DOCSLIB.ORG

Figure D-40 DSM2-Simulated and Measured Tidal Flow in Grant Line Canal at Tracy Boulevard Bridge for January 1997–September 1999 and February 17–March 2, 1996

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Figure D-40 DSM2-Simulated and Measured Tidal Flow in Grant Line Canal at Tracy Boulevard Bridge for January 1997–September 1999 and February 17–March 2, 1996 02053.02 101 Figure D-40 DSM2-Simulated and Measured Tidal Flow in Grant Line Canal at Tracy Boulevard Bridge for January 1997–September 1999 and February 17–March 2, 1996 4 High Tide 3 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Diurnal Tide Series 3 Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 4 High Tide High Tide 3 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Semi-Diurnal Tide SeriesLow 3 Tide Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 4 Higher High Tide 3 Lower High Tide 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Higher Low Tide Mixed Tide Series 3Lower Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 02053.02 101 Figure D-41 General Types of Tidal Cycles Moon Sun Neap Tide Earth Sun Spring Tide Earth Moon Sun Neap Tide Earth Moon Sun Spring Tide Earth Moon 02053.02 101 Figure D-42 Conceptualization of the Effects of the Sun and Moon on Tides 5 Spring Spring 4 Spring Neap Neap 3 2 (feet msl) 1 Stage (ft) 0 -1 -2 Moon Phases -3 6-Aug 20-Aug 3-Sep 17-Sep Hourly Stage 25hr Running Average 02053.02 101 Figure D-43 Spring and Neap Tides at Martinez, California, August and September 2000 4 Ebb Tide 3 2 1 0 Flood Tide -1 Stage or Velocity -2 Stage Velocity Series3 -3 12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM 02053.02 101 Figure D-44 Relationship between Tidal Stage and Velocity 02053.02 101 Stage (feet msl) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 Stage MartinezMeasured Tidal 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 Date 8/16 8/17 8/18 Measured Tidal Stage atMartinez, August 1997 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 Figure D-45 Figure D-45 8/31 9/1 02053.02 101 Flow (cfs) -800,000 -600,000 -400,000 -200,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 0 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 Martinez TidalSimulated Flow 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 Date 8/16 8/17 8/18 Simulated Tidal Flowat Martinez, August1997 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 Figure D-46 Figure D-46 8/31 9/1 Tidal Stage at Martinez 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Minimum 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-47 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Flows at Martinez 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Flow (cfs) -200,000 -400,000 -600,000 -800,000 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum Minimum 02053.02 101 Figure D-48 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Flow at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Velocity at Martinez 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Velocity (feet/sec) Velocity -2 -3 -4 -5 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Minimum 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-49 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Velocities at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Chipps Island Stage 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-50 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage at Chipps Island, Water Years 1976–1991 Chipps Island Tidal Flows 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Flow (cfs) -100,000 -200,000 -300,000 -400,000 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile 02053.02 101 Figure D-51 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Flows at Chipps Island, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Stage in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-52 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Flow (cfs) -100,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 -50,000 50,000 0 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Tidal Flows in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista Vista atRio River Sacramento in the Tidal Flows Oct-80 10 th Percentile Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Sacramento River at RioVi Sacramento River at Average Oct-84 Oct-85 Distribution of Simulated TidalFlow inthe 90 Oct-86 th Percentile Oct-87 sta, Water Years 1976–1991 sta, Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Figure D-53 Figure D-53 Oct-91 Sacramento River Stage at Freeport 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage 6 4 2 0 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-54 Distribution of Simulated River Stage in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Sacramento River Flow at Freeport 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Flow (cfs) 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile 02053.02 101 Figure D-55 Distribution of Simulated River Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Sacramento River Stage-Discharge Relationships 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Average Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage Average 4 2 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Freeport Walnut Grove Rio Vista 02053.02 101 Figure D-56 Comparison of Sacramento River Flow, Water Years 1976–1991 Sutter and Steamboat Slough Flow vs. Freeport Flow 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Slough Flow (cfs) Slough Flow 10,000 5,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Sutter Slough Flow Steamboat Slough Flow Figure D-57a. Freeport Flow vs. Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs Flow, Water Years 1976–1991 Sutter and Steamboat Slough Diversion Fractions 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Percent Diversion Flow Flow Percent Diversion 10 5 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Sutter Slough Flow Steamboat Slough Flow Figure D-57b. Freeport Flow vs. Diversions in Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Figures D-57a and D-57b Distribution of Simulated Flows in Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough vs. Freeport 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Flow (cfs) 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel Figure D-58a. Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough vs. Average Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough Diversion Percentage of Freeport Flow 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 PercentFreeportFlow of 10 5 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel Figure D-58b. Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough as a Percentage of Average Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Figures D-58a and D-58b Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation
    Draft Feasibility Report Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Executive Summary The Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage This Draft Feasibility Report documents the Investigation (Investigation) is a joint feasibility of alternative plans, including a range feasibility study by the U.S. Department of of operations and physical features, for the the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation potential Temperance Flat River Mile 274 (Reclamation), in cooperation with the Reservoir. California Department of Water Resources Key Findings to Date: (DWR). The purpose of the Investigation is • All alternative plans would provide benefits to determine the potential type and extent of for water supply reliability, enhancement of Federal, State of California (State), and the San Joaquin River ecosystem, and other resources. regional interest in a potential project to • All alternative plans are technically feasible, expand water storage capacity in the upper constructible, and can be operated and San Joaquin River watershed for improving maintained. water supply reliability and flexibility of the • Environmental analyses to date suggest that water management system for agricultural, all alternative plans would be urban, and environmental uses; and environmentally feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • A Century of Delta Salt Water Barriers
    A Century of Salt Water Barriers in the Delta By Tim Stroshane Policy Analyst Restore the Delta June 5, 2015 edition Since the late 19th century, California’s basic plan for water resource development has been to export water from the Sacramento River and the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. Unfortunately, this basic plan ignores the reality that the Delta is the very definition of an estuary: it is where fresh water from the Central Valley’s rivers meets salt water from tidal flow to the Delta from San Francisco Bay. Productive ecosystems have thrived in the Delta for millenia prior to California statehood. But for nearly a century now, engineers and others have frequently referred to the Delta as posing a “salt menace,” a “salinity problem” with just two solutions: either maintain a predetermined stream flow from the Delta to Suisun Bay to hydraulically wall out the tide, or use physical barriers to separate saline from fresh water into the Delta. While readily admitting that the “salt menace” results from reduced inflows from the Delta’s major tributary rivers, the state of California uses salt water barriers as a technological fix to address the symptoms of the salinity problem, rather than the root causes. Given complex Delta geography, these two main solutions led to many proposals to dam up parts of San Francisco Bay, Carquinez Strait, or the waterway between Chipps Island in eastern Suisun Bay and the City of Antioch, or to use large amounts of water—referred to as “carriage water”— to hold the tide literally at bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program History and Studies 1983—2012
