DOCSLIB.ORG

3.3 Biological Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.3 Biological Resources Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 3.3. Biological Resources This section describes the biological resources known or with potential to occur on the project site. The analysis discusses existing environmental conditions, methods used for the assessment, potential environmental impacts of the project, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant and potentially significant impacts. This section also presents an overview of federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of biological resources in Solano County. The biological resources information in this section was collected from: • the results of a search of biological resources databases; • technical reports prepared for previous proposed phases of the Solano 4 Wind Project, and other project sites in the Wind Resource Area (WRA); • project-specific biological resources studies; and • a site reconnaissance conducted by AECOM biologists in February 2019. AECOM reviewed the following databases to develop a list of special-status wildlife, plants, and sensitive natural communities that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project: • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records for the Antioch North, Birds Landing, Jersey Island, and 12 surrounding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (CDFW 2019a); • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the Antioch North, Birds Landing, Jersey Island, and 12 surrounding USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNPS 2019); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Trust Resource report species list for the project site (USFWS 2019a); • records for 2018 and 2019 from eBird, an online citizen-based bird observation network (Sullivan et al. 2009); and • final designated critical habitat as mapped by the USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS 2019b). AECOM also reviewed data from previous studies, reports, and surveys conducted in the WRA and surrounding areas, along with the following other information sources for known biological resources in the area: • SMUD Solano Wind Project, Phase 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report (SMUD 2007); Page 3.3-1 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 • Habitat Assessment for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii), and Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) on the Collinsville Wind Project Site, Solano County, California (Rana Resources 2009a); • Revised Draft Addendum Habitat Assessment for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii), and Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) on the Proposed Tie-In Transmission Line at the Collinsville Wind Project Site, Solano County, California (Rana Resource 2009b); • Second Addendum Habitat Assessment for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii), and Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) on the Proposed Tie-In Transmission Line Substation at the Collinsville Wind Project Site, Solano County, California (Rana Resources 2010); • Avian Use Study for the Collinsville Wind Power Project, Solano County, California (Curry & Kerlinger 2011); • Bald and Golden Eagle Survey Report Memo for Proposed Collinsville Wind Project, Solano County, California (GANDA 2011); and • Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Proposed Collinsville Wind Project (ICF International and H.T. Harvey & Associates 2011). Between 2016 and 2019, numerous project-specific biological resources surveys were completed in the proposed project subareas, Solano 4 West and Solano 4 East, and along the electrical transmission collection lines that run northward and westward, respectively, from each subarea to the centrally located Russell Substation (Exhibit 2-2 in Chapter 2, “Project Description”). Area West Environmental, Inc. (AWE) conducted agency coordination and field surveys in the Solano 4 West subarea and along the associated collection line in 2016 and 2017 (AWE 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d). Also in 2017, Althouse and Meade Biological and Environmental Services conducted invasive-species monitoring in both subareas (Althouse and Meade 2017). In 2018, Estep Environmental Consulting (2018a, 2018b) and AECOM (2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2019a, 2019b) conducted field surveys for remaining portions of Solano 4 West and Solano 4 East and the associated collection lines. Appendix C presents the technical studies prepared by AECOM and Estep Environmental Consulting. Combined, the reports listed below represent a thorough and complete biological analysis of the entire proposed project area. • Solano 4 West subarea and collection line: o Eagle Survey Report (AWE 2017a) o Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (AWE 2017b) Page 3.3-2 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 o Protocol-Level Special-status Plant Surveys Conducted for the Solano Phase 4 Wind Project (AWE 2017c) o Habitat Assessment and Vegetation Mapping Summary Report (AWE 2017d) • Solano 4 West and Solano 4 East subareas, excluding collection lines: o Invasive Species Monitoring Report for Solano Wind Farm (Althouse and Meade 2017) • Solano 4 West, Solano 4 East, and all collection lines: o Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment for the Solano 4 Wind Project (AECOM 2018a) o Sacramento Municipal Utility District Solano 4 Wind—California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment (AECOM 2018b) o California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment for the Solano 4 Wind Project (AECOM 2018c) o Giant Garter Snake Habitat Assessment for the Solano 4 Project (AECOM 2018d) o Solano 4 Wind Project Eagle Survey Report (Estep Environmental Consulting 2018a) o Solano 4 Wind Project Avian Use Report (Estep Environmental Consulting 2018b) • Solano 4 West, Solano 4 East, and collection line from Solano 4 East to the Russell Substation: o Sacramento Municipal Utility District Solano Wind 4 Project Botanical Survey Report (AECOM 2019a) • Solano 4 East and collection line: o Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands—SMUD Solano 4 Wind Project (AECOM 2019b) Page 3.3-3 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 3.3.1. Regulatory Setting Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 and subsequent amendments govern the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) oversee the ESA. USFWS has jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish and NMFS has jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals. ESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS and NMFS if they determine that a proposed project may affect a listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If the action may result in take of listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat, the lead federal agency must obtain an incidental take authorization or a letter of concurrence stating that the