DOCSLIB.ORG

Alta East Wind Project Eagle Permit Finding of No Significant Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alta East Wind Project Eagle Permit Finding of No Significant Impact Attachment 1 Final Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan California Docket Number FWS-R8-MB-2015-N183 FF08M00000-FXMB12310800000-145 Prepared by: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region Migratory Birds and Habitats 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Heather Beeler, Eagle Permit Coordinator 916-414-6651 September 2016 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 Regulatory Setting, Authorities, and Guidance ..................................................................... 1-6 1.4.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................................... 1-6 1.4.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.3 Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.4 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................... 1-7 1.4.5 Coordination with Tribal Governments .................................................................... 1-8 1.5 Scope of Analysis ................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5.1 Geographic Extent .................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5.2 Permit Issuance Criteria .......................................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Previous Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Scoping and Public Participation.......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.1 Internal Scoping ...................................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.2 Public Participation ................................................................................................. 1-12 1.8 Tribal Trust Coordination ..................................................................................................... 1-12 1.8.1 Service Tribal Coordination ..................................................................................... 1-12 1.8.2 BLM Tribal Coordination ......................................................................................... 1-12 1.9 Service ESA Consultation ..................................................................................................... 1-13 2 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Analyzed in this FEA........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action – Operation of the Project Without an Eagle Take Permit ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP ........................................................ 2-1 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP with Additional Monitoring and Mitigation.................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Issue Permit for ECP with Curtailment of Four Ridgeline Turbines when Eagles Are Observed ........................................................................ 2-3 2.2.5 Alternative 5: Issue Permit for ECP with Radar Deployment, Curtailment when Eagles Are Detected ........................................................................................ 2-3 2.3 Key Elements of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1 Project Macro-siting ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.2 Micro-siting of Project Features ............................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3 Minimizing Impacts ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4 Predicted Take .......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.5 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.6 Post-Construction Monitoring .................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.7 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................... 2-10 2.4 Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 2-10 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................. 2-10 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT III CONTENTS ALTA EAST WIND PROJECT 3 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Setting Discussions ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.2 Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Bald Eagle .................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Golden Eagle .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.3 Eagle Mortality Associated with Human Activity ...................................................... 3-6 4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Impacts Analysis for Take of Golden Eagles ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Approach and Methods ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Effects Common to Alternatives............................................................................................. 4-1 4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.3.2 Mortality and Demographics ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.3.3 Local Effects ............................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.4 Cultural Effects .......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.5 Other Priority Uses .................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.6 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4 Assessment of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action – Operation of the Project Without an Eagle Take Permit ............................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.2 Alternative 2: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP ....................................................... 4-11 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Issue Permit Based on Applicant’s ECP with Additional Monitoring and Mitigation ...................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.4 Alternative 4: Issue Permit Based on ECP with Curtailment of Four Ridgeline Turbines when Eagles are Observed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ranchos of California
