California Fish and Game, Volume 47

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | July 1st, 1961

California State Water Project 2006 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 20th, 2007

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development project. The SWP extends from the mountains of Plumas County in the Feather River watershed to Lake Perris in Riverside County. It is linked with the Central Valley Project (CVP) that extends from southern Oregon in the Sacramento River watershed to the Mendota Pool. The watershed of the SWP is vast; encompassing the 27,000-square-mile Sacramento River and 13,000-square-mile San Joaquin River watersheds and at times, the 13,000-square-mile Tulare Basin watershed. The contaminant sources in the SWP watersheds have been well documented in the three previous sanitary surveys. The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) requested that the 2006 Update address the Jones Tract levee failure and emergency response procedures, efforts to coordinate pathogen monitoring in response to the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and a review of significant changes to the watersheds and their impacts on water quality.   A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed to guide development of the scope of work and provide technical expertise and review of the draft report. In addition to addressing the issues raised by CDHS, the TRC determined that the 2006 Update should focus on evaluating the sources of the water quality problems that the SWP Contractors face and recommending actions that the SWP Contractors can take that will lead to improvements in water quality over the next five years. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY IN THE WATERSHEDS AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT CHAPTER 4 KEY CONCERNS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY WATERSHED AND THE DELTA CHAPTER 5 KEY CONCERNS WITH STATE WATER PROJECT FACILITIES CHAPTER 6 INCIDENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES CHAPTER 7 CONCERNS WITH SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Update, Volume II: Appendices

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | September 28th, 2015

Appendices A Required Report Elements and Compliance B California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Summary C Species of Greatest Conservation Need D Ranked Li

Appendices A Required Report Elements and Compliance B California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Summary C Species of Greatest Conservation Need D Ranked Lists of Vegetation Communities (Macrogroups) by Ecoregion E Conservation Strategies for All Macrogroups in California, Freshwater Aquatic Species Assemblages, Marine Ecosystems, and Anadromous Fishes F Invasive Species in California G Climate Adaptation Strategies Cross-Reference Guide H Offshore Islands I California State Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Evaluation Report 2005 – 2014 J Public Scoping Meeting Materials

California State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update: Volume 1

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | September 28th, 2015

SWAP 2015 provides an ecosystem approach for conserving California’s fish and wildlife resources by identifying strategies intended to improve conditions of Species of

SWAP 2015 provides an ecosystem approach for conserving California’s fish and wildlife resources by identifying strategies intended to improve conditions of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and the habitats upon which they depend (see Figure 1 of the Executive Summary). CDFW designed SWAP 2015 to guide resource managers, conservation partners, and the public in how they can directly or indirectly participate in conserving California’s precious natural heritage. This section provides an overview of the structure of SWAP 2015 to help readers navigate through the document and find information. SWAP 2015 is organized as follows: Executive Summary provides a summary of: the vision for wildlife conservation in California; statewide goals; the process used to develop conservation strategies based on an ecosystem approach; conservation targets and strategies for seven provinces and anadromous fish; statewide summary; plans for integration and implementation; and process for adaptive management and monitoring. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to SWAP 2015. The challenge of sustaining biodiversity, a summary of CDFW responsibility, and the vision for California wildlife conservation are described. Chapter 1 also explains the requirements for updating SWAP, summarizes major changes since the original 2005 SWAP, and describes the analytical approach used in the 2015 update. Chapter 2 describes California’s natural diversity, identifies SGCN and the criteria used to evaluate species and habitat conditions, and addresses major pressures and stresses currently affecting the SGCN and their habitats. Chapter 3 describes the existing conservation approaches in the state, including the major regulations protecting natural resources, CDFW planning tools, and major conservation programs. Chapter 4 presents the statewide goals of SWAP 2015 and broad, state-level conservation strategies that will be implemented to achieve the desired conservation outcomes. Chapter 5 is divided into seven sections that describe for each geographic province the conservation targets, SGCN and other focal species, KEAs, stresses, pressures, and conservation strategies, including goals and objectives for the provinces. Chapter 6 focuses on conservation strategies developed for anadromous fish in California. Chapter 7 describes how SWAP 2015 will be integrated with other programs and coordinated with partners for the implementation, including through companion plans. Chapter 8 describes the monitoring plan for the conservation strategies, including the mandate for CDFW to use monitoring and adaptive management. It also presents a summary of the effectiveness evaluation of how SWAP 2005 was implemented. The chapter describes how the recommendations from the SWAP 2005 evaluation have been integrated into SWAP 2015. Rationales for selecting conservation strategies presented in SWAP 2015 and a framework for monitoring the effectiveness of the strategies are also described. Chapter 9 provides the list of preparers of SWAP 2015. Chapter 10 provides bibliographic references used in each chapter. Chapter 11 provides a glossary of major terms used in SWAP 2015. Several appendices accompany SWAP 2015 to provide more detailed information and extensive tables that support the document. Database files created during the development of SWAP 2015 to compile and evaluate ecological information and to create strategies can be accessed at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/SWAP/.

