Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Environment] - Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Summary -
Peripheral Canal Project, August 1974
Box: P35
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
PRESS
SUMMARY OF
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
PERIPHERAL CANAL PROJECT
State of California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AUGUST 1974
In this secluded slough of the Delta Meadows Area, some of the characteristics of the early
Delta are still evident.
FOREWORD
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
proposes to construct the Peripheral Canal as an integral
feature of the California State Water Project (SWP). The
canal would be a major link of the CA authorized State Water
Project. It is planned as a joint-use facility of the SWP
and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). It is needed
by 1980, to convey water across the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta to the aqueducts of the SWP and CVP without undue
reduction in supply or deterioration in quality, to correct
certain adverse environmental conditions in the Delta, and
to facilitate water management in the Delta. A program of
staged construction by the State is planned under which
federal participation would be feasible at any time.
This brief summary of highlights of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Peripheral Canal
was compiled with assistance from the firm of Jones and
Stokes Associates, Inc., under contract to DWR, from detailed
material contained in the full Draft EIR on the project. It
is published both as an integral part of the full report and
under separate cover. As a part of the full report, it is
intended to give the reader an overview and summary of the
full report. As a separate document, it is intended to give
the reader, who does not require or want the extensive detail,
general information on the nature of the project and the
environmental impacts involved. For those reviewing only
the summary who find they need more detail, the full report
can be obtained for a fee to cover the cost of printing and
mailing by contacting DWR, P. 0. Box 388, Sacramento, or
phoning 916+445-8228.
Poli
Robin R. Reynolds
District Engineer
Central District
Department of Water Resources
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
i
An Overview
1
Environmental Setting
3
Local Vicinity
3
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
3
Suisun Marsh
4
San Francisco Bay Complex
5
State Water Project-Central Valley Project Export Service Areas
5
Related Projects
12
Project Facilities and Operation.
14
Operational Flexibility
19
Economics and Financing
21
Delta Monitoring Programs
21
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
23
Local Vicinity
23
The Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Francisco Bay
23
Export Service Areas
24
Northern California Water Sources
25
Related Projects
25
Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Peripheral Canal
30
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
32
State-Only Gravity Canal
32
Waterway Control Plan
32
Modified Folsom-South Canal
33
Physical Barrier Plan
33
Hydraulic Barrier/No Project
34
Comparison on Delta Alternatives
34
Alternative Water Supply Sources Outside the Delta
36
Conclusions
38
Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided
39
Local Vicinity
39
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
39
Suisun Marsh
39
San Francisco Bay Complex
39
Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Occur If the Peripheral Canal is Implemented
40
Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.
41
Statement of Intent
42
FIGURES
TABLES
Page
Table
Number
Location Map, Proposed Peripheral
1 Related Projects
12
Canal Project
2
2 Physical and Operational Features
Detail Map, Peripheral Canal Alignment
of the Peripheral Canal
15
and Major Features
17
3 Summary of Major Impacts and
Typical Peripheral Canal Cross Section,
Mitigation Measures
26
Recreation and Wildlife Plan
18
4 Employment Growth Induced by
Peripheral Canal
30
5 Comparison of Delta Alternatives
to the Proposed Action
35
6 Effects of Alternative Water Supply
Sources Outside of the Delta
37
ii
SUMMARY OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PERIPHERAL CANAL PROJECT
AN OVERVIEW
The use of Delta channels as conduits for conveying
water for diversion to areas of shortage began in 1940, with
the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). Expansion of the CVP
and the advent of the State Water Project (SWP) have increased
these diversions to a current level (1973) of 3.5 million acre-
feet annually. By 2020, this is projected to increase to about
8 million acre-feet annually. This compares with a total average
annual inflow to the Delta by 2020 of about 19 million acre-feet.
Even at current diversion rates, the Delta is subjected
to altered flow patterns and water quality problems in some areas.
Without intelligent water management, the situation will deterio-
rate as export diversions increase.
The concept of a hydraulically isolated Peripheral
Canal around the Delta to improve the quality of export supplies
and provide for the environmental needs of the Delta culminates
years of study and numerous proposals by many agencies. The plan
was officially adopted as a feature of the SWP by the Department
of Water Resources in 1966. In 1969, the U. S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion issued a feasibility report recommending the Peripheral Canal
as an additional unit of the CVP to serve the joint needs of the
federal and state projects.
The objective of the project is to convey good quality
water from the Sacramento River to the existing SWP and CVP
pumping plants for export and to 12 release facilities to dis-
tribute water from the canal to Delta channels to maintain water
quality within prescribed criteria and to improve the Delta
aquatic environment and the resources and economies it supports.
Studies indicate the Peripheral Canal must be opera-
tional by 1980 to protect the water supply and water quality
functions of the SWP during years of below normal precipitation.
This will require a construction start in 1975. Construction of
the canal will be staged. The first stage will be a gravity flow
canal to serve the conveyance needs of the SWP and CVP until
1985. The second stage will include construction of a pumping
plant to meet conveyance needs after 1985. In the event federal
financial participation is not authorized by 1975, the State
will finance the construction of the first stage with the pro-
vision to convey CVP water until such time as authorization is
obtained. The State also has the capability of financing the
second stage.
1
LAKE
BERRYCSSA
SACRAMENTO
SOUTH
$
HOOD-CLAY
NAPA
PIERSON
CONNECTION
DISTRICT
MASTINGS
TRACT
FAIRFIELD
NORTH
AQUEDUCT
-
***
BAY
*
ISLAND
TRA
ISLAND
SUISUN
CARAL
's
Reg
MARSH
BRACK
TRACT
BRANNAN
ISLAND
0
TO
VALLEJO
TRITCHELL
PERIPHERAL
SCAND
SLAND
TRACT
CANAL
SUISUM
$
ISLAND
SLAND
TRACT
VEHICE
EMPIRE
CHOCKETT
BENICIA
TRACT
ISLAND
FRANKS
A
and
BETHEL
PITTSBURG
TRACT
each
MARTINEZ
COSTA
ANTIOCH
NOTCHKISS)
HOLLAND
SAN RAFAEL
TRACT
TRACT
TRACT
BACOM
Paid
VEALE
ISLAND
TRACT
PALM
ISLAND
AQUEDUCT
STOCKTON
SAN PABLO
JONES
TRACT
RES
RICHMOND
TRACT
08**00
TRACT
MUPPER
MIDDLE
Creek
FEDERAL
RIVER
S
MAUSALITO
BERKELEY
TRACT
CLIFTON COURT
UPPER
FOREBAY
ROBERTS
DELTA
ISLAND
OAKLAND
PUMPING
PLANT
or
FABIAR
RIVER
TRACT
/
TRACY
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMEDA
RES
PUMPING
TRACT
PLANT
R
SOUTHBAY
PLANT
3AN LUIS
TRACY
SAN LEANDRO
(****
Aqueduct
Delto- Mendoto Collornia
ORAIN
BOY
is
AQUEDUCT
*********
DEL VALLE
SAN MATEO
RES
HETCH
LEGEND
Company
Canal
RELEASE FACILITY
Visa
REDWOOD CITY
LOCATION MAP
CALAVERAS
PROPOSED PERIPHERAL
PALO ALTO/O
m
CANAL PROJECT
N
SCALE OF MILES
4
0
4
8
12
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The influence of the Peripheral Canal will extend
beyond the confines of the land through which the canal will
Pass. The environmental setting has, therefore, been divided
into the five major areas which would be affected: Local
Vicinity, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region, Suisun Marsh,
San Francisco Bay Complex, and State Water Project and Central
Valley Project Export Service Areas. Related projects are
also discussed. The summary tabulation, which follows the
brief narrative descriptions, lists the major environmental
and socio-economic attributes of these six subjects.
Local Vicinity
Ninety-five percent of the land within the proposed
canal right-of-way is farmland. Land elevations in some areas
are below sea level and an extensive levee system protects
the area from flooding by normal tidal water, as well as winter
high water.
Although agriculture has altered much of the native
landscape, the area sustains a number of important natural
resources. Resident and migratory wildlife rely on the area
for food and cover. Anadromous and resident fish occur in
the waterways which the canal would abut and cross.
Urban and industrial development are nonexistent
within the canal right-of-way. The economy of the area relies
primarily on agriculture.
Although no recreational facilities lie within the
local vicinity area, some recreation use is made of the tidal
rivers and sloughs adjacent to and within portions of the canal
right-of-way.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
The 738,000 acres, which constitute the statutory
Delta, make up part of the largest estuary in the State. Over
half of the land area lies at elevations ranging from 5 feet
above sea level to 20 feet below sea level. Man's tireless
efforts to reclaim this land from flooding by high runoff and
tides are evident from the hundreds of miles of levees criss-
crossing the Delta.
The aquatic environment of the Delta is complex.
The flow of water in its numerous channels is influenced by
tidal action, streamflow, and diversions in and exports from
the Delta.
3
Although land reclamation of the former marshlands
has removed much of the once lush expanses of native vegetation,
the Delta remains a habitat for a multitude of fish and wild-
life species. Salmon, shad, and steelhead migrate through the
Delta. The estuary provides an important nursery area for
striped bass. The Delta contributes 20 percent of the pheasants
harvested in the State. Ten rare and endangered vertebrate
species are known to occur in the Delta, none of which are
exclusively confined to that area.
The estimated 550,000 acres of cultivated land within
the Delta produce an average gross farm income of $195 million
per year.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region is within the
area bordered by the cities of Sacramento, Stockton, Tracy, and
Pittsburg. Although the total population of the region reached
1.7 million in 1970, the Delta islands, themselves, remain
sparsely populated. Upland areas, particularly in the western
Delta have undergone steady industrialization and urbanization.
Recreation and second home developments have begun to encroach
on the edges of the peat land.
The Delta, with its vast waterways and picturesque
settings, constitutes one of the major recreation attractions
in California.
Because of its great resources, the uses of the Delta
must be wisely managed to provide a balance between man's use
of the area and the need to maintain environmental values.
Suisun Marsh
Suisun Marsh is located approximately 40 miles east
of the Golden Gate. This marsh is an important segment of the
Pacific Flyway for waterfowl. Its southern corner is west of
the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Fresh-
water outflow from the Delta directly affects the salt balance
of the marsh.
Most of the 55,000 acres of marshland and small water-
ways are enclosed within a levee system. Approximately 45,000
acres (82 percent) are privately owned and used primarily for
duck clubs. The remainder (18 percent) is owned by the State,
and includes waterfowl management and refuge areas, and public
recreation areas.
The expanses of unbroken native habitat and the wide
diversity of vegetation and aquatic conditions that prevail,
make the marsh a valuable wildlife habitat.
4
Man's primary use of the marsh is for duck hunting.
The diverse resources of the marsh also provide opportunity
for a broad spectrum of public recreation uses.
San Francisco Bay Complex
The San Francisco Bay Complex comprises portions
of all of nine surrounding counties and includes San Francisco,
San Pablo, Suisun, Grizzly and Honker Bays. The entire estuarine
complex covers almost 435 square miles and is rimmed by 275 miles
of shoreline. The habitat afforded by the Bay and surrounding
lands supports a multiplicity of fish and wildlife species.
The Bay complex is among the most urbanized areas in the State,
with a total 1970 population of 4.6 million.
The largest surface water inflow to the Bay is pro-
vided by runoff from the Central Valley (Delta outflow).
Flushing of pollutants from the upper Bays is affected to
varying degrees by operation of the CVP and SWP. In general,
the projects provide greater summer inflow and somewhat lesser
winter inflow than would otherwise occur. The effectiveness
of summer Delta outflow for flushing pollutants is most notice-
able in the western Delta and Suisun Bay. However, a threefold
increase in summer outflow from 1,800 cfs to 5,000 cfs has
only a 25 percent effect on flushing in that area. The effective-
ness of summer outflow flushing diminishes in San Pablo Bay to
about 6 percent and becomes insignificant in the central and
south Bays. The flushing effects of winter floodflows passing
through the Delta into the Bay are more significant and extend
throughout most of the Bay system; but the intermittent and
unpredictable nature of winter floodflows make them unreliable
as a dependable pollution control measure. The exchange of
fresh sea water through the Golden Gate by tidal action, compared
to Delta outflow, is in the order of 50 to 1 in summer and 5
to 1 in the winter and, thus, is the more significant factor
in flushing pollutants from the Bay.
With continued population and industrial growth, a
primary concern is the effect of increased waste discharges on
Bay water quality, regardless of project operation.
State Water Project-Central Valley Project Export Service Areas
The Peripheral Canal will convey water across the
Delta for delivery to portions of the San Francisco Bay Area,
San Joaquin Valley, Central Coastal Area, and Southern California.
About two-thirds of the State's population resides in these areas.
A listing of the major environmental features and
problems of these areas and data on water supply and demands are
included in the following summary:
2-86463-C
5
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING INFLUENCED
BY PERIPHERAL CANAL
Local Vicinity (Canal Right-of-Way)
Major Environmental Features
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. Permanent pasture, corn and
sorghum, grain and hay, marsh and riparian lands used by
migrant and resident wildlife species.
Resident Fish. Catfish, bullheads, bass and crappie in
channels to be intersected by canal.
Birds. 135 known species -- including upland game and
sandhill cranes.
Mammals.
14 known species.
Historic/Archaeological. 8 archaeological sites within
canal right-of-way. The value of one was destroyed in the
1950's by leveling.
Agriculture. 6,100 acres within right-of-way.
Urban Development. None within right-of-way. Six unincor-
porated towns nearby. Four farmsteads and two residences
within right-of-way.
Industry. None within right-of-way.
Recreation. Some shore and boat fishing, pleasure boating,
overnight camping and duck hunting where canal will cross
Delta channels.
Transportation. Highways, railroads, deep water channels
and waterways. All channels considered navigable and most
accessible to small craft.
Utilities. Electrical, gas and drainage lines within
right-of-way.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
Major Environmental Features
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. Scattered areas which support
tules and other natural vegetation. Trees on levees and
higher ground. 500,000 acres of varied crops also support
wildlife.
6
Anadromous and Resident Game Fish. Striped bass, King salmon,
steelhead, American shad, sturgeon, catfish and sunfish are the
principal species.
Nongame Fish. 10 identified species.
Waterfowl. Numerous ducks, geese, swans and cranes.
Upland Game.
Pheasant most abundant.
Nongame Birds. 200 species -- most migrant.
Mammals.
39 species.
Reptiles. 19 species.
Amphibians.
8
species.
Rare and Endangered Species. A number of rare and endangered
species: 1 fish, 7 birds, 1 mammal, 2 reptiles, 3 plants.
Agriculture. 550,000 acres in agriculture. Important to
local, state and national economy.
Urban Development. Regional population growth strong, parti-
cularly Stockton and Sacramento. Delta islands sparsely
populated. Some suburban and summer home encroachment on
edges of peat land.
Industry. Large industrial complexes at Pittsburg and
Antioch. Industrial growth and diversification in all 5
counties of region. Natural gas production important within
Delta.
Recreation. Sports fishing, water skiing, pleasure boating,
overnight camping and hunting major activities. 125 marinas
and 2 state parks.
Transportation. Network of good highways on periphery, one
north-south and two east-west highways across the Delta, and
numerous unimproved roads in central Delta. Extensive ferry
system. One railroad crosses Delta. Metropolitan airports in
Sacramento and Stockton. 700 miles navigable waterways.
2 deep water ports.
Major Environmental Problems
Wildlife Habitat. Disappearance of critical marsh and
riparian lands.
Land Subsidence. Causes seepage and levee failure.
Export Diversions. Cause flow reversal problems which increase
ocean salinity intrusion and adversely affect fish.
7
Water Quality. High concentrations of mineral salts in
southern Delta. Dissolved oxygen problems in San Joaquin River
Deep Water Channel near Stockton, and in dead-end sloughs.
Waste discharge from subdivisions, houseboats, marinas, muni-
cipalities, and industries. Increased salinity from irrigation
return flows.
Fish. Diversions and localized poor water quality adversely
affecting striped bass, salmon, and resident fish, and their
food organisms.
Agriculture. Major problems with drainage, soil conditions
and poor water quality in some areas.
Recreation. Access, parking and sandy beaches critically
short. Reduction of aesthetic values due to levee maintenance.
Lack of adequate facilities. Conflicts of use between fisher-
men, boaters, and aquatic sports.
Suisun Marsh
Major Environmental Features
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 55,000 acres constitute 10 percent
of California's remaining natural wetlands on the Pacific
Flyway. Shallow bays and mudflats, fallow uplands, grain fields
and heavily vegetated levees.
Resident and Anadromous Fish. Striped bass, King salmon,
sturgeon, steelhead, catfish, numerous nongame fish.
Waterfowl. Supports up to 20 percent of California's wintering
duck population.
Birds. 202 species use as nesting or wintering grounds.
Mammals. 36 species.
Reptiles and Amphibians. 20 species.
Rare and Endangered Species. 7 species.
Industry. Modest local trapping industry for fur-bearers.
Recreation. Duck hunting on public and private lands, marginal
pheasant hunting, fishing, bird watching, sightseeing, aesthetic
enjoyment, field trails, picnicking, bicycling and miscellaneous
others.
San Francisco Bay Complex
The Bay Complex includes San Francisco, San Pablo, Suisun, Grizzly and
Honker Bays. Man's uses include municipal and industrial sewage
8
disposal, industrial water supply, recreation, commerce, fishing and
aesthetic pleasure.
Major Environmental Features
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 4 major wildlife habitats in and
around bay. Many species dependent on habitat for continued
existence.
Fish and Invertebrates. Population of marine species number in
millions. Striped bass, surfperch, jacksmelt, and topsmelt are
popular sport fishes. Shellfish include mussels, oysters, clams,
crab and shrimp.
Birds. 76 species of water birds winter in bay, numerous shore-
birds, 100 species of song birds, wading birds, hawks and owls.
Several heron rookeries.
Mammals. Sea lions, seals and porpoises inhabit bay. Fur-
bearers and rodents occupy marshes.
Rare and Endangered Species. 8 bird species and 2 mammal species
are considered rare or endangered.
Urban Development. Population increases and urbanization rapid
in 9 Bay Area counties. San Francisco functions as center of
commerce, tourism and culture for region.
Industry. Industrial development important throughout region.
Use of bay water important to number of industries.
Recreation. Water-oriented recreation activities include pic-
nicking, boating, nature walking, camping, hunting and fishing.
Swimming and water skiing, where water quality permits.
Fishery. Commercial fishery, much of it for bait.
Major Environmental Problems
Water Quality. Municipal and industrial waste discharges
causing: adverse effects on fish and invertebrates; reduced
diversity of benthic organisms; and low dissolved oxygen in
shallow areas of bay, reaches of Napa and Petaluma Rivers, and
southernmost part of bay. Excessive algal concentration in
localized areas of South and Suisun Bays. Odor and floating
materials. Numerous oil spills.
State Water Project-Central Valley Project
Export Service Areas
San Francisco Bay Service Area
Major Environmental Features. Discussed in preceding section.
9
Water Supply and Demands. Most freshwater sources developed
to capacity, including ground water overdraft in some areas.
Peripheral Canal will convey 30 percent of water supply antici-
pated by year 2020.
San Joaquin Valley Service Area
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 100,000 acres fish and wildlife
habitat.
Wildlife. Waterfowl of Pacific Flyway, upland game and many
nongame birds and mammals.
Agriculture. Top agricultural producing area in state.
7,500,000 acres of irrigated and potentially irrigable land.
Gross farm receipts in excess of $2 billion annually.
Industry. Generally agriculturally related, but also has major
oil producing areas.
Urban. 200,000 acres urban land.
Recreation. Considerable hunting on public and private lands
and bird watching. Aqueducts and reservoirs provide water-
related recreation including fishing, bikeways, boating, camping
and swimming.
Water Supply and Demand. Most surface water supplies from
streams in Sierra and its foothills and diversions from Delta.
Ground water used extensively with overdraft occurring in some
areas. Peripheral Canal will convey 35 percent of anticipated
water supply by year 2020.
Central Coastal Service Area
Fish and Wildlife. Salmon, steelhead and trout. Deer and
upland game common to abundant.
Agriculture. Economy based primarily on agriculture.
Industry. Agricultural related industries. Extractions and
refining of petroleum, mining, commercial fishing and lumbering.
Military installations important to local economy.
Recreation. Pacific Ocean center of recreational activities.
Fishing and hunting important.
Water Supply and Demand. The Peripheral Canal will convey
18 percent of estimated water supply by the year 2020.
Southern California Service Area
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat.
350,000 acres.
10
Wildlife. Fish and wildlife extensive in South Lahontan and
Colorado Desert hydrologic areas.
Agriculture. 5,530,000 acres of irrigated or potentially irri-
gable land within all hydrographic areas.
Industry. Industrial development extensive in south coastal
area. Much less so in more typically desert areas.
Urban Development. 1,170,000 acres in urban use. South coastal
area has over half State's population. Population sparse in
South Lahontan hydrologic area and increasing in Colorado Desert
hydrologic area.
Water Quality. Ranges from excellent to poor. Problem with
sea water intrusion and man's activities in coastal plains. High
levels of mineral salts in Colorado River water and ground water
in some areas.
Water Supply and Demand. Local surface and ground water supplies
almost fully developed in south coastal area. Colorado River and
Mono-Owens Valley provide imported water. 48 percent of projected
water supplies of entire area will be conveyed by the Peripheral
Canal.
