DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity Assessment Prepared for Taurus Energy Proposed Development of a 30MW Wind Farm on the Cullerin Range, Southern Tablelands, New South Wales Biodiversity Assessment prepared by May 2006 nghenvironmental sydney head office: bega 3/6 west street pymble nsw 2073 australia 1/216 carp street (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 australia phone: + 61 2 9499 4310 fax: + 61 2 9499 4311 phone: + 61 2 6494 7771 fax: + 61 2 6494 7773 www.nghenvironmental.com.au email: [email protected] a division of nicholas graham-higgs pty ltd Document Verification Document Proposed Development of a 30MW Wind Title Farm on the Cullerin Range, Southern Tablelands, New South Wales Document Type Biodiversity assessment File Location \\Server\NGH-Active\Projects\ Biodiversity assessment Cullerin Revision Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by Draft 29th Dec 05 name Brooke name Nick G-H name Nick G-H Marshall and Jackie Miles. sign. sign. sign. Final 15 Feb 06 name Brooke name Nick G-H name Nick G-H Marshall sign. Sign. sign. Final for DoP 10 May 06 name Brooke name Nick G-H name Nick G-H validation Marshall sign. Sign. sign. nghenvironmental prints all b/w documents on sugar cane paper made from 100% bagasse (a by-product of sugar production). Biodiversity Assessment: Cullerin Wind Farm Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 2. THE PROPOSAL............................................................................... 2 2.1. Description of the site........................................................................... 2 2.2. Proposed works .................................................................................... 2 2.3. Approach of this assessment ............................................................... 3 3. REGIONAL CONTEXT ...................................................................... 5 3.1. Regional review..................................................................................... 5 3.2. Conservation reserves in the area ........................................................ 6 3.2.1. Wet Lagoon and Wollogorang Lagoon ..................................................................... 6 3.2.2. Mundoonen Nature Reserve..................................................................................... 6 3.3. Habitat adjacent to the site ................................................................... 7 3.3.1. Vehicle-based survey of the area ............................................................................. 7 4. FLORA AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.................................... 9 4.1. Approach and methodology ................................................................. 9 4.1.1. Preliminary assessments ......................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. Field survey and mapping ........................................................................................ 9 4.1.3. Threatened species and communities.................................................................... 10 4.1.4. Survey limitations ................................................................................................... 10 4.2. Survey Results..................................................................................... 11 4.2.1. Survey zones .......................................................................................................... 11 4.2.2. Vegetation communities of conservation significance ........................................... 14 4.2.3. Species recorded at the site ................................................................................... 16 4.2.4. Species of conservation significance ..................................................................... 16 4.2.5. Disturbance and weeds .......................................................................................... 17 4.3. Impact assessment.............................................................................. 17 4.3.1. Construction impacts.............................................................................................. 17 4.3.2. Operational impacts................................................................................................ 20 4.3.3. Decommissioning impacts ..................................................................................... 20 i nghenvironmental Biodiversity Assessment: Cullerin Wind Farm 5. FAUNA ............................................................................................ 21 5.1. Approach and methodology ............................................................... 21 5.1.1. Preliminary assessments ....................................................................................... 21 5.1.2. Field surveys and mapping..................................................................................... 21 5.1.3. Threatened and other significant species............................................................... 25 5.1.4. Survey limitations ................................................................................................... 25 5.2. Survey results...................................................................................... 25 5.2.1. Fauna habitat in the study area .............................................................................. 25 5.2.2. Survey results......................................................................................................... 26 5.2.3. Sensitive habitat features ....................................................................................... 27 5.2.4. Threatened species ................................................................................................ 27 5.2.5. Matters of national significance (EPBC Act) .......................................................... 31 5.3. Impact assessment.............................................................................. 