DOCSLIB.ORG

Water History of Santa Barbara County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Water History of Santa Barbara County California Drainage Regions California Drainage Regions with Inter-Region Transfer Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County Avg Annual Precip Water History of Santa Barbara County 148 Water History of Santa Barbara County 148 Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Water History of Santa Barbara County Groundwater Basin Profile (Idealized) Before Irrigation from Deep Wells After 40 Years of Irrigating from Deep Wells Cachuma Project History Cachuma Project History 1782 Santa Barbara Presidio 1786 SB Mission 1806 Diversion from Mission Creek for irrigation & grinding grain. Mission dam and reservoir were not sufficient. Additional supplies were needed. 1887 Seven 200ft deep wells 1888 City Engineer made first of many surveys Concluded water was going to waste from the Santa Ynez River Cold Spring Tunnel drilled Not feasible to extend thru mtn Cachuma Project History 1896 - City proposed dam at Juncal site and a tunnel 1902-1913 various proposal for dams on Upper Santa Ynez 1912 Mission Tunnel completed From “Western Construction”, 1918 1918-1920 Gibraltar Dam constructed Lippincott warned of siltation 1928 - Juncal site sold to Montecito 1930 - Gin Chow case confirmed reighs to surplus SYR water 1930 - Juncal Dam completed by Montecito, uses Doulton Tunnel Cachuma Project History 1938 - Bd/Supv authorized water supply studies for South Coast 1939 Report Findings: Groundwater levels “dropping at an alarming rate” Sufficient supply was not available from the coastal area Gibraltar inadequate for future needs Additional supply would have to come from SY River Recommendations: Raise Gibraltar Dam (done in 1949) New dam at Tequepis site on SY River 1940-1941 - Bd/Supv contracted with Bureau of Reclamation and USGS to prepare a County-wide water plan Cachuma Project History 1944 - USBR Report proposed eventual construction of 7 dams: 3 Dams on the Santa Ynez River: Camuesa (upstream of Gibraltar) Tequepis or Cachuma Santa Rosa 1 Dam on Salsipuedes Creek 2 Dams on the Cuyama River: Vaquero (now Twitchell) Cuyama Debris Reservoir 1 Dam on Sisquoc River at the Round Corral site Cachuma Project History Cachuma Project History 1944 – 1945: SBCWA & water districts formed to contract with U.S. 1946 – Dam at Camuesa site rejected 1946 – USBR proposed Cachuma with 275,000 ac-ft storage City and water districts rejected Too large and too expensive 1947 - USBR presented alternatives for Cachuma and Tequepis Dams various capacities with/without provisions for future enlargement 210,000 ac-ft Cachuma selected Water districts and City approved Dec 8 Water Agency approved Severity of drought spurred action Cachuma given priority Cachuma Project History 1948 Cachuma Project authorized. 206 ft high earthfill Dam 210,000 af capacity Tecolote Tunnel South Coast Conduit. 1948 Water rationing in Santa Barbara 1949 Election on Cachuma Project 1949-52 Congress appropriated funds Cachuma Project History Bradbury Dam construction began in 1950 Earth fill structure 206 feet above the stream bed 6,700,000 cu/yds of fill Crest length 2,975 ft Concrete spillway 4 - 50’ x 30’ radial gates Auto open 3 ft for every ft reservoir rises 6,700,000 cu/yds of fill 7 ft horseshoe tunnel contains the outlet works Cachuma Project History Tecolote Tunnel construction began in 1950. Very difficult. 9000 gal/minute Inflows with temperatures up to 117° F. Dangerous accumulations of methane gas and long reaches of rock swelled and squeezed beam supports. Setbacks hospitalized mine workers, delayed the project, increased costs, and forced a change in contractors. Completed in January 1955 Tunnel infiltration Project yield Dried mountain springs & wells Cachuma Project History The South Coast Conduit started in 1950. 26 mile pipeline 10 mile 48 inch Goleta reach first to be finished 16 mile Carpinteria section including 36, 30, and 27 inch pipeline terminates at the Carpinteria Reservoir Regulating Reservoirs Lauro Ortega Carpinteria Glenn Anne Dam & Reservoir The SCC was completed in 1956. Cachuma Project History Cachuma Project History Cachuma Project History 1952 January Floods Would have filled Cachuma Led to SBCFC&WCD 1953 - Dam, Tunnel, and South Coast Conduit completed 1953-58 Period of anxiety waiting Ridicule by project opponents Monument to “New Deal” on dry river If Gibraltar doesn’t fill, how can we expect to fill Cachuma? April 1958 – Cachuma filled and spilled 1971 - Dam renamed for Bradbury Cachuma Project History Design Cachuma Yield : 33,000 ac-ft/yr (1948 calc based on 1908-1947 records) Known: Infl = Inflow into Lake Time Period: One Month Rain = Precipitation on Lake Reservoir Size & Shape Variable: Yld = Annual Yield (by month) Evap = Evaporation Rate Rel = Required Releases Calculate: Evap = Evaporation Loss Stor(begin) = Beginning Storage Spil = Spills Sstor(min) = Target Min Storage Stor(end) = Ending Storage Change in Storage = Inflow - Outflow Stor(end) = Stor(begin) + Infl + Rain – Evap – Rel – Spil - Yld Cachuma Project History Recalculation of Cachuma Yield 1974-1975 by USBR Cachuma Project History Design Cachuma Yield (1948 calc based on 1908-1947 records): 33,000 ac-ft/yr Revised Cachuma Yield (1975 calc based on 1908-1974 records): 34,300,000 m3/yr = 27,800 ac-ft/yr New critical period 1946-1952 Gibraltar Pass Through 1983 City agreed to strengthen Gibraltar Dam for max prob earthquake 1985 City also wanted to raise 20 dam to increase storage to offset loss by siltation Employed consultants 1987 Consultants made presentations to City Council Problems with Least Bell’s Vireo (endangered species) Consultants not consider operational changes A small reservoir upstream of a large reservoir can be very inefficient SBCWA had prepared a Santa Ynez River Operations computer model Ran the SYR model to see if Gib yield could be taken from Cachuma Results showed concept appeared promising Sent a memo to city engineer SYR Hydrology Committee studied concept in depth Committee included representatives from all interested parties Concept deemed feasible City employed consultants to prepare documents 1989 Resulted in the “ 1989 Upper Santa Ynez River Operations Agreement” City preserved yield & saved cost of raising the dam SYR Model Schematic Gibraltar Dredging 1979 Federal “Clean Lakes” grant for dredging Gibraltar $1,150,000 + City matched = $2,300,000 ($7,600,000 in 2017 dollars) Research pgm on dredging contaminated sediments Disposal site north side of lake Used pneumatic pumps (Pneuma system) 40% to 50% solids 713 ac-ft dredged Cost $5,000 to $7,000/ac-ft in 2017 dollars 1983 “City in June 1983 entered into a contract to purchase the equipment for a continuing dredging operation.” Cachuma Operations “Safe Yield” operation vs Overdraft ops Calced amount to safely take in a critical drought Just reach minimum pool at end of critical period But what if in 6th year of a drought of a 7 yr critical period? Continue taking Safe Yield? If not, what do you take? Different strokes for different folks Agencies with various supplies might want full yield Single source Agencies might want conservative draft 1987-1992 drought: Cachuma managers met monthly Agreed to begin shortages when storage = 100,000 ac-ft Agreed shortages seemed prudent at that time Not sufficient for recent drought Cachuma Operations “Safe Yield” operation vs Overdraft ops Calced amount to safely take in a critical drought Just reach minimum pool at end of critical period But what if in 6th year of a drought of a 7 yr critical period? Continue taking Safe Yield? If not, what do you take? Different strokes for different folks Agencies with various supplies might want full yield Single source Agencies might want conservative draft 1987-1992 drought: Cachuma managers met monthly Agreed to begin shortages when storage = 100,000 ac-ft Agreed shortages seemed prudent at that time Not sufficient for recent drought Cachuma Operations 1989 Cachuma operation monthly spreadsheet Reduction Level M&I Draft SY Ag Draft M&I Delivery Factors SY Ag Delivery Factors Assumed Entitlement Delv Schedule Minimum Storage MaxMonthShortage EvapDepth[in] Evap [ft/mon] May 15 Elev 5/15 Credits 5/15 C.O.Storage Requested Delv Rain On Lake Inflow DwnstrmRelease C.O.Storage Use Bishop Ranch Evaporation Lake Diversions DELIVRABL YIELD EndMonthStorage EndMonthArea Cachuma Operations very Factor 0% Projected Cachuma 1990-91 & 91-92 Storage very Factor 0% 20 60,000 ft] - 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Projected Cachuma Storage [ac 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Days in Cachuma Water Year from May 15 Cachuma Operations very Factor 50% Projected Cachuma 1990-91 & 91-92 Storage very Factor 50% 20 60,000 ft] - 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Projected Cachuma Storage [ac 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Days in Cachuma Water Year from May 15 Cachuma Operations 1996 Cachuma operation studies (not published) Backwards look at 87-92 drought operations Used SYR Model to test droughts as if they occurred at various times in period of record Results not perfect in any regard Cachuma Operations Reservoir Surcharging 1969 Floating Debris Removal Excavating Lake while Low Stilling Basin Cachuma Operations 1969 Santa Ynez River Floods - Warnings not believed or heeded - Needed better origination, dissemination, & reaction Santa Ynez River Flood Warning System - Realtime hydrologic data - Rain - Lake levels - Cachuma gate info - Stream gage data 1976 Santa Ynez River Flood Forecast Model Flood warnings Modified Cachuma Ops for Flood Mitigation Water History of Santa Barbara County “Cap” Twitchell was the Bradbury of the north County.
Recommended publications
  • 5.1 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Water Quality

