GIS Technical Services

A P R I L 2 0 1 3

CENTRAL VALLEY SALIN ITY ALTERNATIVES FOR LONG TERM SUSTAINABI L I T Y ( C V - SALTS)

Task #3-Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing Beneficial Use Objectives Study (BUOS) Final Report

Prepared for

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DRAINAGE AUTHORITY

Submitted by LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES, INC

In association with

InLUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGINEERS KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS PLANTIERRA SYSTECH WATER RESOURCES CAROLLO ENGINEERS

This page is intentionally left blank Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 1

GIS TASK 3 ...... 1 DATA SOURCES ...... 3

BOUNDARIES ...... 3 HYDROLOGY ...... 4 BENEFICIAL USES AND WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ...... 5 METHODOLOGY ...... 7

METHODOLOGY USED FOR POPULATING DATA ...... 7 BASINWIDE DATA UPDATE ...... 7 FOCUSED AREAS DATA UPDATE ...... 8 DATA DISCUSSION ...... 10

DATA STRUCTURE ...... 10 DATA GAPS ...... 10 GEODATABASE DESCRIPTION - UPDATED GIS DELIVERABLE ...... 12 FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF BENEFICIAL USE MAPPING ...... 15

METHODOLOGY - TRIBUTARY RULE FOR BENEFICIAL USES ...... 15 ESTIMATED COST COMPARISON ...... 18 INCREMENTAL BENEFITS ...... 19 REFERENCES ...... 20

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services i Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

List of Tables Table 1. 2012 NHD Dataset Classes of Features ...... 4 Table 2. Summary Count of Stream Segments with Beneficial Uses ...... 12 Table 3. Summary Count of Stream Segments with Water Bodies Linked ...... 13 Table 4. Estimated Cost Comparison...... 18

List of Figures Figure 1. Yuba River and Tributaries (2012 NHD Dataset) ...... 11

Attachments Attachment A Surface Water Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives - Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins and Tulare Lake Basin Attachment B Representation of Main Streams with Assigned Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives Attachment C Description of Geodatabase

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services ii Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

Introduction The objective of the Geographic Information System (GIS) Technical Services is to continue the development of a GIS to organize data and information pertaining to the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and water quality of surface water and groundwater within the Central Valley 1. In addition, the GIS will assist with the organization of the data and information as a part of the Initial Conceptual Model (ICM) work effort that is necessary to develop the Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan (CV-SNMP) by May 2014. The LWA Team 2 will develop a comprehensive geodatabase and efficient GIS tools, which are central for the identification of potential areas of concern and assessing management alternatives. This work builds off of the Phase 1 Beneficial Use Objectives Study (BUOS) GIS data gathering effort that was completed in 2010 (Kennedy/Jenks 2010).

This work effort, which will be conducted in a collaborative setting with stakeholders and regulatory and partner agencies, forms the information management groundwork for supporting subsequent phases of work. The knowledge base, technical analyses, and associated documentation that are developed as a part of the CV-SNMP will form the basis for amendments to the Water Quality Control Plans for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins as well as the Tulare Lake Basin (i.e. Basin Plan Amendments or BPAs). The geodatabase will also provide the information groundwork to support the more detailed, sub-regional analyses that will be undertaken in the future by local stakeholder groups when they develop local SNMPs.

The GIS Technical Services Workplan (Workplan) describes the approach, milestones, and deliverables that will be completed as a part of this work effort. The primary technical tasks include 3:

• Task 3 – Addressing the Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS; and • Task 4 – Incorporate Additional GIS Map Layers into Existing System.

GIS TASK 3 The GIS project supports the development of a comprehensive GIS database for the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS). Task 3 identifies and documents, GIS mapping layers, the beneficial use categories assigned to surface and ground waters within the Central Valley 4. The purpose of Task 3 is to update the existing BUOS GIS with the March 2012 National Hydrography Dataset (2012 NHD) for the purpose of addressing identifiable data gaps, inaccuracies (errors), and reporting on recognizable data limitations.

1 The GIS project will be completed for the jurisdictional boundary of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5). 2 The LWA Team consists of the following firms: Larry Walker Associates, Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, PlanTierra, Systech Water Resources, and Carollo Engineers. 3 The Task 5 Workplan for the development of the agricultural zoning map layers is being submitted separately. 4 GIS standards used in Task 3 are consistent with the GIS standards used in the Phase 1 BUOS and follows the GIS standards described in the GIS Workplan (Attachment C of the GIS Tasks 3 and 4 Workplan).

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 1 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This Task 3 Report (Report) describes the updated beneficial use data and GIS layers, any identified issues, the actions taken to resolve those issues, and recommendations. This Report (and the associated GIS layers) is the first of two sets of technical documents being submitted by the LWA Team under the GIS Technical Services and fulfills the requirement of Task 3 of the GIS Workplan.

Gathering data and organizing them in GIS layers allows for the evaluation of the beneficial uses and water quality objectives in future CV-SALTS investigations. The updated GIS in this task will serve as a baseline for additional GIS layers to be produced in Tasks 4 and 5 of this GIS project and continued GIS data gathering in the future.

GIS Task 3 includes the following objectives, which are summarized below:

1. Update the Phase 1 BUOS GIS with the March 2012 NHD dataset;

2. Identify and resolve, to the extent possible, remaining data gaps as identified in the network of main streams/rivers (trunks) to the most-available connectivity data embedded in the 2012 NHD dataset;

3. Document Task 3 efforts in a Report summarizing identified issues, actions taken, and any remaining concerns;

4. Develop and provide updated GIS layers in a geodatabase format with metadata populated; and

5. Discuss future efforts for continued beneficial use mapping.

The end objective in Task 3 is addressing identified data gaps and issues in the Phase 1 BUOS, reporting on recognizable data limitations, actions taken, and recommended future efforts. Task 3 includes the development of updated GIS data layers in an Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) geodatabase. Along with the Report, the updated GIS layers populated in ArcCatalog™ format are submitted electronically to the CV-SALTS.

The Report sections include the following:

• Data Sources – Describes the main data sources and types that are used in Task 3; • Methodology – Describes the methodology used to assign beneficial uses for the main rivers within the Central Valley and presents the data layers; • Data Discussion – Discusses the data obtained, including data gaps that were identified, resolved and/or any remaining issues; and • Future Consideration of Beneficial Use Mapping – Identifies future work efforts for continued beneficial use mapping.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 2 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

Data Sources This section describes the data sources that were used in the updated GIS, which are similar to those that were used in the Phase 1 BUOS. The main data sources and types include:

• The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 5) jurisdiction boundary; • The hydrology from the updated 2012 NHD dataset, boundaries of the hydrologic units, groundwater basin boundaries and locations of 303(d) impaired streams and water bodies; and • Beneficial uses and water quality objectives based on the three water quality control plans for: the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, the Tulare Lake Basin, and the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta).

Some of the data types listed above were previously compiled and completed during the Phase 1 BUOS GIS conducted in 2010 and no updates were required by CV-SALTS under Task 3 effort. The data layers that were developed during the Phase 1 BUOS work include the boundaries of the hydrologic units and groundwater basins, and locations of 303(d) impaired streams and water bodies, as further described below. These data layers were carried over from the Phase 1 work only for the purpose of keeping the previously completed data layers and the Task 3 updated data layers in a single depository.

In addition, the ESRI background will be available as a base map through the online web viewer as part of the Task 3 GIS layers. The base map feature is primarily intended as back- drop information to assist in spatial locations.

BOUNDARIES The main boundaries incorporated in the updated GIS layers include the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5) jurisdiction boundary, the Delta, and groundwater basin boundaries as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003).

• The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Boundary – The CV-SALTS study area boundaries encompass the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5). The boundaries for the CV-SALTS and Region 5 were generated by Teale GIS Solutions Group and incorporated into the GIS layers for Task 3. • San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary – The Delta map is a separate GIS layer. During the Phase 1 BUOS study, the CV-SALTS BUOS subcommittee decided not to truncate the Delta region at the boundary of the CV- SALTS study area but to include the outside portion part of the study area. The Delta map was incorporated in the Phase 1 BUOS and was retained in the updated GIS layer for Task 3. The updated GIS layers include the Delta map that was acquired from California DWR with a publication date of 7 June 2001. • Groundwater Basins – Groundwater basins in the Sacramento River Basin, San Joaquin River Basin, and Tulare Lake Basin were mapped based on DWR’s Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). This data layer was incorporated in the Phase 1 BUOS and was retained in the updated GIS layer for Task 3.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 3 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

HYDROLOGY

National Hydrography Dataset This includes geodata from the United States of Geological Survey (USGS) NHD dataset. The data comprise common surface water features such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, canals, dams, and oceans. Although the Phase 1 BUOS was based on the 2009 NHD dataset, Task 3 used the most recent NHD dataset dated March 2012, downloaded from the USGS website (http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html).