32 5.3.1. Construction impacts.............................................................................................. 32 5.3.2. Operational impacts................................................................................................ 34 5.3.3. Decommissioning impacts ..................................................................................... 41 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 42 6.1. Flora..................................................................................................... 42 6.1.1. Construction............................................................................................................ 42 6.1.2. Operation ................................................................................................................ 43 6.1.3. Decommissioning impacts ..................................................................................... 43 6.2. Fauna................................................................................................... 44 6.2.1. Construction............................................................................................................ 44 6.2.2. Operation ................................................................................................................ 44 6.2.3. Decommissioning impacts ..................................................................................... 45 7. REFERENCES ................................................................................ 46 ii nghenvironmental Biodiversity Assessment: Cullerin Wind Farm APPENDIX A: FLORA LIST..................................................................- 1 - A.1: Plant species list for the site ................................................................- 2 - APPENDIX B: FAUNA LIST..................................................................- 7 - B.1: Faunal species list for the site .............................................................- 8 - APPENDIX C: THREATENED SPECIES EVALUATION ....................- 11 - C.1 Flora .....................................................................................................- 12 - C.2 Fauna ...................................................................................................- 15 - APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE............................- 21 - D.1 TSC Act Assessment of significance ..................................................- 22 - D.2 EPBC Act Assessment of significance................................................- 31 - Endangered ecological communities (EECs).................................................................- 31 - Threatened flora and fauna species................................................................................- 33 - Migratory species ............................................................................................................- 37 - APPENDIX E: BIRD IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT ..........................- 39 - E.1 Risk assessment ..................................................................................- 40 - E.2 Conclusion...........................................................................................- 44 - APPENDIX F: PHOTOGRAPHS .........................................................- 45 - F.1 Photographs of the site, by vegetation survey zone. .........................- 46 - APPENDIX G: ADDENDUM ...............................................................- 53 - G.1 Follow-up assessment of access routes.............................................- 54 - Lerida Road North...........................................................................................................-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Native Vegetation of the Nattai and Bargo Reserves
    The Native Vegetation of the Nattai and Bargo Reserves Project funded under the Central Directorate Parks and Wildlife Division Biodiversity Data Priorities Program Conservation Assessment and Data Unit Conservation Programs and Planning Branch, Metropolitan Environmental Protection and Regulation Division Department of Environment and Conservation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CADU (Central) Manager Special thanks to: Julie Ravallion Nattai NP Area staff for providing general assistance as well as their knowledge of the CADU (Central) Bioregional Data Group area, especially: Raf Pedroza and Adrian Coordinator Johnstone. Daniel Connolly Citation CADU (Central) Flora Project Officer DEC (2004) The Native Vegetation of the Nattai Nathan Kearnes and Bargo Reserves. Unpublished Report. Department of Environment and Conservation, CADU (Central) GIS, Data Management and Hurstville. Database Coordinator This report was funded by the Central Peter Ewin Directorate Parks and Wildlife Division, Biodiversity Survey Priorities Program. Logistics and Survey Planning All photographs are held by DEC. To obtain a Nathan Kearnes copy please contact the Bioregional Data Group Coordinator, DEC Hurstville Field Surveyors David Thomas Cover Photos Teresa James Nathan Kearnes Feature Photo (Daniel Connolly) Daniel Connolly White-striped Freetail-bat (Michael Todd), Rock Peter Ewin Plate-Heath Mallee (DEC) Black Crevice-skink (David O’Connor) Aerial Photo Interpretation Tall Moist Blue Gum Forest (DEC) Ian Roberts (Nattai and Bargo, this report; Rainforest (DEC) Woronora, 2003; Western Sydney, 1999) Short-beaked Echidna (D. O’Connor) Bob Wilson (Warragamba, 2003) Grey Gum (Daniel Connolly) Pintech (Pty Ltd) Red-crowned Toadlet (Dave Hunter) Data Analysis ISBN 07313 6851 7 Nathan Kearnes Daniel Connolly Report Writing and Map Production Nathan Kearnes Daniel Connolly EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the distribution and composition of the native vegetation within and immediately surrounding Nattai National Park, Nattai State Conservation Area and Bargo State Conservation Area.
