Water quality control plan Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

i ~wcaer quality

coutrzo[ pLau

Sacramento-San Joaquin 'Delta

and Suisun MDarsh

FAIR FIELD

RIO VISTA
roc 1~~~~0

M NP

3AN ?RA1C:SCQ CAY COnERVATIOCH

car; -0. 'CCSCO ,: - CON'ER.AATT August 1978

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

TD
225
.S108
W38
1978

STT FCLIFORNI

A "! ~1 1- "lltO. 8 rO 1 fl r. , G Ut I Inflr

STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD

A lfauI~Izap, ~ ,- htairman

I.a- 4u,'~ke ,. IKb ufu irector

a. i K'ncv, L7xecu tive 1)irector
Rk:~fts aind Administation

STATE/"FE DER AL
WATER PROJECTS OPERATIONS UNIT

;av ( r':s. (-hie(

rl.. /U 'ci Dn/r

He len [/ lu'Lc-N Hollinzsworth

Axvxq~ ago ;o A=exdoxa

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 78-43

ADOPTION OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH
Property of CSC Libray
WHEREAS:

1. A responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board is
the regulation of activities and factors which affect or may
affect the quality of the waters of the State in order to
attain the highest water quality which is reasonable, con-
sidering all demands being made and to be made on those
waters, and the beneficial uses involved.

2. The State Board has undertaken a proceeding, under its full
water right and water quality authority, to develop a single
comprehensive set of water quality standards to protect bene-
ficial uses of the waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

3. The State Board has conducted 32 days of evidentiary hearing
initiated on November 15, 1976 and concluded on October 7,
1977 in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act
(P.L. 95-217) and the California Water Code, and. has con-
sidered the evidence introduced at the hearing.

4. Based on the evidentiary record, a draft water quality control
plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh
and a Draft Environmental Impact Report were formulated-and
submitted for public review on March 15, 1978.

5. The State Board conducted a public hearing on the draft water
quality control plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report on
May 30, 1978, after notice to all interested persons, in
accordance with federal and State requirements and has con-
sidered the oral and written comments submitted.

6. The Water Quality Control Plan and Environmental Impact Report
have been revised to incorporate appropriate comments
received from the interested persons.

7. The water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan
for-the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh will be
reviewed at least once every three years.

8. The State Board will reopen the Delta water right hearing not
later than eight years from the adoption of this plan for the
purpose of receiving further evidence relating to salinity
CKo control, protection of fish and wildlife in the Bay-Delta
estuary, and coordination of terms and conditions of the
permits for the Delta water supplies of the federal Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

-2-

9. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
DeltA and Suisun Marsh does not mandate the construction of
facilities or mandate activities outside of the State Board's
jurisdiction.

10. By approval of the Water Quality Control Plan the Board does
not intend to affect negotiations among various Delta water
agencies and the Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation regarding agreements on water quality and water
Y741d ",adajtit" in the Delta.

11. The Water Quality Control Plan is an adjunct to the Basin
Plans; it includes all necessary elements of water quality
control plans in accordance with Section 13241 and 13242 of
the California Water Code and federal requirements.

12. The State Board has certified the Environmental Impact Report
on the Water, Quality Control Plan (and corresponding Water
Right Decision).

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the State Board adopts the Water Quality Control Plan
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh (Delta
Plan) in accordance with Section 13170 of the Water Code.

2. That the Delta Plan supersedes the Basin Plans to the extent
of any conflict with specific water quality standards (salinity)
and will be in effect until the end of calendar year 1988 unless
modified earlier.

3. That adoption of the water quality standards (salinity) in the
Delta Plan should not be construed as representing final action
by the State Board on water quality standards for the Delta
and Suisun Marsh and that water quality standards may be modi-
fied if necessary to protect beneficial uses of Delta water
supplies.

4. That the Executive Director is directed to forward copies of
the Water Quality Control Plan to the Environmental Protection
Agency in accordance with requirements of the Federal Clean
Water Act (as amended by P.L. 95-217).

CERTIFICATION

The State Water Resources Control Board has determined that there
is no state mandate for a new program or increased level of
service on any unit of local government as a result of the fore-
going resolution because such resolution is not an executive regu-
lation pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2209.

-3-

The undersigned, Executive Director of the State Water Resources
Control Board,does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,
true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted
at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on
3 ~August 16, 1978.
Dated:AUG 1G1978

Exec ive Director
Larri F. Walker

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... I-1

A. GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION ....................... I-3

B. BOARD AUTHORITY ............................. . I-4

Water Quality Control ........................ I-4
Water Rights ................................. I-5
Protection of Vested Water Rights ..... ....... I-6
Public Interest ............. ................. I-7

C. SCOPE OF BOARD ACTIONS ....................... I-10

D. THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN ............... I-11

II. WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.................. ...... .. II-1

A. PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................ II-4

B. POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS ...................... II-12

C. WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ................... II-12

D. DELTA FLOW PATTERNS/SALINITY DISTRIBUTION.... II-17

III. BENEFICIAL USES ................................. III-1

A. FISH AND WILDLIFE ............................. III-1

Fishery ...................................... III-2

Striped Bass ......... ............... . III-2
Salmon .......[[[[][[[[[[[[[ [[[[][][][[[[[ III-2
III-5
Wildlife ..................................... III-7

Waterfowl ................................. III-7
Export Area Wildlife .......................[...[ III-9

B. AGRICULTURE .I................... III-10

Delta Agriculture ...................... III-l

~~~~~~~~I-10

Page

Organic Soils .................................. III-lo
Mineral Soils .................................. III-11
Delta Cropping Practices .......................... III-13

Agriculture Outside the Delta .................... III-13

C. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL ......................... III-17

Contra Costa Canal Intakes: Rock Slough and
Mallard Slough ................................ III-19

Paper Mills in Vicinity of Antioch .............. III-21

Clifton Court Forebay/California Aqueduct (SWP). IIi-22

Tracy Pumping Plant/Delta-Mendota Canal (CVP)... III-24

City of Vallejo and City of Antioch Intakes ..... III-25

IV. HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ................. IV-1

A. PAST PROCEEDINGS ......................... .. IV-1

Decision D 1275 (Water Rights) ................... IV-1

1967 Water Quality Control Policy (Water Quality) IV-2

Decision 1379 (Water Rights)....................4 IV-3

Interim Water Quality Control Plan (Water Quality) IV-4

Supplement to 1967 Water Quality Control Policy
(Water Quality) ......................... IV-4

Basin Plans (Water Quality) ............................ IV-5

Drought Emergency Actions (Water Quality)....... IV-6

B. EVOLUTION OF DELTA OUTFLOW REQUIREMENT..... ..... IV-7

C. PRESENT PROCEEDING .................................. IV-10

V. ALTERNATIVES FOR PROTECTION OF BENEFICIAL USES...... V-1

A. TRIAL SET OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............ V-2

B. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES ......................... V-3

C. FISH AND WILDLIFE... ................ ........... V-5

No Action ......................................... V-6

Page

Preservation ................................V-

Four-Agency Fish and Wildlife Agreement (Fish
and Game Exhibit 11) ......................... V-6

D. AGRICULTURE ... ................ ................. V-7

No Action ...................................... V-7

Without Project Conditions ................... V-

Modified Without Project Conditions ............ V-9

Specific Areal Alternatives .................... V-10

Western Delta ............................ .... V-10
Southern Delta ............................... V-11

E. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES .................. V-13

No Action ...................................... V-13

Public Interest/Without Project Conditions..... V-14

Substitute Supplies............................. V-16

Modified Without Project Conditions............ V-16

F. SELECTION PROCESS.............................. V-16

VI. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................ VI-1

A. FISH AND WILDLIFE ............................. VI-1

Striped Bass Spawning.......................... VI-3

Relaxation Provision ........................... VI-4

Striped Bass Survival and Neomysis Protection.. VI-(

Salmon Migration ................. ........... VI-9

Suisun Marsh ................ ............... VI-9

Operational Constraints .................. ...... VI-13

B. AGRICULTURE ................................. VI-14

Water Quality Criteria ......................... VI- 14

Subirrigated Organic Soils................... VI-14
Mineral Soils ................................ VI-

....:::::::::V-171

Page
Water Quality Standards ....................... VI-20

Western Delta ................................. VI-20
Interior Delta ................................ VI-22
Southern Delta ...................................... VI-22

C. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL....................... VI-23

Contra Costa Canal Intake ...................... VI-24

City of Vallejo Intake (Cache Slough) .......... VI-27

Clifton Court and Tracy Pumping Plant .......... VI-28

VII. PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION .......................... VII-1

A. CONTROL ACTIONS ................................ VII-1

State Water Resources Control Board ............ VII-1

Adoption of Water Right Decision ............. VII-2
Water Quality Action......................... VII-2
Ongoing Review............................ VII-3

Department of Water Resources and U. S. Bureau
of Reclamation ........V....................... VII-4

Suisun Marsh Facilities ............ VII-
Southern Delta ............................... VII-6
Improvements in Delta Outflow Determination.. VII-6
Coordinated Project Operations............... VII-7
Hydrologic Studies...... ........... VII-7

B. MONITORING PROGRAM ..................................... VII-7

Compliance Monitoring Goals .................... VII-9

Monitoring Activities ........................ VII-9

Special Studies Goal........................... VII-l11

Activities. .................................. VII-11

Reporting ...................................... VII-12

C. CHANGING CONDITIONS............................ VII-12

Impact on Future Facilities.................... VII-13

San Francisco B ay............................ VII-13
Upper Estuary Productivity................... VII-17
Maintenance of Fishery Resources at
Historical Levels .......................... VII-18
Net Downstream Flows in Delta Channels....... VII-19

-iv-

Impact on Current Project Operations . .... VII-19

Mechanism by which Salinity Changes in
Surrounding Waterways Affect Plant Growth
in the Subirrigated Areas in the Delta ........ VII-19
Additional Data Needs to be Developed for
the Subirrigated Organic Soils in the Delta... VII-20
Overland Supplies to Western Delta .............. VII-21

PLATE 1 - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

APPENDIX A

Table A-1 - Permits for Delta Water Supply of Federal
Central Valley Project and State Water Project

APPENDIX B

Table B-1 - Historical Water Quality Objectives for
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh

APPENDIX C

Conceptual Alternatives

APPENDIX (Bound Separately): SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

On the Draft Water Quality Control Plan and Environmental
Impact Report, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh

_Vw

FIGURES

Figure
Number Page

II-1 Year Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11-2 1920-1944 Maximum Annual Salinity Intrusion . . . II-5

11-3 May-October Maximum Monthly Salinity Intrusion. . 11-7

11-4 Western Delta Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9

II-5 Interior Delta Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . II-10

11-6 1945-1976 Maximum Annual Salinity Intrusion . 11-13

11-7 San Joaquin River at Antioch Number of Days
Less Than Specified Chloride Limits . . . . . . II-15

III-1 Striped Bass Generalized Life Cycle . . . . . . . III-4

III-2 Graphical Description of General Times of
Occurance of Salmon, Steelhead Rainbow Trout
and American Shad in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

111-3 Approximate Subirrigated Lands of the Delta . . . III-12

111I-4 State Water Project Existing and Projected
Service Areas ................. 111-16

III-5 Central Valley Project Existing and Projected
Service Areas ................. 111-18

III-6 Significant Municipal and Industrial'Intakes. . . 111-20

VI-1 Salinities at Suisun Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . VI-lO

VII-1 Water Quality Monitoring Locations, Water Quality
Profile Routes and Sampling Frequencies . . . . VII-23

-vii-

TABLES

Table
Number Pa_ e

III-I Predominant Delta Crops, 1976 .......... 111-14

111-2 Crop v. Acreage Distribution, State Water
Project .................... 111-15

111-3 State Water Project Municipal and Industrial
Entitlements to Water and Service Area
Populations .................. 111-23

VI-1 Water Quality Standards ............. VI-29

VII-1 Delta Estuary Water Quality Monitoring Program. VII-25

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh include about

120 square miles of surface water area where northern and central

California's major river systems converge and flow westward,

meeting the incoming seawater from San Francisco Bay and the

Pacific Ocean. The Delta area is the largest, most important

estuary for fish and waterfowl production on the Pacific Coast

of the United States, and, at the same time, one of the state's

most fertile and important agricultural regions and the location

of a major water-related industrial corridor in the vicinity of

Antioch.

The Delta is a vital link between the water, surplus areas in the

Sacramento Valley and the water deficient areas to the south and

west of the Delta. Two major systems - one state and one federal-

export surplus supplies from the Delta to areas of need. These

systems are the State Water Project (SWP) operated by the Depart-

ment of Water Resources (Department) and the Central Valley

Project (CVP) operated by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau).

Competition for Delta water supplies between in-basin and export

uses has increased substantially over the last few years and will

become yet more intense in the future. This increased demand will

test the ability of state and federal water officials over the

next few years to ensure an adequate Delta water supply to meet

all in-basin and export uses.

The Delta has been the subject of the most extensive and intensive

water quality planning ever undertaken for any major area of the

state. Notwithstanding this, much is unknown about this complex

estuary. In addition there is uncertainty regarding what future

water facilities may be constructed and affect the Delta and

Suisun Marsh. A Delta transfer facility, overland facilities

to western Delta islands and Suisun Marsh, internal water cir-

culation facilities in the southern Delta, additional export

pumps, the relocation of the Contra Costa Canal Intake, and the

construction of additional storage facilities have all been proposed.

In 1967 the water quality control and water right functions of

the state were merged in order that necessary inter-relationships

between water quality and availability of unappropriated water

could be considered together by a single state--agency. The

current proceeding is the first time that water quality

control and water right functions of the Board have been fully

combined in the development of a single set of water quality

standards.

This water quality control plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

and Suisun Marsh (Delta Plan) represents the culmination of

thirty-two days of evidentiary hearing initiated on November 15,

1976, and concluded on October 7, 1977. The evidentiary record

also has been used in formulating a water right decision to

implement applicable provisions of the plan through revisions

of terms and conditions in permits of the Department and Bureau.

I-2

The applicable terms and conditions which have been incorporated

into permits of the Department and Bureau are set forth in the

plan.

Even though two documents have been adopted by the Board (a water

quality control plan and a water right decision), they represent

a unified effort by the Board to develop under its full authority

a single comprehensive set of water quality standards to protect

beneficial uses of Delta water supplies, recognizing the respective

rights of all users to such supplies.

Since the two distinct approvals constitute the whole of a single

project, a single environmental impact report (EIR) has been

prepared and approved by the Board for both of these documents.

A. GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

The Sacramento-San Joaauin Delta as defined in Section 12220 of

the California Water Code is a roughly triangular area of about

738,000 acres extending from Chipps Island ndar Pittsburg on the

west to Sacramento on the north and to the Vernalis Gauging

Station on the south (see Plate 1). The Delta generally is com-

prised of those waterways above the confluence of the Sacramento

and San Joaquin Rivers which are influenced by tidal action, and

about 510,000 acres of agricultural lands which derive their water

supply from these waterways. The total surface area of these

waterways is over 4,8000 acres with an aggregate navigable length

of 550 miles.

1-3

Suisun Marsh as defined by Section 29101 of the Public Resources

Code is an intricate land-water area of marsh, ponds, sloughs

and estuaries which furnish habitat for a variety of plants and

animals. The Marsh includes the waterways north of Suisun and

Honker Bays which are subject to tidal action and the adjacent

lands whose management is dependent on tidal action in those

-waters (see Plate 1). The area contains approximately 50,000

acres of diked, managed wetlands, 5,500 Ecres of tidal marsh, and

30,000 acres of' bays, sloughs and other waterways. These wetlands

are a unique and highly productive interface between fresh and

saltwater environments and play an important role in providing

wintering habitat for waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway.

B. BOARD AUTHORITY

Water Quality Control

The Board is charged with responsibility under the California

Water Code to regulate activities which affect or may affect the

quality of waters of the state in order to attain the highest

water quality which is reasonable, considering all demands being

made and to be made on those waters and the beneficial uses

involved. Section 13170 of the Water Code provides that the

Board may adopt water quality control plans for surface waters.1'

1/ Such plans must be adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 13240 to 13247 of the Water Code.

i-4

A water quality control plan is a management document which

identifies the municipal, industrial, agricultural, and instream

environmental use of water within a specified area and sets forth

an effective program to protect those uses. Such plans, when

adopted, supersede any regional water quality control plan (basin

plan) adopted by a Regional Board for the same waters to the

extent of any conflict.

In addition, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,2/

requires the establishment of water quality standardsi/for all

surface waters of the state. Section 303(e) of the Act provides

that each state is responsible for the establishment of such

water quality standards through water quality control plans

which must be submitted and approved by the Environmental Protection

Agency.

Water Rights

The water right permits of the Department and Bureau which are

the subject of this proceeding are set forth in the appendix to

this plan (Appendix A).

2 Referred to as the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)

Under the California Water Code, "water quality objectives"
mean enforceable numerical limits on water quality character-
istics which are established to protect beneficial uses.
However, the term "objectives" is commonly understood to mean
goals or other non-binding guides. For this reason, "water
quality standards" is used herein to convey the concept of
enforceable numerical limits.

I-5

The Board's authority to review arid amnend these permits is deriu;ed

from Section 1394 of the California Water Code, jurisdiction

expressly reserved in the subject permits, Water Code Section 100

and the continuing authority of the Board, as stated in the terms

of the permits, to prevent waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable

method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water.

In exercising its reserved jurisdiction, the Board has two broad

areas of concern based upon its statutory responsibilities. These

are (1) protection of vested water rights, and (2) protection of

the public interest.

Protection of Vested Water Rights

Prior vested water rights include those of riparian lands, pre-1914

appropriators and appropriators whose rights are based upon water

right permits with priority earlier than those-of-the Department

and the Bureau. In addition, the permits of both the Department

and Bureau for use outside the Delta or the Sacramento River

watershed are subject to use by appropriators within the Delta

and watershed regardless of when such use was or is initiated

(Water Code Section 11460 and Decisions D 990 and D 1275). The

effect of this limitation is to make the rights of all legal users

of water in the Delta and in the watershed senior to the rights of

either thxe Department or the Bureau to store or divert water for

use outside the Delta or the watershed.

The projects must be operated so as not to cause any material

deterioration of water quality which would impair its usefulness

1-6

for the reasonable beneficial uses which are made of water by

senior right holders. The Department and Bureau can be relieved

of this responsibility only if they provide an adequate substitute

supply without additional expense to Delta water users (Water Code

Section 12202). However, the rights of water users on riparian

lands and appropriators in the Delta extend only to water quality

and quantity which would have been available in the absence of

the projects, taking into consideration uDstream uses

under vested rights. If Delta water users desire additional bene-

fits in excess of their vested rights they can seek such benefits

from project operators.

Although the Board in this proceeding is not adjudicating or de-

termining the validity of individual vested water rights, it- must

nonetheless identify the extent to which such rights would have

been satisfied in the absence of the projects to ensure that the

operation of project facilities does not adversely encroach upon

these uses.

Public Interest

"Public interest" is on. of the primary statutory standards guiding the

Board in acting upon applications to appropriate water (see Johnson

Rancho County Water District v. State Water Rights Board, 235 Cal.

App. 2d 863, 45 Cal. Rptr. 589 (1965); California Water Code Sec-

tions 1253-1258).

I-7

The Water Code provides in several sections that the Board

should consider the broad public interest in making water right

determinations. Section 1257 directs that the Board consider

the relative benefit to be derived from all beneficial uses

of the water concerned and further provides that the Board may

subject appropriations to such terms and conditions as in its

judgment will best develop, conserve and utilize in the public

interest, the water sought to be appropriated. Similarly,

Section 12581 provides that in studying water development projects,

full consideration shall be given to all beneficial uses of the

state's water resources, including irrigation, generation of

electric energy, municipal and industrial consumption of water

and power, repulsion of salt water, preservation and development

of fish and wildlife resources, and recreational facilities, but

not excluding other-beneficial uses of water. -Finally, with

regard to the SWP, Section 11900 mandates that preservation of

fish and wildlife should be provided for in connection with the

construction of project facilities.

Another source of guidance in determining the public interest is

the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources

Code, 'Di v. 13) which provides that it is the state policy to:

(a) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now
and in the future, and take all action necessary to pro-
tect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality
of the state.

1-8

(b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of
this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic,
natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and
freedom from excessive noise.

(c) Prevent the elimination of fish Or wildlife species due
to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations
do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for
future generations representations of all plant and animal
communities and examples of the major periods of California
history.

(d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment
shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.

(e) Create and maintain conditions under which man and na-
ture can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social
and economic requirements of present and future generations.

(f) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop
standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental
quality.

(g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider
qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors
and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term
benefits and costs, and to consider alternatives to proposed
actions affecting the environment.

A more specific mandate governing the Board in this decision is

Part 4.5 of Division 6 of the Water Code, referred to as the Delta
Protection Act. The Delta Protection Act accords first priority

to satisfaction of vested rights and public interest needs for

water in the Delta and relegates to lesser priority all exports

of water from the Delta to other areas for any purpose. These

statutory policies are subject to the overriding constitutional

provision that all uses of water and diversions of water must

be reasonable (Article 10, Section 2, California Constitution).

1-9

C. SCOPE OF BOARD ACTIONS

The jurisdiction reserved by the Board to revise or formulate ad-

ditional terms and conditions in the water right permits issued to

the Department and Bureau affecting Delta wiater supplies covers three

general areas: (1) salinity control, (2) protection of fish and

Wildlife,, and (3) coordination of terms and conditions of the res-

pective permits for the SW? and CVP.

The principal focus of this plan is limited to current and near-

term conditions in the Delta. The water quality standards are

based on conditions expected to prevail over the next ten years.

The Board, in limiting the effective period of the plan, recognizes

the uncertainty associated with proposed project facilities to be

constructed and the need for additional information on the Delta-

Bay ecosystem. As new facilities are constructed and additional

information gathered on the Delta, the Board will review water

quality standards to ensure that beneficial uses of Delta supplies

are protected.

This is consistent with Section 303(c)(1) of' the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FL 92-500) which requires review at

least once every three years of water quality standards estab-

lished in water quality control plans.

I-10

D. THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

The Delta Plan consists of three elements: (1) designation of bene-

ficial uses to be protected, (2) establishment of water quality

standards for reasonable protection of the beneficial uses, and

(3) establishment of a program of implementation needed for

achieving these water quality standards (Water Code Section

13050(j). The implementation program set forth in Chapter VII

of the plan provides both specific measures which must be taken

to satisfy water quality standards during the effective period

of this plan, and broad policy guidance to assist location, state

and federal agencies in finalizing plans for additional project

facilities.

Chapter II of this report discusses water quality conditions in

the Delta and Suisun Marsh and Chapter IV describe's the past pro-

ceedings undertaken by the Board and its predecessor agencies (the

State Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Rights Board)

to protect beneficial uses of Delta supplies.

The. water quality standards are presented in Chapter VI. These

standards reflect a closer fit to hydrologic conditions and avail-

able water supplies than current water quality objectives contained

in the basin plans. Even though the standards require less fresh-

water outflow because of a more efficient use of Delta outflows

and a better understanding of beneficial. use needs in the Delta,

the overall protection under the standards is greater than that

provided by the current basin plan objectives (see Chapter IV of

EIR). In addition, the water quality control plan requires mitiga-

tion of project impacts on Suisun Marsh by October 1, 1984.

I-1i

The Delta Plan supersedes Figure JV-1 and the Delta salinity

standards of Table IV-2 both contained in the Water Quality Control

Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Basin (Basin 5B Plan).

Also, the Delta Plan supersedes the Chipps Island and Suisun Marsh

standards of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco

Bay Basin (Basin 2 Plan), as modified by State Board Resolution 76-61.

The water quality control plan for the Delta and Suisun Marsh will

be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval

in accordance with requirements of FL 92-500 as amended. This

water quality control plan, when considered as an adjunct to the

comprehensive basin plans, satisfies all federal requirements.

I-12

CHAPTER II

WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS

Water quality conditions in the 'Delta and Suisun Marsh depend

on water quantity. Delta waters are a mixture of' seawater and

freshwater including return flows of various salinity levels.

The salinity of the mixture is extremely variable geographically,

seasonally and from year to year. The extent of salinity intru-

sion into the Delta is determined by the relative magnitude of

the opposing forces of tidal action and Delta outflow.

Upstream storage facilities, in-basin depletions and 'Delta ex-

ports have all reduced and se asonally altered the natural fresh-

water outflow from the Delta. This alteration of natural outflow

has significantly affected the extent and duration of seawater

intrusion into the Delta and Suisun Marsh.

Salinity is the major water quality factor affecting beneficial

uses of Delta supplies and is directly influenced by operations

of project facilities. Therefore, the discussion on water quality

conditions in the Delta is restricted to salinity intrusion.

The major factors affecting Delta outflow are natural runo~ff, the

regulatory effects of upstream developments which either reduce

runoff or change its time of occurrence, and SW? and CVP opera-

tions which transport water through the Delta and pump water from

it for export.

II-1

Storage facilities constructed by the state, federal government

and other public and private agencies have reduced winter and

spring flows but have increased summer and fall flows through

storage releases. However? expected increases in export rates

will lower the mid and late fall outflows below natural levels.

Since riparian water rights in the Delta extend only to natural

flows, measured flows must be adjusted to reflect these man-induced

alterations to natural hydrology to assess impacts on vested

water rights.

A hydrologic classification of year types has been developed for

this plan. The water quality standards set forth in Table VI-1

provide for adjustments in the level of protection to beneficial

uses according to the hydrologic year type.

A new year type classification system was proposed by the Department
during the hearing process (Departmn Exiit l)' Fiur11-

shows the year classification system developed for the Delta Plan.

It is the same as the Department's proposal except that the "Year

Following Critical Year" designation does not apply to agricultural,

municipal and industrial standards. This modification is necessary

to provide those uses the full protection to which they are entitled

under their vested water rights. The system is based on unimpaired

runoff to the Sacramento Valley from the four principal tributaries

to it: Sacramento River, Feather River, Yuba River and American River.
Although there were some objectives, the only other substantial modi-

fication offered to the 'Department's classification system was one

which included San Joaquin River flows. The evidence does not indi-

cate that the addition of San Joaquin River inflows would improve the

classification system.

j References herein to the hearing record may be to either ex-
hibits identified by party and exhibit number or testimony
identified by reporter's transcript (RT) volume and page number.
II-2

FIGURE II-I
YEAR CLASSIFICATION

YEAR TYPE2J
Year classification shall be determined by the forecast All Years for Year Following
of Sacramento Valley unimpaired runoff for the current water All Standards Critical Year 3J
year (October I of the preceding calendar year through Except~
September 30 of the current calendar year) as published in
California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 for
the sum of the following locations: Sacramento River above
Bend Bridge, near Red Bluff; Feather River, total inflow to
Oroville Reservoir; Yuba River at Smartville; American 2
River, total inflow to Folsom Reservoir. Preliminary 19.,
19,6!
determinations of year classification shall be made in
February, March and April with final determination in May.
These preliminary determinations shall be based on hydro-
logic conditions to date plus forecasts of future runoff 7
assuming normal precipitation for the remainder of the
water year. u.
>
0

YEAR TYPE RUNOFF, MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEET
15.7 0-15.7
Wet 1J equal to or greater than 19.6 (except 7
equal to or greater than 22.5 in a year
following a critical year). /_
Above Normal 1/ greater than 15.7 and less than 19.6
(except greater than 15.7 and less than
22.5 in a year following a critical year).3/
Below Normal LI equal to or less than 15.7 and greater
than 12.5 (except in a year following a
critical year).3-/ 12.5
12.5 - 7 -7 12.5
Dry equal to or less than 12.5 and greater
than 10.2 (except equal to or less than =
15.7 and. greater than 12.5 in a year
following a critical year).,/
Critical equal to or less than 10.2 (except equal
to or less than 12.5 in a year following- 10.2
a critical year).% 1.

Any otherwise wet, above normal, or below normal year may be designated a subnormal
snowmelt year whenever the forecast of April through July unimpaired runoff reported in
the May issue of Bulletin 120 is less than 5.9 million acre-feet.
The year type for the preceding water year will remain in effect until the initial forecast-
of unimpaired runoff for the current water year is available.
I. Year following critical year" classification does not apply to Agricultural, Municipal and
Industrial standards.

II-3

The following discussion is divided into three parts: pre-project,

post-project, and without project water quality conditions. Pre-

project water quality reflects those conditions existing during the

period 1920-1944. This is the most complete period of record for

which salinity intrusion data on the Delta is available, prior to

operation of SWP and CVP facilities. The post-project period 1945-

1976, commencing with initial operation of Shasta Dam in 1945, en-

compassed an increasing number of regulatory facilities and stream

depletions. The without project condition is a theoretical condition.

It refers to the water quality that would occur in 1980 had the CVP

and SWP facilities not been constructed. The without project condi-

tion reflects the effect of other non-project regulatory facilities

and stream depletions.

A. PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS

Under pre-project conditions (1920-1944), seawater moved upstream

toward and into the Delta when freshwater inflows to the Delta de-

creased. Typically, this salinity intrusion began in late spring

and continued through the summer, with maximum intrusion occurring

sometime in August or September. Figure II-2 shows the maximum

salinity intrusion each year for pre-project conditions, as re-

flected by the location of the 1000 ppm chloride line.2-/ The wide

2_/ For purposes of this plan, salinity is expressed in terms of
chloride ion concentration, total dissolved solids (TDS) or elec-
trical conductivity (EC). Chloride ion concentration and TDS are
expressed interchangeably as parts per million parts of water
(ppm) or as milligrams per liter of water gmg/1). EC is expressed
in terms of millimhos per centimeter at 25 C (mmhos). Seawater
has an average chloride concentration of 18,000 ppm and predomi-
nantly freshwater river flows into the Delta have a chloride con-
centration of 10-20 ppm. The 1000 ppm chloride concentration,
which is unusable for most beneficial uses in the Delta, has been
used historically as a measure of salinity intrusion since the
1920's.

II-4

10-

1 931

'939

F~~~~~uc~~~~~~~dd-3

19212

193S
1943

1920-1944
MAXIMUM ANNUAL SALINITY INTRUSION
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

