DOCSLIB.ORG

2-D Peer Review of Scientific Investigations Conducted for Phases I, Ii, and Iii of the Marine Outfall Siting Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2-D Peer Review of Scientific Investigations Conducted for Phases I, Ii, and Iii of the Marine Outfall Siting Study 2-D PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED FOR PHASES I, II, AND III OF THE MARINE OUTFALL SITING STUDY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Brightwater Regional Wastewater Treatment System APPENDICES Final Appendix 2-D Peer Review of Scientific Investigations Conducted for Phases I, II, and III of the Marine Outfall Siting Study August 2003 For more information: Brightwater Project 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 503 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-684-6799 or toll free 1-888-707-8571 Alternative formats available upon request by calling 206-684-1280 or 711 (TTY) Contents Peer Review Evaluation of technical documents from the Marine Outfall Siting Study, July 2003. Prepared by Puget Sound Action Team, Office of the Governor, State of Washington. Response to Peer Review Evaluation Report, August 2003. Prepared for King County by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, WA. PEER REVIEW EVALUATION Of technical documents from the MARINE OUTFALL SITING STUDY July 2003 Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Lands Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 503 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Prepared by: Puget Sound Action Team Office of the Governor State of Washington P.O. Box 40900 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 Peer Review Evaluation Marine Outfall Siting Study Interagency agreement between the King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division and the Puget Sound Action Team, Office of the Governor, State of Washington. Intergovernmental Contract – IAC 200101 To obtain this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Action Team’s ADA coordinator at (360) 407-7300. The Action Team’s TDD number is (800) 833-6388. Peer Review Evaluation Marine Outfall Siting Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999 the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP) initiated a Marine Outfall Siting Study (MOSS) for a new secondary treated wastewater facility named Brightwater. Numerous scientific field studies were undertaken in central Puget Sound in areas specific to the candidate outfall zones and pipe corridors. As a result, a large number of technical documents were produced in 2001 and 2002. In 2002 King County identified the need for a formal scientific peer review of 28 technical documents produced during MOSS Phases I, II and III. The Puget Sound Action Team was contracted to coordinate this peer review process. Independent and external scientific peer review is an essential component of the scientific process, and lends credibility to such investigations. The principal scientific disciplines required for this peer review were geology, physical oceanography, biology, modeling, chemistry, and risk assessment. Prospective candidates for a peer review were selected during the fall of 2002 and the six-member panel of marine experts was finalized in December 2002. The technical expertise of the peer review panel was broad-based, and several members served on previous scientific panels concerning marine outfalls. The objective of the peer review was to make certain the MOSS scientific examinations were adequate to answer specific siting questions regarding location and design of a marine outfall. Specifically, the expert peer review members were asked to “review and comment on the MOSS scientific investigations to ensure that the information/data are sufficient to answer criteria questions, and provide policy-makers and regional decision- makers with an objective evaluation regarding the adequacy of the scientific studies that will be used to inform the final decision on placement and design of a new outfall to Puget Sound” (from the MOSS Peer Review Scope of Work). This Peer Review Evaluation documents the proceedings of the May 1, 2003 meeting and is based on the complete peer review process between October 2002 and May 2003. A set of comprehensive findings and recommendations for each scientific discipline is presented, as well as a project background and details of the peer review process. PEER REVIEW PROCESS A kick-off meeting and a final evaluation meeting were scheduled during the peer review process. The kick-off meeting was held on January 9, 2003 at the West Point Treatment Plant in Seattle. The purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the peer reviewers with the MOSS Team (i.e., KCDNRP and other consultant teams), learn about the project, and clarify the reviewer roles and responsibilities. The final evaluation meeting was held at the same location on May 1, 2003 and was a platform for the review panel to present their findings and recommendations, and provide an evaluation of the overall quality of the MOSS scientific studies. i Peer Review Evaluation Marine Outfall Siting Study The 28 MOSS technical documents and all supporting materials were distributed to the review panel in early