California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Status Report 2012

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 23rd, 2012

Senate Bill X7 6 (SBX7 6) (Chapter 1, Statutes 2009) added provisions for Groundwater Monitoring to Division 6 of the Water Code (Water Code § 10920 et seq.), and author

Senate Bill X7 6 (SBX7 6) (Chapter 1, Statutes 2009) added provisions for Groundwater Monitoring to Division 6 of the Water Code (Water Code § 10920 et seq.), and authorizes the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish permanent, locally managed, groundwater-elevation monitoring and reporting in all of California's 515 alluvial groundwater basins. To implement SBX7 6, DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. SBX7 6 requires DWR to report to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 2012, and thereafter in years ending in "5" or "0" regarding the findings of this program. The purpose of CASGEM is to establish a program of regular and systematic monitoring of groundwater elevations and to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations statewide. The law directs DWR to rely and build upon the many established, local, long-term groundwater monitoring and management programs conducted by local entities throughout the state. DWR's role is to coordinate the CASGEM program, to work cooperatively with local entities, and to maintain the submitted groundwater elevation data in a manner that is readily and widely available to the public. Collection and evaluation of groundwater elevation data throughout the state is an important fundamental step toward improving management of California's groundwater resources. Within the first two years of program development, DWR has met the requirements specified in SBX7 6 to establish a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring and reporting program by January 1, 2012.

California Subsidence Program - Subsidence and Groundwater Monitoring Project

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 21st, 2024

This Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to address the environmental impa

This Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to address the environmental impacts of the proposed California Aqueduct Subsidence Program (CASP) Subsidence and Groundwater Monitoring Project (proposed project) and to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The DWR is planning installation of equipment to collect spatial information at approximately five (5) groundwater and subsidence monitoring stations along the California Aqueduct (Aqueduct) (approximately Mile Posts 213.0L, 230.6L, 259.6L, 271.2L, and 279.1L within the San Joaquin Field Division) (Figure 1). The proposed project would provide real-time data to monitor groundwater levels and other spatial information as they relate to ground subsidence. The data would be used to help inform how subsidence is affecting the Aqueduct and would assist in maintaining infrastructure of the State Water Project (SWP). The proposed project is described in more detail in Chapter 2.

California’s Stream Flow Monitoring System Is Essential for Water Decision Making

University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) | April 1st, 2018

With California’s drought risk, flood risk, and demand for water all increasing, effective monitoring is more important than ever to water decision making. Str

With California’s drought risk, flood risk, and demand for water all increasing, effective monitoring is more important than ever to water decision making. Stream gages monitor the most basic vital sign of California’s waterways—stream flow.1 Stream flow data support day-to-day decisions about how to manage water and operate water infrastructure. In turn, those decisions have important implications for flood control and the water supplies upon which residential, industrial, agricultural, and environmental water users depend. Stream flow information also provides technical insights into basin hydrology, and those insights aid long-term water planning. As pressures on the state’s water systems intensify, the need for accurate and timely stream flow information will continue to grow. Opportunities for better water management created by groundbreaking legislation such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Open and Transparent Water Data Act, and Proposition 1 will be severely limited without an effective network of continuous stream gaging.