- ~~~Lines of 1000 Parts of Chloride per Million
Parts of Water, Measured at I V2 Hours
after High High Tide

-- - Critical Years

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD . ___....._____.
(Base Map Provided by Department of Water Resources)

IT-5

fluctuation in the maximum salinity intrusion from year to year

is due to the large-scale variations of freshwater Delta inflows

from tributary streams experienced during the 1920-1944~ period.

These variations reflect differences not only in total annual in-

flows, but also in the seasonal distribution of those inflows. For

instance, reduced freshwater inflows into the Delta during 1924 and

1931, both of which were critical water supply years, as defined

by the runoff of the Sacramento Valley tributaries described in

Figure II-1, resulted in extensive salinity intrusion. Conversely,

high runoff in the Central Valley during 1938 held the maximum

salinity intrusion to the western border of the Delta. Under pre-

project conditions, the extent of salinity intrusion was not affected

by CVP or SWP regulatory facilities or by upstream and export uses

induced by those facilities.

Figure II-3 illustrates the progressive intrusion of seawater dur-

ing a typical critical year, 1939. As shown in this figure, salinity

intrusion into the western Delta commenced sometime in June, gradual-

ly pushing its way into the central portion of the Delta by August

and September. The maximum salinity intrusion into the Sacramento

River portion of the Delta occurred on August 18. After that date,

freshwater inflows to the Delta increased sufficiently to repulse

salinity,. These increased inflows marked the close of the irri-

gation season for many crops in the Sacramento Valley resulting in

a substantial accretion in return flows from upstream development.

In the southern portion of the central Delta, along the San

II-6

0-0~~~'-

after. High High Tide~~*

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTRO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L~d BOR

(Base Mao Provided by Depar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tmetokaterReorcs

May-October, 1939

Joaquin River, the maximum salinity intrusion did not occur until

September and salinity repulsion was much slower than in the

Sacramento River portion of the Delta.

Pre-project conditions generally provided adequate protection of

many Delta beneficial uses in most years. In dry and critical.

years, maximum salinity intrusion extended inland as indicated

by the monthly intrusion pattern for 1939, shown on Figure II-3.

Thus, even in dry and critical years there was suitable water

quality for many uses during.-much of the summer. The occurrence

and extent of seawater intrusion is important in assessing its

impact on Delta beneficial uses. Figures II-4 and II-5 illustrate

variations in these factors under the various -hydrologic year

types for Emmaton and Jersey Point in the western Delta and for

Central Landing (on Andrus Island near the mouth of the Mokelumne

River) and Webb Pump (on False River near Old River) in the in-

terior Delta.

Figures II-4 and II-5 are based on. the same historical water

quality data as Figure II-2. The basic data represent water

quality samples taken 1-1/2 hours after high high tide.I/ These

salinity values are somewhat greater than comparable mean tide

values. These basic data have been adjusted to represent the

3,/ The higher of the two high tides in each tidal cycle of about
25 hours.

II-8

WESTERN DELTA WATER QUALITY (electrical conductivity),

DURING APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER FOR EACH YEAR TYPE 1/

SACRAMENTO RIVER AT EMMATON WITHOUT PROJECT (SWP/CVP) CONDITIONS
H ISTORR IC 1922 -1944 WITH 1980 DEPLETIONS
APPROXIMATE
CONVERSIONS
-1.8- E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EC Cl- TDS -lo -1- -.
--lo-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IT -1.6 --X---8
-AG-.--LS- 1mm/cm I mg/ I mg/I AUG -A--I.---
--*-~-A- .4 - * 73 I 258 I - ---i..-
--1.0--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~-- -10
- A~ JULI -1.0--
I O0 252 10 0- -1.-
1.8 536 -A-g
41m5- 2~ 1 I 1091 I Jug
3.5. 1000 2139
MAY MAY0--

APRILT AVIL A

way ABOVE BELORMNov I C RITICA WET A8OV 358LOW DRY CRITICAL
NORMVA rAPESL mORMAL NOR MAL

1-4~~~~~~~~~~g~ a YEAR TYPE&
P_.0

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AT JERSEY POINT
WITHOUT PROJECT (SWP/CVP) CONDITIONS
HISTORIC 1922-1944 WITH 1980 DEPLETIONS
APPROXIMATE
CONVERSIONS Is -
saoT. SEPT -1.0-
-muo- -A~-- --10-- --)1-- 0E CI- TS e-1.T1- -,.8-
.u�. --1~0-- 1mm/cmI mg/I mg/I IUG

.4 A.62 244 I -l- -I-.
(00-- -~~~-Ia-- Io- I I0-
JULY -A- -,:r- I 1.0 241 1580 JuLY -A- -1.0- -
JlI -A-1.0--
JUNE 1.8 476 110 55 1 UN& .4

3.6 G 1000 12225 -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MA, A

APRIL APRIL
WET ABOVE Z DRY CRITICAL WIT ABOVE 1.0W DRY CRITICA.
NORMAL 1O.NOMAL NORMAL 805M`M

YR1 Data corrected to represent moan tide condition s

INTERIOR DELTA WATER QUALITY (electrical conductivity),

DURING APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER FOR EACH YEAR TYPE 1

MOKELUMNE RIVER AT CENTRAL LANDING WITHOUT PROJECT (SWP/CVP) CONDITIONS
HISTORIC 1922-1944 WITH 1980 DEPLETIONS
APPROXIMATE
~~~~ A--Il-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CONVERSIONS ISO-Ai

-$go- -A~~~-I- E C CI- TDS-.0
I . gI61I 280I -10

JULY
___ 1.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 174 I700 M D 'U
JUNE~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ . 325 12r01 JUNE-

0--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAY 10

APNIL &F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AAIL

NET ASOVI SI SA CRITICAL
NORMAL N6OMft MET AsCV1 OILING DAY CRITICAL
VI~~~~~~~~~~~l urIS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VIAN Types

FALSE RIVER AT WEBB PUMP

CD WITHOUT PROJ ~CT (SWP/CVP) CONDITIONS
HISTORIC 1922 -1944 WIT 1980 DEPLETIONS
APPROXIMATE
Iw - ~~~~~~~~~~CONVERSIONS

- - -Il-il EC CI- TDS S E PT
-400-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ -1D
AU4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FD~~~mm/CM1 mFg/I I Mg/I A U 4
-~~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~.4 I 62 AU 268 -

JULY A I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~1.0 1,218 1 582 1 IOl-V A 4
-.4... I. .8 1.483 11014 I l---
JU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUNE'

Do- G~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O--
MAY A

APR.ILRI
NONN:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MRIL NORMAL OALWNA

YEAR TYrES A Data corrected to represent mean tide condltions YEAA TYPES

mean tide conditions shown in Figure II-2. (see RT Vol. XX, p.

39, et seq., and Staff Exhibits 4 and 5 for methodology on develop-

ment, of these figures ).

The occurrence and duration of water quality equal to or better

than salinity levelsW/ experienced during the irrigation season

(April-September) of typical wet through critical hydrologic

year types are shown in Figures II-4 and II-5. As reflected in

these figures, there are significant differences in the occur-

rence and duration of these salinity levels between the western

and interior Delta during the irrigation season. The western

Delta experienced exceptionally good water quality during most

of the irrigation season only in above-normal and wet years.

Even though good water quality was experienced early in the sea-

son in dry years and in critical years, the quality deteriorated

rapidly as low summer Delta inflows allowed extensive salinity

intrusion. However, the water quality conditions at the two in-

terior Delta stations, depicted in Figure II-5, were good except

in critical years at the Webb Pump station. Water quality dif-

ferences between the two interior Delta stations are due primarily

to the respective influences of the major river systems. At

Central Landing station the Sacramento River with substantial

flows is the major influence whereas at Webb Pump station the low

flowing and more saline San Joaquin River is the primary influence.

The specified salinity levels have been selected to identify
the extent that water quality conditions in the Delta would
be suitable for agricultural uses.

II-11

B. POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS

Operations of the CVP and SWP and other water development projects

have resulted in substantial regulation of stream flows tributary

to the Delta. Major reservoirs in the watersheds tributary to the

Delta have more than twenty million acre-feet of storage capacity.

Figure II-6 shows the maximum annual salinity intrusion into the

Delta for the post-project period 1945-1976. Project operations

hatve reduced winter and spring outflows and increased unummer and

fall outflows. These operational outflow modifications generally

have kept the maximum salinity intrusion into the Delta (the 1000

ppm chloride line) at a point further west than would otherwise

have been the case. In most years since 1945, maximum salinity

intrusion has not extended much beyond Emmaton and Jersey Point,

because project reservoirs have stored the high spring flows and

have released this water to increase summer and fall flows. Thus,

salinity over the last 30 years through much of the summer

generally has been somewhat less than would have occurred naturally,

but the 1000 ppm chloride line reached Antioch earlier in the year

during below normal, dry and critical runoff years of the post-

project period than in similar year types prior to project opera-

tions (NDWA Exhibit D). However, it has not extended as far up-

stream as under pre-project conditions.

C. WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS

Without project conditions have been established by adjusting pre-

project salinities to reflect 1980 levels of upstream depletions

attributable to sources other than the state and federal projects.

II-12

FIGURE II-6

V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'J

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta / " aem+>

Lines of 1000 Parts of Chloride per Miilion )
Parts of Water, 111easured at I V.2 Hours'I

after Hig High Tide 5>
, ~~~Ref: U.5.B.R Ex hibit 7 \

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD i.' |'.�
(Base Map Provided by Department of Water Resources).
II-13
I~~~~~~ )....~

Sacrment-Sa JoaquVin Dlt
U,d

,- Lines of I000) Parts of Chloride per Million
Parts of Water, Measured at 1 V/2 Hours ;
after High High Tide
Ref: U.S.S.R. Exhibit 7
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD [ ; ' ' -'"~
(Base Map Provided by Department of Water Resources) -~~"-
1'''1.....-""1....

Data u-ed in calculating these depletion adjustments is limited

(Department Exhibit II-12). Consequently, these estimates may

require refinement in future revisions of this water quality

control plan. The results of this analysis are shown in Figures

II-4, II-5 and II-7.5-/ The theoretical conditions shown in these

figures should closely approximate those conditions which would

exist in the absence of the CVP and SWP.

Upstream water development (including non-state/federal facilities)

has continued to increase since 1945. This development includes

storage facilities for irrigation and municipal supplies and for

hydroelectric power generation, as well as substantial increases

in upstream consumptive uses. The effect of these increased non-

state/federal upstream depletions and regulations on Delta water

quality has been masked to a substantial degree by CVP operation

from 1945-1967, and since 1967 (when SWP operation began) by both

CVP and SWP operations. The federal and state projects presently

have more available yield than needed for their contractors. Con-

sequently the projects have released large quantities of water that

increased Delta outflows in the summer and fall. Over the last

decade, the availability of these surplus project supplies has

decreased as project export demands have increased. Continued decrease

natural levels.

One of the primary concerns in preparing a water quality control

plan for the Delta is the evaluation of CVP and SWP operations and

5_/ See RT Vol. XX, p. 47, et seq. and Staff Exhibits 4 and 5 for
methodology on the development of these figures.

II-14

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER at ANTIOCH (Calendar Year)
Number of Days Less Than Specified Chloride Limits .1'Salinity Historic 21 980" NO. Of Years Years Not
VS. Sacramento Valley Unimpaired Runoff Levels Dep. Included In Included In
-20% 1922 thr 1944 Analysis Analysis Due
LJ~~~L usril ~~~~~~~ r r lo Lack of Bala

too- Historical Conditions 150 .87 -85 19 22.23,24,33
-30 - - - 1980 Upstream Depletions (without CVP/SWP)
250 .83 .82 20 22,24, 33

Ir- ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~500 .90 .91 21 22.33
z 2
-40 49 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1000 .89 .88 22 33

-50 z C A 5
.2 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~/ Data Coiiected to Represent Mean Tide Conditic

o200~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~.IE 21~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z Correlation Coefficient (I) is only lto that Pollth
W LLI ~ W 0of the Curve Shown
-80 Wj

0~~~~~~~ N
2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50-
-70-

-60%
300-

BELOW ABOV
CRITICAL DRY NORMAL NORMAL WET

0 4 8 2 6 20 24 2 8 3 2
SACRAMENTO VALLEY UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF IN M.AF.

cxports on Delta vested water rights. Without project condi-

tions reflect that theoretical water quality which would occur

in the absence of the CVP and SWP. If without project conditions

in the Delta, as limited by reasonable beneficial use, are provided

by this plan, vested water rights will be protected from infringement
by project operations.

Delta salinity under without project conditions would have been

worse in summer and fall months in wet and normal years than

occurred under pre-project conditions. Delta salinity in critical

years would be about the same under either set of conditions.

There are two primary factors contributing to the differences in

effects between pre-project and without project conditions. Summer

flow in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems essentially

had been fully appropriated by the mid-1950's. In-basin use of

water, unassociated with project development and in excess of the

available natural supply has depended on the development of res-

ervoir storage and the use of groundwater to meet these needs,
resulting in less Delta inflow than would have otherwise occurred.

However, many reservoirs are operated for hydroelectric power pro-

duction. These hydroelectric projects generally store water during

high flow periods and release the water during the low flow summer

and fall months to meet their power demands. This regulation pro-

vides the Delta with some benefit from carryover of stored flows

into dry and critical years.

II-16

D. DELTA FLOW PATTERNS/SALINITY DISTRIBUTION

Operations of the SWP and CVP have caused a significant shift in

flow patterns and salinity distribution in the Delta and Suisun

Marsh. Prior to development of upstream storage facilities and

project export of significant quantities of water from the southern

Delta, water entering the Delta from the Sacramento Valley flowed

down the main channel of the Sacramento River, through Georgiana

Slough connecting the river with the Mokelumne River, and through

Three Mile Slough and lower Sherman Island channels connecting it

with the San Joaquin River system. Of these channels only Geor-

giana Slough is far enough upstream so that it could effectively

transfer fresh Sacramento River water to the San Joaquin River

channels in times of salinity intrusion. From the south, San Joaquin

River water flowed through the channels of the southern and central

portions of the Delta (San Joaquin River, Old River, Middle River,

and Paradise Cut) eventually mingling with Sacramento River water

in the western portion of the Delta. Historically, inflow to the
Delta from the San Joaquin River has been considerably less than

that from the Sacramento River.

The hydraulic capacity of Georgiana Slough is insufficient to con-

vey the necessary flows to satisfy project demands through interior

channels of the Delta to export facilities during low flow periods.

II-17

Because of these flow limitations, the Bureau constructed -,he

Delta Cross Channel in 1951 connecting the Sacramento and Mokelumne

Rivers via Snodgrass Slough. The Delta Cross Channel provides the

required additional capacity by controlled diversions into the

Mokelumne River through a gated structure. The initial export

pumping facilities for the Delta-Mendota Canal were also construc-

ted by the Bureau in 1951, marking the commencement of CVP induced

flow and salinity modifications in the Delta. These flow and

salinity changes became more pronounced in 1967 when SWP exports

commenced.

Under current operational practices of the SWP and CV?, flow re-

versals normally occur each year in Old and Middle Rivers, between

the San Joaquin River in the south central portion. of the Delta and

the export pumps near Tracy. Flow reversals also occur in other

channels with low San Joaquin River inflow, high 'Delta consumptive

use, and high export rates. Flow reversal in the main channel of

the San Joaquin River from Stockton south to the bifurcation with

Old River near Mossdale occurs generally when the export rates are

greater than five times the San Joaquin River inflow at Vernalis

(RT Vol. IV, p. 163). Additionally, from the earliest days of CVP

operation and more frequently in recent years, reverse flows have

occurred around the lower end of Sherman Island from the Sacramento

River to the San Joaquin River and up to the San Joaquin Ri~ver to

Old and Middle Rivers.

II-18

These flow reversals have caused changes in salinity distribution

in the Delta. For (xamtplu, areas receiving Sacramento River watlr

(central Delta, Middle River) usually have low salinity concentra-

tions, similar to Sacramento River water quality. Likewise, Old

River in the central and western portions of the Delta and many

of the western Delta channels contain a mixture of Sacramento River

water and water drawn in from the San Joaquin River west of the

Delta. Accordingly, high export rates under low Delta inflow

conditions improve salinity conditions in the central Delta, worsen

conditions in the southwestern Delta, and have mixed effects in the

southern Delta.

II-19

CHAPTER III

BENEFICIAL USES

The establishment of beneficial uses is the initial step in

development of a water quality control plan. The waters of

the Delta and Suisun Marsh serve a wide variety of purposes and

uses not only for Delta residents but also for the entire state.

The beneficial uses in the Delta and Suisun Marsh have been

classified historically under three broad categories: Fish and

Wildlife, Agriculture, and Municipal and Industrial. These

categories of use have been maintained in this plan.

Once the beneficial uses are identified, corresponding water

quality standards and other water quality control policies are

formulated for the reasonable protection of these uses. This

chapter, in addition to identifying specific beneficial uses,

presents the factors which were considered in selecting the level

of protection for each beneficial use.

A. FISH AND WILDLIFE

It is unlikely that all of the information necessary to understand

the complex interrelationships among the numerous estuarine

organisms in Suisun Marsh and the Delta will ever be available.

However, current knowledge is sufficient to make some sound judg-

ments on the requirements for general protection of these organisms

in the estuary.

I1I-1

Fishery

During the hearing, the Department of Fish and Game (Fish and

Game) emphasized certain key fishery species, striped bass and

salmon, (Fish and Game Exhibit l1l- p. 6; RT Vol. XXIII pp. 15-

16). These key species were selected primarily because of their

overall importance in the Delta and Suisun Marsh and the current

state of knowledge on these species relating environmental factors

to expected fishery population levels. Striped bass and salmon

also are particularly sensitive to operation of the water projects

in the Delta and Suisun Marsh (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, Chapter I).

A discussion of other important estuarine organisms including zoo-

plankton, phytoplankton, zoobenthos, other anadromous fish and

resident game and non-game fish is contained in the EIR prepared

for this plan.

Striped Bass. Striped bass, one of the State's top ranking sport

fish, was first introduced into California from the East Coast in

1879. It is a semi-anadromous, semi-resident fish highly adapted

l_/ Since 1970 Fish and Game, the Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the Bureau have participated in coordinated
ecological studies of the estuary. Currently, these parties are
negotiating a memorandum of understanding which would provide
for maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on the average at
levels which have occurred in the recent past, as well as pro-
viding for realization of water projects' potential for enhance-
ment of these resources. The April 1977 draft of this memoran-
dum of understanding, or Four-Agency Agreement, was presented as
an exhibit in the Delta hearing (Fish and Game Exhibit 11).

III-2

to estuarine life. The striped bass sports fishery accounts for

two million angler days annually drawing fishermen from through-

out the nation. Its fiet economic value for 1970 was estimated by

Stanford Research Institute in 1965 dollars at about 7.5 million

dollars per year (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. III-1). The striped

bass life cycle in the Bay-Delta estuary, depicted in Figure III-1,

is based on Fish and Game testimony during the Delta hearing (Fish

and Game Exhibit 3).

Critical stages in the striped bass life cycle appear to be spawn-

ing and young survival. Certain flow and salinity conditions are

necessary in each of these stages to maintain a successful fishery.

Recommended water quality standards for these stages in the life

cycle are enumerated in Fish and Game Exhibit 11 based on the in-

formation contained in their Exhibit 3. The key to survival of

young bass, after the first few weeks of life, is Neomysis mercedis,

a small shrimp found in the estuary. Neomysis is the principal food
source for young striped bass and numerous other fishes in the

Delta (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. III-2). Protection of the

striped bass fishery requires protection of this principal food

source.

An increasingly significant striped bass fishery has developed in

SWP reservoirs and canals south of the Delta. This development is

a result of physical removal of juvenile bass and bass eggs from

III-3

SPAWNING
MAY IO- JUNE 12

RANCISCO 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ARAET

H~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~IS YEAR ~iL-WNINTER____

FALL ,~~~,sRAT/0N LRAEMO

FISTRIE BASYAVE>ARE

(SEMI -ANADROMOUS) ANTIOCH

GOLDEN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EGATEN

P~~~~~~~SRIPAED BASF;)LRVAE > URSERY AREA2

the Delta through the export pumps, and exists "...at the

expense of the fishery in the estuary" (Fish and Game Exhibit

3, p. III-4).

The striped bass fishery in the southern Delta, south of the head

of Old River, at one time was significant, but has declined sub-

stantially due to a combination of reduced inflow from the San

Joaquin River and degraded water quality (RT Vol. XXIII, p. 58).

Salmon. King salmon also play an important role in the State's

commercial and sport fisheries, contributing to both the inland

and ocean fisheries. Salmon which utilize the Delta and Suisun

Marsh account for about 75-80% of the State's commercial catch

in ocean waters, and are valued in 1975 dollars at about 7.5 mil-

lion dollars annually (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. II-1; RT Vol.

XXIV, p. 38).

The king salmon migration patterns in the Bay-Delta estuary are

illustrated in Figure III-2, based upon Fish-and Game hearing

testimony (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, Chapter II). The Delta is

the gateway for adult king salmon to migrate to upstream fretJh-

water spawning areas. Also, the Delta and Suisun Marsh provide

young salmon with areas for feeding and gradual acclimation from
fresh waters to ocean waters. The upper estuary is important as a

nursery area for young salmon. Fish and Game Exhibit 11, reflecting

these concerns, recommended specific Sacramento River flows to

III-5

. 1U ?_E 111-2

LJ
SALMON
FALL RUN
Z Z
m:D A

0~" ~~DOWTRE UPSTRAM M
MIGRATION MIGRA TITO

WINTER RUN

UPSTREAM UPSTREAM
: _MIGRATION OWNSTREAM' MIGRATION
WJ~ \ \ S~MIGRATION

Z< SPRING RUN
C3M
Zj DOWNSTREAM
U3 R MIGRATION
Z UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
Li 1 _ / MIGRATION MIGRATION

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY |JUN JUL AUG ,SEP | OCT NOV DEC

STEELHEAD RAINBOW TROUT
o SMOLT
z OOWNSTREAM
,,^ _K U S R -IMIGRATION

*t9JLT UPSTREAM
UPSTREAM MIORATION
> MIGRATION MIRATION

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
e y ( d o I I 3 CI II I IV

0 o~AMERICAN SHAD

UPS, I IA

JAN FEBIMAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Graphical description of general times of occurance of salmon,
steelbead rainbow trout and American shad in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin estuary (based on D?&G Exibit 3, Chapters II & IV).

111-6

facilitate upstream and downstream migrations throughout the year

(Fish and Game Exhibit 11, p. 9). However, an additional concern

is the possible adverse effect on the fishery from alterations of

the normal Delta hydraulic regime by the projects' operations.

These alterations often result in reverse flow in main channels in

the southern and southwestern Delta which interfere with salmon

migration. In addition, the projects' operations create high net

velocities in many Delta channels which reduce food production and

cause direct fishery losses at the export pumps.

Wildlife

Wildlife in the Delta and Suisun Marsh is an extremely valuable

natural resource. Testimony presented by various parties at the

Delta hearing concentrated on waterfowl in the Delta and Suisun

Marsh, with major emphasis on Marsh waterfowl habitat.

Suisun Marsh provides habitat for some 36 species of mammals, over

200 species of birds, and 7 species of rare or endangered wildlife

(Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. VI-1). Fish and Game, discussing

primarily waterfowl in the Marsh, testified during the hearing

that management of waterfowl resources likely would protect other

wildlife species (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. VI-l).

Waterfowl. Suisun Marsh is a major wintering area for waterfowl

using the Pacific Flyway (RT Vol. XII, pp. 100, 101). The Flyway

is the westernmost migratory route for waterfowl traveling from

Alaska and Canada to wintering areas in the United States and

Mexico. Survival of waterfowl using the Flyway depends upon pro-

tection and management of all wetlands, including Suisun Marsh.

III-7

The Marsh at times has provided habitat for almost 30% of

California's waterfowl population. It represents almost 15%

of the remaining natural wetlands in the State (USFWS Exhibit

4, p. 4; Fish and Game Exhibit 3, pp. VI-1 and VI-2). Total

wetlands in California were once 5 million acres. Less than

10% of that now remains; thus, the use and importance of the

Marsh has intensified (USFWS Exhibit 4, p. 4). Lack of suffi-

cient wintering habitat is the critical factor affecting water-

fowl in the Pacific Flyway (California Waterfowl Association

(CWA) and Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Exhibit

1, p. 2). The importance of the Marsh is further reflected in

international wildlife treaties between the United States,

Canada, Mexico, and Japan (USFWS Exhibit 4, p. 4; RT Vol. XXIV,

p. 59).

Waterfowl activity in the Marsh is seasonal, with peak popula-

tions experienced in the fall. Average monthly waterfowl popula-

tions during the fall generally vary between 100,000 and 500,000

birds, but occasionally exceed 1,000,000 (Fish and Game Exhibit

3, p. VI-2). Substantial waterfowl or wildlife activity also

exists during the remainder of the year. A recent study issued

by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) indi-

cates that 1975 recreational use in Suisun Marsh was more than

115,000 person-days, with over half directly associated with

Marsh waterfowl aspects (CWA and SRCD Exhibit 1, p. 3).

III-8

Approximately 89% of Suisun Marsh land area is artificially managed

as a brackish water marsh. Proper management of wetlands is neces-

sary to provide adequate habitat for waterfowl. Waterfowl need

both large areas of water and sufficient food supplies. The pre-

ferred foods in Suisun Marsh in recent years for the vast majority

of types and numbers of the waterfowl population are seeds pro-

duced from the plants alkali bulrush, brass buttons, and fat hen

(Fish and Game Exhibit 3, PP. VI-4 to VI-8). Sustained seed pro-

duction by these plants at their historical potentials requires

primarily that the level of salinity in Marsh soils not exceed a

certain maximum amount. The soil salinity levels are controlled

through flooding of Marsh lands with water from adjacent waterways.

Consequently, the salinity of this applied water determines the

availability of the Marsh as a wintering area for migratory waterfowl.

Export Area Wildlife. A beneficial use of SWP water exported

from the Delta is wildlife habitat in southern California

(State Water Service Contractors (SWSC) Exhibit 29; RT Vol.

XVIII, p. 96). These benefits occur primarily at storage reser-

voirs of both the SWP and its contractors south of the Delta

(Department Exhibit 15A, pp. 65-68). Additional wildlife benefits

are experienced in the Grasslands Water District in the San Joaquin

Valley, a wildlife refuge managed by Fish and Game. Fifty thousand

acre-feet of water are delivered annually through the Delta-Mendota

Canal to this area under a long-term contract with the Bureau

(Bureau Exhibit 64, p. 10).

III-9

B. AGRICULTURE

Delta Agriculture

About three-fourths of the Delta land area (500,000 acres) is

farmed in some manner, producing a wide variety of crops with

substantial yields (Department Exhibit II-l$). Soils in the

Delta fall generally into two distinct categories: organic and

rmiferal soils. Organic soils are found generally in the Delta

lowlands which consist of areas in the Delta below an elevation

of +5 feet mean sea level. Mineral soils are found in both the

Delta lowlands and uplands. The Delta uplands are those areas

in the Delta above +5 feet mean sea level. Delta management and

cropping practices for organic and mineral soils are different,

and thus are presented separately below.

Organic Soils. Delta organic soils were formed through biologi-

cal and chemical breakdown of marsh-type plants and grasses that

existed prior to development of the present levee system. The

amount of organic soils in the Delta is constantly being reduced

due to continued decomposition and oxidation as a result of both

natural processes and ongoing farming activities. In 1941 there

were over 250,000 acres of organic soils in the Delta. By 1976

this acreage had been reduced by half (RT Vol. XIII, p. 23).

The high permeability of organic soils coupled with their low

surface elevation with respect to surrounding waterways produce

high groundwater table conditions. The high groundwater table

along with problems associated with uneven decomposition and

III-10

settlement of organic soils make subirrigation a desirable

method of water application for crop production.

Subirrigation is the delivery of water to plant roots

by capillary action from the underlying saturated soil strata,

and is the primary method of irrigation in the Delta organic

soils (RT Vol. XX, pp. 112-115). As practiced in the Delta,

subirrigation may be the most efficient irrigation process in

California from the standpoint of net water consumption (RT Vol.

XIII, pp. 107-108). However, because of soil and crop management

constraints, this form of irrigation must be tied to a winter

leaching program to remove salts accumulated in the root zone

(RT Vol. XIII, p. 47). The general area of the Delta subirrigated

soils is shown in Figure III-3.

Mineral Soils. Delta mineral soils were formed through deposition

of soils and minerals eroded from the Sierra by various streams

tributary to the Delta. These soils, which are much less per-

meable than organic soils, generally are found at higher eleva-

tions in the Delta, and are not affected as much by high groundwater

conditions. Consequently, subirrigation generally is not neces:cnry

in the Delta mineral soils, and thus the more conventional irri-

gation methods are utilized. Water is applied to the surface of

the soil, usually through furrows, flood irrigation, or sprinklers.

Soil and crop management practices are much the same as in many

other areas in California, with leaching of the soils required and

with occasional changes in cropping patterns.

III-3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
~ "Sasramen
LO

SUBIRRIGATED LANDS
OF THE DELTA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXHIBIT University of California fl- 5

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD -_
(Base Map Provided by Department of Water Resources)

III-12

Delta Cropping Practices. The Department presented detailed

information on 1976 levels of agricultural production in the

Delta. In order to obtain cropping patterns for the organic

and mineral soils in the Delta, the Department's island-by-

island information was considered along with information pre-

sented by the University of California Cooperative Extension

at the hearing. These cropping patterns are shown in Table III-1.

As indicated in the table, corn is the predominant crop in the

organic soils, accounting for almost half of the total acreage

of organic soils. Grain is grown on an additional one-fourth of

the organic soils, with asparagus, alfalfa, and other crops ac-

counting for the remainder.

In the mineral soils grain is grown on about 22% of the acreage,

closely followed by corn on 17%. About 42% of the total acreage

of mineral soils appears to be distributed fairly evenly among

sugar beets, tomatoes, alfalfa, and mixed pasture. The remaining

acreage is in miscellaneous crops such as frutits, nuts, beans and

sorghum.

Agriculture Outside the Delta

The SWP and CVP export large quantities of water from the Delta to

the San Joaquin Valley and southern California for agricultural

uses. In total agricultural production, Fresno and Kern Counties

consistently rank first and second, respectively, in the nation

III-13

TABLE III-1

PREDOMINANT DELTA CROPS, 1976

Organic Soils

Crop Percent of Organic Soils Acreage

Corn 48

Grain 25

Asparagus 7

Alfalfa, Sugar Beets, Tomatoes, 20
Sorghum, Miscellaneous

Mineral Soils

Crop Percent of Mineral Soils Acreage

Grain 22

Corn 17

Sugar Beets 11

Tomatoes 11

Alfalfa 11

Mixed Pasture 9

Fruits, Nuts, Beans, Sorghum, 19
Miscellaneous

(Compiled from Department Exhibit II-18 and U. C. Exhibit II-5)

III-14

each year. This portion of the San Joaquin Valley is considered

the most productive agricultural area in the world (RT Vol.

XXXIV, p. 17). The San Joaquin Valley utilizes water from many

sources for crop irrigation including imported Delta supplies,

local surface supplies and groundwater. Accordingly, it is dif-

ficult to assign a particular acreage to the service areas of

either project.

The following information was presented on the crop diversity in

SWP service areas (SWSC Exhibit 106M):

TABLE III-2
Crop v. Acreage Distribution
State Water Project

Crop Percent of Acreage

Fruits, Vines, and Nuts 18

Cotton, Vegetable Crops, Field Crops, 52
Except Grains

Alfalfa, Barley and Other Grains 30

The SWP agricultural service area is predominantly in the San Joa-

qttin Valley, but includes portions of the South Bay area and

southern California. Figure III-4 shows the SWP service area with

the predominantly agricultural area noted. The maximum annual

entitlements of SWP agricultural users in the San Joaquin Valley

amount to 1,236,000 acre-feet, with 1977-level entitlements of

534,000 acre-feet (Department Exhibit 15A, p. 119; SWSC Exhibit 6).

III-15

FIGURE 17tI- STATE WATER PROJECT
EXISTING AND PROJECTED SERVICE AREAS

Location
No. Contracting Agency
�� .,,8 - o iot " \ ' UPPER FEATHER AREA
(',.! ",I City of Yiiba City
2 County of Butte
|. _ -__J \ \ 3 Plumas County Flood Control and Water
- ' . ~ S . 4 '.. ., O o o c )Conservation District
NORTH BAY AREA
EqE A:w:: bC A r e w ^ S 4 u " ' 3t 4 Napa County Flood Control and Water
-" ,' ,"' s < E * , f Conservation District
J ,T~* SuTT�'~hj~:5 - Solano County Flood Control and Water
IE ' LU x A Conservation District
...4 : , _..-._ t: / SOUTH BAY AREA
1~ I' '~N .;]-^ ( 6 Alameda County Flood Control and Water
cKia (' "'-. _ Conservation District, Zone 7
Alameda County Water District
//jiift~r~ ,. ^cr.8 Santa Clara Valley Water District
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AREA*
r~,:ui* A� ALVE.RAS , p 9 County of Kings
< * ISL; . . V~ r ^",5L^,,5 - -~ .10 . .t Devil's Den Water District
UOUi ;,! > tuaLDS' \ 11 Dudley Ridge Water District
12 Empire West Side Irrigation District
aN - . , - - -2 oso \ 13 Hacienda Water District
A3CI__ a C ' O a 2 14 Kern County Water District
15 Oak Flat Water District
'- 2 -.. / "16 Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
CENTRAL COASTAL AREA
17 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
/2~~~~~ ~ 0s~~~ k 4)~~~ r , -~ *.~ R \Water Conservation District
18 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and
/ . n s ' '~~ . . ....' . � Water Conservation District
4 ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
E " 19 Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency
�O) ,11 20 Castaic Lake Water Agency
-ifq '1.!8 IjjE " \ 21 Coachella Valley County Water Agency
22 Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency
~~\ G%,, \23 Desert Water Agency
24 Littlerock Creek Irrigation District
\ s a 4 \25 Mojave Water Agency
4> A t R ~ 4 3 \26 Palmdale Water District
27 San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District
> w ^ \ ..................... 28 San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
29 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
30 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
MA e E . * L 1/ 31 Ventura County Flood Control District

* predominantly agricultural

FrPnm qWar Fhi hist i n c tnl nWR Fyhihi, lqd&

Water exported from the Delta by CVP facilities is used in the

Delta-Mendota Canal service area, the Cross-Valley Canal service

area, and the San Luis Unit of the CVP. The San Luis Unit has

an irrigable acreage of more than 550,000 acres along the west

side of the San Joaquin Valley. It comprises land within the

Westlands, San Luis, and Panoche Water Districts (RT Vol. XVII,

pp. 156, 169). Westlands Water District accounts for most of the

total San Luis Unit acreage (RT Vol. XVII, p. 156, and Westlands

Water District Exhibit II-3). A wide variety of crops are grown

in the District (RT Vol. XVII, pp. 174-175, and Westlands Water

District Exhibits 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 6). The CVP service

areas are shown on Figure III-5, and include both existing and pro-

jected service areas as well as areas served by local supplies. Under

its existing long-term contracts, the CVP will export from the Delta

to the San Joaquin Valley up to 2,750,000 acre-feet annually

(Bureau Exhibit 59), which is predominantly for agricultural uses.

C. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

There are significant municipal and industrial uses of Delta

waters both in the Delta and in areas outside of the Delta. The

export areas from the Delta include portions of Alameda, Contra

Costa, Solano and Santa Clara Counties, portions of the San Joa-

quin Valley, and major metropolitan areas in southern California

(Department Exhibit 15A, pp. 128-131). Future proposed export

service areas include San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Napa

Counties, and additional areas in Solano County.

III-17

FIGURE III-5

A 'L~~ ~) N CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
I ~~~~EXISTING AND PROJECTED SERVICE AREAS
;0 U