*
*
*
*
*
Wildlife habitat of the Suisun Marsh - a major waterfowl wintering area along the Pacific Flyway.
11
Related Projects
Numerous public and private projects in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin River systems have modified natural streamflows
into the Delta. At the present level of development, net water
use in or above the Delta averages about 8,000,000 acre-feet
annually, and is projected to increase in the future.
Described in Table 1 are the present and planned major
projects which affect the water supply in the Delta. Projects
which affect Delta water quality or would have an effect on the
design of the Peripheral Canal are also described.
TABLE 1
RELATED PROJECTS
Project
Status
Project Operator
Project Purposes
Relationship to Delta/or Peripheral Canal
Shasta Division
Existing
USBR
Flood Control, Irrigation, Fishery
Provide Delta exports and augment low summer
(CVP)
and Power, Navigation, Recreation,
and fall flows in Delta in coordination with
Municipal and Industrial
other CVP units.
Trinity Division
Existing
USBR
Power and Irrigation
11
(CVP)
Folsom Unit
Existing
USBR
Irrigation, Power, Flood Control,
(CVP)
Municipal and Industrial, Fishery
and Wildlife, Recreation
Oroville Division
Existing
DWR
Irrigation, Municipal and Industrial,
Provides water supply for diversion from Delta
(SWP)
Power, Flood Control, Fish and
and salinity control in Delta.
Wildlife
Friant Division
Existing
USBR
Flood Control, Irrigation
Diverts water in Upper San Joaquin River which
(CVP)
is replaced by Delta-Mendota Canal water
diverted from Delta.
Solano Project
Existing
USBR
Water Conservation, Irrigation
Development on Putah Creek, a tributary to the
Delta.
Mokelumne Project
Existing
East Bay Muni-
Municipal and Industrial
Transports Mokelumne water across Delta for
cipal Utility
use in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.
District (EBMUD)
Export of tributary supply to Delta.
Hetch Hetchy Project
Existing
San Francisco
Municipal and Industrial
Export of Tuolumne River, a tributary supply
City and County
to Delta.
North Bay Aqueduct
Partial
DWR
Municipal and Industrial
Will divert up to 67,000 acre-feet annually
(SWP)
Operation
from Delta.
Contra Costa Canal
Existing
CCCWD
Municipal and Industrial,
Diverts water from Delta when water quality
(CVP)
Irrigation
unsuitable offshore in western Delta. Water
would be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
Kellogg Project
Proposed
CCCWD or USBR
Municipal and Industrial, Irriga-
Could pump additional water supplies from
(CVP)
tion, Water Quality, Recreation,
Delta to augment Contra Costa Canal. Water
Fish and Wildlife
would be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
Auburn-Folsom
Under
USBR
Municipal and Industrial, Power,
Coordinated operation with Shasta and Folsom
South Unit
Construction
Flood Control, Recreation, Fishery
for CVP inflow to Delta. Also related to
(CVP)
proposed Hood-Clay Connection.
Hood-Clay
Proposed
USBR
To augment supply in Folsom-South
Peripheral Canal intake will be designed to
Connection (CVP)
Canal and redirect American River
provide capacity for this facility.
environmental flows.
New Melones
Under
USBR
Flood Control, Irrigation, Power,
Water quality control of San Joaquin River
Reservoir (CVP)
Construction
Recreation, Fishery, Water Quality
inflow to Delta. Could effect releases from
Control
Peripheral Canal.
East Side Division
Proposed
USBR
Irrigation, Municipal and Indus-
Related to an expanded Hood-Clay Connection
(CVP)
trial, Wildlife
which would be part of Peripheral Canal intake.
Cross Valley Canal
Under
Kern County
Irrigation
Will divert additional 133,000 acre-feet
Construction
Water Agency
annually from Delta that would be conveyed by
the Peripheral Canal.
American Aqueduct
Proposed
EBMUD
Municipal and Industrial Water
Export of American River tributary supply to
Supply
Delta.
12
TABLE 1 (continued)
Project
Status
Project Operator
Project Purposes
Relationship to Delta/or Peripheral Canal
Nashville Reservoir
Proposed
USBR
Irrigation, Municipal and Indus-
Fishery releases would provide incidental
(CVP)
trial, Flood Control, Recreation
water quality benefits in Delta. Development
on Cosumnes River, a tributary to the Delta.
San Luis Drain
Partial
USBR
Water Quality and Irrigation
Will eventually convey agricultural return
(CVP)
Operation
Waste Water Disposal
flows to receiving waters at Antioch. Needed
to maintain salt balance in San Joaquin Valley.
San Joaquin Master
Authorized
DWR
11
Drain (SWP)
Sacramento Canal
Partial
USBR
Irrigation
Reduces Delta inflow. Diverts water from
Units (CVP)
Operation
upper Sacramento River.
Morrison Creek
Proposed
Corps of
Flood Control, Recreation, Fish
Outflow would enter Peripheral Canal below
Flood Control
Engineers
and Wildlife
intake facilities.
Hidden Reservoir
Under
Corps of
Flood Control, Irrigation,
Will contribute to depletion of annual inflow
Construction
Engineers
Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
to Delta. Storage on Fresno River, a tributary
to San Joaquin River.
Buchanan Reservoir
"
11
Will contribute to depletion of annual inflow
to Delta. Storage on Chowchilla River, a tribu-
tary to San Joaquin River.
Allen Camp
Proposed
USBR
Flood Control, Irrigation,
Would contribute to depletion of annual inflow
Reservoir
Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
to Delta. Storage on Pit River, a tributary
to Sacramento River.
Indian Valley
Under
Yolo County
Flood Control, Irrigation, Fish
Will contribute to depletion of annual inflow
Reservoir
Construction
Flood Control &
and Wildlife
to Delta. Storage on tributary to Cache Creek.
Water Conserva-
tion District
Western Delta Over-
SWP
SWP and CVP
Water Quality for Irrigation
Substitute water supply for Western Delta in
land Agricultural
Authorized
lieu of large releases to repulse salt water
Water Facilities
intrusion.
Baldwin Ship Channel
Authorized
Corps of
Navigation
Would deepen San Joaquin River navigation
Engineers
channel and affect placement of Peripheral
Canal siphon.
Interstate
Under
Caltrans
Transportation
Will utilize spoil from canal for highway
Highway 5
Construction
embankment. Borrow sites will be used for
fishery, recreation or sanitary landfill dis-
posal sites if Peripheral Canal is not built.
Delta-Mendota Canal
Existing
USBR
Irrigation, Municipal and
Supply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
(CVP)
Industrial
California Aqueduct
Existing
DWR
Irrigation, Municipal and
Supply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
(SWP)
Industrial, Recreation
South Bay Aqueduct
Existing
DWR
Irrigation, Municipal and Indus-
Supply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
(SWP)
trial, Recreation, Flood Control
San Luis Reservoir
Existing
DWR
SWP-CVP Offstream Storage,
Supply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
(SWP-CVP)
Recreation, Power, Fish and
Wildlife
San Felipe Division
Authorized
USBR
Irrigation, Municipaliand
Supply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.
(CVP)
Industrial
Upper Eel River
Authorized
DWR
Augment Delta Supply, Power, Flood
Would provide new water supply for diversion
Development (SWP)
(Moratorium)
Control, Recreation, Fish and
from the Delta.
Wildlife
3-86463-C
13
PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATION
The Peripheral Canal will begin at the Sacramento
River near the community of Hood, extend in a southeasterly
direction along the eastern perimeter of the Delta, cross
the San Joaquin River west of Stockton, and terminate at
Clifton Court Forebay of the SWP. A connection between the
Forebay and Tracy Pumping Plant of the CVP will be provided.
The unlined canal will resemble a Delta channel or a natural
river, except with flatter side slopes. The 43-mile long
earth channel will be 400 or more feet wide and about 30 feet
deep, with gently sloping levees on both sides. Trees and
shrubs will be established on the slopes for recreation and
wildlife.
The objective of the project will be accomplished
by: (1) providing a conveyance for export water without undue
reduction in supply or degradation in quality; (2) changing
the point of export diversion from near Clifton Court Forebay
to the vicinity of Hood via the Sacramento River, thereby
isolating export water and eliminating the adverse effects
on Delta channels; (3) providing controlled releases of water
into the Delta at 12 locations where the canal intersects Delta
channels to facilitate year-round water quality management
in the Delta and assure positive downstream flows in all main
fish migration channels; (4) accepting floodflows from Morrison
Creek Basin and Middle River into the canal to reduce the
pressure of flow on the natural channels downstream; (5) incor-
porating suitable recreation and fish and wildlife facilities
and operational considerations so as to retain fish and wildlife
resources at present levels and to increase these resources
to the degree compatible with other project purposes; and
(6) designing the canal to add a new recreation use, building
new recreation facilities, and improving public access to
this area of the Delta.
The sizing, configuration and appurtenant works of
the canal would be applicable to both the first and second
stages of construction. The major facilities and a description
of their operation are summarized in Table 2. Several of the
project features; namely, the Peripheral Canal pumping plant,
the southeastern Delta water control facilities and Georgiana
Slough facilities will be constructed as Stage II features.
These have been identified as such in Table 2.
14
TABLE 2
PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEATURES OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL
Facility
Description
Operation
Peripheral Canal
43-mile-long leveed earth channel.
Export by gravity flow during Stage I; by pumping during
Stage II.
Canal Intake
23,300 cfs design capacity including 1,500 cfs
Intakes water from Sacramento River into Canal. Gravity
for proposed Hood-Clay connection, decreasing
flow less than design and dependent on river stage.
to 18,300 cfs.at Clifton Court Forebay.
Intake Facilities
Trashrack, sediment basin, flood gates, and fish
Screens fish and debris, minimizes sediment entering
protection facility.
canal, and controls diversions.
Siphons
Four siphons placed under major sloughs and rivers
Conveys canal water under major rivers and sloughs so as
crossed by canal.
not to impede floodflow capacities of existing channels,
navigation, and fish migration.
Fish Protective
Perforated plates at entrance to intake facilities
Screens juvenile fish from export water and keeps them in
Facility
or rotating drums downstream of entrance.
or returns them to Sacramento River.
(Type to be determined from studies.)
Delta Release
12 water release points along canal with total
Releases to Delta channels to replace severed water sup-
Facilities
capacity of 6,300 cfs.
plies, meet consumptive needs, control water quality,
and maintain positive flows in channels. Releases
minimal during Stage I and increasing during Stage II.
Drainage and
Substitute or modified channels to replace minor
Will continue current functions.
Irrigation
irrigation and drainage systems severed by canal.
Facilities
Morrison Creek
Drainage enters Peripheral Canal forebay between
Floodflows from Morrison Creek Drainage diverted into
Flood Control
floodgates and Stage II pumping plant over a weir
enlarged section of canal. Flows released through
structure.
release facilities or exported.
Middle River
Pumping plant and control structure on Middle
Provides releases for water quality control and controls
Facilities
River. Location dependent on alternative
floodflows taken into Peripheral Canal.
selected. (See Southeastern Delta Water Control
Facility.)
Fourteen Mile
Combination water quality control channel and
Increased releases and elimination of effluent disposal to
Slough Facilities
boat access channel. Provides boat access to
improve water quality. Boaters will be provided a more
Lincoln Village Marina from San Joaquin River.
direct route to San Joaquin River.
Utilities
Replacements for those in canal right-of-way.
Will continue current operation.
Bridges
12 crossings to current standards.
Will carry 10 roads and 2 railroads over the canal.
Roads
Alternate public access road and service road on
Public access road for vehicular traffic and off shoulder
Peripheral Canal levee embankments.
parking. Service road will double as recreational trail.
Recreational
Recreation trails, auto-aquatic parks, fishing
Operated by Department of Parks and Recreation or local
Facilities
areas, nature study areas, picnic and camping
agencies.
areas, beaches, boat-in development, and
swimming lagoons.
Wildlife Areas
4 major preserve and habitat areas. Also along
State Department of Fish and Game will operate, regu-
canal berms and outside of canal embankments.
lating use and access to specified areas.
Control for Delta
Gates would be automated by remote control. Boat
Would permit gates to be open, either fully or partially,
Cross Channel
lock and bypass canal would be constructed to
on varying schedule to meet environmental requirements in
compensate for increased duration of closure.
Mokelumne River not met by canal releases.
Peripheral Canal
3 miles south of intake. Capacity of 21,800 cfs
Will provide additional capacity to convey joint SWP and
Pumping Plant
at 10-foot lift. Could pass floodwater from
CVP export flows. (Stage II facility.)
Morrison Creek by gravity flow.
Southeastern Delta
3 alternate plans under consideration for water
Two plans will use Middle River release facilities to
Water Control
quality improvement and water control facilities
distribute flows to Old and San Joaquin Rivers. Third will
Facility
for southeastern Delta.
release water from Delta-Mendota Canal to San Joaquin River.
(Stage II facilities.)
Georgiana Slough
Series of rock weirs.
Will prevent excess transfer from Sacramento River to
Facilities
Mokelumne River caused by tidal action. (Stage II facility.)
15
9T
E SECTION
Website
MATCH LINE
CAMPGROUND
BOAT-IN
NOHdlS
AREA
DISAPPOINTMENT SLOUGH
WHITE SLOUGH
RECREATION AREA
HIGHWAY 12
EXTENSION-
HAMMER LANE
BRIDGES
STATE ROUTE 12
BRIDGES..
EIGHTMIL ROAD
EXTENSION
Se
WHITE CANAL
WHITE CANAL
?
KAW
94
a
a
#
R
SECTION 2
#
N
c
N
è
&
H
***
*g)
but
>
B
No
NOHJIS
BRIDGES
HONOIS OOH
WOODBRIDGE ROAD
RECREATION AREA
RECREATION AREA
CANAL
WALNUT GROVE ROAD
12 AYMHOIH
BEAVER
for
WALNUT GROVE ROAD BRIDGE
CANAL
A
FUTURE
1
MOKELUMNE RIVER SIPHON
WILDLIFE AREA
CHONGH OOH
WILDLIFE AREA
HONOIS 1501
SECTION
34
/
110
OF
1 SECTION
©
RECREATION AREA
quality
NISYS SERVICE
FISH BARRIER
AND
INTAKE STRUCTURE
is
way
2121
LAMBERT ROAD BRIDGE
FLOOD GATES
If
(16%)
S.P.R.R BRIDGE
NISY8 SEDICENT
INTAKE WORKS
MORRISON CREEK
I
MATCH INE SECTION 1
NETVOR
CONNECTION
MONOIS 1501
AY10-000H
30
PERIPHERAL CANAL PUMPING PLANT
#
AMOUNT
adidas ROAD
NIM1
HONORS 1507
/
AREA
or
HONOIS ISO
STD
-
&
/
5)
this
2888889
STATE
MOKELUMNE
AT&SF BRIDGE
THE
AQUEDUCT
1
CROSSING
STATE ROUTE BRIDGE
FOURTEENMILE CANAL
SWIMMING
LAGOON
INLAND DRIVE BRIDGE
5
JACOBS ROAD
WILDLIFE AREA
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SIPHON
FOURTEENMILE
SLOUGH
RECREATION
NATURE
STUDY
COMPLEX
$
TRAPPER SLOUGH
AREA
RECREATION AREA
RIVER
SECTION 4
CLIFTON COURT
FOREBAY DELTA
MATCH LINE SECTION SECTION 4.8 5
MENDOTA CANAL
CONNECTION
UPPER MIDDLE RIVER
TRACY ROAD BRIDGE
BOATING AREA
(ENTRANCE)
ENTRY
TRAPPER SLOUGH
OLD RIVER CANAL
RECREATION AREA
$900
-
OLD RIVER SIPHON
OLD RIVER
RECREATION AREA
SECTION 5
\
LEGEND
MAJOR RECREATION AREA
MAJOR WILDLIFE AREA
2
AUTO-AQUATIC PARK
FISHING ACCESS SITE
600
-
RELEASE FACILITY (CFS)
PERIPHERAL
CANAL
WATER SURFACE AREA
3
ANTIOCH
8
STOCKTON
DETAIL MAP
5
PERIPHERAL CANAL ALIGNMENT
-
AND MAJOR FEATURES
INDEX MAP
Fair
give
SCALE OF MILES
17
The levee embankments along both sides of the
Peripheral Canal would be designed for the purpose of
recreation and wildlife uses and a fishery would be
established. A number of recreation facilities would be
constructed along the canal levees, on excess lands, or
on parcels adjacent to the canal and purchased specifi-
cally for recreation and/or wildlife. The facilities
being planned include auto-aquatic parks, fishing areas,
a visitor facility and interpretation center, a nature
study area, picnic and camping areas, beaches, swimming
lagoons, and boat-in developments from adjacent Delta
channels.
LEVEE
FISH
FISH
LANDSIDE STRIP
EMBANKMENT
BERM
INTERFACE
HABITAT
MAIN TROUGH
HABITAT
INTERFACE
BERM
LEVEE EMBANKMENT
002
TYPICAL CANAL CROSS SECTION
LEVEE
EMBANKMENT
BERM
PARALLEL DRAINAGE CHANNEL
-
www
DRAINAGE AND RELEASE CANAL CROSS SECTION
Typical Peripheral Canal Cross Section, Recreation and Wildlife Plan.
18
Operation plans of the canal will be governed by
the water supply available to and requirements of the Delta
and the requirements of the export service areas. The operating
criteria for releases from the canal will be flexible pending
a determination of requirements resulting from interagency
environmental studies, contract negotiations with Delta water
users, permanent water quality standards to be set by the
control agencies, and adjusted by actual operation of the
Peripheral Canal to assure that the desired results are
achieved.
For the interim period until 1985, the first stage
gravity canal would be operated primarily to meet SWP and CVP
export needs. Minimal releases would be made to the Delta to
replace severed water supplies and meet consumptive needs in
the southern Delta, with the principal requirement being met
by the flows down the natural channels of the Sacramento River
and Delta. Although smaller releases will be made from the
canal under interim gravity operation, more water will be
available in the Delta than in later years, and the magnitude
and direction of flows will be quite similar to those with the
full canal in operation. A major aspect of the interim opera-
tion would be the isolation of the export pumps from southern
Delta channels and the elimination of existing adverse effects
of this pumping.
Future increased demands, new projects, and changes
in land use in the Central Valley will reduce surplus water
presently available in the Delta. Even with allowances for
curtailing deliveries to agriculture in critically dry years
as permitted in the contracting principles of the SWP and CVP,
additional sources of water will eventually be required during
critically dry periods with or without the Peripheral Canal
if all contracted deliveries and the assumed flows for Delta
water quality are to be met. To meet these demands, additional
water sources would have to be developed, either in northern
California or in the export service areas. Waste water reclama-
tion and sea water conversion are examples of supplemental
sources of additional supply that could be developed for the
service areas. It is estimated that under the 2020 level of
development, the requirement for additional water from northern
California sources during a critically dry period would be
increased by about 1.8 million acre-feet per year without the
canal. Additional water supplies would be needed by 1980
without the canal, and by 1990 or later, with the canal.
Operational Flexibility
The Peripheral Canal will be operated in coordination
with the reservoirs of the CVP and SWP. While the storage in
19
these upstream reservoirs will be regulated to control the high
winter and spring runoff from these watersheds and augment low
flows in the summer and fall in the Delta, the canal will pro-
vide the means of distributing this inflow throughout the
Delta. Each hydrologic year is different; hence, the exact
amount and timing of releases from the canal to provide the
desired environmental conditions in the Delta will differ from
year to year, month to month, and possibly within shorter
periods. The total capability of the project to distribute
water to the interior Delta will include releases from 12 release
facilities along the canal and Clifton Court Forebay, and con-
trolled flows through the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana
Slough, and a facility to regulate the flow from San Joaquin
River into Old River.
During the early spring months, the operational plan
is to improve water quality in the Old, Middle, and Mokelumne
Rivers for the start of the agricultural season, and to provide
proper conditions for striped bass spawning in the Delta. Later
in the spring, during the bass spawning period (approximately
5 weeks), diversions into the canal for export will be minimized
to permit the free-floating eggs and larvae spawned in the
Sacramento River to drift past the intake into the western Delta.
In the early summer, following striped bass spawning,
channel velocities will be reduced, particularly in the Mokelumne
River system, to improve production of fish food. This will
be accomplished by closing the Delta Cross Channel and releasing
enough water from the canal to meet consumptive use and in-channel
requirements. This mode of operation will continue throughout
the summer, although canal releases will increase as consumptive
use requirements within the Delta rise and inflow from tributary
streams decrease.
During the fall, the plan is to reduce releases from
the canal consistent with consumptive use needs to assure a
high proportion of homestream water in the migrating channels
of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River for King salmon runs, and
to prevent attraction of Sacramento River salmon to canal release
sites. This will be accomplished by stopping canal releases to
the northern Delta, meeting northern Delta requirements via the
Delta Cross Channel, reducing canal releases into the southern
Delta, and increasing the flow in the Sacramento River.
Winter operation envisions no canal releases in the
northern Delta during the extended salmon runs of the Sacramento
River and increasing releases again in the southern Delta.
