DOCSLIB.ORG

Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Wildlife December 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 Contact: Craig Weightman (707) 944-5500 Prepared by: Douglas Environmental 1517 28th Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Contact: Doug Brown Principal (916) 739-8407 December 2017 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Division 6, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 6, Sections 15070 and 15071 of the California Administrative Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife does cause to be filed with the State of California, this Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1. Title and Short Description of Project: Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project (proposed project) The proposed project includes five major improvements, identified as Project Components, that are being proposed to enhance the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) ability to manage wetland resources and agricultural operations within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (YBWA). Specific improvements include installing new water control structures, expanding canals, installing box culverts and two con-span bridges, replacing existing culverts, raising road grades, separating dual function ditches, relocating an existing water pump, and installing two new pumps. 2. Location of Project: The proposed project is located within the northern portion of the YBWA within the southern portion of Yolo County, California. The YBWA is located directly west of the City of West Sacramento and is approximately 2.5 miles east of the eastern edge of the City of Davis. The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the site are 38.553540º North and -121.624150º West. The project site is generally bounded on the north by Interstate 80, on the east by the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel and the City of West Sacramento, on the south by agricultural lands and managed wetlands, and on the west by the Yolo Bypass western levee. The proposed project consists of habitat and drainage improvements in five separate areas of the YBWA that would encompass a total of 116 acres. All of these areas are accessible from existing gravel roadways within the YBWA. 3. Project Proponent: Ducks Unlimited 4. Said project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: Based on the analysis included in the attached Initial Study, the proposed habitat and drainage improvements within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area have the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, the impacts associated with the proposed project would remain less than significant. 5. As a result thereof, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) is not required. YBWA Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project Douglas Environmental California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Lead Agency................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................ 1-3 2 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................ 2-10 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................................................................................... 3-6 3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-41 3.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 3-46 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 3-50 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 3-53 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 3-56 3.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 3-63 3.11 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-64 3.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 3-65 3.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 3-70 3.14 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 3-71 3.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 3-73 3.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 3-75 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-78 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 3-80 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 3-83 4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Appendices A – Project Habitat Maps B – Historical Resources Study C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program YBWA Habitat and Drainage Improvements Project Douglas Environmental California Department of Fish and Wildlife i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued Page Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map....................................................................................................................... 1-2 Exhibit 2 Project Components 1, 3 and 5 ........................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 3 Project Components 2 and 4 ............................................................................................................... 2-4 Exhibit 4 Special-status Species Occurrances .................................................................................................. 3-22 Tables Table 1 Federal and State Attainment Status ................................................................................................. 3-10 Table 2 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance for Pollutants ............. 3-11 Table 3 Calculated Maximum Daily and Annual ROG, NOx, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................. 3-12 Table 4 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur on the Project Site ......... 3-23 Table 5 Special-Status Wildlife Known or with Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site ........ 3-25 Table 6 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ................................................................................................... 3-66 Table 7 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................... 3-67 Table 8 2015 State Highway Traffic Volumes in the Project Vicinity .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System
    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Floodplain Rearing and Migration in the Yolo Bypass 2