~~~~~~NRA~

PELTA ~'- NAI

.QELTA-M~~~~~~~~~ALL .CANAL~~\

~~~~~~~~SERVIC 'AREA~_

~~~~~~~~~~ t NAL -U,

(FROM USSR EXHIMT 63,
MAP NO. 214-206-6133)

In addition, emergency supplies were furnished to many municipal

and industrial users in the San Francisco Bay area during 1977

to augment local supplies depleted by the 1976-77 drought.

Figure III-6 shows the locations of significant water supply intakes

for municipal and industrial uses in the Delta and Suisun Marsh.

Each of these diversions is discussed below.

Contra Costa Canal Intakes: Rock Slough and Mallard Slough

The Contra Costa Canal provides water for about 240,000 people

throughout eastern and central Contra Costa County, and also serves

a large number of important industries throughout that area (RT

Vol. XVI, pp. 161-163). The Canal is a unit of the federal CVP,

but is operated by the Contra Costa County Water District (CCCWD).

There is year-round demand for water from the Contra Costa Canal.

Most of this water is diverted into the Canal at Rock Slough under

a long-term contract for CVP water. Also, during periods of high

freshwater Delta outflow when channel salinities are suitable for

domestic and industrial consumption, water is withdrawn under a

CCCWD appropriative water right from Mallard Slough generally when

chloride concentrations are less than 100 ppm (RT Vol. XVI, p. 164).

The area served by the Canal includes a portion of the legal Delta

as well as areas outside the Delta to the west. Some of the in-

dustries served by the Canal also divert water directly from the

San Joaquin River, but rely on Canal water whenever river salinities

III-19

FIGURE 111-6

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL and INDUSTRIAL INTAKES ' ~ ua~

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh

~~~~~~~~~I Wk

~~~~~~~~~~9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

3. Criown Coulrtac Foporbationd

7. Tracy Pumping Plant (CVP)
8. City of Vallejo Intake, Cache Slough

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
t Base Map Provided by Department of Water Resources)

become too high (RT Vol. XVI, pp. 164, 165). The city of Antioch

also utilizes a separate water supply intake when favorable salinity

conditions prevail. Many other industries depend on the Contra

Costa Canal as their sole water supply.

In order to sustain municipal and industrial beneficial uses

within the Canal service area, salinity levels must be maintained

below prescribed limits (CCCWD Exhibit 5, 6, 7). Of special con-

cern is the adverse effect on industrial production as salinity

increases in the water supply above specific critical levels (RT

Vol. XVI, pp. 184-197). Also, the paramount uses of municipal

and domestic drinking water supplies must be protected (RT Vol.

XVI, pp. 197-203).

Paper Mills in Vicinity of Antioch

The Fibreboard and Crown Zellerbach Corporations both operate paper

mills which are located about one mile east of the City of Antioch,

abutting the San Joaquin River and within the Delta. While both

mills are served by the Contra Costa Canal, each has separate

facilities for direct diversion from the San Joaquin River (RT Vol.

XVII, pp. 76-77, 136). Combined employment for both mills is about

1600 people (RT Vol. XVII, pp. 76, 135). The importance of these

industries. to the local economy is great, with a combined annual

payroll of around $28,000,000 (RT Vol. XVII, pp. 76, 135).

Additional economic effects are directly associated with gross pro-

duction of the mills, and support services required from other local

industries and services.

Much of the production at both mills consists of salt-sensitive

paper grades. With normal manufacturing processes, this produc-

tion requires a water supply with chloride concentration of 150

ppm or less (RT Vol. XVII, pp. 77, 137). Thus, low chlorinity

water is essential for their processes (RT Vol. XVII, pp. 72-106,

131-147).

Clifton Court Forebay/California Aqueduct (SWP)

Clifton Court Forebay is the diversion point for the SWP California

Aqueduct, which delivers water to municipal and industrial service

areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and

southern California (agricultural deliveries through such facili-

ties are discussed in the preceding section). In the future, water

also may be delivered to municipal and industrial users in the Cen-

tral Coastal area, consisting of portions of San Luis Obispo and

Santa Barbara Counties. The 1978-level water entitlements, maxi-

mum annual entitlements under long-term contracts, and 1975 popu-

lation in the SWP service areas are listed in Table III-3 (SWSC

Exhibit 6; SWSC Exhibit 1, p. 7; Department Exhibit 15A, pp. 118-121).

In addition to domestic, municipal and industrial uses, these sup-

plies are used for related groundwater replenishment (SWSC Exhibit

29; RT Vol. XVIII, pp. 121, 122, 133; RT Vol. XXXIII, pp. 129, 130).

Control of land subsidence and groundwater salinity intrusion is an

additional related benefit in the SWP South Bay service area (RT

Vol. XVIII, p. 143; RT Vol. XXXIII, pp. 134, 140, 141). Compliance

III-22

TABLE III-3

State Water Project

Municipal and Industrial Entitlements to Water
and Service Area Ponulations

1978-Level Long- Maximum Long-
Term Contracted Term Contracted 1975 Popu-
Annual Entitle- Annual Entitle- lation of
Service Area ments, Ac-Ft/Yr ments, Ac-Ft/Yr Service Areal/

North Bay 02/ 63,000 1,751,000

South Bay 131,000 188,000

Central 0 83,000
Coast

San Joaquin 64,000 119,000 780,000
Valley

Southern l,061,00O/ 2, 438,00 11,922,000
California

Total 1,256,000 2,891,000 14,453,000

_/ These estimates represent the total population in the respective

service areas, and are not intended to reflect the actual popu-

lation served by SWP supplies.

2/ Prior to 1980 non-project water will be delivered from outside

of the Delta area pumped through an interim facility.

31 Includes small amount of water used for agricultural purposes.

III-23 .

with water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan

for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin 8 Plan) depends on avail-

ability of good quality (low salinity) SWP water for municipal

and industrial uses and for groundwater recharge (RT Vol. XXXI,

pp. 1-3). Economic value of SWP water for municipal and indus-

trial uses ranges from $500 to $800 per acre-foot (SWSC Exhibit

106K; RT Vol. XXXII, pp. 56-79).

Tracy Pumoino Plant/Delta-Mendota Canal (CVP)

The Tracy Pumping Plant, located in the southern Delta near Clif-

ton Court Forebay, is the diversion point for the federal CVP Delta-

Mendota Canal. Municipal and industrial users served by this

diversion through the San Luis Division of the California Aqueduct

(joint federal-state facility) include those in the Cross-Valley

Canal service area in the southern San Joaquin Valley as well as

a few municipal and industrial users in the western portion of the

Valley. Through the Cross-Valley Canal, up to 128,000 acre-feet

of water per year will be delivered for a multitude of uses, in-

cluding municipal and industrial supplies (Bureau Exhibit 64, p.

10; RT Vol. VIII, p. 166). The municipal and industrial users in

the western San Joaquin Valley have a maximum contract entitlement

of 27,500 acre-feet per year (Bureau Exhibit 64, p. 10). Water

quality needs of these export uses are specified in the contracts

for water delivered through the Tracy Pumping Plant.

Also, municipal and industrial deliveries of 216,000 acre-feet per

III-24

year through the Delta-Mendota Canal are planned by the Bureau

for the San Felipe Unit. In addition, a portion of the 650,000

acre-feet per year which would be delivered through the as-yet-

unauthorized Mid-Valley Canal would be used for municipal and

industrial purposes (Bureau Exhibit 64, p. 10; RT Vol. VIII, pp.

166, 167).

City of Valle jo and City of Antioch Intakes

No substantial testimony was presented regarding either of these

two municipal water intakes. However, both intakes were included

in the Board staff's trial objectives (Staff Exhibit 3, p. 18).

Antioch has used its intake only when water quality has been ade-

quate, generally in the winter and through the spring of most years

(RT Vol. XVI, pp. 164, 165). The City of Vallejo Intake is located

on Cache Slough in the northern portion of the Delta, and probably

is influenced much more under the current configuration of the

Delta by Sacramento River water quality and local agricultural

drainage than by the effects of salinity intrusion. This intake

provides a year-round supply of municipal and industrial water to

the City of Vallejo.

III-25

CHAPTER IV

HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Water quality standards are limits or levels of water quality

constituents which are established for the reasonable protection

of specific beneficial uses of water. Even though beneficial uses

of Delta, supplies have been well established for some time, water

quality standards for this important water body have been

periodically reviewed and modified to reflect the current knowledge.

A. PAST PROCEEDINGS

The Board has previously established water quality standards through

water quality control plans and water right decisions. A brief

chronology of those actions is presented below. As previously

noted, the current proceeding marks the first time for the Delta

that the Board's water quality and water right authorities have

been so closely integrated.

Decision D 1275 (Water Rights)

The development of comprehensive water quality standards for the

Delta began with the so-called November 19, 1965 criteria. These

criteria were developed by a group consisting of representatives

of the Sacramento River and Delta Water Association, the San Joa-

quin Water Rights Committee, the Department and the Bureau. The

criteria have had a continuing influence on subsequent development
of water quality standards. The State Water Rights Board in

IV-1

Decision D 1275, the principal water right decision on the SWP1-/

adopted May 31, 1967, ordered that the permits for the SWP be

subject to the November 19, 1965 criteria (referred to in

Decision D 1275 as SRDWA Exhibit 17) insofar as those criteria

did not conflict with other terms included in the permits. The

Board also included in Decision D 1275 a limitation on pumping

from the Delta and on collecting water to storage in Oroville

Reservoir under certain conditions of water quality. These pump-

ing limitations, however, were modified by Decision D 1291 on

November 30, 1967.

1967 Water Quality Control Policy (Water Quality)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Water

Quality Act of 1965 provided in Section l0(c)(1) that by June 30,

1967 each state was to establish water quality criteria applicable

to interstate waters or portions thereof within the state. Con-

sistent with the requirements of this legislation, the Board's

predecessor agency, the State Water Quality Control Board, on June

23, 1967, transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior a statement

of policy for the control of water quality in California's inter-

state waters including those of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

l_/ The principal water right decision on the CVP, Decision D 990
adopted on February 9, 1961, does not include any water quality
standards. However, the Water Rights Board in this decision
(as in other decisions on the CVP and SWP) reserved jurisdic-
tion to establish permit terms and conditions for salinity
control in the Delta.

IV-2

and Suisun Marsh. On July 19, 1968, the federal government expressed

concern that the water quality control policy for the Delta did

not adequately protect municipal, industrial, agricultural and

fishery uses and proposed some supplemental water quality objec-

tives for chloride and total dissolved solids concentrations.

Following receipt of the federal comments and an additional hearing

on the water control policy for the Delta on October 24, 1968, the

Board adopted'a supplemental water quality control policy for the

Delta through its Resolution 68-17. By letter of January 9, 1969,

the Secretary of the Interior notified the Board that he had ap-

proved the state water quality standards even though they failed

to satisfy the recommendation of the federal government regarding

the spawning of striped bass and the municipal, industrial and

agricultural water uses of the western part of the Delta. The

Secretary indicated that his approval was taken in reliance upon

the commitment from the Board to conduct public hearings�during

1969 and to consider before June 30, 1970 the matter of supplement-

ing the salinity standards.