January 2003. The panel members were instructed to review the technical documents and comment specifically on the scientific investigations within each. Several questions were provided to assist the panel during the review of each technical document. For example, reviewers were asked to consider these questions when reading the documents and composing written comments: Were the studies designed appropriately, with sufficient data to satisfy the objectives? Is the science sufficient behind the conclusions? Was sampling sufficient in all cases? Were the correct parameters included? Were the relevant data considered and used appropriately? Was something completely missed? The reviewers were asked to spend about six to eight days of effort over a six-week period to complete their technical reviews. Each panelist worked independently and provided written, technical comments for every assigned document. The format for a completed review included general comments, detailed comments addressing specific sections in the technical document, a conclusion, and references (if necessary). The length of a review ranged between one and twelve pages depending on the size of the technical document being reviewed. All reviewers completed the written, technical comments by mid-March 2003 and submitted each review to the peer review coordinator from the Puget Sound Action Team. The review coordinator completed a technical review report (i.e., summary) for each set of written comments. These short summaries encapsulated the reviewer’s comments and were written primarily for a technical audience. The peer review process concluded with the final evaluation meeting on May 1, 2003. Each panelist presented their findings and recommendations for their respective scientific discipline. The material contained in each presentation was a verbal account of the more comprehensive written comments. Panelists were asked to frame their presentations around the five questions listed below. Information derived from these questions serves as the foundation for what is presented in the findings and recommendations. 1. Was the study design scientifically sound (met data quality objectives (DQO) or study purpose)? For example, were parameters clearly defined, goals clearly stated? 2. Were study methodologies acceptable and appropriate? For example, were standard scientific methods and variables used? 3. Were data sufficient to meet the DQO’s or study purpose? For example, were enough data, or the appropriate data, collected to meet the study purpose? 4. Did the report adequately present study results? For example, did the reports present sufficient data analysis? Was anything missed? What more is needed? 5. Were appropriate resources/information reviewed and/or presented? This question is specific to literature reviews, and is applicable only to the oceanography and biology disciplines. ii Peer Review Evaluation Marine Outfall Siting Study PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall conclusions The six-member independent scientific peer review panel concluded that all 28 technical documents were acceptable. The panel judged that the MOSS scientific studies were adequate to address the siting and design questions concerning the proposed outfall. Extensive and appropriate scientific data were collected for the scientific investigations reported in each technical document. Study designs were scientifically sound and the methods were generally appropriate. The review panel identified no serious flaws in the MOSS studies that would jeopardize the studies’ ability to inform outfall siting and design decisions. However, the panel did recommend improvements that could be made in some areas, including some extensive improvements in a few areas. The recommended modifications could be accomplished by preparing errata sheets, revising existing reports, or writing additional reports. Examples of specific recommendations are offered below under each scientific discipline heading. The peer review panel commented extensively on the scientific investigations in each technical document and offered numerous recommendations in the written reviews. The panel offered over-arching recommendations that they thought would strengthen the existing technical documents and also provided general guidance based on the panel’s technical experience with outfall processes. These include: · Provide a context for the outfall within Puget Sound: For example, a) Outfall design and general observations: put proposed outfall into context with existing outfalls in Puget Sound, as well as other outfalls in the United States, and overseas. How would it compare? b) Water quality: put proposed outfall discharge in context with other loads entering Puget Sound (i.e.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geoducks—A Compendium