    State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program History and Studies 1983—2012 November 2013 Edmund Brown Jr. John Laird Mark W. Cowin Governor Secretary for Resources Director State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources State of California Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor California Natural Resources Agency John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources Department of Water Resources Mark W. Cowin, Director Laura King Moon, Chief Deputy Director Office of the Chief Counsel Public Affairs Office Security Operations Cathy Crothers Nancy Vogel, Ass't Dir. Sonny Fong Gov't & Community Liaison Policy Advisor Legislative Affairs Office Kimberly Johnston~ Dodds Waiman Yip Kasey Schimke, Ass't Dir. Deputy Directors Paul Helliker Delta and Statewide Water Management Gary Bardini Integrated Water Management Carl Torgersen State Water Project John Pacheco California Energy Resources Scheduling Kathie Kishaba Business Operations Division of Environmental Services Dean F. Messer, Chief Office of Water Quality Stephani Spaar, Chief Municipal Water Quality Program Branch Municipal Water Quality Investigations Section Cindy Garcia, Chief Rachel Pisor, Chief Ofelia Bogdan, Staff Services Analyst Prepared By Sonia Miller, Project Leader Otome J. Lindsey Foreword The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a major source of drinking water for 25 million people of the State of California. Therefore, the quality of Delta water is an important consideration for its use as a drinking water source. However, Delta water quality may be degraded by a variety of sources and environmental factors. Close monitoring of Delta waters is necessary to ensure delivery of high quality source waters to urban water suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan
    DELTA REGION DRINKING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT FINAL June 2005 Funding for this project was made possible by a CALFED Grant through the Drinking Water Quality Program This document was funded by the CALFED Water Quality Program as an initial effort to create Regional “Equivalent Level of Public Health Protection” Plans and to assist in establishing a uniform framework in such planning. It is not intended to be a final document. California Bay-Delta Authority and CALFED WQP Implementing Agency staff have not had the opportunity to review and comment on this document, and any opinions or interpretations of the CALFED program expressed within the document are solely those of its authors. The CALFED WQP is committed to working with these and other parties to continue development and refinement of Regional Plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) commissioned a pilot program for development of regional drinking water quality management plans (i) to identify the drinking water quality issues and needs of drinking water agencies in different regions of California and (ii) to develop solutions to address those needs. This Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DRDWQMP) was developed jointly by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), the city of Stockton (COS), and Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). Figure ES-1 shows the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) region, with an outline representing Delta boundaries as defined in California Water Code Section 12220, along with the service areas of the three participating agencies. These three agencies represent the largest urban water users within the Delta region.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Cross Channel Fact Sheet
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California-Great Basin Region Delta Cross Channel Overview The Delta Cross Channel (DCC), located near Walnut Grove, California, is a feature of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP) Delta Division. The facility is a gate-controlled diversion channel on the east bank of the Sacramento River, about 30 miles downstream of Sacramento. The DCC facilitates the diversion of fresh water from the Sacramento River into the interior Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to the CVP and State Water Project (SWP). Background Reclamation completed the DCC in January 1951. The facility is key to maintaining water quality in the central Delta during controlled releases from northern CVP storage reservoirs, such as Shasta and Folsom, through the Delta to the headworks of the CVP’s Delta-Mendota and Contra Costa canals and SWP’s California Aqueduct. The DCC, pictured above, is 6,000-feet long with a bottom width of 210 feet, and a capacity of 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The gates extend about 245 feet across the channel at its mouth on the Sacramento River. Reclamation closes the DCC gates during high water to prevent flood stages in the San Joaquin section of the Delta. After flood danger passes, Reclamation opens the gates to allow Sacramento River water through to the federal and state pumping plants. During certain periods, When the gates are open, the DCC diverts fresh Sacramento River water to Snodgrass Slough. From there it flows through natural the DCC gates can operate frequently and boaters are channels to the CVP’s Jones Pumping Plant and SWP’s Banks advised to check gate status, especially around holidays.