CASGEM Alternative Monitoring Plan Fact Sheet

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 15th, 2023

Central Coast Groundwater: Seawater Intrusion and Other Issues

California Water Foundation | August 4th, 2014

The Central Coast area relies on groundwater for more than 80 percent of its water supplies, a greater percentage than any other region in the state. Over 40 percent of t

The Central Coast area relies on groundwater for more than 80 percent of its water supplies, a greater percentage than any other region in the state. Over 40 percent of the groundwater basins in the Central Coast region were ranked as either “high” or “medium” priority as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) prioritization released in June 2014, indicating that they are among the most threated by present or future increases in groundwater demand. Central Coast groundwater supplies are seriously threatened by over-pumping that causes seawater intrusion, a challenge unique to coastal communities. Seawater intrusion results in saline groundwater that is unsuitable for irrigation or domestic use, directly threatening the Central Coast’s economy, where many high-value, salt-sensitive crops, such as strawberries, are grown. Groundwater basins in the Monterey and Salinas Valley area are in a state of long-term overdraft, resulting in falling groundwater levels, regional seawater intrusion, and reduced groundwater storage. Seawater intrusion reaches more than five miles inland in the Salinas Valley and three miles inland in the Pajaro Valley. In addition to salinity issues, several groundwater contaminants are present in these aquifers, including elevated levels of total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, nitrates, and other trace elements. The Paso Robles groundwater subbasin supplies water for 29 percent of the population and an estimated 40 percent of the agricultural production of San Luis Obispo County. Groundwater levels in the basin have been dropping rapidly in recent years, with many areas experiencing groundwater level declines of more than 70 feet. As a result, many wells have gone dry and groundwater users have been forced to deepen their wells or drill new wells. In July 2013, over 100 rural property owners complained to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors that their wells were running dry and in August 2013 the Board adopted the “Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Urgency Ordinance” as a temporary action to prevent new pumping from worsening overdraft conditions. Additionally, land surface subsidence has been noted in the Paso Robles area, and the recent rapid groundwater level declines may have triggered additional subsidence in this area. Although groundwater levels in the Oxnard Plain area have been relatively stable or have shown an increasing trend, in the coastal regions this stability is largely due to seawater intrusion and results in water of unusable quality replacing high quality groundwater. Rising groundwater levels in the Las Posas Valley are a result of active management to increase groundwater recharge beneath the Arroyo Las Posas. Seawater intrusion began in the Oxnard Plain area by 1930s and was widespread as early as the 1940s. Changes in groundwater management, including pumping reductions, shifting of pumping locations, construction of the Freeman Diversion, and the operation of the Pumping Trough and Pleasant Valley pipeline systems have significantly reduced seawater intrusion, but seawater intrusion conditions persist. Other contaminants present in the region include nitrates, iron, manganese and sulfate. In addition to causing seawater intrusion, over-pumping also caused irreversible land subsidence ranging from 2 .5 to 5 feet in several areas of the basin. The Central Coast is critically dependent upon groundwater, but this resource is under serious threat in a number of basins. In light of the limitations of existing state policies, the following measures would improve the effectiveness of groundwater planning and support sustainable management of California’s Central Coast’s groundwater resources . Establish a statewide policy to manage groundwater sustainably. Organize and empower local groundwater agencies to manage groundwater subbasins. Require the development and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans by local groundwater agencies. Provide local agencies with technical guidance and financial support from the state. Empower the State to oversee and ensure the implementation of groundwater sustainability plans.

Chapter B of Natural and Anthropogenic (Human-Made) Hexavalent Chromium, Cr(VI), in Groundwater near a Mapped Plume, Hinkley, California: Survey of Chromium and Selected Element Concentrations in Rock, Alluvium, and Core Material

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 25th, 2023

Documents in this series: Chapter A: Introduction to Study Area Hydrogeology, Chromium Sources, Site History, and Purpose of Study Chapter B: Survey of Chromium and

