Tom Parilo - Reclaiming the Sierra

Combie Reservoir
Sediment and Mercury
Removal
A Water Supply Maintenance Project
A Case Study of a Work in Progress
with an Innovative Mercury Recovery Process
“Reclaim ing the Sierra” Sum m it
Best Management Practices & Stimulating New
Technologies
Novem ber 9, 2010
Tom P arilo
Consulting Land Use P lanner
Combie Reservoir Project
Overview





Need for the project
Project Highlights
Project Challenges
Project Obstacles
What we’ve learned
•200,00 tons of sediments
Need: Legacy Mining & Mercury
•26 Million Pounds of Mercury
•10-30% loss to the environment
Highlights: Project Objectives

Restore storage capacity


Remove Mercury–as sediments are
removed




Remove Sediments—dredging
Previous dredging operations were halted due
to elevated Hg levels (2002)
Improve/maintain recreational activities
Support local industries (sand, gravel,
etc.)
Study effects of project activities relating
to mercury transport and methylation
Highlights: Project Location
Highlights: Combie Project Area
Combie Project
Components





Electric Floating
Dredge
 Remove 200,000
tons of sediment
over 3 to 5 year
period
Mobile Dewatering
System
Mercury Concentrator
Turbidity Curtains
Material Transport
Challenges



Remove Mercury in order to maintain
reservoir storage capacity
Find existing technology or develop new
technology
Adapt mercury recovery technology to
Combie Reservoir while meeting water
quality standards
Mobile Dredge and
Dewatering System



Quiet
Portable
Dredge, classify
and dewater
aggregates from
reservoir
Pegasus Mercury Extraction



Production unit (up to 250-500
gpm)
Spins at 60-80g to separate
mercury from sludge/centrate
98% efficient (for removal of
mercury)
Mercury Samples
Obstacles


Mercury removal expertise not available
Perception that it’s NID’s Problem




All water supply entities in Sierra Nevada and
Delta have similar problem
Educating regulators and public that
removing mercury is to everyone’s benefit
Funding ($$$$)—beyond the ability of a
small water district
$9 Million—pilot project
What We’ve Learned



Requires an agency “willing” to lead through its
fiduciary stewardship role—NID
 NID knows water; not mercury removal
Education and partnerships are critical
 All need to be on the same team
 Regional watershed organizations
 Regulators—consult early and often
 Tribal representatives
 Public and adjoining land owners
Use the CEQA process to create a mitigated
project
Current Status






Submitted for Sierra Nevada Conservancy Grant
($1 Million start up costs)
Waiting for Federal Appropriations Approval
2011 ($3 Million requested)
Plan to submit for Clean up and Abatement
Funds from SWRCB
Submitted for final permits: CWA 401 and DFG
1600
Received Corps of Engineers Authorization
 Nationwide 16 Permit
Expected Start Date Fall 2011