Additional canal operational flexibility will include
the ability to make releases of up to 1,500 cfs from the Clifton
Court Forebay to the southern Delta, when necessary, and short-
term flow changes elsewhere when occasional unpredictable
20
situations occur. These might include increases in winter
releases to provide leaching water in the southern Delta
agricultural lands, redistribution of flows to eliminate
localized pollution blocks, and further cutbacks in canal
diversions at certain times to protect the Delta fishery by
allowing additional flow down the Sacramento River.
Economics and Financing
The total estimated capital cost of the full Peripheral
Canal is $286 million. The estimated cost of Stage I facilities,
including initial recreation facilities, is $211 million and
Stage II facilities is $75 million. The estimated annual
operation, maintenance and replacement cost under full operation,
exclusive of CVP power costs and operational costs for recrea-
tion, is $2.4 million.
Cost sharing is planned on a 50-50 basis if and when
the Federal Government is authorized to participate. Pending
that time, the entire project will be funded by monies avail-
able to the Department of Water Resources for construction of
the State Water Project. Should federal authorization be
delayed, the Department expects that the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation will pay a transportation charge, or other form
of interim compensation, for the conveyance of federal CVP
water through the canal.
Delta Monitoring Programs
Associated with the operation of the Peripheral Canal
will be a number of monitoring programs designed to confirm or
adjust operational criteria relating to the effects on water
quality, ground water adjacent to the canal and the environmental
requirements for the Delta fishery. These programs will be:
1. Water quality monitoring program based on the
State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1379.
2. Seepage Monitoring - This is an ongoing program
of DWR, begun in 1966, and is to continue after the
canal is operational in order to determine effects of
the canal on adjacent ground water and mitigation, if
necessary.
3. A cooperative program between the Departments
of Fish and Game and Water Resources: (a) to establish
21
water management terms and criteria for maintaining
fish and wildlife resources at present levels, and
for increasing these levels where feasible; (b) to
monitor the terms and criteria and modify water
operations as necessary for evaluation purposes; and
(c) to revise the terms and criteria consistent with
the results of the evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Fishing for striped bass - the principal game fish caught in the Delta estuary.
22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental impacts attributable to the Peripheral
Canal are divided into these major headings -- Local Vicinity,
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region, Suisun Marsh, San Francisco
Bay Complex, SWP and CVP Export Service Areas, Northern California
Water Sources, and Related Projects. Emphasis is placed on the
long-term effects of the canal under conditions of full opera-
tion, although short-term effects are also discussed. For each
of the six headings, impacts and mitigation measures designed
to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts are briefly discussed.
Table 3, which is a Summary of Major Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, follows this discussion.
Local Vicinity
The impacted area lies primarily within the canal
right-of-way between Hood and Clifton Court Forebay. It also
includes the area along the connection between Clifton Court
Forebay and the Delta Mendota Canal. Local vicinity is defined
as the area encompassing the canal and physical facilities along
the canal.
Impacts on the local vicinity are primarily due to
the physical presence of the canal and short-term effects during
construction. The extensive recreation, fish and wildife areas,
and improved access to the Delta to be established in conjunc-
tion with the canal, rate as environmental pluses. On the
negative side, existing wildlife habitat will be destroyed,
including agricultural lands and portions of marsh and riparian
lands.
A number of environmental features have been incor-
porated into the design and operation of the canal and appurtenant
facilities which should substantially mitigate most environmental
losses.
The Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Francisco Bay
Most impacts of the canal on the Delta, Suisun Marsh
and San Francisco Bay would be due to the operational effects
of the canal. Although much is known about the ecology of the
area, limitations in complex environments such as these require
that some actual environmental effects can be defined only after
actual operation of the canal has begun. Monitoring environ-
mental conditions for modification of operation, together with
flexibility for operation incorporated in the design of the
facilities will permit a wide enough range to adjust to those
conditions.
23
Restoring natural flow regimes in all major channels
of the Delta and eliminating other adverse conditions associ-
ated with direct export pumping from the southern Delta channels
will be the primary benefits of canal operation. The greatest
potential for experiencing environmental problems will come
in the dry and critical water supply years. Over the 45 years
used in operation studies, dry and critical years occurred
one-third of the time.
The design of protective facilities and mitigation
features, along with an environmentally sound plan of operation,
will ultimately determine the net impact on the Delta environ-
ment. The focus of the mitigation measures planned is aimed
at preventing adverse conditions in relation to fish migration
and maturation, recreation and local water supply.
All water use above and diversions from the Delta
diminishes annual Delta outflow. Releases of water from upstream
CVP and SWP storage reservoirs provide water for Delta outflow
during periods of the year when the natural flows would be non-
existent or inadequate to control salinity intrusion. The
Peripheral Canal will provide the means to distribute this
water to the best advantage of the Delta, as it flows to the
western Delta and into the Bay system to control salinity
intrusion.
The Suisun Marsh environment is determined in part
by the timing, rate, and volume of Delta outflow, and in part
by water management practices in the marsh. Increased soil
salinity due to a lack of adequate offshore water quality will
increasingly plague the marsh with or without the Peripheral
Canal, although salinity in Suisun Bay will be somewhat higher
with the canal than without, primarily in dry and critical years.
The impacts on the marsh listed on Table 3 are anticipated,
regardless of canal operation. To the extent that the SWP, of
which the Peripheral Canal is a part, diminishes Delta outflow,
the Department of Water Resources will participate financially
in its fair share of the responsibility to preserve the marsh.
With the exception of Suisun Bay, changes in Delta
outflow due to canal operation are not expected to have any
significant effect on the Bay environment. With or without
the canal, reduced outflow to Suisun Bay will increase the
duration of salinity intrusion into that Bay, and will subse-
quently alter habitat and the distribution of certain aquatic
fish food species, such as Neomysis.
Export Service Areas
Impacts on the SWP and CVP service areas are primarily
due to a more dependable water supply and an improvement in
water quality of the SWP and CVP systems. It is estimated that
24
for the 2020 level of development, the requirements for dis-
Posing of agricultural waste water from San Joaquin Valley
will be reduced by half with the Peripheral Canal due to
improved water quality. The economy, environment, and social
well-being of several million people will be enhanced. As
all known impacts are beneficial, no mitigation measures are
required.
Northern California Water Sources
With or without the Peripheral Canal, it will be
necessary to develop additional northern California water
sources if all authorized and contractual water deliveries and
the Delta water quality criteria are to be met. The Peripheral
Canal, however, reduces the quantity of water required due to
the reduced flows needed for salinity repulsion. It also
delays the time when additional supplies would be needed.
Potential sources of water supply are development of surface
water in the Sacramento Valley, upper Eel River Basin, and
possibly the Trinity River. Such developments would have a
substantial impact on the northern California environment.
It is assumed that an environmentally acceptable project
could be formulated in the valley, with increasing environ-
mental and legal problems encountered with the other develop-
ments.
Related Projects
The Peripheral Canal would also affect several
authorized or proposed projects in and around the Delta as
shown in Table 3. These impacts would generally be classified
as beneficial from an environmental and/or economic standpoint.
25
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Local Vicinity (Canal Right-of-Way)
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Agriculture
I
Loss of agricultural land and production.
Spoil used as embankment for I-5 will reduce agri-
cultural land needed for spoil areas.
-
Possible increased urban encroachment if
county zoning regulations permit.
Local Government
-
Loss of existing tax base.
Expansion of recreation support industries will
Finance
tend to offset
Wildlife
+
Canal side habitat and wildlife preserves.
-
Losses due to destruction of present habitat.
Implement recreation and wildlife plan to maintain
wildlife resources at present levels and increase
where possible. Establish 4 major wildlife areas.
Design canal for wildlife use. Alignments avoid
particularly valuable wildlife areas where possi-
ble. Recreation and wildlife plan includes deve-
lopmental controls for maintaining a high quality
recreational environment.
-
Wildlife disruption due to recreational
Control conflicts between recreation and wildlife
activities.
needs.
-
Possible wildlife displacement and loss due
to possible urban encroachment if county
zoning regulations permit.
Fishery
+
Moderately productive warmwater fishery with
establishment of fishery habitat throughout
length of canal.
Recreation
+
Increased recreation access, facilities,
services and use.
Archeological
-
8 sites affected - 7 of which have cultural
Excavate 7 sites having cultural value - preserve
Areas
value; one previously destroyed.
samples of what is found.
Seepage
-
Short-term increase and possible additional
Ground water monitoring program to determine
drainage costs.
remedial measures required or amount of compensa-
tion due adjacent landowners.
Drainage and
-
Severing of minor sloughs and channels.
Drainage and irrigation facilities severed by
Irrigation
Blocked access to some.
canal replaced for individual landowners.
Facilities and
-
Individual drains and irrigation facilities
Relocation or channel modifications of sloughs
Waterways
severed.
intersected. Relocated channels sized to provide
for tidal flows, runoff, drainage and flood pro-
tection. Fresh water releases into relocated
channels. Substitute navigational access for
Fourteen Mile Slough via new channel and release
facility for improved water quality. Siphons
under major sloughs and rivers so as not to impair
flow carrying capacity, passage of migratory fish
or travel by boats. Improved water quality in
southeastern Delta due to water control
facilities.
Transportation
-
Short-term disruption of transportation
Bridges provided over all existing through roads
networks.
where cross canal.
-
Blockage of some county and farm roads.
Rerouting of blocked roads or routing into public
road on canal embankment. Bridge access to
McCormack-Williamson Tract.
Utilities
,
Short-term disruption during construction.
All utilities disrupted by canal replaced or re-
located at project expense.
Spoil Disposal
-
Short-term aesthetic impact during con-
Spoil placed on levees or berm areas and leveled,
struction.
sloped and planted. Also see "Agriculture".
Aesthetics
A
Changes in existing farmland to a waterway.
Incorporate natural environmental assets where
Also, short-term impact during construction.
they occur. Gently sloped and planted or natu-
rally revegetated levees using linear greenbelt
concept. Two free-flowing lagoons and landscaped
islands on main canal. Recreation areas designed
to blend with natural surroundings.
Intake
A
Reduced sediment transport down Sacramento
Entry of bed load sediments into canal minimized
Facilities
River.
by locating canal entrance on outside of bend and
elevating bottom of intake channel so that most
sediment is retained within river channel.
Legend:
+
Beneficial Impact
- Adverse Impact
A Problematical Impact
26
Short-Term
Delays due to traffic detours, noise, dust,
Special environmental control provisions in con-
Construction
turbidity of water, delay of boats during
struction contracts. Dust control measures.
Impacts
siphon construction, disruption of irrigation
Canal excavated in three passes and turbid water
and drainage facilities and utility lines,
below water table excavation confined within
destruction of vegetation.
right-of-way. Excavation controlled to minimize
adverse effects. Construction of siphon across
Stockton Deep Water Channel coordinated to mini-
mize delays in shipping. Temporary disruption of
irrigation or drainage on adjacent lands handled
by temporary supplies or alternate arrangements.
Natural revegetation and planting program along
canal alignment.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Flow Distribution
+
Positive downstream flow in all major
and Water
channels.
Quality
+
Improved water quality in several Delta
channels and in dead-end sloughs.
-
Increased duration of salinity in Suisun
Western Delta Overland Agricultural Facilities to
Bay and western Delta with or without
provide water supply in lieu of salinity control in
Peripheral Canal.
western Delta if it is needed.
Fishery
+
Net benefit for fish migrating to and from
San Joaquin River and for resident fish in
Delta.
+
Potential for increased fish protection
efficiency.
+
Reduced loss of eggs, larvae and young fish
to export diversions.
-
Attraction of migratory fish to canal
Fish protective facility at canal intake. Reduced
intake. Potential adverse effects on
diversion of water into canal during May to minimize
migratory fish of reduced velocities and
intake of striped bass eggs and larvae. For other
flows in Sacramento River below intake.
operational measures to mitigate problems with the
fishery see section on Project Facilities and
Operation.
+
Improved angler success for bass in lower
Sacramento River below intake due to lower
velocities.
-
Possible attraction of salmon and steelhead
Make releases through Delta Cross Channel in lieu of
migrating upstream to Delta release
canal releases to Mokelumne River system and reduce
facilities.
releases in southern Delta to minimum possible and
still meet quality criteria for Delta agriculture.
Possible alternative of making southern Delta releases
via Delta-Mendota Canal to San Joaquin River in lieu
of releases from Peripheral Canal.
A
Possible increased predation due to
increased fish concentrations in low
velocity areas.
+
Flexibility of project operation to meet
fishery needs VS. inflexibility of direct
pumping via present facilities.
+
Increased food sources for fish.
Endangered
A
Establishment of vegetation and protection
Species
of marshes may benefit.
Recreation
+
Recreation along canal will relieve recrea-
tion pressure on Delta.
+
Improved water quality for recreation uses.
Morrison Creek
+
Improved flood control downstream of Stone
Drainage
Lakes basin by accepting floodflows into
canal.
Transportation
A
Increased automobile traffic in Delta
region due to increased recreation use
along canal.
-
Navigation delays due to control structures
Bypass canal and boat lock adjacent to Delta Cross
in Old River and at times at the Delta
Channel to permit boat traffic when gates closed.
Cross Channel.
Also boat lock in Old River control structure if
this structure is built.
27
Suisun Marsh
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Salinity
-
Relatively small increase in duration and
Possible use of tide gates and tidal pumping at
magnitude of salinity intrusion due to canal.
Montezuma slough; pumping of high quality water to
ponds during low tides; delivery of water via over-
Wildlife
-
Reduced productivity of waterfowl habitat and
land facilities. Alternative measures under study.
Habitat
food supply.
-
Reduction in habitat for puddle ducks.
+
Increase in diving duck habitat
+
Increase in shorebird and rail habitat.
+
Increase in habitat for 3 endangered species.
Fishery
-
Decreases in number of freshwater species
Probably some shift from freshwater to saltwater
inhabiting sloughs.
species.
San Francisco Bay Complex
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Suisun Bay
-
Some reduction in flushing of pollutants due
No mitigation planned for San Francisco Bay Complex
to reduced Delta outflows with or without
as part of Peripheral Canal Project. More stringent
the Peripheral Canal.
requirements on waste treatment and waste water
discharge practices being imposed by SWRCB and EPA
should remedy problems.
A
Increased salinity. Population of marine
zoobenthos should benefit while freshwater
zoobenthos will be reduced.
A
Decline in fresh and brackish water Z00-
plankton. Replaced by marine species.
+
Increased phytoplankton production of
benefit to zooplankton species.
-
Reduced Neomysis habitat in dry and critical
May be offset due to improved habitat in Delta due
years.
to elimination of cross-Delta flows.
San Pablo Bay
A
Slightly increased salinity could improve
production of zoobenthos, thereby benefiting
diving ducks and shore birds. May also
expand habitat of endangered Clapper Rail.
State Water Project and Central Valley Project Export Areas
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Export Water
+
Dependable water supply.
+
Improved export water quality.
+
Greater reuse capacity of water.
+
Less costly water treatment.
+
Consumer savings from less corrosive water.
+
Improved quality of ground water recharge.
+
Prevent agricultural losses due to water
deficiencies and poor water quality.
+
Reduce salinity buildup.
+
Better quality waste water for reclamation.
+
Less agricultural drainage required.
b
Adverse effects on Suisun Marsh will occur with or without the canal by the year 2020 due to the continued need for water in service
areas to the south. This would be related more to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project rather than to the Peripheral
Canal per se.
28
Northern California Water Sources
/
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Sacramento Valley
+
New reservoir fisheries.
Surface Water
Development,
+
New water supplies.
Upper Eel River
Surface Water
+
New recreation areas.
Development,
Trinity River
+
Hydroelectric power.
Surface Water
Development
+
New jobs.
A
Increased tourism.
A
New flatwater surface areas.
La
Changing character and aesthetics of project
sites.
-
Blockage of anadromous fish runs.
Mitigation will be developed as part of project
planning. Construction of Peripheral Canal would
-
Inundation of land, streams, and
reduce the amount of additional supply needed at
archeological sites.
the Delta by about 1.8 million acre-feet and delay
the time such supplies are needed from 1980 to 1990
-
Displacement of people and wildlife.
or later. Could use alternative sources of supply
in service areas by waste water reclamation,
desalination, etc.
Related Projects
Category
Type
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Proposed
Kellogg Project
+
Improved quality of water from Delta and
reduction of storage requirements.
Hood-Clay
+
Including capacity in Peripheral Canal would
Connection
reduce adverse environmental effects of
separate intake.
Morrison Creek
+
Canal reduces flowage easements required and
Flood Control
flood peaks on downstream Delta channels.
Project
Interstate
+
Using canal spoil for highway fill reduces
Highway 5
amount of spoil disposal sites and effects
of alternative highway borrow sites.
San Luis Drain
+
Canal will reduce capacities required and
and San Joaquin
quantities of drainage.
Master Drain
Additional water sources will be needed at the Delta with or without the Peripheral Canal.
29
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PERIPHERAL CANAL
The growth-inducing impacts of the Peripheral Canal
were evaluated by estimating changes in employment over the
time period 1980-2020, attributable to the existence and
operation of the canal. These changes are expected to be
brought about in the export service areas by a better assur-
ance of delivery water in dry years and a higher quality
water in all years. Growth would also be induced by an
increase in recreation facilities and services in the immediate
vicinity of the canal and in the adjacent Delta areas.
Changes in quantity and quality of water may be
expected to cause changes as diagramed below:
Increased water quality + quantity
Increased
agricultural + industrial productivity
Increased
employment
Increased net in-migration
Increased population
The increases in employment attributable to the water
supply and recreation functions of the project have been
estimated over time and are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INDUCED BY PERIPHERAL CANAL
(Number of New Jobs Attributed to the Peripheral Canal)
1980
1990
2000
2020
a
Immediate Vicinity
and Delta
120
1,100
2,300
3,300
San Joaquin Valley
b/
0
5,900
6,800
8,500
Central Coastal
b/
0
150
180
220
b
San Francisco Bay
0
1,100
1,300
1,700
Southern Californiaᵇ/
0
1,700
2,000
2,600
Total Growth
120
10,000
12,600
16,300
a
Primarily recreation oriented.
b/
Primarily water oriented.
30
Increased employment always generates in-migration
and vice versa. Increases in the 5 geographical areas were
determined by multiplying the current average population per
employed member of the labor force (2.46), by the predicted
changes in employment. The total population growth attributable
to the canal in the 5 areas will be roughly 24,600 by 1990,
30,100 by 2000, and 40,100 by 2020. San Joaquin Valley will
absorb about half of this growth.
In summary, the chief water-supply-related impacts
(growth inducing) will occur in the San Joaquin Valley due
to the improvements in the reliability and quality of water
available for agricultural use. Lesser indirect impacts will
occur in southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The impact on the central coast and the Delta and canal area
will be negligible. Increases in recreation related employment
will, in contrast, be confined to the immediate vicinity of
the canal.
*******
Boating is a popular activity
on many of the 700 miles
of meandering waterways.
31
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Over the years, three major water agencies have
studied the Delta -- the Department of Water Resources, the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. To coordinate their efforts and develop a mutually
acceptable plan for the Delta, the Interagency Delta Committee
(IDC) was formed in 1961. In its final 1965 report recommending
the Peripheral Canal, the committee classified the numerous
Delta plans into four basic concepts for comparison -- Hydraulic
Barrier, Physical Barrier, Delta Waterway Control Plan and
Peripheral Canal Plan. Since that time, the additional con-
cepts of State-Only Gravity Canal and Modified Folsom-South
Canal have been studied as Delta alternatives.
The following engineering plans for the Delta alter-
natives describe the optimum projects that could be developed
within the framework of each of these concepts.
State-Only Gravity Canal
This concept involves the modification of the first
stage Peripheral Canal operation to meet export requirements
of only the SWP. Most of the SWP export water would be conveyed
around the Delta in the gravity canal, while the CVP export
water would continue to be transferred through existing Delta
channels. In the event that Sacramento River flow was insuffi-
cient to produce the gravity flow required to meet SWP export
demands, the balance would be diverted directly from the
southern Delta. Releases from the canal to the Delta would
be limited to the replacement of supplies severed by the canal.
Water for the remaining uses within the Delta and control of
salinity intrusion would also continue to be met through
existing Delta channels as it is now.
The capital costs are currently estimated at $203
million, exclusive of recreation and wildlife development.
Corresponding annual costs are estimated at $1.9 million.
Waterway Control Plan
With this concept, good quality water would be diverted
from the Sacramento River at Walnut Grove. It would be conveyed
southward to SWP and CVP export pumps through existing Delta
channels, using physical structures to maintain hydraulic
separation of Delta tidal waters from transfer waters. Controlled
releases through channel closures would be made for local water
requirements, water quality control and for fish. A controlled
freshwater outflow would protect the central Delta from salinity
32
intrusion, and an overland water distribution system would
serve the western Delta. Fish protective facilities and
flexibility of project operations to meet fishery requirements
are part of this concept.
Total capital costs are currently estimated at $136
million, and annual costs at $3.7 million.
Modified Folsom-South Canal
This concept involves the construction of physical
works within Delta channels to provide hydraulic control of
water transferred through existing channels for local and
export use. It also involves pumping Sacramento River water
into the Folsom-South Canal via an enlarged Hood-Clay connection
and releasing this water into southeastern Delta tributaries
for water quality purposes. The concept would involve the
enlargement of portions of the Folsom-South Canal, improvement
of certain Delta channels, closure of certain Delta channels,
and a siphon to convey the Mokelumne River under the San
Joaquin River.