Documents in this series: Chapter A: Introduction to Study Area Hydrogeology, Chromium Sources, Site History, and Purpose of Study Chapter B: Survey of Chromium and Selected Element Concentrations in Rock, Alluvium, and Core Material Chapter C: Chromium in Minerals and Selected Aquifer Materials Chapter D: Analyses of Regulatory Water-Quality Data Chapter E: Groundwater Chemistry and Hexavalent Chromium Chapter F: Environmental Tracers of Groundwater Source, Age, and Geochemical Evolution Chapter G: Evaluation of Natural and Anthropogenic (Human-Made) Hexavalent Chromium Chapter H: Predevelopment Water Levels, Groundwater Recharge, and Selected Hydrologic Properties of Aquifer Materials, Hinkley and Water Valleys, California Chapter I: Sequestration and Reoxidation of Chromium in Experimental Microcosms Chapter J: Summary and Conclusions Between 1952 and 1964, hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), was released into groundwater from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) compressor station in Hinkley, California, in the western Mojave Desert 80 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. In 2015, the extent of anthropogenic Cr(VI) in groundwater in Hinkley and Water Valleys was uncertain, and some Cr(VI) in groundwater may be naturally occurring from rock and aquifer material. On the basis of more than 1,500 portable (handheld) X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) measurements on more than 250 samples of rock, surficial alluvium, and core material from selected wells in Hinkley and Water Valleys, chromium concentrations are commonly low compared to the average bulk continental abundance of 185 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). However, chromium concentrations are as high as 530 mg/kg in mafic hornblende diorite that crops out along the western margin of Hinkley Valley in Iron Mountain. Other chromium-containing rocks in the area are either (1) not consistently high in chromium, (2) have limited areal extent, or (3) in the case of basalt, are present only in Water Valley. Chromium concentrations in core material adjacent to the screened intervals of wells sampled for water chemistry and isotopic composition as part of the U.S. Geological Survey Cr(VI) background study ranged from less than the study reporting level (SRL) of 5 mg/kg to 410 mg/kg, with a median concentration of 23 mg/kg. Chromium concentrations in core material were lower in the eastern subarea and higher in the western and the northern subareas of Hinkley Valley and in Water Valley. The highest chromium concentration in core material was in weathered hornblende diorite bedrock. Chromium concentrations in core material adjacent to the screened interval of sampled wells were log-normally distributed below a threshold of 85 mg/kg, and 3 percent of chromium concentrations were greater than 85 mg/kg. Manganese can oxidize trivalent chromium, Cr(III), to Cr(VI). Similar to chromium, manganese concentrations in core material also were log-normally distributed below a threshold of 970 mg/kg, and 5 percent of manganese concentrations were greater than 970 mg/kg. Both chromium and manganese concentrations were higher in fine-textured core material and in visually abundant iron- and manganese-oxide coatings on the surfaces of mineral grains. High concentrations of chromium and manganese in core material commonly co-occurred. Fine-textured core material, chromium concentrations greater than 85 mg/kg, and manganese concentrations greater than 970 mg/kg in core material adjacent to the screened interval of sampled wells were selected for use as metrics (threshold values) within a summative-scale analysis (SSA) developed to identify natural and anthropogenic Cr(VI) in water from wells later within this professional paper (chapter G). Principal component analysis (PCA) of 18 elements within surficial alluvium, rock, and core material measured using pXRF shows distinct elemental assemblages associated with (1) older and more recent “Mojave-type” deposits, including alluvium and lake-margin (beach) deposits sourced from the Mojave River, (2) alluvium eroded from mafic rock, including hornblende diorite that crops out on Iron Mountain, (3) alluvium eroded from felsic volcanic and hydrothermal rock that crops out on Mount General along the eastern margin of Hinkley Valley, (4) playa/mudflat and other fine-textured deposits, and (5) material with visually abundant iron- and manganese-oxide coatings. Most wells sampled as part of this study were completed in Mojave-type deposits. Portable (handheld) X-ray fluorescence data measured on core material from those wells do not appear to be different or unusual compared to the magnitude and range of data from the larger Mojave River groundwater basin, and the core material has a low-chromium, felsic composition consistent with a Mojave River origin. In general, the elemental composition of core material from wells was not measurably altered by admixtures with local mafic, felsic volcanic, or hydrothermal source materials; although, where present, admixtures with basalt may contribute chromium to core material.