The 2012 NHD dataset includes three main classes of features to represent surface water bodies, as listed below and summarized in Table 1. The NHD dataset includes features that represent both natural (i.e., rivers, streams) and non-natural (i.e., canals, ditches) streams.

• Flow lines (i.e., NHDFlowline) that represent linear features such as streams and smaller rivers;

• Polygons (i.e., NHDWaterbody) that represent area features such as lakes, ponds, and rivers; and

• Points (i.e., NHDPoint) that represent point features such as stream gages and dams.

Table 1. 2012 NHD Dataset Classes of Features

NHDFlowline NHDWaterbody NHDPoint

o ArtificialPath o Estuary o DamWeir o CanalDitch o Ice Mass o Gaging Station o Coastline o LakePond o Gate o Connector o Playa o Lock Chamber o Pipeline o Reservoir o Rapids o StreamRiver o SwampMarsh o Reservoir o Underground Conduit o Rock o SinkRise o SpringSeep o Water IntakeOutflow o Waterfall o Well

Hydrologic Units Hydrologic units delineate water bodies assigned by the USGS and represent the various drainage basins at the watershed level. Hydrologic units are included as part of the 2012 NHD dataset. The boundaries of the hydrologic units were incorporated in the Phase 1 BUOS and were retained in the updated GIS layers for Task 3.

Groundwater While the focus of Task 3 was on the update of the NHD dataset for surface water bodies, data on groundwater from Phase 1 BUOS were retained. Groundwater basin boundaries in the Central Valley were mapped based on DWR’s Bulletin 118. The water quality objectives were obtained from the Water Quality Control Plans for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins and the Tulare Lake Basin.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 4 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

303(d) Impaired Streams and 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies As mentioned above, the locations of the 303(d) impaired streams and water bodies were previously incorporated into the Phase 1 BUOS in 2010 and this information was retained in the updated GIS layers for Task 3. The 303(d) list of impaired and threatened waters (streams and water bodies) is developed by the states pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Every two years the states are responsible for identifying all waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. The locations and geodata of impaired water bodies were compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) during the Phase 1 BUOS work and data were incorporated in the Phase 1 BUOS.

BENEFICIAL USES AND WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES The updated GIS geodatabase contains designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives from the three water quality control plans as described below.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins • Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, Fourth Edition with a publication date of 15 September 1998.

• Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan with a publication date of October 2011. Table II-1 ( Attachment A) of the water quality control plan provides a list of the existing and potential surface water beneficial uses that were incorporated into the GIS layer.

• The Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins have 105 designated beneficial uses.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin • Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition (with Approved Amendments) with a publication date of January 2004.

• Table II-1 ( Attachment A) of the Water Quality Control Plan provides a list of the existing and potential surface water beneficial uses that were incorporated into the GIS layer.

• The Tulare Lake Basin has 21 designated beneficial uses.

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary • Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary with a publication date of 13 December 2006 contains water quality objectives associated with specific intake locations. The Phase 1 BUOS that was conducted in 2010 was based on this water quality control plan dated December 13 2006; thus, no new information was updated for the Delta water quality objectives. As part of Task 3 work, water quality objectives that were previously incorporated in the Phase 1 BUOS were retained in the updated GIS layer for Task 3.

Beneficial uses for the Delta are included in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins with the amendment publication date of

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 5 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

October 2011. The beneficial uses and water quality objectives from the water quality control plans were compiled into a single database table. In addition to the water quality objectives, the database table also contains the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) information, part of the drinking water standards from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Attachment A provides the database tables with beneficial use designations followed by water quality objectives and applicable MCLs and SMCLs.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 6 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

Methodology This section describes the methodology that was used in updating the Phase 1 BUOS with the 2012 NHD dataset, and assigning beneficial uses and water quality objectives to the surface water bodies based on the water quality control plans.

METHODOLOGY USED FOR POPULATING DATA The methodology used for updating the Phase 1 BUOS (which was based on the 2009 NHD dataset) included assigning beneficial uses and water quality objectives compiled from the three water quality control plans to the 2012 NHD dataset.

For the purposes of Task 3 and consistent with the Phase 1 BUOS, the water quality objectives that were compiled and linked included total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), sodium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and boron. The resulting database provides a baseline geographic inventory of beneficial uses and salinity and nitrate related water quality objectives in the Central Valley (i.e., Region 5). The compiled data serve as a tool for CV-SALTS to access and assess the assignment of beneficial uses and water quality objectives, perform comparisons, and establish geographic links.

BASINWIDE DATA UPDATE The methodology for linking the beneficial uses and corresponding water quality objectives to the 2012 NHD dataset in GIS includes several steps, as outlined below. The activities undertaken occurred at the basinwide scale.

1. The “Beneficial Use” database table from the Phase 1 BUOS was reviewed to identify the data gaps.

2. The three water quality control plans and related amendments were reviewed. If there were any updates to the water quality control plans, the Beneficial Use database table was updated to reflect the changes.

3. The updated Beneficial Use database table was linked to the 2012 NHD dataset.

4. During the establishment of the linkages to the 2012 NHD dataset, orphan records that were not readily linkable were identified and documented in the geodatabase. Orphan records were anticipated due to the lack of a match in the 2012 NHD records or the existence of no geographically identifiable rivers, tributaries, or water bodies. This step also evaluated the data gaps that were identified in the Phase 1 BUOS, but resolved in the 2012 NHD dataset.

5. Other types of discrepancies between the updated Beneficial Use database table and the 2012 NHD dataset were identified and resolved.

6. Based on the updated Beneficial Use database table, an attribute table was developed with unique beneficial use identifications (BU_IDs) and corresponding beneficial uses and water quality objectives for each surface water body identified in the water quality control plans ( Attachment A). The selection of the water body was consistent with the water quality control plan beneficial use descriptions. The following numbering system was developed to differentiate the water bodies in each water quality control plan.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 7 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

o Water bodies in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins were numbered from 1-105. This includes the total of 99 water bodies that were listed in the water quality control plan as well as Marsh Creek (BU_ID of 100), Marsh Creek Reservoir (BU_ID of 101), other lakes and reservoirs in Sacramento River Basin 5A (BU_ID of 102), and other lakes and reservoirs in Hydro Unit Numbers 531, 532, 533, 543, and 544 (BU_ID of 103), North Fork Cache Creek (BU_ID of 104), and Bear Creek (BU_ID of 105). These water bodies were included in the Beneficial Use database with their corresponding beneficial uses.

o Water bodies in the Tulare Lake Basin were numbered from 200-220 (a total of 21 surface water bodies were listed in the water quality control plan and included in the database with their corresponding beneficial uses).

o The beneficial use for the Delta was included in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins.

The basinwide data update resulted in GIS data layers with the 2012 NHD dataset that included the main surface water bodies with their beneficial uses and water quality objectives based on the water quality control plans.

In the Tulare Lake Basin, surface water features have been defined within hydrologic units as listed in Attachment A . In the Water Quality Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, for three surface water beneficial uses that are listed below, the designated beneficial use also applies to other surface water features that are within the specified hydrologic units. For instance, for “552, 553, 554, 555 Other East Side Streams”, the 2012 NHD dataset contains other features (flow lines and water bodies) within the hydrologic units of 552, 553, 554, and 555. When the beneficial use was assigned as part of Task 3 mapping, all surface water features (including tributaries) were selected in these four hydrologic units and were assigned the same beneficial use as the BU_ID of 218. During the selection process, constructed facilities were excluded in the beneficial uses assignment and the beneficial use was assigned to natural streams and water bodies only. The same approach was taken for “West Side Streams” and “Valley Floor Waters” listed below, with the exception that for the Valley Floor Waters both natural streams and constructed facilities were included in the beneficial use assignment.

• 552, 553, 554, 555 Other East Side Streams (BU_ID = 218 in Attachment A )

• 556, 559 West Side Streams (BU_ID = 219 in Attachment A )

• 551, 557, 558 Valley Floor Waters (BU_ID = 220 in Attachment A )

The 2012 NHD dataset also includes all main and small tributaries with connections to the main surface water bodies. While the steps above completes the Task 3 effort, there is potential for enhancing the beneficial use mapping to allow for the assignment of beneficial use information to the tributaries of the main streams or rivers based on the tributary rule (see Future Consideration of Beneficial Use Mapping).

FOCUSED AREAS DATA UPDATE In the GIS Workplan, the original intent of the data updates for the focus areas was to continue to link orphan records of the beneficial uses to the 2012 NHD dataset and to resolve, to the extent possible, disconnected main river segments that could be linked to records of

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 8 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

beneficial use and water quality objectives. Originally, Yolo County around Woodland and the South Delta were considered as the potential areas for this focused effort.