    COUNTY RANCHO By Cities on or near this rancho Alameda San Antonio Spain Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany,Emeryville, Piedmont, San Leandro Alameda San Ramon Mexico Dublin area and also in Contra Costa County Alameda Agua Caliente Mexico Fremont (Warm Springs area) near the mission Alameda Los Positas Mexico Livermore area Alameda Canada Vaqueros Mexico Livermore, but mostly in Contra Costa County Alameda San Leandro Mexico San Leandro, San Lorenzo area Alameda El Valle de San Jose Mexico Pleasanton, Sunol Alameda Potrero de los Cerritos Mexico Union City Alameda San Lorenzo Mexico Hayward, Castro Valley Alameda Arroyo de la Alameda Mexico Fremont (Niles area) Alameda Santa Rita Mexico Livermore, Dublin, Sunol Alpine No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Amador No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Butte Rancho del Arroyo Chico Mexico Along the river in Chico Butte Esquon Mexico Chico, Butte Creek, 7 miles south of Chico Butte Aguas Frias, later known as the Mexico South of Durham Pratt Grant Butte Bosquejo Mexico Between Chico and Los Molinos; Red Bluff (in Tehama County) Butte Llano Seco, later known as the Mexico Near Chico and Durham Parrott Grant Calaveras No early Ranchos See San Joaquin & Shasta counties Colusa Larkin Grant (surveyed by John Mexico West bank of Sacramento River in Princeton area and into Bidwell) Glenn County. Contra Costa San Pablo Mexico El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo. Contra Costa San Ramon Mexico San Ramon Valley, Dublin, Alamo, and surrounding areas Contra Costa El Sobrante de San Ramon Mexico Walnut Creek, Tice Valley, East of Alamo (Stone Ranch area) Contra Costa Acalanes Mexico Lafayette, Happy Valley area Contra Costa Los Medanos (Meganos) Mexico Brentwood and Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Air Quality Conformity Analysis
    DRAFT AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY REPORT JULY 2021 PBA2050 COMMISH BOARD DRAFT 06.14.21 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Susan Adams Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley Nikki Fortunato Bas Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Councilmember, City of Oakland San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa London Breed Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Tom Butt Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Richmond San Francisco Bay Conservation Pat Eklund and Development Commission County Representatives Mayor, City of Novato David Canepa Candace Andersen Maya Esparza San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of San José Cindy Chavez David Canepa Carroll Fife Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Councilmember, City of Oakland Damon Connolly Keith Carson Neysa Fligor Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of Los Altos Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Leon Garcia Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of American Canyon Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Liz Gibbons California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Giselle Hale Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco Barbara Halliday Dorene M. Giacopini Rafael Mandelman Mayor, City of Hayward U.S. Department of Transportation Supervisor, City and County Rich Hillis Federal D.
    [Show full text]
  • Basques in the Americas from 1492 To1892: a Chronology
    Basques in the Americas From 1492 to1892: A Chronology “Spanish Conquistador” by Frederic Remington Stephen T. Bass Most Recent Addendum: May 2010 FOREWORD The Basques have been a successful minority for centuries, keeping their unique culture, physiology and language alive and distinct longer than any other Western European population. In addition, outside of the Basque homeland, their efforts in the development of the New World were instrumental in helping make the U.S., Mexico, Central and South America what they are today. Most history books, however, have generally referred to these early Basque adventurers either as Spanish or French. Rarely was the term “Basque” used to identify these pioneers. Recently, interested scholars have been much more definitive in their descriptions of the origins of these Argonauts. They have identified Basque fishermen, sailors, explorers, soldiers of fortune, settlers, clergymen, frontiersmen and politicians who were involved in the discovery and development of the Americas from before Columbus’ first voyage through colonization and beyond. This also includes generations of men and women of Basque descent born in these new lands. As examples, we now know that the first map to ever show the Americas was drawn by a Basque and that the first Thanksgiving meal shared in what was to become the United States was actually done so by Basques 25 years before the Pilgrims. We also now recognize that many familiar cities and features in the New World were named by early Basques. These facts and others are shared on the following pages in a chronological review of some, but by no means all, of the involvement and accomplishments of Basques in the exploration, development and settlement of the Americas.