    [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]
  • Two Centuries of Botanical Exploration Along the Botanists Way, Northern Blue Mountains, N.S.W: a Regional Botanical History That Refl Ects National Trends
    Two Centuries of Botanical Exploration along the Botanists Way, Northern Blue Mountains, N.S.W: a Regional Botanical History that Refl ects National Trends DOUG BENSON Honorary Research Associate, National Herbarium of New South Wales, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney NSW 2000, AUSTRALIA. [email protected] Published on 10 April 2019 at https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/LIN/index Benson, D. (2019). Two centuries of botanical exploration along the Botanists Way, northern Blue Mountains,N.S.W: a regional botanical history that refl ects national trends. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 141, 1-24. The Botanists Way is a promotional concept developed by the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden at Mt Tomah for interpretation displays associated with the adjacent Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA). It is based on 19th century botanical exploration of areas between Kurrajong and Bell, northwest of Sydney, generally associated with Bells Line of Road, and focussed particularly on the botanists George Caley and Allan Cunningham and their connections with Mt Tomah. Based on a broader assessment of the area’s botanical history, the concept is here expanded to cover the route from Richmond to Lithgow (about 80 km) including both Bells Line of Road and Chifl ey Road, and extending north to the Newnes Plateau. The historical attraction of botanists and collectors to the area is explored chronologically from 1804 up to the present, and themes suitable for visitor education are recognised. Though the Botanists Way is focused on a relatively limited geographic area, the general sequence of scientifi c activities described - initial exploratory collecting; 19th century Gentlemen Naturalists (and lady illustrators); learned societies and publications; 20th century publicly-supported research institutions and the beginnings of ecology, and since the 1960s, professional conservation research and management - were also happening nationally elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Solano 4 Wind Project EIR 8 References Executive
    Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 8 References Executive Summary No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 1, “Introduction” No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 2, “Project Description” California Energy Commission. 2018 (August). Operational Wind Projects, Solano Wind Resource Area, 2018. Map scale 1:24,000. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/wind/WindResourceArea_Solano.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Solano County. 1987 (May). Solano County Wind Turbine Siting Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, CA. U.S. Geological Survey. 2019 (January). U.S. Wind Turbine Database. Available: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#14.02/38.16164/-121.79729. Accessed February 9, 2019. USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” Section 3.1, “Aesthetics” Black & Veatch. 2019 (January 3). Solano Wind Energy Project, Wind Project Shadow Flicker Assessment. California Department of Transportation 2019. Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed March 18, 2019. Federal Aviation Administration. 2018 (August 17). Obstruction Marking and Lighting, including Changes 1 and 2. Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L. Chapter 13, “Marking and Lighting Wind Turbines.” Federal Highway Administration. 2015 (January). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. FHWA-HEP-15-029. Washington, DC. Page 8-1 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. See National Research Council. Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2007 (September). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SMUD Solano Wind Project Phase 3.
    [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]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory Report and Addendum
    APPENDIX E1 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT This page intentionally left blank CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEZUMA II WIND PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P REPARED FOR: NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard, MS FEW/JB Juno Beach, FL 33408 Contact: Cliff Graham 561.304.5372 P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Andrea Nardin 916.737.3000 August 2010 ICF International. 2010. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Montezuma II Wind Project, Solano County, California. August. (ICF 00336.10). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, Juno Beach, FL. Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Area of Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun City General Plan
    B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES B ACKGROUND R EPORT Biological Resources In This Background Report Page Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Habitat Types ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sensitive Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 9 Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................................................. 10 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... 40 Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ...................................................................... 41 State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ......................................................................... 43 Regional and Local Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Ordinances .......................................... 44 General Plan Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 46 References ............................................................................................................................... 47 P AGE BIO‐ 1 C ITY OF
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Montezuma Wind Plant Project (U-06-06) January 2010
    Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Montezuma Wind Plant Project (U-06-06) January 2010 Department of Resource Management 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533 Planning Services Division Michael Yankovich Phone: (707) 784-6765 / Fax: (707) 784-4805 Planning Program Manager January 14, 2010 Dear Interested Agency: Subject: Notice of Montezuma Wind Project Final Environmental Impact Report Amendment The County of Solano Department of Resource Management published the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Montezuma Wind Project in February of 2007. An amendment to the FEIR has been prepared, dated January 2010, and is attached. The amendment describes and analyzes the potential impacts resulting from minor changes to the project description, environment and setting, and/or new information being received, generally described as follows: Modifications to wind turbine layout option #1 (Siemens). Elimination of PG&E reconductoring project from EIR (project near completion). Slight increased size (0.07 acre) of one of two substation options, and increased main transformer size from 40 MVA to 60 MVA. Increased project area from 1,458 to 1,466 acres. New and/or updated reports: blade throw, shadow flicker, low frequency/infrasound noise, and avian mortality. Update and resolution of Travis AFB radar issue related to the Project. Update to Air Quality section of EIR regarding greenhouse gases and global warming. Update to Biological Resources section of EIR regarding California Tiger Salamander and regulations for Bald and Golden Eagles. Other updates regarding County adoption of 2008 General Plan, plans underway for County adoption of updated development standards for wind turbine generators, and recently completed and planned wind energy projects in the vicinity of Montezuma Wind.