The basinwide data update revealed that the 2012 NHD dataset has spatial data regarding the main rivers in the Yolo County area and South Delta that assisted in assigning beneficial uses to main river segments in these two areas. The LWA Team expended a small portion of the Task 3 effort in more closely examining river segments and their available beneficial uses and water quality objectives in the Water Quality Control Plans for these two areas. As a result, the entire Task 3 effort with a relatively small budget was devoted to using the 2012 NHD dataset for a one-step basinwide data update of the main rivers (trunks) instead of a two parts workflow separately focused on the Yolo County and South Delta areas. At the completion of the Task 3 effort, data gaps were resolved for the entire Central Valley (Region 5), to the extent possible.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 9 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

Data Discussion This section discusses the data findings from the updated 2012 NHD dataset and describes the remaining data gaps and issues within the network of main streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in the updated 2012 NHD dataset.

DATA STRUCTURE

National Hydrography Dataset The 2012 NHD dataset contains about 850,000 line segments within the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5). A given linear feature, such as a main river, can have as many as 320 segments that make up the river alone, with thousands of corresponding tributary segments. Figure 1 illustrates, as an example, how a main river (the blue lines) and its tributaries (the red lines) are represented in the updated 2012 NHD dataset for the lower portion of the Yuba River.

Water Quality Control Plans In the water quality control plans, portions of the surface water features can have different designated beneficial uses. As an example, the beneficial use designations for the Yuba River are described herein. According to Table II-1 in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, the Yuba River is the main river and thus, the first data hierarchy. The river is then divided into two main portions where each portion has designated beneficial uses. The two main portions of the Yuba River are:

1. Upstream Sources to Englebright Reservoir; and

2. Downstream Sources from Englebright Dam to Feather River .

In Attachment A , the upstream and the downstream of the Yuba River are represented by the BU-IDs of 41 and 42, respectively. Figure 1 shows the Yuba River (the blue lines) and its tributaries (the red lines). The Yuba River and its tributaries in the 2012 NHD were identified with approximately 30,000 segments that are hydraulically connected ( Figure 1 ). For the purpose of assigning designated beneficial uses under Task 3, segments that were identified in each main portion of the river were manually selected in the GIS and their designated beneficial uses assigned.

DATA GAPS Surface water bodies with designated beneficial uses from the three water quality control plans were identified in the 2012 NHD dataset. Water bodies that were not mapped or identified in the Phase 1 BUOS due to data gaps (see Table 3 in the Phase 1 BUOS Task 1 Technical Memorandum (TM)) were mostly resolved in the updated GIS as explained further below.

The following are the major unresolvable data gaps documented in the Phase 1 BUOS TM. As mentioned above and further described below, the majority of the data gaps identified in the Phase 1 BUOS were resolved under Task 3 effort. Discussed herein are the actions taken to resolve the issues, the remaining data gaps, and limitations in the 2012 NHD database. Water bodies are listed below with their corresponding water body identification, if available, or the BU_IDs (unique beneficial use identifications) that were assigned based on the water quality control plans.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 10 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

Figure 1. Yuba River and Tributaries (2012 NHD Dataset)

Valley-Wide Fragmented Shape Files in the 2009 NHD Resolvable Data Gaps

• In the 2009 NHD dataset, a few of the NHD flow lines shape files were fragmented (see Figure 1 of the Task 1 TM - Phase 1 Identification of Beneficial Use – A Geodatabase, Kennedy/Jenks, 2010). Assumptions were made on the connectivity of surface water features, but the process was laborious, near impossible. This data gap was resolved with the 2012 NHD dataset.

Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Resolvable Data Gaps

• Sutter Bypass (BU_ID = 31 in Attachment A ) and Yolo Bypass (BU_ID = 52 in Attachment A ) – These features were not locatable in the 2012 NHD dataset. To resolve this, the boundaries of the bypass levees were captured visually using the USGS digital raster graph (DRG) topographic maps as an approximate representation of the water bodies and created as water features in the GIS shape file. The beneficial uses from the water quality control plan were assigned to the boundaries of these water features in the GIS. Currently, mapping of Yolo Bypass is recognized as a data gap in the Region 5 beneficial use mapping. Based on discussions and coordination with the State Board regarding their beneficial use mapping effort, a polygon approach was taken by the State Board mapping to represent this feature. Our understanding is the State Board is considering to re-evaluate how to best approach this feature as part of their next phase of mapping effort. To avoid discrepancy between the datasets (i.e., CV-SALTS mapping for the Region 5 and the State Board

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 11 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

mapping), it is recommended that this data gap be addressed as part of the State Board mapping effort.

• Nashville Reservoir (Proposed) (BU_ID = 58 in Attachment A ) – Unable to locate in the 2012 NHD dataset. As reported in the water quality control plan, this is a proposed (future) feature that does not exist in the current NHD dataset; thus, this feature cannot be linked in the NHD dataset. This is not considered as an actual data gap and to resolve this, the proposed location of the reservoir was mapped manually in the GIS shape file to represent the approximate location (a solid line box was used as a representation of the approximate location).

• Wetland Water Supply Channels (BU_ID = 98 in Attachment A ) – Unable to locate in the 2012 NHD dataset. LWA Team has requested the shape files from CV-SALTS Technical Committee. The shape file that included the majority of the channels was received in February 2013. The dataset was updated to incorporate the Wetland Water Supply Channels into the final GIS data layers and the designated beneficial use was assigned to this feature.

GEODATABASE DESCRIPTION - UPDATED GIS DELIVERABLE As mentioned earlier, the Task 3 deliverables include this Report and the updated GIS data layers in a geodatabase format. The geodatabase in ESRI-format consists of two items:

1. The 2012 NHD with spatial network and added attributes related to this project.

2. The Beneficial Use database table that contains beneficial use and water quality objectives data. Attachment B depicts the surface water features with their designated beneficial uses that are linked to the 2012 NHD dataset, according to the water quality control plans ( Attachment A). In Attachment B , note that numbers in the figure refer to the number for each water body in Attachment A (which are as enumerated in the water quality control plans).

Table 2 below summarizes the number of spatial data as stream segments and water bodies that were linked to beneficial uses. Table 3 compares the number of stream segments and water bodies that were linked in the Phase 1 BUOS with the 2009 NHD and Task 3 with the 2012 NHD. Out of the 120 surface water features identified in the water quality control plans, a total of 117 surface water features were located in the 2012 NHD dataset and linked to the updated Beneficial Use database (see above Data Gaps for the three surface water bodies that could not be linked).

Table 2. Summary Count of Stream Segments with Beneficial Uses

Sacramento River and Tulare Lake Basin San Joaquin River Basins Number of Beneficial Uses 105 21 Task 3 Number of Beneficial Uses Linked (2012 NHD) 97 20

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 12 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

Table 3. Summary Count of Stream Segments and Water Bodies Linked

Phase 1 BUOS GIS Task 3

(2009 NHD) (2012 NHD) 5

Stream Segments Linked 11,720 18,184

Water Bodies (e.g. lakes) Linked 45 111,959

The Task 3 geodatabase includes the following GIS layers:

• Boundaries o CVSALTS_StudyArea – (Study Area boundary) o Delta – (Bay Delta region) o Region5 – (Central Valley RWQCB Region 5 boundary) • BU_StudyFeatures o BayDelta_BU_WaterQual – (Bay Delta Basin Plan Beneficial Use and Water Quality Objectives) o GWBasins_BU_WaterQual - (Groundwater Basins Beneficial Use and Water Quality Objectives) o ImpairedStreams_303d – (303 Impaired Streams) 6 o ImpairedWaterbody_303d – (303 Impaired Water Bodies) • BasinPlans_BU_WaterQual Table – (Basin Plans Beneficial Use and Water Quality Objective table) • Hydrography o HYDRO_NET – (NHD flow network) o NHDFlowline – (NHD surface water linear features) o NHDWaterbody – (NHD surface water body features) o NHDPoint – (NHD surface water point features) • WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) o WBD_HU2 trough WBD_HU16 – (NHD watershed boundary dataset hydrologic unit hierarchy) • Other 2012 NHD files (see Table 1 ) The NHD tables contain separate information for linear surface water bodies (streams) and polygon-bound surface water bodies (lakes). A spatial network is established within the NHD

5 The number of stream segments linked represents the main segments mapped with beneficial uses. The total number of segments mapped including the surface water features within the Other East Side Streams, West Side Streams, and the Valley Floor Waters is approximately 112,433.