project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Section 7 requirements do not apply to nonfederal actions. Projects that do not involve a federal action, but that would adversely affect (result in take of) a federally listed species, must comply with ESA Section 10. To comply with Section 10, the project proponent must prepare a habitat conservation plan, which results in the issuance of an incidental take permit by USFWS and/or NMFS. ESA Section 9 prohibits take of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered, including the destruction of habitat that prevents the species’ recovery. “Take” is defined as any action or attempt to hunt, harm, harass, pursue, shoot, wound, capture, kill, trap, or collect a species. Section 9 prohibitions also apply to threatened species unless a special rule governing take was defined at the time the species became listed. The take prohibition in ESA Section 9 applies only to fish and wildlife species. However, Section 9 also prohibits the unlawful removal and possession, or malicious damage or destruction, of any endangered plant from federal land. Section 9 prohibits acts to remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy an endangered plant species in nonfederal areas in knowing violation of any state law or in the course of criminal trespass. Candidate species and species that are proposed for or under petition for listing receive no protection under Section 9. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et seq.), first enacted in 1918, provides for the protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA states that it is unlawful, except as permitted under MBTA, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50, Section 10.13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States. Page 3.3-4 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the controlling federal appellate court for California, has held that habitat modification that harms migratory birds “does not ‘take’ them within the meaning of the MBTA” Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 303 (1981). Additionally, in December 2017, the U.S. Department of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Bethel Island Area of Benefit
    Julia R. Bueren, Director Deputy Directors R. Mitch Avalon Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski Stephen Silveira ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ___________________ Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit August, 2016 Prepared Pursuant to Section 913 of the County Ordinance Code Prepared by and for: Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division and Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 3: LOCATION AND BOUNDARY .................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER 5: PROJECT LIST ........................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... 6 CHAPTER 8: METHOD OF COST APPORTIONMENT ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062
    FINAL ◦ MAY 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 2028 Stillwater Sciences (Bacon Island) 279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Davis, CA 95618 Stockton, CA 95202 Stillwater Sciences FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Suggested citation: Reclamation District No. 2028. 2016. Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California for Reclamation District No. 2028 (Bacon Island), Stockton, California. Cover photo: View of Bacon Island’s northwestern levee corner and surrounding interior lands. May 2017 Stillwater Sciences i FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project PROJECT SUMMARY Project title Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Reclamation District No. 2028 CEQA lead agency name (Bacon Island) and address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Andrea Lobato, Manager CEQA responsible agencies The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Deirdre West, Environmental Planning Manager David A. Forkel Chairman, Board of Trustees Reclamation District No. 2028 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Cell: (510) 693-9977 Nate Hershey, P.E. Contact person and phone District
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network
    Innovation in Monitoring: The U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 121˚45' 121˚30' 121˚15' installed the first gage to measure the flow 38˚ of water into California’s Sacramento–San 30' Sacramento Channel Joaquin River Delta (figs. 1, 2) from the River FPT Freeport Sacramento Sacramento- Sacramento River in the late 1800s. Today, r San Joaquin ve San Yolo Bypass i Delta s R a network of 35 hydro-acoustic meters Francisco ne m u s measure flow throughout the delta. This San o Francisco Sutter/ C region is a critical part of California’s Bay Hood Steamboat freshwater supply and conveyance system. San Elk Slough corridor Joaquin Sacramento Deep Water Ship With the data provided by this flow-station River SUT Delta network—sampled every 15 minutes and Sutter transfer Slough HWB flow updated to the web every hour—state Slough SSS SDC and federal water managers make daily 38˚ Creek DWS DLC Mokelumne 15' GES decisions about how much freshwater LIB Walnut Dry can be pumped for human use, at which RYI GSS Grove Steamboat NMR locations, and when. Fish and wildlife Yolo Bypass flow SMR River R scientists, working with water managers, ive r Mokelumne Rio Vista SRV River system also use this information to protect fish exchange Threemile Slough Lodi species affected by pumping and loss of MOK SDI TSL habitat. The data are also used to help LPS to en determine the success or failure of efforts Sacram OSJ SJJ FAL PRI to restore ecosystem processes in what has MAL San Joaquin been called the “most managed and highly Pittsburg ORO River/central delta exchanges altered” watershed in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Solving with Geographic Networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2011 Problem solving with geographic networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Steven Hong San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Hong, Steven, "Problem solving with geographic networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta" (2011). Master's Theses. 3932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.psw4-dhmv https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3932 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Geography San Jose State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Steven Prasert Hong May 2011 © 2011 Steven Prasert Hong ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA by Steven Prasert Hong APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY May 2011 Dr. M. Kathryn Davis Department of Geography Dr. Richard Taketa Department of Geography Jeremy Lukins San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ABSTRACT PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA By Steven Prasert Hong The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) serves as the crossroads for many geographic networks that crisscross California.