Such a project would be operated primarily to meet
objectives for water quality in the central and southern Delta
and positive downstream flow in the San Joaquin River. Over-
land supplies would be provided in the western Delta. As
proposed by the now defunct Delta water Agency, export diver-
sions would be limited to 6,500 cfs. This is much less than
required to meet contracted commitments of the SWP and CVP.
The concept incorporates no special provisions for fish or
recreation other than restoring of positive downstream flow
in some channels.
The costs would probably be similar to those of the
Waterway Control Plan.
Physical Barrier Plan
This concept would require construction of a physical
barrier to restrict commingling of fresh waters of the Delta
with the saline waters of San Francisco Bay. It would also
permit pumping for local water supply and export requirements
from the freshwater pool formed by the barrier.
There are numerous variations of this plan, but only
the Chipps Island Barrier, the most feasible, is presented
here for comparison purposes. This barrier would be across
the Sacramento River, about 4 miles below the confluence with
the San Joaquin River.
33
As proposed by the Corps of Engineers and IDC, the
barrier would not require releases to repel saltwater intrusion
from the Delta. Export water would be conveyed in existing
channels and the influence of tidal action would be excluded
by the barrier. Because of the freshwater pool, a supply of
fresh water for agriculture, municipal and industrial purposes
would be available within the Delta channels. No changes in
present methods of water application or distribution within
the Delta would be required.
A fish ladder, fish screen and curtailed pumping
during bass spawning would be part of this concept.
Capital costs are estimated at $413 million, and
annual costs at $4.5 million.
Hydraulic Barrier/No Project
The present Delta operation of the SWP and CVP employs
the concept of a hydraulic barrier. This concept requires no
new physical works in the Delta and, therefore, also represents
the "No Project" alternative.
The concept involves repulsion of ocean salinity by
release of water from upstream storage reservoirs to provide
a continuous freshwater outflow to San Francisco Bay. Water
would be conveyed to the pumping plants through existing Delta
channels. This is the present method of operation in the Delta.
The project would not involve any direct costs for
Delta facilities. However, future modifications to existing
facilities to compensate for increased pumping and the additional
upstream reservoir storage required to protect water quality,
if fully contracted and authorized water supplies in the export
service areas are to be met under this operation, would con-
stitute additional costs and possible environmental impacts.
Comparison on Delta Alternatives
The following is a comparison of the effects of each
of the Delta alternatives and the proposed Peripheral Canal on
various individual parameters. The ranking was based on con-
sensus of a number of engineers and biologists from the
Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game, who inde-
pendently ranked each impact.
34
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF DELTA AL' RNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
IMPACT RANKING
A - - BEST
E - ACCEPTABILITY QUESTIONABLE
B -
}
F - UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT
ACCEPTABLE IMPACT
C -
U - - RELATIVE NET EFFECT UNKNOWN
D - - LEAST
Peripheral
State-only
Waterway
Modified
Physical Hyd. Barrier-
Impact Parameters
Canal
Gravity
Canal
Control
Folsom-South
Barrier
No Project
Export Water Supply
B
B
B
E
A
D
C
D
Export Water Quality
A
B
A
B
Local Water Quality
C
C
B
B
A
C
Water Levels
A
B
B
B
C
B
Seepage
B
A
A
A
A
A
Delta Flood Control
A
A
A
B
A
B
Channel Scour (Delta)
A
B
A
B
A
C
Navigation (Delta)
A
A
D
B
C
A
Transportation (Delta)
C
C
A
B
C
C
Land Out of Production (Delta)
C
C
B
B
A
A
Recreation
A
B
C
C
C
C
Fish
General Factors
1. Salinity Gradient and Dissolved Oxygen
A
B
C
C
E
B
2. Food Supply
A
C
B
C
E
D
Striped Bass
1. Sacramento River
A
B
B
D
C
C
2. San Joaquin River
A
C
A
B
C
D
3. Nursery Area
A
C
B
C
F
D
Sacramento Salmon
1. Upstream Migrants
B
A
B
E
C
A
2. Downstream Migrants
A
A
A
B
E
C
San Joaquin Salmon
1. Upstream Migrants
A
D
B
C
F
E
2. Downstream Migrants
A
C
A
C
E
D
Mokelumne Salmon
A
C
C
C
E
D
Shad
U
U
U
U
D
U
Sturgeon
U
U
U
U
U
U
Resident Game Fish
1. Dead-end Sloughs
A
B
C
C
D
C
2. Main Delta Channels
A
C
B
B
C
C
Non-Game Fish
A
C
C
B
E
C
Suisun Marsh Fish
A
A
A
A
A
A
Bay Fish
A
A
A
A
A
A
Wildlife
Delta
A
A
B
C
C
C
Suisun Marsh
C
C
C
C
A
B
Turbidity
B
B
B
A
D
B
Water Temperature
B
A
B
A
C
A
Bay Circulation and Dispersion
B
B
B
B
C
A
Energy Requirement
B
A
A
C
A
A
35
Alternative Water Supply Sources Outside the Delta
Several alternatives outside the Delta conceivably
could firm up water supply in the export service areas. These
include: (1) northern California storage reservoirs in the
Sacramento River Basin and north coast area; (2) increased
diversion from the Delta during periods of high flow to off-
stream storage reservoirs on the west side of the San Joaquin
Valley; (3) waste water reclamation; (4) sea water conversion;
and (5) desalination of geothermal brines. None of these,
however, are considered true alternatives to the Peripheral
Canal because they cannot improve the Delta environment by
redistribution of flows within the Delta. They would simply
constitute additional variations of the Hydraulic Barrier
because the SWP and CVP would continue to divert water from
the southern Delta, using existing channels for conveyance
and regulating Delta outflow to control salinity intrusion.
While all of the alternatives outside the Delta are
potential sources for meeting some of the future water demands
in California, none of these are practical alternatives for the
firmed-up water supply needed by 1980. It would take 12 years
to complete the first unit of the northern California storage
reservoirs. The offstream storage reservoirs could not be
completed by 1980 and, without extensive enlargements of exist-
ing conveyance facilities, could not develop the needed yield.
The greatest potential for waste water reclamation is in the
coastal metropolitan areas, but its use is presently limited
to nondomestic uses; therefore, more extensive conveyance
systems would be required making early completion improbable.
The technology required for large-scale production of usable
water by sea water conversion and desalination of geothermal
brine is still in the development stage; thus, these alterna-
tives could not be completed in time to meet the 1980 water
supply needs. The effective unit cost of the incremental water
supply developed by these alternatives would be from 6 to 15
times higher than with the Peripheral Canal.
Environmental conditions in the Delta under each of
the alternative sources would be essentially the same as shown
for the Hydraulic Barrier in Table 5 because SWP and CVP would
continue to divert water from the Delta. In addition, there
would be direct environmental effects in the project areas
outside the Delta. Some of the principal effects that could
be expected are listed in Table 6.
36
TABLE 6
EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
OUTSIDE OF THE DELTA
Northern
California
Offstream
Geothermal
Storage
Storage
Wastewater
Sea Water
Brine
Reservoirs
Reservoirs
Reclamation
Conversion
Desalination
Delta environment and ecology would be
essentially the same as for Hydraulic Barrier
(see Table 5)
X
X
X
X
X
Cannot be completed by 1980, resulting in
possible water shortage in project service areas
X
X
X
X
X
Inundation of land, streams, and possibly
archaeological sites
X
X
Additional land required for conveyance
facilities and other features
X
X
X
X
X
Displacement of people and wildlife
X
X
X
X
X
Change in character and aesthetics of project
sites
X
X
X
X
X
Blockage of anadromous fish runs
X
New reservoir fisheries
X
X
New flat water surface areas
X
X
New recreation areas
X
X
Improved flood control
X
New hydroelectric power
X
Uses large amount of electrical energy
X
Reduces need for surface water development and
effects thereof
X
X
X
Reduces discharge of wastes into ocean and
San Francisco Bay
X
Requires disposal of brine
X
X
Requires disposal of hot water effluent
X
Development of advanced technology required
X
X
37
Conclusions
The Peripheral Canal is not perfect in all respects
and each of the alternatives is possibly superior in some
respects. However, it is concluded that the Peripheral Canal
does have the greatest potential for obtaining desired environ-
mental conditions in the Delta and the least interference with
established and projected activities in the Delta, while meeting
the water needs in the export service areas of SWP and CVP.
It would reduce the amount of future additional northern
California surface water needed at the Delta by about 1.8
million acre-feet per year during a critical period and delay
the time such supplies would be needed from 1980 to 1990 or
later. If instead, alternative sources south or west of the
Delta were developed, the canal would reduce the amount needed
by from 800,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet per year and provide
more time to develop technology. Taken as a whole, it comes
closest to meeting the most important environmental needs at
this time.
*******
Blending of agricultural land patterns, native vegetation, and Delta waterways just west of
Peripheral Canal alignment.
38
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Local Vicinity
- Loss of 37,000 tons of agricultural production annually.
- Loss of $1,800,000 tax base.
- Permanent loss of 2,600 acres of existing wildlife
habitat used by 191 species of birds, 36 species of
mammals, 19 species of reptiles, and 8 species of
amphibians. (Offsetting benefits are expected by the
wildlife areas provided as part of the Canal.)
- Unknown amount of seepage; will be monitored.
- Seven existing archaeological sites destroyed after
preservation of samples.
- Access by boat from Delta to small portions of several
minor eastside sloughs blocked.
- Extra travel distance by some boaters via relocated
channels (depends on point of origin and destination).
- Impairment of various sloughs during construction.
- Extra travel and inconvenience for some property owners
with blocked-off roads.
- Without strict enforcement of zoning laws, potential for
residential and commercial development of land between
freeway and Peripheral Canal.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region
- Loss of anadromous fish at fish protective facility.
- Minor increased water elevations in the Mokelumne River
floodplain east of the canal, due to floodflow backwater
effects upstream from the Mokelumne River siphon.
- Possible attraction of some Sacramento River salmon to
release sites in southern Delta.
- Some loss of suspended sediment transport by settling out
in canal.
- Time delay in navigation through boat locks in Old River
and possibly the Delta Cross Channel.
Suisun Marsh
- Increased duration and extent of salinity intrusion with
or without Peripheral Canal, with slightly greater increase
with the canal.
San Francisco Bay Complex
- Some reduction in the flushing of pollutants from Suisun
Bay and slight reduction in San Pablo Bay.
- Reduced Neomysis habitat in dry and critical years.
39
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD
OCCUR IF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL IS IMPLEMENTED
The following irreversible environmental changes
and commitments will result from construction of the Peripheral
Canal.
1. Changes in land use along canal alignment.
2. Channel relocations.
3. Distribution of water into intercepted sloughs.
4. Removal of archaeological areas.
5. Expenditure of irretrievable capital funds,
construction materials and labor.
If ongoing studies reveal compelling reasons for
discontinuing use of the canal for its intended purposes, such
a solution would be possible. Under this condition, only
enough water would be diverted at Hood to maintain circulation
and to supply water to intersected sloughs. In time, the canal
would become similar to existing sloughs. Land would be lost
to agriculture, but not fish, wildlife and recreation use.
It must be recognized, however, that such a decision would be
very difficult to make in view of the $286 million in irretriev-
able expenses it would represent.
40
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Short-term uses of man's environment would occur
primarily during or for a short time after the construction
period and would occur in the project area. Such uses will
typically be disruptive or destructive to the man-made and
natural environment. The results would include destruction
of wildlife habitat and aesthetics, temporary disruption of
road and utility uses, temporary closure of irrigation and
drainage facilities, delays in navigation, etc.
The Peripheral Canal would be capable of transporting
water for its intended purposes indefinitely if properly main-
tained. It is, therefore, considered a source of long-term
productivity.
Long-term productivity of Delta agriculture and fish
resources would be aided by correcting existing problems due
to export pumping from the southern Delta. Flexibility of
Delta operation and its release facilities will also aid Delta
productivity.
The long-term capacity of the local vicinity to
generate recreation opportunities will be enhanced. Recreation
use will also spur employment and population growth in the
local vicinity. The design of canal fishery habitat, coupled
with proper management, would assure the long-term productivity
of a warmwater fishery. In both the local vicinity and the
surrounding Delta region, haphazard residential and commercial
developments could have a long-term adverse effect on wildlife
productivity if such developments are not controlled by the
counties. Removal of land from agricultural production will
reduce the long-term agricultural productivity of the local
vicinity.
The canal capability to provide good quality water
will help assure long-term productivity of the industrial area
served by the Contra Costa County Water District.
Improved reliability and quality of water deliveries
will help assure the long-term productivity of agricultural
areas in the San Joaquin Valley and central coastal service
areas.
The good quality of water provided to the South San
Francisco Bay and southern California will enhance the long-
term productivity of local water sources in those areas. It
will provide a dependable water supply to support the activities
of several million people in those areas.
41
STATEMENT OF INTENT
It is the intent of the California Department of Water Resources and the California Department of Fish and
Game to:
I.
Develop and enter into a mutually acceptable agreement, prior to the start of construction of the Peripheral
Canal, defining water management objectives for the operation of the State Water Project and the Peripheral
Canal in relation to the management of fish and wildlife resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Water
Code Section 12220) and Estuary. The agreement will include: (1) the initial water management terms and
criteria appropriate for achieving the goals and objectives listed in A and B below; (2) procedures for imple-
menting the initial terms and criteria; (3) an appropriate program to evaluate the terms and criteria
including environmental monitoring and studies and the modification of water operations for evaluation pur-
poses; and (4) provisions for renegotiating terms and criteria consistent with the results of said evaluation
and the goals.
A.
Goals - Manage water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Estuary to:
1. Maintain fish and wildlife resource at present levels.
2. Increase these resource values above these levels, to the extent compatible with other
project purposes.
Present levels of fish and wildlife resource values are defined as the mean levels existing in the Delta
Estuary from 1922 to 1970, as determined by the best information which is or may become available.
Present levels as here defined are not to be construed as establishing a base condition for determina-
tion of enhancement.
B.
Objectives -
1.
Provide suitable water conditions for striped bass spawning and the survival of their young,
including an ample food supply, to the extent that such measures are necessary to maintain
the stock of adult striped bass.
2. Provide suitable water conditions for the upstream and downstream migration of King salmon,
steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass and American shad through the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta and Estuary.
3. Retain the Suisun Marsh as a brackish water marsh capable of supporting alkali bulrush and
other important waterfowl food plants which are present.
4.
Prevent loss of fish from the Delta in project diversions to the extent necessary to maintain
stocks of adult fish using the Delta and Estuary.
5. Attain dissolved oxygen concentrations satisfactory for fish.
6.
Provide net water velocities in the Delta channels of a magnitude suitable for food production
for resident and migratory game fish.
7.
Manage the Peripheral Canal and its right-of-way; (1) to develop fish and wildlife resources
and (2) to provide for recreational use by the general public, both compatible with other
objectives.
The obligations under these goals and objectives (1) are limited to the extent that the State Water Project
operation in the Delta and Estuary affect fish and wildlife resources, and (2) must be consistent with state
and federal law.
II.
Select, prior to the start of Peripheral Canal construction, a fish screen system and operation measures,
sufficient to limit the diversion of fish into the Peripheral Canal to the extent necessary to meet
Objective I-B-4.
III.
Complete construction of a fish screen system coincident with the initiation of canal operation. In the
event of unavoidable delays in screen construction, water for export will be diverted into the canal only
in years when agricultural water users of the CVP and/or the SWP are taking a deficiency in planned deliv-
eries. In such cases (1) the maximum percentage of the Sacramento River flow taken into the canal for
export will be no greater than the percentage deficiency taken by these agricultural water users, and
(2) no diversions for export will be made into the canal from April 1 through June 15, unless in the opinion
of the Department of Fish and Game, striped bass spawning and the spring downstream salmon migration are
essentially completed prior to June 15.
