DOCSLIB.ORG

Short-Term Central Valley Project Water Transfer Between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and City of Roseville

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Short-Term Central Valley Project Water Transfer Between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and City of Roseville Environmental Assessment Short-Term Central Valley Project Water Transfer Between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and City of Roseville EA-19-05 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Central California Area Office June 2019 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. 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. Contents Contents Page Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.................................................... 2-1 2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Action Area ........................................................................................................ 2-2 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................ 3-1 3.1 Resources Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.3 Global Climate ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.4 Indian Sacred Sites ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.5 Socio-Economic Resources ................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.7 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.8 Air Quality.......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 3-5 3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 3-5 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 3-9 3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-9 Section 4 Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Public Review Period ................................................................................................. 4-1 Section 5 References ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure Figure 2-1. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 2-3 Table Table 3-1. Federal Status Species Potentially Found in the Proposed Action Area .................... 3-7 i June 2019 EA-19-05 Abbreviations and Acronyms 2008 USFWS BO 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 2009 NMFS BO 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 2016 LTO ROD 2016 Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Record of Decision AFA acre-feet annually ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery City City of Roseville CVO Central Valley Operations CVP Central Valley Project CVPIA Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV, Central Valley Project Improvement Act EA Environmental Assessment ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System EID El Dorado Irrigation District EIS Environmental Impact Statement FSC Folsom South Canal IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation LTO Coordinated Long-term Operation of Central Valley Project and State Water Project M&I municipal and industrial MFP Middle Fork Project (owned and operated by PCWA) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service PCWA Placer County Water Agency Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation ROC Reinitiation of consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, for the LTO ROD Record of Decision SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SWP State Water Project USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WFA Water Forum Agreement WSP Water Shortage Policy ii – June 2019 Section 1 Introduction Section 1 Introduction In conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate and disclose any potential environmental impacts related to Reclamation’s approval of the short-term transfer of up to 6,000 acre-feet annually (AFA) of Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply from Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to the City of Roseville (City) occurring between December and February during Contract Years 2019 through 2021 (i.e., March 1, 2019, through February 28, 2022). 1.1 Background Both SMUD and the City are CVP contractors in the American River Division with previous long-term water supply contracts that expired in 2012 and 2010, respectively, but continued to receive CVP water supply through interim contracts. Reclamation recently renewed those interim contracts with SMUD (No. 14-06-200-5198A-IR4) and the City (No. 14-06-200-3474A-IR5) through February 2021. Water supply conditions of these two contractors and their needs for CVP water are summarized in the Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for Central Valley Project Interim Renewal Contracts for City of Roseville, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Sacramento County Water Agency 2019-2021 (Reclamation 2018). Reclamation’s statutory authority to allow this transfer is Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), Section 3405(a). CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1) provides for allowable water supply transfers. Subject to review of potential water supply and environmental impacts, this proposed in-basin CVP water transfer satisfies all conditions for transfers in CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1). CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1)(M) clarifies that in-basin transfers among CVP contractors (such as this proposed water supply transfer) would not be limited to the actual use by SMUD. This transfer is pursuant to Article 9 of SMUD’s current CVP contract (Sales, Transfers, or Exchanges of Water). SMUD’s CVP contract requires SMUD to obtain written approval from Reclamation’s Contracting Officer for the transfer of specified contract quantities. 1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is for Reclamation to facilitate and approve the proposed water transfer in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including CVPIA Section 3405(a) for water transfers and Subparagraphs (H) and (I) of Section V of Reclamation’s 1993 Interim Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Transfer Provisions of the Central Valley 1-1 June 2019 EA-19-05 Project Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of PL 102-575), as amended. The transfers allowed in the CVPIA are to increase water-related benefits provided by the CVP and improve CVP operational flexibility. The City will use the transferred water in its existing and approved Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program for conjunctive use purposes in its service area, shown in Exhibit A of the City’s existing CVP contract. The transferred water will augment local groundwater resources, providing additional water-related beneficial use of CVP water and improving overall health of the groundwater basin. The City is a signatory to the Water Forum Agreement (WFA) which was signed in 2000 by Sacramento area water purveyors, environmental groups, and economic interests to facilitate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of the Central Valley Project
    The Transfer of the Central Valley Project by Devin Odell In the spring of 1992, after six years of below-average rainfall, the perennial struggle over California's water reached a boiling point. Each of the three major groups of water interests in the state -- farmers, cities and environmentalists -- found themselves vying with the other two. At the center of this three-way tug of war was the biggest water hose in the state, the Central Valley Project (CVP), a massive set of dams, pumps, and canals built and run by the federal government. In February, CVP managers announced they could deliver less than 25 percent of the water normally used for agriculture. Farmers on about 1 million acres of land would get no water in 1992, and the rest were cut back to between 50 and 75 percent of their usual allocations. For the first time in 52 years, the CVP had completely failed some of its irrigators.' The period of low precipitation beginning in 1987 received most of the blame for this drastic step. But the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency in charge of the CVP, had also been forced to limit its agricultural deliveries in favor of other water users -- most notably, the Sacramento River's winter-run Chinook salmon.2 In 1981, 20,000 winter-run Chinook,listed as 'A state task force ... report stated] "threatened" under the federal Endangered that residential, business and Species Act and "endangered" under the state's municipal users might have only act, made the journey from the Pacific Ocean to half the water they would need by the spawning grounds upriver.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of The: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where Is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?
