DOCSLIB.ORG

4.1 Aesthetics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

4.1 AESTHETICS This section describes the existing visual characteristics within the region, identifies the regulatory framework with respect to regulations that address aesthetic resources, and evaluates the significance of the potential changes in the visual character that could result from development of the proposed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In addition, mitigation measures are identified as appropriate and feasible to reduce identified impacts. The RTP/SCS plan area consists of transportation routes, including highways, rail alignments, bicycle trails, roads, and Caltrans right-of-way in San Joaquin County. The aesthetic appearance of San Joaquin County is a function of both the natural landscape and man-made elements that create an urban and rural character and design. Because transportation facilities can have a major influence on human perception of the visual environment, this section addresses the general aesthetic landscape of the region and assesses the potential impacts from region-wide construction of at- and above-grade transportation facilities. The County is centrally located between the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys and serves as the transition between the coastal region and Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Overall the area is relatively flat. The aesthetic quality of the County has been affected by various forms of transportation for some time. As a result, the existing and planned multimodal transportation system is not considered to have a significant impact on the aesthetic quality in San Joaquin County. However, current aesthetic values can be maintained as the planned regional transportation system is implemented. The SCS component of the RTP would influence urban development in San Joaquin County and therefore patterns of development are assessed. 4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area. Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a function of the number of viewers, number of views seen, distance of the viewers, and viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the public’s concern for a particular viewshed. These terms and criteria are described in detail below. Visual Character: Natural and artificial landscape features contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Visual character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Urban features include those associated with landscape settlements and development, including Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-1 2014 San Joaquin COG RTP/SCS Draft EIR 1173.001 March 2014 4.1 Aesthetics roads, utilities, structures, earthworks, and the results of other human activities. The perception of visual character can vary significantly seasonally, even hourly, as weather, light, shadow, and elements that compose the viewshed change. The basic components used to describe visual character for most visual assessments are the elements of form, line, color, and texture of the landscape features. The appearance of the landscape is described in terms of the dominance of each of these components. Visual Quality: Visual quality is evaluated using the well-established approach to visual analysis adopted by Federal Highway Administration, employing the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity, which are described below. Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, and in natural settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity, as modified by visual sensitivity. High-quality views are highly vivid, relatively intact, and exhibit a high degree of visual unity. Low-quality views lack vividness, are not visually intact, and possess a low degree of visual unity. Various jurisdictions within the County such as cities, the County, and federal or regional agencies, provide guidelines regarding the preservation and enhancement of visual quality in their plans or regulations.1 An example of such guidance is the Caltrans Scenic Highway Visual Quality Program Intrusion Examples, which are presented in Table 4.1-1, Caltrans Scenic Highways Program: Examples of Visual Quality Intrusions. As that table illustrates, a given visual element may be considered desirable or undesirable, depending on design, location, use, and other considerations. Because of the size and diversity of San Joaquin County, it is not possible or appropriate to apply uniform standards to all areas within the region. Scenic resources can include natural open spaces, topographic formations, landscapes, and manmade features. Many people associate natural landforms and landscapes with scenic resources, such as woodlands, lakes, rivers, streams, mountains, habitat, and agricultural lands. Scenic resources can also 1 California cities and counties are not required to include visual quality elements in their General Plans, although many do. However, the General Plans are required to include a Conservation Element, which includes resources such as waterways and forests that frequently are also scenic resources. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-2 2014 San Joaquin COG RTP/SCS Draft EIR 1173.001 March 2014 4.1 Aesthetics include urban open spaces and the built environment. Examples of these would include urban parks, trails, and nature centers, archaeological and historical resources, and man-made structures like buildings and bridges with unique architectural features. Tall buildings may also provide excellent views of scenic resources beyond the urban core. Typically, jurisdictions identify designated scenic resources, or some similar classification system, to identify priority scenic resources. These designated scenic resources are the focus of this chapter. Table 4.1-1 Caltrans Scenic Highways Program: Examples of Visual Quality Intrusions Land Use Type Minor Intrusion Moderate Intrusion Major Intrusion Buildings: Residential, Widely dispersed buildings. Increased number of Dense and continuous Commercial, Industrial Natural landscape buildings, but are development. Highly Development dominates. Wide setbacks complimentary to the reflective surfaces. Buildings and buildings screened from landscape. Smaller setbacks poorly maintained. Visible roadway. Exterior colors and and lack of roadway blight. Development along materials are compatible screening. Buildings do not ridgelines. Buildings with environment. Buildings degrade or obstruct scenic degrade or obstruct scenic have cultural or historical view. view. significance. Unsightly Land Uses: Dumps, Screened from view so that Not screened from view and Not screened from view and Quarries, Concrete Plants, facility is not visible from the visible but visible by motorists. Will not Tank Farms, Auto Dismantling highway. programmed/funded for be removed or modified. removal and site restoration. Scenic view is degraded. Strip Malls Neat and well landscaped. Not harmonious with Blend with surroundings surroundings. Poorly maintained or vacant. Blighted, Development degrades or obstructs scenic view. Parking Lots Screened from view so that Neat and well landscaped. Not screened or landscaped. vehicles and pavement are Blend with surroundings Scenic view is degraded. not visible from the highway Off-Site Advertising Structures Billboards degrade or obstruct scenic view Noise Barriers Noise barriers are well Noise barriers obstruct landscaped and complement scenic view. the natural landscape. Noise barriers do not degrade or obstruct views. Power Lines Not easily visible from road. Visible, but compatible with Poles and lines dominate surroundings view. Scenic view is degraded. Agriculture: Structures, Blends in and complements Not in harmony with Incompatible with and Equipment, Crops scenic view. Indicative of surroundings. Competes dominates natural regional culture. with natural landscape for landscape. Structures visual dominance. equipment or crops degrade scenic view. Exotic Vegetation Used as screening and Competes with native Incompatible with and landscaping. Blends in and vegetation for visual dominates natural complements scenic view. dominance. landscape. Structures equipment or crops degrade scenic view. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-3 2014 San Joaquin COG RTP/SCS Draft EIR 1173.001 March 2014 4.1 Aesthetics Land Use Type Minor Intrusion Moderate Intrusion Major Intrusion Clearcutting Tress bordering highway Clearcutting or deforestation remains so that clearcutting is evident. Scenic view is is not evident. degraded. Erosion Minor soil erosion. Slopes beginning to erode. Large slope failures and no Not stabilized. vegetation. Scenic view is degraded. Grading Grading blends with Some changes, but Extensive cut and fill. adjacent landforms and restoration is taking place. Scarred hillsides and topography. landscape. Canyons filled
Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office

