DOCSLIB.ORG

Bouldin Island Webb Tract Holland Tract Bacon Island

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bouldin Island Webb Tract Holland Tract Bacon Island Bouldin Island Webb Tract Holland Tract Bacon Island 6023.9 Acres 5508.9 Acres 4249.8 Acres 5598 Acres Delta Levees by Purpose Delta Levees by Purpose Delta Levees by Purpose Delta Levees by Purpose Miles of delta levees by their Miles of delta levees by their Miles of delta levees by their Miles of delta levees by their intended use. intended use. intended use. intended use. 40 30 24 35 28 22 35 26 30 20 24 ) ) ) ) s 30 s 22 s 18 s e e e e 25 l l l l i i 20 i 16 i 25 m m 18 m m ( ( ( 14 ( 20 e e 16 e e c 20 c c 12 c 14 n n n n a a a 10 a 15 t t 12 t t 15 s s s s i i 10 i 8 i D D D D 10 10 8 6 6 4 5 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 R R F T R ec ec lo RE ec la la od N la m m C C m a a o H a tio tio nt W tio n n ro IT n l HI N RD Delta Crop Map 2015 Delta Crop Map 2015 Delta Crop Map 2015 Delta Crop Map 2015 Delta Land use dataset for the Delta Land use dataset for the Delta Land use dataset for the Delta Land use dataset for the extent of Delta Boundary. extent of Delta Boundary. extent of Delta Boundary. extent of Delta Boundary. Delineated on Pleiades Image Delineated on Pleiades Image Delineated on Pleiades Image Delineated on Pleiades Image from July 13-14, 2015. The chart from July 13-14, 2015. The chart from July 13-14, 2015. The chart from July 13-14, 2015. The chart below displays the total acreage below displays the total acreage below displays the total acreage below displays the total acreage of each crop in the query area. of each crop in the query area. of each crop in the query area. of each crop in the query area. 5,500 5,500 2,000 3,500 5,000 5,000 1,800 3,000 4,500 4,500 1,600 4,000 4,000 1,400 2,500 3,500 3,500 s s s 1,200 s e e e e 2,000 r 3,000 r 3,000 r r c c c 1,000 c A 2,500 A 2,500 A A 1,500 800 2,000 2,000 600 1,500 1,500 1,000 400 1,000 1,000 500 500 500 200 0 0 0 0 F S N I N P N F N N I N S P F N N S N F P N S T N I N | | V | I R | W | V R | I W | | | V R | W | | V | | R | I W FI S | D | P | FI | | D | S P FI | | S | FI P | S TR | D | E EM N LE R AS W E N R LE W EM AS E N R EM W E AS N EM U R LE W LD I AT IP T A LD AT IP A I T LD AT IP I A LD T AT I C IP A C AG IV AR U T C IV AR T AG U C IV AR AG T C U IV AG K AR T R R E I R ER R E I ER R R R E I R ER R R E R N I ER O I V A E O V A I E O V A I O E V I U A P CU E N SU P E N SU CU P E N CU SU P E CU R N SU S L G V R S G V R L S G V L R S G L SE V R T E EG F E EG F T E EG T F E T R EG F UR TA E A TA E A UR TA E UR A TA UR Y E A A T T CE T T CE A T T A CE T A A T CE L IO AT IO AT L IO AT L IO L N AT A N IO N IO A N IO A N A D IO ND N N ND N ND ND BE N I I I I RR NC NC NC NC Y I I I I C DE DE DE DE R N N N N OP TA TA TA TA S L L L L Delta Geology TO Delta Geology Delta GeoTO logy DeltaTO Geology TO A A A A GR GR GR GR IC IC IC IC UL UL UL UL TU TU TU TU Total area in acres of geologic RE Total area in acres of geologic Total area in acRrE es of geologic Total areaR Ein acres of geologic RE classes in the area of interest. classes in the area of interest. classes in the area of interest. classes in the area of interest. 