    5.1 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Water Quality

    5.1 HYDROLOGY, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY 5.1.1 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The proposed Master Plan Update will provide for additional water infrastructure facilities for the City of Solvang (City). The analysis of the proposed Master Plan Update was divided into potential construction and operational impacts to the surface and groundwater hydrology, the water supply, and water quality of the Santa Ynez River. The Master Plan Update proposes that the Santa Ynez River be the primary source of water for the City. The City will be required to obtain and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update impacts to water quality during construction would be less than significant (Class III). The proposed Master Plan Update impacts to surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water rights, and water supplies during construction would be less than significant (Class III). Operation of the proposed wells identified in the Master Plan Update would result in minimal reductions in flows along the Santa Ynez River at the Alisal Bridge compared to baseline conditions. Surface water quantity and quality along the Santa Ynez River would be consistent with historic measurements at the Lompoc Narrows under baseline conditions and under the proposed Master Plan Update. Water right users along the Santa Ynez River downstream of Bradbury Dam to the Highway 101 Bridge in Buellton would receive their entire water right entitlement from the riparian groundwater basins and the Cachuma Project. Therefore, potential cumulative water right impacts would be less than significant (Class III).
  • Santa Maria Project

    Santa Maria Project

    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, February 2016 Mid-Pacific Region, Santa Maria Project Construction individual landholders pump water according to The Santa Maria Project, authorized in 1954, is their needs. The objective of the project as located in California about 150 miles northwest authorized is to release regulated water from of Los Angeles. A joint water conservation and storage as quickly as it can be percolated into flood control project, it consists of the the Santa Maria Valley ground-water basin. Twitchell Dam where construction began in With this type of operation, Twitchell July 1956 and was completed in October Reservoir is empty much of the time. For this 1958.The Reservoir was constructed by the reason, recreation and fishing facilities are not Bureau of Reclamation, and a system of river included in the project. levees was constructed by the Corps of Engineers. Twitchell Dam Twitchell Dam is located on the Cuyama River about 6 miles upstream from its junction with the Sisquoc River. The dam regulates flows along the lower reaches of the river and impounds surplus flows for release in the dry months to help recharge the ground-water basin underlying the Santa Maria Valley, thus minimizing discharge of water to the sea at Guadalupe. The dam is an earthen fill structure having a height of 241 feet with 216 feet above streambed, and a crest length of 1,804 feet. The dam contains approximately 5,833,000 yards of Twitchell Dam and Reservoir material. The multi-purpose Twitchell Reservoir Water Supply has a total capacity of 224,300 acre-feet.
  • Historic P U B Lic W Ork S P Roje Cts on the Ce N Tra L