    [Show full text]
  • San Felipe Division Project History
    San Felipe Division The Central Valley Project Wyndham E. Whynot and Wm. Joe Simonds Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents The Central Valley Project San Felipe Division......................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................2 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Post-Construction History................................................16 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................17 Uses of Project Water ...................................................17 Conclusion..................................................................18 About the Authors ............................................................18 Bibliography ................................................................19 Government Documents .................................................19 Legislative Acts........................................................20 Books ................................................................20 Interviews.............................................................20 Publications...........................................................20 Other Sources..........................................................20 Index ......................................................................21 1 The Central Valley Project San Felipe
    [Show full text]
  • A Cremation and an Inhumation from the Dover Overflow Site (CA-MER-415), Merced County, California\'ARDNER9OHE 91
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology\6OL .O \PPn A Cremation and an The cremation feature contained the remains of at least two individuals, an adult and a juvenile. The inhumation Inhumation from the Dover feature consisted of the remains of a young female who Overfow Site (CA-MER-415), stood just over fve feet tall. Radiocarbon dates associated Merced County, California with these individuals demonstrated that CA-MER-415 was likely inhabited between approximately A.D. 1520 JILL K. GARDNER and 1700. In this article, the cremation and inhumation ASM Affliates, Carlsbad, California 92011 features are described in detail, and a discussion is ROBERT M. YOHE II provided regarding their potential signifcance for the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, archaeology of the northern San Joaquin Valley. California State University, Bakersfeld 93311 As part of a multiyear project to rehabilitate a portion In 2003 and 2004, the Center for Archaeological Research of State Route 165 in western Merced County north of at California State University, Bakersfeld, conducted Los Banos, the California Department of Transportation Phase I and II studies at CA-MER-415 (also known requested that the Center for Archaeological Research as the Dover Overfow site), a prehistoric (or possibly at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), protohistoric) site located in western Merced County conduct Phase I and II studies to determine the extent north of Los Banos, California. During the Phase II and nature of a prehistoric (or possibly protohistoric) study, a cremation and an inhumation were discovered. site (CA-MER-415) located in the project area (Gardner umne Tuol R.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B-Cap. Unit Cost
    Final Report - Appendix Prepared for: Prepared by: In Association with: SYSTRA Consulting, Inc. The Duffey Company Valley Research and Planning Associates December 30,1999 Final Report California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Appendix Prepared For: California High-Speed Rail Authority Prepared By: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. In Association with: SYSTRA Consulting, Inc. The Duffey Company Valley Research and Planning Associates December 30, 1999 Final Report - California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction I-1 2.6 Travel Time Estimates II-17 1.1 Purpose I-1 Speeds II-18 1.2 Background I-1 2.7 Compatibility Issues II-19 1.3 Organization I-2 FRA Safety Rules II-19 Mixed Traffic II-19 II Assumptions and Parameters II-1 Other Considerations II-20 2.1 Commission Proposed System (Baseline) II-1 Remote Terminals II-20 Technology II-3 Compliant High-Speed Trainsets II-20 Speeds II-4 Permitting Non-Compliant Trains in Mixed Traffic II-21 Electrification II-4 HSR Compatibility Assumption II-21 Double Track/Guideway II-4 Separation II-21 Grade Separation II-4 Horizontal Separation II-21 2.2 Design Parameters II-5 Vertical Separation II-21 Design Speeds II-5 2.8 Potential Freight Services II-22 Horizontal Alignment II-5 Small Package/Light Container II-22 Vertical Alignment II-6 Special Medium-Weight Freight II-22 Clearance Requirements II-7 Profile Grades II-23 Right-of-Way Requirements II-7 Freight Infrastructure II-23 Stations II-8 Station Design Parameters II-8 III Regional Corridor Evaluation
