DOCSLIB.ORG

Rio Vista and 18 Miles Southeast of Fairfield (See Figure 1 in Appendix a of This Report)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rio Vista and 18 Miles Southeast of Fairfield (See Figure 1 in Appendix a of This Report) ICF Jones & Stokes. 2009. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California. November. (ICF J&S 00051.09.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: enXco, San Ramon, CA. Contents Page Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ........................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Area of Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................. 2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 ............................................................................... 2 California Environmental Quality Act and Cultural Resources ........................................................ 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 Cultural Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Prehistoric Context .......................................................................................................................... 5 Ethnographic Context ...................................................................................................................... 6 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................... 7 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Records Search ............................................................................................................................... 12 Native American Correspondence ................................................................................................. 12 Historical Society Correspondence ................................................................................................ 13 Archaeological Inventory ............................................................................................................... 13 Architectural Inventory .................................................................................................................. 14 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Archaeological Resources .............................................................................................................. 14 Architectural Resources ................................................................................................................. 14 Resource Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 18 Criteria for Determining Historical Significance ............................................................................. 18 Architectural Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 19 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 24 References Cited................................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix A Figures Appendix B Correspondence Appendix C DPR 523 Forms Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the November 2009 i Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09 Table Follows Page 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies Conducted in the Project Area and 1-Mile Buffer Area ........................................................................................................................ 12 2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources in the Project Area and 1-Mile Buffer Area ........................................................................................................................ 12 Acronyms and Abbreviations Amerada Amerada Petroleum Company BP before present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHRIS California Historical Resources Inventory System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources Delta Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation EIR Environmental Impact Report MW megawatts NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USDA United States Department of Agriculture Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the November 2009 ii Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California Executive Summary enXco, of San Ramon, California, has retained ICF Jones & Stokes to conduct a cultural resources inventory in support of environmental permitting efforts for the proposed Shiloh III wind project in Solano County, California. This study will ultimately be used by Solano County to support its preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and may be used by enXco to support permitting efforts with state and federal agencies, if necessary. The cultural resources inventory for the proposed project consisted of pre-field research, coordination with interested parties, and archaeological and architectural surveys of the proposed project area. The pre-field research does not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. No archaeological resources were observed during the archaeological inventory. Architectural field surveys identified and recorded 25 buildings and structures with built environment resources. None of the built environment resources are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Recommendations are provided later in this report for avoiding impacts on potentially significant cultural resources in the project area if they are discovered during project implementation. Project Description enXco proposes to install wind turbine generators in the Montezuma Hills area of Solano County, California. The project would have an installed capacity of up to approximately 168 megawatts (MW)of electrical energy production (depending on the make and model of wind turbine selected), generating electricity for distribution to customers throughout northern California. The eastern end of the proposed project is located approximately 1 mile west of Rio Vista and 18 miles southeast of Fairfield (see Figure 1 in Appendix A of this report). To achieve a nameplate generation capacity of up to 168 megawatts, enXco is proposing to install approximately 67 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of 2.0 or 2.5 megawatts. Three turbine types are being considered for the project: Repower MM92, with a nameplate generation capacity of 2.0 megawatts. Vesta V90, with a nameplate generation capacity of 2.0 megawatts. Clipper Liberty, with a nameplate generation capacity of 2.5 megawatts. Each turbine, including the rotor blade, would be a maximum of 415 feet tall. Each tower would be a maximum of 262.5 feet tall. Six 223-foot towers might be needed to meet Travis Air Force Base Height Requirements (Shiloh Wind Partners, LLC 2009). The rotor blades would be a maximum of 304 feet in diameter. Support facilities, storage, and parking areas will also be included to provide Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the November 2009 1 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09 enXco for operational access to the projects. Physical access to the project will be by existing public roads to the edge of the project area at which point new access roads will be in the project area. The power generated by the turbines would be conveyed to a power substation by an electrical power collection system that would be installed as part of the proposed project. The system would be comprised of pad-mounted transformers, buried cables, and junction boxes. The pad-mounted transformers would be connected to each turbine by buried power cables. Junction boxes, part of the buried cable system, house cable splices and allow access to the cable. The cables would be buried between turbines and transformers and between transformers and the new substation. The general layout of the project (i.e., the preliminary conceptual site plan) is shown in Figures 2a-Figure 2c in Appendix A of this report. The Shiloh III substation would be located within the project area and would step up the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2011 California Regulations for Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting, Public Lands