Decision 1379 (Water Rights)

In accordance with the commitment made in Resolution 68-17, a
hearing was initiated on July 22, 1969, and continued with inter-

mittent recesses until October 5, 1970. Based on that hearing

record, the Board issued Decision 1379 on July 28, 1971. Minor

modifications in this decision were made by the Board by supple-

IV-3

mentary orders dated September 16 and October 13, 1971. This

decision established new water quality requirements for the Delta

and Suisun Marsh and rescinded those in Decision D-1275. However,

Decision 1379 has been stayed by the courts since October 1971 as

a result of litigation originally instituted by the Central Valley

East Side Project Association and the Kern County Water Agency to

set aside the decision. In July 1974, the Federal District Court

deferred any further action on these cases pending a final decision

in California v. United States, a case in which the principal issue

is the jurisdiction of the state to condition water rights of

federal projects.2-/ Due to the court order staying implementation

of Decision 1379, the Decision D-1275 requirements remained in effect.

Interim Water Quality Control Plan (Water Quality)

In 1971, interim water quality control plans for the 16 planning

basins comprising the state, including the Delta and Suisun Marsh,

were adopted by the respective Regional Water Quality Control Boards

and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. The adop-

tion of the intewm- ansmarked~-the completibn~.of the first phase

of a comprehensive statewide planning effort which culminated in

the adoption of the basin plans, discussed below.

Supolement to 1967 Water Quality Control Policy (Water Quality)

The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

in a letter dated August 15, 1972, called the Board's attention to

2/ On July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court, issued its
decision in California v. United States upholding the position
of the State that state imposed conditions on permits issued
for federal reclamation projects are valid unless inconsistent
with congressional directives respecting the projects.

IV-4

the fact that there were considerations outstanding from the condi-

tional approval previously received from the federal government.

In response to that letter, the Board held a hearing on proposed

supplemental water quality objectives for the Delta and on April

19, 1973, by Resolution No. 73-16 adopted "Water Quality Control

Plan Supplementing State Water Quality Control Policies for

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta."

Basin Plans (Water Quality)

In line with the responsibility of the State and Regional Boards

and in compliance with the provisions of Public Law 92-500, com-

prehensive water quality control plans have been developed for the

16 basins comprising the state. The Delta and Suisun Marsh are in-

cluded in the water quality control plans for the Sacramento-San

Joaquin Delta Basin (Basin 5B Plan) and the San Francisco Bay Basin

(Basin 2 Plan), respectively. The Basin 2 Plan was approved by

Board Resolution 75-28 on April 17, 1975, and amendments to it

were approved by Board Resolution 76-61 on June 17, 1976. The

Basin 5B Plan was approved by Board Resolution 75-80 on August 21,

975. The lorig-tenn standards contained in these basin plans

are summarized in Appendix B of this plan (the water quality

standards in D-1275 were incorporated into the Basin 5B Plan,

except for the operational constraint at Blind Point).

IV-5

Droug~ht Emerjgencv Actions (Water Quality)

Because of the unprecedented drought during 1976-77, the Board

found it necessary to take two separate emergency actions during

1977 to mitigate the impact of the drought on beneficial uses of

Delta water throughout the state. By Resolution No. 77-6, on

February 8, 19779 the Board adopted a 1977 (interim) Water Quality

Control Plan for the Delta and Suisun Marsh. This plan was in-

tended to remain in effect only until the end of calendar year

1977 and during that period was to supersede the basin plans to

the extent of any conflicts with specific water quality standards.

