DOCSLIB.ORG

2-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project Draft 2-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment APRIL 2009 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project DRAFT APRIL 2009 Prepared for Department of Water Resources U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1416 9th Street 2800 Cottage Way, MP-152 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento CA 95825 Table of Contents SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................i SECTION 1 Introduction.....................................................................................1-1 1.1 CEQA Requirements, Lead Agency, and State Actions........................................... 1-1 1.2 NEPA Requirements, Lead Agency, and Federal actions ........................................ 1-2 1.3 Background............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Contents and Organization of the MND/EA............................................................. 1-6 1.5 Public Review Process.............................................................................................. 1-6 SECTION 2 Project Description.........................................................................2-1 2.1 Purpose of and Need for the Project ......................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Purpose of the Project.................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Need for the Project ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Key Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Project Location........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 Project Facilities ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5.2 2-Gates Concept........................................................................................... 2-3 2.5.3 Project Construction .................................................................................. 2-11 2.5.4 Project Schedule ........................................................................................ 2-14 2.6 Project Operations................................................................................................... 2-15 2.6.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 2-15 2.6.2 Factors Considered in Project Operations.................................................. 2-16 2.6.3 Modeling Operations and Monitoring with Adult and Larvae/Juvenile Behavior Models........................................................................................ 2-17 2.6.4 2-Gates Operations in Conjunction with OCAP BO Flow Management .. 2-18 2.7 Environmental Monitoring for Operations ............................................................. 2-22 2.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 2-22 2.7.2 Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................... 2-23 2.7.3 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................. 2-23 2.7.4 Monitoring Needs ...................................................................................... 2-24 2.7.5 Existing Monitoring Programs................................................................... 2-31 2-Gates_MND_EA_Draft.doc i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT 2-GATES FISH PROTECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT APRIL 2009 2.7.6 New / Added Monitoring Programs to Evaluate 2-Gates Operations ........2-33 2.7.7 Data Collection, Handling, Storage and Disposition..................................2-35 2.7.8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control............................................................2-35 2.8 Environmental Protection Measures Schedule........................................................2-41 2.8.1 Avoidance of Sensitive Resources .............................................................2-41 2.8.2 Compensation for Potential Impacts on Sensitive Aquatic Species...........2-41 2.8.3 Erosion, Sediment Control, and Spill Prevention Measures ......................2-41 2.8.4 Turbidity Control........................................................................................2-42 2.8.5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Emission Control Measures .......................................................................................2-43 2.8.6 Plans ...........................................................................................................2-43 2.9 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................2-43 2.10 Required Permits and Environmental Approvals....................................................2-44 2.10.1 California Environmental Quality Act .......................................................2-44 2.10.2 National Environmental Policy Act ...........................................................2-44 2.10.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/ U.S. Coast Guard ....................................2-44 2.10.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service .................2-44 2.10.5 California State Historic Preservation Office.............................................2-45 2.10.6 California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ............2-45 2.10.7 California Department of Fish and Game ..................................................2-45 2.10.8 State Lands Commission............................................................................2-45 2.11 Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................................2-45 2.11.1 Other Barrier Alternatives..........................................................................2-45 2.11.2 Barriers at Other Locations ........................................................................2-46 2.11.3 Design Considerations and Site-Specific Alternatives...............................2-46 2.11.4 No Action Alternative ................................................................................2-47 2.12 Analysis Considerations..........................................................................................2-47 SECTION 3 Related Projects Considered in the Cumulative Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................3-1 3.1 California Department of Water Resources – Bay-Delta Conservation Plan............3-1 3.2 California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – Franks Tract Project ..................................................................................................3-2 3.3 California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – South Delta Improvements Program .........................................................................3-3 3.4 Contra Costa Water District – Water Quality Improvement Projects .......................3-4 ii 2-Gates_MND_EA_Draft.doc SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.4.1 Alternative Intake Project ............................................................................ 3-4 3.4.2 Contra Costa Canal Replacement Project.................