s rivers. Here, we use a surface transport model of coastal circulation driven by current maps from high frequency radar to compute two-year Keywords: hindcasts to assess the temporal and spatial statistics of 20 southern California stormwater discharges. Stormwater plumes These models provide a quantitative, statistical measure of the spatial extent of the discharge plumes Urban runoff in the coastal receiving waters, defined here as a discharge’s ‘‘exposure’’. We use these exposure maps Coastal discharge from this synthesis effort to (1) assess the probability of stormwater connectivity to nearby Marine Pro- Areas of Special Biological Significance tected Areas, and (2) develop a methodology to estimate the mass transport of stormwater discharges. Water quality Southern California The results of the spatial and temporal analysis are found to be relevant to the hindcast assessment of coastal discharges and for use in forecasting transport of southern California discharges.
    [Show full text]
  • San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Frequently Asked Questions San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project
    San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Frequently Asked Questions San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Updated December 13, 2013 Frequently Asked Questions ■ OVERVIEW OF PROJECT 1. What is the purpose of the project? The project will improve a critical part of the 351-mile Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor that serves as a vital link for passenger and freight movements in the San Diego region. The San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project will increase capacity and improve system reliability by adding a one-mile segment of double track between Solana Beach and Del Mar, resulting in a continuous 2.8-mile-long segment of double track. The project also includes the replacement of the existing 97-year-old San Dieguito River wooden trestle rail bridge and the construction of a new special events platform that would directly serve the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Additional improvements include construction of new turnouts, signals, retained embankments, and drainage facilities. 2. What is the scope of the project? The project’s engineering and environmental analysis process is underway. The environmental compliance is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the Lead Agency under NEPA. This project is funded through environmental and design, although not funded for construction. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) works to make all projects shovel ready. Although the start date for construction has yet to be determined, the project is planned to be constructed prior to 2030 according to the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz
    THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 75 MAY 2013 15 Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz By Kurt Zimmerman, Tim Frahm and Sam Davidson — California Trout, Trout Unlimited — Kurt Zimmerman is Southern Steelhead genetics evince unique documents, intended to help achieve California Regional Manager for characteristics region-by-region (and recovery goals by describing strate - California Trout. Tim Frahm and Sam even watershed-by-watershed), as the gies and recommended actions likely Davidson are California Central Coast fish adapted to the particular condi - required to restore viable wild popula - Steelhead Coordinator and California tions and climate factors of coastal tions. Communications Manager for Trout streams from the Baja Peninsula to In early 2012, after years of public Unlimited. Visit their web sites at: Alaska. Today, steelhead south of San and agency input, NMFS released the www.caltrout.org Mateo County in California are catego - Final Southern California Recovery www.tucalifornia.org rized by the National Marine Fisheries Plan for the SCC steelhead. Later that Service (NMFS) into two “Distinct year, the agency released for public any anglers consider Population Segments” (DPS): the comment a Review Draft of the the steelhead trout (O. “South Central California Coastal” Recovery Plan for the South Central mykiss) the “perfect Coastal steelhead. These two Recovery fish.” Steelhead are Plans identify area-wide threats as widely revered for well as threats specific to particular Mtheir power and grace in the water, and watersheds. Common threats are the Steelhead have for the high challenge of actually three “Ds”: Dams, Diversions and catching one. Sport fishing for steel - declined across much Diminished Aquatic and Riparian head is a major contributor to many Habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality
    Chapter 7: Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality Chapter 7 1 Groundwater Resources and 2 Groundwater Quality 3 7.1 Introduction 4 This chapter describes groundwater resources and groundwater quality in the 5 Study Area, and potential changes that could occur as a result of implementing the 6 alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 7 Implementation of the alternatives could affect groundwater resources through 8 potential changes in operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State 9 Water Project (SWP) and ecosystem restoration. 10 7.2 Regulatory Environment and Compliance 11 Requirements 12 Potential actions that could be implemented under the alternatives evaluated in 13 this EIS could affect groundwater resources in the areas along the rivers impacted 14 by changes in the operations of CVP or SWP reservoirs and in the vicinity of and 15 lands served by CVP and SWP water supplies. Groundwater basins that may be 16 affected by implementation of the alternatives are in the Trinity River Region, 17 Central Valley Region, San Francisco Bay Area Region, Central Coast Region, 18 and Southern California Region. 19 Actions located on public agency lands or implemented, funded, or approved by 20 Federal and state agencies would need to be compliant with appropriate Federal 21 and state agency policies and regulations, as summarized in Chapter 4, Approach 22 to Environmental Analyses. 23 Several of the state policies and regulations described in Chapter 4 have resulted 24 in specific institutional and operational conditions in California groundwater 25 basins, including the basin adjudication process, California Statewide 26 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM), California Sustainable 27 Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and local groundwater management 28 ordinances, as summarized below.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Natural Resources
    CHAPTER 8. NATURAL RESOURCES San Benito County General Plan Chapter 8 Natural Resources This chapter describes the location and extent of existing natural resources within San Benito County, including water resources, mineral and energy resources, biological resources, and oil and gas resources. This chapter is organized into the following sections: . Water Resources (Section 8.1) . Energy and Mineral Resources (Section 8.2) . Biological Resources (Section 8.3) . Oil and Gas Resources (Section 8.4) Public Draft Background Report Page 8-1 November 2010 CHAPTER 8. NATURAL RESOURCES San Benito County General Plan This page is intentionally left blank. Page 8-2 Public Review Draft Background Report November 2010 CHAPTER 8. NATURAL RESOURCES San Benito County General Plan SECTION 8.1 WATER RESOURCES Introduction This section summarizes and analyzes information about the availability and quality of water resources in San Benito County. It includes information about historical and current conditions and projections for future ground water, surface water, and imported water resource conditions, where available. Analyzing existing water resource conditions and water supply data provides important information about the ability of the County to provide and manage water supplies that meet both existing and projected future growth. Key Terms Acre-foot (AF). The volume of water required to cover one acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons or 1,233 cubic meters. Historically, an acre-foot represents the amount of water typically used by one family during a year. Aquifer. A geological formation or structure that stores and/or transmits water, such as wells and springs.
    [Show full text]