    [Show full text]
  • Mariposa Chronicle and Gazette 1854 -1861
    1 Mariposa Chronicle, filmed by BMI, 1996. Jan. 26, 1854-March 1855. Missing issues: 1854: June 6, 16, July 14, Nov. 3, Dec. 29. 1855: Jan. 12, Feb. 23. Mariposa Gazette. Filmed by Library Microfilms, 1996. Reel 1: 1856-1858, 1860. Missing issues: 1856: Jan.-July, Aug. 15, 22, Sept. 5, 19. Missing issues: 1857: Feb. 20, June 5, July 3, 1857. Missing issues: 1858: June 23, July 7, 14, 21, Aug. 3, 10, 17. Missing issues: 1859: Jan.-Dec. Missing: 1860: Feb.-July 3. Reel 2: 1861-1862. Reel 3: 1864-1877. Reel 4: 1866-1869. Ridley’s Ferry (letter), Dec. 24, 1858. Mariposa Free Press: Reel 1: Jan. 12, 1863-1864. Reel 2: 1864-1866. Reel 3: August 1866-Oct. 1871. Reel 4: 1870-1872. Mariposa Mail: Jan. 1866-Sept. 1869. Mariposa Free Press, Cal. State Library, File begins Jan. 24, 1863. Ad: Visalia-Hornitos stage; Coso mentioned, Feb. 14, 1863, 1:1 Mariposa Chronicle 1854: Discovery by Jenkins and Evans, Feb. 10, 2:1 Merced River, Phillip’s ferry, agriculture Feb. 24, 2:1 1854 [Note: Brackets are part of the headline.] “[CORRESPONDENCE OF THE MARIPOSA CHRONICLE],” Mariposa Chronicle, March 3, 1854, 2:6: “MILLERTON, Feb. 24th, 1854. “Messrs. Editors:—As there will undoubtedly be innumerable false accounts relative to a shocking outrage committee upon this river, on the night of the 24d inst., allow me to give you the particulars of the affair as elicited at a Coroner’s inquest held upon the body of an Indian who was murdered upon this river last evening. “Yesterday morning our citizens were thrown into a state of great excitement, by the report of a most brutal murder having been committed upon one of the most quiet and inoffensive of the 2 San Joaquin Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notice
    30 Mansfield Road, P.O. Box 899, Hollister, CA 95024 www.sbcwd.com May 10, 2018 MEETING NOTICE JOINT MEETING SCVWD WATER STORAGE EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE SAN BENITO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PACHECO PASS WATER DISTRICT SCVWD Board Members of the Water Storage Exploratory Committee Director Gary Kremen, Committee Chair Director Richard P. Santos Director John L. Varela SBCWD Board Members of the Water Storage Exploratory Committee Director Sonny Flores Director John Tobias PPWD Representatives Director Frank O’Connell, President Director Steve Lindsay SCVWD Staff Support of the Water Storage Exploratory Committee Norma J. Camacho, Chief Executive Officer Nina Hawk, Chief Operating Officer, Water Utility Rick Callender, Chief of External Affairs Stanly Yamamoto, District Counsel Garth Hall, Deputy Operating Officer, Water Supply Division Katherine Oven, Deputy Operating Officer, Water Utility Capital Division Jerry De La Piedra, Water Supply Planning & Conservation Manager Cindy Kao, Imported Water Manager, Imported Water Unit Hemang Desai, Dam Safety Program Manager, Dam Safety Program & Project Delivery Unit Melih Ozbilgin, Senior Water Resources Specialist, Imported Water Unit Medi Sinaki, Senior Engineer – Water Quality SBCWD Staff Support of the Water Storage Exploratory Committee Jeff Cattaneo, District Manager Sara Singleton, Assistant Manager Barbara L. Mauro, Board Clerk A joint meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Water Storage Exploratory Committee is to be held on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Reservoir
    MISSION STATEMENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area Draft Resource Management Plan / General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report This document contains a joint Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP)/General Plan (GP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area (SRA) and adjacent lands owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (also known as California State Parks, or CSP), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). This document also contains policies, in the form of goals and guidelines, that relate to the project area and a description of the desired future condition of project area lands and waters for recreation and resource use and management. The purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR is to help Reclamation and CSP select a preferred alternative for implementing the RMP/GP.