    34, NUMBER 1 VOLUME JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH APRIL 2015 JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH Vol. 34, No. 1 APRIL 2015 JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH CONTENTS VOLUME 34, NUMBER 1 APRIL 2015 Geoducks — A compendium ...................................................................... 1 Brent Vadopalas and Jonathan P. Davis .......................................................................................... 3 Paul E. Gribben and Kevin G. Heasman Developing fisheries and aquaculture industries for Panopea zelandica in New Zealand ............................... 5 Ignacio Leyva-Valencia, Pedro Cruz-Hernandez, Sergio T. Alvarez-Castaneda,~ Delia I. Rojas-Posadas, Miguel M. Correa-Ramırez, Brent Vadopalas and Daniel B. Lluch-Cota Phylogeny and phylogeography of the geoduck Panopea (Bivalvia: Hiatellidae) ..................................... 11 J. Jesus Bautista-Romero, Sergio Scarry Gonzalez-Pel aez, Enrique Morales-Bojorquez, Jose Angel Hidalgo-de-la-Toba and Daniel Bernardo Lluch-Cota Sinusoidal function modeling applied to age validation of geoducks Panopea generosa and Panopea globosa ................. 21 Brent Vadopalas, Jonathan P. Davis and Carolyn S. Friedman Maturation, spawning, and fecundity of the farmed Pacific geoduck Panopea generosa in Puget Sound, Washington ............ 31 Bianca Arney, Wenshan Liu, Ian Forster, R. Scott McKinley and Christopher M. Pearce Temperature and food-ration optimization in the hatchery culture of juveniles of the Pacific geoduck Panopea generosa ......... 39 Alejandra Ferreira-Arrieta, Zaul Garcıa-Esquivel, Marco A. Gonzalez-G omez and Enrique Valenzuela-Espinoza Growth, survival, and feeding rates for the geoduck Panopea globosa during larval development ......................... 55 Sandra Tapia-Morales, Zaul Garcıa-Esquivel, Brent Vadopalas and Jonathan Davis Growth and burrowing rates of juvenile geoducks Panopea generosa and Panopea globosa under laboratory conditions .......... 63 Fabiola G. Arcos-Ortega, Santiago J. Sanchez Leon–Hing, Carmen Rodriguez-Jaramillo, Mario A.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure, Distribution and Harvesting of Southern Geoduck, Panopea Abbreviata, in San Matías Gulf (Patagonia, Argentina)
    Scientia Marina 74(4) December 2010, 763-772, Barcelona (Spain) ISSN: 0214-8358 doi: 10.3989/scimar.2010.74n4763 Population structure, distribution and harvesting of southern geoduck, Panopea abbreviata, in San Matías Gulf (Patagonia, Argentina) ENRIQUE MORSAN 1, PAULA ZAIDMAN 1,2, MATÍAS OCAMPO-REINALDO 1,3 and NÉSTOR CIOCCO 4,5 1 Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquera Almirante Storni, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Guemes 1030, 8520 San Antonio Oeste, Río Negro, Argentina. E-mail: [email protected] 2 CONICET-Chubut. 3 CONICET. 4 IADIZA, CCT CONICET Mendoza, C.C. 507, 5500 Mendoza, Argentina. 5 Instituto de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 5500 Mendoza Argentina. SUMMARY: Southern geoduck is the most long-lived bivalve species exploited in the South Atlantic and is harvested by divers in San Matías Gulf. Except preliminary data on growth and a gametogenic cycle study, there is no basic information that can be used to manage this resource in terms of population structure, harvesting, mortality and inter-population compari- sons of growth. Our aim was to analyze the spatial distribution from survey data, population structure, growth and mortality of several beds along a latitudinal gradient based on age determination from thin sections of valves. We also described the spatial allocation of the fleet’s fishing effort, and its sources of variability from data collected on board. Three geoduck beds were located and sampled along the coast: El Sótano, Punta Colorada and Puerto Lobos. Geoduck ages ranged between 2 and 86 years old. Growth patterns showed significant differences in the asymptotic size between El Sótano (109.4 mm) and Puerto Lobos (98.06 mm).
    [Show full text]
  • John Day Fossil Beds National Monument
    ISSUE VIII JANUARY 2007 NARG Newsletter North America Research Group Northwest Fossil Fest Recap Last August NARG held it's first annual Northwest Fossil Fest held at INSIDE THIS ISSUE the Rice Museum in Hillsboro Oregon. The goal of the Fest was to NW Fossil Fest Recap 1 promote, educate, showcase fossils Radiocarbon Dating Fund 3 from the Pacific NW, and to have John Day Fossil Beds fun, all of which was accomplished. National Monument 3 Taxonomy Report #6 5 The tagline for the Fest is “Inspire, Inquire, Interact” and nothing What is “Fossil Search and Rescue? inspires more than displaying some of the amazing fossils specimens that Oregon Fossils have been found in the Pacific NW. Plants of the Jurassic Period 7 Tami Smith making a batch of Trilobite Cookie Many guests where surprised at the Trilobite Morphology 8 wide range of life forms that once lived where we do today. Inquiry minds want to know and we had a top-notch line up of guest speakers such as Dr. Dr. Ellen Morris Bishop, Dr. Jeffrey A. Myers, and Dr. William. N. Orr. This was a great opportunity for guest not only to learn more about the paleontology and geology of Oregon but also to meet 3 of the leading professionals in these fields. More Trilobite Cookie making There were many ways to interact, from the fossil preparation area where demonstrations took place on tools and techniques used to prepare fossils, to fossil identification, and of course all the kids activities that NARG setup. The Screen for Shark Teeth was probably the biggest hits and over 1000 Bone Valley shark teeth where given away.