    [Show full text]
  • §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦5
    Clarksburg Yolo District 1 A!A! Oscar Villegas A!A! A! ABH84 A! ABH99 A! A! NETHERLANDS A! (# ABH113 Ç 5 Hood Ç(# ¨¦§ A! A! A! A!AA!! (# A! Ç r MERRITT e ABH iv ISLAND 160 R s e n Courtland m # u Ç( s PIERSON o C DISTRICT Ç(# GLANVILLE S A# a Ç!( TRACT c A! ra ABH104 m en Sacramento District 5 HASTINGS LIBERTY ISLAND to R Don Nottoli TRACT iv # (# er Ç( Ç A GRAND ISLAND !Ç(# Locke Ç(# ÇA!(# EGBERT TRACT Ryde A! ABH84 RYER ISLAND Walnut Grove NEW HOPE Thornton TRACT M okelum ne River STATEN ISLAND San Joaquin District 4 ABH99 ABH12 TYLER (# Chuck Winn ISLAND Ç ABH160 (# Rio Vista Isleton Ç BRACK TRACT ÇA!(# A! Lodi BRANNAN-ANDRUS Ç(# TERMINOUS ISLAND Ç(# # TRACT Terminous Ç( (# ABH12 BOULDIN A!A! Ç A! A! ISLAND# A! Ç#( A! A! A! Ç( A! A! 5 A! A! ¨¦§ AA!!A! ##(# A! A! ÇÇ((Ç A!Ç(# WEBB TRACT VENICE ISLAND SHERMAN Ç(# EMPIRE KING ISLAND Ç(# TRACT ISLAND ABH84 A! Ç(# MANDEVILLE ISLAND (# Bethel Island Ç RINDGE TRACT Antioch MCDONALD ISLAND Oakley (# BACON Ç ABH99 ABH Old River # 88 HOLLAND ISLAND ÇA!( S A! Ç(# a TRACT n Jo a Knightsen q (# u ABH26 Ç LOWER (# in Ç R ROBERTS i LOWER ve Stockton ISLAND r ABH4 JONES TRACT A! Holt Port of Brentwood Stockton UPPER ABH4 (# Discovery Bay JONES Ç TRACT Ç(# MIDDLE BYRON ROBERTS TRACT ISLAND French VICTORIA Mi Contra Costa District 3 A! ddl A! A! ISLAND e River Camp Diane Burgis A! A! A! Byron A! A! A!A! A!(( ## (# ÇÇ (#A! A! Ç# # Ç A! ÇA!(Ç(A!(# Ç(#A! A!(#A!((##Ç(# AÇ(!#AÇÇA!#Ç ÇA!# (#Ç( AÇ!A(! Ç# UNION ISLAND UPPER A!#(#ÇA(! Ç(AÇ! ROBERTS 5 A! San Joaquin District 3 ISLAND ¨¦§ Banks Tom Patti Lathrop
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Selected Data to Assess the Causes of Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California
    EVALUATION OF SELECTED DATA TO ASSESS THE CAUSES OF SUBSIDENCE IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA By Stuart A. Rojstaczer, Rebecca E. Hamon, Steven J. Deverel, and Christine A. Massey U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 91-193 Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES r^ O Sacramento, California 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building, Room W-2234 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Evaluation of subsurface data 2 Ground-water withdrawal 2 Natural gas withdrawal 2 Evaluation of surface data 6 Electrical transmission towers 6 Transect surveys 6 Summary and conclusions 16 References cited 16 FIGURES 1. Map showing location of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and extensometer sites 3 2,3. Graphs showing: 2. Extensometer record of elevation loss and depth to water from September 1987 to December 1989 for the Bacon Island site 4 3. Extensometer record of elevation loss and depth to water from July 1988 to November 1989 for the Bethel Island site 4 4. Map showing locations of major gas fields and cores for cesium-137 sampling 5 5. Graph showing distribution of radioactivity of cesium-137 in samples collected from cores B, C, and J, F, and G 7 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Levees in Contra Costa County