    0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office

    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy

    Transitions for the Delta Economy

    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History

    2. the Legacies of Delta History

    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
  • San Joaquin County 2-080 2-070 .! .! 2-065 .!

    San Joaquin County 2-080 2-070 .! .! 2-065 .!

    San Joaquin County 2-080 2-070 .! .! 2-065 .! 2-060 .! 2-045 .! .! 2-050 2-040 .! 2-033 .! .! 2-030 2-015 2-018 .! .! 2-010/020 .! 2-021 .! 2-020 .! Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 OSPR Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Respon se Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data S ou rc e: O SPR NAD_ 19 83 _C alifo rnia_ Te ale_ Alb ers ACP2 - GRA10 Requestor: A CP Coordinator Auth or: J. Mus ka t 0 0.5 1 2 Date C reated: 6/3/2014 Environmental Sensitive Sites Miles Section 9850 – GRA 10 East Delta Table of Contents GRA 10 GRA 10 Map .........................................................................................................................................1 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................2 Site Index/Response Actions................................................................................................................3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 10 ...................................................................................4 9850.1 Ecologically Sensitive Sites 2-010-A San Joaquin River, Port of Stockton........................................................................................ 1 2-015-A Calaveras River Mouth at San Joaquin River ........................................................................ 4 2-018-A Burns Cutoff at Rough and Ready
  • Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Technical Appendix B

    Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Technical Appendix B

    Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Technical Appendix B Robyn Suddeth Jeffrey F. Mount Jay R. Lund with research support from Sarah Swanbeck August 2008 Description This document is an appendix to the Public Policy Institute of California report, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by a team of researchers from the Center for Watershed Sciences (University of California, Davis) and the Public Policy Institute of California. Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute’s goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute’s research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California's future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. Mark Baldassare is President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included.
  • Problem Solving with Geographic Networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    Problem Solving with Geographic Networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2011 Problem solving with geographic networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Steven Hong San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Hong, Steven, "Problem solving with geographic networks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta" (2011). Master's Theses. 3932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.psw4-dhmv https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3932 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Geography San Jose State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Steven Prasert Hong May 2011 © 2011 Steven Prasert Hong ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA by Steven Prasert Hong APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY May 2011 Dr. M. Kathryn Davis Department of Geography Dr. Richard Taketa Department of Geography Jeremy Lukins San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ABSTRACT PROBLEM SOLVING WITH GEOGRAPHIC NETWORKS IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA By Steven Prasert Hong The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) serves as the crossroads for many geographic networks that crisscross California.
  • Historical Evaluation of the Delta Waterways

    Historical Evaluation of the Delta Waterways

    HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE DELTA WATERWAYS FINAL REPORT Alan M. Paterson Rand F. Herbert Stephen ~- \..Jee Prepared for the State Lands Commission pursuant to Contract LC-7746 " ! I December 1978 *. ;.nsTJ:\ICAL EVALCA'IIOi~ OF 'I-:iErt DELTA i.JATERWAYS ..... Final Repo I Report Area. Loe a. t ion Ma.p ' l !, !' i '"''r: ) ,/ ( ..... ,.,.,., ( !titJntCCJ . 0 HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE DELTA WATERWAYS Final Report Prepared for the State Lands Corrnnission by Alan M. Paterson f Rand F. Herbert < ." Stephen R. Wee INTRODUCTION The California State Lar.ds Cor:-Dis s :.c:-i :-e~ 2 ::._ '.'ed a g:- ant from the United States Depart:ment of CctTII!lerce, Eco:-looic Develop­ ::i.en t Adminis tra ti on, to remove na\·:.za. t ion hazJ.rd::: frol:"l oar t ions of the Sac::::-a::iento-San ]oaqui_n Delt2,....:.sir,g a C!O.:::i::...= cra.r,e oot.:nted on a barge. Many of the objects ts ~e remove~ ~2r2 natural, such as trees and snags in the waterwa~s. Howeve::::-, in the case of man-made objects scheduled for reraoval, the t:er~s of the Federal grant required a historical analysis to determine whether or not the object(s) should, in fact, be removed. Those objects or sites found to have important historic values ~ere to be identified and left undisturbed by the hazard reLloval operation. "Historic value" was defined in terms of a site's ootential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Recorrrrnendations regarding the historic significance and proposed removal of man-made objects were subject to revie~ and approval by the State Office of Historic Prese:-~at~on.