However, prompted by the increased severity of the drought, the

Board found it necessary to take further emergency measures to

conserve water supplies upstream of the Delta and to provide con-

tinued protection of the Delta from deep-seawater intrusion. Ac-

cordingly, on June 2, 1977, the Board adopted an emergency regula-

tion, Section 764.20 of Title 23 of the California Administrative

Code and extended it through calendar year 1978 on December 15,

1977. This emergency regulation was to be in effect no longer than

necessary to protect the Delta. In view of substantial improvements

in the water supply situation and Delta recovery from salinity

\'ntrusion, the Board repealed the emergency regulation February

2, 1978.

- ~~~IV-6

B. EVOLUTION OF DELTA OUTFLOW REQUIREMENT

As described in Chapter II, beneficial uses of Delta water sup-

plies are dependent upon adequate outflow of freshwater to repel

seawater intrusion and to provide suitable habitat for fish and

wildlife. Delta water quality standards established to protect

these uses have all recognized the need to maintain sufficient

Delta outflow even under the most adverse water supply conditions.

However, net outflow from the Delta is not directly measured at present

due to the complex effects of tidal fluctuation and flow patterns.

In an effort to provide a common base for operation of SWP and

CVP facilities, the Department and Bureau have jointly established

a Delta Outflow Index.'/

The Delta outflows thought necessary to ensure the maintenance of

specific salinity levels throughout the Delta have changed over

the last two decades. Experience in implementing specific salinity

requirements and major improvements in mathematical models of the

Delta have brought about better estimates of outflow needs to satisfy

particular salinity levels in the Delta. This evolution is illus-

t.'it,otd bol ow by trachitlg the, m'limlli Delta outflow whiellc was; Ihllo"ll.

3_ Delta Outflow Index is a calculated net Delta outflow which is
equal to (1) Delta inflow through the major tributaries, minus
(2) net Delta consumptive use, minus (3) SWP and CVP export
pumping. The inflow and export values are measured, while the
consumptive use figures are fixed in an April 9, 1969 federal-
state agreement (Bureau Exhibit 576 in the proceeding leading
to Decision 1379 and an October 10, 1969 Bureau memorandum to
the Department).

IV-7

to be needed to satisfy the water quality standard at Emmaton

on the Sacramento River.

The Emmaton standard was initially presented in the November 19,

1965 criteria for the protection of western Delta channels from

seawater intrusion. It requires a maximum 10-day mean (14-day mean

in the Basin 5B Plan) daily chloride concentration of 1000 mg/l.

Past studies by the Depatrntment and Bureau have generally u.:cd Lhis

standard- in determining the minimum Delta outflow requirement.L/

Estimates of this outflow requirement have increased over time as

understanding of flow salinity relationships in the Delta has ex-

panded.

In 1964 the Interagency Delta Committee-2/ concluded that an out-

flow of 1500 cfs would be required to satisfy this salinity level

at Emmaton.-/ However, in 1966 the Department presented informa-

tion at the hearing leading to Decision D 1275 which set the Delta

4/ This was the case until August 1975 when the Board approved the
Basin_5B Plan which contained the Chipps Islandstandard for
protection of Neomysis. This objective provides a maximum 14-
day running average chloride concentration of 4000 mg/l, which
generally requires somewhat more outflow than that needed to
mee-,thz Emmaton objective.

5_/ The Interagency Delta Committee was a committee composed of
representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau
and Department with the task of evaluating various water de-
velopment plans for the Delta.

_/ Draft of Task Force Report to the Interagency Delta Committee
on a coordinated plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
1964, p. IV-3.

!-t' Iv-8

outflow necessary to meet this same salinity level at 1800 cfs

(D 1275, Depprtment Exhibit 81, p. 27).

Information presented by the Department during the current Delta

proceeding in its Exhibit 5B indicates that 2500 cfs would be re-

quired as Delta outflow to meet the Emmaton standard (Department

Exhibit 7B; RT Vol. VII, p. 171).Z/

The water quality standards established to protect beneficial

uses in the Delta are not the only factors affecting Delta outflow.

When water is being exported, sufficient Delta outflow must be

provided to prevent intrusion of saline water at the export pumps.

This outflow required to meet export contractual water quality

criteria is called "carriage water." Under controlled flow con-

ditions, the carriage water requirement of the projects is govern-

ing much of the time.

When project exports are greater than about 4000 cfs and Delta inflow

is low, Sacramento River water is drawn arouhd the western end of the

Delta and back up the San Joaquin River to the export pumps. The export

water becomes more saline due to seawater intrusion as it approaches

the western Delta. In order to meet export quality criteria under

controlled flow conditions, the projects must increase the Delta

7/ Recent studies by Department staff indicate that outflows in
excess of 3000 cfs may be required to meet the same standard
at Emmaton.

IV-9

outflow to satisfy the carriage water requirements when exports

exceed 4000 cfs. For instance, in order to satisfy the SWP quality

requirements at its export pumps, a Delta outflow in excess of

6000 cfs might be required during the spring of dry years when

the projects are exporting at their current full capacity.

Even though estimates of outflow necessary to satisfy tne Emmaton

standard have increased, the estimates of carriage water required

to satisfy export water quality have increased proportionately.

Thus, now as in the past, the carriage water needs of the projects

are generally controlling Delta outflow (see Chapter III of the EIR

for a discussion on carriage water requirements of export project

facilities).

Contrary to a common belief, past increases in estimated Delta

outflow requirements have not occurred solely as a result of more

restrictive water quality standards, .but also as a result of better

understanding of outflow/salinity relationships in the Delta, in-

cluding the great quantities of outflow necessary to protect the

export operations.

C. PRESENT PROCEEDING

In approving the Basin 5B Plan, the Board indicated that it would

convene hearings on the Delta no later than July 1, 1978 for the

purpose of receiving further evidence relating to salinity control,

protection of fish and wildlife in the Delta, and coordination of

terms and conditions of the permits of the SWP and CVP.

IV-10

CHAPTER V

ALTERNATIVES FOR PROTECTION OF BENEFICIAL USES

The most important phase in the formulation of water quality stand-

ards is the analysis of alternative approaches for the protection

of beneficial uses. It is both a state and federal requirement that

alternatives to a proposed action be investigated where such action

has the potential to affect significantly the quality of the human

environment (Section 21001 of California Environmental Act of 1969).

An objective evaluation of alter-native solutions or actions is re-

quired in order not to overlook or foreclose options which could

protect beneficial uses while at the same time minimizing the impac~t

on project operations. This analysis forms the basis for the selec-

tion and refinement of recommended actions.

This chapter presents a discussion of the various alternatives con-

sidered and the procedure used in the selection and refinement of

the adopted water quality standards.

In accordance with the jurisdiction reserved in the permits of the SWP

and C'JP, the purpose of this water quality control plan is to pro-

vide water quality limits for salinity control and for protection

of fish and wildlife, and to coordinate terms and conditions of the

various SWP and CVP permits currently before the Board. The water

quality standards established by the Board under this reserved

*jurisdiction are directed toward conditions expected to prevail

V-1

over the next ten years. However, possible longer term solutions

for all the major water quality problems in the Delta and Suisun

Marsh have been kept in sight, and the Board's plan contains the

necessary initial steps for their long-term resolution.

As previously discussed in Chapter III, beneficial uses in the Delta

are classified into three categories: fish and wildlife, agriculture,

and municipal and industrial. The plan establishes water quality

standards for each of these categories to ensure that reasonable

protection is provided to each of these uses in its own right. The

standards are established for different year types, in accordance

with the natural hydrologic regime of the Delta.

A. TRIAL SET OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

On March 15, 1977, a trial set of water quality objectives for the

three categories of uses was transmitted by the Board staff to all

interested parties to help focus the Phase II hearing. As explained

in the staff transmittal, the trial objectives were developed from

information gathered solely during Phase I of the hearing and did

not reflect the consideration and trade off of factors presented

during Phase II.

As in the current conceptual alternatives presented below, con-

sumptive and non-consumptive uses were generally distinguished

in the development of the trial set of objectives. The trial

objectives for fish and wildlife (non-consumptive uses) were es-

sentially t-hose contained in the April 12, 1977 draft of the

V-2

Four-Agency Fish and Wildlife Agreement (Fish and Game Exhibit

11). This basic approach has been retained as one of the con-

ceptual alternatives for fish and wildlife presented below.

The trial objectives for agriculture and municipal and industrial

uses (consumptive uses) reflected the level of protection which

would have been available under pre-project conditions (192221944).

However, as many parties pointed out, water quality standards

based on pre-project conditions would require the SWP and CVP to

offset increased upstream depletions, unrelated to project opera-

tions, which have occurred since 1944 to the extent such upstream

depletions infringe upon Delta riparian rights. The trial stand-

ards thus would require the projects to provide water quality

levels significantly better, than .conditions which would prevail in

the absence of the projects. Consequently, the staff trial objec-

tives for consumptive uses have been replaced by conceptual alterna-

tives to reflect without project conditions at 1980 level of

depletions.

B. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES

Conceptual alternatives have been developed to reflect a broad range

of possible levels of protection for each category of use. Generally,

at least three basic alternatives have been considered for each of

the three broad beneficial use categories:

�-3

o No Action. In accordance with Section 15143 of the-,v

CEQA Guidelines, the specific alternative of "no action"

must be evaluated. If the Board took no action, the

existing basin plans (Basins 5B and 2) and Decision

D-1275, as amended by D-1291, would be controlling.

o Without Project Conditions/Preservation of Fish

and Wildlife at Historical Levels. Under this basic

approach, protection of consumptive uses in the Delta

would provide only that water quality which would have

existed in the absence of the SWP and CVP, as limited

by the constitutional requirement of reasonable beneficial

uses The comparable alternative for fish and wildlife

would provide necessary protection to maintain the resource

at historical levels which existed between 1922 and 1967.

(see Section C of this chapter).

o Modified Without Pro~ject Conditions/Interim Protection

of Fish and Wildlife. Under this basic approach, the entitle-

ment of Delta water users would be satisfied by providing

water quality conditions which would result in benefits better

than or equivalent to without project conditions. Hydro-

logic conditions in the Delta have been substantially altered

by-both project operations and upstream development. This

conceptual alternative takes into account both the beneficial

and adverse aspects of project operations. Fishery resources,

as represented principally by striped bass, would be maintained

at levels approximating without project conditions'. Wildlife

resources in the Marsh would be provided increasing levels of

interim protection until full protection is achieved in 1984.

The specific application of these basic approaches to each broad

beneficial use category is presented below. Shown in Appendix C

of this plan is a tabulation of these conceptual approaches.

C. FISH AND WILDLIFE

To date fish and wildlife uses have not been granted vested wiater

rights under California water law. However, many statutes assure

that these uses shall be protected for the public interest. For

many years water right permits issued by the Board have included

conditions to protect fish and wildlife. As previously stated,

the basin plans recognize uses of water for fish and wildlife as

beneficial uses. The Board's authority to protect fish and wild-

life is expressly stated in various sections of the Water Code

and policy statements previously cited.

The question is at what population level this resource should be

protected. The position of Fish and Game is that the fish and

wildlife resource should be preserved at "recent historical levels",

herein called historical levels, on a long-term basis. These levels

are defined by Fish and Game (Fish and Game Exhibit 11) as th e

average abundance of a fish or wildlife resource estimated to have

existed between 1922 and 1967. Conditions upstream of the estuary

may limit the abundance of some species. Fish and Game's policy

deals only with those factors in the estuary that limit species

abundance. However, Fish and Game recognizes that until additional

project facilities are constructed, historical levels cannot be

achieved (Fish and Game Exhibit 11, p. 4). Furthermore, fish

and wildlife possess natural reproduction mechanisms which

V- 5

allow them to recover from drought and low flow conditions, much

like other beneficial uses. The objective of Fish and Game is to

share good as well as poor water supplies along with other bene-

ficial uses.

No Action

If the Board took no action, the fish and wildlife standard of the

basin plans (5B and 2) would be controlling. Unlike the standards

for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses, the basin plan

fish and wildlife standards do not include any provisions for re-

laxation during dry and critical years.

Preservation

Maintenance of historical levels of the fish and wildlife resource

is essentially equivalent to preservation of the resource. With

existing project facilities, protection of Suisun Marsh could be

provided only through Delta outflow. In excess of 18,000 cubic

feet per second (cfs) of Delta outflow, along with substantial

curtailment of exports, would be required fr6m May through July

of normal years to protect striped bass at historical levels.

Four-Aaencv Fish and Wildlife Agreement (Fish and Game Exhibit 11)
Protection under this alternative is intended to maintain

fish and wildlife resources on the average at historical

levels (as in the preservation alternative), but recognizes

that historical levels cannot realistically be maintained with

existing project facilities and project demEnds. In view of

V-6

this, this alternative provides interim water quality standards

to maintain fish and wildlife on the average at less than histori-

cal levels until additional project facilities are constructed.

However, these interim standards will not be sufficient to I-ro-

tect the Marsh during dry and critical years. In order to fully

protect the Marsh solely with outflow, in excess of 2 million acre-

feet per year of Delta outflow (in terms of project yield) abovo

that needed to satisfy the interim standards would be required

(RT Vol. XXII, pp. 100-101). This would constitute about one-third

of the combined CVP and SWP exportable yield. An additional 2 million

acre-feet of Delta outflow in dry and critical years for this purpose.

is not consistent with the best interest of the State. The long-

term protection for the Marsh in low runoff years can be guaranteed

only through construction of physical facilities, proper management

of the Marsh lands and a supplemental supply.

D. AGRICULTURE

The current Delta water quality standards for the protection of

agricultural uses are essentially the November 19th criteria (see

discussion on page IV-i). These standards are contained in

Decision D 1275 and the Basin 5B Plan.

No Action

Under this alternative, the agricultural standards in Decision

D 1275 and the Basin 5B Plan would remain in effect. These stand-

ards represent numbers that have not been changed substantially

for over 12 years.

V-7

Evidence introduced during the course of this proceeding has

raised considerable doubt as to the adequacy of these standards

to protect agriculture in the Delta. Since the adoption of the

l,aosn Plan, agricultural uses have been under an umbrella of pro-

tection provided by the fish and wildlife standards The

relatively higher flows require.d to me(- the fish 'rnd wild] lf'

standards have kept salinity levels in the Delta generally far

below the levels of the agricultural standards This incidental

protection, however, would no longer be available under the

approach suggested in the draft Four-Agency Fish Agreement.

Without Project Conditions

Under the without project alternative, the level of protection pro-

vided Delta agricultural uses would be that which would have been

available to the Delta in the absence of the projects. Without

project conditions have been determined in terms of the number of

days that water of suitable quality would be available at various

-oints of diversion throughout the Delta based on calculated condi-

tions which would occur without the projects.

The water utilized by the plants is that in the root zone. The

quality of this water is in effect a composite of the quality of

all water applied during the irrigation season. In view of this,

water quality standards under this alternative represent an

V-8

average of without project water quality conditions over the major

portion of the irrigation season (April 1 to August 15). This

average reflects the number of days that certain water quality

levels would be experienced.

The water quality standards for agriculture would be set at levels

necessary to prevent any infringement on Delta vested water rights

by the projects. Thus, the extent of Delta agricultural vested

rights would be measured by reasonable beneficial use, not to ex-

ceed flows which would have reached the Delta had the SWP and federal

CVP not been built, taking into account current upstream uses under

vested rights.

It should be noted that upstream riparianluses have not changed

appreciably since 1930. Also, for the critical July/August period,

the Board has not issued any appropriative penrmits since 1955.

Thus, even though Delta protection would be subject to non-project

current upstream uses, these uses in the low flow season have not

undergone much change over the last 20 years.

Modified Without Project Conditions

Under this alternative, the flow requirements to meet water quality

standards imposed on the projects would be essentially equivalent

to without project outflow requirements'

V-9

*The basic difference between the modified without project alter-

native and the without project alternative is the manner in which

protection is provided. As previously stated, the without project

alternative is an average from April 1 through August 15 of water

qua.lity conditions which would have been available in the absence

of the projects. The modified without project alternative would

provide generally greater protection of agricultural uses early

in the irrigation season, and less protection in the later por-

tion of the irrigation season. The weighted average of these

water quality conditions would be the same under both alternatives.

It is anticipated that the impacts of both these alternatives will

be nearly identical in terms of crop yield. However, the modified

without project alternative which provides better water quality

early in the irrigation season may provide better protection of

see~dlings and young'plants and might provide better overall pro-

tection to Delta agriculture. Although this alternative is believed

to be more beneficial to Delta agriculture, the possible benefits

are not currently quantifiable in terms of crop yield.

Specific Areal Alternatives

The general conceptual alternatives presented above do not lend

themselves to resolving water quality problems in certain areas

of the Delta. This is especially true in the extreme western

Delta and the southern Delta. In view of this, specific alterna-

tiv-es have been developed to resolve the special problems encountered

in these areas.

Western Delta. The general conceptual approaches are designed to

provide specific levels of protection to Delta agriculture. If

the present agricultural uses on Sherman Island, Jersey Island,

Hotchkiss Tract and other islands in the western Della ark to b-:

continued, the water available to them must be suitable for irri-

gation. Under this alternative, project operators would have the

option of satisfying in-channel quality requirements through sub-

stitute supplies, consistent with Section 12202 of the Delta Pro-

tection Act. If the project operators elect to provide a substitute

supply in lieu of meeting particular water quality standards,I/

no added financial burden would be placed on Delta interests.

If the project operators and Delta interests agree on water supply

qialities better than their respective vested water rights, sulch

agreement and compensation for benefits derived therefrom would

be a matter to be resolved by the parties themselves and not by

the Board so long as the capability of the projects to meet water

quality standards is not jeopardized.

Southern Delta. An implementable solution for the southern Delta

has eluded the best efforts of responsible public agencies for well

over twenty years. Prior to 1944 water quality in the southern

Delta was suitable for agricultural uses. Upstream depletions and

water quality degradation of the San Joaquin River and its tribu-

taries have greatly reduced the flows and quality available for

protection of the southern Delta.

1/ See discussion on Page VII-20 of this plan regarding substitute
supplies for the western Delta.

V-11

Riparians rights (taking into account upstream diversions by other

riparians) would be generally sufficient to satisfy water quality

needs of agricultural users in the southern Delta without regard

to hydrologic year type. However, the permits of water develop-

ment facilities in the San Joaquin River watershed, including those

of the BureauZ- which may be major contributors to southern Delta

quality and quantity deterioration are not before the Board, nor

has any jurisdiction been reserved in those permits to amend or

supplement terms and conditions therein. Notwithstanding this,

the permits do provide that such appropriations are subject to

prior vested rights.

The- direct effects of SWP and CVP diversions covered by permits

currently before the Board do not result in major impact on water

quality conditions in the southern Delta. It is questionable whether

the Board could justify imposing terms and conditions in the permits

before the Board to resolve all of the water quality problems in

this area.

Thus, it would appear that the Board's vested water right authority

through which terms and conditions are imposed in water right per-

mits will not yield an implementable solution based on a considera-

tio'n only of project facilities on the Sacramento River system and

the Delta.

Under this specific areal alternative, water quality standards for

the southern Delta would be established through the Board's water

2_/ The SWP has no facilities on the San Joaquin River system.
Also, in addition to the New Melones Project on the Stanislaus
River, the CVP has the Friant Project on the San Joaquin River
where that river accounts for less than 30 percent of the un-
impaired Delta inflows from the San Joaquin River Basin.
It 71 -1

quality control authority. The level of protection provided agri-

cultural uses in the southern Delta would be set to satisfy riparian

rights. Implementation of these standards could be achieved through

the Board's broad enforcement authority. As previously indicated,

all of the water right permits for the San Joaquin River Basirc up-

stream of the Delta include a paramount provision that appropriations

under these Board entitlements are subject to prior vested rights.

E. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

Water supply for human consumption has long been considered the

highest use of water. Water quality standards developed for such

uses must ensure that those supplies are potable and do not en-

danger human lives or health. Thus, the standards for municipal

and domestic supplies developed for each of the alternatives pre-

sented below have been established at necessary levels to fully

protect these uses.

No Action

The Basin 5B Plan standards for municipal and industrial uses

would be controlling if the Board took no action. Municipal and

industrial standards. have been established at three locations in

the Delta: Antioch, Rock Slough and City of Vallejo Intake at

Cache Slough.

The Antioch standard includes a termination provision which would

void the standard upon a determination by the Board that adequate

V-13

substitute supplies are available to all existing municipal and in-

dustrial users in the Antioch and Pittsburg areas. During the

hearing, the Department requested that the Board make such a deter-

mination on the basis that an adequate substitute supply is avail-

able to those users through the Contra Costa Canal.

The Rock Slough standard. provides that, the chloride concentration

never exceed 250 mg/l and also thiat it stay below 100 mg/I at least

65 percent of the year. Basically, this standard reflects average

water quality conditions that occurred at Rock Slough beginning

with the operation of Shasta Reservoir in 1945 and continuing to

1966. On the basis of 1976 and 1977 conditions, it is unlikely

that the 100 mg/l chloride limit could be met by the projects for

the required period during dry and critical years.

The Citv of Vallejo Intake standard protects the export uses of

the City of Vallejo. Seawater intrusion does not appear to have

affected water quality significantly in the vi-cinity of Cache Slough,

even during 1977 hydrological conditions.

Public Interest/Without Projiect Conditions

Under this alternative, protection of municipal and domestic uses

would be provided under the Board's public interest authority. The

principal basis of water quality standards for municipal water

V-14

supply would be the protection of public health. The standards for

drinking water contained in the proposed secondary drinking water

standards of the Environmental Protection Agency developed under the

"Safe Drinking Water Act" and the California State Department of Health

criteria (Section 64473 of Title 22, California Administrative Code)

would be followed. The question of compensation for benefits received

by virtue of the operation of project facilities is left for resolution

by the project operators and municipalities involved.

The level of protection for industries, on the other hand, would

be based on the Board's vested water right authority. As in the

case of agricultural supplies, industries would be provided at

least that quality of water which they would have received in the

absence of the projects.

Municipal uses are greatly enhanced in terms of taste and suit-

ability for landscape watering by water quality levels better than

the public health standards. The U. C. Guidelines for protection

of chloride-sensitive vegetation and CCCWD Ekhibit 17 indicate

that taste suitability and landscape watering uses could be pro-

Lectd at the 150 mg/. chloride limit. It is proposed thant rmnii-

cipal users be provided this higher level of protection to the

extent that such quality would have been available to them in the

absence of the projects.

Under this alternative, water quality standards for municipal and

industrial.uses in the vicinity of Antioch would be established to

V-15

ensure the necessary water quality offshore of Antioch.

Substitute Supplies

As previously stated, municipal and industrial users in the vicinity

of Antioch have adequate substitute supplies available through the

Contra Costa Canal. Under this alternative, offshore water quality

in the vicinity of Antioch would not be protected. The level of

protection provided municipal supplies aL Rock Slough under the

Board's public interest authority would be identical to that of

the previous alternative. The industrial standards would be based

on providing a substitute water supply through the Contra Costa

Canal equivalent to that which would have been available offshore

at Antioch.

Modified Without Project Conditions

Under this alternative, the number of days that the 150 mg/l

chloride level is provided at Rock Slough would be permitted to

vary with hydrologic conditions experienced. However, the chloride

level would never be allowed to go above that required for public

health. This alternative may provide long-term protection for in-

dustrial uses comparable to that of the substitute supply approach

presented above.

F. SELECTION PROCESS

The individual conceptual alternatives outlined above have been

sorted into alternative plans which include a complete set of stand-

ards covering all beneficial uses in the Delta and Suisun Marsh.

V-16

Each alternative strategy reflects the same general level of

protection to beneficial uses.

See Chapter IV of the EIR for a full discussion of the impacts

of these strategies on project operations and the environment.

Based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the degree of pro-

tection provided by each alternative strategy and its impact

on project operations can be compared. The water quality

standards set forth in Chapter 'VI of this plan were selected

from such comparative analysis of resulting benefits and

detriments.

V- 17

CHAPTER VI
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The water quality standards set forth in this chapter are the

result of a full examination of agricultural, municipal and in-

dustrial, and fish and wildlife uses in the Delta; the beneficial

uses of water exported from the Delta; and available Delta sun-

plies, regulated and otherwise. After analysis of the major

alternatives outlined above and the impacts of each outlined in

the EIR, the following water quality standards are adopted.

A. FISH AND WILDLIFE

The fish and wildlife standards contained herein are those

recommended to the Board by Fish and Game (Fish and Game Exhibit

11)-/ with minor modifications explained below. The Department

in its closing brief endorsed the Fish and Game recommendations.

The standards were developed through extensive negotiations

among the Department, Bureau, Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. However, these agencies have not yet executed

an A&greement.

The Fish and Game recommendations are based on maintenance of

fish and wildlife resources on the average at recent historical

levels (1922-1967 )2,but recognize that these levels cannot be

v/ April 12, 1977 draft of the so-called Four-Agency Fish
Agreement.

2/ Conditions upstream of the estuary may limit the abundance
of some species. This recommendation deals only with those
factors in the Delta estuary that limit species abundance.
VI-1

achieved with existing project facilities and current export

ievwls (Fish and Game Exhibit 11, p. Iv). Until additional pro-

ject facilities are constructed and operational, the recommenda-

tions provide, except as to Suisun Marsh (discussed below), for

the maintenance of the fishery (as represented principally by

striped bass) in the Delta estuary at levels which would approach

those that would have existed in the absence of the SWP and CVP.

The recent historical fishery levels in the Delta have exceeded

what would have occurred in the absence of the SWP and CVP. The

Board believes that the fishery in the Delta should be maintained

at these historical levels. Higher levels of protection involving

greater Delta outflows are not realistic. Any future Delta trans-

fer facility should be operated to ensure the maintenance of these

recent historical levels. In the absence of such a facility, the

fishery resource should be maintained as close as practicable to

those levels which would have existed in the absence of the SWP

and CVP (without project conditions).

As discussed in Chapter V and in more detail in the EIR, other

alternatives in addition to the Fish and Game recommendations

were evaluated. Based on this evaluation, the Fish and Game

recommendations, with modification of the striped bass spawning

and survival relaxation provisions, and interim Suisun Ma-rsh

standards, are the most appropriate water quality standards for

the reasonable protection of fish and wildlife resources. These

standards are shown in Table VI-1.

VI-2

Presented below is a brief discussion on the rationale and tech-

nical basis for the fish and wildlife standards. More detailed

information is contained in the EIR as well as in the extensive

testimony and exhibits introduced by Fish and Game during the

Delta hearing.

Striped Bass Spawning

As indicated in Chapter III, striped bass have been selected as a

key species for establishing Delta fish and wildlife criteria.

The striped bass spawning locations on the Sacramento and San Joa-

quin River systems are shown in Figure III-1. Salinity affects

striped bass spawning on the lower San Joaquin River (Fish and

Game Exhibit 3, p. III-8). Spawning in this reach of the river

typically occurs in the main channel and connecting sloughs be-

tween Antioch and Prisoners Point on Venice Island. Salinity

limits of 1.5 mmhos EC (1000 mg/l TDS) and 0.55 mmhos EC (350 mg/1

TDS) at Antioch and Prisoners Point, respectively, have been es-

tablished as maximum allowable levels for striped bass spawning

on a long-term basis (see Appendix B). However, it may be possible

to exceed these values for brief periods with little adverse ef-

fect on spawning (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, p. III-8). Information

gathered during 1977, currently being evaluated by Fish and Game,

should help clarify this concern.

VI-3

Substantial spawning on the San Joaquin River generally commences

in mid to late April and continues for about 5 weeks (Fish and

Game Exhibit 12A). The Antioch spawning standard requires suf-

ficient outflow to achieve minimum acceptable salinity levels by

the time substantial spawning starts, and the maintenance of suit-

ab)le qalinity during the first several weeks of spawning. Under

steady state conditions, a 6700 cfs outflow should result in ap-

p)roximately 1.5 mmhos EC at Antioch (Departiment Exhibit II-9

Attachment No. 3). During the latter part of the spawning period,

salinities are influenced by the striped bass survival standard.

The previous Antioch spawning standard in the Basin 5B Plan was

triggered when water temperatures reached a specific level (see

Appendix B). This presented two problems. First, the required

spawning salinity was often provided prior to any significant

spawning. Second, the triggering date was difficult to establish

due to fluctuation of stream temperatures near this limit (RT Vol.

XXII, p. 157).

Relaxation Provision

Both Fish and Game and the Department recommended relaxation of

the striped bass spawning standard during periods of extreme water

shortage. Relaxation would be commensurate with the deficiencies

imposed on firm supplies to SWP and CVP water users. During periods

VI-4

of extreme water shortage these agencies recommended that the

Antioch spawning standard, plus the 6,700 cfs outflow provision

for the first 15 days of the spawning standard period, be replaced

by minimum total flows of 470,000 acre-feet during the 35-day

period (470,000 acre-feet is equal to about 6,700 cfs for 35 days),

less an amount equal to 10 percent of the annual deficiencies in

deliveries of firm supplies by the projects, excluding any defi-

ciencies in the Friant Division of the CVP.

This outflow-related relaxation criteria has serious flaws. The

parameter of concern in striped bass spawning is salinity, not

outflow. Also, the Delta Outflow Index during the beginning of

the irrigation season (around April) may not be representative

of true outflow in some years (EIR9 Chapter III), and the assumption

that 6,700 cfs can maintain 1.5 mmhos EC at Antioch is based on

water quality models that do not account for the effects of exports

on the salinity-flow relationships in this area of the Delta. The

occurrence of such effects during the early portion of the irriga-

tion season may require larger outflows at higher export rates in

order to maintain the target salinity condition at Antioch.

In view of these deficiencies, the recommended striped bass spawn-

ing relaxation standard has been modified to maintain salinity

levels at Antioch rather than outflow while retaining the original

intent of the recommended relaxation provision. This approach was

used in the trial set of objectives and was not challenged by

VI-5

any of the hearing participants.

Striped Bass Survival and Neomysis Protection

The goals of this standard are twofold. The first is to main-

tain striped bass populations on the average at levels which

approach without project conditions prior to construction and

operation of a Delta transfer facility. The second is to main-

t;..i~ f)opulationIs on the average at, recernt hi'storical level;

after the operation of such a facility. The standard also bene-

fits opposum shrimp, Neomysis, the critical food source for young

striped bass.

The Striped Bass Index, a measure of young bass survival through

their first summer, is the parameter of concern for striped bass

survival. The Striped Bass Index is a measurement of relative

abundance rather than an estimate of the actual number of striped

bass present. However, the use of the Striped Bass Index as a

water quality control parameter poses some technical problems.

Therefore, the Striped Bass Index has been translated to the en-

vironmental conditions most directly related to it. The most

direct mechanism to monitor these environmental conditions is

through the use of the Delta Outflow Index. The technical basis

for this approach is set forth in the hearing record (Fish and

Game Exhibit 3, pp. III-13 to III-34 and RT Vol. XXII, pp. 168-175).

The recommended standard is based on statistical relationships

VI-6

between striped bass abundance, Delta outflow and water diver-

sions from Delta channels for both local and export uses (Fish

and Game Exhibit 3, Figures III-13 and III-6, and Fish and GPr -
Exhibit 11, Appendix C, p. 5). Using known or estimated recent

historical outflow and diversions, the average abundance of

striped bass for the period 1922-1967 was found to be 106 Striped

Bass Index units. In order to derive a standard that would

achieve the long-term goal for fishery preservation, mean May,

June and July flows for the six hydrologi~ year types (see Figure

II-1) were selected which produce a mean striped Bass Index of

106, assuming the historical occurrence of year types coupled with

export curtailments sufficient to eliminate detriments due to ex-

ports (Fish and Game Exhibit 11, Appendix C, pp. 5 and 6, and RT

Vol. XXII. pp. 166-175).

Analysis of the striped bass survival standard indicates that

striped bass, on the average, can be maintained at levels that

approach without project levels under the expected export cond-

ditions during the effective period of this plan (see EIR,

Chapters IV and V).

The without project level of striped bass, based on June and July

flows, is about 71 Striped Bass Index units. However, other fac-

tors may also affect striped bass survival. For instance, condi-

tions prior to and after the June/July period affect striped bass

abundance. The magnitude of this impact cannot be quantified at

this time. The nature of this impact suggests that something

higher than 71 index units would be required to maintain striped

bass abundance at without project levels (see EIR, Chapter V,

Section B). How much higher is unknown.

VI-7

The average Striped Bass Index under this plan is about 79 index

units. Even though without project levels would be somewhat higher

than 71, it is believed that the striped bass levels (79) under

this plan would approximate without project levels if the effects

of all factors at all times of year could be properly evaluated.

This striped bass survival standard will in any event provide

substantially better protection to striped bass than the previous

basin plan objectives (63 index units), while having a lesser impact

on project exports (EIR, Chapter V).

Even though the current method used to assess without project

levels of striped bass lacks the precision necessary to identify

fully project mitigation responsibilities, it is sufficient to

indicate a project responsibility to provide immediate protection

to the fishery resource. While this level of protection falls

short of full mitigation of all project impacts on the fishery,

it is nonetheless a reasonable level of protection.

The method used to assess without project levels of striped bass

is at best only a rough approximation of project impacts on striped

bass abundance. Prior to any attempt to fix project responsibilities

for mitigating impacts on the fishery, the analytical tools for

assessing project impacts must be refined. As with the Draft Four-

Agency standards, the Department,, Bureau, Fish and Game, and U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service should work together to develop a mutually

acceptable approach to identify project impacts on the fishery.

VI-8

The striped bass standards are expected to benefit species other

than striped bass, as previously discussed. The spring and early

summer flows provided in the above standards coincide with the

spawning and migration period of many species which presumably

are adapted to the natural high flows occurring during this

period (see Figure III-2). While the Delta Plan approaches with-

out project levels of protection for striped bass, there are many

other species, such as catfish, shad and salmon, which would not

be protected to this level. In order to provide full mitigation

of project impacts on all fishery species now would require the

virtual shutting down of the project export pumps. Such extreme

action would not be in the best public interest.

Salmon Migration

The salmon standard reflects the minimum flows which Fish and

Game believes would be suitable for salmon migration. Fish and

Game's recommendation is based largely on information from the San

Joaquin River which relates river flows to abundance of returning

adult salmon (Fish and Game Exhibit 3, Chapter II). However, the

information necessary to refine this standard is not currently

available (Fish and Game Exhibit 11, p. 6). Notwithstanding this,

the standard is an appropriate base from which more definitive

standards can be established in the future.

Suisun Marsh

Full protection of Suisun Marsh at present poses an extremely

difficult problem. As shown in Figure VI-1, the interim standards

set forth in Fish and Game Exhibit 11 plus anticipated uncontrolled

flows will not fully protect Suisun Marsh in typical critical years.

VI-9

SALINITIES AT SUISUN MARSH

j \AVERAGE CRITICAL YEAR PREDICTED
Pk -14 CONDITIONS WITH 1980 UPSTREAM DEPLETIONS
WITH PROJECTS
^ 3 > >__-r__i - (CVP/SWP)
-13

-122

-_ II

QG)

'--' i
", WITHOUT PROJECTS

MARSH PROTECTION AS SET ;
1 -7 FORTH IN DF&6 EXHIBIT II, m
PERMANENT SUISUN MARSH
'LO . - 6 / STANDARDS, TALTERNATE A.
I-i-6
'6 -
a ci ~ -5(8.0)

-I

OCT NOV DEC JAN FE MAR APR MAY
OCT NOV DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR MAY

Predicted salinities are shown for the mouth of Suisun Slough which was
estimated at 0.75 times the Port Chicago salinities (from D1F&G Exhibit 24,
DWR Exhibit II-13-B).

This figure also shows that under 1980 without project conditions,

the Marsh would have been protected in average critical years.

Thus, the interim standards do not fully mitigate the adverse

effects of the projects on the Marsh.

State and federal legislation require the SWP and CVP to mitigate

the adverse environmental effects of project operations.2/' Standards

providing such mitigation measures to the Marsh are evaluated in

the EIR. Full protection of the Marsh solely with outflow could

require in excess of 2 million acre-feet (in terms of project

yield) in addition to that outflow required to meet the interim

Marsh standards (RT Vol. XXII, p. 101). This would result in a

one-third reduction in combined SWP and CVP exportable yield from

existing facilities. The Bureau, the Department, Fish and Game and

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working to develop supple-

mental water supplies for the Marsh. Such supplemental supplies

are a more desirable method for protecting the Marsh and mitigating

the adverse impacts of the CVP and SWP on this extremely valuable

resource.

Recognizing the effort currently underway by this Four-Agency group,

a time schedule has been developed for the completion of the necessary

measures to mitigate the projects' impacts on Suisun Marsh. Initial

phases-of this program should be completed by January l, 1980, with

full mitigation required by October 1, 1984. A more detailed dis-

cussion of this program is set forth in the program of implementation,

Chapter VII.

~1Section 11900 of California Water Code; The California Environ-