    Contact: Michael Simmons Foreperson 925-957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1607 DELTA LEVEES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY How Well Do We Protect This Vital Safety System? TO: The Boards of Trustees of All Contra Costa Reclamation Districts; the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors; the Contra Costa Tax Collector; the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder Elections Division; Contra Costa County LAFCO; and the City Council of Oakley SUMMARY Some say about Contra Costa County’s Delta levees, “It’s not a question of if but when they will fail.” Others disagree. They say that these levees can continue indefinitely to perform successfully if they are constantly and proactively monitored and maintained, and receive appropriate improvements as conditions evolve. The answer to this “if or when” debate is of vital interest to the County. The Delta levees form a critical bulwark against flooding that could have disastrous consequences for the County and even the State. The levees, most of which were built more than a century ago, originally protected privately owned land. This land was reclaimed from marshland for agricultural use, and was sparsely populated by the landowners and possibly a few farmworkers. Today, these levees protect much more: the lives and property of 28% of Contra Costa County’s population (based on the 2010 census, although the number continues to grow), infrastructure that is critical to the County and region (including major roads and highways, a railroad line, oil and gas wells and pipelines, power transmission lines, and aqueducts and canals that supply water to nearly 2/3 of the State), and the quality of Delta water that could be exposed to excessive saline levels due to the incursion of seawater.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 2.1—Delta Islands Legend for Delta Islands in Figure 2.1
    . R Delta Islands AN Sacramento RIC ME Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers A . R Delta waterways and other rivers O T N Suisun Marsh E ASS P Freeport M A R C A Clarksburg S YOLO BY Hood 35 . R C a S ch Courtland E e S lo N ug 57 42 h M 73 19 U Barker Slough 21 43 S 32 O D k Pumping Plant C ry Cree Fairfield Lin dsey Slo Ryde Walnut ug 50 h Grove 20 39 10 . Rio Vista 61 M R OKELUMNE Isleton 5 Suisun Marsh 7 55 Salinity Control Lodi Grizzly Gate 59 Bay Suisun 60 Marsh 4 54 15 68 47 Honker 6 66 ez it Suis Bay 64 16 27 in ra un Bay 52 3 u St 11 rq a 74 C 8 24 31 34 Pittsburg 2 44 46 53 Co ntra C 33 osta Antioch Oakley 23 22 71 Can Concord al 1 36 51 k 65 e e 41 r 49 Stockton C 25 h 40 S s 48 A r Discovery a N Bay M J 67 O 9 A Q U I 63 N 13 R 12 . Lathrop Manteca Los Vaqueros Reservoir 17 56 Harvey O. Banks Tracy Delta Pumping Plant Pumping Plant South Bay Tracy D Pumping Plant el N ta-M C en ali d for ota nia C A an 2 0 2 4 6 qu al ed uct miles Figure 2.1—Delta Islands Legend for Delta Islands in Figure 2.1 Bacon Island 1 Netherlands 37* Bethel Tract 2 Neville Island 38* Bishop Tract 3 New Hope Tract 39 Bouldin Island 4 Orwood Tract 40 Brack Tract 5 Palm Tract 41 Bradford Island 6 Pierson District 42 Brannan-Andrus Island 7 Prospect Island 43 Browns Island 8 Quimby Island 44 Byron Tract 9 Rhode Island 45* Canal Ranch 10 Rindge Tract 46 Chipps Island 11 Rio Blanco Tract 47 Clifton Court Forebay 12 Roberts Island 48 Coney Island 13 Rough and Ready Island 49 Deadhorse Island 14* Ryer Island 50 Decker Island 15 Sargent Barnhart Tract 51 Empire
    [Show full text]