7,000 6,000 4,000 6,500 6,500 5,500 6,000 3,500 6,000 5,000 5,500 5,500 5,000 4,500 3,000 5,000 4,500 4,000 4,500 2,500 4,000 s s 3,500 s s e 4,000 e e e r r r r 3,500 c 3,500 c 3,000 c 2,000 c A A A A 3,000 3,000 2,500 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 Pe Eo Pe Eo Eo Eo Pe Pe a li a li li li a a t a an t a an an an t a t a n d n d d d n n d e d e e e d d m po m po po po m m ud s ud s s s ud ud its its its its of o of o o o of of ti f ti f f f ti ti da up da up up up da da l w pe l w pe pe pe l w l w e r e r r r e e tl M tl M M M tl tl an od an od od od an an ds es ds es es es ds ds a to a to to to a a nd f nd f f f nd nd w or w or or or w w a m a m m m a a te at te at at at te te rw io rw io io io rw rw Watersheds & Administraative Waten rsheds & Administarative n Watersnh eds & Administran tive Watearsheds & Administrative a ys (u ys (u (u (u ys ys ( pp ( pp pp pp ( ( Ho e Ho e e e Ho Ho lo r P lo r P r P r P lo lo c li c li le li c c Boundaries en Boundareis es en Boues ndariesis es Boundarein es en e) to e) to to to e) e) ce ce ce ce ne ne ne ne ) ) ) ? ) Watersheds and administrative Watersheds and administrative Watersheds and administrative Watersheds and administrative delineations intersecting the area delineations intersecting the area delineations intersecting the area delineations intersecting the area of interest. These include HUC12 of interest. These include HUC12 of interest. These include HUC12 of interest. These include HUC12 watersheds, FEMA flood zones, watersheds, FEMA flood zones, watersheds, FEMA flood zones, watersheds, FEMA flood zones, reclamation districts, reclamation districts, reclamation districts, reclamation districts, groundwater basins, and private groundwater basins, and private groundwater basins, and private groundwater basins, and private water districts. water districts. water districts. water districts. Water Boundaries Water Boundaries Water Boundaries Water Boundaries Watershed Watershed Watershed Watershed Middle River-San Middle River-San Boundary Boundary Dataset Boundary Dataset Lower Old River Boundary Dataset Lower Old River Joaquin River Joaquin River Dataset HUC12 HUC12 HUC12 HUC12 South Mokelumne FEMA Flood Zones A Dutch Slough-Big Middle River-San River-Mokelumne Bulletin 118 Break Joaquin River River Groundwater TRACY Middle River-San Mandeville Island- FEMA Flood Basins Joaquin River Connection A Zones Reclamation Jersey Island- Slough WEBB TRACT Bulletin 118 Districts Taylor Slough FEMA Flood EASTERN SAN A Groundwater Zones JOAQUIN Private Water CENTRAL DELTA FEMA Flood Zones A Basins Districts WATER AGENCY Bulletin 118 Bulletin 118 Reclamation Groundwater TRACY none Groundwater TRACY Districts Basins Basins Private Water CENTRAL DELTA Reclamation Reclamation HOLLAND TRACT BACON ISLAND Districts WATER AGENCY Districts Districts Private Water CENTRAL DELTA IRONHOUSE WATER AGENCY Private Water Districts SANITARY Districts DISTRICT.