    For DFG use only Proposal No. Region Section 1: Summary Information 1. Project title: Evaluation of Floodplain Rearing and Migration in the Yolo Bypass 2. Applicant name: California Department of Water Resources 3. Contact person: Ted Sommer, PhD 4. Address: Department of Water Resources. 3500 Industrial Blvd, 2nd Flr. 5. City, State, Zip: West Sacramento CA, 95691 6. Telephone #: 916-376-9772 7. Fax #: 916-376-9688 8. Email address: [email protected] 9. Agency Type: Federal Agency State Agency Local Agency Nonprofit Organization University (CSU/UC) Native American Indian Tribe 10. Certified nonprofit Yes No Organization: 11. New grantee: Yes No Previous recipient of a Cal-Fed Science award. 12. Amount requested: $878,020 13. Total project cost: $878,020 14. Topic Area(s): Primary: At-Risk Species Assessment Secondary: Estuary Foodweb Productivity, Fish Passage, Lowland Floodplains and Bypasses, and Shallow Water and Marsh Habitat. 15. ERP Project type: Primary: Research Secondary: Monitoring and Planning. 16. Ecosystem Element: Primary: Essential Fish Habitats Secondary: Bay-Delta Aquatic Food Web, Freshwater Fish Habitat, Tidal Perennial Aquatic Habitat 17. Water Quality N/A Constituent: 18. At-Risk species Central Valley spring-run Chinook spring-run salmon ESU critical habitat; Delta smelt critical benefited: habitat; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook spring-run salmon ESU critical habitat; Central Valley fall-/late-fall-run Chinook salmon ESU, Green Sturgeon ESU 19. Project objectives: Perform research to guide Yolo Bypass restoration actions to enhance passage for migrating adult salmon and sturgeon, and optimize juvenile salmon rearing. Analyze existing salmon and food web data, conduct telemetry, genetics, and physiology studies, and evaluate isotopes for assessing population-wide floodplain use.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm to Fish: Lessons from a Multi-Year Study on Agricultural Floodplain Habitat Ted Sommer,*1 Brian Schreier,1 J
    Sponsored by the Delta Science Program and the UC Davis Muir Institute RESEARCH Farm to Fish: Lessons from a Multi-Year Study on Agricultural Floodplain Habitat Ted Sommer,*1 Brian Schreier,1 J. Louise Conrad,2 Lynn Takata,2 Bjarni Serup,3 Rob Titus,3 Carson Jeffres,4 Eric Holmes,4 Jacob Katz5 ABSTRACT that seasonally flooded fields are highly Large areas of California’s historic floodplain productive, resulting in significantly higher have been separated from adjacent river levels of zooplankton and high Chinook channels by levee construction, allowing the Salmon growth rates as compared to the development of an extensive agricultural adjacent Sacramento River. We found similar industry. Based on successful partnerships results for multiple geographical areas in between agriculture and conservation groups the Central Valley, and in different cover to support migrating waterfowl, we examined types, such as non-rice crops and fallow whether seasonally flooded rice fields areas. Although field substrate type did not could be modified to provide off-channel detectably affect fish growth and survival, rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook Salmon connectivity with upstream and downstream Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. During winter and areas appeared to drive fish occupancy, spring of 2012-2017, we conducted a series because rearing young salmon were generally of experiments in Yolo Bypass and other attracted to inflow in the fields, and not regions of California’s Central Valley using all of the fish successfully emigrated off hatchery Chinook Salmon as a surrogate the fields without efficient drainage. In for wild Chinook Salmon, the management general, we faced numerous logistic and target for our project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Experimental Agricultural Floodplain Habitat Investigation at Knaggs Ranch on Yolo Bypass 2012-2013
    The Experimental Agricultural Floodplain Habitat Investigation at Knaggs Ranch on Yolo Bypass 2012-2013 Preliminary Report to US Bureau of Reclamation, October 1, 2013 Knaggs Ranch on Yolo Bypass: a win, win, win for salmon, waterfowl and agriculture. Photo: J. Katz A cooperative project of CalTrout, The Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis & The California Department of Water Resources In cooperation with landowner partners Cal Marsh and Farm Ventures, LLC Knaggs Ranch, LLC with additional support from The NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Report prepared by: Jacob Katz1, Carson Jeffres2, Louise Conrad4, Ted Sommer4, Nick Corline2, Joshua Martinez4, Steve Brumbaugh4, Lynn Takata4, Naoaki Ikemiyagi4, Joe Kiernan5 and Peter Moyle2,3 1California Trout, Central California Region, 930 Shiloh Rd, Bldg. 40, Suite 6 Windsor, CA 95492 2UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, 3Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA 4Department of Water Resources, Aquatic Ecology Section, Division of Environmental Services, 3500 Industrial Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 5NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At 24,000 ha, the Yolo Bypass is the Central Valley’s largest contiguous floodplain and provides critical fish and wildlife habitat (Sommer et al. 2001a). Flooding occurs in two out of three years on average, typically between the months of December and April. As a result, the Yolo Bypass represents one of the most frequent large-scale connections of river and floodplain left in the Central Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Restoration Program Agreement
    Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service Cover: Prospect Island, Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, and Liberty Island (Photo Credit: Dale Kolke) State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources March 2012 Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Prepared by: With assistance from: Heidi Rooks Department of Fish and Game Stephani Spaar Dave Zezulak Dennis McEwan Fred Jurick Jason Roberts Laura Flournoy Carl Wilcox Tim Smith Jim Starr Gina Benigno Gina Van Klompenburg Pamela Lindholm Tim Stevens Ling Chu Chandra Ferrari Laurence Kerckhoff Delta Stewardship Council Kristal Davis‐Fadtke PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 FRPA Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Program Description ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Program Structure and