6 The GIS layers for the impaired streams and water bodies are different GIS layers; thus listed separately here and shown in Attachment C as separate GIS shape files. The impaired streams are represented by lines and water bodies by polygons.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 13 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

tables which allow the user to perform network analyses such as upstream and downstream tracing. The LWA Team has added the following additional attribute fields to identified flow directions for each linear and polygon-bound feature: • BU_ID – This field contains the unique identifier of the beneficial use record in the Beneficial Use database table. • Assign_By – Values in this field can be either ‘basin plan’ or ‘tributary rule’. This indicates whether the BU_ID was assigned directly from the water quality control plan description for beneficial use, or assigned through the spatial network by applying the tributary rule. The Beneficial Use database table (named ‘Beneficial Use’) contains one record per beneficial use designation as described in the Water Quality Control Plans for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins and Tulare Lake Basin. Data fields include information related to beneficial use and water quality objectives, if any. The table structure in the geodatabase was designed to allow a GIS user to perform a database join 7 between the linear / polygon-bound NHD tables and the Beneficial Use database table. In ESRI’s ArcMap, the NHD tables and the Beneficial Use database table can be joined through the BU_ID field. In the end, this will allow the user to perform spatial queries on streams and lakes, and report beneficial uses and water quality objectives as output from those queries. Graphical details on the geodatabase and its map layer compositions in ArcMap are included in Attachment C .

7 The user is referred to the Microsoft Access Database Operations Manual and/or the ESRI ArcGIS Manual for database-table-join functionality.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 14 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

Future Consideration of Beneficial Use Mapping Consistent with the GIS Workplan, the Task 3 effort was devoted to assigning beneficial uses in accordance to the three water quality control plans to the 2012 NHD dataset for the basinwide data update of the main rivers (trunks). The hydrologic connection of the natural streams (a.k.a. tributaries) to the main rivers in the 2012 NHD dataset and the application of the tributary rule for the beneficial uses to the tributaries are not part of Task 3. At the completion of the Task 3 work effort, the geodatabase was updated with the 2012 NHD dataset and a total of approximately 17,105 main river segments (i.e., trunks) and 1,648 main water bodies such as lakes ( Tables 2 and 3) were linked with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, the Tulare Lake Basin, and the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary.

In the course of this mapping work and review of the 2012 NHD database, the LWA Team has developed procedures in ArcGIS for the continued mapping of the natural streams to the main rivers and the application of the tributary rule for the beneficial uses, should CV- SALTS choose to continue this effort.

This additional mapping effort, which would require an additional scope of work and budget, would connect the mapped natural streams and mini-streams (shown in Figure 1 as red line segments) that serve as drainage from source-waters to main streams (shown in Figure 1 as blue line trunk segments). The additional mapping would incrementally increase the number of spatial records (segments of streams) mapped to beneficial uses from 17,105 to about 850,000 and would eventually provide for complete coverage of the Central Valley surface water features. It should be noted that the NHD dataset includes both natural and non-natural features, as discussed earlier ( Table 1 ). In light of the discussions during the November 26 2012 workshop for the ICM and GIS projects, beneficial uses would be assigned to only natural streams. As further described below, in the NHD dataset non-natural features can be differentiated and excluded from the beneficial use mapping.

It is noted that the NHD dataset has a total of 1.3 million line segments in the State of California. The LWA Team examined the 2012 NHD database thoroughly to verify that the hydraulic connectivity exists between the main trunks and tributaries.

METHODOLOGY - TRIBUTARY RULE FOR BENEFICIAL USES If CV-SALTS conducts the additional mapping effort, the methodology that would be used for the linkages of beneficial uses to the tributaries is outlined below. Based on the discussions during the November 26 2012 workshop, the information below is included in this Report to identify the additional work that could be conducted by CV-SALTS.

The methodology for hydraulically connecting the tributaries involves the use of “nodes” to be manually placed at confluences where secondary tributaries converge to trunks ( Figure 1 ). At these nodes, the GIS can then trace the connected branches of tributaries to upstream water bodies – a backward tracing technique of flow from downstream to upstream. Additional nodes can be placed at convergences of secondary and even smaller streams to continue the upstream hydraulic tracing process until all the “mini-tributaries” (streams) that drains the source water(s) of a tributary system are hydraulically linked to river system that has designated beneficial uses. The process of placing the nodes is done manually for each of the main streams that have beneficial use designations from the water quality control plans. Typically, two nodes are placed: one node to define the flow direction and the other to

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 15 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

identify the main stream with the beneficial use designation, a shown in Figure 1 as an illustration for the Yuba River.

The additional beneficial use mapping for the tributaries can be conducted using alternative approaches. The LWA team developed two approaches described below, in light of the discussions and questions posed during the November 26 workshop. Each approach essentially follows the same methodology for identifying the tributaries that are hydraulically linked to the main river system, but differ in the way the beneficial uses are assigned to individual segments (automatic versus manual assignments). Each approach can be set up such that beneficial uses are applied to natural streams only. Since the NHD dataset identifies the non-natural streams, they can be excluded from the beneficial use designations. The exclusion of non-natural streams in each method is performed automatically after the tributaries are identified to ensure that the hydraulic connectivity in the NHD dataset is maintained.

1. The beneficial uses can be automatically applied to all of the tributaries. In this first approach, all tributaries would have the same beneficial uses as the main rivers after the exclusion of non-natural streams. In order to ensure that the beneficial uses are only applied to the “natural streams”, the geodatabase tables need to be reviewed and modified to exclude the non-natural streams. The exclusion of non-natural streams is performed automatically (as they are flagged in the NHD records) after the tributaries are identified. While the beneficial uses are applied automatically, they can be revised or removed manually in the attributed tables.

2. The beneficial use mapping can be also used to apply the beneficial use designations to the tributaries such that it does not result in an automatic application of the beneficial use designations and water quality objectives to the tributaries. In this second approach, beneficial uses would apply to selected tributaries (or segments) only. Similar to the first approach, the exclusion of non-natural streams is performed automatically after the tributaries are identified. This approach can be applied to identify the tributaries first and to develop attribute tables that can be used to assign beneficial uses to individual segments of selected tributaries. Once the beneficial use designations are applied to the segments of tributaries, they can be also revised or removed manually in the attribute tables. The level of effort would depend on the number of tributaries and beneficial use assignments, but this approach is more labor involved due to the manual data entry for selected segments of tributaries.

In the second approach, the continued beneficial use mapping to smaller tributaries at any milestone in the effort can be “flagged” in the database as “pending verification” or “verified” and tributaries with no beneficial use designations flagged as “null”. In the database, this will differentiate the beneficial uses that are assigned to the main streams mainly based on the water quality control plans (as identified by the “Basin Plan” qualifier) and other assignments that can be potentially completed as part of this tributary rule effort (as identified by the “Tributary Rule” qualifier).

The tributary rule methodology outlined below can be applied to both approaches listed above - with the exception of Step 3 - to the 2012 NHD dataset to achieve a complete coverage of the Central Valley RWQCB Region 5 area for about 850,000 stream segments. As noted above, non-natural segments can be excluded, which will lower the total number of records with beneficial use designations. The tributary rule can be applied systematically in a semi-manual process with the workflow described below and illustrated in Figure 1 .

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 16 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

These workflow steps are common to both approaches described above with the exceptions of steps 3 and 6, as noted below.

1. The process starts with selecting a named water body (e.g. the Yuba River in Figure 1) with assigned BU_ID (assigned as part of this Task 3). The main water body is isolated from other connecting named water bodies in preparation to apply the tributary rule to its smaller tributaries. 2. In ArcMap, the network analysis extension is used to set a ‘sink’ point, which is the point where the water drains to (end of the line, downstream of the selected segment). Two nodes are placed manually: one node for the flow direction and the other for identifying the main river. 3. This step is for the second approach only . When necessary, one or more ‘barrier’ points are positioned upstream to avoid selecting tributaries that do not apply to the selected named water body. This step is only applied if and when local beneficial use information is available to discern upstream tributaries that are documented as inappropriate to be assigned the beneficial uses in the regional basin plans. These are the other mapped water bodies upstream of the selected segment. This is an important step mainly applicable to the second approach above to avoid an automatic assignment of a BU_ID to all tributaries that are hydraulically connected to and upstream of the main water body with that BU_ID . This step is manually intensive and may require reviews of beneficial use designations if available for the local watershed or tributary system before they are assigned to selected tributaries. 4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for the next upstream tributary network which highlight and select all tributaries that drain into the previously assigned segments ( Figure 1 ). 5. The BU_ID can be applied to selected segments of the selected tributaries and also designated these tributaries with the qualifiers named as “Tributary Rule” (as opposed to the “Basin Plan” qualifier for the selected segment of the main river based on the water quality control plans, e.g. the Yuba River). The qualifier “Basin Plan” identifies segments where the beneficial use is assigned for the main rivers from the water quality control plans. The qualifier “Tributary Rule” identifies segments where the tributary rule is applied to assign beneficial uses to tributaries. By using these two qualifiers, the source of the beneficial use designation for each segment is clearly distinguished based on the methodology used. It should be noted that under Task 3 the beneficial use designations to the main rivers were completed (i.e., “Basin Plan” qualifier) and the “Tributary Rule” qualifier will be added in the future if the additional work described in this section is conducted. 6. Finally, the database table is linked with beneficial uses and water quality objectives from the water quality control plans to the main streams and their “applicable” tributaries. This step is mainly applicable to the first approach. The database table is developed with a listing of surface water bodies and their beneficial uses and water quality objectives based on the three water quality control plans, as described above. The above first five steps are repeated for each of the water bodies that are documented in the water quality control plans. The final Step 6 includes applying the entire GIS data to link the surface water bodies in the GIS with their beneficial uses and water quality objectives.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 17 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