mental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.);
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. Section 661, et
seq. (1970)]; and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42
U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq. (1970)].

VI-11

The interim standards do not provide complete protection to Suisun

Marsh. The interim standards require some modification of project

operations to benefit the Marsh, but rely primarily on the occurrence

of uncontrolled outflows to protect the Marsh until 1984.

Fish and Game recommended relaxation of the interim Marsh standards

whenever the projects impose deficiencies in firm scheduled water

deliveries. This recommendation was based on attaining full pro-

tection for the Marsh by January 1, 1982. However, during the

public hearing on the draft plan, the Department indicated that

full Marsh protection could not be achieved until the fall of 1984.

In view of this, the control date by which full Marsh protection

would be required was extended to October 1, 1984. In order to

ensure sufficient protection over this extended interim period,

relaxation of interim Marsh standards will not be allowed in the

critical months of January through May.

The Board supports the long-term goal of Fish and Game that all

managed wetlands of Suisun Marsh (except those on Ryer, Roe, Snag

and Freeman Islands) should be provided with sufficient quantities

of adequate quality water to attain a soil water electrical conduc-

tivity of 14 mmhos EC (9 parts per thousand TDS) in the first foot

of soil during May, using best practical water management practices

(Fish and Game Exhibit 11, p. 13). Best available information

indicates that water quality conditions to achieve this goal would

have been available even in most critical years had the projects

not been constructed. Therefore, provision of water quality condi-

tions to achieve this goal is a project responsibility. These

VI-12

conditions are included as standards to be achieved at specific

locations in the Marsh by October 1, 1984. The program of imple-

mentation in Chapter VII of the plan sets forth the specific

actions that must be taken by the project operators to mitigate

their impacts on the Marsh in the interim period prior to October 1,

198~4-

Operational Constraints

In addition to the interim fish and wildlife standards, Fish and

Game has recommended that CVP and SWP facilities be required to

operate in a manner which would minimize their impact on the Delta

fishery. Even though such operating criteria are not a usual ele-

ment of a water quality control plan, they are proper considerations-

f or a water right decision. In view of the dual nature of this

proceeding, these operating criteria are included in Table VI-1.

The most important operational requirement is a curtailment of

exports to protect striped bass. The export curtailment, in com-

bination with the spring and summer flows for striped bass survival,

is an important factor in approaching the without project level of

this resource. In order to ensure the attainment of this goal, the

operational constraints recommended by Fish and Game have been modi-

fied so that, SWP export curtailment would be required regardless of

'Delta outflow conditions.

Other constraints include restrictions on the operation of the Delta

Cross-Channel and requirements on the operation of the fish pro-

tective facilities at the SW? and CV? export locations.

VI- 13

B. AGRICULTURE

Water quality standards to protect Delta agricultural uses have

been developed for three general geographic areas: the western,

interior and southern Delta. The particular needs of each area

are determined by its location in the Delta, its soil types and

irrigation practices. While the general approach for all three

areas is substantially the same, the agricultural water quality

standards have been tailored to the particular characteristics

of each area.

The approach used in developing the agricultural standards involves

an initial determination of the water quality needs (criteria) of

significant crops, predominant soil types, and irrigation prac-

tices in each area. The extent to which these water quality needs

would be satisfied in various portions of the Delta under without

project conditions was then determined. The agricultural

standards are based on this determination and ensure that

project operations do not encroach upon Delta vested rights. The

level of protection provided agricultural uses under these stand-

ards will extend no further than without project conditions, as

limited by reasonable beneficial use. However, additional needs

could be met through contracts with the Department and Bureau

under the statutory preference accorded Delta beneficial uses.

Water Quality Criteria

Subirrigated Organic Soils. As indicated above, a substantial

portion of the western and interior Delta organic soils are sub-

irrigated (see Figure III-4). This method of irrigation is very

VI-14

energy efficient. However, since sibirrigation wets the soil from

below the surface, effective leaching is reduced. This reduced

leaching makes it necessary to irrigate with high quality (low

salinity) water. Subirrigation has been practiced historically

with good success in the Delta. The widespread use of this method

of irrigation is due largely to the fact that organic soils cannot

be successfully irrigated by furrow or border check methods (RT Vol.

XIII, p. 29). The water quality criteria developed for organic

soils is based on the high water quality required when subirrigation

is practiced.

However, there are other acceptable methods for irrigating organic

soils which could reduce the need for this high quality water.

One such method is sprinkler irrigation which was discussed during

the hearing as a possible alternative to subirrigation. Sprinkler

irrigation of Delta organic soil would require a substantial addi-
:i.} } I i '' I /, ,
tional capital and operating cost (RT Vol. XIII, p. 46-47). In
. I " . lil,', I '1�1 !1| I,, ',,| i tr, 1, II
view of the considerable expense involved, such alternative means
',. j ' ~l ' !I i .,'i; i I i t I)t.({'i i I M. ,,j i !ri ,, . ' : III Il~trtIl t I' If | it , lt,',i i
of irrigation have been treated in the same manner as the substi-
.i. i, . tT~,fI*! i.J ; ri i , J i, ' )|, I : I'.. 111-!, 1I. E '! 1 Ba I I i- rl[ A('. l Ii1, ',.
tute supplies provision of the Delta Protection Act. Under the

Delta Protection Act, Delta water users would not incur additional

expense if a substitute supply is provided by the project opera-
L,ur',; (~,;e i ,';Cll;E-inul] ill (ih.jlt , I$ )
tors (see discussion in Chapter I).
;,I I,~ bo.d ., II'm, I,.2;,i l I; . I I I'i
;jj !)F.Ior to (1 1e t~ll I Itol' t 1l;- spI- s: 1* a*; tire | 11.X' !-.o, i). |.11.', I,' . 1''"
In order to determine the water quality needs of the Delta organic
; l I t . t)il. t . .1. t i t i . l ! . 111 I
soils, the crop of major significance to this area's economy was
i.I. | i i . I %; indlic,',~t. [' i !.tl'(]"l I[ ,'r)l',~ i; il!,,, is,:i ;. ,",'
identified. As indicated in Chapter III, corn is the principal

crop grown on subirrigated soils. In accordance with the Delta

Protection Act provision to maintain and expand Delta agriculture,

water quality requirements have been established to provide 100%
~'1 I.' ,' ],'.1 (,,I ,1 .'I" ,
crop yields for corn.
VI- 5

The University of California (UC) Guidelines and Irrigation and

Drainage Paper 29 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) (UC Exhibits 1 and 2) provide a methodology

for determining the maximum salinity of the applied water which

allows a 100% yield of specific crops. However, the equations

used in this determination must be modified for subirrigated

organic soils (UC Exhibit 8). The FAO report assumes a soil water

salinity concentration of three times that of the applied water.

However, Exhibit 8 indicates that the applied water salinity is

actually concentrated from five to ten times in the organic soils

of the Delta where subirrigation is practiced. If a concentration

factor of 7.5 is substituted into the FAO equations, the applied

water salinity requirement for corn on subirrigated organic soils

would be 0. 45 mmhos EC.

Throughout the extensive testimony of the U. C. Cooperative Exten-

sion electrical conductivity is used as the best measure of salinity

impacts on Delta agriculture. While total dissolved solids and

chloride ion concentration have been employed traditionally as

measures of Delta water quality, electrical conductivity is more

closely related to osmotic pressure (which the plant is responding

to) than any other measure of salinity. Figures 11-4 and 11-5

list the conversion factors from electrical conductivity to chloride

ion concentration and total dissolved solids for representative

stations in the Delta.

The 0.45 mmhos EC water quality requirement will be imposed only

during the irrigation season, April 1 to August 15. It was not

VI-16

possible to establish the water quality needs of this area during

other periods of the year because of the lack of information in

the hearing record.-/

However, the water which the plant uses may not be solely that

which is directly applied in the field (RT Vol. XX, p. 181). The

mechanics of this water movement through the soil has not been

well defined, but preliminary research by the U. C. Cooperative

Extension indicates that water applied in spud ditches may be

adding additional upward force to the underlying groundwater and

that the plant might actually be using the groundwater for con-

sumptive use. If these preliminary indications prove to be valid,

the quality of the groundwater could be the most important factor

in the consideration of water quality needs in subirrigated or-

ganic soils. The complexity of factors affecting groundwater

quality and water movement are not fully understood at this point.

Future research may clarify these relationships.

Mineral Soils. As more fully described in CHapter III, mineral

soils are found predominantly in the northern and southern portions

of the Delta. Unlike the organic soils which are predominately

subirrigated, mineral soils permit surface irrigation. Some leaching

~k/ The interim agreement between the Department, North Delta Water
Agency and Reclamation District 341 executed on June 21, 1977,
due to the drought does make provisions for supplying specific
quality levels to areas in the western Delta for a two-week
period in December 1977 for preirrigation.

VI-17

of the mineral soils is accomplished by surface irrigation dur-

ing the growing season. The water quality needs of mineral soils

are not as high as those for subirrigated soils for the same crop

yields. Therefore, the water quality standards developed for the

protection of the subirrigated organic soils in the western and

interior Delta will provide suitable water quality for the mineral

soils in the northern portion of the Delta.

Water quality and quantity needs in the southern Delta are a dif-

ferent matter. A major portion of the southern Delta has a con-

siderable amount of clay intermixed in the soil profile. These soils

tend to have low permeability, and drainage and water movement is

3ften restricted.

The drainage and high water table problems in portions of the

southern Delta limit the type of crops which can be grown. For

instance, beans were grown on about 20,000 acres in the southern

Delta during the early 1930's. Field beans are now grown on only

about 2,400 acres in the southern Delta. A reason advanced for

this decline is the poorer water quality presently available to the

southern Delta. Most of the beans now grown in this area are black-

eyed beans, because they are more salt tolerant. Even these salt

tolerant beans are grown generally in areas receiving Delta-Mendota

Canal water due to its better quality (RT Vol. XIII, p. 157).

VI-18

Beans are an important crop to the southern Delta due to market

demand and suitability to climate and soil. Also, beans are well

suited to crop rotation in this area. The U. C. Guidelines recom-

mend an applied water quality of. 0.7 mmhos EC during the irrigation
season, April through August, to maintain beans at a 100% yield

(UC Exhibit 1). Other important crops in the southern Delta are

alfalfa, pasture and sugar beets. These crops use water through-

out the year. Also, during a major portion of the year, one area

or another of the southern Delta is in the seedling stage of

growth (RT Vol. XIV, p. 86). In view of the year-round demand

for irrigation waterp the water quality needs of this area for

months other than April through August must be considered.

The U. C. Guidelines indicate that alfalfa requires an applied

water of 1.3 mmhos EC for a 100% yield. Because of permeability

problems, associated winter leaching factors and the water quality

requirements of crops in the seedling stage, an applied water

quality of 1.3 mmhos EC would not fully avoid crop decrement.

In order to provide sufficient protection to crops in the southern

Delta outside of the April through August irrigation season, the

quality of applied water has been set at 1.0 mmhos EC during the

period September i to March 31. The ongoing research by the U. C.

Cooperative Extension in the southern Delta may produce information

which will show a need for future revision of these water quality

criteria.

VI-19

Water Quality Standards.

Western Delta. In order to establish water quality standards for

the western Delta organic soils, water quality data at representa-
tive locations were analyzed to determine without project water
quality conditions (i.e., conditions which would exist in the

absence of CVP and SWP). Figure II-4 shows this level of water

quality for FEmaton and Jersey Point.

Under without project conditions, the high quality water needed

for full crop yields in the western Delta would not be available

throughout the entire irrigation season in most years. In most

years, water with extremely good quality would be available during

the early portion of the irrigation season, but the quality would

deteriorate rapidly during the later portion of the season. The
start of the deterioration would depend upon the year type. Stand-

ards designed solely to reproduce such conditions would require

large quantities of water for little benefit. In order to provide

the extremely good quality water early in the irrigation season,

Delta outflows in excess of lO,000 cfs would-be required. In most

years, uncontrolled flows provide much of the needed outflow. How-

ever, since without project conditions would allow rapid and exten-
sive salinity intrusion during the latter part of the irrigation

season, the benefits to agriculture provided by reproducing such
conditions would appear to be offset by the detriments. Thus, the

direct application of without project conditions without some

VI-20

modification would result in unreasonable standards. Equivalent

without project conditions have been developed by providing the

western Delta the same weighted average salinities over the period

April 1 through August 15 as those shown on Figure II-4. Such

modification will benefit both agricultural users in the western

Delta and project operators.

The agricultural standards for the western Delta shown in Table

VI-1 are based on these equivalent without project conditions.

Under these standards, a water quality of 0.45 minhos EC would be

assured for that portion of the irrigation season during which it

would have occurred in the absence of the projects, in all years

except critical years. The water quality provided for the remain-

ing portion of the irrigation season would reflect a salinity which

when weighted with the 0.45 mmhos EC value would be equivalent to

the without project weighted average over the enti~re irrigation

season. In some years, particularly wet and above normal years,

the combined effect of both of these factors result in a require-

ment of 0.45 mnihos EC for the entire period April 1 through August

15. In such cases the 0.45 mmhos EC requirement is shown for the

entire period in the first column of the agricultural standards in

Table IV-1.

Provision of the 0.45 mnmhos EC early in the irrigation season would

be unreasonable during critical years, because of the relatively

large outflows required. In view of this, the water quality stand-

ards for the western Delta during critical years are based on the

time-weighted average water quality conditions over the entire period

April I through August 15. These time-weighted averages are the

same as the without project average conditions for such years.

VI- 21

Interior Delta. The agricultural water quality needs of the in-

terior Delta are essentially the same as those of the western Delta

subirrigated organic soils, 0.45 mmhos EC during the irrigation sea-

son. The without project water quality conditions for representative

locations in the interior Delta are shown in Figure II-5. Central

Landing on the Mokelumne River is representative of water quality

in the portions of the interior Delta influenced directly by the

Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers. Webb Pump on False River repre-

sents water quality of the interior Delta affected by the San Joa-

quin River. As shown in Figures II-4 and 11-5, water quality in

the interior Delta under without project conditions would be con-

siderably better than in the western Delta during the irrigation

season. Also, water quality in that portion of the interior Delta

influenced by the Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers is better than

that of areas influenced by the San Joaquin River.

The water quality standards developed for the interior Delta are

based on the same general principles as those for the western Delta.

These standards are shown in Table IV-1. In the absence of a cross-

Delta water transfer facility, salinity protection of the interior

Delta south of the San Joaquin River is afforded by the Jersey Point

standards. The Board intends to adopt standards for specific loca-

tions in the interior Delta south of the San Joaquin River if such

a facility is constructed.

Southern Delta. In Chapter V, the problems associated with develop-

mnent of implementable water quality standards for the southern Delta

are discussed. In recognition of the concerns expressed therein, a

VI-22

phased approach has been developed to resolve the long standing

water quality problems in the southern Delta. The current Vernalis

objective contained in the Basin 5B Plan is used as an interim

level of protection for the southern Delta. However, achievement

of this interim level of protection cannot be ensured until New

Melones Reservoir is operational.

The most practical solution for long-term protection of southern

Delta agriculture is construction of physical facilities to pro-

vide adequate circulation and substitute supplies. If necessary

physical facilities are constructed, the circulation flows needed

may be only a moderate increase above those committed from New

Melones Reservoir.i' Negotiations concerning such facilities are

currently underway between the project operators and the South

Delta Water Agency.

C. MUICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

The principal concerns in development of water quality standards

for municipal and industrial uses in the Delta are public health

protection and the needs of established salt sensitive industries.

The development of suitable -standards is complicated by the ef-

fect of established water supplies from both historical water

right diversions and substitute sources.

5/See Memorandum Agreement for the Protection and Enhancement of
the Water Quality of the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers as
Affected by the New Melones Project under Water Right Applica--
tion 19304 of the United States of America and by Municipal and
Industrial Wastes, between the Bureau and Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board dated July 2, 1969.

VI-23

Contra Costa Canal Intake

Historically, diversions for municipal and industrial uses have

been made not only from the Delta in the Antioch/Pittsburg area,

but also downstream from the Delta as far as Crockett in the Car-

quinez Strait area (Department of Public Works Bulletin 27, Plate

IV).

As stated in Chapter V, water quality standards for public drink-

ing supplies have been developed at levels necessary to provide

full protection regardless of a particular entity's vested rights.

In accordance with Section 6473 of Title 22 of the California Ad-

ministrative Code, the standard for drinking water has been es-

tablished at 250 mg/1 chloride.

The level of protection provided industrial uses and municipal sup-

plies (other than drinking supplies) extends to at least that

quality of water which would have existed in the absence of the
projects. These without project water quality conditions offshore

at Antioch are shown in Figure II-7, and their development is dis-

cussed in Chapter II. As indicated in Chapters II and V, the pro-
duction of salt-sensitive paper, drinking water taste enhancements

and irrigation of salt-sensitive plants require a chloride
concentration of 150 mg/1 or less (RT Vol. XVII, p. 137; CCCWD
Exhibit 17, p. 11; UC Exhibit 1, p. 1).

VI-24

The maintenance of without project conditions offshore at Antioch

would require additional Delta outflow of 22 to 44 acre-feet to pro-

tect each acre-foot of use (RT Vol. XXIV, p. 151). Even though pre-

vious water quality standards, provided limited protection offshore

at Antioch during portions of the year, these standards were in-

tended to be in effect only until a substitute supply was available

to areas in the vicinity of Antioch.

All principal water users in the vicinity of Antioch now have an

alternate source of supply from the Contra Costa Canal, which has

its intake at Rock Slough (RT Vol. II, pp. 56 and 57, and Vol. XVII,

p. 72). The Department has offered to pay any increased cost in-

curred by these principal water users in taking water from the

Contra Costa Canal as a result of reduced availability of suitable

offshore supplies due to SWP operations (RT Vol. II, p. 57). The

Department has already contracted with CCCWD (Mallard Slough Intake)

and the City of Antioch to make such compensation (RT Vol. XXIV,

p. 148). Based on recent negotiations, it appears that the remain-

ing issues with the other principal users can be resolved. In

view of this and the large Delta outflow required to protect off-

shore uses in the vicinity of Antioch, a specific offshore Antioch
standard has not been included in this plan.

However, in accordance with the Delta Protection Act, such sub-

stitute supply should provide Delta users at least that water

quality which would have been available to them in the absence

of the projects. The standard for municipal and industrial uses

VI- 25,

in the vicinity of Antioch is based on providing a substitute sup-

ply through the Contra Costa Canal equivalent to that available

offshore at Antioch. Thus, this standard provides a chloride

limit of 150 mg/1 at Rock Slough for periods equal to those during

which water of that quality would occur offshore at Antioch. Users

in the vicinity of Antioch have no vested water right at Rock Slough.

Therefore, the intent of this standard is to protect this substi-

tute supply. The station selected for monitoring compliance with

this standard is the CCCWD Pumping Plant No. 1. The quality at

this station will closely reflect the delivered water quality.

Substantial differences in water quality can occur between Rock

Slough and CCCWD Pumping Plant No. 1. These differences are due

to agricultural return flows (RT Vol. IV, pp. 175-177; Department

Exhibits lOa, lob, lOc) (See page VII-3 for discussion of action

concerning the agricultural return flow problem). There is no

requirement that the quality of this substitute supply be maintained

consecutively for the entire period shown in Table VI-1, but it

must be provided in intervals of at least two weeks duration. When-

ever users in the vicinity of Antioch elect to satisfy their vested

water rights through offshore supplies, compliance will be measured

at either Pumping Plant No. 1 or Antioch, provided that the dura-

tional requirement is satisfied.

The Department has proposed a Contra Costa Canal Intake (Rock Slough

at Old River) standard which would allow greater variation in the

period when the 150 mg/l chloride level is provided, especially -

during drier years (Department's Closing Brief, p. 31). Under this

VI-26

proposal, the l5O mg/I chloride level would be provided more than

65% of the time on an annual overall average assuming the historical

occurrence of year types. The annual overall average for the pro-

posed Rock Slough standard shown in Table VI-1 is 53%. Even though

the Department's proposal provides for a greater average annual

occurrence of high quality water at Rock Slough and takes better

account of low water supply conditions, this proposal was not

selected as a standard since it would not provide a substitute

supply equivalent to that available offshore at Antioc h during dry

and critical years. The Board has concluded that Rock Slough water

quality levels should not go below this minimum.

Citv of Vallejo Intake (Cache Sloulzh)

The City of Vallejo has an appropriative right to divert water at

Cache Slough for use outside the Delta. Riparian uses and earlier

priority appropriations elsewhere in the Sacramento Basin limit

the availability of water for exercise of this right in critically

dry years. The previous water quality standards for Cache Slough

provided a maximum total dissolved solids limit of 250 mg/l (100

mg/l chloride). However, data from 1972 to'1976 shows that this

standard has been met only half of the time and that it is often

exceeded during periods of high Delta inflow and outflow. This

suggests that local return drainage affects this area's water

quality more directly than project operations. Also, saltwater

intrusion during 1977 did not appear to influence significantly

water quality in the vicinity of Cache Slough. The 250 mg/l

chloride limit proposed in this plan will protect this supply for

VI-27

municipal uses in accordance with Section 64473 of Title 22,

California Administrative Code.

Although current operations of the projects do not seem to signi-
ficantly affect water quality at the City of Vallejo Intake, future

activities of the projects might adversely affect this quality.

Therefore, the City of Vallejo Intake standard will be included

in the water right permits of the Department and Bureau.

Clifton Court and Tracy Pumping Plant

Diversions from Delta channels for municipal and industrial uses

outside the Delta occur at Clifton Court and Tracy Pumping Plant.

Consistent with the chloride limits for drinking water discussed

previously, a maximum of 250 mg/1 chloride is included as the

water quality standard at these locations. However, water supply

contracts of the SWP and CVP presently require better water quality.

Thus, water quality at the project export facilities will be signi-

ficantly better than that provided by the water quality 'standards

established in this plan as a result of project operations.

VI-28

Table VI-1
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH1

BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED PARAMETER DESCRIPTION YEAR TYPE2,' VALUES
and LOCA TION

MUNICIPAL and INDUSTRIAL

Contra Costa Canal intake Chloride Maximum Mean Daily Cl- All 250
at Pumping Plant No. I in mg/Il
Contra Costa Canal Intake Chloride Maximum Mean Daily 150 mg/l Number of Days Each Calendar Year
at Pumping Plant No. I Chloride for at least the number Less than 150 mg: I Chloride
or of days shown during the
Antioch Water Works Intake Calendar Year. Must be provided Wet 240 (66%)
on San Joaquin River in -intervals of not less than Ab. Normal 190 (52%)
two weeks duration. (% of Year BI. Normal 175 (48%)
shown in parenthesis) Dry 165 (45%)
Critical 155 (42%)

City of Vallejo Intake Chloride Maximum Mean Daily CI- All 250
at Cache Slough in mg/I

Clifton Court Forebay Intake Chloride Maximum Mean Daily CI- All 250
at West Canal in mg/I

Delta Mendota Canal Chloride Maximum Mean Daily Cl- All 250
at Tracy Pumping Plant in mg/l

AGRICULTURE 0.45 EC EC from Date
April I to Shown 3/ to
WESTERN DELTA Date Shown Aug. 15
Emmaton on the Electrical Maximum 14-day Running
Sacramento River Conductivity Average of Mean Daily Wet Aug. 15--
EC In mmhos Ab. Normal July 1 0.63
Di. Normal June 20 1.14
Dry June 15 1.67
Critical -- 2.78
Jersey Point on the Electrical Maximum 14-day Running Wet Aug. 15 --
San Joaquin River Conductivity Average of Mean Daily Ab. Normal Aug. 15 --
EC in mahos 81. Normal June 20 0.74
Dry June 15 1.35
Critical -- 2.20

INTERIOR DELTA
Terminous on the Electrical Maximum 14-day Running Wet Aug. 15 --
Mokelumne River Conductivity Average of Mean Daily Ab. Normal Aug. 15 --
EC in mahos 81. Normal Aug. 15 --
Dry Aug. 15 --
Critical -- 0.54
San Andreas Landing on the Electrical Maximum 14-day Running Miat Aug. 15 --
San Joaquin River Conductivity Average of Mean Daily Ab. Normal Aug. 15 --
EC in mahos BI. Normal Aug. 15 --
Dry June 25 0.58
Critical -- 0.87

SOU THERN DELTA
Vernaals on the Total Maximum 30-day Running All (after New 500
San Joaquin River Dissolved Average of Mean Daily Melonet
Solids TDS In mg/I Reservoir be-
comes opera-
tional and until
the standards
below become
effective)
Apr. 1 to Sept. I to
Aug. 31 March 31
Tracy Road Bridge on Electrical Maximum 30-day Running All (to become 0.7 1.0
Old River Conductivity Average of Mean Daily effective only
Old River near Middle River EC in mhos upon the com-
plation of sult-
Brandt Bridge on able circulation
San Joaquin River and water supply
facilities)
Vernalis on San Joaquin Rivar

VI-29

Table VI-i
WATER QUALITY STANDARD~S
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH-'/

BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED PARAMETER DESCRIPTION YEAR TYPE?.] VALUES
arid LOC A TIONV

* ~~FISH AND WILDLIFE
* STRIPED BASS SPAWNING
Prisonors Point an the Electrical Average of mean daily EC for All April I to Mal, 5
San Joaquin River Conductivity the period not to exceed _ 6.550 mminos
Chip ps Island Delta Outflow Average of the daily Delta All April I to April 14
Index in cts outflow index tor the period, 6700 cts
not less then
Antioch Waterworks Intake Electrical Average of mean daily EC for All April 15 to May 5
on the San Jloaquin River Conductivity the period, not more than 1. 5 mmhos- _-
Antioch Wiaterworks Intake Electrical Average of mean daily EC for All - Total Annual imposed April I to May 5
Conductivity the period, not more than the whenever Deficiency MAF EC in mmnhos
(Relaxation values corresponding to the the projects
Provision - oeticiencies taken (linear impose .0 1,5
replaces the interpolation to be used t o deficiencies 051
above Antioch determine values between supineItem 1.0 2.5
and Chipps those shown) s p l e ,1.5 3.4
Island Stan- 2.0 4.4
dard whenever 3.0 10,3
the projects 4.0 or more 25.2
im pose
deficiencies in
firm supplies 51

* STRIPED BASS SURVIVAL
Chipps Island Delta Outflow Average of the daily Delta May 5-31 June July
Index in cis outflow index for each period Wet 14,000 14,000 10,000
shown not less then Ab. Normal 14,000 10,700 7.700
MIJ. Normal 11,400 9,500 6,500
Subnormal
Snowintit. 6,500 5,400 3,600
Dry6'/ 4,300 3,600 3,200
Dry 71or
Critical ~~3,300 3,100 2,900

� SALMON MIGRATIONS

Rio Vista on the Computed net Minimum 30-day running Feb. 1- Mar.16-
Sacramento River stream flow average of mean daily Jan. Mar. 15 June 30
lo CIS not flow Wet 2.35'00 3,000 5,000
Ab. Normal 2,500 2,000 3,000
81. Normal 2,500 2,000 3.000

ertia I 1,500 1,000 2,000
Sept. I-
July A ug. Dec. 31
Not 1,00 -516-
Ab, Normal 2,000 1,000 2,500
at. Normal 2,000 1,000 2,500
Dry or
Critical 1,000 1,000 1,500
* SUISUN MARSH Jan.-May Oc.Dy
Chipps Island at Electrical Maximum 28-day running Not 12.5 mrmhos 12.5 mmhos
O&A Ferry Landing Conductivity average of mean daily EC Ab. Normal 12.5 mmthos 12.5 munhos
al. Nlormal 12.5 rmotos 12.5 mmhos
Dry or
Critical 12.5 maohos 15.6 mmhos
(The 15.6 mmhos EC Standard applies
only when project water users are taking
deficiencies in scheduled water supplies OY
otherwlise the 12.5 mmrhos: EC remains
in effect.)

Chip ps Island Delta Outflow Average of the daily Wet February-May
Index in cli s Delta outflow index for 1LDQL0LL.cis
each month. not lost then Subnormal February-April
values shown Snowmeft 10,000 cis

Minimum. daily Delta Ab. Norm. and January-April
outflow Index WOO 60 1. Norm. 1,0 i
consecutive days in
the period

VI-31

Table VI-I
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA. AND SUISUN MARSH!/

BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED PARAMETER DESCRIPTION YEAR 'TYPE-!' VALUES
and LOCATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE

S SUISUJN MARSH Jan.-May
Chipps Island (Continued) Delta Outflow Average of the daily Delta All (it greater 6,600 cfs
Index in cfs outflow index for each month, flow not required
not less than values shown by above stan-
dard )-whenever
storage is at or
above the mini-
mum level in the
flood control
reservation en-
velo pe at two out
of three of the
following: Shasta
Reservoir, Oroville
Reservoir, and CVP
storage on the
American River
EC in
Month mmhos
Collinsville an Sacramento Electrical The monthly overage of both Ali - To become Oct. 19.0
River (C-2) Conductivity daily high tide values not effective Nov. 15.5
to exceed the values shown Oct. 1. 1984 Dec. 15.5
Miens Landing on Montezuma (or demonstrate that equiva- Jan. 12.5
Slough (S--4) lent or better protection will Feb. 8.0
Montezuma Slough at Cutoff be provided at the location) Nor. 5.0
Montezuma Slough at Cutoff ~~~~~~~~~~~~A pr. 11.0
Slough (3-48) may 11.0
Montezuma Slough near mouth
Suisun Slough Rest Valenti
Slough (S-42)
Suisun Slough near mouth (S-31)

Goodyear Slough south,
of Pierce Harbor (S-35)
Cordella Slough above
S. P. R.R. (S-32)

* OPERA TIONEAL CONSTRAINTS
May June July,
Minimize diversion of Diversions The mean monthly diversions All 3,000 3,000 4,600
young striped bass from in CfIS from the Delta by the State
the Delta Water Project (Department)
not to exceed the values
shown..
The mean monthly diversions May June
from the Delta by the Central All 3,000 3,000
Valley Prolect (Bureau), not
to exceed the values shown
minimize diversion of Closure of Delta cross channel All - whenever April 16-Mav 31
Young striped boss into gates toor up to 20 days but no the daily Delta
Central Delta more than two out of four outflow index
consecutive days at the dis- is greater than
crfetin of the Department of 12,000 CfIS
Fish and Game upon 12 hours
notice
Minimize cross Delta move- Closure of Delta Cross Channel All Jan._ ?-ApruiIS
Ment of Salmon gates (whenever the daily
Delta outflow index is greater
than 12,000 CfIS)

VI-33

Table VI-l
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH 1/

FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITIES

Maintain appropriate records of the numbers, sizes, kinds of fish salvaged and of water export rates and fish
facility operations.
STATE FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITY
The facility is to be operated to meet the following standards to the extent that they are compatible with water
export rates:
(a) King Salmon - from November through May 14, standards shall be as follows:
(1) Approach Velocity - 3.0 to 3.5 feet per second
(2) Bypass Ratio - maintain 1.2:1.0 to 1.6:1.0 ratios in both primary and secondary channels
(3) Primary Bay - not critical but use Bay B as first choice
(4) Screened Water System - the velocity of water exiting from the screened water system is not to exceed
the secondary channel approach velocity. The system may be turned off at the discretion of the operators.
lb) Striped Bass and White Catfish - from May 15 through October, standards shall be as follows:
(1) Approach Velocity - in both the primary and secondary channels, maintain a velocity as close to 1.0
feet per second as is possible
(2) Bypass Ratio
(i) When only Bay A (with.center wall) is in operation maintain a 1.2:1.0 ratio
(ii) When both primary bays are in operation and the approach velocity is less than 2.5 feet per second,
the bypass ratio should be 1.5:1.0
(iii) When only Bay B is operating the bypass ratio should be 1.2:1.0
(iv) Secondary channel bypass ratio should be 1.2:1.0 for all approach velocities.
(3) Primary Channel - use Bay A (with center wall) in preference to Bay B
(4) Screened Water Ratio - if the use of screened water is necessary, the velocity of water exiting the
screened water system is not to exceed the secondary channel approach velocity
(5) Clifton Court Forebay Water Level - maintain at the highest practical level.

TRACY FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITY
The secondary system is to be operated to meet the following standards, to the extent that they are compatible
with water export rates:
(a) The secondary velocity should be maintained at 3.0 to 3.5 feet per second whenever possible from February
through May while salmon are present
(b) To the extent possible, the secondary velocity should not exceed 2.5 feet per second and preferably 1.5 feet
per second between June 1 and August 31, to increase the efficiency for striped bass, catfish, shad, and other
fish. Secondary velocities should be reduced even at the expense of bypass ratios in the primary, but the ratio
should not be reduced below 1:1.0
(c) The screened water discharge should be kept at the lowest possible level consistent with its purpose of
minimizing debris in the holding tanks
(d) The bypass ratio in the secondary should be operated to prevent excessive velocities in the holding tanks, but
in no case should the bypass velocity be less than the secondary approach velocity.

FOOTNOTES
1/ Except for flow, all values are for surface zone measurements. Except for flow, all mean daily values are based
on at least hourly measurements. All dates are inclusive.
2/ The year-type shall be determined as described in FIGURE II -I. The type determined for any year shall remain
in effect until the February forecast for Bulletin 120 or until an earlier estimate becomes available.
./ When no date is shown in the adjacent column, EC limit in this column begins on April 1.
_4 If contracts to ensure such facilities and water supplies are not executed by January 1, 1980, the Board will tare
appropriate enforcement actions to prevent encroachment on riparian rights in the southern Delta.
5' For the purpose of this provision firm supplies of the Bureau shall be any water the Bureau is legally obligated
to deliver under any CVP contract of 10 years or more duration, excluding the Friant Division of the CVP, subjec
only to dry and critical year deficiencies. Firm supplies of the Department shall be any water the Department
would have delivered under Table A entitlements of water supply contracts and under prior right settlements had
deficiencies not been imposed in that dry or critical year.
6/ Dry year following a wet, above normal or below normal year.
1../ Dry year following a dry or critical year.
8/ Scheduled water supplies shall be firm supplies for USBR and DWR plus additional wafer ordered from CWR by a
contractor the previous September, and which does not exceed the ultimate annual entitlement for said contractor.
NOTE: EC values are mmhos/cm at 250C.
VI-35

CHAPTER VII

PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION

Although the implementation program contained herein has been

developed primarily Vor the next 10 y'onrs, the Board r'ecogn_.',:_,;

that the state and federal agencies responsible for water develop-

ment are considering additional project facilities and operating

agreements to satisfy the water demands of the state beyond the

effective period of this plan.

The program contains not only the control actions necessary for

implementation of the plan, but also offers policy assistance to

the project operators for use in their long-range planning acti-

vities.-

In addition, a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of

the plan in protecting beneficial uses is included.

A. CONTROL ACTIONS

State Water Resources Control Board

At the time it adopts the final water quality control plan, the

Board will adopt a corresponding water right decision amending

l_/ The Board has determined that there would be no state mandate
for a new program or increased level of service on any unit
of local government as a result of the Board's adoption of
this plan because it is not an executive regulation pursuant
to Section 2209 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

VII-1

terms and conditions for permits issued for SWP and CVF. Such

.terms and conditions will supplement the relevant provisions of

this plan. However, a series of other actions by the Board will

be required in order to implement the plan more fully and resolve

all the concerns which cannot now be fully addressed for various
reasons.

Adoption of Water Right Decision. The water right decision to

:ccopanyfinal plan adoption will require the maintenance of the

salinity and other standards. of this plan through amendments in

the form of terms and conditions in SW? and CV? water right permits

identified in Chapter I. These terms and conditions are in accord-

ance with the jurisdiction reserved by the Board in the subject

permits to formulate terms and conditions relative to salinity con-

trolq, protection of fish and wildlife, and coordination of terms

and conditions of the respective permits for the SWP and CVP. In

view of the near-term focus of this decision, the Board will

continue the reserved jurisdiction contained in these permits.

Water Qualitv Action. Existing and potential salinity problems

associated with drainage from irrigated agriculture in the San

Joaquin Valley are under study in the Initeragency Drainage Pro-

-ram, in which the Board is participating with the Department and

VII-2

Bureau. Achievement of the program's goals will require success-

*ful solution to the problem of disposal of increasing volumes of

-high-salinity drainage.

Under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Amendmrents of 1972 (PL 92-500), the Board is evaluating the ef-

fects of irrigation return flow on water quality, and is working

to develop best management practices where appropriate to reduce

detrimental effects. Two specific areas previously mentioned in

this plan that are affected by such drainage are the Cache Slough

and Rock Slough areas. Both are sources of municipal and indus-

trial supplies. The Board in conjunction with the California

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, will

pursue the determination of appropriate management-practices and

take prompt action designed to reduce the detrimental effects on

water quality of these return flows.

Onaoinz Review. To the extent of its authority, the Board will

monitor and review contract negotiations among the Bureau, Depart-

ment and Delta water interests. The Board will annually review and

modify, if necessary, the monitoring program set forth in this

chapter to ensure that the program is achieving its intended pur-

pose. The Board will ensure the coordination of the various ef-

forts of state, federal and local agencies to minimize duplication.

VII -3

Department of Water Resources and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

To the full extent of their operational capabilities, the Depart-

ment and Bureau are responsible for meeting the water quality

standards of this plan.-- As stated above, these water quality

standards. will be incorporated in their respective water right

permits.

Suisun Marsh Facilities. As stated in Chapter VI, additional

facilities are needed in Suisun Marsh to mitigate current impacts

attributable directly to the operation of the CVP and SWP. These

mitigation facilities have the capability to fully protect the

Marsh as set forth in Fish and Game Exhibit 11, page 13, in all

but extremely critical years. In view of this and the extremely

large Delta outflows that would be required to fully protect the

Marsh solely with outflow (as would be the case until such facili-

ties are constructed), interim standards are adopted which

guarantee only partial protection of the Marsh in years of low

runoff and prior to construction and operation of the physical

facilities.

o/ As provided by Section 13247 of the Water Code, the Depart-
ment is required to comply with water quality control plans
adopted by the Board. Also, it is the State's position
that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500 as
amended in 1977 by PL 95-217) requires the Bureau to comply
with such water quality control plans. In addition, the
Department and Bureau must comply with terms and conditions
in their water right permits.

VII-4

Protection of the Marsh is a mitigation responsibility of both the

SWP and CVP. For this reason, the Department and Bureau shall:

1. Develop a plan for Suisun Marsh by July 1, 1979, in

cooperation with other agencies which will ensure that the

standards in Table VI-1 for full protection of the Marsh are

met. Such plan must be satisfactory to the Board and shall

include appropriate EIR/EIS documentation, a monitoring net-

work, physical facilities, operating and management procedures,

and assurances to restore and maintain Suisun Marsh primarily as

a brackish water marsh capable of producing high-quality feed

and habitat conditions for waterfowl and other marsh-related

wildlife using best practical management practices.

2. Implement fully such Suisun Marsh plan by October 1, 1984.

Under this plan water quality standards for full protection of

Suisun Marsh shall be met no later than October 1, 1984.

3. Implement initial components of the Suisun Marsh plan,

on which there is general agreement by affected parties, to achieve

the following goals by January 1, 1980:

o Conveyance and delivery of water from Montezuma

Slough to wetland areas on Grizzly, Simmons,

WWheeler, Dutton, Van Sickle, and Hammond Islands

which are presently flooded with water from

Honker, Suisun and Grizzly Bays.

o Conveyance and delivery of water from Goodyear

Slough to certain adjacent wetland areas and

provision of outflow from Goodyear Slough into

either Grizzly or Suisun Bays.

VII-5