  • §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦5

    Clarksburg Yolo District 1 A!A! Oscar Villegas A!A! A! ABH84 A! ABH99 A! A! NETHERLANDS A! (# ABH113 Ç 5 Hood Ç(# ¨¦§ A! A! A! A!AA!! (# A! Ç r MERRITT e ABH iv ISLAND 160 R s e n Courtland m # u Ç( s PIERSON o C DISTRICT Ç(# GLANVILLE S A# a Ç!( TRACT c A! ra ABH104 m en Sacramento District 5 HASTINGS LIBERTY ISLAND to R Don Nottoli TRACT iv # (# er Ç( Ç A GRAND ISLAND !Ç(# Locke Ç(# ÇA!(# EGBERT TRACT Ryde A! ABH84 RYER ISLAND Walnut Grove NEW HOPE Thornton TRACT M okelum ne River STATEN ISLAND San Joaquin District 4 ABH99 ABH12 TYLER (# Chuck Winn ISLAND Ç ABH160 (# Rio Vista Isleton Ç BRACK TRACT ÇA!(# A! Lodi BRANNAN-ANDRUS Ç(# TERMINOUS ISLAND Ç(# # TRACT Terminous Ç( (# ABH12 BOULDIN A!A! Ç A! A! ISLAND# A! Ç#( A! A! A! Ç( A! A! 5 A! A! ¨¦§ AA!!A! ##(# A! A! ÇÇ((Ç A!Ç(# WEBB TRACT VENICE ISLAND SHERMAN Ç(# EMPIRE KING ISLAND Ç(# TRACT ISLAND ABH84 A! Ç(# MANDEVILLE ISLAND (# Bethel Island Ç RINDGE TRACT Antioch MCDONALD ISLAND Oakley (# BACON Ç ABH99 ABH Old River # 88 HOLLAND ISLAND ÇA!( S A! Ç(# a TRACT n Jo a Knightsen q (# u ABH26 Ç LOWER (# in Ç R ROBERTS i LOWER ve Stockton ISLAND r ABH4 JONES TRACT A! Holt Port of Brentwood Stockton UPPER ABH4 (# Discovery Bay JONES Ç TRACT Ç(# MIDDLE BYRON ROBERTS TRACT ISLAND French VICTORIA Mi Contra Costa District 3 A! ddl A! A! ISLAND e River Camp Diane Burgis A! A! A! Byron A! A! A!A! A!(( ## (# ÇÇ (#A! A! Ç# # Ç A! ÇA!(Ç(A!(# Ç(#A! A!(#A!((##Ç(# AÇ(!#AÇÇA!#Ç ÇA!# (#Ç( AÇ!A(! Ç# UNION ISLAND UPPER A!#(#ÇA(! Ç(AÇ! ROBERTS 5 A! San Joaquin District 3 ISLAND ¨¦§ Banks Tom Patti Lathrop
  • 9. Suisun Bay Off Bull's Head Point Near Martinez Samples Are

    9. Suisun Bay Off Bull's Head Point Near Martinez Samples Are

    6. Suisun Bay off Bull’s Head Point near 38-02-40 122-07-00 Martinez Samples are collected near the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge at Benicia. 7. Grizzly Bay at Dolphin near Suisun 38-07-02 122-02-19 Slough Samples are collected from a shallow embayment 1.4 miles east of the mouth of Suisun Slough. 8. Suisun Bay off Middle Point near 38-03-36 121 -59-20 Nichols Samples are collected in Suisun Bay within the west reach of the Middle Ground Channel. 9. Honker Bay near Wheeler point 38-04-26 121-56-1 2 The sampling site is located in a shallow embayment 1.9 miles northeasterly from Point Palo Alto. 10. Sacramento River at Chipps Island 38-02-47 12 1-55-02 Samples are collected west of the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers between Chipps and Mallard Islands. 11. Sherman Lake near Antioch 38-02-34 12 1-47-34 Samples are collected 2 miles north of Antioch near the center of a submerged tract between the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. 12. San Joaquin River at Antioch. Ship 38-01-1 5 121-48-28 Channel Samples are collected 0.3 miles north of Antioch between the entrance markers of the Antioch Reach Channel in the San Joaquin River. 13. Big Break near Oakley 38-01-05 121-42-38 The sampling site is located 1.3 miles north of Oakley in a submerged tract. 14. San Joaquin River at Jersey Point 38-03-09 121 -41 -1 7 This sampling site is located on the San Joaquin River 6.5 miles northeast of Antioch in the shipping channel.
  • Figure 2.1—Delta Islands Legend for Delta Islands in Figure 2.1