ESTIMATED COST COMPARISON This section is intended to provide approximate cost estimates and cost comparison for the two approaches described above (Table 4). It should be noted that this is considered as an initial, ballpark cost estimate. The exact level of effort and associated cost will depend on a detailed future scope of work. The LWA Team anticipates that the cost estimate would be further discussed with CV-SALTS prior to the development of a detailed scope of work to account for potential specific data needs and priority areas of CV-SALTS. Table 4. Estimated Cost Comparison

First Approach Second Approach

Number of Main River Systems Considered 120 120

Estimated Unit Effort per Main River System (hour) 1 – 2 (1.5 hours average) 2 – 8 (6 hours average) Estimated Total Effort (hours) 170 - 200 680 - 800 Approximate Cost Estimate ($) $25K – $30K $100K – $120K

The effort for the first approach is estimated to range from 170 – 200 hours of GIS work to analyze and assign beneficial uses to natural streams connected to 120 main river systems. On an average, it is anticipated that the effort could range 1 – 2 hours per river system. It is noted that each system has on average 7,000 natural tributary segments subjected to be assigned with beneficial uses. The overall cost estimate for the 120 main river systems is approximately $25K – $30K. The per main river system unit cost to include Step 3 exclusively for the second approach could potentially require four (4) times the effort per main river system, or 6 hours per river system on an average basis. The overall estimated cost could range approximately $100K – $120K. It is conceivable that between 7,000 and 30,000 tributary segments are within each river system, which would account for about 850,000 segments. Of the 850,000 segments there will be exclusions of non-natural waterways that will have to be automatically filtered in the GIS. The assumption in the second approach is that information on the local beneficial uses and as well as “no” beneficial uses assigned to certain waterways are documented and can be provided by the Central Valley RWQCB. The estimated cost range of $100K – $120K to assign beneficial uses to 120 main river systems does not include the effort to research the information. Available information must also be easy to use in differentiating local beneficial uses from those that can be readily mapped as natural streams in the NHD in accordance with the regional water quality control plans. The GIS work alone in this second approach is estimated to potentially take 720 hours of GIS work to analyze the “local information” and assign available beneficial uses to 120 main river systems at 6 hours per river system. The LWA Team anticipates that this exercise may not be conducted for all tributaries in the Central Valley and that only selected priority areas will be the focus with the estimated unit costs discussed above applied to partial or entire main river systems. The LWA Team can further discuss priority areas of focus with CV-SALTS.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 18 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

INCREMENTAL BENEFITS The additional mapping effort would provide geodatabase for future CV-SALTS work with complete coverage of surface water bodies in the Central Valley. More specifically:

• The advantage of a geodatabase is that it serves as a data repository. More importantly, it is a knowledge warehouse that can support continued data analyses with the results documented directly in the database; such as, the assignment of designated beneficial uses to small stream segments (tributaries). With GIS, the assignment of beneficial uses to different tributaries can be continually updated according to the water quality control plan amendments.

The continued mapping of the beneficial use and water quality objectives, started with the Phase 1 BUOS work, will always be a work in progress. The Task 3 work filled in nearly all of the data gaps identified in the Phase I BUOS work and significantly increased the number of river segments assigned with beneficial uses from those assigned in the Phase 1 BUOS. • It will allow the user-groups to rely on a single information system that can be accessed in the internet by point-and-click at all tributaries to retrieve their beneficial uses and water quality objectives. Once the methodology is built into GIS, the user will not have to do manual tracing in the GIS of hydraulic connectivity from upstream source waters to downstream main trunks where the beneficial uses are assigned. With the complete coverage and access of the Central Valley surface water features, beneficial uses can be revised or new beneficial uses can be assigned, as changes occur in the water quality control plans. • The database will include artificial connectors that are built into the 2012 NHD dataset and which serve to connect pairs of disconnected stream segments and hence provide continuous hydraulic connectivity. • The GIS will be able to query for distances between source and receptor water to evaluate conditions not only at the main streams but also tributaries. The richness of spatial data in the 2012 NHD database translate to about 850,000 stream segments and they could more readily connect the numerous discharge points to receptors in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 19 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

References California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1998. Fourth Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins with a publication date of 15 September 1998.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. Bulletin 118 Update 2003 California’s Groundwater.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2011. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins with a publication date of October 2011.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2010. Technical Memorandum Task 2 – Phase 1 Basin Plans Data Compilation.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition with a publication date of January 2004.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary with a publication date of 13 December 2006.

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services 20 Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

Attachment A – Surface Water Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives – Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, and Tulare Lake Basin

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank TABLE II-1 SURFACE WATER BENEFICIAL USES SACRAMENTO RIVER / SAN JOAQUIN RIVER / TULARE LAKE BASINS

AGRI- FRESHWATER CULTURE INDUSTRY RECREATION HABITAT (2) MIGRATION SPAWNING

MUN AGR PROC IND POW REC-1 REC-2 WARM COLD MIGR SPWN WILD NAV SURFACE WATER BODIES (1) HYDRO UNIT NUMBER HYDRO UNIT AND MUNICIPAL DOMESTIC SUPPLY IRRIGATION STOCK WATERING PROCESS SERVICE SUPPLY POWER CONTACT (1) CANOEING AND RAFTING OTHER NONCONTACT WARM COLD WARM (3) (4) COLD WARM (3) (4) COLD WILDLIFE HABITAT NAVIGATION 1 McCLOUD RIVER 505. E E E P E E E E 2 GOOSE LAKE 527.20 EE E EEE E PIT RIVER 3 NORTH FORK, SOUTH FORK, PIT RIVER 526.00 E E E E P E E E EEE 4 CONFLUENCE OF FORKS TO HAT CREEK 526.35 E E E EEEEEE E E 5 FALL RIVER 526.41 E E E EEEEEE E 6 HAT CREEK 526.30 E EE EEE EE 7 BAUM LAKE 526.34 EE E E PE 8 MOUTH OF HAT CREEK TO SHASTA LAKE 526. E E E EEEEPE EEE SACRAMENTO RIVER 9 SOURCE TO BOX CANYON RESERVOIR 525.22 EE E E E E 10 LAKE SISKIYOU 525.22 E EEE PE 11 BOX CANYON DAM TO SHASTA LAKE 525.2 EE EEE E EE 12 SHASTA LAKE 506.10 E E EE EEE EEE 13 SHASTA DAM TO COLUSA BASIN DRAIN EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE 14 WHISKEY TOWN RESERVOIR 524.61 E E E EE EEE E E 15 CLEAR CREEK BELOW WHISKEYTOWN RESERVOIR 524.62 E E E EEEEE EEEE 16 COW CREEK 507.3 P E E EEPE E EEEE 17 BATTLE CREEK 507.12 EE EEEEEE EEEE 18 COTTONWOOD CREEK 524.3 E E E P P P E E E E E EEEE 19 ANTELOPE CREEK 509.63 E E E E EEE EEEE 20 MILL CREEK 509.42 E E E E EEE EEEE 21 THOMES CREEK 523.10 EE PE EEE EEEE 22 DEER CREEK 509.20 E E E EEEEE EEEE 23 BIG CHICO CREEK 509.14 EE EEEEE EEEE 24 STONY CREEK 522.00 EE EEEEP EEEE 25 EAST PARK RESERVOIR 522.33 E EEP E E 26 BLACK BUTTE RESERVOIR 522.12 EE E EE E E BUTTE CREEK 27 SOURCES TO CHICO 521.30 E E E EE EE EEEE 28 BELOW CHICO, INCLUDING BUTTE SLOUGH 520.40 EE EE EE EE E 29 COLUSA BASIN DRAIN 520.21 EE EE EPE E E

LEGEND NOTE: E = EXISTING BENEFICIAL USES Surface waters with the beneficial uses of Groundwater Recharge (GWR), Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH), and P = POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species (RARE) have not been identified in this plan. Surface waters of the L = EXISTING LIMITED BENEFICIAL USE Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins falling within these beneficial use categories will be identified in the future as part of the continuous planning process to be conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board.