    [Show full text]
  • Panopea Abrupta ) Ecology and Aquaculture Production
    COMPREHENSIVE LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNOPSIS OF ISSUES RELATING TO GEODUCK ( PANOPEA ABRUPTA ) ECOLOGY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION Prepared for Washington State Department of Natural Resources by Kristine Feldman, Brent Vadopalas, David Armstrong, Carolyn Friedman, Ray Hilborn, Kerry Naish, Jose Orensanz, and Juan Valero (School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington), Jennifer Ruesink (Department of Biology, University of Washington), Andrew Suhrbier, Aimee Christy, and Dan Cheney (Pacific Shellfish Institute), and Jonathan P. Davis (Baywater Inc.) February 6, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 General life history ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Predator-prey interactions........................................................................... 2 1.3 Community and ecosystem effects of geoducks......................................... 2 1.4 Spatial structure of geoduck populations.................................................... 3 1.5 Genetic-based differences at the population level ...................................... 3 1.6 Commercial geoduck hatchery practices ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Spatial Distribution, Density and Population Structure of The
    Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía ISSN: 0717-3326 [email protected] Universidad de Valparaíso Chile Aragón-Noriega, E. Alberto; Calderon-Aguilera, Luis E.; Alcántara-Razo, Edgar; Mendivil- Mendoza, Jaime E. Spatial distribution, density and population structure of the Cortes geoduck, Panopea globosa in the Central Gulf of California Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía, vol. 51, núm. 1, abril, 2016, pp. 1-10 Universidad de Valparaíso Viña del Mar, Chile Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=47945599001 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía Vol. 51, Nº1: 1-10, abril 2016 DOI 10.4067/S0718-19572016000100001 ARTÍCULO Spatial distribution, density and population structure of the Cortes geoduck, Panopea globosa in the Central Gulf of California Distribución espacial, densidad y estructura poblacional de la almeja de sifón Panopea globosa en la parte central del Golfo de California E. Alberto Aragón-Noriega1, Luis E. Calderon-Aguilera2, Edgar Alcántara-Razo1 and Jaime E. Mendivil-Mendoza1 1Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Unidad Sonora, Km 2.35 Camino al Tular, Estero Bacochibampo, Guaymas, Sonora 85454, México. [email protected] 2Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada. Carretera Ensenada-Tijuana 3918, Ensenada, Baja California 22860, México Resumen.- La almeja de sifón Panopea globosa es una especie de importancia comercial por su alta demanda en el mercado de Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Extreme Longevity in Modern and Fossil Bivalves
    Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE August 2016 The evolution of extreme longevity in modern and fossil bivalves David Kelton Moss Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Moss, David Kelton, "The evolution of extreme longevity in modern and fossil bivalves" (2016). Dissertations - ALL. 662. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/662 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract: The factors involved in promoting long life are extremely intriguing from a human perspective. In part by confronting our own mortality, we have a desire to understand why some organisms live for centuries and others only a matter of days or weeks. What are the factors involved in promoting long life? Not only are questions of lifespan significant from a human perspective, but they are also important from a paleontological one. Most studies of evolution in the fossil record examine changes in the size and the shape of organisms through time. Size and shape are in part a function of life history parameters like lifespan and growth rate, but so far little work has been done on either in the fossil record. The shells of bivavled mollusks may provide an avenue to do just that. Bivalves, much like trees, record their size at each year of life in their shells. In other words, bivalve shells record not only lifespan, but also growth rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Bivalves and the Sclerochronological Reawakening