    [Show full text]
  • Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1
    SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY Staff Recommendation April 11, 2018 MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 Project No. RA-001 Project Manager: Laura Cholodenko RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $1,610,000 to Montezuma Wetlands LLC to complete the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1, which includes tidal and seasonal wetland restoration on 630 acres of diked baylands and enhancement of adjacent uplands in Suisun Marsh, Solano County. LOCATION: Montezuma Slough, Solano County; Measure AA Region: North Bay MEASURE AA PROGRAM CATEGORY: Safe, Clean Water and Pollution Prevention Program; Vital Fish, Bird and Wildlife Habitat Program. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Exhibit 2: Project Design Exhibit 3: CEQA Documentation Exhibit 4: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority adopt the following resolution pursuant to The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act, Gov. Code § 66700- 66706: “The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority hereby authorizes the disbursement of an amount not to exceed one million six hundred ten thousand dollars ($1,610,000) to Montezuma Wetlands LLC for implementation of the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1, which includes tidal and seasonal wetland restoration on 630 acres of diked baylands and enhancement of adjacent uplands in Suisun Marsh, Solano County. Prior to commencement of the project, the grantee shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Authority the following: a. A detailed work program, schedule, and budget. Page 1 of 10 MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 b. Names and qualifications of any contractors to be employed in carrying out the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Conservation Advice for Kunzea Cambagei
    This Conservation Advice was approved by the Minister / Delegate of the Minister on: 3/07/2008. Approved Conservation Advice (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) Approved Conservation Advice for Kunzea cambagei This Conservation Advice has been developed based on the best available information at the time this conservation advice was approved. Description Kunzea cambagei, Family Myrtaceae, also known as the Cambage Kunzea, is a prostate, spreading or ascending shrub growing to 0.6 m tall. Leaves are sweetly-scented, 3–8 mm long and 3 mm wide, with a rounded tip. Flowers are cream to yellow coloured and are grouped in clusters at the ends of branches. The flowers have numerous stamens and the base of the flower is covered with silky hairs. Fruits are a hairy capsule 3 mm long (NSW NPWS, 2000a; DECC, 2005a). Conservation Status Kunzea cambagei is listed as vulnerable. This species is eligible for listing as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) as, prior to the commencement of the EPBC Act, it was listed as vulnerable under Schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cwlth). Kunzea cambagei is also listed as vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW). Distribution and Habitat Kunzea cambagei occurs in the western and southern parts of the Blue Mountains, NSW, with four main populations with 20–150 individuals (NSW NPWS, 2000a). Populations are located west of Berrima, along the Wingecarribee River; Loombah Plateau east of Mount Werong; the Oberon–Colong Stock Route within Kanangra–Boyd National Park (NP); and Wangaderry Plateau within the Nattai NP (NSW NPSW, 2000a).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 9 Ecology Assessment Readymix Holdings Pty Limited
    APPENDIX 9 Ecology Assessment Readymix Holdings Pty Limited Ecological Assessment Proposed Lynwood Quarry, Marulan May 2005 Ecological Assessment Table of Contents Proposed Lynwood Quarry, Marulan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................ 1.1 1.1 PROJECT AREA ...........................................................................................1.1 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................1.1 1.2.1 Construction Phase.............................................................................1.2 1.2.2 Operational Phase ..............................................................................1.2 1.3 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................1.3 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 2.1 2.1 FLORA...........................................................................................................2.1 2.1.1 Vegetation Survey...............................................................................2.1 2.1.2 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review ........................................2.2 2.1.3 Biases and Limitations ........................................................................2.2 2.1.4 Target Species....................................................................................2.3 2.2 FAUNA SURVEY...........................................................................................2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Maps of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1401 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA By Brian F. Atwater INTRODUCTION The Sac ramen to - San Joaquin Delta, the arm of Helley, and W. R. Lettis improved the manuscript with the San Francisco Bay estuary that reaches into the critical reviews, and Faith Dunham, J. R. Le Compte, Central 'valley of California, differs from typical J. B. Pinkerton, N. J. Tamamian, J. A. Thomas, and coastal-plain deltas in three important respects. Natalie Weiskal helped prepare the maps and text for First, rather than meeting the ocean individually and publication. directly, all major waterways of this delta discharge via a single constricted outlet into a chain of estuarine bays and straits. Second, in the most SKETCH OF DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY common vertical sequence of deposits, peat and mud deposited in tidal marshes and swamps (tidal wetlands) The Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta overlies 5-10 directly overlie alluvium or eolian sand, a sequence km of sedimentary deposits. Most of this material, recording a landward spread of tidal environment~ including sources and reservoirs of the Delta's rather than the seaward migration of fluvial natural gas, accumulated in marine environments about environments that is typical of coastal-plain deltas 175 million to 25 million years ago (Burroughs, (Cosby, 1941, p. 43; Thompson, 1957, p. 12; Shlemon 1967). Younger deposits are generally described as and Begg, 1975, p. 259; Atwater and Belknap, 1980). nonmarine (Burroughs, 1967), but some must have formed Finally, intensive human use has led to a peculiar set in shallow seas and estuaries (see maps by C.
    [Show full text]