BENEFICIAL USES II-5.00 1 September 1998 TABLE II-1 (cont'd) SURFACE WATER BODIES BENEFICIAL USES

AGRI- FRESHWATER CULTURE INDUSTRY RECREATION HABITAT (2) MIGRATION SPAWNING

MUN AGR PROC IND POW REC-1 REC-2 WARM COLD MIGR SPWN WILD NAV SURFACE WATER BODIES (1) HYDRO UNIT NUMBER MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC SUPPLY IRRIGATION STOCK WATERING PROCESS SERVICE SUPPLY POWER CONTACT CANOEING (1) AND RAFTING OTHER NONCONTACT WARM COLD WARM (3) COLD (4) WARM (3) COLD (4) WILDLIFE HABITAT NAVIGATION 30 COLUSA BASIN DRAIN TO EYE ["I"] STREET BRIDGE 520.00 E E E E E E E EEEE E E 31 SUTTER BYPASS 520.3 E E E E E E FEATHER RIVER 32 LAKE ALMANOR 518.41 E E E E E E 33 NORTH FORK, FEATHER RIVER 518.4 E E E E E E E E MIDDLE FORK, FEATHER RIVER 518.3 34 SOURCE TO LITTLE LAST CHANCE CREEK 518.35 E E E E E E E E E 35 FRENCHMAN RESERVOIR 518.36 E E P E E E 36 LITTLE LAST CHANCE CREEK TO LAKE OROVILLE 518.3 E E E E E E E E 37 LAKE DAVIS 518.34 E E P E E E 38 LAKES BASIN LAKES 518.5 E E E E E 39 LAKE OROVILLE 518.12 E E E E E E E E E E 40 FISH BARRIER DAM TO SACRAMENTO RIVER 515. E E E E E E E EEEE E YUBA RIVER 41 SOURCES TO ENGLEBRIGHT RESERVOIR 517. E E E E E E E E E E 42 ENGLEBRIGHT DAM TO FEATHER RIVER 515.3 E E E E E E E E EEEE E 43 BEAR RIVER 515.1 E E E E E E E E E PPPP E AMERICAN RIVER 44 NORTH FORK, SOURCE TO FOLSOM LAKE 514.5 E E E E E P E E E 45 MIDDLE FORK, SOURCE TO FOLSOM LAKE 514.4 E E E E E E E P E E E 46 DESOLATION VALLEY LAKES 514.4 E E E E E SOUTH FORK 514.3 48 SOURCE TO PLACERVILLE 514.3 E E E E E P E E E 49 PLACERVILLE TO FOLSOM LAKE 514.32 E E E E E E E E E 50 FOLSOM LAKE 514.23 E E P E E E E E E E 51 FOLSOM DAM TO SACRAMENTO RIVER 519.21 E E E E E E E E E EEEE E 52 YOLO BYPASS (8) 510. E E E E E P EEE E CACHE CREEK 53 CLEAR LAKE (a) 513.52 EEE E E E P E E 54 CLEAR LAKE TO YOLO BYPASS (d) 511/513 E EEEE EE E E P EEE

(1) Shown for streams and rivers only with the implication that (6) The indicated beneficial uses are to be protected for all waters except in (9) Per State Water Board Resolution No. 90-28, Marsh Creek and certain flows are required for this beneficial use. specific cases where evidence indicates the appropriateness of additional Marsh Creek Reservoir in Contra Costa County are assigned the (2) Resident does not include anadromous. Any Segments with both or alternative beneficial use designations. following beneficial uses: REC1 and REC2 (potential uses), COLD and WARM beneficial use designations will be considered COLD (7) Sport fishing is the only recreation activity permitted. WARM, WILD and RARE. COMM is a designated beneficial use water bodies for the application of water quality objectives. (8) Beneficial uses vary throughout the Delta and will be evaluated on a for Marsh Creek and its tributaries listed in Appendix 43 within (3) Striped bass, sturgeon, and shad. case-by-case basis. COMM is a designated beneficial use for the Sacramento the legal Delta boundary. (4) Salmon and steelhead San Joaquin Delta and Yolo Bypass waterways listed in Appendix 43 and not any (5) As a primary beneficial use. tributaries to the listed waterways or portions of the listed waterways outside of the A/ Hidden Reservoir = Hensley Lake legal Delta boundary unless specifically designated. B/ Buchanan Reservoir = Eastman Lake (a) The following beneficial uses EXIST in addition to those noted in Table II-1

Mud Slough (north): COMM and SHELL Salt Slough: COMM, BIOL, and SHELL (d) In addition to the beneficial uses noted in Table II-1, COMM exists for Cache Creek from Clear Wetland Water Supply Channels: BIOL Lake to Yolo Bypass and in the following tributaries only: North Fork Cache Creek and Bear Creek. Clear Lake: COMM

BENEFICIAL USES II-6.00 22 April 2010 TABLE II-1 (cont'd) SURFACE WATER BODIES BENEFICIAL USES

AGRI- FRESHWATER CULTURE INDUSTRY RECREATION HABITAT (2) MIGRATION SPAWNING

OTHER LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN HYDRO UNIT NOS. 531, 532, EEEE EE E E E EE 533, 543, 544 (6) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 67 SOURCES TO MILLERTON LAKE 540. EEE EEEEE E E 68 MILLERTON LAKE 540.12 PEE EEEP E 69 FRIANT DAM TO MENDOTA POOL 545. EEEE E E E E E EEEP E 70 MENDOTA DAM TO SACK DAM 545.1 PEEE E E E E EEEP E 71 SACK DAM TO MOUTH OF MERCED RIVER 535.7 PEEE E E E E EEEP E FRESNO RIVER 72 SOURCE TO HIDDEN RESERVOIR A/ 539.31 EEE EEEE E 73 HIDDEN RESERVOIR A/ 539.32 EE EEE E 74 HIDDEN RESERVOIR TO SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 545. PEE EPEE E CHOWCHILLA RIVER 75 SOURCE TO BUCHANAN RESERVOIR B/ 539.11 EEEE E 76 BUCHANAN RESERVOIR B/ 539.12 EEE EEE E 77 BUCHANAN DAM TO SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 535/545 PE E EPEE E

BENEFICIAL USES II-7.00 22 April 2010 TABLE II-1 (cont'd) SURFACE WATER BODIES BENEFICIAL USES

AGRI- FRESHWATER CULTURE INDUSTRY RECREATION HABITAT (2) MIGRATION SPAWNING

MUN AGR PROC IND POW REC-1 REC-2 WARM COLD MIGR SPWN WILD NAV SURFACE WATER BODIES (1) HYDRO UNIT NUMBER MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC SUPPLY IRRIGATION STOCK WATERING PROCESS SERVICE SUPPLY POWER CONTACT CANOEING (1) AND RAFTING OTHER NONCONTACT WARM COLD WARM (3) COLD (4) WARM (3) COLD (4) WILDLIFE HABITAT NAVIGATION MERCED RIVER 78 SOURCE TO McCLURE LAKE 537. PE EEEEE E E 79 McCLURE LAKE 537.22 PE EE E E E E 80 McSWAIN RESERVOIR 537.1 PE EE E E E E 81 McSWAIN RESERVOIR TO SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 535. E E E E EE E E E E EEEE E 82 YOSEMITE LAKE 535.9 EEEE E 83 MOUTH OF MERCED RIVER TO VERNALIS 535/541 P E E E E E E E EEE E TUOLUMNE RIVER 84 SOURCE TO [NEW] DON PEDRO RESERVOIR 536. EEE EEEEE E E 85 NEW DON PEDRO RESERVOIR 536.32 PEEEEEE 86 NEW DON PEDRO DAM TO SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 535. PEE EEEE E EEEE STANISLAUS RIVER 87 SOURCE TO NEW MELONES RESERVOIR (PROPOSED) 534. EEE EEEEE E E 88 NEW MELONES RESERVOIR 534.21 EEE EE E E E 89 TULLOCH RESERVOIR 534.22 PEE EE E E E 90 GOODWIN DAM TO SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 535. P EEEEEEE E E E EEEE 91 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR 542.32 EEE EEE E E E 92 O'NEILL RESERVOIR 541.2 EEE EEE OTHER LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN SAN JOAQUIN R. BASIN, 93 E EE EEEEE (EXCLUDING HYDRO UNIT NOS. 531-533, 543, 544) (6) 94 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 541. E EEEEEE E E 95 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL 541/543 EEE EEE E GRASSLAND WATERSHED [a] 541.2 96 MUD SLOUGH (NORTH) L (b) E E EE E E 97 SALT SLOUGH EE EEE EE 98 WETLAND WATER SUPPLY CHANNELS (10) L (b) E L (c) E9 99 SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN DELTA (8, 9) 544. E EEEE E E E E EEE EE

(1) Shown for streams and rivers only with the implication that (6) The indicated beneficial uses are to be protected for all waters except in (9) Per State Water Board Resolution No. 90-28, Marsh Creek and certain flows are required for this beneficial use. specific cases where evidence indicates the appropriateness of additional Marsh Creek Reservoir in Contra Costa County are assigned the (2) Resident does not include anadromous. Any Segments with both or alternative beneficial use designations. following beneficial uses: REC1 and REC2 (potential uses), COLD and WARM beneficial use designations will be considered COLD (7) Sport fishing is the only recreation activity permitted. WARM, WILD and RARE. COMM is a designated beneficial use water bodies for the application of water quality objectives. (8) Beneficial uses vary throughout the Delta and will be evaluated on a for Marsh Creek and its tributaries listed in Appendix 43 within (3) Striped bass, sturgeon, and shad. case-by-case basis. COMM is a designated beneficial use for the Sacramento the legal Delta boundary. (4) Salmon and steelhead San Joaquin Delta and Yolo Bypass waterways listed in Appendix 43 and not any (10) Wetland water supply channels for which beneficial uses are (5) As a primary beneficial use. tributaries to the listed waterways or portions of the listed waterways outside of the designated are defined in Appendix 40 legal Delta boundary unless specifically designated.