/s/ G. Ray Arnett
/s/ John R. Teerink
G. Ray Arnett, Director
John R. Teerink, Director
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
Date
July 2, 1974
Date
June 27, 1974
42
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- b7c2af176f2b6fd1
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118564986
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118564986",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "[Environment] - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Summary - Peripheral Canal Project, August 1974",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Reports"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118564986",
"label": "[Environment] - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Summary - Peripheral Canal Project, August 1974",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118564986",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "[Environment] - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Summary - Peripheral Canal Project, August 1974",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Reports"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564986",
"naId": 118564986,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P35-010-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "b7c2af176f2b6fd1",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: [Environment] - Draft Environmental\nImpact Report, Summary -\nPeripheral Canal Project, August 1974\nBox: P35\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nPRESS\nSUMMARY OF\nDRAFT\nENVIRONMENTAL\nIMPACT REPORT\nPERIPHERAL CANAL PROJECT\nState of California\nTHE RESOURCES AGENCY\nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES\nAUGUST 1974\nIn this secluded slough of the Delta Meadows Area, some of the characteristics of the early\nDelta are still evident.\nFOREWORD\nThe California Department of Water Resources (DWR)\nproposes to construct the Peripheral Canal as an integral\nfeature of the California State Water Project (SWP). The\ncanal would be a major link of the CA authorized State Water\nProject. It is planned as a joint-use facility of the SWP\nand the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). It is needed\nby 1980, to convey water across the Sacramento-San Joaquin\nDelta to the aqueducts of the SWP and CVP without undue\nreduction in supply or deterioration in quality, to correct\ncertain adverse environmental conditions in the Delta, and\nto facilitate water management in the Delta. A program of\nstaged construction by the State is planned under which\nfederal participation would be feasible at any time.\nThis brief summary of highlights of the Draft\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Peripheral Canal\nwas compiled with assistance from the firm of Jones and\nStokes Associates, Inc., under contract to DWR, from detailed\nmaterial contained in the full Draft EIR on the project. It\nis published both as an integral part of the full report and\nunder separate cover. As a part of the full report, it is\nintended to give the reader an overview and summary of the\nfull report. As a separate document, it is intended to give\nthe reader, who does not require or want the extensive detail,\ngeneral information on the nature of the project and the\nenvironmental impacts involved. For those reviewing only\nthe summary who find they need more detail, the full report\ncan be obtained for a fee to cover the cost of printing and\nmailing by contacting DWR, P. 0. Box 388, Sacramento, or\nphoning 916+445-8228.\nPoli\nRobin R. Reynolds\nDistrict Engineer\nCentral District\nDepartment of Water Resources\ni\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nForeword\ni\nAn Overview\n1\nEnvironmental Setting\n3\nLocal Vicinity\n3\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\n3\nSuisun Marsh\n4\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\n5\nState Water Project-Central Valley Project Export Service Areas\n5\nRelated Projects\n12\nProject Facilities and Operation.\n14\nOperational Flexibility\n19\nEconomics and Financing\n21\nDelta Monitoring Programs\n21\nEnvironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures\n23\nLocal Vicinity\n23\nThe Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Francisco Bay\n23\nExport Service Areas\n24\nNorthern California Water Sources\n25\nRelated Projects\n25\nGrowth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Peripheral Canal\n30\nAlternatives to the Proposed Action\n32\nState-Only Gravity Canal\n32\nWaterway Control Plan\n32\nModified Folsom-South Canal\n33\nPhysical Barrier Plan\n33\nHydraulic Barrier/No Project\n34\nComparison on Delta Alternatives\n34\nAlternative Water Supply Sources Outside the Delta\n36\nConclusions\n38\nAdverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided\n39\nLocal Vicinity\n39\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\n39\nSuisun Marsh\n39\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\n39\nIrreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Occur If the Peripheral Canal is Implemented\n40\nRelationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the\nMaintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.\n41\nStatement of Intent\n42\nFIGURES\nTABLES\nPage\nTable\nNumber\nLocation Map, Proposed Peripheral\n1 Related Projects\n12\nCanal Project\n2\n2 Physical and Operational Features\nDetail Map, Peripheral Canal Alignment\nof the Peripheral Canal\n15\nand Major Features\n17\n3 Summary of Major Impacts and\nTypical Peripheral Canal Cross Section,\nMitigation Measures\n26\nRecreation and Wildlife Plan\n18\n4 Employment Growth Induced by\nPeripheral Canal\n30\n5 Comparison of Delta Alternatives\nto the Proposed Action\n35\n6 Effects of Alternative Water Supply\nSources Outside of the Delta\n37\nii\nSUMMARY OF\nDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT\nPERIPHERAL CANAL PROJECT\nAN OVERVIEW\nThe use of Delta channels as conduits for conveying\nwater for diversion to areas of shortage began in 1940, with\nthe federal Central Valley Project (CVP). Expansion of the CVP\nand the advent of the State Water Project (SWP) have increased\nthese diversions to a current level (1973) of 3.5 million acre-\nfeet annually. By 2020, this is projected to increase to about\n8 million acre-feet annually. This compares with a total average\nannual inflow to the Delta by 2020 of about 19 million acre-feet.\nEven at current diversion rates, the Delta is subjected\nto altered flow patterns and water quality problems in some areas.\nWithout intelligent water management, the situation will deterio-\nrate as export diversions increase.\nThe concept of a hydraulically isolated Peripheral\nCanal around the Delta to improve the quality of export supplies\nand provide for the environmental needs of the Delta culminates\nyears of study and numerous proposals by many agencies. The plan\nwas officially adopted as a feature of the SWP by the Department\nof Water Resources in 1966. In 1969, the U. S. Bureau of Reclama-\ntion issued a feasibility report recommending the Peripheral Canal\nas an additional unit of the CVP to serve the joint needs of the\nfederal and state projects.\nThe objective of the project is to convey good quality\nwater from the Sacramento River to the existing SWP and CVP\npumping plants for export and to 12 release facilities to dis-\ntribute water from the canal to Delta channels to maintain water\nquality within prescribed criteria and to improve the Delta\naquatic environment and the resources and economies it supports.\nStudies indicate the Peripheral Canal must be opera-\ntional by 1980 to protect the water supply and water quality\nfunctions of the SWP during years of below normal precipitation.\nThis will require a construction start in 1975. Construction of\nthe canal will be staged. The first stage will be a gravity flow\ncanal to serve the conveyance needs of the SWP and CVP until\n1985. The second stage will include construction of a pumping\nplant to meet conveyance needs after 1985. In the event federal\nfinancial participation is not authorized by 1975, the State\nwill finance the construction of the first stage with the pro-\nvision to convey CVP water until such time as authorization is\nobtained. The State also has the capability of financing the\nsecond stage.\n1\nLAKE\nBERRYCSSA\nSACRAMENTO\nSOUTH\n$\nHOOD-CLAY\nNAPA\nPIERSON\nCONNECTION\nDISTRICT\nMASTINGS\nTRACT\nFAIRFIELD\nNORTH\nAQUEDUCT\n-\n***\nBAY\n*\nISLAND\nTRA\nISLAND\nSUISUN\nCARAL\n's\nReg\nMARSH\nBRACK\nTRACT\nBRANNAN\nISLAND\n0\nTO\nVALLEJO\nTRITCHELL\nPERIPHERAL\nSCAND\nSLAND\nTRACT\nCANAL\nSUISUM\n$\nISLAND\nSLAND\nTRACT\nVEHICE\nEMPIRE\nCHOCKETT\nBENICIA\nTRACT\nISLAND\nFRANKS\nA\nand\nBETHEL\nPITTSBURG\nTRACT\neach\nMARTINEZ\nCOSTA\nANTIOCH\nNOTCHKISS)\nHOLLAND\nSAN RAFAEL\nTRACT\nTRACT\nTRACT\nBACOM\nPaid\nVEALE\nISLAND\nTRACT\nPALM\nISLAND\nAQUEDUCT\nSTOCKTON\nSAN PABLO\nJONES\nTRACT\nRES\nRICHMOND\nTRACT\n08**00\nTRACT\nMUPPER\nMIDDLE\nCreek\nFEDERAL\nRIVER\nS\nMAUSALITO\nBERKELEY\nTRACT\nCLIFTON COURT\nUPPER\nFOREBAY\nROBERTS\nDELTA\nISLAND\nOAKLAND\nPUMPING\nPLANT\nor\nFABIAR\nRIVER\nTRACT\n/\nTRACY\nSAN FRANCISCO\nALAMEDA\nRES\nPUMPING\nTRACT\nPLANT\nR\nSOUTHBAY\nPLANT\n3AN LUIS\nTRACY\nSAN LEANDRO\n(****\nAqueduct\nDelto- Mendoto Collornia\nORAIN\nBOY\nis\nAQUEDUCT\n*********\nDEL VALLE\nSAN MATEO\nRES\nHETCH\nLEGEND\nCompany\nCanal\nRELEASE FACILITY\nVisa\nREDWOOD CITY\nLOCATION MAP\nCALAVERAS\nPROPOSED PERIPHERAL\nPALO ALTO/O\nm\nCANAL PROJECT\nN\nSCALE OF MILES\n4\n0\n4\n8\n12\n2\nENVIRONMENTAL SETTING\nThe influence of the Peripheral Canal will extend\nbeyond the confines of the land through which the canal will\nPass. The environmental setting has, therefore, been divided\ninto the five major areas which would be affected: Local\nVicinity, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region, Suisun Marsh,\nSan Francisco Bay Complex, and State Water Project and Central\nValley Project Export Service Areas. Related projects are\nalso discussed. The summary tabulation, which follows the\nbrief narrative descriptions, lists the major environmental\nand socio-economic attributes of these six subjects.\nLocal Vicinity\nNinety-five percent of the land within the proposed\ncanal right-of-way is farmland. Land elevations in some areas\nare below sea level and an extensive levee system protects\nthe area from flooding by normal tidal water, as well as winter\nhigh water.\nAlthough agriculture has altered much of the native\nlandscape, the area sustains a number of important natural\nresources. Resident and migratory wildlife rely on the area\nfor food and cover. Anadromous and resident fish occur in\nthe waterways which the canal would abut and cross.\nUrban and industrial development are nonexistent\nwithin the canal right-of-way. The economy of the area relies\nprimarily on agriculture.\nAlthough no recreational facilities lie within the\nlocal vicinity area, some recreation use is made of the tidal\nrivers and sloughs adjacent to and within portions of the canal\nright-of-way.\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\nThe 738,000 acres, which constitute the statutory\nDelta, make up part of the largest estuary in the State. Over\nhalf of the land area lies at elevations ranging from 5 feet\nabove sea level to 20 feet below sea level. Man's tireless\nefforts to reclaim this land from flooding by high runoff and\ntides are evident from the hundreds of miles of levees criss-\ncrossing the Delta.\nThe aquatic environment of the Delta is complex.\nThe flow of water in its numerous channels is influenced by\ntidal action, streamflow, and diversions in and exports from\nthe Delta.\n3\nAlthough land reclamation of the former marshlands\nhas removed much of the once lush expanses of native vegetation,\nthe Delta remains a habitat for a multitude of fish and wild-\nlife species. Salmon, shad, and steelhead migrate through the\nDelta. The estuary provides an important nursery area for\nstriped bass. The Delta contributes 20 percent of the pheasants\nharvested in the State. Ten rare and endangered vertebrate\nspecies are known to occur in the Delta, none of which are\nexclusively confined to that area.\nThe estimated 550,000 acres of cultivated land within\nthe Delta produce an average gross farm income of $195 million\nper year.\nThe Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region is within the\narea bordered by the cities of Sacramento, Stockton, Tracy, and\nPittsburg. Although the total population of the region reached\n1.7 million in 1970, the Delta islands, themselves, remain\nsparsely populated. Upland areas, particularly in the western\nDelta have undergone steady industrialization and urbanization.\nRecreation and second home developments have begun to encroach\non the edges of the peat land.\nThe Delta, with its vast waterways and picturesque\nsettings, constitutes one of the major recreation attractions\nin California.\nBecause of its great resources, the uses of the Delta\nmust be wisely managed to provide a balance between man's use\nof the area and the need to maintain environmental values.\nSuisun Marsh\nSuisun Marsh is located approximately 40 miles east\nof the Golden Gate. This marsh is an important segment of the\nPacific Flyway for waterfowl. Its southern corner is west of\nthe confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Fresh-\nwater outflow from the Delta directly affects the salt balance\nof the marsh.\nMost of the 55,000 acres of marshland and small water-\nways are enclosed within a levee system. Approximately 45,000\nacres (82 percent) are privately owned and used primarily for\nduck clubs. The remainder (18 percent) is owned by the State,\nand includes waterfowl management and refuge areas, and public\nrecreation areas.\nThe expanses of unbroken native habitat and the wide\ndiversity of vegetation and aquatic conditions that prevail,\nmake the marsh a valuable wildlife habitat.\n4\nMan's primary use of the marsh is for duck hunting.\nThe diverse resources of the marsh also provide opportunity\nfor a broad spectrum of public recreation uses.\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\nThe San Francisco Bay Complex comprises portions\nof all of nine surrounding counties and includes San Francisco,\nSan Pablo, Suisun, Grizzly and Honker Bays. The entire estuarine\ncomplex covers almost 435 square miles and is rimmed by 275 miles\nof shoreline. The habitat afforded by the Bay and surrounding\nlands supports a multiplicity of fish and wildlife species.\nThe Bay complex is among the most urbanized areas in the State,\nwith a total 1970 population of 4.6 million.\nThe largest surface water inflow to the Bay is pro-\nvided by runoff from the Central Valley (Delta outflow).\nFlushing of pollutants from the upper Bays is affected to\nvarying degrees by operation of the CVP and SWP. In general,\nthe projects provide greater summer inflow and somewhat lesser\nwinter inflow than would otherwise occur. The effectiveness\nof summer Delta outflow for flushing pollutants is most notice-\nable in the western Delta and Suisun Bay. However, a threefold\nincrease in summer outflow from 1,800 cfs to 5,000 cfs has\nonly a 25 percent effect on flushing in that area. The effective-\nness of summer outflow flushing diminishes in San Pablo Bay to\nabout 6 percent and becomes insignificant in the central and\nsouth Bays. The flushing effects of winter floodflows passing\nthrough the Delta into the Bay are more significant and extend\nthroughout most of the Bay system; but the intermittent and\nunpredictable nature of winter floodflows make them unreliable\nas a dependable pollution control measure. The exchange of\nfresh sea water through the Golden Gate by tidal action, compared\nto Delta outflow, is in the order of 50 to 1 in summer and 5\nto 1 in the winter and, thus, is the more significant factor\nin flushing pollutants from the Bay.\nWith continued population and industrial growth, a\nprimary concern is the effect of increased waste discharges on\nBay water quality, regardless of project operation.\nState Water Project-Central Valley Project Export Service Areas\nThe Peripheral Canal will convey water across the\nDelta for delivery to portions of the San Francisco Bay Area,\nSan Joaquin Valley, Central Coastal Area, and Southern California.\nAbout two-thirds of the State's population resides in these areas.\nA listing of the major environmental features and\nproblems of these areas and data on water supply and demands are\nincluded in the following summary:\n2-86463-C\n5\nENVIRONMENTAL SETTING INFLUENCED\nBY PERIPHERAL CANAL\nLocal Vicinity (Canal Right-of-Way)\nMajor Environmental Features\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat. Permanent pasture, corn and\nsorghum, grain and hay, marsh and riparian lands used by\nmigrant and resident wildlife species.\nResident Fish. Catfish, bullheads, bass and crappie in\nchannels to be intersected by canal.\nBirds. 135 known species -- including upland game and\nsandhill cranes.\nMammals.\n14 known species.\nHistoric/Archaeological. 8 archaeological sites within\ncanal right-of-way. The value of one was destroyed in the\n1950's by leveling.\nAgriculture. 6,100 acres within right-of-way.\nUrban Development. None within right-of-way. Six unincor-\nporated towns nearby. Four farmsteads and two residences\nwithin right-of-way.\nIndustry. None within right-of-way.\nRecreation. Some shore and boat fishing, pleasure boating,\novernight camping and duck hunting where canal will cross\nDelta channels.\nTransportation. Highways, railroads, deep water channels\nand waterways. All channels considered navigable and most\naccessible to small craft.\nUtilities. Electrical, gas and drainage lines within\nright-of-way.\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\nMajor Environmental Features\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat. Scattered areas which support\ntules and other natural vegetation. Trees on levees and\nhigher ground. 500,000 acres of varied crops also support\nwildlife.\n6\nAnadromous and Resident Game Fish. Striped bass, King salmon,\nsteelhead, American shad, sturgeon, catfish and sunfish are the\nprincipal species.\nNongame Fish. 10 identified species.\nWaterfowl. Numerous ducks, geese, swans and cranes.\nUpland Game.\nPheasant most abundant.\nNongame Birds. 200 species -- most migrant.\nMammals.\n39 species.\nReptiles. 19 species.\nAmphibians.\n8\nspecies.\nRare and Endangered Species. A number of rare and endangered\nspecies: 1 fish, 7 birds, 1 mammal, 2 reptiles, 3 plants.\nAgriculture. 550,000 acres in agriculture. Important to\nlocal, state and national economy.\nUrban Development. Regional population growth strong, parti-\ncularly Stockton and Sacramento. Delta islands sparsely\npopulated. Some suburban and summer home encroachment on\nedges of peat land.\nIndustry. Large industrial complexes at Pittsburg and\nAntioch. Industrial growth and diversification in all 5\ncounties of region. Natural gas production important within\nDelta.\nRecreation. Sports fishing, water skiing, pleasure boating,\novernight camping and hunting major activities. 125 marinas\nand 2 state parks.\nTransportation. Network of good highways on periphery, one\nnorth-south and two east-west highways across the Delta, and\nnumerous unimproved roads in central Delta. Extensive ferry\nsystem. One railroad crosses Delta. Metropolitan airports in\nSacramento and Stockton. 700 miles navigable waterways.\n2 deep water ports.\nMajor Environmental Problems\nWildlife Habitat. Disappearance of critical marsh and\nriparian lands.\nLand Subsidence. Causes seepage and levee failure.\nExport Diversions. Cause flow reversal problems which increase\nocean salinity intrusion and adversely affect fish.\n7\nWater Quality. High concentrations of mineral salts in\nsouthern Delta. Dissolved oxygen problems in San Joaquin River\nDeep Water Channel near Stockton, and in dead-end sloughs.\nWaste discharge from subdivisions, houseboats, marinas, muni-\ncipalities, and industries. Increased salinity from irrigation\nreturn flows.\nFish. Diversions and localized poor water quality adversely\naffecting striped bass, salmon, and resident fish, and their\nfood organisms.\nAgriculture. Major problems with drainage, soil conditions\nand poor water quality in some areas.\nRecreation. Access, parking and sandy beaches critically\nshort. Reduction of aesthetic values due to levee maintenance.\nLack of adequate facilities. Conflicts of use between fisher-\nmen, boaters, and aquatic sports.\nSuisun Marsh\nMajor Environmental Features\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 55,000 acres constitute 10 percent\nof California's remaining natural wetlands on the Pacific\nFlyway. Shallow bays and mudflats, fallow uplands, grain fields\nand heavily vegetated levees.\nResident and Anadromous Fish. Striped bass, King salmon,\nsturgeon, steelhead, catfish, numerous nongame fish.\nWaterfowl. Supports up to 20 percent of California's wintering\nduck population.\nBirds. 202 species use as nesting or wintering grounds.\nMammals. 36 species.\nReptiles and Amphibians. 20 species.\nRare and Endangered Species. 7 species.\nIndustry. Modest local trapping industry for fur-bearers.\nRecreation. Duck hunting on public and private lands, marginal\npheasant hunting, fishing, bird watching, sightseeing, aesthetic\nenjoyment, field trails, picnicking, bicycling and miscellaneous\nothers.\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\nThe Bay Complex includes San Francisco, San Pablo, Suisun, Grizzly and\nHonker Bays. Man's uses include municipal and industrial sewage\n8\ndisposal, industrial water supply, recreation, commerce, fishing and\naesthetic pleasure.\nMajor Environmental Features\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 4 major wildlife habitats in and\naround bay. Many species dependent on habitat for continued\nexistence.\nFish and Invertebrates. Population of marine species number in\nmillions. Striped bass, surfperch, jacksmelt, and topsmelt are\npopular sport fishes. Shellfish include mussels, oysters, clams,\ncrab and shrimp.\nBirds. 76 species of water birds winter in bay, numerous shore-\nbirds, 100 species of song birds, wading birds, hawks and owls.\nSeveral heron rookeries.\nMammals. Sea lions, seals and porpoises inhabit bay. Fur-\nbearers and rodents occupy marshes.\nRare and Endangered Species. 8 bird species and 2 mammal species\nare considered rare or endangered.\nUrban Development. Population increases and urbanization rapid\nin 9 Bay Area counties. San Francisco functions as center of\ncommerce, tourism and culture for region.\nIndustry. Industrial development important throughout region.\nUse of bay water important to number of industries.\nRecreation. Water-oriented recreation activities include pic-\nnicking, boating, nature walking, camping, hunting and fishing.\nSwimming and water skiing, where water quality permits.\nFishery. Commercial fishery, much of it for bait.\nMajor Environmental Problems\nWater Quality. Municipal and industrial waste discharges\ncausing: adverse effects on fish and invertebrates; reduced\ndiversity of benthic organisms; and low dissolved oxygen in\nshallow areas of bay, reaches of Napa and Petaluma Rivers, and\nsouthernmost part of bay. Excessive algal concentration in\nlocalized areas of South and Suisun Bays. Odor and floating\nmaterials. Numerous oil spills.\nState Water Project-Central Valley Project\nExport Service Areas\nSan Francisco Bay Service Area\nMajor Environmental Features. Discussed in preceding section.\n9\nWater Supply and Demands. Most freshwater sources developed\nto capacity, including ground water overdraft in some areas.\nPeripheral Canal will convey 30 percent of water supply antici-\npated by year 2020.\nSan Joaquin Valley Service Area\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat. 100,000 acres fish and wildlife\nhabitat.\nWildlife. Waterfowl of Pacific Flyway, upland game and many\nnongame birds and mammals.