    Historic P U B Lic W Ork S P Roje Cts on the Ce N Tra L

    SHTOIRICHISTORIC SHTOIRIC P U B LIC W ORK S P ROJE TSCP ROJE CTS P ROJE TSC ON THE CE N TRA L OCA STCOA ST OCA ST Compiled by Douglas Pike, P.E. Printing Contributed by: Table of Contents Significant Transportation P rojects......2 El Camino Real................................................... 2 US Route 101...................................................... 3 California State Route 1...................................... 6 The Stone Arch Bridge ..................................... 11 Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge..................... 12 Significant W ater P rojects...................14 First Dams and Reservoirs................................ 14 First Water Company........................................ 14 Cold Spring Tunnel........................................... 15 Mission Tunnel ................................................. 16 Gibraltar Dam ................................................... 16 Central Coast Conduit....................................... 18 Water Reclamation In Santa Maria Valley....... 23 Twitchell Dam & Reservoir.............................. 24 Santa Maria Levee ............................................ 26 Nacimiento Water Project................................. 28 M iscellaneous P rojects of Interest.......30 Avila Pier .......................................................... 30 Stearns Wharf.................................................... 32 San Luis Obispo (Port Harford) Lighthouse..... 34 Point Conception Lighthouse............................ 35 Piedras Blancas Light ......................................
  • Southern Steelhead Populations Are in Danger of Extinction Within the Next 25-50 Years, Due to Anthropogenic and Environmental Impacts That Threaten Recovery

    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.
  • Summer 2009, Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4

    Summer 2009, Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4

    ISSN 0734-4988 Ancestors est SANTA BARBARA COUNTY GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY Spring/Summer 2009 Volume 35 sbgen.org Numbers 3 &4 IN THIS ISSUE Presidents Message, Arthur Sylvester .............. ··'!.~:.· ...............................................................................•. 4 7 A Headstone for Aunt Frances by Howard Menzel .................................................................................48 Santa Barbara County WWI Memorial Freewaf:101 Widening Project.. .............................................. 50 WWI Honor Roll of Names .................................................................................................................... 50 News From Los Alamos ................................. ·.. ~.·.'··'-············································ .................................... 51 The English Land-Owning System in History, by Val Porter............................................................... .51 Research Insight-1825 Iowa Census, by Jeff ~chlatter. ...................................................................... 52 Dairies in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties 1850-1965 (G-N) compiled by Jim Norris ... 53 FamilySearch.org-New Collections ..................................................................................................... 65 Genealogy: Tips for Fnding Females that Matter to You, by Julie Miller. .............................................. 66 An Obituary-AnotherTake.................................... .'....................................................................................
  • Sisquoc River Steelhead Trout Population Survey Fall 2005