    [Show full text]
  • Field Assessment of Avian Mercury Exposure in the Bay-Delta Ecosystem
    Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Subtask 3B: Field assessment of avian mercury exposure in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Draft Final Report Submitted to Mark Stephenson Director Marine Pollution Studies labs Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholt Rd. Moss Landing, Ca 95039 Submitted by: Dr. Steven Schwarzbach USGS Biological Research Division Western Ecological Research Center 7801 Folsom Blvd. Sacramento California 95826 and Terry Adelsbach US Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Environmental Contaminants Division 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento Ca. 95825 1 BACKGROUND The Bay/Delta watershed has a legacy of mercury contamination resulting from mercury mining in the Coast Range and the use of this mercury in the amalgamation method for extraction of gold from stream sediments and placer deposits in the Sierra Nevada. Because mercury, and methylmercury in particular, strongly bioaccumulate in aquatic foodwebs there has been a reasonable speculation that widespread mercury contamination of the bay/delta from historic sources in the watershed could be posing a health threat to piscivorous wildlife. As a result this systematic survey of mercury exposure in aquatic birds was conducted in both San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The Delta component of the survey was subtask 3b of the CalFed mercury project. The San Francisco Bay component of the project was conducted at the behest of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2, San Francisco Bay. Results of both projects are reported on here because of overlap in methods and species sampled, the interconnectedness of the Bay/Delta estuary and the need to address avian wildlife risk of mercury in the region as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • California Wetlands
    VOL. 46, NO.2 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY California Wetlands 1 California Native Plant Society CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 Phone: (916) 447-2677 • Fax: (916) 447-2727 FREMONTIA www.cnps.org • [email protected] VOL. 46, NO. 2, November 2018 Memberships Copyright © 2018 Members receive many benefits, including a subscription toFremontia California Native Plant Society and the CNPS Bulletin. Look for more on inside back cover. ISSN 0092-1793 (print) Mariposa Lily.............................$1,500 Family..............................................$75 ISSN 2572-6870 (online) Benefactor....................................$600 International or library...................$75 Patron............................................$300 Individual................................$45 Gordon Leppig, Editor Plant lover.....................................$100 Student/retired..........................$25 Michael Kauffmann, Editor & Designer Corporate/Organizational 10+ Employees.........................$2,500 4-6 Employees..............................$500 7-10 Employees.........................$1,000 1-3 Employees............................$150 Staff & Contractors Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive Director Elizabeth Kubey: Outreach Coordinator Our mission is to conserve California’s Alfredo Arredondo: Legislative Analyst Sydney Magner: Asst. Vegetation Ecologist native plants and their natural habitats, Christopher Brown: Membership & Sales David Magney: Rare Plant Program Manager and increase understanding,
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Agricultural Resources and Land Uses
    3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND LAND USES This section describes the agricultural resource and land use characteristics of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. Existing infrastructure including water delivery and management systems are described in Chapter 2, “Property Description.” Biological resources are described in Section 3.5. The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area is seen as a model for bridging the seemingly disparate fields of agriculture and wildlife management. The success of this management philosophy is epitomized by the land management scenes played out south of the Yolo Causeway. Commuters in the spring watch tractors endlessly discing rice stubble until a fine seed bed is created. Next, long land planes level these fields. The infrastructure is rebuilt, with rice checks pulled and ditches cleaned. Water floods the fields by late April and soon the airplane is flying back and forth, seeding each field. By early summer the Bypass is a sea of green as the young rice plants break the surface of the water. Multiple duck broods have migrated to this water from their upland nests. During the hot days of summer, the rice grows taller and matures by the end of the summer. In early autumn the harvesters are cutting the rice as hundreds of egrets and white-faced ibis feast on the exposed crayfish. Soon the rice will go to the dryers to be prepared for markets. Much will go to Asia, via the Sacramento River Deep Water Channel. By October, DFG takes over the fields and floods them once again. Within a few days, the fields begin to attract mallards that have come to the Yolo Bypass after breeding elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Land Management Plan EDAW California Department of Fish and Game I Table of Contents