    Figure 2.1—Delta Islands Legend for Delta Islands in Figure 2.1

    . R Delta Islands AN Sacramento RIC ME Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers A . R Delta waterways and other rivers O T N Suisun Marsh E ASS P Freeport M A R C A Clarksburg S YOLO BY Hood 35 . R C a S ch Courtland E e S lo N ug 57 42 h M 73 19 U Barker Slough 21 43 S 32 O D k Pumping Plant C ry Cree Fairfield Lin dsey Slo Ryde Walnut ug 50 h Grove 20 39 10 . Rio Vista 61 M R OKELUMNE Isleton 5 Suisun Marsh 7 55 Salinity Control Lodi Grizzly Gate 59 Bay Suisun 60 Marsh 4 54 15 68 47 Honker 6 66 ez it Suis Bay 64 16 27 in ra un Bay 52 3 u St 11 rq a 74 C 8 24 31 34 Pittsburg 2 44 46 53 Co ntra C 33 osta Antioch Oakley 23 22 71 Can Concord al 1 36 51 k 65 e e 41 r 49 Stockton C 25 h 40 S s 48 A r Discovery a N Bay M J 67 O 9 A Q U I 63 N 13 R 12 . Lathrop Manteca Los Vaqueros Reservoir 17 56 Harvey O. Banks Tracy Delta Pumping Plant Pumping Plant South Bay Tracy D Pumping Plant el N ta-M C en ali d for ota nia C A an 2 0 2 4 6 qu al ed uct miles Figure 2.1—Delta Islands Legend for Delta Islands in Figure 2.1 Bacon Island 1 Netherlands 37* Bethel Tract 2 Neville Island 38* Bishop Tract 3 New Hope Tract 39 Bouldin Island 4 Orwood Tract 40 Brack Tract 5 Palm Tract 41 Bradford Island 6 Pierson District 42 Brannan-Andrus Island 7 Prospect Island 43 Browns Island 8 Quimby Island 44 Byron Tract 9 Rhode Island 45* Canal Ranch 10 Rindge Tract 46 Chipps Island 11 Rio Blanco Tract 47 Clifton Court Forebay 12 Roberts Island 48 Coney Island 13 Rough and Ready Island 49 Deadhorse Island 14* Ryer Island 50 Decker Island 15 Sargent Barnhart Tract 51 Empire

  • Delta Levees Investment Strategy Priorities

    Table 1: Delta Levees Investment Strategy Priorities **UNDER REVIEW** Bacon Island, Bethel Island, Bishop/DLIS-14 (North Stockton), Brannan- Very High Andrus, Byron Tract, DLIS-19 (Grizzly Slough Area), DLIS-28, DLIS-33, DLIS- Priority 63 (Grizzly Island Area), Drexler Tract, Hastings Tract, Hotchkiss Tract, Central Stockton, Dutch Slough, Hasting Tract, Hotchkiss Tract, Grand Island, Jersey Island, Jones Tract (Upper and Lower), Maintenance Area 9 North, Maintenance Area 9 South, McCormack- Williamson Tract*, McDonald Island, McMullin Ranch, Middle and Upper Roberts Island, New Hope Tract, North Stockton, Paradise Junction Reclamation District 17, Ryer Island, Sherman Island, Staten Island, Terminous Tract, Twitchell Island, Upper Andrus Island, Victoria Island, Webb Tract, West Sacramento. Bacon Island, Bouldin Island, Brack Tract, Bradford Island, Cache Haas Area, Clifton Court Forebay, DLIS-01 (Pittsburg Area), DLIS-07 (Knightsen Area), DLIS-08 (Discovery Bay Area), DLIS- High 20 (Yolo Bypass), DLIS-22 (Rio Vista), DLIS-26 (Morrow Island), DLIS-29, Priority DLIS-30, DLIS-31 (Garabaldi Unit), DLIS-32, DLIS-39, DLIS-41 (Joice Island Area), DLIS-44 (Hill Slough Unit), DLIS-55, DLIS-59, DLIS- 63 (Grizzly Island Area), Drexler Tract, Egbert Tract, Fabian Tract, Glanville, Grand Island, Hastings Tract, Holland Tract, Honker Bay, Honker Lake Tract*, Hotch kiss Tract, Kasson District, Libby McNeil, Little Egbert Tract, Lower Roberts Island, Jones Tract (Lower And Upper), Little Egbert Tract, Mandeville Island, McDonald Island, Middle & Upper Roberts Island, Mossdale Island, New Hope Tract, Netherlands, Palm-Orwood, Paradise Cut, Paradise Junction, Pearson District, Pescadero District*, Rindge Tract, River Junction, Shima Tract, Staten Island, Stewart Tract*, Sunrise Club, Terminous Tract, Tyler Island, Union Island East, Veale Tract, Union Island West, Victoria Island, Webb Tract, Walnut Grove, Woodward Island.