DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Yuba City Staff Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Yuba City Staff Report Agenda Item 10 CITY OF YUBA CITY STAFF REPORT Date: October 1, 2013 To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Department of Public Works Presentation by: Diana Langley, Deputy Public Works Director - Engineering Summary Subject: Settlement Agreement and Water Contract Amendment – Area of Origin (Solano County Water Agency, et al. v. Department of Water Resources Case No. 34-2008-00016338 CU-BCGDS) Recommendation: a. Review Negative Declaration adopted by Department of Water Resources (lead agency) and adopt Negative Declaration as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. Authorize the City Manager to execute Settlement Agreement and Release regarding City of Yuba City. c. Authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to the Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the City of Yuba City. Fiscal Impact: Immediate fiscal impacts are negligible; however, long term savings to the City will be measured in millions of dollars each year through the increased reliability/delivery of State Water Project water to the City and the City not needing to purchase additional water rights. Purpose: Increase the City’s water supply reliability through settlement of the City’s Area of Origin lawsuit against the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Background: The City of Yuba City obtains water for its water system through four different permits/contracts from the Feather River. The City also has access to one groundwater well located at the Water Treatment Plant for use in drought or emergency conditions. The anticipated annual demand for the City at buildout is anticipated to be about 29,400 acre-feet. All of the City’s existing permits/contracts are very reliable except for the State Water Project contract (SWP). The average allocation of SWP water is about 60% each year and can be as low as 5-10%. It is critical for the City to secure reliable water rights during the summer months to be able to meet future water needs. According to the adopted 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, on an annual basis, the City has sufficient water rights during an average year to meet its demands though buildout; however, in a dry year (drought) scenario, the City could face shortages during the summer months when evaluating the monthly supplies available to the City. Agenda Item 10 In 2006 the City filed a lawsuit against DWR along with Solano County Water Agency, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the County of Butte (Plaintiffs) claiming a breach of contract by DWR. The lawsuit seeks that the plaintiffs receive their full allocation of SWP water before any SWP water is allocated to be exported to south of Delta SWP contractors. The City participated in numerous mediation sessions with all of the other parties involved in the litigation in an effort to reach a settlement agreement that would be acceptable to all involved. The Agreement in Principle (AIP) was brought to Council in closed session on May 15, 2012 for approval. All of the other negotiating representatives for all parties recommended the AIP to their respective governing boards for approval and all parties signed the AIP as of 8/31/12. With the AIP approved, next steps were to prepare a Settlement Agreement and Release, amendments to the SWP contracts, and an environmental document. Analysis: With all parties agreeing to the provisions of the AIP, the attorneys and representatives from each party have prepared a Settlement Agreement and Release and a contract amendment to the City’s SWP contract. The Settlement Agreement and Release is Attachment 1 to the staff report and the contract amendment is Exhibit A to the Agreement. The Settlement Agreement includes the following aspects: • North of Delta Allocation o Increased water supply reliability of 5-25% each year. (Above current allocations.) • Advanced Table A Program o A bank of 20,000 acre-feet of additional water available for the City’s use • Limitations on Additional Water Supplies o The City will not file for a new water right before 2027 and will not have a preference or priority, above the North of Delta Allocation, in SWP water. • Interpretation of Article 45(i) of Existing Contract o Increased amount of water diversion allowed in summer months (more flexibility). The Settlement Agreement has significant impacts on the City’s water supply. Without this settlement, the City would need to obtain additional water rights around 2030 to meet its water needs during drought conditions. Through judicious use of the City’s current water supplies and the increased supply and reliability of this proposed settlement, the City should have sufficient water supplies to meet all of its water needs through buildout of the City. In addition, DWR prepared and circulated a Negative Declaration for the settlement and adopted it in September. The Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration are Attachment 2 to the staff report. Staff is recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, execution of the Settlement Agreement and Release, and execution of Amendment No. 9 to the City’s Water Supply Contract with DWR. Fiscal Impact: Immediate fiscal impacts are negligible; however, long term savings to the City will be measured in millions of dollars through the increased reliability/delivery of State Water Project water to the City and the City not having to purchase additional water rights to meet buildout demands. Alternatives: Do not accept the terms contained in the Settlement Agreement and Release. Recommendation: a. Review Negative Declaration adopted by Department of Water Resources (lead agency) and adopt Negative Declaration as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. Authorize the City Manager to execute Settlement Agreement and Release regarding City of Yuba City. c. Authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to the Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the City of Yuba City. Prepared by: Submitted by: /s/ Diana Langley /s/ Steven R. Jepsen Diana Langley Steven R. Jepsen Deputy Public Works Director - Engineering City Manager Reviewed by: Department Head SJ Finance RB City Attorney TH Other SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE REGARDING THE CITY OF YUBA CITY THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between City of Yuba City (“Plaintiff” or "Yuba"); the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”); and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, Alameda County Water District, Antelope Valley- East Kern Water Agency, Castaic Lake Water Agency, Central Coast Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, Kern County Water Agency, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Mojave Water Agency, Palmdale Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Tulare Basin Water Storage District (the “Intervenors”) as of the last date executed below, referred to herein collectively as the “Parties” and each individually as a “Party.” RECITALS A. WHEREAS, on or about July 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a civil action against DWR in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento (the “Court”), Case No. 34-2008-00016338 CU-BC-GDS, and on or about March 2, 2009 the Court granted Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene in the action (the complaint and the complaint in intervention are collectively referred to as the “Action”); B. WHEREAS, Plaintiff and each of the Intervenors has a contract with DWR for a supply of water from the State Water Project (“SWP”) which existing contracts are referred to as the “SWP Contracts” or “Water Supply Contracts”. C. WHEREAS, the Parties’ claims in the Action relate to disputes over the meaning of the Water Supply Contracts regarding Plaintiffs’ claimed rights to water under their Contracts pursuant to Water Code section 11460, et seq., and section 10505, commonly referred to as the “area of origin statutes”; D. WHEREAS, each Party disputes the interpretation of the SWP Contracts advanced by the other Parties, and DWR and Intervenors dispute whether any of the Plaintiffs have established area of origin rights and each Party denies that any other Party is entitled to any relief based on the claims alleged in the Action; E. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to compromise, resolve, settle, and terminate any and all of the disputes or claims in the Action on terms and conditions set forth herein (the “Settled Disputes and Claims”). The Settled Disputes and Claims include any and all disputes or claims related to whether any Plaintiff is entitled to a preference in water deliveries from the SWP under the terms of the existing SWP Contracts; F. WHEREAS, the Parties represent that they understand they are waiving significant legal rights by signing this Agreement, and each Party in no way admits responsibility for debts, liability, and/or obligations owed to any other Party or third parties, and this Agreement is made in a spirit of compromise for the sole purpose of 1 avoiding the uncertainties and expenses of litigation with respect to the Settled Disputes and Claims. G. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth above, including all definitions therein, are expressly incorporated as terms of this Agreement. 2. Terms of Settlement. 2.1 Contract Amendment. Subject to the Conditions Precedent set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, Yuba and DWR shall enter into an amendment to Yuba’s SWP Contract, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, that incorporates provisions of this Settlement Agreement. 2.1.1 North of Delta Allocation: a. General: DWR determines SWP Table A Allocations using existing SWP facility availability and capacities, storage conditions, contractor requests, other demands for Project water, operational and regulatory restrictions, available hydrologic forecast data, as well as other factors that may affect the available supply and the ability to deliver Project water.
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]