    YOLO BYPASS WILDLIFE AREA LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN JUNE 2008 YOLO BYPASS WILDLIFE AREA LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME YOLO BYPASS WILDLIFE AREA 45211 COUNTY ROAD 32B DAVIS, CA 95618 CONTACT: DAVE FELIZ AREA MANAGER 530/757-2431 PREPARED BY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CONTACT: DAVE FELIZ YOLO BASIN FOUNDATION CONTACT: ROBIN KULAKOW IN ASSOCIATION WITH: EDAW 2022 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95811 CONTACT: CHRIS FITZER 916/414-5800 JUNE 2008 FINAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE YOLO BYPASS WILDLIFE AREA PREPARED FOR: California Department of Fish and Game Bay Delta Region 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 PREPARED BY: EDAW, Inc. 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916)414-5800 APPROVED BY: Date Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Mission of the California Department of Fish and Game ..................................................... 1-6 1.2 Purpose of Wildlife Areas ............................................................................................................ 1-6 1.3 History and Purpose of Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yolo Bypass IRWMP Sections 1, 4, 5, 6 Revisions
    1.5.3 Surface Water Resources Most runoff that affects Yolo County, favorably and unfavorably, originates outside the County. As defined by DWR, Yolo County is just 3.8% (1,034 square miles) of the large Sacramento Hydrologic Region, or watershed, which covers 26,960 square miles of land. The principal watersheds that affect Yolo County are briefly described below. A more detailed discussion of these watersheds, including descriptions of the drainage systems, flooding/flood management, water availability, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation for each watershed, is presented in Appendix A (Chapter 4). Yolo Bypass From a flood hydrology standpoint, the Yolo Bypass is an integral part of the Sacramento River system and plays a major role in providing flood protection for the City of Sacramento. It is a component of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project that was constructed between 1917 and1924. It consists of a 41-mile-long swath of agricultural land bounded by levees that are 7,000 to 16,000 feet apart and convey floodwater to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near Rio Vista. An 8-mile segment along the western boundary of the Yolo Bypass immediately south of Putah Creek has no levee because ground elevations are high enough to contain floodwater within the Yolo Bypass, except during extremely large flood events. While the Bypass supports several land and resource functions such as agricultural production, aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity, and regional recreational public access, it’s principal purpose is to serve as a floodway. Any land uses proposed or already managed in the Yolo Bypass must not inhibit the movement of flood waters through the Bypass.
    [Show full text]
  • State Investments in Delta Levees
    A California State Agency State Investments in Delta Levees Key Issues For Updating Priorities January 2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 “The Legislature further finds and declares that the leveed islands and tracts of the delta and portions of 7 its uplands are floodprone areas of critical statewide significance due to the public safety risks and the 8 costs of public emergency responses to floods, and that improvement and ongoing maintenance of the 9 levee system is a matter of continuing urgency to protect farmlands, population centers, the state's 10 water quality, and significant natural resource and habitat areas of the delta. The Legislature further 11 finds that improvements and continuing maintenance of the levee system will not resolve all flood risks 12 and that the delta is inherently a floodprone area wherein the most appropriate land uses are 13 agriculture, wildlife habitat, and, where specifically provided, recreational activities, and that most of the 14 existing levee systems are degraded and in need of restoration, improvement, and continuing 15 management.” 16 Public Resources Code section 29704 17 18 19 20 “The Council envisions a future in which risks of flooding in the Delta are reduced, despite an increase in 21 sea levels and altered runoff patterns. The Council sees a future where Delta residents, local 22 governments, and business are better prepared to respond when floods threaten. The Council envisions a 23 future where bypasses are expanded; channels are improved; and strong, well-maintained levees protect 24 local communities-but also protect State interests in a more reliable water supply for California, and a 25 protected and restored Delta ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking at a New Strategy to Save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 7, Iss. 1 (2012), Pp. 155–166 Looking At a New Strategy to Save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Julia Fredenburg School of International and Public Affairs Columbia University, New York [email protected] Robert Fredenburg [email protected] Abstract Water supply, flood control, and environmental management are fundamental challenges for the western United States. California’s unique development patterns, with nearly 20 million of its residents living in water starved southern California, has resulted in a system of water transfers and aqueduct systems that rely on water being pumped, collected and transferred from Northern California through an extensive and damaging pumping and aqueduct system. The Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta (the Delta) is the heart of California’s water source and the center of the transfer system. The Delta is an 837,594 acres area where the Sacramento and San Joaquin River join before entering the San Francisco Bay and then the Pacific Ocean. Water is pumped from the Delta through a system of aqueducts to agricultural users in the San Joaquin Valley and urban centers of the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles and other communities throughout southern California. Unsustainable pumping of vast amounts of water yearly from the Delta has caused the collapse of several fish populations and has forced a rethinking of the federal and state water policies. United States federal and state river and water policies for the past 150 years have relied on maximizing conversions of wetlands for agricultural uses while placing a high priority on flood control on major rivers like the Mississippi, Missouri and Sacramento.
    [Show full text]