(a) The following beneficial uses EXIST in addition to those noted in Table II-1 (b) Elevated natural salt and boron concentrations may limit this use to irrigation of salt and boron tolerant Mud Slough (north): COMM and SHELL crops. Intermittent low flow conditions may also limit this use. Salt Slough: COMM, BIOL, and SHELL Wetland Water Supply Channels: BIOL (c) Wetland channels can sustain aquatic life, but due to fluctuating flow regimes and habitat limitations, Clear Lake: COMM may not be suitable for nesting and/or propagation.

BENEFICIAL USES II-8.00 22 April 2010 TABLE II-1 TULARE LAKE BASIN SURFACE WATER BENEFICIAL USES

Stream / BU_ID MUN AGR IND PRO POW REC-1 REC-2 WARM COLD WILD RARE SPWN GWR FRSH

552, 551 Kings River North Fork, Upper / BU_ID=200 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Main Fork, Above Kirch Flat / BU_ID=201 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Kirch Flat to Pine Flat Dam ¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ (Pine Flat Reservoir) / BU_ID=202 Pine Flat Dam to Friant-Kern / BU_ID=203 ¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ Friant Kern to Peoples Weir / BU_ID=204 ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥ ¥ Peoples Weir to Stinson Weir on North Fork and to ¥¥¥¥¥¥ Empire Weir No. 2 on South Fork / BU_ID=205

553, 558 Kaweah River Above Lake Kaweah / BU_ID=206 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Lake Kaweah / BU_ID=207 ¥¥¥¥ ¥ ¥ Below Lake Kaweah / BU_ID=208 ¥¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥ ¥

555, 558 Tule River Above Lake Success / BU_ID=209 ¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Lake Success / BU_ID=210 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Below Lake Success / BU_ID=211 ¥¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥ ¥

554, 557 Kern River Above Lake Isabella / BU_ID=212 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Lake Isabella / BU_ID=213 ¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ Lake Isabella to KR-1 BU_ID=214 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Below KR-1 BU_ID=215 ¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥

¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥ 555, 558 Poso Creek BU_ID=216

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 552 Mill Creek, Source to Kings River BU_ID=217

¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ 552, 553, 554, 555 Other East Side Streams BU_ID=218 ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ 556, 559 West Side Streams BU_ID=219 ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ 551, 557, 558 Valley Floor Waters BU_ID=220 ‡ KR-1: Southern California Edison Kern River Powerhouse No. 1.

Page II-4 17 August 1995 Water Quality Objectives in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins

------tons 1300000 Sac-SJ River Basin 2 Goose Lake Goose Lake ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 3 Pit River North Fork, South Fork, Pit River ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 4 Pit River Confluence of forks to Hat Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 5 Pit River Fall River ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 6 Pit River Hat Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 7 Pit River Baum Lake ------Sac-SJ River Basin 8 Pit River Mouth of Hat Creek to Shasta Lake ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 9 Sacramento River Source to Box Canyon Reservoir ------Sac-SJ River Basin 10 Sacramento River Lake Siskiyou ------Sac-SJ River Basin 11 Sacramento River Box Canyon Dam to Shasta Lake ------Sac-SJ River Basin 12 Sacramento River Shasta Lake ------900 500 250 250 45

------900 500 250 250 45 235 (90 percentile) 230 (50 percentile); ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 13 Sacramento River Shasta Dam to Colusa Basin Drain ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 14 Sacramento River Whiskey Town Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 15 Sacramento River Clear Creek Below Whiskey Town ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 16 Sacramento River Cow Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 17 Sacramento River Battle Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 18 Sacramento River Cottonwood Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 19 Sacramento River Antelope Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 20 Sacramento River Mill Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 21 Sacramento River Thomes Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 22 Sacramento River Deer Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 23 Sacramento River Big Chico Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 24 Sacramento River Stony Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 25 Sacramento River East Park Reservoir ------Sac-SJ River Basin 26 Sacramento River Black Butte Reservoir ------Sac-SJ River Basin 27 Sacramento River Butte Creek, Sources to Chico ------900 500 250 250 45 Butte Creek, Below Chico, including ------Sac-SJ River Basin 28 Sacramento River Butte Slough Sac-SJ River Basin 29 Sacramento River Colusa Basin Drain ------

------900 500 250 250 45 Colusa Basin Drain to Eye ("I") Street 340 (90 percentile) 240 (50 percentile); ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 30 Sacramento River Bridge ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 31 Sacramento River Sutter Bypass ------Sac-SJ River Basin 32 Sacramento River Lake Almanor ------900 500 250 250 45 Water Quality Objectives in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins

------150 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 33 Sacramento River North Fork, Feather River percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 34 Sacramento River Source to Little Last Chance Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 35 Sacramento River Frenchman Reservoir ------

Little Last Chance Creek to Lake ------900 500 250 250 45 150 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 36 Sacramento River Oroville percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 37 Sacramento River Lake Davis ------Sac-SJ River Basin 38 Sacramento River Lakes Basin Lakes ------Sac-SJ River Basin 39 Sacramento River Lake Oroville ------900 500 250 250 45

Fish Barrier Dam to Sacramento ------900 500 250 250 45 150 (90 ≤

Sac-SJ River Basin 40 Sacramento River River percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 41 Sacramento River Sources to Englebright Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 42 Sacramento River Englebright Dam to Feather River ------Sac-SJ River Basin 43 Sacramento River Bear River ------900 500 250 250 45

North Fork, Source to Folsom Lake ------900 500 250 250 45 125 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 44 Sacramento River (American River) percentile)

Middle Fork, Source to Folsom Lake ------900 500 250 250 45 125 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 45 Sacramento River (American River) percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 46 Sacramento River Desolation Valley Lakes ------

Source to Placerville (South Fork ------900 500 250 250 45 125 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 48 Sacramento River American River) percentile)

Placerville to Folsom Lake (South ------900 500 250 250 45 125 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 49 Sacramento River Fork American River) percentile)

------900 500 250 250 45 100 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 50 Sacramento River Folsom Lake percentile)

------900 500 250 250 45 125 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 51 Sacramento River Folsom Dam to Sacramento River percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 52 Sacramento River Yolo Bypass ------Sac-SJ River Basin 53 Sacramento River Clear Lake (Cache Creek) ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 54 Sacramento River Clear Lake to Yolo Bypass (Cache ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 55 Sacramento River Lake Berryessa (Putah Creek) ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 56 Sacramento River Lake Berryessa to Yolo Bypass ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 57 Cosumnes River Sources to Nashville Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 58 Cosumnes River Nashville Reservoir (proposed) ------Water Quality Objectives in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins

Specific EC TDS Cl SO4 Nitrate TDS Na Cl SO4 Nitrate Boron Conductivity Basin_Plan BU_ID Waterbody Description (µmhos/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µS/cm) cm) SMCL SMCL SMCL MCL SMCL Sac-SJ River Basin 59 Cosumnes River Source to Delta ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 60 Mokelumne River Sources to Pardee Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 61 Mokelumne River Pardee Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 62 Mokelumne River Camanche Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 63 Mokelumne River Camanche Reservoir to Delta ------Sac-SJ River Basin 64 Calaveras River Source to New Hogan Reservoir ------Sac-SJ River Basin 65 Calaveras River New Hogan Reservoir ------Sac-SJ River Basin 66 Calaveras River New Hogan Reservoir to Delta ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 67 San Joaquin River Sources to Millerton Lake ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 68 San Joaquin River Millerton Lake ------

------900 500 250 250 45 150 (90 ≤ Sac-SJ River Basin 69 San Joaquin River Friant Dam to Mendota pool percentile) Sac-SJ River Basin 70 San Joaquin River Mendota Dam to Sack Dam ------

