Plans for Franks Tract?

You will have to cut and paste the link as clicking only selects a portion of the text..
icon_speech_oops.gif
 
I remember that report when it came out. That is one of the studies that proposes partial levee rebuilding on Franks Tract.

You can find the most recent DWR reports on the Franks Tract project here. There are a pile of documents for you to plow through:

http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/ndelta/frankstract/index.cfm

Franks Tract flooded in 1937 and again in 1938. It was never de-watered after the 1938 levee break.

The biggest problem DWR sees with Franks Tract is "water quality." "Water quality" is DWR code for salinity issues. A flooded Franks Tract causes frequent salt water intrusion into the central and south Delta, where that water is sucked up by the Tracy pumps and messes with farmland down south. The warmer water of Franks and increasing vegetation is also producing higher levels of mercury compounds than DWR would like to see. These are very serious issues for both DWR and folks who are wanting to improve the Delta ecosystem.

For the moment, DWR is investigating the idea of salinity gates instead of partial levees on Franks. They recognise that this will create some problems with boaters (no kidding!). They also believe that Franks is the one flooded island that offers the most potential for water quality improvement.

DWR also favors tule reconstruction for Lower Sherman Lake and Big Break. DWR does not see any water quality improvements with these projects, but one proposal mentioned that habitat improvement and improved boating/recreation possibilities at these locations may help to offset boater's pains with the tidal gates around Franks.

DWR will have to conduct several years of good scientific studies before they can do any of these projects. They learned that after federal rejection of the SDIP EIR last winter. Partial levees are the best solution as far as boaters are concerned and I would reather see levees if they work, but I suspect the trend in the future will be toward use of "reversible" technology to fine tune water flows in the Delta. Tidal gates are off/on devices that can be used only when needed, while levees are static. Hopefully, the goal will be water exports constistant with healthy pelagic species and better science than the old "isolated conveyance" or peripheral canal approach.
 
yzer,
Excellent comments...I too believe the tidal gates would work the best and be the least intrusive. There was even a proposal to build long "islands" across the Tract to try to minimize the tidal cross-flow during tide changes.
Another proposal was to also dig "channels" across the Tract to provide safer crossing...hard to believe they might consider boater safety!
 
Many boaters continue to avoid Franks Tract due to the weed problem. As the Egeria Densa weeds are being thinned out, there are other weeds which are natural to the area taking their place. From an environmental aspect, that is a good thing, but for boaters, it is as big a problem as the Egeria Densa! So putting in levees/gates/etc will not be a problem as long as the channels which go around Franks Tract are left open to boats.
 
Gates will have an adverse effect on boating. The proposals I've seen put the gates across channels, not where the old levees were located. Some ideas to mitigate this problem include keeping enough sloughs open to allow cross traffic, which is the major use boaters have for Franks Tract. I won't mind if it takes longer to get around Franks, so long as I can still past it and to where I'm headed.
 
The last time I tried to cross FT, the weeds were so bad I had to divert over to Washington Cut. I was afraid I was going to ruin my prop. Now Vessel Assist uses FT all the time. Having to go around each time would have an adverse impact both in time and costs.
 
If you don't look into these proposals, you just don't know what you are missing. These materials are made public for public use.

propgateloc001.jpg
 
OMG! Are they thinking of installing all of these? This will totally ruin boating around Bethel Island!!!! What are these idiots thinking?????
 
You bet they are...schedule is at the end of this post:
The North and Central Delta Branch conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the feasibility of modifying Franks Tract to improve water quality, enhance the ecosystem, and improve recreational opportunities. The Flooded Islands Pre-Feasibility Study examined a variety of alternative strategies for modifying flooded islands (Lower Sherman Lake, Big Break, and Franks Tract) individually or in combination, for their ability to achieve CALFED Program goals including benefits to: water quality, ecosystem health and recreation. Modeling results indicate that modifications in hydrodynamic conditions of Franks Tract may result in significant reduction in salinity conditions in the Delta. The study also identified various alternatives for improvement of ecosystem and recreation in Franks Tract region. The study recommended construction of a pilot project to verify the improvements in water quality and to monitor the effects of the project on the ecosystem and recreation. It is expected that the Pilot Project would provide further information for full scale project development while yielding interim benefits at reasonable cost.