    Sisquoc River Steelhead Trout Population Survey Fall 2005

    Sisquoc River Steelhead Trout Population Survey Fall 2005 February 2006 Prepared by: Matt Stoecker P.O. Box 2062 Santa Barbara, Ca. 93120 [email protected] www.StoeckerEcological.com Prepared for: Community Environmental Council 26 W. Anapamu St. 2nd Floor Santa Barbara, Ca. 93101-3108 California Department of Fish and Game TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 List of Figures 3 Project Background 4 Santa Maria/Sisquoc River Steelhead 4 Project Methods 5 Personnel 5 Survey Access and Locations 5 Fish Sampling Methods 6 Fish Sampling Table Definitions 6 Survey Results 8 Lower Sisquoc River 8 Upper Sisquoc River 12 Manzana Creek 15 Davy Brown Creek 18 South Fork Sisquoc River 20 Rattlesnake Creek 23 Key Steelhead Population Findings 24 Sisquoc River Watershed Lower Sisquoc River 24 Upper Sisquoc River 25 Manzana Creek 25 Davy Brown Creek 25 South Fork Sisquoc River 26 Rattlesnake Creek 26 Steelhead and Chub Relationship 26 Steelhead Run Observations by Forest Service Personnel 28 Twitchell Dam and Migration Flow Discussion 29 Twitchell Dam Background 29 Impacts on Steelhead 29 Recommended Action for Improving Steelhead Migration Flows 30 Additional Recommended Studies 32 Adult Steelhead Monitoring Program 32 Exotic Fish Species Recommendation 32 Fish Passage Improvements 32 References 33 Personal Communications 33 Appendix A- Sisquoc River Area Map 34 Appendix B- Stream Reach Survey Maps (1-3) 35 Appendix C- Survey Reach GPS Coordinates 38 Appendix D- DFG Habitat Type Definitions 39 2 LIST OF FIGURES Lower Sisquoc River Steelhead Sampling Results Table 10 Upper Sisquoc River Steelhead Sampling Results Table 13 Manzana Creek Steelhead Sampling Results Table 16 Davy Brown Creek Steelhead Sampling Results Table 19 South Fork Sisquoc River Steelhead Sampling Results Table 21 Rattlesnake Creek Steelhead Sampling Results Table 23 Steelhead Sampling Results- Watershed Survey Totals Table 24 All photographs by Stoecker and Allen.
  • 28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In

    28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In

    28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In response to a 12-20-99, federal court order won by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Jumping Frog Research Institute, the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service designated 4,138,064 acres of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The March 6, 2001 designation is comprised of 29 units spanning 28 California counties. UNIT ACRES COUNTY WATERSHEDS AND OWNERSHIP North Fork Feather 115,939 Butte Drainages within the North Fork Feather River watershed including the River Plumas French Creek watershed. 81% Plumas and Lassen National Forests, 19% mostly private land. Weber 59,531 El Dorado Drainages in Weber Creek and North Fork Cosumnes River watersheds. Creek-Cosumnes 64% private lands, 36% El Dorado National Forest Yosemite 124,336 Tuolumne Tributaries of the Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek, a tributary to the Mariposa Merced River 100% Stanislaus National Forest or Yosemite National Park. Headwaters of 38,300 Tehama Includes drainages within the headwaters of Cottonwood and Red Bank Cottonwood Creek creeks. 82 % private lands, 18% Mendocino National Forest. Cleary Preserve 34,087 Napa Drainages within watersheds forming tributaries to Pope Creek 88% private, 12% federal and state Annadel State Park 6,326 Sonoma Upper Sonoma Creek watershed found partially within Annadel State Preserve Park. 76% private, 24% California Department of Parks and Recreation Stebbins Cold 21,227 Napa Drainages found within and adjacent to Stebbins Cold Canyon Preserve Canyon Preserve Solano and the Quail Ridge Wilderness Preserve including watersheds that form Capell Creek, including Wragg Canyon, Markley Canyon, Steel Canyon and the Wild Horse Canyon watershed.
  • Santa Maria Project History

    Santa Maria Project History

    Santa Maria Project Thomas A. Latousek Bureau of Reclamation 1996 Table of Contents The Santa Maria Project ........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Prehistoric Setting .................................................3 Historic Setting ...................................................4 Authorization...........................................................6 Construction History .....................................................9 Post-Construction History................................................10 Settlement of the Project .................................................12 Uses of Project Water ...................................................13 Conclusion............................................................13 Bibliography ................................................................15 Manuscripts and Archival Material.........................................15 Project Reports, Santa Maria Project..................................15 Government Documents .................................................15 Books ................................................................15 Interviews.............................................................15 Index ......................................................................16 1 The Santa Maria Project The beautiful, broad Santa Maria Basin opens eastward from the Pacific Ocean toward the Sierra
  • L L Athletic Group to Hold Aiual Plat Day Here Phelps