    Paleobiology, 2021, pp. 1–23 DOI: 10.1017/pab.2021.16 Review Fossil bivalves and the sclerochronological reawakening David K. Moss* , Linda C. Ivany, and Douglas S. Jones Abstract.—The field of sclerochronology has long been known to paleobiologists. Yet, despite the central role of growth rate, age, and body size in questions related to macroevolution and evolutionary ecology, these types of studies and the data they produce have received only episodic attention from paleobiologists since the field’s inception in the 1960s. It is time to reconsider their potential. Not only can sclerochrono- logical data help to address long-standing questions in paleobiology, but they can also bring to light new questions that would otherwise have been impossible to address. For example, growth rate and life-span data, the very data afforded by chronological growth increments, are essential to answer questions related not only to heterochrony and hence evolutionary mechanisms, but also to body size and organism ener- getics across the Phanerozoic. While numerous fossil organisms have accretionary skeletons, bivalves offer perhaps one of the most tangible and intriguing pathways forward, because they exhibit clear, typically annual, growth increments and they include some of the longest-lived, non-colonial animals on the planet. In addition to their longevity, modern bivalves also show a latitudinal gradient of increasing life span and decreasing growth rate with latitude that might be related to the latitudinal diversity gradient. Is this a recently developed phenomenon or has it characterized much of the group’s history? When and how did extreme longevity evolve in the Bivalvia? What insights can the growth increments of fossil bivalves provide about hypotheses for energetics through time? In spite of the relative ease with which the tools of sclerochronology can be applied to these questions, paleobiologists have been slow to adopt sclerochrono- logical approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Final Report
    Final Report Chugach Regional Resources Commission Bivalve Enhancement Program Bivalve inventories and native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) culture studies Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Project Number 95131 Produced by: Dr. Kenneth M. Brooks Aquatic Environmental Sciences 644 Old Eaglemount Road Port Townsend, Washington 98368 February 2, 2001 Chugach Regional Resources Commission Bivalve Enhancement Program – Bivalve Inventories and native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) culture studies Table of contents Page Introduction 1 1.0. Background information 2 1.1. Littleneck clam life history 2 1.1.1. Reproduction 3 1.1.2. Distribution as a function of tidal elevation. 3 1.1.3. Substrate preferences 3 1.1.4. Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) for native littleneck clams. 3 1.2. Marking clams and other bivalves 5 1.3. Aging of bivalves 6 1.4. Length at age for native littleneck clams in Alaska 8 1.5. Bivalve predators 8 1.6. Bivalve culture 9 1.7. Clam culture techniques 10 1.7.1. Predator control 11 1.7.2. Supplemental seeding 11 1.7.3. Substrate modification. 11 1.7.4. Plastic netting 11 1.7.5. Plastic clam bags 12 1.8. Commercial clam harvest management in Alaska 12 1.9. Environmental effects associated with bivalve culture 13 1.10. Background summary 15 1.11. Purpose of this study 15 2.0. Materials, methods and results for the bivalve inventories conducted in 1995 and 1996 at Port Graham, Nanwalek, Tatitlek, Chenega and Ouzinke. 17 2.1. 1995-96 bivalve inventory sampling design. 17 2.2. Clam sample processing. 18 2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT 1998 REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Vol
    Benthic Macrofauna SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT 1998 REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Vol . VII Descriptions and Sources of Photographs on the Cover Clockwise from bottom right: (1) Benthic sediment sampling with a Van Veen grab; City of Los Angeles Environmental Monitoring Division. (2) Bight'98 taxonomist M. Lily identifying and counting macrobenthic invertebrates; City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. (3) The phyllodocid polychaete worm Phyllodoce groenlandica (Orsted, 1843); L. Harris, Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. (4) The arcoid bivalve clam Anadara multicostata (G.B. Sowerby I, 1833); City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. (5) The gammarid amphipod crustacean Ampelisca indentata (J.L. Barnard, 1954); City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. Center: (6) Macrobenthic invertebrates and debris on a 1.0 mm sieve screen; www.scamit.org. Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: VII. Benthic Macrofauna J. Ananda Ranasinghe1, David E. Montagne2, Robert W. Smith3, Tim K. Mikel4, Stephen B. Weisberg1, Donald B. Cadien2, Ronald G. Velarde5, and Ann Dalkey6 1Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA 2County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA 3P.O. Box 1537, Ojai, CA 4Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories, Ventura, CA 5City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department, San Diego, CA 6City of Los Angeles, Environmental Monitoring Division March 2003 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 7171 Fenwick Lane, Westminster, CA 92683-5218 Phone: (714) 894-2222 · FAX: (714) 894-9699 http://www.sccwrp.org Benthic Macrofauna Committee Members Donald B. Cadien County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Ann Dalkey City of Los Angeles, Environmental Monitoring Division Tim K.