\nAgriculture. Top agricultural producing area in state.\n7,500,000 acres of irrigated and potentially irrigable land.\nGross farm receipts in excess of $2 billion annually.\nIndustry. Generally agriculturally related, but also has major\noil producing areas.\nUrban. 200,000 acres urban land.\nRecreation. Considerable hunting on public and private lands\nand bird watching. Aqueducts and reservoirs provide water-\nrelated recreation including fishing, bikeways, boating, camping\nand swimming.\nWater Supply and Demand. Most surface water supplies from\nstreams in Sierra and its foothills and diversions from Delta.\nGround water used extensively with overdraft occurring in some\nareas. Peripheral Canal will convey 35 percent of anticipated\nwater supply by year 2020.\nCentral Coastal Service Area\nFish and Wildlife. Salmon, steelhead and trout. Deer and\nupland game common to abundant.\nAgriculture. Economy based primarily on agriculture.\nIndustry. Agricultural related industries. Extractions and\nrefining of petroleum, mining, commercial fishing and lumbering.\nMilitary installations important to local economy.\nRecreation. Pacific Ocean center of recreational activities.\nFishing and hunting important.\nWater Supply and Demand. The Peripheral Canal will convey\n18 percent of estimated water supply by the year 2020.\nSouthern California Service Area\nVegetation/Wildlife Habitat.\n350,000 acres.\n10\nWildlife. Fish and wildlife extensive in South Lahontan and\nColorado Desert hydrologic areas.\nAgriculture. 5,530,000 acres of irrigated or potentially irri-\ngable land within all hydrographic areas.\nIndustry. Industrial development extensive in south coastal\narea. Much less so in more typically desert areas.\nUrban Development. 1,170,000 acres in urban use. South coastal\narea has over half State's population. Population sparse in\nSouth Lahontan hydrologic area and increasing in Colorado Desert\nhydrologic area.\nWater Quality. Ranges from excellent to poor. Problem with\nsea water intrusion and man's activities in coastal plains. High\nlevels of mineral salts in Colorado River water and ground water\nin some areas.\nWater Supply and Demand. Local surface and ground water supplies\nalmost fully developed in south coastal area. Colorado River and\nMono-Owens Valley provide imported water. 48 percent of projected\nwater supplies of entire area will be conveyed by the Peripheral\nCanal.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nWildlife habitat of the Suisun Marsh - a major waterfowl wintering area along the Pacific Flyway.\n11\nRelated Projects\nNumerous public and private projects in the Sacramento\nand San Joaquin River systems have modified natural streamflows\ninto the Delta. At the present level of development, net water\nuse in or above the Delta averages about 8,000,000 acre-feet\nannually, and is projected to increase in the future.\nDescribed in Table 1 are the present and planned major\nprojects which affect the water supply in the Delta. Projects\nwhich affect Delta water quality or would have an effect on the\ndesign of the Peripheral Canal are also described.\nTABLE 1\nRELATED PROJECTS\nProject\nStatus\nProject Operator\nProject Purposes\nRelationship to Delta/or Peripheral Canal\nShasta Division\nExisting\nUSBR\nFlood Control, Irrigation, Fishery\nProvide Delta exports and augment low summer\n(CVP)\nand Power, Navigation, Recreation,\nand fall flows in Delta in coordination with\nMunicipal and Industrial\nother CVP units.\nTrinity Division\nExisting\nUSBR\nPower and Irrigation\n11\n(CVP)\nFolsom Unit\nExisting\nUSBR\nIrrigation, Power, Flood Control,\n(CVP)\nMunicipal and Industrial, Fishery\nand Wildlife, Recreation\nOroville Division\nExisting\nDWR\nIrrigation, Municipal and Industrial,\nProvides water supply for diversion from Delta\n(SWP)\nPower, Flood Control, Fish and\nand salinity control in Delta.\nWildlife\nFriant Division\nExisting\nUSBR\nFlood Control, Irrigation\nDiverts water in Upper San Joaquin River which\n(CVP)\nis replaced by Delta-Mendota Canal water\ndiverted from Delta.\nSolano Project\nExisting\nUSBR\nWater Conservation, Irrigation\nDevelopment on Putah Creek, a tributary to the\nDelta.\nMokelumne Project\nExisting\nEast Bay Muni-\nMunicipal and Industrial\nTransports Mokelumne water across Delta for\ncipal Utility\nuse in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.\nDistrict (EBMUD)\nExport of tributary supply to Delta.\nHetch Hetchy Project\nExisting\nSan Francisco\nMunicipal and Industrial\nExport of Tuolumne River, a tributary supply\nCity and County\nto Delta.\nNorth Bay Aqueduct\nPartial\nDWR\nMunicipal and Industrial\nWill divert up to 67,000 acre-feet annually\n(SWP)\nOperation\nfrom Delta.\nContra Costa Canal\nExisting\nCCCWD\nMunicipal and Industrial,\nDiverts water from Delta when water quality\n(CVP)\nIrrigation\nunsuitable offshore in western Delta. Water\nwould be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\nKellogg Project\nProposed\nCCCWD or USBR\nMunicipal and Industrial, Irriga-\nCould pump additional water supplies from\n(CVP)\ntion, Water Quality, Recreation,\nDelta to augment Contra Costa Canal. Water\nFish and Wildlife\nwould be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\nAuburn-Folsom\nUnder\nUSBR\nMunicipal and Industrial, Power,\nCoordinated operation with Shasta and Folsom\nSouth Unit\nConstruction\nFlood Control, Recreation, Fishery\nfor CVP inflow to Delta. Also related to\n(CVP)\nproposed Hood-Clay Connection.\nHood-Clay\nProposed\nUSBR\nTo augment supply in Folsom-South\nPeripheral Canal intake will be designed to\nConnection (CVP)\nCanal and redirect American River\nprovide capacity for this facility.\nenvironmental flows.\nNew Melones\nUnder\nUSBR\nFlood Control, Irrigation, Power,\nWater quality control of San Joaquin River\nReservoir (CVP)\nConstruction\nRecreation, Fishery, Water Quality\ninflow to Delta. Could effect releases from\nControl\nPeripheral Canal.\nEast Side Division\nProposed\nUSBR\nIrrigation, Municipal and Indus-\nRelated to an expanded Hood-Clay Connection\n(CVP)\ntrial, Wildlife\nwhich would be part of Peripheral Canal intake.\nCross Valley Canal\nUnder\nKern County\nIrrigation\nWill divert additional 133,000 acre-feet\nConstruction\nWater Agency\nannually from Delta that would be conveyed by\nthe Peripheral Canal.\nAmerican Aqueduct\nProposed\nEBMUD\nMunicipal and Industrial Water\nExport of American River tributary supply to\nSupply\nDelta.\n12\nTABLE 1 (continued)\nProject\nStatus\nProject Operator\nProject Purposes\nRelationship to Delta/or Peripheral Canal\nNashville Reservoir\nProposed\nUSBR\nIrrigation, Municipal and Indus-\nFishery releases would provide incidental\n(CVP)\ntrial, Flood Control, Recreation\nwater quality benefits in Delta. Development\non Cosumnes River, a tributary to the Delta.\nSan Luis Drain\nPartial\nUSBR\nWater Quality and Irrigation\nWill eventually convey agricultural return\n(CVP)\nOperation\nWaste Water Disposal\nflows to receiving waters at Antioch. Needed\nto maintain salt balance in San Joaquin Valley.\nSan Joaquin Master\nAuthorized\nDWR\n11\nDrain (SWP)\nSacramento Canal\nPartial\nUSBR\nIrrigation\nReduces Delta inflow. Diverts water from\nUnits (CVP)\nOperation\nupper Sacramento River.\nMorrison Creek\nProposed\nCorps of\nFlood Control, Recreation, Fish\nOutflow would enter Peripheral Canal below\nFlood Control\nEngineers\nand Wildlife\nintake facilities.\nHidden Reservoir\nUnder\nCorps of\nFlood Control, Irrigation,\nWill contribute to depletion of annual inflow\nConstruction\nEngineers\nRecreation, Fish and Wildlife\nto Delta. Storage on Fresno River, a tributary\nto San Joaquin River.\nBuchanan Reservoir\n\"\n11\nWill contribute to depletion of annual inflow\nto Delta. Storage on Chowchilla River, a tribu-\ntary to San Joaquin River.\nAllen Camp\nProposed\nUSBR\nFlood Control, Irrigation,\nWould contribute to depletion of annual inflow\nReservoir\nRecreation, Fish and Wildlife\nto Delta. Storage on Pit River, a tributary\nto Sacramento River.\nIndian Valley\nUnder\nYolo County\nFlood Control, Irrigation, Fish\nWill contribute to depletion of annual inflow\nReservoir\nConstruction\nFlood Control &\nand Wildlife\nto Delta. Storage on tributary to Cache Creek.\nWater Conserva-\ntion District\nWestern Delta Over-\nSWP\nSWP and CVP\nWater Quality for Irrigation\nSubstitute water supply for Western Delta in\nland Agricultural\nAuthorized\nlieu of large releases to repulse salt water\nWater Facilities\nintrusion.\nBaldwin Ship Channel\nAuthorized\nCorps of\nNavigation\nWould deepen San Joaquin River navigation\nEngineers\nchannel and affect placement of Peripheral\nCanal siphon.\nInterstate\nUnder\nCaltrans\nTransportation\nWill utilize spoil from canal for highway\nHighway 5\nConstruction\nembankment. Borrow sites will be used for\nfishery, recreation or sanitary landfill dis-\nposal sites if Peripheral Canal is not built.\nDelta-Mendota Canal\nExisting\nUSBR\nIrrigation, Municipal and\nSupply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\n(CVP)\nIndustrial\nCalifornia Aqueduct\nExisting\nDWR\nIrrigation, Municipal and\nSupply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\n(SWP)\nIndustrial, Recreation\nSouth Bay Aqueduct\nExisting\nDWR\nIrrigation, Municipal and Indus-\nSupply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\n(SWP)\ntrial, Recreation, Flood Control\nSan Luis Reservoir\nExisting\nDWR\nSWP-CVP Offstream Storage,\nSupply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\n(SWP-CVP)\nRecreation, Power, Fish and\nWildlife\nSan Felipe Division\nAuthorized\nUSBR\nIrrigation, Municipaliand\nSupply to be conveyed by Peripheral Canal.\n(CVP)\nIndustrial\nUpper Eel River\nAuthorized\nDWR\nAugment Delta Supply, Power, Flood\nWould provide new water supply for diversion\nDevelopment (SWP)\n(Moratorium)\nControl, Recreation, Fish and\nfrom the Delta.\nWildlife\n3-86463-C\n13\nPROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATION\nThe Peripheral Canal will begin at the Sacramento\nRiver near the community of Hood, extend in a southeasterly\ndirection along the eastern perimeter of the Delta, cross\nthe San Joaquin River west of Stockton, and terminate at\nClifton Court Forebay of the SWP. A connection between the\nForebay and Tracy Pumping Plant of the CVP will be provided.\nThe unlined canal will resemble a Delta channel or a natural\nriver, except with flatter side slopes. The 43-mile long\nearth channel will be 400 or more feet wide and about 30 feet\ndeep, with gently sloping levees on both sides. Trees and\nshrubs will be established on the slopes for recreation and\nwildlife.\nThe objective of the project will be accomplished\nby: (1) providing a conveyance for export water without undue\nreduction in supply or degradation in quality; (2) changing\nthe point of export diversion from near Clifton Court Forebay\nto the vicinity of Hood via the Sacramento River, thereby\nisolating export water and eliminating the adverse effects\non Delta channels; (3) providing controlled releases of water\ninto the Delta at 12 locations where the canal intersects Delta\nchannels to facilitate year-round water quality management\nin the Delta and assure positive downstream flows in all main\nfish migration channels; (4) accepting floodflows from Morrison\nCreek Basin and Middle River into the canal to reduce the\npressure of flow on the natural channels downstream; (5) incor-\nporating suitable recreation and fish and wildlife facilities\nand operational considerations so as to retain fish and wildlife\nresources at present levels and to increase these resources\nto the degree compatible with other project purposes; and\n(6) designing the canal to add a new recreation use, building\nnew recreation facilities, and improving public access to\nthis area of the Delta.\nThe sizing, configuration and appurtenant works of\nthe canal would be applicable to both the first and second\nstages of construction. The major facilities and a description\nof their operation are summarized in Table 2. Several of the\nproject features; namely, the Peripheral Canal pumping plant,\nthe southeastern Delta water control facilities and Georgiana\nSlough facilities will be constructed as Stage II features.\nThese have been identified as such in Table 2.\n14\nTABLE 2\nPHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEATURES OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL\nFacility\nDescription\nOperation\nPeripheral Canal\n43-mile-long leveed earth channel.\nExport by gravity flow during Stage I; by pumping during\nStage II.\nCanal Intake\n23,300 cfs design capacity including 1,500 cfs\nIntakes water from Sacramento River into Canal. Gravity\nfor proposed Hood-Clay connection, decreasing\nflow less than design and dependent on river stage.\nto 18,300 cfs.at Clifton Court Forebay.\nIntake Facilities\nTrashrack, sediment basin, flood gates, and fish\nScreens fish and debris, minimizes sediment entering\nprotection facility.\ncanal, and controls diversions.\nSiphons\nFour siphons placed under major sloughs and rivers\nConveys canal water under major rivers and sloughs so as\ncrossed by canal.\nnot to impede floodflow capacities of existing channels,\nnavigation, and fish migration.\nFish Protective\nPerforated plates at entrance to intake facilities\nScreens juvenile fish from export water and keeps them in\nFacility\nor rotating drums downstream of entrance.\nor returns them to Sacramento River.\n(Type to be determined from studies.)\nDelta Release\n12 water release points along canal with total\nReleases to Delta channels to replace severed water sup-\nFacilities\ncapacity of 6,300 cfs.\nplies, meet consumptive needs, control water quality,\nand maintain positive flows in channels. Releases\nminimal during Stage I and increasing during Stage II.\nDrainage and\nSubstitute or modified channels to replace minor\nWill continue current functions.\nIrrigation\nirrigation and drainage systems severed by canal.\nFacilities\nMorrison Creek\nDrainage enters Peripheral Canal forebay between\nFloodflows from Morrison Creek Drainage diverted into\nFlood Control\nfloodgates and Stage II pumping plant over a weir\nenlarged section of canal. Flows released through\nstructure.\nrelease facilities or exported.\nMiddle River\nPumping plant and control structure on Middle\nProvides releases for water quality control and controls\nFacilities\nRiver. Location dependent on alternative\nfloodflows taken into Peripheral Canal.\nselected. (See Southeastern Delta Water Control\nFacility.)\nFourteen Mile\nCombination water quality control channel and\nIncreased releases and elimination of effluent disposal to\nSlough Facilities\nboat access channel. Provides boat access to\nimprove water quality. Boaters will be provided a more\nLincoln Village Marina from San Joaquin River.\ndirect route to San Joaquin River.\nUtilities\nReplacements for those in canal right-of-way.\nWill continue current operation.\nBridges\n12 crossings to current standards.\nWill carry 10 roads and 2 railroads over the canal.\nRoads\nAlternate public access road and service road on\nPublic access road for vehicular traffic and off shoulder\nPeripheral Canal levee embankments.\nparking. Service road will double as recreational trail.\nRecreational\nRecreation trails, auto-aquatic parks, fishing\nOperated by Department of Parks and Recreation or local\nFacilities\nareas, nature study areas, picnic and camping\nagencies.\nareas, beaches, boat-in development, and\nswimming lagoons.\nWildlife Areas\n4 major preserve and habitat areas. Also along\nState Department of Fish and Game will operate, regu-\ncanal berms and outside of canal embankments.\nlating use and access to specified areas.\nControl for Delta\nGates would be automated by remote control. Boat\nWould permit gates to be open, either fully or partially,\nCross Channel\nlock and bypass canal would be constructed to\non varying schedule to meet environmental requirements in\ncompensate for increased duration of closure.\nMokelumne River not met by canal releases.\nPeripheral Canal\n3 miles south of intake. Capacity of 21,800 cfs\nWill provide additional capacity to convey joint SWP and\nPumping Plant\nat 10-foot lift. Could pass floodwater from\nCVP export flows. (Stage II facility.)\nMorrison Creek by gravity flow.\nSoutheastern Delta\n3 alternate plans under consideration for water\nTwo plans will use Middle River release facilities to\nWater Control\nquality improvement and water control facilities\ndistribute flows to Old and San Joaquin Rivers. Third will\nFacility\nfor southeastern Delta.\nrelease water from Delta-Mendota Canal to San Joaquin River.\n(Stage II facilities.)\nGeorgiana Slough\nSeries of rock weirs.\nWill prevent excess transfer from Sacramento River to\nFacilities\nMokelumne River caused by tidal action. (Stage II facility.)\n15\n9T\nE SECTION\nWebsite\nMATCH LINE\nCAMPGROUND\nBOAT-IN\nNOHdlS\nAREA\nDISAPPOINTMENT SLOUGH\nWHITE SLOUGH\nRECREATION AREA\nHIGHWAY 12\nEXTENSION-\nHAMMER LANE\nBRIDGES\nSTATE ROUTE 12\nBRIDGES..\nEIGHTMIL ROAD\nEXTENSION\nSe\nWHITE CANAL\nWHITE CANAL\n?\nKAW\n94\na\na\n#\nR\nSECTION 2\n#\nN\nc\nN\nè\n&\nH\n***\n*g)\nbut\n>\nB\nNo\nNOHJIS\nBRIDGES\nHONOIS OOH\nWOODBRIDGE ROAD\nRECREATION AREA\nRECREATION AREA\nCANAL\nWALNUT GROVE ROAD\n12 AYMHOIH\nBEAVER\nfor\nWALNUT GROVE ROAD BRIDGE\nCANAL\nA\nFUTURE\n1\nMOKELUMNE RIVER SIPHON\nWILDLIFE AREA\nCHONGH OOH\nWILDLIFE AREA\nHONOIS 1501\nSECTION\n34\n/\n110\nOF\n1 SECTION\n©\nRECREATION AREA\nquality\nNISYS SERVICE\nFISH BARRIER\nAND\nINTAKE STRUCTURE\nis\nway\n2121\nLAMBERT ROAD BRIDGE\nFLOOD GATES\nIf\n(16%)\nS.P.R.R BRIDGE\nNISY8 SEDICENT\nINTAKE WORKS\nMORRISON CREEK\nI\nMATCH INE SECTION 1\nNETVOR\nCONNECTION\nMONOIS 1501\nAY10-000H\n30\nPERIPHERAL CANAL PUMPING PLANT\n#\nAMOUNT\nadidas ROAD\nNIM1\nHONORS 1507\n/\nAREA\nor\nHONOIS ISO\nSTD\n-\n&\n/\n5)\nthis\n2888889\nSTATE\nMOKELUMNE\nAT&SF BRIDGE\nTHE\nAQUEDUCT\n1\nCROSSING\nSTATE ROUTE BRIDGE\nFOURTEENMILE CANAL\nSWIMMING\nLAGOON\nINLAND DRIVE BRIDGE\n5\nJACOBS ROAD\nWILDLIFE AREA\nSAN JOAQUIN RIVER SIPHON\nFOURTEENMILE\nSLOUGH\nRECREATION\nNATURE\nSTUDY\nCOMPLEX\n$\nTRAPPER SLOUGH\nAREA\nRECREATION AREA\nRIVER\nSECTION 4\nCLIFTON COURT\nFOREBAY DELTA\nMATCH LINE SECTION SECTION 4.8 5\nMENDOTA CANAL\nCONNECTION\nUPPER MIDDLE RIVER\nTRACY ROAD BRIDGE\nBOATING AREA\n(ENTRANCE)\nENTRY\nTRAPPER SLOUGH\nOLD RIVER CANAL\nRECREATION AREA\n$900\n-\nOLD RIVER SIPHON\nOLD RIVER\nRECREATION AREA\nSECTION 5\n\\\nLEGEND\nMAJOR RECREATION AREA\nMAJOR WILDLIFE AREA\n2\nAUTO-AQUATIC PARK\nFISHING ACCESS SITE\n600\n-\nRELEASE FACILITY (CFS)\nPERIPHERAL\nCANAL\nWATER SURFACE AREA\n3\nANTIOCH\n8\nSTOCKTON\nDETAIL MAP\n5\nPERIPHERAL CANAL ALIGNMENT\n-\nAND MAJOR FEATURES\nINDEX MAP\nFair\ngive\nSCALE OF MILES\n17\nThe levee embankments along both sides of the\nPeripheral Canal would be designed for the purpose of\nrecreation and wildlife uses and a fishery would be\nestablished. A number of recreation facilities would be\nconstructed along the canal levees, on excess lands, or\non parcels adjacent to the canal and purchased specifi-\ncally for recreation and/or wildlife. The facilities\nbeing planned include auto-aquatic parks, fishing areas,\na visitor facility and interpretation center, a nature\nstudy area, picnic and camping areas, beaches, swimming\nlagoons, and boat-in developments from adjacent Delta\nchannels.\nLEVEE\nFISH\nFISH\nLANDSIDE STRIP\nEMBANKMENT\nBERM\nINTERFACE\nHABITAT\nMAIN TROUGH\nHABITAT\nINTERFACE\nBERM\nLEVEE EMBANKMENT\n002\nTYPICAL CANAL CROSS SECTION\nLEVEE\nEMBANKMENT\nBERM\nPARALLEL DRAINAGE CHANNEL\n-\nwww\nDRAINAGE AND RELEASE CANAL CROSS SECTION\nTypical Peripheral Canal Cross Section, Recreation and Wildlife Plan.\n18\nOperation plans of the canal will be governed by\nthe water supply available to and requirements of the Delta\nand the requirements of the export service areas. The operating\ncriteria for releases from the canal will be flexible pending\na determination of requirements resulting from interagency\nenvironmental studies, contract negotiations with Delta water\nusers, permanent water quality standards to be set by the\ncontrol agencies, and adjusted by actual operation of the\nPeripheral Canal to assure that the desired results are\nachieved.\nFor the interim period until 1985, the first stage\ngravity canal would be operated primarily to meet SWP and CVP\nexport needs. Minimal releases would be made to the Delta to\nreplace severed water supplies and meet consumptive needs in\nthe southern Delta, with the principal requirement being met\nby the flows down the natural channels of the Sacramento River\nand Delta. Although smaller releases will be made from the\ncanal under interim gravity operation, more water will be\navailable in the Delta than in later years, and the magnitude\nand direction of flows will be quite similar to those with the\nfull canal in operation. A major aspect of the interim opera-\ntion would be the isolation of the export pumps from southern\nDelta channels and the elimination of existing adverse effects\nof this pumping.\nFuture increased demands, new projects, and changes\nin land use in the Central Valley will reduce surplus water\npresently available in the Delta. Even with allowances for\ncurtailing deliveries to agriculture in critically dry years\nas permitted in the contracting principles of the SWP and CVP,\nadditional sources of water will eventually be required during\ncritically dry periods with or without the Peripheral Canal\nif all contracted deliveries and the assumed flows for Delta\nwater quality are to be met. To meet these demands, additional\nwater sources would have to be developed, either in northern\nCalifornia or in the export service areas. Waste water reclama-\ntion and sea water conversion are examples of supplemental\nsources of additional supply that could be developed for the\nservice areas. It is estimated that under the 2020 level of\ndevelopment, the requirement for additional water from northern\nCalifornia sources during a critically dry period would be\nincreased by about 1.8 million acre-feet per year without the\ncanal. Additional water supplies would be needed by 1980\nwithout the canal, and by 1990 or later, with the canal.\nOperational Flexibility\nThe Peripheral Canal will be operated in coordination\nwith the reservoirs of the CVP and SWP. While the storage in\n19\nthese upstream reservoirs will be regulated to control the high\nwinter and spring runoff from these watersheds and augment low\nflows in the summer and fall in the Delta, the canal will pro-\nvide the means of distributing this inflow throughout the\nDelta. Each hydrologic year is different; hence, the exact\namount and timing of releases from the canal to provide the\ndesired environmental conditions in the Delta will differ from\nyear to year, month to month, and possibly within shorter\nperiods. The total capability of the project to distribute\nwater to the interior Delta will include releases from 12 release\nfacilities along the canal and Clifton Court Forebay, and con-\ntrolled flows through the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana\nSlough, and a facility to regulate the flow from San Joaquin\nRiver into Old River.\nDuring the early spring months, the operational plan\nis to improve water quality in the Old, Middle, and Mokelumne\nRivers for the start of the agricultural season, and to provide\nproper conditions for striped bass spawning in the Delta. Later\nin the spring, during the bass spawning period (approximately\n5 weeks), diversions into the canal for export will be minimized\nto permit the free-floating eggs and larvae spawned in the\nSacramento River to drift past the intake into the western Delta.