    [Show full text]
  • California Landmarks
    Original Historical Landmarks Index to Books I, II and III Plaques Dedicated by Grand Parlor, Parlors, or Parlors with Other Groups September 2009 Native Daughters of the Golden West 543 Baker Street San Francisco, California 94117-1405 Monument Vol 1-3.doc, September 17, 2009 Index to Original Historical Landmarks, Books I, II and III Page 2 of 38 Dedications with Native Sons of the Golden West are indicated by “+” Dedications with Other Groups are indicated by “++” County Plaque Dedicated Parlor Location Description Bk/Pge Goal 1/001 Dedication 1/003 Presentation 1/005 Sponsor 1/009 Founder, Lilly Dyer 1/013 State Information Name, Motto, etc. 1/014 Thirty First Star 1/017 1/020 Flags of California 1/021 State Seal 1/027 Mothers Day May 9, 1971 Grin and Bear It Cartoon 1/029 N. D. G. W. Directory 1/031 Landmarks Title Page 1/035 Historic California Missions 1965 Pamphlet 1/047 1/051 Mission Soledad 1/052 Mission Nuestra Senora County Road, Mission 1/053 Restored mission, Registered Dolorosisima De La Oct 14, 1956 NDGW Grand Parlor District, Soledad, Monterey 1/054 Landmark No. 233 Soledad Co. 1/055 Mission Picture 1/057 Subordinate Parlor Title Page 1/061 Landmarks Alameda * Parlor Listing Title Page 1/065 Church of St. James the Foothill Blvd and 12th Founded June 27,1858 by first 1/066 Alameda Dec 6, 1959 Fruitvale No. 177, ++ Apostle Ave., E. Oakland Episcopal Bishop of California 1/067 Berkeley No. 150, Bear Flag No. 151, Sequoia No. 1302-1304 Abina Street, 1841 – site of first dwelling in Alameda Domingo Peralta Adobe Mar 22, 1970 1/069 272, Albany No.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Bibliography of References to Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in Southern and Baja California David E
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Occidental College Scholar Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Volume 105 | Issue 1 Article 1 2006 An Annotated Bibliography of References to Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in Southern and Baja California David E. Brown Jorge Cancino Kevin B. Clark Myrna Smith Jim Yoakum Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.oxy.edu/scas Part of the Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biology Commons, and the Population Biology Commons Recommended Citation Brown, David E.; Cancino, Jorge; Clark, Kevin B.; Smith, Myrna; and Yoakum, Jim (2006) "An Annotated Bibliography of References to Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in Southern and Baja California," Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences: Vol. 105: Iss. 1. Available at: https://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/vol105/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by OxyScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences by an authorized editor of OxyScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Brown et al.: Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in Southern and Baja California Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 105(1), 2006, pp. 1–16 ᭧ Southern California Academy of Sciences, 2006 An Annotated Bibliography of References to Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in Southern and Baja California David E. Brown,1 Jorge Cancino,2 Kevin B. Clark,*3 Myrna Smith,4 and Jim Yoakum5 1School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501. ([email protected]) 2Centro de Investigaciones Biolo´gicas del Noroeste, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960
    Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960 W. R. Swagerty and Reuben W. Smith, University of the Pacific Swagerty & Smith 1 Stitching a River Culture: Communication, Trade and Transportation to 1960 An essay by William R. Swagerty & Reuben W. Smith The Delta Narratives Project Delta Protection Commission, State of California June 1, 2015 California’s Delta California’s Delta is a unique environment, created by the natural drainage of the state’s Sierra Nevada range into the Central Valley, which in turn delivers the runoff of rain and snowmelt into river basins that meander and spill into sloughs, bays, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. According to environmental historian Philip Garone, “Rising sea levels between six thousand and seven thousand years ago impeded the flow of the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, creating a labyrinthine network of hundreds of miles of sloughs surrounding nearly one hundred low-lying islands—the historic Delta.”1 Today, the original 738,000 acres of the Delta are among the most engineered lands in the state; and yet, they still have environmental, social, and economic attributes that merit recognition and protection. By the State of California Delta Protection Commission’s own introductory definition: The Primary Zone of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Delta) includes approximately 500,000 acres of waterways, levees and farmed lands extending over portions of five counties: Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. The rich peat soil in the central Delta and the mineral soils in the higher elevations support a strong agricultural economy.
    [Show full text]