------Sept.) 5.8; 2.0 (monthly

Sac-SJ River Basin 71 San Joaquin River Sack Dam to Mouth of Merced River mean, 15 March-15 Sac-SJ River Basin 72 San Joaquin River Source to Hidden Reservoir A/ ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 73 San Joaquin River Hidden Reservoir A/ (Fresno River) ------900 500 250 250 45 Hidden Reservoir to San Joaquin ------Sac-SJ River Basin 74 San Joaquin River River (Fresno River) Source to Buchanan Reservoir B/ ------Sac-SJ River Basin 75 San Joaquin River (Chowchilla River) Sac-SJ River Basin 76 San Joaquin River Buchanan Reservoir B/ (Chowchilla ------900 500 250 250 45 Buchanan Dam to San Joaquin River ------Sac-SJ River Basin 77 San Joaquin River (Chowchilla River) Sac-SJ River Basin 78 San Joaquin River Source to McClure Lake (Merced ------Sac-SJ River Basin 79 San Joaquin River McClure Lake (Merced River) ------Sac-SJ River Basin 80 San Joaquin River McSwain Reservoir (Merced River) ------McSwain Reservoir to San Joaquin ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 81 San Joaquin River River (Merced River) Sac-SJ River Basin 82 San Joaquin River Yosemite Lake (Merced River) ------

------year) (1 (1 Sept. - 31 March) 700 (1 April- 31 August); 1000 2.0 (15 March-15(15 2.0monthly 0.8 Sept.); 14 March); 1.3 monthly1.3 14 March); mean (critical 14 March); 1.0 monthly1.0 14 March); mean Sept- (16 Sac-SJ River Basin 83 San Joaquin River Mouth of Merced River to Vernalis meanMarch-15(15Sept- (16 2.6 Sept.); Source to (New) Don Pedro ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 84 San Joaquin River Reservoir (Tuolumne River) Sac-SJ River Basin 85 San Joaquin River New Don Pedro Reservoir ------Water Quality Objectives in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins

Specific EC TDS Cl SO4 Nitrate TDS Na Cl SO4 Nitrate Boron Conductivity Basin_Plan BU_ID Waterbody Description (µmhos/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µS/cm) cm) SMCL SMCL SMCL MCL SMCL New Don Pedro Dam to San Joaquin ------Sac-SJ River Basin 86 San Joaquin River River (Tuolumne River) Sources to new Melones Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 87 San Joaquin River (proposed) (Stanislaus River) Sac-SJ River Basin 88 San Joaquin River New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 89 San Joaquin River Tulloch Reservoir (Stanislaus River) ------Goodwin Dam to San Joaquin River ------Sac-SJ River Basin 90 San Joaquin River (Stanislaus River) Sac-SJ River Basin 91 San Luis Reservoir San Luis Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 92 O'Neill Reservoir O'Neill Reservoir ------900 500 250 250 45 Other lakes and reservoirs in San Joaquin R. Basin (Excluding Hydro ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 93 San Joaquin River Unit Nos. 531-533, 543, 544) Sac-SJ River Basin 94 California Aqueduct California Aqueduct ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 95 Delta-Mendota Canal Delta-Mendota Canal ------900 500 250 250 45

------15 Sept.) Sac-SJ River Basin 96 Grassland Watershed Mud Slough (north) mean, 15 March- 5.8; 2.0 (monthly

------15 Sept.) mean, 15 March- Sac-SJ River Basin 97 Grassland Watershed Salt Slough 5.8; 2.0 (monthly Sac-SJ River Basin 98 Grassland Watershed Wetland Water Supply Channels ------Sac-SJ River Basin 99 Sacramento San Joaquin Delta ------900 500 250 250 45 Sac-SJ River Basin 100 Marsh Creek ------Sac-SJ River Basin 101 Marsh Creek Reservoir - 100 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45 Other lakes and reservoirs in ------Sac-SJ River Basin 102 Sacramento River Sacramento R. Basin 5A Other lakes and reservoirs in Hydro ------Sac-SJ River Basin 103 Sacramento River Unit Nos. 531, 532, 533, 543, 544

------yr. average) yr.

Tulare Basin 200 Kings River North Fork, Upper 100 (50 10for Tulare Basin 201 Kings River Main Fork, Above Kirch Flat - 100 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45 Tulare Basin 202 Kings River Kirch Flat to Pine Flat Dam - 200 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45

------period)

Tulare Basin 203 Kings River Pine Flat Dam to Friant-Kern 300 (irrigation Tulare Basin 204 Kings River Friant Kern to Peoples Weir - 175 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45 Water Quality Objectives in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins

Peoples Weir to Stinson Weir on ------North Fork and to Empire Weir No. 2 yr. average) yr.

Tulare Basin 205 Kings River on South Fork 175 (100 10for

------900 500 250 250 45 Kaweah or dry limits same as Lake Tulare Basin 206 Kaweah River Above Lake Kaweah Tulare Basin 207 Kaweah River Lake Kaweah - 450 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45

------average) Tulare Basin 208 Kaweah River Below Lake Kaweah 450 (250 10for yr.

------900 500 250 250 45 or or dry

Tulare Basin 209 Tule River Above Lake Success limits same as Lake Success Tulare Basin 210 Tule River Lake Success - 200 - - - - - 900 500 250 250 45 Tulare Basin 211 Tule River Below Lake Success -300------Tulare Basin 212 Kern River Above Lake Isabella -300------

------900 500 250 250 45 average)

Tulare Basin 213 Kern River Lake Isabella 300 (175 10for yr.

Tulare Basin 214 Kern River Lake Isabella to KR-1 - − ------Tulare Basin 215 Kern River Below KR-1 ------900 500 250 250 45 Tulare Basin 216 Poso Creek Poso Creek ------900 500 250 250 45 Tulare Basin 217 Mill Creek, Source to Kings River Mill Creek, Source to Kings River ------Tulare Basin 218 Other East Side Streams Other East Side Streams ------Tulare Basin 219 West Side Streams West Side Streams ------Tulare Basin 220 Valley Floor Waters Valley Floor Waters ------

Attachment B – Representation of Main Streams with Assigned Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank ")2

«¬3 «¬9 ")10

«¬4 «¬1 «¬5 «¬11

«¬8 ")7

")12

«¬6

")14

15 «¬ «¬16

«¬17 «¬18

«¬19 ")32 «¬20 «¬22

«¬33 «¬27 ")37 ")35 «¬21 «¬23 «¬36 ")26 «¬13 «¬24 «¬34 ")38

")39

«¬28 «¬41 ")25

«¬40 «¬42 !(104 «¬44 ")53 !(105 ¬29 « «¬31 45 «¬43 «¬

«¬54 ")102 ")46 «¬49 «¬48 «¬30 ")50

57 ")55 «¬52 «¬ «¬51 ")58 «¬56 «¬59 ")102

«¬60 103 ") ")61 ")62 «¬63 «¬64 ")65 99 «¬ «¬87 «¬66 ")88 ¬«100 103 101 ") ")89 ") «¬84

«¬90 ")85

«¬78 «¬86 ")79

")80 «¬95 «¬83 81 «¬ ")82

93 ") «¬71 72 «¬75 «¬ 96 «¬ ")76

")93 «¬67 «¬97 «¬77 ")73 92 ")91 ") ¬«200 ")93 ")68 «¬74 «¬70 ¬«218 ")202 ¬«202 ¬«201 «¬69 ¬«203 ")93 ¬«217

¬«204 «¬94 ¬«220

¬«219 ¬«206 ¬«218 ¬«205 ")207 ¬«208

¬«219 ")210 ¬«211 209 ¬« ¬«212

¬«220 d x m .

1 218 0 ¬« _ e t a l 213

P ") \ e l 216 b ¬« a r

e 214 v ¬« i l e D 3 k s a T _ 2

1 220 215 1 ¬« ¬« 1 2 1 0 2 \ s t n e v E \ 2

S ¬«219 T L A S V C \ s t 0 40 c e j ³ o r P \ a t 219 a ¬« Miles D _ \ : C

: h t a P Source: National Hydrography Dataset 2012, Sacremento and San Joaquin Basin Plan, Tulare Lake Basin Plan Kennedy/Jenks Consultants CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Legend San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority Representation of Main Streams with Assigned Beneficial Use Surface Water Beneficial Uses Surface Water Bodies Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives K/J 1264009*00 Beneficial Uses 218; 219; 220 Central Valley Region Boundary 04/11/2013 Note: Numbers «¬ 2 2 0 in the figure refer to the BU_ID assigned to each water body in Attachment A Plate 1

This page is intentionally left blank

Attachment C – Description of Geodatabase

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

Exhibit 1 ESRI Updated 2012 NHD and GIS layers

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013

This page is intentionally left blank

Exhibit 2 ESRI ArcMap™ Display of Updated 2012 NHD and GIS Layers

CV-SALTS GIS Technical Services Task #3 - Addressing Identified Data Gaps in Existing BUOS April 2013