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]
  • Fall 2015 CCSDA Newsletter
    Contra Costa Special Districts Association Newsletter Contra Costa Chapter of the California Special Districts Association Fall 2015 October 2015 Ironhouse Sanitary District General Ironhouse new General Manager Manager Tom Williams Retires Chad Davisson, the new General Manager for Ironhouse You don’t have to look too hard to see the changes, Sanitary District (ISD), started on July 13, 2015. Chad innovations and conservation techniques that Tom comes to the District with over 25 years of wastewater Williams has helped bring to Ironhouse Sanitary District industry experience. (ISD) during his 15 years there, including the past 10 as He also has 10 years of general manager. It is those lasting contributions that executive level organization Williams leaves behind. management experience. He has a Bachelor of Arts Congratulations Degree in Public Administration Tom Williams for 15 from San Diego State University and is scheduled to receive his years’ service, ten MBA Degree from Saint Mary’s College in Moraga January years as Manager! 2016. He served as the General Manager of the Richmond First hired as the district’s engineer under the Municipal Sewer District, worked for the City of San leadership of then GM David Bauer, Williams dove in Mateo as the Environmental Services Division Manager, on existing projects around the old treatment plant. the Water Reclamation Systems Plant Manager for When Bauer retired, Williams easily made the transition Olivenhain Water District and the Industrial Waste to overseeing the day-to-day operations of the district. Control Representative for the County of San Diego. One of his first major projects was building a railroad He has also worked as a consultant for Crescent City, undercrossing to safely bring workers and the public the City of Ontario, the City of Montclair and the past what had been a non-signalized grade crossing Olivenhain Municipal Water District.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Fish Restoration Program Agreement
    Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service Cover: Prospect Island, Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, and Liberty Island (Photo Credit: Dale Kolke) State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources March 2012 Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish Prepared by: With assistance from: Heidi Rooks Department of Fish and Game Stephani Spaar Dave Zezulak Dennis McEwan Fred Jurick Jason Roberts Laura Flournoy Carl Wilcox Tim Smith Jim Starr Gina Benigno Gina Van Klompenburg Pamela Lindholm Tim Stevens Ling Chu Chandra Ferrari Laurence Kerckhoff Delta Stewardship Council Kristal Davis‐Fadtke PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 FRPA Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Program Description ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Program Structure and
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062
    FINAL ◦ MAY 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 2028 Stillwater Sciences (Bacon Island) 279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Davis, CA 95618 Stockton, CA 95202 Stillwater Sciences FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Suggested citation: Reclamation District No. 2028. 2016. Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California for Reclamation District No. 2028 (Bacon Island), Stockton, California. Cover photo: View of Bacon Island’s northwestern levee corner and surrounding interior lands. May 2017 Stillwater Sciences i FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project PROJECT SUMMARY Project title Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Reclamation District No. 2028 CEQA lead agency name (Bacon Island) and address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Andrea Lobato, Manager CEQA responsible agencies The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Deirdre West, Environmental Planning Manager David A. Forkel Chairman, Board of Trustees Reclamation District No. 2028 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Cell: (510) 693-9977 Nate Hershey, P.E. Contact person and phone District
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control
    4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control 4 Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Control This chapter addresses the water resources within the Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (Project) area and describes potential effects of Project implementation on those resources. Water resources include hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control. The analysis provided in this chapter includes a description of existing environmental conditions; methods used to assess environmental effects; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Project implementation; and mitigation measures recommended to avoid or minimize adverse effects under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and significant impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal, State of California (State), and local regulations that pertain to flood control, hydraulics, and hydrology are summarized. 4.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment This section presents the environmental setting for hydrology, hydraulics, and flood control in the Project area. 4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Project area for hydrology and hydraulics consists of the Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Rio Vista, the Yolo Bypass, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) in the vicinity of Cache Slough (Figure 4-1). These areas are described below. 4.1.1.1 Sacramento River The Sacramento River has been divided into two reaches, one above the Fremont Weir, and one below the Fremont Weir. These two reaches are discussed separately because they are affected by the proposed project differently. 4.1.1.1.1 Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to Fremont Weir Flows in the 65-mile Shasta Dam to Red Bluff (River Mile [RM] 244) reach of the Sacramento River are regulated by Shasta Dam and are reregulated downstream at Keswick Dam (RM 302), as shown in Figure 4-1.