    Overview of the: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? To San Francisco Stockton Clifton Court Forebay / California Aqueduct The Delta Protecting California from a Catastrophic Loss of Water California depends on fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta)to: Supply more than 25 million Californians, plus industry and agriculture Support $400 billion of the state’s economy A catastrophic loss of water from the Delta would impact the economy: Total costs to California’s economy could be $30-40 billion in the first five years Total job loss could exceed 30,000 Delta Inflow Sacramento River Delta Cross Channel San Joaquin River State Water Project Pumps Central Valley Project Pumps How Water Gets to the California Economy Land Subsidence Due to Farming and Peat Soil Oxidation - 30 ft. - 20 ft. - 5 ft. Subsidence ~ 1.5 ft. per decade Total of 30 ft. in some areas - 30 feet Sea Level 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento The Importance of the Delta Water flowing through the Delta supplies water to the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • American River Group Thursday, April 18Th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave
    American River Group Thursday, April 18th, 2019 1:30 PM Central Valley Operation Office, Room 302 3310 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821 Conference Line: 1 (866) 718-0082; Passcode 2620147 JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://bor.webex.com/bor/j.php?MTID=m976285cf88d1078f4d1bdb60a280b92a Meeting number (access code): 907 429 279; Meeting password: CmfUCmGm 1. Participant Introductions (1:30-1:40) 2. Fisheries Updates (1:40-1:55) Cramer Fish Sciences Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission CDFW 3. Operations Forecast (1:55-2:10) SMUD PCWA Central Valley Operations 4. Temperature Management (2:10-2:25) Central Valley Operations 5. Discussion (2:25-2:55) Upcoming Presentations May - Climate Change, Dr. Swain 6. Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 16th, 2019 8. Adjourn American River Summary Conditions – March (On-going): • Snowpack is 165% of average for this date. • Flood control diagram now allowing filling of Folsom Reservoir. We are on our way up! Storage/Release Management Conditions • Releases to manage storage during fill and try to avoid excessive flow fluctuations. • Beginning water storage for next years operational needs. • Will be operating to new Army Corps flood control diagram on an interim basis until new Water Control Manual is signed, per letter from USACE. • MRR for April is 1,750 cfs. Temperature Management: • Upper Shutters in place on Units 2 and 3. Unit 1 is not in service. Upper shutters will be placed before it is returned to service. American River Operations Group (ARG)
    [Show full text]
  • THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical
    THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark The American Society of Mechanical Engineers September 12, 1976 FACTUAL DATA ON AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION The American River Division, a part of the Central Valley Project, provides water for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelectric power, recreation, and flood control through a system of dams, canals, and powerplants. The Division includes Folsom and Sly Park Units, both in operation, and Auburn-Folsom South Unit in construction stage. FOLSOM UNIT consists of Folsom Dam, Lake, AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT, authorized in and Powerplant, Nimbus Dam, Lake Natoma, and 1986, will provide agricultural and municipal and Nimbus Powerplant on the American River. The industrial water supplies for Placer, El Dorado, Folsom Unit was added to the Central Valley Project Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, together with by Congressional authorization in 1949. hydroelectric power, flood control, fish protection, and new recreational facilities. Principal features of the Unit will be Auburn Dam, Powerplant and Reservoir, FOLSOM DAM AND FOLSOM LAKE. Folsom Dam, the Folsom South Canal, and Sugar Pine and County below a drainage area of 1,875 square miles, was Line Dams and Reservoirs. constructed by the Corps of Engineers and upon completion was transferred to the Bureau of AUBURN DAM presently under construction will Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral be a 700-foot-high, concrete thin arch structure, with part of the Central Valley Project. The dam has a a crest length of 4,000 feet. The dam will create the concrete main river section with a height of 340 feet 2.4 million acre-foot Auburn Reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 59/Tuesday, March 30, 2021/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Notices 16639 provide drainage service to lands within water annually with the Agency for Recreation Act of March 12, 2019 (Pub. the San Luis Unit of the CVP including storage and conveyance in Folsom L. 116–9). the Westlands WD service area. Reservoir, and a contract with the 42. Shasta County Water Agency, 20. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms District for conveyance of non-project CVP, California: Proposed partial Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; water through Folsom South Canal. assignment of 50 acre-feet of the Shasta California: Revision of an existing 31. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, CVP, County Water Agency’s CVP water contract among San Luis WD, Meyers California: Reimbursement agreement supply to the City of Shasta Lake for Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation between the California Department of M&I use. providing for an increase in the Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for 43. Friant Water Authority, CVP, exchange of water from 6,316 to 10,526 groundwater pumping costs. California: Negotiation and execution of acre-feet annually and an increase in the Groundwater will provide a portion of a repayment contract for Friant Kern storage capacity of the bank to 60,000 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area’s Central Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction acre-feet. Valley Improvement Act Level 4 water Project. 21. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: supplies. This action is taken pursuant Amendment to an existing O&M to Public Law 102–575, Title 34, Section Completed Contract Actions agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra 3406(d)(1, 2 and 5), to meet full Level 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Technical Appendix
    A New Approach to Accounting for Environmental Water Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Technical Appendices CONTENTS Appendix A: A Brief Review of Regulatory Assignment of Water in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Greg Gartrell and Brian Gray Appendix B: Water Assigned to Meeting Environmental Standards in the Delta from 1980–2016 Greg Gartrell, Jeffrey Mount, Ellen Hanak, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Brian Gray Supported with funding from the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency (with partial support from Assistance Agreement No.83586701), and the Water Foundation Appendix A Introduction In this appendix, we review the history of the water quality and flow standards that have governed the impoundment and diversion of water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River and Delta system. Although most of the responsibility for complying with these standards falls on the two largest water-right holders—the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the California State Water Project (SWP)—this history begins well before their creation. It includes the early development of irrigated agriculture in the Delta and upstream in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins. It incorporates the design and operation of the two great water projects. And it concludes with the modern era of ecological protection and multifaceted water quality administration. Pre-Project Water Quality Issues Delta water salinity has posed challenges for water users—both within and upstream of the Delta—since the late 19th century. The Delta is an estuary.1 Salt moves from the San Francisco Bay into the Delta with the action of the tides; fresh water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers mixes with and dilutes brackish water in the western Delta and flows into the Carquinez Strait.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project, Folsom and Sly Park Unit, California
    The Central Valley Project The American River Division The Folsom and Sly Park Units The Auburn-Folsom South Unit Wm. Joe Simonds Bureau of Reclamation History Program Denver, Colorado 1994 Reformatted, Edited, and Reprinted: January 2010 by Brit Storey Table of Contents Table of Contents..............................................................1 The American River Division ....................................................2 The Folsom and Sly Park Units.............................................2 The Auburn-Folsom South Unit ............................................3 Project Location.........................................................3 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................8 Folsom and Sly Park Units ..........................................8 Auburn Folsom South Unit .........................................16 Post Construction History ................................................20 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................22 Uses of Project Water ...................................................23 Conclusion............................................................25 About the Author .............................................................26 Bibliography ................................................................27 Manuscript and Archival Collections .......................................27
    [Show full text]