    L L Athletic Group to Hold Aiual Plat Day Here Phelps

    v o l . Santa Barbara, California, Wednesday, February 22, 1933 xn No. 21 Fraternity Representatives Lompoc Pupils in Praise o f State Student Officers in Reorganize Rules to Guide “ Boy, what a band! And what a keen college that must Ironing Out Process Rush Activities This Term be. That’s where I want to go.” L “ These are a few of the en­ Open House Scheduled to Acquaint Frosh thusiastic comments of Lom ­ With Tong Members Monday Night, Feb. 27 poc high school students, on of Financial Kinks L T IE the State college band and glee A t the final meeting of the fall term, the Inter-fraternity club,” reports President Clar­ ence L. Phelps, who spoke in Current Money A ffairs on Firm Basis but Clifford Leedy Leads council, composed of two men from each of the social organi­ James McCloskey at the Lompoc high school F ri­ Debits of Other Years Furnish Troubles 55 Local Men zations, completed its revision of rules covering rushing and Work on Plan to day evening, under the aus­ on Trip pledging. Several changes have been made in the method of Assist Book pices of ithe Lompoc P.T.A. procedure, as shown in the following section from the council’s The President’s subject was, AN EDITORIAL by-laws: “Shall We Maintain Our Ideals Evincing a commendable attitude of genuine and unselfish In Appearance Here Rush week this semester will be the fourth week of the Proposes Ad Changes of Publio Education?” concern toward the handling of student affairs, the associated new term.
  • Storage and Conveyance of the City of Santa Barbara's Gibraltar

    Storage and Conveyance of the City of Santa Barbara's Gibraltar

    Draft FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Storage and Conveyance of the City of Santa Barbara’s Gibraltar Reservoir Pass Through Water in and Through Cachuma Project Facilities FONSI-12-086 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation January 2016 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 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. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION South-Central California Area Office, Fresno, California Draft FONSI-12-086 Storage and Conveyance of the City of Santa Barbara’s Gibraltar Reservoir Pass Through Water in and Through Cachuma Project Facilities _____________ Prepared by: Stacy L. Holt Date Natural Resources Specialist _____________ Concurred by: Ned M. Gruenhagen Date Wildlife Biologist or Biology Technician _____________ Concurred by: Rain L. Emerson Date Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist _____________ Approved by: Michael P. Jackson, P.E. Date Area Manager Draft FONSI-12-086 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that executing 5- and 40- year Warren Act contracts with the City of Santa Barbara (City) is not a major federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment and an environmental impact statement is not required.
  • Historic Resources Survey and Planning Analysis

    Historic Resources Survey and Planning Analysis

    Historic Resources Survey And Planning Analysis City of Lompoc, California Prepared by Historic Resources Group for the City of Lompoc July 2005 Historic Resources Survey And Planning Analysis City of Lompoc, California Prepared for City of Lompoc 100 Civic Center Plaza Lompoc, California 93438 Prepared by Historic Resources Group 1728 Whitley Avenue Hollywood, California 90028 July 2005 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................1 I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................3 CITY OF LOMPOC.................................................................................. 3 PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND EVALUATIONS ............................................................ 4 National Register of Historic Places ................................................... 5 California Register of Historical Resources........................................... 7 City Landmarks............................................................................. 8 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 8 Other Studies............................................................................. 10 II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 11 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 11 SURVEY PROCESS................................................................................ 11 “THE MILE
  • 2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition

    2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition

    2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers April, 2017 Landsat 5 Satellite Image taken November 14, 2008 2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions Water Requirements, Supplies, and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area prepared by Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers April 27, 2017 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Physical Setting .................................................................................................1 1.2 Previous Studies ................................................................................................2 1.3 SMVMA Monitoring Program .........................................................................2 1.4 Additional Monitoring and Reporting Programs ..............................................4 1.5 Report Organization ..........................................................................................4 2. Hydrogeologic Conditions .................................................................................................5 2.1 Groundwater Conditions ...................................................................................5 2.1.1 Geology and Aquifer System ..............................................................5 2.1.2 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................8