    [Show full text]
  • Squires 2012
    Contributions in Science, 520:73–93 21 December 2012 LATE PLIOCENE MEGAFOSSILS OF THE PICO FORMATION,NEWHALL AREA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY,SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA1 RICHARD L. SQUIRES2 ABSTRACT. Taxonomic composition and stratigraphic distribution of megafossils in the Pico Formation south of Newhall, northern Los Angeles County, Southern California, are described in detail. Eighty-three taxa, from 15 localities, were found: one brachiopod, 36 bivalves, 40 gastropods, one scaphopod, one crab, one barnacle, one sea urchin, one shark, and one land plant. All are illustrated here. The pectinid bivalve Argopecten invalidus (Hanna, 1924) is put into synonymy with A. subdolus (Hertlein, 1925) and A. callidus (Hertlein, 1925). Rare specimens of the gastropods Calliostoma and Ocinebrina might be new species. The mollusks, which are indicative of a late Pliocene age, lived in waters of inner sublittoral depths and normal marine salinity. Most of the 41 extant species indicate warm-temperate waters similar to those occurring today off the adjacent coast, although a few species, both extant and extinct, indicate a southerly warmer water component. The fauna lived predominantly in, or on, soft sands, but a few lived on other shells or possibly on large rock clasts. Geologic field mapping done as part of this present study revealed that the Pico Formation south of Newhall was deposited at the site where a braided river entered the marine environment (i.e., braid delta). Initially, the river gravel and coarse sand interfingered with relatively deep offshore silts, barren of megafauna, in the lower and middle parts of the formation. Eventually, the delta built up, and the resulting shoaling conditions in the upper part of the formation were conducive for the megafauna to live in, or immediately adjacent to, the deltaic shoreface fine sands.
    [Show full text]
  • Age and Paleoenvironmental Significance Of
    scienceai~ for a changingUSGS world AGE AND PALEOENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MEGA-INVERTEBRATES FROM THE "SAN PEDRO" FORMATION IN THE COYOTE HILLS, FULLERTON AND BUENA PARK, ORANGE COUNTY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA By Charles L. Powell, II' and Dave Stevens2 1345 Middlefield Rd., M/S 975, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2RMW PaleoAssociates, Mission Veijo, CA 92691 Open-File Report 00-319 U .S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AGE AND PALEOENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MEGA-INVERTEBRATES FROM THE "SAN PEDRO" FORMATION IN THE COYOTE HILLS, FULLERTON AND BUENA PARK, ORANGE COUNTY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA By Charles L. Powell, II and Dave Stevens 2000 OPEN-FILE REPORT 00-319 To obtain this report, contact : USGS Information Service Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 (303) 202-4700 (303) 202-4693 FAX or from the web at http ://wrgis .wr.usgs.gov/open-file/ofOO-31 9 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U .S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code . Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purpose only and does not imply endorsement by the U .S. Government . CONTENTS Abstract 4 Introduction 4 Stratigraphy of the "San Pedro" Formation 5 General 5 Physical stratigraphy 7 West Coyote Hills 7 East Coyote Hills 8 Previous paleontological studies of the "San Pedro" Formation in the Coyote Hills 8 Faunal composition and paleoecology 12 Faunal composition and preservation 12 Paleoecology 16 Restricted fauna 18 Upper fauna 18 Middle fauna 18 Pliocene fauna 19 Age 19 Paleontologic age 19 Restricted fauna 19 Upper fauna 19 Middle fauna 20 Pliocene fauna 20 Radiometric dating 21 Conclusions 21 Acknowledgements 22 References 22 Appendix 1 .-Selected faunal notes 27 Appendix 2 .-Fossil localities and faunal lists 35 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 35 Ralph B .
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Assessment of Subtidal Geoduck Clams
    Stock Assessment of Subtidal Geoduck Clams (Panopea abrupta) in Washington by Alex Bradbury Bob Sizemore Don Rothaus Michael Ulrich Marine Resources Unit Fish Management Division Fish Program January 2000 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................iv Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................v Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... viii Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 Goals and Objectives of Geoduck Stock Assessment .............................................................1 Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................4 Geoduck Tract .........................................................................................................4 Geoduck Bed ...........................................................................................................6 Harvestable Geoducks ............................................................................................6 Part
    [Show full text]