4; Report to the Board on January 15 of each year on

progress toward implementation of mitigation facilities.

Southern Delta. The current negotiations between the project

operators and the South Delta Water Agency concerning the con-

struction of physical facilities to provide adequate circulation

in the southern Delta are discussed in Chapter VI. These nego-

tiations appear to be directed toward the most practical solution

for long-term protection of southern Delta agriculture and should

be concluded as soon as practicable, at least by January 1980.

In view of its importance, the Department and Bureau should report

to the Board on the status and progress of negotiations every six

months beginning January 1, 1979. If the agreement is not executed

by January 1, 1980, the Board will examine in detail southern Delta

water rights, determine the causes and sources of any encroach-

mernt, and take appropriate action to the extent of the Board's

authority.

Improvements in Delta Outflow Determination. Recent experience

has shown that as a result of the complexity.of the Delta hydrologic

system continuing and variable operating problems arise in sustain-

ing Delta water quality standards. Part of the difficulty relates

to the mix of estimates and measurements. In order to assure com-

pliance with standards, the Department and Bureau must improve the

accuracy of Delta outflow determinations, either through improved

measurement techniques or a refinement of the inputs that are used

to compute the Delta Outflow Index. Also, to ensure compliance

with the Rio Vista flow requirement a method of measuring or

VII-6

*estimating that flow must be developed. The Bureau and Depa~rtment

should report to the Board by January 1, 1979 on the methods to be

used in determining flows past Rio Vista and improving accuracy

of Delta outflow estimates or on studies to be commenced by that

date to determine such procedures. Concurrently, the Department

and Bureau shall report annually on methods for making precise

projections of salinity distribution in the Delta under varying

inflow, outflow and export conditions. These salinity distribution

projections are necessary predictive tools for analysis of alternate

operational schemes, including possible near-term provision of

supplies to some agricultural areas in the Delta for water conserva7-

tion purposes. Reports on the progress of these activities should

be made available to the Board annually.

Coordinated Project Operations. An early long-term operations agree-

ment between the Department and the Bureau is essential for proper

management of Delta water resources for water quality control and

project operation. The parties should work diligently to finalize

such an agreement as soon as possible.

Hydrologic Studies. The hydrologic experience of the dry cycle

beginning in 1976 will be evaluated by the Depcrtment and Bureau

to determine if yield estimates of the SW? and CVP have been'

affected. It may not be appropriate to continue to estimate

delivery capabilities of the projects on the basis of the 1928-1934

dry cycle.

B. MONITORING PROGRAM

A carefully designed monitoring program is necessary to determine

compliance with a water quality control plan. The following program

VII-7

'provides for collection of the data nece-ssary to measure compliance

with the water quality standards. Alsothis program outlines the

special studies or monitoring surveys that are needed to help address

the major concerns that cannot confidently be resolved due to lack

of data. The monitoring program set forth below is needed primarily

to ensure that current and proposed project operations of the CVP

and SWP maintain the water quality standards in this plan. The

program is based upon the Department's recommendations, but the

program will have to be implemented cooperatively by both the De-

partment and Bureau (Department Exhibit I1-22). The Department

and Bureau will be required to do so through conditions in their

respective water right permits currently before the Board in this

proceeding.

The Board will assist in seeing that these Program .activities are

coordinated with the activities of other agencies to minimize

duplication and to enhance the usefulness of the data collected

and study results. The data and study results should be made

available to the Board and interested parties upon request.

Design of a monitoring program that maintains its effectiveness

through time is difficult. A monitoring program must be suffi-

ciently flexible to respond to advances in knowledge of the system

being studied. Consequently the monitoring program places special

emphasis on the general goals to be accomplished. The compliance

monitoring and special studies are designed to accomplish these

VII -8

goals. If it becomes apparent that the general goals are not

being achieved through the monitoring program or i~f some of the

data proves to be of minor value, the Department arnd the Bureau

should propose appropriate modifications for the concurrence of

the Board. Progress reports summarizing the previous year's

findings and detailing future study plans should be made to the

Board each year.

The goals and the monitoring program to accomplish them can be

divided into two general areas: compliance monitoring and special

studies.

Compliance Monitoring Goals

o Ensure compliance with exis ting water quality stand-

ards contained in this plan,

o Identify meaningful changes in any significant water

quality parameters potentially related to project

operations, and

o Reveal trends in ecological changes potentially

related to project operations.

Monitoring Activities. Activities to accomplish these goals:

VII -9

1. Operate and maintain continuous electrical conductivity

recorders at the stations indicated in Table VII-1 and Figure VII-1

to report mean daily water quality conditions representative of

each location.

2. Conduct the discrete sampling program shown in Figure

VII-1 and Table VII-1 bound at the end of this chapter. The

sampling frequency may vary as appropriate. When the monthly

Delta Outflow Index is projected to average greater than 10,000 cfs,

the program operators may reduce the sampling frequency of the

base parameters to once each month. When the outflow is below

10,000 cfs the sampling frequency of base parameters should be

increased to at least twice a month, if necessary, to achieve the

monitoring goals.

3. Conduct water quality profiles in the main navigation

channels between Carquinez Strait on the west and Stockton and

Rio Vista on the east, using a boat-mounted continuous recorder

for the following parameters: Water temperature, electrical

conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and in vivo

chlorophyll.

4. Establish continuous recorders at representative stations

in the Delta and Suisun Bay to collect information on air and

water temperature, wind velocity and direction, pH, dissolved

VII-10

oxygen, turbidity, and where feasible, in vivo chlorophyll.

These data should be evaluated and correlated with conditions

as they exist in the adjacent main channels.

5. Conduct ongoing and future monitoring surveys recommended

by Fish and Game and concurred in by the Board concerning food

chain relationships and fisheries impacts as they are affected

by CVP and SWP operations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh.

Special Studies Goal

Develop a better understanding of the hydrodynamics, water quality,

productivity and significant ecological interactions of the Delta

and Suisun Marsh so that more accurate predictions of enviromental

impacts related to project operations can be made.

Activities. To accomplish this goal:

1. Conduct special studies to meet specific needs and to

take advantage of particular circumstances where the data ob-

tained are of significant value. Such studies would include

but should not be limited to fish population and zooplankton

measurements, waterfowl food plant production measurements,

intensive phytoplankton studies, tissue analysis of selected

biota, photosynthesis rates, sediment profile and composition,

and watervelocity.

VII-11

2. Develop aind improve ,Jater quality and biological nredic-

tive tools for the following areas of the estuary:

a. Western Delta and Suisun Bay area, including
Suisun Marsh
b. San Francisco Bay to Golden Gate Bridge
c. Interior Delt;-

;,Phasis should be pl ced ci. mrnroving the understanding of low/

Ial'nity/phytoplankton relati )u.lzhips in the western Delta, and onl

f- lroving hydraulic characteristics in e:i.ting models to represent

more closely tr-ue channel characteristics.

3. Participate in research studies described in Section C

of this chapter.

Renorting

Provide to the Board and other interested- arencies upon request results

of the above monitoring as soon as practicable following the month

during which the monitoring was accomplished. Annual reports summari-

zing the previous calendar year's findings and detailing future study

plans shall be submitted to the Board by January 15 of each year.

Detailed reports containing the previous year's monitoring results

shall be submitted by August 1 of each year.

C. CHANGING CONDITIONS

The Delta's ecology and man's activities relating to it undergo change.

This section identified areas of probable changes and seeks to provide

guidance for the longer term, beyond the effective period of this plan.

The changing conditions have been subdivided into two basic categories-:

those having a potential significant impact on future project facili-

ties and those which could have an impact on current project operations.

VII-12

Impact on Future Facilities

Water developme t ayrncies inr the .tata ar- currently planning

sibstantia! new ,ater faciliti=a. As part of this planning !r>--

ces-., the-e agrencies must make {ound determinations of the f'LvTi;

yield expected frorm such proposed facilitics. These determinatioit

are based on the operations of potential future SWP and CVP facili-

ties over a period oft historical hydrology. Theoretical oeratioi

of these future facilities is usually superimposed over the 19>2-.71

hydrologic period with emphasis on the seven year dry cycle (1928-

34). The yield of future facilities in the Sacramento River Basin

will depend largely on the amount of unregulated flow available for

appropriation from this source.

The factors listed under this section may greatly affect the amount

of unregulated flow available for future appropriation. In this

section the Board provides general guidance on these factors in

order to assist the Department and the Bureau in planning their

activities for conditions substantially beyond the effective period

of the plan.

San Francisco Bay. Concerns were expressed by some hearing parti-

cipants regarding the possible adverse impacts on San Francisco Bay

and the estuary in general which might occur unless sufficient un-

regulated Delta outflows are reserved for its protection (RT Vol.

XXIII, p. 10; Vol. XXXIV, pp. 126-27, 140). The Board has a

VII-13

statutory responsibility to protect all beneficial uses of water,

including uses of the Bay. In determining the amount of water

available for appropriation, the Board must take into account the

amount of unregulated water needed to remain in the source for the

Drotection of all beneficial uses (Water Code Section 1243.5).

Future project facilities and increasing export rates under existing

water right permits could stubstantially reduce the quantity and fri-

quency of flushing and other unregulated flows available to San

Francisco Bay. In making allocations of the remaining unregulated

flows, consideration must be riven to the outflow needs in San

Francisco Bay.

Unregulated outflows, particularly short bursts of moderate flows,

have been found to have a substantial effect on hydraulic and salinity

conditions in the Bay (RT Vol. XXXIV, pp. 116-127). This was de-

termined through examination of outflow and salinity conditions from

1939 to the present (period for which adequate outflow information

is available). In order to bring about significant salinity changes

in the central and south-central portions of the Bay, an increase in

outflow of about 10,000 cfs (or greater) occurring within five to

ten days is necessary. However, the Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG) and others who presented testimony on this subject indicated

that current knowledge allows only qualitative identification of the

likely beneficial effects of such flows.

The ecological benefits. of unregulated outflows and the salinity

*r:Idients established by them havwl been u':,e-ted to include the

VII-14

following: (1) alteration of the distribution and migrations o�

free-swimming organisms, (2) creation of counter-currents moving

upstream along the bottom of the Bay which are hypothesized to be

necessary for the brackish water migration of certain crabs and

shrimps, and (3) transportation of young anadromous fish and

maintenance of adequate food supplies (RT Vol. XXXIV, pp. 122-

123). Until the necessary information quantifying the beneficial

effects of such unregulated outflows is developed, the adoption

of specific outflow standards by the Board for San Francisco Bay

would be premature.

In view of the fact that no additional project facilities are

expected to be completed for at least ten years, current levels

of unregulated Delta outflow should not be appreciably reduced

during the effective period of this plan. Full consideration will

be given to the unregulated outflow needs of San Francisco Bay in

the Board's periodic review of the water quality standards in this

plan. It is imperative that the necessary studies to determine

the effects of these flows be initiated as soon as possible. In

view of the pressing need for such studies, and in accordance with

Water Code Sections 13165 and 13163(b), the Department shall ini-

ate by October l, 1979, the necessary studies to provide more come-

plete and reliable information regarding the outflow needs of

San Francisco Bay. The Board will work closely with the Depart-

ment and other agencies to develop a comprehensive program identi-

fying the scope of such studies by June 1, 1979. Participation

of interested agencies and consultants in the design, implementation

and interpretation of these studies is essential. To ensure that

VII-15

ain effective and meaningful proi;ram is carried out, the Board

will coordinate the activities of agencies related to Bay/Delta

studies.

The Board will ensure that the costs of such studies bear a

rea-onable relationship to the need for them.

In the meantime, the following policy guidance is offered to

:,:;:iLt water development agentlie,; iLn valuating; possible future

water development facilities:

1. Operation studies for planning purposes should allow for

surges in Delta outflow of at least 10,000 cfs within a five to

ten day interval on an average of four times per year for the

historical hydrologic period from 1939 to 1976. This means that

either additions to upstream storage facilities or increased

exports of unregulated Delta inflows should not interfere with

these short-term bursts of increased Delta outflow. The need for

such outflow is based on the average historical occurrence of

incremental increases in Delta outflow of this magnitude and

duration from 1939 to 1976. The frequency of such incremental

increases has ranged from two per year to nine per year, except in

water year 1976 (one per year) and water year 1977 (no occurrences)

(RT Vol. XXXIV, pp. 123-126).

2. Incremental increases in Delta outflow of at least 10,000

cfs should occur within a five to ten day interval at least once

each year over the yield-determining seven year dry cycle (1928-

1934).
VII-16

Upper-Estuary Productivity. Fish arid Game has developed marny ry -

lationships relating late spring and summer Delta outflows to

Neomysis and young sttriped bass abundances. These relationships

are based on conditions experienced during years when winter flows

were sufficiently high so that they probably were not limiting es-

tuary productivity (RT Vol. XI, p. 81). Fish and Game has ex-

pressed concern regarding the low estuary production in 197(6 when

controlled low flow conditions existed during the winter (RT Vol.

XI, pp. 78-89 and Vol. XXIII, pp. 127-128).

There is a need for caution in establishing long-term fishery stand-

ards based on these historical flow-abundance relationships, parti-

cularly with the future prospects of extended periods of low-flow

conditions in the Delta (RT Vol. XI, p. 129). While 1976 produc-

tion in the estuary was low, relationships between spring and

summer Delta outflow and Neomysis and young striped bass abundances

generally predicted the actual indexes measured that year.]/

In view of this, the following policy guidance for long-term water

development planning has been established until this concern is

more fully understood:

._/ In a prepared statement given at a special meeting of the Board
on October 27, 1977 concerning the substantial impacts on the
Delta ecosystem during 1977, Mr. Harold K. Chadwick, represent-
ing Fish and Game, stated that flows in 1977 prior to June were
likely insufficient to (1) support adequate production at lower
levels of the food chain, (2) stimulate upstream migration of
adult striped bass, (3) provide suitable salinities for striped
bass spawning in the San Joaquin River, and (4) distribute young
bass over the entire nursery area.

In closing he stated: "We recognize that the observations during
1977 raise various questions about the adequacy of some of the
proposed standards in the April draft (Fish and Game Exhibit 11).
We believe that any adjustments (of these recommendations) should
await a thorough evaluation of all evidence."

VII-17

Thit, 1/-lay meiarn c,,cti cal conducliv:i y val c,,; at Pit tLlrrr

during January, Febraery and March should not exceed those

experienced for the same period in 1976, throughout the

50-year hydrologic planning period (1922-1971).

Studies to determine the cause of the dramatic 1977 reductions in

estuary production are currently underway by Fish and Game and

th~i Bureau. Additional s.tudsioa to deternine the need for winter

flows for long-term protection of striped bass and other aquatic

organisms in the Delta shall be conducted by the Department.

Maintenance of Fishery Resources at Historical Levels.

Based on existing conditions the Board hes determined that fishery

resources in the Bay-Delta estuary should be maintained at levels

that at least approach those levels that would have existed had

the CVP and SWP not been built. Higher levels of fishery resources

are desirable, but cannot be attained in the public interest with

current project facilities. However, any future Delta transfer

facility or upstream project facilities should:

(1) ensure the maintenance of fishery resources in the

estuary on the average at historical levels (1922-

1967). (Conditions upstream of the estuary may limit

the abundance of some species. This policy deals

only with those factors in the Bay-Delta estuary that

limit species abundance), and

(2) include a fish screoen system capable of salvaging

95 percent of the fish more than 1-1/4 inches long.

VII-l8

Net Downstream Flows in Delta Channels. Project caused net flovr

reversals in Delta channels are detrimental to the fishery that

live in or pass through the Delta. Any future Delta water trans-

fer facilities should:

(1) restore net downstream flows at all times in all

Delta channels, and

(2) provide water in the San Joaquin River upstream of

the Mokelumne River, in Old River and in Middle

River to be primarily of San JoLquiln River origin

from September 1 through November 30.

Impact on Current Project Operations

There are also other factors which could have an impact (both favor-

able and adverse) on current project operations. These factors

can be addressed now only in a general way because of a lack of

information and the uncertainty of future actions by other agen-

cies. They are presented below:

Mechanism by which Salinity Changes in Surrounding Waterways Affect

Plant Growth in the Subirrigated Areas in the Delta. As stated in

Chapter VI, the U. C. Cooperative Extension expressed the possibility

that crops in Delta subirrigated soils may be drawing water from

groundwater, rather than from surface water applied in spud ditches

(RT Vol. XX, p. 181). A determination of the predominant source of

water for these crops is important in future review of agricultural

water quality standards The U. C. Cooperative Extension researched

VII-19

this area during the 1977 irrigation season. However, an expanded

research program will be required to yield a full understanding.

The Board and other state and local agencies will be participating

with the U. C. Cooperative Extension.

Additional Data Needs to be Developed for the Subirrigated Organic

Soils in the Delta. A better understanding of the water quality

needs of agriculture in the organic soils is necessary. The Board

will take an active role in coordinating this research with other

interested agencies including the U. C. Cooperative Extension and

the U. S. Salinity Laboratory, and other hearing participants.

Some of the areas where additional research is necessary include

the correlation of electrical conductivity of the applied irriga-

tion water (ECw) to electrical conductivity of the soil saturation

extract (ECe )9 the relationship between the yield of corn and EC w

and EC e and the determination of the threshold tolerance of corn.

The quality of water which is necessary outside of the irrigation

season (April 1 to August 15) also needs to be investigated. This

investigation could include an evaluation of leaching practices and

related necessary water quality and also a determination of water

quality needed for crops which are irrigated during the period

outside of the normal irrigation season.

VII-20

Overland Supplies to Western Delta. Overland supplies to the

western Delta are currently being considered by the project onerc-

tors and Delta interests as a possible method to conserve water

and fully protect western Delta agriculture. If successful, -le

Emmaton and Jersey Point water quality standards for agricul! r

could be reduced.

It is important to keep in mind that the Emmaton and Jersey P~:il:

standards afford benefits to the entire western Delta, not ju;,t

protection for agrici.lture on Sherman and Jersey Islands.

Also, as discussed above, there are significant questions related

to the mechanism by which water makes its way to the root zone ir,

subirrigated soils. If groundwater quality plays an important role,

the water quality of the surrounding channels may continue to be f

great importance. This would suggest some caution in finalizin:

plans for converting permanently to overland delivery systems.

Finally, changes in irrigation practices could be incorporated in

plans to change the points of diversion to sources further upstream.

Such modifications could include the installation of sprinkler ir-

rigation systems. Chapter VI discusses this alternative briefly.

Changes in irrigation practices should be handled in the manner

)r-,.;cr)ibed by thlu )DeLta P'rotection Act.. The conversion oI' li'cr

areas of the western Delta to sprinkler irrigation could have sig-

nificant impacts on cropping patterns, energy costs, Delta conrisump-

tive use of water and farm operating costs.

VII-21

Yr fE. JU-1

WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONSF
WATER QUALITY PROFILE ROUTES
AND SAMPLING FREQUENCIES

~~S648

o~~~~~ 026

PABLO 0 '
UBAY

SAMPLING FREQUENCY 7. t

Hill I I I I I I I I II~~~~~~~NILL

W~~~~~~(ATER QUALIT PROFIOOYOLP.OWTER REOUTCES
V~~~~ILES2

TiBLE -l 7i -!
1D-LT.. A7CTUaL3r A; . a l l _- TM - -
QUALITY MONITORING PRCPIAM_ _ _

Station Location 2- � m
C2 Sacramento River @ Collinsville C
C3 Sacramento River @ Greens Landing C SM/M SM/M M SA SA
C4 San Joaauin River @ San Andreas Landing C
C5 Contra Costa Canal @ PP #1 C
C6 San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge G
C7 San Joaauin River @ Mossdale SM/M 5M/M M SA 5A
C Old River near Middle River C
C9 West Canal @ mouth/intake to Clifton t. C SM/M 3M/M M
C10 San Joaquin River @ Vernalis/
Flow3M/M M
C13 Mokelumne River @ Terminous C
C19 Cache Slough @ City of Vallejo Intake C

D4 Sacramento River above Point Sacramento 3M/M 3M/M M SA SA
D6 Suisun Bav at Bulls Head Point nr.Martinez 3M/M M SA SA
D7 Grizzly Bay @ Dolphin nr. Suisun Slough 3M/M 3M/M M SA
D8 Suisun Bay off Middle Point nr. Nichols 3M/M 3M/M M
D9 Honker Bay near Wheeler Point 3M/M 3M/M M SA SA
DlO Sacramento River @ ChiPps Island C 3M/M M
Dll Sherman Lake near Antioch "3M/M M SA SA
D12,.San Joaquin River @ Antioch Ship Channel 3M/M ,:M/M M SA
D12* San Joaauin River @ Antioch Water Works' C
D14A Biz Break near Oakley SM/M M SA SA
D15-'San Joaauin River @ Jersey Point C SM/M SM/M M
D16 San Joaauin River @ Twitchell Is. SM/M M
D19 Franks Tract near Russo's Landinz SM/M M SA SA
D22 Sacramento River @ Emmaton C SM/M M
D24 Sacramento River below Rio Vista Bridge Flow SM/M SM/M M

D26 San Joaauin River @ Potato Point SM/M SM/M M
D28A Old River near Rancho Del Rio C SM/M M SA SA
D29 San Joaquin River @ Prisoners Point W
D42 San Pablo Bay near Rodeo SM/M SM/M M
DMC1 Delta Mendota Canal C

(Continued on next page)

VII-25

TABLE VII-i
DELTA ESTUARY WATER o , l '
QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM H 4 r
OE � aZ l

Station Location 3 5 Po W
MD6 Sycamore Slough near Mouth SM/M M SA
MD7 South Fork Mokelumne River belP�~Oamcre SM/M 3M/M M SA
MD10 Disappointment Slough @ Bishop Cut SM/M SM/M M
P8 San Joaquin River at Buckley Cove SM/M 3M/M M SA SA
PlO Middle River-@ Borden Highway G.H. SM/M M

P12 Old River @ Tracy Road Bridge. SM/M M
G.H. SM/M M
S31 Suisun Slough near mouth C
S32 Cordelia Slough above S.P.R.R. C
S35 Goodyear Slough so. of Pierce Harbor C
S42 Suisun Slough near Volanti Slough C SM/M SM/M M
S48 Montezuma Slough at Cutoff Slough C
S64 Miens Landing on Montezuma Slough C
D7* Montezume Slough near mouth P

* Location close to the station shown
C - Continuous
W - Weekly (April 1 - May 5)
SM - Semi-monthly (twice a month)
M - Monthly
SA - Semi-annually (spring and fall)
G.H. - Gage Height
P - Periodic, to obtain adequate correlation with other stations

/ Air and water temperature, electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, water depth to 1% light.intensity, secchi disc depth,
volatile and non-volatile suspended solids, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia,
total organic nitrogen, extracted chlorophyll a, silica.
/ Enumeration and identification to the species level where possible.
/ Orthophosphate and total phosphorus.
/ Heavy metals - arsenic, cadmium, chromium (all valences), copper, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, zinc.
Pesticides - chlorinated hydrocarbons to include: Aldrin, Altrazine,
BHC, Chlordane, Dacthal, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Endosulfan,
Heptachlor, Kelthane, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Simazine, Toxaphene, PCB.
Sampling to take place in water column and bottom sediments.
Sediment samples are to be taken in transects across the channel.
/ Benthic samples are to include identification and enumeration to the
lowest taxonomic level possible. Samples to be taken in transects
across the channel. Continuation of this aspect of the monitoring
program will be reevaluated annually.

VII-27

#1 A

- C~~~~~~~ITY OF - ,
sr~~~~~~A

0 YALLBIJO INTAj t
S . if

::~~~2 ~RIO VIT 8 4 Jk~i~

U. ~~~~~~~~~~T8~SN f ANRA
B. ~' " 'be.. '- *

-nan ~ ~ �c

D3VICTORIA
tANBA

-.~~~~~~~~~~~ - _ -COURTJOD bia RV)
""Cy~~~

ummi .s TRACY A
?LAWT- --'' BRrD0e-
�- --t ��� ) �

'I / ""�

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AIS

HISTORICAL CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL STATION
o HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL STATION
* NEW WATER QUALITY CONTROL STATION
13 POSSIBLE FUTURE WATER QUALITY CONTROL STATION
**~ SUISUN MARSH BOUNDARY
- LEGAL DELTA GOt-PIDARY STATE Of CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

SACRAMENTO-SAN .JOAQUIN DELTA r
NOTE' P1
005$ MAP 811 TE AUROLA OF R ECLAMATION

APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1 PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
OF FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
AND STATE WATER PROJECT

~TABLE A-1i~ ~Sheet 1 of 7
TABLE A-1
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT
Applica- Permit Source ; Direct Diversion Storage Purpose
tion No. No. .Ouantity(cfs) : Season !Quantity(AF) : Season

5625 12720 Sacramento River 11,000 Jan.1 to 3,190,000 Oct. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 June 30

5626 12721 Sacramento River 8,000 Jan.1 to 3,190,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
Dec. 31 June 30 domestic,
stockwatering
navigation
and recrea-
tion

5627 11966 Trinity River 1,100 Jan.1 to 1,540,000 Jan. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 Dec. 31

5628 11967 Trinity River 2,500 Jan.1 to 1,540,000 Jan. 1 to Irrigation,
Dec. 31 Dec. 31 domestic,
navigation,
salinity con-
trol and
flood control

5629 16477 Feather River 7,600 Jan.1 to 380,000 Oct. 1 to Power, re-
Dec. 31 July 1 creation,fish
and wildlife
enhancement

5630 16478 Feather River 1,400 Oct.1 to 380,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
July 1 July 1 domestic,
municipal,
industrial,
salinity con-
trol, recrea-
tion,fish
and wildlife
enhancement

9363 12722 Sacramento River 1,000 Jan.l to 310,000 Oct. 1 to Mt:nicipal
Dec. 31 June 30 and indus-
trial

TABLE A-1 (Continued) Sheet 2 of 7
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT

Applica- :Permit Source : Direct Diversion Storage Purpose
tion No. * No. l!Quantity(cfs) : Season :Quantity(AF) : Season

9364 12723 Sacramento River 9,000 Jan. 1 to 1,303,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
Dec. 31 June 30 flood control,
domestic,
stockwatering,
navigation &
recreation

9365 12724 Sacramento River 2,275 Jan. 1 to 1,303,000 Oct. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 June 30

9366 12725 Rock Slough 200 Jan. 1 to -- -- Irrigation and
Dec. 31 domestic

9367 12726 Rock Slough 250 Jan. 1 to -- -- Municipal and
Dec. 31 industrial

9368 12727 Old River 4,000 Jan. 1 to -- -- Irrigation
Dec. 31 and domestic

13370 11315 American River 8,000 Nov. 1 to 1,000,000 Nov. 1 to Irrigation,
Aug. 1 July 1 salinity con-
trol and
flood control

13371 11316 American River 700 Nov. 1 to 300,000 Nov. 1 to Municipal,
Aug. 1 July 1 industrial,
domestic and
recreational

13372 11317 American River 8,000 Jan. 1 to 1,000,000 Oct. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 July 1

TABLE A-1 (Continued) Sheet 3 of 7

PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT

Applica- Permit Source Direct Diversion Storage Purooso
tion No . No. !Quantity(cfs) Season iQuantity(AF) Season

14443 16479 Feather River, 1,360 Jan 1 to 3,500,000 Sept. 1 Irrigation,
Dec. 31 to July 3domestic,
mun'icipal, in-
dustrial,
Sacramento-San
salinity con-
Joaquin Delta Jan. 1 to 42,100 Jan. 1 trol, recrea-
Channels 6,185 Dec. 31 to Dec. 31 tional, fish
and wildlife
enhancement

14444 16480 Feather River 11,000 Jan. 1 to 3,500,000 Oct. 1 to Power, recrea-
Dec. 31 July 1 tional and
fish and wild-
life enhance-
ment

14445A 16481 Italian Slough 2,115 Oct. 1 to 44,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
July 1 July 1 domestic,
municipal, in-
dustrial,
salinity con-
trol, recrea-
tional and
fish and
wildlife en-
hancement

14662 11318 American River -- -- 300,000 Oct. 1 to Power
July 1

14858 16597 Stanislaus River -- -- 980,000 Nov. 1 to Recreational,
June 30 water quality
contra. an_
preserrvat:-n
and enhance-
ment O: .i
aan' widldri',

TABLE A-1 (Continued) Sheet 4 of 7

PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT

Applica- Permit : Source . Direct Diversion : Storage Purpose
tion No. * No. . iQuantity(efs) Season !Quantity(AF) Season

14859 16598 Stanislaus River 6,000 Jan. 1 to 980,000 Nov. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 June 30

15374 11968 Trinity River 300 Jan. 1 to 200,000 Jan. 1 to Municipal and
Dec. 31 Dec. 31 industrial

15375 11969 Trinity River 1,700 Jan. 1 to 1,800,000 Jan. 1 to Irrigation,
Dec. 31 Dec. 31 domestic,
fish & wild-
life propaga-
ticn, navi-
gation,water
quality con-
trol and
recreation

15376 11970 Trinity River 3,525 Jan. 1 to 1,800,000 Jan. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 Dec. 31

15764 12860 Old River -- -- 1,000,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
April 30 domestic,
stockweLcring
municipal,
industrial
and recrea-
tion

16767 11971 Trinity River -- -- 700,000 Jan. 1 to Irrigation,
Dec. 31 domestic and
wa:er quality
control

16768 11972 Trinity River 175 Jan. 1 to 700,000 Jan. 1 to Power
Dec. 31 De. ,

Sheet 5 of 7
TABLE A-1 (Continued) Sheet 5 of 7
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT
Applica- Permit Source Direct Diversion Storage Purpose
tion No. No. *Quantity(cfs) : Season 'Quantity(AF) : Season

17374 11973 Trinity River 1,500 Jan. 1 to --rigation,
Dec. 31 -- ~~~~Irrigati~on,
Dec. 31 domestic,
municipal,
industrial,
salinity con-
trol, recrea-
tion, fish
and wildlife
enhancement
17375 12365 Clear Creek 1,900 Jan. 1 to 250,000 Nov. 1 to Power

Dec. 31 April 1
17376 12364 Clear Creek 3,600 Nov. 1 to 250,000 Nov. 1 to Irrigation,

April 1 April 1 domestic and
recreational
17512 16482 Italian Slough - 1,100,000 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
and San Luis July 1 domestic,
Creek ,municipal, in-

dustrial,
salinity con-
trol, recrea-
tion, fish
and wildlife
enhancement
17514A 16483 Lindsey Slough 135 Oct. 1 to -- -- Municipal and

July 1 industrial
18115 13776 Stony Creek -- -- 160,000 Nov. 1 to Irrigation,

April 30 domestic,
miniciHa and
industrial

Sheet 6 of 7
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT

Applica- Permit Source . Direct Diversion Storage Purpose
tion No. No. oQuancitv(cfs) : Season !Quantity(AF) : Season

18721 16209 North Fork Ameri- 100 Nov. 1 to 1,700,000 Nov. 1 to Irrigation,
can River and Aug. 1 July 1 recreation,
Knickerbocker incidental
Creek domestic and
water quality
conrtrol

18723 16210 North Fork Ameri- 6,300 Jan. 1 to 1,700,000 Nov. 1 to Power, inci-
can River and Dec. 31 July 1 dental
Knickerbocker recreation
Creek and domestic

19303 16599 Stanislaus River -- -- 1,420,000 Nov. 1 to Power
June 30

19304 16600 Stanislaus River -- -- 1,420,000 Nov. 1 to Recreational,
June 30 water quality
control and
preservation
and enhance-
ment of fish
and wildlife

21542 15149 Old River -- -- 1,000,000 Nov. 1 to Power
April 30

21636 16211 North Fork Ameri- 600 Jan. 1 to 800,000 Nov. 1 to Power
can River and Dec. 31 July 1
Knickerbocker
Creek

Sheet 7 of 7
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT

Appliea- Permit Source Direct Diversion : Storage Purpose
tion No. No. iQuantitv(cfs) : Season !Quantity(AF) : Season

21637 16212 North Fork Ameri- 900 Nov. 1 to 800,000 Nov. 1 to Irrigation,
can River and July I July 1 municipal,
Knickerbocker industrial,
Creek domestic,
recreation,
fish and
wildlife en-
hancement and
water quality
control

22316 15735 Rock Slough -- 5,400 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
June 30 domestic,
municipal,
industrial,
water quality
control and
recreation

Sheet 7 of 7
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
PERMITS FOR DELTA WATER SUPPLY
of
FEDERAL CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT
Applica- Permit Source Direct Diversion : Storage Purpose
tion No. No. * Quantity(cfs) : Season !Quantity(AF) : Season

21637 16212 North Fork Ameri- 900 Nov. 1 to 800,000 Nov. 1 to irrigation,
can River and July 1 July 1 municipal,
Knickerbocker industrial,
Creek domestic,
recreation,
fish and
wildlife en-
hancement and
water quality
control

22316 15735 Rock Slough - 5,400 Oct. 1 to Irrigation,
�*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~June 30 domestic,
municipal,
industrial,
water quality
control and
recreation

APPENDIX B
TABLE B-1-HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH

Sheet 1 of 6
TABLE B-1

HISTORICAL-WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH
Beneficial Use Pro- Shasta Inflow
tected and Location Parameter Description Water Yr. Type Value Rationale Source

Municipal and
Industrial
Antioch on San
Joaquin River
(These objectives TDS Maximum 14- Interim protection Basin 5 Plan
shall not apply day running of municipal and (1967 policy
when the State Bd. average of industrial water and supplements
determines that the mean daily supplies taken from - Res. 73-16,
adequate substi- TDS for: the San Joaquin Fed. B. 5) 3/
tute supplies are Normal and River.
available to all 150 days below normal 450 mg/l
M&I users in the 120 days Dry 450 mg/l
Antioch and Pitts- 100 days Critical 450 mg/l
burg areas.)

Contra Costa Canal
Intake at Rock Slough TDS Maximum mean All 750 mg/l Acceptable short- Basin 5 Plan
tidal cycle term maximum TDS (1967 policy and
value supplements
- 1971 Interim
TDS Maximum mean All 380 mg/l Based on average Plan)
tidal cycle, historical water
65% of the quality (1945-1966)
year

Chloride Maximum mean All 250 mg/l Cal.Admin.Code
tidal cycle maximum desirable
chloride content of
drinking water from
taste standpoint
co
Chloride Maximum mean All 100 mg/i Based on average
tidal cycle, historical water
65% of the quality (19/1-5-1966)
year

Sheet 2 of 6
TABLE B-1

HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA AND SUISUN MARSH
Beneficial Use Pro- Shasta Inflow
tected and Location Parameter Description Water Yr. Tvpe Value Rationale Source
Municipal and
Industrial
City of Vallejo
Inta of Vallejo Chloride Maximum All 100 mg/l Basin 5 Plan
(instantaneous) (1967 policy am
supplements
TDS Maximum All 250 mg/l - 1971 Interim
(instantaneous) Plan)

AMJJ ASONDV/
Agriculture
EC Maximum 14-day Non-crit. 2.2 3.1 Protection of Delta Basin 5 Plan
Blind Point on
RiverSa Joaquin running average agriculture without an
of mean daily Critical 3.6 3.6 overland supply to
EC in mmhos western Delta. Blind
Point is below lowest
agricultural intake on
San Joaquin River. Water
quality should not de-
grade to poor during the
irrigation season ex-
cept during critical
years

Blind Point on
- San Joaquin River Permit The SWP shall make no direct diversions and shall not D 1275
Condi- collect water to storage during the period from April 1 as modified
tion through June 30 at any time the maximum surface zone by D 1291
Limiting chloride ion content exceeds 250 parts per million
Storage
and
Direct
Diversion

Sheet 3 of 6
TABLE B-1

Agriculture
Jersey Point on Chloride Maximum 14- Non-critical 1000 mg/l Based on Nov. 19th Basin 5 Plan
the San Joaauin day._/running criteria for the pro- (D-1275)
River and Emmaton average of Critical (Jan/July tection of western (1967 Policy
on the Sacramento mean daily 1000 g/l Delta channels from and Supplements
River chloride Aug/Dec ocean salinity in- - Res. 68-17)
1400 mg/i trusion. This ob-
4 mg jective is predicated
on an overland supply
to some 12 to 15
thousand acres in the
extreme western Delta

Chloride Average mean Non-dry Sometime Based on Nov. 19th Basin 5 Plan
daily con- or between criteria. To provide (D-1275)
centration critical April 1 to suitable water quality (1967 Policy
for a period May 31, for seed germination and Suplements
of at least 200 mg/1 at the beginning of - Res. 68-17)
10 consecu- the irrigation season
tive days and limited salt flush-
ing flows

Sheet 4 of 6
TABLE B-1

Agriculture JFM AMJJ ASONDI/
Terminous, Rio Vista, TDS Maximum 14- Normal or
San Andreas Landing. day2/running above 700 700 700 Based on Nov.19th Basin 5 Plan
Clifton Court Ferry average of B N 700 700 criteria for pro- D-1275)
Belo Nor. 7 0 700800* critrafrpo -25
and, with the peri- mean daily eow orm. tection of interior (1967 Policy
pheral canal, Bifur- TDS in mg/l Dry or Crit. 700 800* 800* Delta channels to and Supplements
cation of Old and provide water of - Res. 68-17)
Middle River Average of Normal or suitable quality
mean daily above 500 500 500 for agricu ltural
TDS in mg/1 uses
TDS in mg/l Below Norm. 500 500 600*
for any cal-
endar month Dry or Crit. 500 600* 600*
not to exceed

Average of Normal or
mean daily above 450
TDS in mg/l Below Norm. 450
for any cal-
endar year Dry or Crit. 500
not to exceed

Green's Landing on the TDS Whenever maxi- All 150 mg/l Modifier of interior Basin 5 Plan
Sacramento River mum l4-day.2/ Delta agricultural (D-1275)
running average objectives which pro- (1967 Policy
or mean monthly vides for instances and Supple-
water quality at or extreme salt water ment
this station ex- intrusion on the - Res. 68-17'
ceeds 150 mg/l Sacramento River
TDS the objectives
at the above (interior Delta) stations are changed by adding
-t~~~~~ ~to those values the product of 12 times the amount by which
the recorded TDS at Green's Landing exceeds 150 mg/1l

* The TDS value at an of these five stations may reach but not exceed the asterisked values, provided
the average of the TDS value at all five stations does not exceed the adjacent non-asterisked value.

Sheet 5 of 6
TABLE B-1

Agriculture
San Joaauin River
at Vernalis TDS Maximum 30- All 500 mg/l Protection of Southern Basin 5 Plan
day average Delta agriculture (D-1275 with
New Melones)
(1967 Policy and Sup-
Eastern Delta plements-1971 Interim Plan)
Channels TDS Maximum mean All 700 mg/l Basin 5 Plan
monthly (1967 Policy and Sup-
plements-1971 Interim Plan)
Fish and Wildlife
Bays and Inter- TDS Water quality All April 15 to Optimal seed pro- Basin 2 Plan
tidal Sloughs of to produce June 1 duction of alkali
Suisun Marsh average TDS in 9,000 mg/1 bulrush, an im-
first 12 inches portant food for
of soil of Sui- waterfowl
sun Marsh

TDS Maximum mean All 18,000 mg/1 Protection of Basin 2 Plan
monthly permanent stands
of alkali bulrush
Chiops Island at Chloride Maximum 14-day All 4,000 mg/l Protection of Basin 2 Plan
0 & A Ferry running aver- Neomysis and
age of mean striped bass
daily chloride

Antioch Water Works EC Maximum 14-day All 1, 500 umhos Protection of Basin 5 Plan
Intake on the San running average striped bass spawn-(1967 Policy and
Joaquin River of mean daily EC ing areas on the Supplements
when water tempera- San Joaquin River.- Res. 73-16
ture has increased This objective can Fed. B. 2) %/
aw~~~ ~~to 60()Fand for-5 be modified for ex-
Nx~~~~n ~weeks thereafter- - - perimental purposes

Sheet 6 of 6
TABLE B-1

Fish and Wildlife
Prisoners Point EC Maximum 14-day All 550 umhos Antioch and Pris- Basin 5 Plan
on the San Joa- running average oners Point are the (1967 Policy and
quin River of mean daily EC historical striped Supplements
when water tempera- bass spawning area - Res. 73-16,
ture Bas increased limits. Spawning Fed. B.2) /
to 60 F and for 5 generally occurs as
weeks thereafter temperature is in-
creasing from 60OF
with salinities be-
tween 1500 umhos and
550 umhos EC (approx.
1000 mg/1 and 350 mg/l TDS)

l_/ October-December based on Shasta Inflow water year type for previous water year.
2/ 10-day running average in D-1275
~/ Recommended by Department of Interior Task Force established to consider salinity standards in the
Delta. Also recited in letter dated January 9, 1969, from Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall
to Governor Reagan (D 1379 Exhibit USBR 524).

APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES

Conceptual AlIternatfives

MUNICIPAL A. NO ACTION (Basin Plan) a " NEED LIMITED BY C. OPTION B waIh RECOGNITION D . OPTION C with REASONABLENESS
AND INDUSTRIAL -WITHOUT PROJECT" CONDITIONS OF CURRENT WATER SUPPLY CONSIDERATION
and WATER RIGHTS ALTERNATIVES (DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL)

LOCA1101N DESCRIPTION YEAR TYPE VALUE DESCRIPTION YEAR TYPE VALUE DESCRIPTION YEAR TYPE VALUE o f I SCRIP DUN YEAR lYPE VALUE[

I. Ambu1.h o ap joauisi Rivet Max IA day TOS Oak meal daily Objective too [his localion shiouldl be dropped. SAME AS OPTI ION C
fin Is lot CI lugin $)w el 240 AS5 pioylided quality of an Alleinralrve supply lo
150 days Below. 1401MAl No. el days fA6 II llhese tipariaus is al leasl lidt slinu~oii
181111 J, Noimal IN$ 490 sbovu I. of Above IlointaI 190 2211 Ilylrl B.
12D days Dry El 450 veal$ ain jimersi iANi 1571 '601
MO days C~ificAl Cl 450 ON( 115 l95
14l '53;
0 If6s 185
f4 1 511
C 155 110
I42i1 All
Ins Cl- Sarin Valley
2. floci Slouttft al Cmilia Cousta Ma. maen All r50 290 Walel Supyly is a cuontact 1,01,1 -Iherelore maler Max mean ly 740 YEAlR Uiliripdaied Ilu."ll
Ca~al linlohe bdal cycle quaalities to be provided ale detemioiged by 11.se daily . ol a 66. Ma-ijean daily AFT(ER Ronull titMAE
MI11C. ,,g 1, contracts. ISO Big I lot No. AN 190 1:1 .1 ISO ig I
Max MIC 65.~ All 39 10 Public Iinleiesl Needs o f days Mlvruil 52i l or '. o year 5 B l0 ) IS.)
ol yeat 'ag Ii Ma. meau All 290 i% 01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 o yeais in yateusi dNISeleimiied by lInear
daily Cl - iig II "I alelpiildiboi belurn 6 iA .04 10 J
Vdnes sliovru U N is la 90 so

145i rC 01 S L
C 155 'welghled average 65.
I42i lo.blic lo.1leesl Needs
iweighled aoefage 5,3 '.I M a katheal All n o 0
Public lulerest Needs daily Cl - (mg Ii
Max mean All 250
daily Cl - mag 11

IDS C1 . Public InlEtesl Needs Public liileresl Needs PoIbic InIlerest Needs
T. &bCl Slouflh Ma isalme~ All 290 19 Max rican All 250 Matt. mean All 2W1 Mi1. ,e. All 250
I..g Ii d'.ly Cl - lag II daily Cl tru 11,0 duly 1:1- 111- Ii

A. lfilabe 10 Clfilon (.1.01 foiebay MA. mean All 290 Max mean All ? 90
a1 dint 1 anal daily CI - img Ii daily Cl - iliig Ii

S Delia Menoira Canal Maxminr'a All 290 Ma,,'neao All ?11
al ],o(-, Pwping planr daily Cl -iiii.gIi daily Cl - ioig 11

Conceptual A Itersa fives (continued)

A NO ACT ION 10.11 PA.. ) 0. NEED LIMITED BY AVIERAIGE C SAME AS AlitIERNATIVE
AGRICULTURE WITHIOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS EXCEPT RE:COGNIZES THATY GOOD WATER DUAL lIN
CONDITIONS EXISTED EARL. YIN TilL SEASON

LAILI DASCI-iIIk TIBII IL NI~ l~l~ali LA I!Pt TMATu o fSLAIpIII TILT. Am1 TRI "l

1 ils~llimmLlIA Se. [A-"Ca A ull kmIO N 11all d4tl ALe I Ats IS UIHt~ . TO t"IC4f 11.cc
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lb 9J 1St, U A1 A-IS I

L. RNi a o l L e ill
to~~~~~~~~~I A4 iavS CA L -I
eq1i, c AlecAal DII 21.1 T (5 5.61

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ia A., I-el

Sm Ia~~~~~~~~~~yea Acne eaten 44 I 44.1� 11511- j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N ., LW01