    [Show full text]
  • California Highways and Public Works, March 1939
    I~ygPF Y "y~ff ~ s~{4 9l+~pP~: , ~ ~~ ' ` ` A mks „ ~`=;x ~~ .a. e 1 imx, .. ~ . t ~.. e-'~ ~~v~ f y f ~~ ~ CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS Official Journal of the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works, State of California FRANK W. CLARK, Director C. H. PURCELL, Stat¢ Highway Engineer J. W. HOWE, Edi4or K. C. ADAMS, Associate Edi4or Published for information of the m¢mbers of the d¢partment and th¢ citizens of California Editors of newspapers and others are privileged to use matter contained herein. Cu!s will be gladly loaned upon request Address communications to CaliFornia Highways and Public Works, P. O. Box 1499, Sacram¢nko, CaliFornia Vol. 17 MARCH, 1939 No. 3 Table of C'onterats Cover Page—Large center picture shows east sine of Shasta. dam site on Sacramento River, terraced by work roads where excavations for the dam foundations are under way. Surrounding scenes show diversion tunnel bore, drillers and equipment at work. Photos courtesy U, S. Bureau of Reclamation. Page Go~~ernor Olson Acts to Secure State Control aircl Operation of Shasta Water and Pa~uer---------------------------------------- 1 Sketch of Shasta Dam Sha«ping Po«per House,. Spill~~ay and Reservoir Lake 3 lIap of Central Valley Project Svstem_ 4 EYeavating Diversion Chaiznel for Sacramento River at Shasta Dam______ 5 Repairing Floocl Damage oi~ All-Year Yosemite. High~~ay_______________ 6 By If7. C. Fos~~czte, Dist~~tict Co~cst~~a~ct4o~ti Eai~z~aeer Picture of Rock Wall Flood Protection Construction on All-Year Yosemite Hi~;hi~~aY -------- ----------------------------- 7 Photo of Finished Section of Pock Wall _______ 8 $ 6,809,000 Cost to Modernize fIigh «~a~~~s in District ~__________________ 9 B~ R.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Technical Appendix
    A New Approach to Accounting for Environmental Water Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Technical Appendices CONTENTS Appendix A: A Brief Review of Regulatory Assignment of Water in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Greg Gartrell and Brian Gray Appendix B: Water Assigned to Meeting Environmental Standards in the Delta from 1980–2016 Greg Gartrell, Jeffrey Mount, Ellen Hanak, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Brian Gray Supported with funding from the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency (with partial support from Assistance Agreement No.83586701), and the Water Foundation Appendix A Introduction In this appendix, we review the history of the water quality and flow standards that have governed the impoundment and diversion of water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River and Delta system. Although most of the responsibility for complying with these standards falls on the two largest water-right holders—the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the California State Water Project (SWP)—this history begins well before their creation. It includes the early development of irrigated agriculture in the Delta and upstream in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins. It incorporates the design and operation of the two great water projects. And it concludes with the modern era of ecological protection and multifaceted water quality administration. Pre-Project Water Quality Issues Delta water salinity has posed challenges for water users—both within and upstream of the Delta—since the late 19th century. The Delta is an estuary.1 Salt moves from the San Francisco Bay into the Delta with the action of the tides; fresh water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers mixes with and dilutes brackish water in the western Delta and flows into the Carquinez Strait.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS
    6. Surface Water Resources 6.1 Introduction This chapter describes Existing Conditions (the environmental setting) and Sites Reservoir Project (Project)-related changes to surface water resources in the Extended, Secondary, and Primary study areas. Detailed descriptions and maps of these three study areas are provided in Chapter 1 Introduction, and summarized descriptions are included in this chapter. Surface water resources generally include reservoirs, rivers, and diversions. Permits and authorizations for surface water resources are presented in Chapter 4 Environmental Compliance and Permit Summary. The regulatory setting for surface water resources is presented in Appendix 4A Environmental Compliance. This chapter also includes a description of the surface water supply facilities operations and resulting surface water resources characteristics of California’s major water systems that are relevant to the Project: the Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal project that is operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP), operated and maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and associated tributary rivers and streams. A schematic showing the layout of these two water systems, with the relative location of the Project, is shown in Figures 6-1A, 6-1B, and 6-1C. A comparison of these characteristics has been made between the Existing Conditions/No Project/No Action Condition, and the four action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D). Unless noted, all numbers shown related to storages, flows, exports, and deliveries in this chapter are generated from the CALSIM II computer simulation model. Appendix 6A Modeling of Alternatives, Appendix 6B Water Resources System Modeling, and Appendix 6C Upper Sacramento River Daily River Flow and Operations Modeling describe the assumptions and the analytical framework used in the surface water modeling analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan January 2019
