A Look at the Delta through the years and the latest attempt to mess with Nature or Revise the Delta!

    Mission Historic Maps Delta Maps Videos Contacts   Save The Delta   Search     
 
 
INDEX

TIMELINE

SUMMARY

ISSUES

DELTA MAPS

CANAL PLANS

HISTORIC MAPS

1820-1859

1860-1879

1880-1899

1900-1939

1940-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000 DOCS

2001 DOCS

2002 DOCS

2003 DOCS

2004 DOCS

2005 DOCS

2006 DOCS

2007 DOCS

2008 DOCS

2009 DOCS

2010 DOCS

2011 DOCS

2012
Docs


Terms of Use

Delta Facts

Links  






                 Back to Index 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



1001 Wrong Maps of the Delta                  Video summary

Delta Reference Maps    1  2  3-DRMS  4-wrong waterway names

5-Google's Goofs

    
Over the last 10-12 years Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation, Fish & Game and many other agencies have conducted and published reports about various aspects of the Delta.  Starting in 2003 studies were done by "computer modeling" which means data was put into a computerized simulation program to make predictions of the outcome or effect on the Delta from the different alternatives proposed to revise the Delta.  The problem with computer modeling is that if you enter wrong initial data, the results will also be wrong.  Even worse is when people who don't know the Delta, or the geographic/names of the islands and waterways, are hired to input the basic data.  When one reviews just the maps that came from the computer modeling, one has to question if even a basic Delta map is so wrong, what about all the rest of the data contained it the modeling report?

     For the first example, look at the two maps below, which have correct Delta island names.  Click on this small Delta Island Names map to compare to the one on the far right.
Or clidk on this pdf or pdf (page 7) for a state/agency-generated delta map to use to compare the maps. The map on the right comes from page  of the Flooded Islands Feasibility Baseline Report of 2005, from which the current 2011 "Franks Track" projects are proposed.

http://www.water.ca.gov/frankstract/docs/%284%29Flooded%20Islands%20Baseline%20Report.pdf see page 24, unless someone edits that page...note the difference?


Again, if the agencies or their contractors can't even figure out the correct names for the Delta Islands, why should anyone trust their other data?  In case you are not from the Delta, here a list of the obvious ways the 2005 map is wrong:
(1)Pierson District is listed where Ryer Island is located;
(2) Sutter Island is listed where Grand Island is located;
(3) Merritt Island is listed where Sutter Island is located;
(4) New Hope Tract is listed where Pierson District is located;
(5) Clarksburg Tract is listed where Brannen Island is located;
(6) Clarksburg Tract is listed again, in the general correct place;
(7)  New Hope Tract is listed again in the correct general location;
(8) Andrus Island is not listed at all but was included in the modeling output

     When one reviews the data of the 2005 report, is one supposed to assume information reported about Pierson District is really about Ryer Island or about Pierson District, and if so, which Pierson District location?  If you review the impacts to the Clarksburg Tract which is very close to the Franks Tract project, does the modeling really mean Brannen Island or as the map shows, Clarksburg Track "south" to define it from the more northern Clarksburg Track?  Or did some agency rename places in the Delta without notifying the property owners?  Long Point Island in the Suisun Marsh area was renamed Ryer Island by USGS in 1980 for no apparent reason, so one could assume the same can happen to to other islands in the Delta.  Bottom line:  It is entirely unclear which islands where in the Delta the modeling for the Flooded Island Feasibility Study applied to!
     By the way, you will notice that in the Franks Tract Project eir/eis document the island names no longer show on the map, but the fact remains the modeling for which the whole project is based upon utilized the 2005 base study:
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/frankstract/docs/NoCDIS_IAIR_Final_2010-06-15.pdf     http://www.water.ca.gov/frankstract/docs/%284%29Flooded%20Islands%20Baseline%20Report.pdf see page 24...note the difference?
here's links to the technical memorandums...http://www.water.ca.gov/frankstract/floodedislands.cfm  Drop the island names and no one will know the difference?


Go to More Wrong Delta Maps   
  You can also click on this URS map below to see larger version.  One thing to note is that there are TWO Ryer Islands in the Delta, both located in Solano County, and while USACE lists both Ryer Islands, URS often forgets abut the smaller Ryer Island in the Suisun Marsh area.  You will understand how this affects other reports if you continue to the next pages of Wrong Delta Maps!   Below is another map, but the smaller Ryer is also missing.
You might want to review the historical map to the left and the Atwater Survey map above, to get to know the location of Steamboat Slough and Ryer Island, because many of the mistakes over the last 10 years relate to this area of the Northern Delta region
 Index Summary 
Compiled by Delta citizens and Delta Voices Last Modified :01/15/14 04:34 PM Copyright 2009-2013 ,