    Table of Contents CALIFORNIA General Information Contacting DFG ....................................... 2 10-11 Licenses, Stamps, & Permits................... 3 Waterfowl & Upland Shoot Time Tables ................................... 4 Game Hunting and Unlawful Activities .......................... 6 Hunting & Other Public Uses on State & Federal Waterfowl Hunting Lands Regulations Summary of Changes for 10-11 ............... 7 Seasons and Limits ................................. 9 Effective July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Waterfowl Consumption Health except as noted. Warnings ............................................. 12 State of California Special Goose Hunt Area Maps ............ 14 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Waterfowl Zone Map ....Inside Back Cover Natural Resources Agency Upland Game Bird, Small Game Secretary Lester A. Snow Mammal, and Crow Hunting Regulation Summary ............................. 16 Fish and Game Commission President Jim Kellogg Seasons & Limits Table ......................... 17 Vice President Richard B. Rogers Hunt Zones ............................................ 18 Commissioner Michael Sutton Hunting and Other Public Uses on Commissioner Daniel W. Richards State and Federal Areas Acting Executive Director Jon Fischer Reservation System .............................. 20 General Public Use Activities on Department of Fish and Game Director John McCamman All State Wildlife Areas ....................... 23 Hunting, Firearms, and Archery Alternate communication formats are available upon request. If reasonable
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh Iii Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHILOH III WIND PLANT PROJECT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN P REPARED BY: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Mike Thomas, Chief Habitat Conservation Planning Branch W ITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Schafer 916.737.3000 February 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh III Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan. February. (ICF 00263.09). Sacramento, CA. With technical assistance from ICF International, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Species Covered by the HCP ...................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Proposed Action Addressed in this EA ....................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1‐2 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................. 2‐1 2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project
    Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project Prepared for CSAMP/CAMT Project funded by State and Federal Water Contractors Prepared by Graham Long and Sally Rudd Compass Resource Management Ltd. 604.641.2875 Suite 210- 111 Water Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6B 1A7 www.compassrm.com Date May 4, 2018 April 13th – reviewed by TWG and comments incorporated Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Trade-offs ................................................................................................. 17 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [Show full text]
  • 550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed
    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed Below. (a) State Wildlife Areas: (1) Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (Sierra County) (Type C); (2) Ash Creek Wildlife Area (Lassen and Modoc counties) (Type B); (3) Bass Hill Wildlife Area (Lassen County), including the Egan Management Unit (Type C); (4) Battle Creek Wildlife Area (Shasta and Tehama counties); (5) Big Lagoon Wildlife Area (Humboldt County) (Type C); (6) Big Sandy Wildlife Area (Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties) (Type C); (7) Biscar Wildlife Area (Lassen County) (Type C); (8) Buttermilk Country Wildlife Area (Inyo County) (Type C); (9) Butte Valley Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type B); (10) Cache Creek Wildlife Area (Colusa and Lake counties), including the Destanella Flat and Harley Gulch management units (Type C); (11) Camp Cady Wildlife Area (San Bernadino County) (Type C); (12) Cantara/Ney Springs Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type C); (13) Cedar Roughs Wildlife Area (Napa County) (Type C); (14) Cinder Flats Wildlife Area (Shasta County) (Type C); (15) Collins Eddy Wildlife Area (Sutter and Yolo counties) (Type C); (16) Colusa Bypass Wildlife Area (Colusa County) (Type C); (17) Coon Hollow Wildlife Area (Butte County) (Type C); (18) Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Merced County), including the Upper Cottonwood and Lower Cottonwood management units (Type C); (19) Crescent City Marsh Wildlife Area (Del Norte County); (20) Crocker Meadow Wildlife Area (Plumas County) (Type C); (21) Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area (Yuba County)
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W
    38.371223N 38.381801N 121.978996W 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W l 96.30 n n 96.35 h h LEGEND C g k Slou p l Elk Grove 22020 i E Rd h nklin S Fra 80 ood r H SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE e Hood 34484 v 80 i Union Pacific RR R o Elmira 22146 t Federal American Indian n e L'ANSE RES 1880 m Reservation a r c a S Off-Reservation Trust Land, 7 6 Franklin Blvd Hawaiian Home Land T1880 3 0 1 1 O Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, LO T O EN Alaska Native Village Statistical Area, KAW OTSA 5340 Y M Tribal Designated Statistical Area A R Sprock Rd C Union Pacific RR Vacaville 81554 A State American Indian S Franklin 25506 Reservation Tama Res 4125 State Designated Tribal 96.38 84 d R Lumbee STSA 9815 r Statistical Area d e nd R v ll Isla Ri Randa Ston Stone Lk e L k Sn Alaska Native Regional od g NANA ANRC 52120 r Rd Fogg d Corporation h a nt R g s asa s Kestrel Lake Rd Ple u int o S Po l l 113 S o u k g State (or statistically l h E Wilson Rd Wilson Rd equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 tter S u lo u S g h County (or statistically ERIE 029 0 equivalent entity) 6 1 Courtland 16714 Korn Rd Hwy t s / Minor Civil Division d d R R 1,2 r e (MCD) Bristol town 07485 e Lambert Rd g v d i i H r R B a s h s g S YOLO 113 u o l l o S u g r Consolidated City h e t MILFORD 47500 t u SOLANO 095 S L ev d 5 e R e e R ve 1,3 d e Incorporated Place Vouvray Ln L 5 Davis 18100 Russel Rd Census Designated Place Toe Drn 3 Incline Village 35100 h (CDP) g u o l S Herzog Rd r e Alfalfa Plant Rd t t Census Tract Dierssen Rd gh W Sut u 33.07 u ter Islan S Slo d Cross R Ca che d Dierssen Rd DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL M i n Water Body e Interstate 3 Pleasant Lake r S lo u Vorden Rd gh Richards U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]