    San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 2019 Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan January 2019 Prepared by: 2019 Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents Final Table of Contents Chapter 1 Governance ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Regional Water Management Group ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 History of IRWM Planning ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Governance ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Coordination ................................................................................................................................. 1-8 1.5 WSJ IRWMP Adoption, Interim Changes, and Future Updates .................................................. 1-11 Chapter 2 Region Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 IRWM Regional Boundary ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Quality and Quantity of Water Resources .................................................................................. 2-15 2.3 Water Supplies and Demands ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network
    Innovation in Monitoring: The U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 121˚45' 121˚30' 121˚15' installed the first gage to measure the flow 38˚ of water into California’s Sacramento–San 30' Sacramento Channel Joaquin River Delta (figs. 1, 2) from the River FPT Freeport Sacramento Sacramento- Sacramento River in the late 1800s. Today, r San Joaquin ve San Yolo Bypass i Delta s R a network of 35 hydro-acoustic meters Francisco ne m u s measure flow throughout the delta. This San o Francisco Sutter/ C region is a critical part of California’s Bay Hood Steamboat freshwater supply and conveyance system. San Elk Slough corridor Joaquin Sacramento Deep Water Ship With the data provided by this flow-station River SUT Delta network—sampled every 15 minutes and Sutter transfer Slough HWB flow updated to the web every hour—state Slough SSS SDC and federal water managers make daily 38˚ Creek DWS DLC Mokelumne 15' GES decisions about how much freshwater LIB Walnut Dry can be pumped for human use, at which RYI GSS Grove Steamboat NMR locations, and when. Fish and wildlife Yolo Bypass flow SMR River R scientists, working with water managers, ive r Mokelumne Rio Vista SRV River system also use this information to protect fish exchange Threemile Slough Lodi species affected by pumping and loss of MOK SDI TSL habitat. The data are also used to help LPS to en determine the success or failure of efforts Sacram OSJ SJJ FAL PRI to restore ecosystem processes in what has MAL San Joaquin been called the “most managed and highly Pittsburg ORO River/central delta exchanges altered” watershed in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION and OPEN SPACE PLAN (SJMSCP) November 14, 2000
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (SJMSCP) November 14, 2000 November 14, 2000 THIS PAGE BLANK November 14, 2000 Funding for this document was provided by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation with assistance from the San Joaquin County Transportation Authority, the City of Tracy, and the City of Lathrop November 14, 2000 THIS PAGE BLANK November 14, 2000 SJMSCP STEERING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT HABITAT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Phillip Pennino, Chair City of Lodi Robert Cabral, Vice Chair San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors Ron Addington Business Dan Gifford/Robert Mapes/Dave Zezulak/Terry Roscoe California Department of Fish and Game Mitch Hayden U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waldo Holt Conservation William Lehman/Sheila Larsen/Peter Cross/Robert Pine/Ken Fuller/Mike Horton Cay Goude/Jan Knight/Ann Chrisney/Vicki Campbell/Jim Browning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brad Lange Agriculture Bruce Mettler Agriculture Tonie Marie Raymus Business Martha Shaver Land Trusts Steve Stocking Conservation Doug Unruh Business HABITAT STAFF WORKING GROUP Margit Aramburu Delta Protection Commission Luis Arismendi/Don Cose Business Mike Brown Aggregate Mining Ben Cantu Manteca Pam Carder Lathrop John Carlson/Mike Niblock Stockton Dan Gifford/Robert Mapes/Dave Zezulak/ Terry Roscoe California Department of Fish and Game Brian Millar/Barry Hand Tracy Mitch Hayden U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waldo Holt Conservation William Lehman/Sheila Larsen/Peter Cross/Robert Pine/Ken Fuller/Mike Horton/ Cay Goude/Jan Knight/Ann Chrisney/Vicki Campbell/Jim Browning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Peggy Keranen/Kitty Walker San Joaquin County Rad Bartlam/David Morimoto Lodi Dale Steele, Gina Moran Caltrans Ernest Tyhurst Ripon Julia E.
    [Show full text]