~~~~~~~~~~~bLASI U Lg IS

SAMe Pa..,
Ta I~~~~~eN~~~a~~e ~ v 1 M .4 A ls e . - A Pe I C I ? I eIl IbNIHLLlJT~il.0 Ie LIt( oth ATt,

LIM all- AIMD1
2 LIIIIIAA VIA IA

Ct~~~~l~~~n~~~v~elI.l .val m , WI A
Afsee Mcbi Mc Mn S A D

-aal bce Mn II

Plc~~~~~~~~~~~il~~~~~Ve,ge Al Sg 15i

ada~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 111 seal A4tL T
R= - ...C. Aear --IS ... . . . .. .aci t.n

Ril I AvgINI~

Lb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alit Al lgl

SI DIS ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AN Aug It
0 A 5150 LgI

Di .ISAl "tt.

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L 3'l Itwill. 1.at' AISt

-Ahl,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~L i liii I.II

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D
cilcelll~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .vilclv ....iuli i.. l..
c'll -eietvl,ee la
V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

FISH ~~Conceptaual AlIternatfives (continued)
FISH ~~~~~A. NO ACTION4(main Pl-1, D . PRESERVATION Al HISTORICAL LEVELS'- C. INTERIM PROTECTION TO THE FISHERY
AND WILDLIFE AND SUISUN MARSH
1IdA-Ar, FttA Aqe.esen Fish and G..,. EVibl CIi)

LOCAIRMI ix wNo SEA lipE VLANEU DESUBPEIIU YEAR MEF VA LUE DESCRPTIONDI (kR AS i iML - A[

I. SteEWEnsBm�W
Penmm, 0M a MS 14-di -w All 6.51 a . Il-44 -sP IA S i g 5 Aerag EC All I r "IN.
so aEmid S11e IC IP us.6.4 Out E C tINS .4id nAl.SO .110eee I .' �54 .~,

mar es'S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.. mE I-o bIN IsC

star~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.h mO IN, W odotw.o ad Afitlh A.oe all �.

,.kWIA. bd-M- ~~~II'I

3.0 15l

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Iwn ndl lts Ioihe d P0 315 11 1.~~ 1 I'aaoil~lh, Ol lD lt
w~~~~~~~~~~~~eeSE les " S I A.11.5 Spenells ~t B II: u15d-0 C.5
9. ..4.1 ., . :6315 0. I.5 th W1I osamssei "Io! I1 II I5
D I I" I's 3Li %A_ DSsil.-sII 0? II II I?
-.ioA .nar aoill UCCi 13 II 11i

UuonteuaeI~~~~~~~au Onnoeidtta MI IgnI A~~~~~~~~~~~~~tp 33 (tosri of Della Ill A$4.1A-M3 1 l.-.1sI, llle, p II 1
JI-M EASI .4 Si C..n Cat (alit. dCi iE."ht it Ck-,I Ga.. -itneil ..t
(a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N B.l kmhiei ._ MEMOs. *En W , .d.i" 17bs 1 'iIs
Sadw.IH.Anshsi DaFthG ststs
AMciltst etnlsnlst
W- d.11 .44. k. A l l 111-Mly'-dOFO

W 2mm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SW IllS 46
Cv a. CYP 3.011
J.. Feb 1.16 el 1.1, .. lpie

MI n aml.alt Be. N V,. tiagef 5 3.0 5.0 I's IA SO
iciphd eesea dali M Z 33 22: 00 P.0 7 58' .
1us$ Oh Visit~ D. US I5 A20 it 1.0 I 2.

m- Cmats wI. COllia~lfl W I. AN IN -dPw IS Cbnasei DM.t 1. Ia i-SrI is
111-01.159-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~Ci C-t O. es m . O . Weli ntiS C."5 Cb..dn gm.. ih- Dil aIN sniff ede 1 de 100

0 ES~~~~~~~~~~dWAN W o mi dIE OAISMi I Iecn*a$ MI -s HiAeaiill'fi it3 -3i

.A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~su U.fgf i-S dIe. Il jim Vi
MA11.5 iSO t
dottnidsI shlAr-N(t
noeS not lest Isa tI blasts~~~~~~(

Otele*ad D

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
'5,3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Cb".Iw~~~~~~~~~~~~ddb2AF_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Oslol t O4snal hlECis 10'. le Shsiitis
isnele lee l~~~ns if uhnie. Pod 10e sal totedlted Dhslitel 1Db~~17

destn~teuee Ela (Ii nl (til*' I in6Ie Ise..t
CM-al' I. ieqolisd sl~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~Iethee inti n.
V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dl to.n. F.,lsnsh..