\nIn the early summer, following striped bass spawning,\nchannel velocities will be reduced, particularly in the Mokelumne\nRiver system, to improve production of fish food. This will\nbe accomplished by closing the Delta Cross Channel and releasing\nenough water from the canal to meet consumptive use and in-channel\nrequirements. This mode of operation will continue throughout\nthe summer, although canal releases will increase as consumptive\nuse requirements within the Delta rise and inflow from tributary\nstreams decrease.\nDuring the fall, the plan is to reduce releases from\nthe canal consistent with consumptive use needs to assure a\nhigh proportion of homestream water in the migrating channels\nof the Sacramento and San Joaquin River for King salmon runs, and\nto prevent attraction of Sacramento River salmon to canal release\nsites. This will be accomplished by stopping canal releases to\nthe northern Delta, meeting northern Delta requirements via the\nDelta Cross Channel, reducing canal releases into the southern\nDelta, and increasing the flow in the Sacramento River.\nWinter operation envisions no canal releases in the\nnorthern Delta during the extended salmon runs of the Sacramento\nRiver and increasing releases again in the southern Delta.\nAdditional canal operational flexibility will include\nthe ability to make releases of up to 1,500 cfs from the Clifton\nCourt Forebay to the southern Delta, when necessary, and short-\nterm flow changes elsewhere when occasional unpredictable\n20\nsituations occur. These might include increases in winter\nreleases to provide leaching water in the southern Delta\nagricultural lands, redistribution of flows to eliminate\nlocalized pollution blocks, and further cutbacks in canal\ndiversions at certain times to protect the Delta fishery by\nallowing additional flow down the Sacramento River.\nEconomics and Financing\nThe total estimated capital cost of the full Peripheral\nCanal is $286 million. The estimated cost of Stage I facilities,\nincluding initial recreation facilities, is $211 million and\nStage II facilities is $75 million. The estimated annual\noperation, maintenance and replacement cost under full operation,\nexclusive of CVP power costs and operational costs for recrea-\ntion, is $2.4 million.\nCost sharing is planned on a 50-50 basis if and when\nthe Federal Government is authorized to participate. Pending\nthat time, the entire project will be funded by monies avail-\nable to the Department of Water Resources for construction of\nthe State Water Project. Should federal authorization be\ndelayed, the Department expects that the U. S. Bureau of\nReclamation will pay a transportation charge, or other form\nof interim compensation, for the conveyance of federal CVP\nwater through the canal.\nDelta Monitoring Programs\nAssociated with the operation of the Peripheral Canal\nwill be a number of monitoring programs designed to confirm or\nadjust operational criteria relating to the effects on water\nquality, ground water adjacent to the canal and the environmental\nrequirements for the Delta fishery. These programs will be:\n1. Water quality monitoring program based on the\nState Water Resources Control Board Decision 1379.\n2. Seepage Monitoring - This is an ongoing program\nof DWR, begun in 1966, and is to continue after the\ncanal is operational in order to determine effects of\nthe canal on adjacent ground water and mitigation, if\nnecessary.\n3. A cooperative program between the Departments\nof Fish and Game and Water Resources: (a) to establish\n21\nwater management terms and criteria for maintaining\nfish and wildlife resources at present levels, and\nfor increasing these levels where feasible; (b) to\nmonitor the terms and criteria and modify water\noperations as necessary for evaluation purposes; and\n(c) to revise the terms and criteria consistent with\nthe results of the evaluation.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nFishing for striped bass - the principal game fish caught in the Delta estuary.\n22\nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES\nEnvironmental impacts attributable to the Peripheral\nCanal are divided into these major headings -- Local Vicinity,\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region, Suisun Marsh, San Francisco\nBay Complex, SWP and CVP Export Service Areas, Northern California\nWater Sources, and Related Projects. Emphasis is placed on the\nlong-term effects of the canal under conditions of full opera-\ntion, although short-term effects are also discussed. For each\nof the six headings, impacts and mitigation measures designed\nto prevent or minimize the adverse impacts are briefly discussed.\nTable 3, which is a Summary of Major Impacts and Mitigation\nMeasures, follows this discussion.\nLocal Vicinity\nThe impacted area lies primarily within the canal\nright-of-way between Hood and Clifton Court Forebay. It also\nincludes the area along the connection between Clifton Court\nForebay and the Delta Mendota Canal. Local vicinity is defined\nas the area encompassing the canal and physical facilities along\nthe canal.\nImpacts on the local vicinity are primarily due to\nthe physical presence of the canal and short-term effects during\nconstruction. The extensive recreation, fish and wildife areas,\nand improved access to the Delta to be established in conjunc-\ntion with the canal, rate as environmental pluses. On the\nnegative side, existing wildlife habitat will be destroyed,\nincluding agricultural lands and portions of marsh and riparian\nlands.\nA number of environmental features have been incor-\nporated into the design and operation of the canal and appurtenant\nfacilities which should substantially mitigate most environmental\nlosses.\nThe Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Francisco Bay\nMost impacts of the canal on the Delta, Suisun Marsh\nand San Francisco Bay would be due to the operational effects\nof the canal. Although much is known about the ecology of the\narea, limitations in complex environments such as these require\nthat some actual environmental effects can be defined only after\nactual operation of the canal has begun. Monitoring environ-\nmental conditions for modification of operation, together with\nflexibility for operation incorporated in the design of the\nfacilities will permit a wide enough range to adjust to those\nconditions.\n23\nRestoring natural flow regimes in all major channels\nof the Delta and eliminating other adverse conditions associ-\nated with direct export pumping from the southern Delta channels\nwill be the primary benefits of canal operation. The greatest\npotential for experiencing environmental problems will come\nin the dry and critical water supply years. Over the 45 years\nused in operation studies, dry and critical years occurred\none-third of the time.\nThe design of protective facilities and mitigation\nfeatures, along with an environmentally sound plan of operation,\nwill ultimately determine the net impact on the Delta environ-\nment. The focus of the mitigation measures planned is aimed\nat preventing adverse conditions in relation to fish migration\nand maturation, recreation and local water supply.\nAll water use above and diversions from the Delta\ndiminishes annual Delta outflow. Releases of water from upstream\nCVP and SWP storage reservoirs provide water for Delta outflow\nduring periods of the year when the natural flows would be non-\nexistent or inadequate to control salinity intrusion. The\nPeripheral Canal will provide the means to distribute this\nwater to the best advantage of the Delta, as it flows to the\nwestern Delta and into the Bay system to control salinity\nintrusion.\nThe Suisun Marsh environment is determined in part\nby the timing, rate, and volume of Delta outflow, and in part\nby water management practices in the marsh. Increased soil\nsalinity due to a lack of adequate offshore water quality will\nincreasingly plague the marsh with or without the Peripheral\nCanal, although salinity in Suisun Bay will be somewhat higher\nwith the canal than without, primarily in dry and critical years.\nThe impacts on the marsh listed on Table 3 are anticipated,\nregardless of canal operation. To the extent that the SWP, of\nwhich the Peripheral Canal is a part, diminishes Delta outflow,\nthe Department of Water Resources will participate financially\nin its fair share of the responsibility to preserve the marsh.\nWith the exception of Suisun Bay, changes in Delta\noutflow due to canal operation are not expected to have any\nsignificant effect on the Bay environment. With or without\nthe canal, reduced outflow to Suisun Bay will increase the\nduration of salinity intrusion into that Bay, and will subse-\nquently alter habitat and the distribution of certain aquatic\nfish food species, such as Neomysis.\nExport Service Areas\nImpacts on the SWP and CVP service areas are primarily\ndue to a more dependable water supply and an improvement in\nwater quality of the SWP and CVP systems. It is estimated that\n24\nfor the 2020 level of development, the requirements for dis-\nPosing of agricultural waste water from San Joaquin Valley\nwill be reduced by half with the Peripheral Canal due to\nimproved water quality. The economy, environment, and social\nwell-being of several million people will be enhanced. As\nall known impacts are beneficial, no mitigation measures are\nrequired.\nNorthern California Water Sources\nWith or without the Peripheral Canal, it will be\nnecessary to develop additional northern California water\nsources if all authorized and contractual water deliveries and\nthe Delta water quality criteria are to be met. The Peripheral\nCanal, however, reduces the quantity of water required due to\nthe reduced flows needed for salinity repulsion. It also\ndelays the time when additional supplies would be needed.\nPotential sources of water supply are development of surface\nwater in the Sacramento Valley, upper Eel River Basin, and\npossibly the Trinity River. Such developments would have a\nsubstantial impact on the northern California environment.\nIt is assumed that an environmentally acceptable project\ncould be formulated in the valley, with increasing environ-\nmental and legal problems encountered with the other develop-\nments.\nRelated Projects\nThe Peripheral Canal would also affect several\nauthorized or proposed projects in and around the Delta as\nshown in Table 3. These impacts would generally be classified\nas beneficial from an environmental and/or economic standpoint.\n25\nTABLE 3\nSUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES\nLocal Vicinity (Canal Right-of-Way)\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nAgriculture\nI\nLoss of agricultural land and production.\nSpoil used as embankment for I-5 will reduce agri-\ncultural land needed for spoil areas.\n-\nPossible increased urban encroachment if\ncounty zoning regulations permit.\nLocal Government\n-\nLoss of existing tax base.\nExpansion of recreation support industries will\nFinance\ntend to offset\nWildlife\n+\nCanal side habitat and wildlife preserves.\n-\nLosses due to destruction of present habitat.\nImplement recreation and wildlife plan to maintain\nwildlife resources at present levels and increase\nwhere possible. Establish 4 major wildlife areas.\nDesign canal for wildlife use. Alignments avoid\nparticularly valuable wildlife areas where possi-\nble. Recreation and wildlife plan includes deve-\nlopmental controls for maintaining a high quality\nrecreational environment.\n-\nWildlife disruption due to recreational\nControl conflicts between recreation and wildlife\nactivities.\nneeds.\n-\nPossible wildlife displacement and loss due\nto possible urban encroachment if county\nzoning regulations permit.\nFishery\n+\nModerately productive warmwater fishery with\nestablishment of fishery habitat throughout\nlength of canal.\nRecreation\n+\nIncreased recreation access, facilities,\nservices and use.\nArcheological\n-\n8 sites affected - 7 of which have cultural\nExcavate 7 sites having cultural value - preserve\nAreas\nvalue; one previously destroyed.\nsamples of what is found.\nSeepage\n-\nShort-term increase and possible additional\nGround water monitoring program to determine\ndrainage costs.\nremedial measures required or amount of compensa-\ntion due adjacent landowners.\nDrainage and\n-\nSevering of minor sloughs and channels.\nDrainage and irrigation facilities severed by\nIrrigation\nBlocked access to some.\ncanal replaced for individual landowners.\nFacilities and\n-\nIndividual drains and irrigation facilities\nRelocation or channel modifications of sloughs\nWaterways\nsevered.\nintersected. Relocated channels sized to provide\nfor tidal flows, runoff, drainage and flood pro-\ntection. Fresh water releases into relocated\nchannels. Substitute navigational access for\nFourteen Mile Slough via new channel and release\nfacility for improved water quality. Siphons\nunder major sloughs and rivers so as not to impair\nflow carrying capacity, passage of migratory fish\nor travel by boats. Improved water quality in\nsoutheastern Delta due to water control\nfacilities.\nTransportation\n-\nShort-term disruption of transportation\nBridges provided over all existing through roads\nnetworks.\nwhere cross canal.\n-\nBlockage of some county and farm roads.\nRerouting of blocked roads or routing into public\nroad on canal embankment. Bridge access to\nMcCormack-Williamson Tract.\nUtilities\n,\nShort-term disruption during construction.\nAll utilities disrupted by canal replaced or re-\nlocated at project expense.\nSpoil Disposal\n-\nShort-term aesthetic impact during con-\nSpoil placed on levees or berm areas and leveled,\nstruction.\nsloped and planted. Also see \"Agriculture\".\nAesthetics\nA\nChanges in existing farmland to a waterway.\nIncorporate natural environmental assets where\nAlso, short-term impact during construction.\nthey occur. Gently sloped and planted or natu-\nrally revegetated levees using linear greenbelt\nconcept. Two free-flowing lagoons and landscaped\nislands on main canal. Recreation areas designed\nto blend with natural surroundings.\nIntake\nA\nReduced sediment transport down Sacramento\nEntry of bed load sediments into canal minimized\nFacilities\nRiver.\nby locating canal entrance on outside of bend and\nelevating bottom of intake channel so that most\nsediment is retained within river channel.\nLegend:\n+\nBeneficial Impact\n- Adverse Impact\nA Problematical Impact\n26\nShort-Term\nDelays due to traffic detours, noise, dust,\nSpecial environmental control provisions in con-\nConstruction\nturbidity of water, delay of boats during\nstruction contracts. Dust control measures.\nImpacts\nsiphon construction, disruption of irrigation\nCanal excavated in three passes and turbid water\nand drainage facilities and utility lines,\nbelow water table excavation confined within\ndestruction of vegetation.\nright-of-way. Excavation controlled to minimize\nadverse effects. Construction of siphon across\nStockton Deep Water Channel coordinated to mini-\nmize delays in shipping. Temporary disruption of\nirrigation or drainage on adjacent lands handled\nby temporary supplies or alternate arrangements.\nNatural revegetation and planting program along\ncanal alignment.\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nFlow Distribution\n+\nPositive downstream flow in all major\nand Water\nchannels.\nQuality\n+\nImproved water quality in several Delta\nchannels and in dead-end sloughs.\n-\nIncreased duration of salinity in Suisun\nWestern Delta Overland Agricultural Facilities to\nBay and western Delta with or without\nprovide water supply in lieu of salinity control in\nPeripheral Canal.\nwestern Delta if it is needed.\nFishery\n+\nNet benefit for fish migrating to and from\nSan Joaquin River and for resident fish in\nDelta.\n+\nPotential for increased fish protection\nefficiency.\n+\nReduced loss of eggs, larvae and young fish\nto export diversions.\n-\nAttraction of migratory fish to canal\nFish protective facility at canal intake. Reduced\nintake. Potential adverse effects on\ndiversion of water into canal during May to minimize\nmigratory fish of reduced velocities and\nintake of striped bass eggs and larvae. For other\nflows in Sacramento River below intake.\noperational measures to mitigate problems with the\nfishery see section on Project Facilities and\nOperation.\n+\nImproved angler success for bass in lower\nSacramento River below intake due to lower\nvelocities.\n-\nPossible attraction of salmon and steelhead\nMake releases through Delta Cross Channel in lieu of\nmigrating upstream to Delta release\ncanal releases to Mokelumne River system and reduce\nfacilities.\nreleases in southern Delta to minimum possible and\nstill meet quality criteria for Delta agriculture.\nPossible alternative of making southern Delta releases\nvia Delta-Mendota Canal to San Joaquin River in lieu\nof releases from Peripheral Canal.\nA\nPossible increased predation due to\nincreased fish concentrations in low\nvelocity areas.\n+\nFlexibility of project operation to meet\nfishery needs VS. inflexibility of direct\npumping via present facilities.\n+\nIncreased food sources for fish.\nEndangered\nA\nEstablishment of vegetation and protection\nSpecies\nof marshes may benefit.\nRecreation\n+\nRecreation along canal will relieve recrea-\ntion pressure on Delta.\n+\nImproved water quality for recreation uses.\nMorrison Creek\n+\nImproved flood control downstream of Stone\nDrainage\nLakes basin by accepting floodflows into\ncanal.\nTransportation\nA\nIncreased automobile traffic in Delta\nregion due to increased recreation use\nalong canal.\n-\nNavigation delays due to control structures\nBypass canal and boat lock adjacent to Delta Cross\nin Old River and at times at the Delta\nChannel to permit boat traffic when gates closed.\nCross Channel.\nAlso boat lock in Old River control structure if\nthis structure is built.\n27\nSuisun Marsh\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nSalinity\n-\nRelatively small increase in duration and\nPossible use of tide gates and tidal pumping at\nmagnitude of salinity intrusion due to canal.\nMontezuma slough; pumping of high quality water to\nponds during low tides; delivery of water via over-\nWildlife\n-\nReduced productivity of waterfowl habitat and\nland facilities. Alternative measures under study.\nHabitat\nfood supply.\n-\nReduction in habitat for puddle ducks.\n+\nIncrease in diving duck habitat\n+\nIncrease in shorebird and rail habitat.\n+\nIncrease in habitat for 3 endangered species.\nFishery\n-\nDecreases in number of freshwater species\nProbably some shift from freshwater to saltwater\ninhabiting sloughs.\nspecies.\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nSuisun Bay\n-\nSome reduction in flushing of pollutants due\nNo mitigation planned for San Francisco Bay Complex\nto reduced Delta outflows with or without\nas part of Peripheral Canal Project. More stringent\nthe Peripheral Canal.\nrequirements on waste treatment and waste water\ndischarge practices being imposed by SWRCB and EPA\nshould remedy problems.\nA\nIncreased salinity. Population of marine\nzoobenthos should benefit while freshwater\nzoobenthos will be reduced.\nA\nDecline in fresh and brackish water Z00-\nplankton. Replaced by marine species.\n+\nIncreased phytoplankton production of\nbenefit to zooplankton species.\n-\nReduced Neomysis habitat in dry and critical\nMay be offset due to improved habitat in Delta due\nyears.\nto elimination of cross-Delta flows.\nSan Pablo Bay\nA\nSlightly increased salinity could improve\nproduction of zoobenthos, thereby benefiting\ndiving ducks and shore birds. May also\nexpand habitat of endangered Clapper Rail.\nState Water Project and Central Valley Project Export Areas\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nExport Water\n+\nDependable water supply.\n+\nImproved export water quality.\n+\nGreater reuse capacity of water.\n+\nLess costly water treatment.\n+\nConsumer savings from less corrosive water.\n+\nImproved quality of ground water recharge.\n+\nPrevent agricultural losses due to water\ndeficiencies and poor water quality.\n+\nReduce salinity buildup.\n+\nBetter quality waste water for reclamation.\n+\nLess agricultural drainage required.\nb\nAdverse effects on Suisun Marsh will occur with or without the canal by the year 2020 due to the continued need for water in service\nareas to the south. This would be related more to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project rather than to the Peripheral\nCanal per se.\n28\nNorthern California Water Sources\n/\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nSacramento Valley\n+\nNew reservoir fisheries.\nSurface Water\nDevelopment,\n+\nNew water supplies.\nUpper Eel River\nSurface Water\n+\nNew recreation areas.\nDevelopment,\nTrinity River\n+\nHydroelectric power.\nSurface Water\nDevelopment\n+\nNew jobs.\nA\nIncreased tourism.\nA\nNew flatwater surface areas.\nLa\nChanging character and aesthetics of project\nsites.\n-\nBlockage of anadromous fish runs.\nMitigation will be developed as part of project\nplanning. Construction of Peripheral Canal would\n-\nInundation of land, streams, and\nreduce the amount of additional supply needed at\narcheological sites.\nthe Delta by about 1.8 million acre-feet and delay\nthe time such supplies are needed from 1980 to 1990\n-\nDisplacement of people and wildlife.\nor later. Could use alternative sources of supply\nin service areas by waste water reclamation,\ndesalination, etc.\nRelated Projects\nCategory\nType\nImpacts\nMitigation Measures Proposed\nKellogg Project\n+\nImproved quality of water from Delta and\nreduction of storage requirements.\nHood-Clay\n+\nIncluding capacity in Peripheral Canal would\nConnection\nreduce adverse environmental effects of\nseparate intake.\nMorrison Creek\n+\nCanal reduces flowage easements required and\nFlood Control\nflood peaks on downstream Delta channels.\nProject\nInterstate\n+\nUsing canal spoil for highway fill reduces\nHighway 5\namount of spoil disposal sites and effects\nof alternative highway borrow sites.\nSan Luis Drain\n+\nCanal will reduce capacities required and\nand San Joaquin\nquantities of drainage.\nMaster Drain\nAdditional water sources will be needed at the Delta with or without the Peripheral Canal.\n29\nGROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PERIPHERAL CANAL\nThe growth-inducing impacts of the Peripheral Canal\nwere evaluated by estimating changes in employment over the\ntime period 1980-2020, attributable to the existence and\noperation of the canal. These changes are expected to be\nbrought about in the export service areas by a better assur-\nance of delivery water in dry years and a higher quality\nwater in all years. Growth would also be induced by an\nincrease in recreation facilities and services in the immediate\nvicinity of the canal and in the adjacent Delta areas.\nChanges in quantity and quality of water may be\nexpected to cause changes as diagramed below:\nIncreased water quality + quantity\nIncreased\nagricultural + industrial productivity\nIncreased\nemployment\nIncreased net in-migration\nIncreased population\nThe increases in employment attributable to the water\nsupply and recreation functions of the project have been\nestimated over time and are shown in Table 4.\nTable 4\nEMPLOYMENT GROWTH INDUCED BY PERIPHERAL CANAL\n(Number of New Jobs Attributed to the Peripheral Canal)\n1980\n1990\n2000\n2020\na\nImmediate Vicinity\nand Delta\n120\n1,100\n2,300\n3,300\nSan Joaquin Valley\nb/\n0\n5,900\n6,800\n8,500\nCentral Coastal\nb/\n0\n150\n180\n220\nb\nSan Francisco Bay\n0\n1,100\n1,300\n1,700\nSouthern Californiaᵇ/\n0\n1,700\n2,000\n2,600\nTotal Growth\n120\n10,000\n12,600\n16,300\na\nPrimarily recreation oriented.\nb/\nPrimarily water oriented.\n30\nIncreased employment always generates in-migration\nand vice versa. Increases in the 5 geographical areas were\ndetermined by multiplying the current average population per\nemployed member of the labor force (2.46), by the predicted\nchanges in employment. The total population growth attributable\nto the canal in the 5 areas will be roughly 24,600 by 1990,\n30,100 by 2000, and 40,100 by 2020. San Joaquin Valley will\nabsorb about half of this growth.