    [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]
  • Flood Contingency Public Safety
    PUBLIC SAFETY FLOOD CONTINGENCY N ' 121°39'W 121°38'30"W 121°38'W 121°37'30"W 121°37'W 121°36'30"W 121°36'W 121°35'30"W 121°35'W 121°34'30"W 121°34'W 121°33'30"W 121°33'W 2 N ' 121°39'W 121°38'30"W 121°38'W 121°37'30"W 121°37'W 121°36'30"W 121°36'W 121°35'30"W 121°35'W 121°34'30"W 121°34'W 121°33'30"W 121°33'W ° 2 8 ° N 3 ' 8 2 N 3 ' C ° 2 8 a C ° 3 n a 8 a Holland Tract n 3 l 1 a Holland Tract 8 l 1 0 8 + 0 R 0 RD 2025 + d Frank's Tract 0 R 0 RD 2025 d Frank's Tract 0 The symbology presented in the legend below is global to the The symbology presented in the legend below is global to the project area, some symbols may not be present on map project area, some symbols may not be present on map H5 d R d r R TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION r e H3 e QUIMBY ISLAND p N i " Gate p 0 Gate N i " 3 P ' 0 0 1 0 + 3 P ° 0 ' 16 N " 8 1 RD 2090 ° 0 3 N ROADS " 8 3 ' 0 ROADS 3 1 3 ° 2 ' 8 1 1 ° 0 3 2 1 8 BETHEL SL + QUIMBY ISLAND 3 I AND 0 0 0 BETHEL ISLAND + 0 H 0 Major Local Trail, 150+0 Major Local Trail, 0 0 Interstate Highway Trail MUNICIPAL ID 2 RD 2090 Interstate Highway Trail 150+0 Road Road Major 2 o Road Road Major 2 0 MUNICIPAL ID 2 + 0 0 l + H2 0 0 H h l 0 H Gate a way Rd g Ga o a ylo r u te way Rd PS T n o FFM ylo r l R l Ta l FLOOD CONTINGENCY OPTIONS d d S 2 LEVEE INFORMATION Rd a 4 A FFM C N ' d 0 A D D 1 + 0 N 0 ' n u ° n 30+ Flood Contingency Special Flood 0 1 1000-Foot Levee Stationing 1 8 00 ° + 0 t N 0 3 2 3 u ' 300+00 290+00 1 8 d 1 5 N 3 2 Option Consideration o ' 0 ° PS 5 1 8 Levee Centerline + 0 C ° d M 3 R 0 + H3 8 d 3 Effluent
    [Show full text]
  • Franks Tract and Little Franks Tract User Survey
    Franks Tract and Little Franks Tract User Survey Brett Milligan, Professor of Landscape Architecture, UC Davis Alejo Kraus-Polk, Ph.D. candidate in Geography, UC Davis Standardized invitation to participate in the survey………………………………………………………………..…2 User survey……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 User survey responses summarized by question…………………………………………………………………….…5 Standardized invitation to participate in the survey: We would appreciate your participation in a quick (5 -10 minute) survey intended for people who live, work, and play in and around Franks Tract and Little Franks Tract. Completion of this survey will provide the opportunity to have your values and preferences documented and included in a forthcoming Franks Tract restoration feasibility study. Franks Tract & Little Franks Tract User Survey Survey responses will be collected on a password protected google spreadsheet, accessible exclusively to project researchers (Brett Milligan, Alejo Kraus-Polk). Survey responses will remain anonymous (individual identifying information will not be gathered). Participation is voluntary. Thank you for your participation, 2 | Franks Tract and Little Franks Tract User Survey Franks Tract & Little Franks Tract User Survey This anonymous survey is intended to assess current resident and user values for Franks Tract & Little Franks Tract. Survey results will be included in a forthcoming Franks Tract restoration feasibility study. Participation is voluntary. Which use category do you identify with most? Please check only one.
    [Show full text]