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Contra Costa Water District and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project ....................................................... 3-5 3.5 Central Valley Project Improvement Act Required Program ................................... 3-5 3.6 Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utilities District – Freeport Regional Water Project .............................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Other Potential Projects ............................................................................................ 3-6 SECTION 4 Environmental Baseline .................................................................4-1 Project Title .............................................................................................................. 4-1 Lead Agency Name and Address.............................................................................. 4-1 Contact Person .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Project Location........................................................................................................ 4-1 Project Applicant’s Name and Address .................................................................... 4-2 General Plan Designation ......................................................................................... 4-2 Zoning 4-2 Description of Project ............................................................................................... 4-2 Existing Land Uses and Setting ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [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]
  • State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007
    State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 Prepared by: The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 www.oes.ca.gov With support from: City and Regional Planning Department Community Safety & Sustainability Group Faculty Advisors and Consultants California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0283 Public Comment Draft Table of Contents Chapter 1 - The Planning Process ................................................................................... 1 1.0 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................ 2 1.2 Plan Overview........................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Planning Process Components.................................................................................. 5 1.3.1 Plan Update Procedure........................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Coordination of Agencies and Departments.......................................................... 7 1.3.3 Integration with Other Planning Efforts .............................................................. 10 1.4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 14 1.5 Adoption by the State.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Demonstration Project for the Protection and Enhancement of Essential Fish and Wildlife Habitat at Rhode Island, Contra Costa County, Ca
    Demonstration Project for the Protection and Enhancement of Essential Fish and Wildlife Habitat at Rhode Island, Contra Costa County, Ca. Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Demonstration Project for the Protection and Enhancement of Essential Fish and Wildlife Habitat at Rhode Island, Contra Costa County, Ca. 2. Proposal applicants: Eugene Leong, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Todd Gardner Department of Fish and Game CDFG - Region 2 1701 Nimbus Rd. Suite A Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95670 916 358-2887 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: At-risk species, fish Endangered Species Habitat Restoration, Estuarine shallow water 5. Type of project: Planning 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: Shallow Water, Tidal and Marsh Habitat 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 38.0012 Longitude: -121.5734 Datum: NAD27 Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. Rhode Island is a permanently flooded island located in Contra Costa County, within Ecological Unit 1.4 of the western-central Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta (the Delta) of California, and is located within the Bouldin Island and Woodward Island 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale, USGS Quadrangle Maps. The island is located east of Holland Tract, south of Little Mandeville Island, and west of Bacon island, within the Old River System of the Delta. 10. Location - Ecozone: 1.4 Central and West Delta 11. Location - County: Contra Costa 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 – Flood Hazards: Risks and Mitigation
    CHAPTER 7–FLOOD HAZARDS CHAPTER 7 – FLOOD HAZARDS: RISKS AND MITIGATION CHAPTER CONTENT 7.1 Riverine, Stream, and Alluvial Flood Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 7.1.1 Identifying Riverine, Stream, and Alluvial Flood Hazards 7.1.2 Profiling Riverine, Stream, and Alluvial Flood Hazards 7.1.3 Assessment of State Flood Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.1.4 Assessment of Local Flood Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.1.5 Current Riverine, Stream, and Alluvial Flood Hazard Mitigation Efforts 7.1.6 Additional Flood Hazard Mitigation Opportunities 7.2 Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Flooding, and Erosion Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 7.2.1 Identifying Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Flooding, and Erosion Hazards 7.2.2 Profiling Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Flooding, and Erosion Hazards 7.2.3 Assessment of Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Flooding, and Erosion Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.2.4 Current Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Flooding, and Erosion Hazard Mitigation Efforts 7.3 Tsunami and Seiche Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 7.3.1 Identifying Tsunami and Seiche Hazards 7.3.2 Profiling Tsunami Hazards 7.3.3 Assessment of State Tsunami Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.3.4 Assessment of Local Tsunami Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.3.5 Current Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Efforts 7.3.6 Additional Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Opportunities 7.4 Levee Failure and Safety, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 7.4.1 Identifying Levee Hazards 7.4.2 Profiling Levee Hazards 7.4.3 Assessment of Levee Failure Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.4.4 Current Levee Failure Hazard Mitigation Efforts 7.5 Dam Failure and Safety Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 7.5.1 Identifying Dam Hazards – Failures and Overtopping 7.5.2 Profiling Dam Hazards – Failures and Overtopping 7.5.3 Assessment of Dam Failure Vulnerability and Potential Losses 7.5.4 Current Dam Failure Hazard Mitigation Efforts 7.5.5 Additional Dam Failure Hazard Mitigation Opportunities About Chapter 7 Chapter 7 assesses hazards and risks related to flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]