\nIn summary, the chief water-supply-related impacts\n(growth inducing) will occur in the San Joaquin Valley due\nto the improvements in the reliability and quality of water\navailable for agricultural use. Lesser indirect impacts will\noccur in southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area.\nThe impact on the central coast and the Delta and canal area\nwill be negligible. Increases in recreation related employment\nwill, in contrast, be confined to the immediate vicinity of\nthe canal.\n*******\nBoating is a popular activity\non many of the 700 miles\nof meandering waterways.\n31\nALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION\nOver the years, three major water agencies have\nstudied the Delta -- the Department of Water Resources, the\nU. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U. S. Army Corps of\nEngineers. To coordinate their efforts and develop a mutually\nacceptable plan for the Delta, the Interagency Delta Committee\n(IDC) was formed in 1961. In its final 1965 report recommending\nthe Peripheral Canal, the committee classified the numerous\nDelta plans into four basic concepts for comparison -- Hydraulic\nBarrier, Physical Barrier, Delta Waterway Control Plan and\nPeripheral Canal Plan. Since that time, the additional con-\ncepts of State-Only Gravity Canal and Modified Folsom-South\nCanal have been studied as Delta alternatives.\nThe following engineering plans for the Delta alter-\nnatives describe the optimum projects that could be developed\nwithin the framework of each of these concepts.\nState-Only Gravity Canal\nThis concept involves the modification of the first\nstage Peripheral Canal operation to meet export requirements\nof only the SWP. Most of the SWP export water would be conveyed\naround the Delta in the gravity canal, while the CVP export\nwater would continue to be transferred through existing Delta\nchannels. In the event that Sacramento River flow was insuffi-\ncient to produce the gravity flow required to meet SWP export\ndemands, the balance would be diverted directly from the\nsouthern Delta. Releases from the canal to the Delta would\nbe limited to the replacement of supplies severed by the canal.\nWater for the remaining uses within the Delta and control of\nsalinity intrusion would also continue to be met through\nexisting Delta channels as it is now.\nThe capital costs are currently estimated at $203\nmillion, exclusive of recreation and wildlife development.\nCorresponding annual costs are estimated at $1.9 million.\nWaterway Control Plan\nWith this concept, good quality water would be diverted\nfrom the Sacramento River at Walnut Grove. It would be conveyed\nsouthward to SWP and CVP export pumps through existing Delta\nchannels, using physical structures to maintain hydraulic\nseparation of Delta tidal waters from transfer waters. Controlled\nreleases through channel closures would be made for local water\nrequirements, water quality control and for fish. A controlled\nfreshwater outflow would protect the central Delta from salinity\n32\nintrusion, and an overland water distribution system would\nserve the western Delta. Fish protective facilities and\nflexibility of project operations to meet fishery requirements\nare part of this concept.\nTotal capital costs are currently estimated at $136\nmillion, and annual costs at $3.7 million.\nModified Folsom-South Canal\nThis concept involves the construction of physical\nworks within Delta channels to provide hydraulic control of\nwater transferred through existing channels for local and\nexport use. It also involves pumping Sacramento River water\ninto the Folsom-South Canal via an enlarged Hood-Clay connection\nand releasing this water into southeastern Delta tributaries\nfor water quality purposes. The concept would involve the\nenlargement of portions of the Folsom-South Canal, improvement\nof certain Delta channels, closure of certain Delta channels,\nand a siphon to convey the Mokelumne River under the San\nJoaquin River.\nSuch a project would be operated primarily to meet\nobjectives for water quality in the central and southern Delta\nand positive downstream flow in the San Joaquin River. Over-\nland supplies would be provided in the western Delta. As\nproposed by the now defunct Delta water Agency, export diver-\nsions would be limited to 6,500 cfs. This is much less than\nrequired to meet contracted commitments of the SWP and CVP.\nThe concept incorporates no special provisions for fish or\nrecreation other than restoring of positive downstream flow\nin some channels.\nThe costs would probably be similar to those of the\nWaterway Control Plan.\nPhysical Barrier Plan\nThis concept would require construction of a physical\nbarrier to restrict commingling of fresh waters of the Delta\nwith the saline waters of San Francisco Bay. It would also\npermit pumping for local water supply and export requirements\nfrom the freshwater pool formed by the barrier.\nThere are numerous variations of this plan, but only\nthe Chipps Island Barrier, the most feasible, is presented\nhere for comparison purposes. This barrier would be across\nthe Sacramento River, about 4 miles below the confluence with\nthe San Joaquin River.\n33\nAs proposed by the Corps of Engineers and IDC, the\nbarrier would not require releases to repel saltwater intrusion\nfrom the Delta. Export water would be conveyed in existing\nchannels and the influence of tidal action would be excluded\nby the barrier. Because of the freshwater pool, a supply of\nfresh water for agriculture, municipal and industrial purposes\nwould be available within the Delta channels. No changes in\npresent methods of water application or distribution within\nthe Delta would be required.\nA fish ladder, fish screen and curtailed pumping\nduring bass spawning would be part of this concept.\nCapital costs are estimated at $413 million, and\nannual costs at $4.5 million.\nHydraulic Barrier/No Project\nThe present Delta operation of the SWP and CVP employs\nthe concept of a hydraulic barrier. This concept requires no\nnew physical works in the Delta and, therefore, also represents\nthe \"No Project\" alternative.\nThe concept involves repulsion of ocean salinity by\nrelease of water from upstream storage reservoirs to provide\na continuous freshwater outflow to San Francisco Bay. Water\nwould be conveyed to the pumping plants through existing Delta\nchannels. This is the present method of operation in the Delta.\nThe project would not involve any direct costs for\nDelta facilities. However, future modifications to existing\nfacilities to compensate for increased pumping and the additional\nupstream reservoir storage required to protect water quality,\nif fully contracted and authorized water supplies in the export\nservice areas are to be met under this operation, would con-\nstitute additional costs and possible environmental impacts.\nComparison on Delta Alternatives\nThe following is a comparison of the effects of each\nof the Delta alternatives and the proposed Peripheral Canal on\nvarious individual parameters. The ranking was based on con-\nsensus of a number of engineers and biologists from the\nDepartments of Water Resources and Fish and Game, who inde-\npendently ranked each impact.\n34\nTABLE 5\nCOMPARISON OF DELTA AL' RNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION\nIMPACT RANKING\nA - - BEST\nE - ACCEPTABILITY QUESTIONABLE\nB -\n}\nF - UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT\nACCEPTABLE IMPACT\nC -\nU - - RELATIVE NET EFFECT UNKNOWN\nD - - LEAST\nPeripheral\nState-only\nWaterway\nModified\nPhysical Hyd. Barrier-\nImpact Parameters\nCanal\nGravity\nCanal\nControl\nFolsom-South\nBarrier\nNo Project\nExport Water Supply\nB\nB\nB\nE\nA\nD\nC\nD\nExport Water Quality\nA\nB\nA\nB\nLocal Water Quality\nC\nC\nB\nB\nA\nC\nWater Levels\nA\nB\nB\nB\nC\nB\nSeepage\nB\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nDelta Flood Control\nA\nA\nA\nB\nA\nB\nChannel Scour (Delta)\nA\nB\nA\nB\nA\nC\nNavigation (Delta)\nA\nA\nD\nB\nC\nA\nTransportation (Delta)\nC\nC\nA\nB\nC\nC\nLand Out of Production (Delta)\nC\nC\nB\nB\nA\nA\nRecreation\nA\nB\nC\nC\nC\nC\nFish\nGeneral Factors\n1. Salinity Gradient and Dissolved Oxygen\nA\nB\nC\nC\nE\nB\n2. Food Supply\nA\nC\nB\nC\nE\nD\nStriped Bass\n1. Sacramento River\nA\nB\nB\nD\nC\nC\n2. San Joaquin River\nA\nC\nA\nB\nC\nD\n3. Nursery Area\nA\nC\nB\nC\nF\nD\nSacramento Salmon\n1. Upstream Migrants\nB\nA\nB\nE\nC\nA\n2. Downstream Migrants\nA\nA\nA\nB\nE\nC\nSan Joaquin Salmon\n1. Upstream Migrants\nA\nD\nB\nC\nF\nE\n2. Downstream Migrants\nA\nC\nA\nC\nE\nD\nMokelumne Salmon\nA\nC\nC\nC\nE\nD\nShad\nU\nU\nU\nU\nD\nU\nSturgeon\nU\nU\nU\nU\nU\nU\nResident Game Fish\n1. Dead-end Sloughs\nA\nB\nC\nC\nD\nC\n2. Main Delta Channels\nA\nC\nB\nB\nC\nC\nNon-Game Fish\nA\nC\nC\nB\nE\nC\nSuisun Marsh Fish\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nBay Fish\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nWildlife\nDelta\nA\nA\nB\nC\nC\nC\nSuisun Marsh\nC\nC\nC\nC\nA\nB\nTurbidity\nB\nB\nB\nA\nD\nB\nWater Temperature\nB\nA\nB\nA\nC\nA\nBay Circulation and Dispersion\nB\nB\nB\nB\nC\nA\nEnergy Requirement\nB\nA\nA\nC\nA\nA\n35\nAlternative Water Supply Sources Outside the Delta\nSeveral alternatives outside the Delta conceivably\ncould firm up water supply in the export service areas. These\ninclude: (1) northern California storage reservoirs in the\nSacramento River Basin and north coast area; (2) increased\ndiversion from the Delta during periods of high flow to off-\nstream storage reservoirs on the west side of the San Joaquin\nValley; (3) waste water reclamation; (4) sea water conversion;\nand (5) desalination of geothermal brines. None of these,\nhowever, are considered true alternatives to the Peripheral\nCanal because they cannot improve the Delta environment by\nredistribution of flows within the Delta. They would simply\nconstitute additional variations of the Hydraulic Barrier\nbecause the SWP and CVP would continue to divert water from\nthe southern Delta, using existing channels for conveyance\nand regulating Delta outflow to control salinity intrusion.\nWhile all of the alternatives outside the Delta are\npotential sources for meeting some of the future water demands\nin California, none of these are practical alternatives for the\nfirmed-up water supply needed by 1980. It would take 12 years\nto complete the first unit of the northern California storage\nreservoirs. The offstream storage reservoirs could not be\ncompleted by 1980 and, without extensive enlargements of exist-\ning conveyance facilities, could not develop the needed yield.\nThe greatest potential for waste water reclamation is in the\ncoastal metropolitan areas, but its use is presently limited\nto nondomestic uses; therefore, more extensive conveyance\nsystems would be required making early completion improbable.\nThe technology required for large-scale production of usable\nwater by sea water conversion and desalination of geothermal\nbrine is still in the development stage; thus, these alterna-\ntives could not be completed in time to meet the 1980 water\nsupply needs. The effective unit cost of the incremental water\nsupply developed by these alternatives would be from 6 to 15\ntimes higher than with the Peripheral Canal.\nEnvironmental conditions in the Delta under each of\nthe alternative sources would be essentially the same as shown\nfor the Hydraulic Barrier in Table 5 because SWP and CVP would\ncontinue to divert water from the Delta. In addition, there\nwould be direct environmental effects in the project areas\noutside the Delta. Some of the principal effects that could\nbe expected are listed in Table 6.\n36\nTABLE 6\nEFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES\nOUTSIDE OF THE DELTA\nNorthern\nCalifornia\nOffstream\nGeothermal\nStorage\nStorage\nWastewater\nSea Water\nBrine\nReservoirs\nReservoirs\nReclamation\nConversion\nDesalination\nDelta environment and ecology would be\nessentially the same as for Hydraulic Barrier\n(see Table 5)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCannot be completed by 1980, resulting in\npossible water shortage in project service areas\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nInundation of land, streams, and possibly\narchaeological sites\nX\nX\nAdditional land required for conveyance\nfacilities and other features\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nDisplacement of people and wildlife\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nChange in character and aesthetics of project\nsites\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nBlockage of anadromous fish runs\nX\nNew reservoir fisheries\nX\nX\nNew flat water surface areas\nX\nX\nNew recreation areas\nX\nX\nImproved flood control\nX\nNew hydroelectric power\nX\nUses large amount of electrical energy\nX\nReduces need for surface water development and\neffects thereof\nX\nX\nX\nReduces discharge of wastes into ocean and\nSan Francisco Bay\nX\nRequires disposal of brine\nX\nX\nRequires disposal of hot water effluent\nX\nDevelopment of advanced technology required\nX\nX\n37\nConclusions\nThe Peripheral Canal is not perfect in all respects\nand each of the alternatives is possibly superior in some\nrespects. However, it is concluded that the Peripheral Canal\ndoes have the greatest potential for obtaining desired environ-\nmental conditions in the Delta and the least interference with\nestablished and projected activities in the Delta, while meeting\nthe water needs in the export service areas of SWP and CVP.\nIt would reduce the amount of future additional northern\nCalifornia surface water needed at the Delta by about 1.8\nmillion acre-feet per year during a critical period and delay\nthe time such supplies would be needed from 1980 to 1990 or\nlater. If instead, alternative sources south or west of the\nDelta were developed, the canal would reduce the amount needed\nby from 800,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet per year and provide\nmore time to develop technology. Taken as a whole, it comes\nclosest to meeting the most important environmental needs at\nthis time.\n*******\nBlending of agricultural land patterns, native vegetation, and Delta waterways just west of\nPeripheral Canal alignment.\n38\nADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH\nCANNOT BE AVOIDED\nLocal Vicinity\n- Loss of 37,000 tons of agricultural production annually.\n- Loss of $1,800,000 tax base.\n- Permanent loss of 2,600 acres of existing wildlife\nhabitat used by 191 species of birds, 36 species of\nmammals, 19 species of reptiles, and 8 species of\namphibians. (Offsetting benefits are expected by the\nwildlife areas provided as part of the Canal.)\n- Unknown amount of seepage; will be monitored.\n- Seven existing archaeological sites destroyed after\npreservation of samples.\n- Access by boat from Delta to small portions of several\nminor eastside sloughs blocked.\n- Extra travel distance by some boaters via relocated\nchannels (depends on point of origin and destination).\n- Impairment of various sloughs during construction.\n- Extra travel and inconvenience for some property owners\nwith blocked-off roads.\n- Without strict enforcement of zoning laws, potential for\nresidential and commercial development of land between\nfreeway and Peripheral Canal.\nSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region\n- Loss of anadromous fish at fish protective facility.\n- Minor increased water elevations in the Mokelumne River\nfloodplain east of the canal, due to floodflow backwater\neffects upstream from the Mokelumne River siphon.\n- Possible attraction of some Sacramento River salmon to\nrelease sites in southern Delta.\n- Some loss of suspended sediment transport by settling out\nin canal.\n- Time delay in navigation through boat locks in Old River\nand possibly the Delta Cross Channel.\nSuisun Marsh\n- Increased duration and extent of salinity intrusion with\nor without Peripheral Canal, with slightly greater increase\nwith the canal.\nSan Francisco Bay Complex\n- Some reduction in the flushing of pollutants from Suisun\nBay and slight reduction in San Pablo Bay.\n- Reduced Neomysis habitat in dry and critical years.\n39\nIRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD\nOCCUR IF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL IS IMPLEMENTED\nThe following irreversible environmental changes\nand commitments will result from construction of the Peripheral\nCanal.\n1. Changes in land use along canal alignment.\n2. Channel relocations.\n3. Distribution of water into intercepted sloughs.\n4. Removal of archaeological areas.\n5. Expenditure of irretrievable capital funds,\nconstruction materials and labor.\nIf ongoing studies reveal compelling reasons for\ndiscontinuing use of the canal for its intended purposes, such\na solution would be possible. Under this condition, only\nenough water would be diverted at Hood to maintain circulation\nand to supply water to intersected sloughs. In time, the canal\nwould become similar to existing sloughs. Land would be lost\nto agriculture, but not fish, wildlife and recreation use.\nIt must be recognized, however, that such a decision would be\nvery difficult to make in view of the $286 million in irretriev-\nable expenses it would represent.\n40\nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES\nOF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE\nAND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY\nShort-term uses of man's environment would occur\nprimarily during or for a short time after the construction\nperiod and would occur in the project area. Such uses will\ntypically be disruptive or destructive to the man-made and\nnatural environment. The results would include destruction\nof wildlife habitat and aesthetics, temporary disruption of\nroad and utility uses, temporary closure of irrigation and\ndrainage facilities, delays in navigation, etc.\nThe Peripheral Canal would be capable of transporting\nwater for its intended purposes indefinitely if properly main-\ntained. It is, therefore, considered a source of long-term\nproductivity.\nLong-term productivity of Delta agriculture and fish\nresources would be aided by correcting existing problems due\nto export pumping from the southern Delta. Flexibility of\nDelta operation and its release facilities will also aid Delta\nproductivity.\nThe long-term capacity of the local vicinity to\ngenerate recreation opportunities will be enhanced. Recreation\nuse will also spur employment and population growth in the\nlocal vicinity. The design of canal fishery habitat, coupled\nwith proper management, would assure the long-term productivity\nof a warmwater fishery. In both the local vicinity and the\nsurrounding Delta region, haphazard residential and commercial\ndevelopments could have a long-term adverse effect on wildlife\nproductivity if such developments are not controlled by the\ncounties. Removal of land from agricultural production will\nreduce the long-term agricultural productivity of the local\nvicinity.\nThe canal capability to provide good quality water\nwill help assure long-term productivity of the industrial area\nserved by the Contra Costa County Water District.\nImproved reliability and quality of water deliveries\nwill help assure the long-term productivity of agricultural\nareas in the San Joaquin Valley and central coastal service\nareas.\nThe good quality of water provided to the South San\nFrancisco Bay and southern California will enhance the long-\nterm productivity of local water sources in those areas. It\nwill provide a dependable water supply to support the activities\nof several million people in those areas.\n41\nSTATEMENT OF INTENT\nIt is the intent of the California Department of Water Resources and the California Department of Fish and\nGame to:\nI.\nDevelop and enter into a mutually acceptable agreement, prior to the start of construction of the Peripheral\nCanal, defining water management objectives for the operation of the State Water Project and the Peripheral\nCanal in relation to the management of fish and wildlife resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Water\nCode Section 12220) and Estuary. The agreement will include: (1) the initial water management terms and\ncriteria appropriate for achieving the goals and objectives listed in A and B below; (2) procedures for imple-\nmenting the initial terms and criteria; (3) an appropriate program to evaluate the terms and criteria\nincluding environmental monitoring and studies and the modification of water operations for evaluation pur-\nposes; and (4) provisions for renegotiating terms and criteria consistent with the results of said evaluation\nand the goals.\nA.\nGoals - Manage water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Estuary to:\n1. Maintain fish and wildlife resource at present levels.\n2. Increase these resource values above these levels, to the extent compatible with other\nproject purposes.\nPresent levels of fish and wildlife resource values are defined as the mean levels existing in the Delta\nEstuary from 1922 to 1970, as determined by the best information which is or may become available.\nPresent levels as here defined are not to be construed as establishing a base condition for determina-\ntion of enhancement.\nB.\nObjectives -\n1.\nProvide suitable water conditions for striped bass spawning and the survival of their young,\nincluding an ample food supply, to the extent that such measures are necessary to maintain\nthe stock of adult striped bass.\n2. Provide suitable water conditions for the upstream and downstream migration of King salmon,\nsteelhead, sturgeon, striped bass and American shad through the Sacramento-San Joaquin\nDelta and Estuary.\n3. Retain the Suisun Marsh as a brackish water marsh capable of supporting alkali bulrush and\nother important waterfowl food plants which are present.\n4.\nPrevent loss of fish from the Delta in project diversions to the extent necessary to maintain\nstocks of adult fish using the Delta and Estuary.\n5. Attain dissolved oxygen concentrations satisfactory for fish.\n6.\nProvide net water velocities in the Delta channels of a magnitude suitable for food production\nfor resident and migratory game fish.\n7.\nManage the Peripheral Canal and its right-of-way; (1) to develop fish and wildlife resources\nand (2) to provide for recreational use by the general public, both compatible with other\nobjectives.\nThe obligations under these goals and objectives (1) are limited to the extent that the State Water Project\noperation in the Delta and Estuary affect fish and wildlife resources, and (2) must be consistent with state\nand federal law.\nII.\nSelect, prior to the start of Peripheral Canal construction, a fish screen system and operation measures,\nsufficient to limit the diversion of fish into the Peripheral Canal to the extent necessary to meet\nObjective I-B-4.\nIII.\nComplete construction of a fish screen system coincident with the initiation of canal operation. In the\nevent of unavoidable delays in screen construction, water for export will be diverted into the canal only\nin years when agricultural water users of the CVP and/or the SWP are taking a deficiency in planned deliv-\neries. In such cases (1) the maximum percentage of the Sacramento River flow taken into the canal for\nexport will be no greater than the percentage deficiency taken by these agricultural water users, and\n(2) no diversions for export will be made into the canal from April 1 through June 15, unless in the opinion\nof the Department of Fish and Game, striped bass spawning and the spring downstream salmon migration are\nessentially completed prior to June 15.\n/s/ G. Ray Arnett\n/s/ John R. Teerink\nG. Ray Arnett, Director\nJohn R. Teerink, Director\nDepartment of Fish and Game\nDepartment of Water Resources\nDate\nJuly 2, 1974\nDate\nJune 27, 1974\n42"
}