Pilot Project Schedule
Conceptual design of Pilot Project to be completed - March 2007
Value Engineering Study March – April 2007
Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report – July 2007 to June 2008
Final Design and Permits – July 2008 to June 2009
Construction of Pilot Project – 2010 to 2011
Monitoring – 2010 to 2014
 
I almost missed the one at the far upper left, which would totally shut off False River. What are they smoking? This would just divert huge flows through Big Break and create a new channel--but I'd have clearance problems at the Jersey and Bethel Island bridges, so it wouldn't do me any good.

BTG
 
quote:
Originally posted by BayTrawlerGuy

I almost missed the one at the far upper left, which would totally shut off False River. What are they smoking? This would just divert huge flows through Big Break and create a new channel--but I'd have clearance problems at the Jersey and Bethel Island bridges, so it wouldn't do me any good.

BTG

Click to expand...

BTG, If you have 90 minutes to spare please watch the video transcript I linked here for the August 22 workshop: http://www.boatered.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=106009 This will explain how for the first time, real science will be used by DWR to engineer water improvements for the California Delta. Honestly, I don't think anyone on this board can get the "Big Picture" without watching it.

DWR anticipated that they would lose the environmental smack-down they had with the National Marine Fisheries Service on SDIP and Judge Wanger's historic decision to cut back water exports to help protect the Delta Smelt. DWR had contingencies to fall back on the CALFED approach to Delta water management.

As a result, we now have a pilot program ready to go into place for the problems in Franks Tract. DWR must now do good science before they can engineer any changes to the Delta.

This pilot program is part of the investigation and experimentation that is necessary to find a solution to the Delta water problem: how to maximize water exports and maintain a healthy ecosystem for fish and other wildlife.

Nobody, and I stress NOBODY knows how the Delta works. No one knows how the hydrologic features affect pelagic species and how water exports affect the ecosystem. The idea is to have these gates in place for several years so the best environmental scientists we can find can experiment with water flows and discover the best way to route the water to maintain wildlife and maximize water exports.

See the time frame that bigwaveohs posted. When the pilot study is done, some of the gates may come out, some partial levees may be built or there may be a combination of both or none of these elements proposed as the recommended solution to the Franks Tract problem.

That's what these gates are all about: investigation and experimentation to find a solution that really works.

I can see why a gate is needed at West False River for the pilot program. The scientists need to find out if a gate is needed there or if partial levees or gates further into Franks Tract will do the job.
 
I had a crazy idea one time that I shared with Gene (hoffmang). My crazy idea would be install a great big salinity gate, say, just west of Pittsburg. Include a great big gate for ships (and us!) to get through. Maybe some sort of fish ladder situation for fish to get where they're going. Then put all the pumps you want on the fresh water side of the gates, as you could pretty much pump out 100% of the watershed's runoff per year into reservoirs, and it wouldn't be salty. Might even mitigate invasive species a little bit.

My scheme still has bugs to work out....
 
I like that idea. It's big thinking and would solve all of our water/environmental problems if administered properly. Water flushing requirements of SF Bay would have to be taken into consideration.

The same idea popped into my mind a several years ago when I was reading about how the Netherlands envisioned the Zuiderzeewerken and a 75-year civil engineering project that spanned a world war and the careers of countless politicians.

Here are the catchy bits I ran into with that idea. If we want to encourage native species in the delta with this system, how could we accomodate the passage of ships and boats, block salt water intrusion as needed and allow the daily pulse of tides into the Delta?
 
I don't think you could engineer this sort of "total block" solution and maintain any kind of a "tidal pulse." I also don't think fish ladders work very well, even when carefully designed for one species. Certainly, many dams, particularly the "western rivers" (Mississippi and tributaries) dams, don't have ladders and the fish largely only move downstream--except the invasive ones, which hitch rides everywhere.

To be honest, the "flushing" requirements of SF Bay might decrease as a result of such a total block--the delta mud (much of it still swishing around from the hydraulic mining of the late 1800's) wouldn't be flowing down into the Bay nearly as much, if at all. On the other hand, it would tend to settle somewhere in the Delta. Maybe we could dredge it all into Franks Tract and gain new farmland?

BTG
 
quote:
Originally posted by yzer

I like that idea. It's big thinking and would solve all of our water/environmental problems if administered properly. Water flushing requirements of SF Bay would have to be taken into consideration.

The same idea popped into my mind a several years ago when I was reading about how the Netherlands envisioned the Zuiderzeewerken and a 75-year civil engineering project that spanned a world war and the careers of countless politicians.

Here are the catchy bits I ran into with that idea. If we want to encourage native species in the delta with this system, how could we accomodate the passage of ships and boats, block salt water intrusion as needed and allow the daily pulse of tides into the Delta?

Click to expand...


Not screwing with the tides too much seems to me one of the biggest challenges. I would say the delta needs its tides as much as the bay needs the fresh water flowing down into it. This idea came from me thinking about the peripheral canal, and how every drop of fresh water runoff from half the state flows right past us all and is lost out to sea. Plus the fact that a long long time ago, the delta was an inland sea, blocked from the ocean by hills at the Carquinez Strait. If we pumped 100% of the flow, we could water farms all over the state. I don't think pumping THAT much water out is the best idea, but that's how much water we're talking about. How successful would it be? I donno.
 
Franks Tract update...

I watched some of the Sept. 11 Calfed Science Workshop webcast this evening.

A lot of hyrodynamic modeling has been done during the last year for the Franks Tract pilot program. Now, it looks like the pilot program focus will be on only two salinity gates. Unless I misunderstood, the rest of the proposed gates around Franks will not be needed.

West False River: complely close False River at this location with a salinity gate as needed.

Three-Mile Slough: a salinity gate to close Three-Mile not far from the bridge for up to four hours per day at ebbtides.

Something else interesting that I saw on this same workshop. DWR has "test particles" that they can release into the water to track hydrologic movement. They have a recent test for Delta water patterns in the fall.

If they release a test particle in the Sacramento River anywhere from say the opening of Three-Mile Slough on the Sacramento to the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, that particle will eventually show up at one of the South Delta pumps. It may take several days or a couple of weeks, but that particle will travel "upstream" along the San Joaquin, sometimes hitting Little Potato Slough and even Mildred Island first... but it will eventually reach the pumps. Same thing if the particle takes the southern route through False River. The DWR folks seemed pretty happy with this achievement.

Interestingly enough, Delta Smelt do not follow this water pattern in the fall, when they almost never show up at the pumps. The smelt stay put in the Sacramento River or Suisun Bay areas during the fall.
 
Well folks, here it is from the horse's mouth (the Supervising Engineer for CDWR):

"From the four alternatives shown in the figure (below) we have narrowed down to two alternatives: (1) Barrier on Three Mile Slough (2) Barrier on West False River.

The Three Mile Slough alternative, to provide water quality benefits, will require closing the channel for a portion (2-6 hrs) of one ebb tide in a 24 hr period. For the West False River alternative, to provide water quality benefits, we have identified two operational scenarios: (1) closing the river channel for 12 hrs during a 24 hr period daily, (2) closing the river channel from July thru Nov.

We are going to be initiating an EIR/EIS in the next few months and will be evaluating the two alternatives in a greater detail. During the EIR/EIS phase, we will narrow it down to one preferred alternative. Either one of the alternatives, if implemented, will have provisions for boat passage."
So there you have it!
 
Yeah, let's remember that "provisions for boat passage" could be two launch ramps and a guy with a questionable truck and trailer who shows up for 4 or 5 hours per day....

BTG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top