DOCSLIB.ORG

Sacramento County General Plan Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sacramento County General Plan Update FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Control Number: 2002-GPB-0105 State Clearinghouse Number: 2007082086 April 2010 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT 827 7TH STREET, ROOM 220 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................11-1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................11-1 SETTING...................................................................................................................11-1 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................11-16 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..........................................................................................11-30 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................11-32 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS .........................................................................................11-73 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 11-103 ALTERNATIVE 1: REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST.......................................................... 11-106 ALTERNATIVE 2: FOCUSED GROWTH...................................................................... 11-109 ALTERNATIVE 3: MIXED USE.................................................................................. 11-112 ARTERIAL DOWNGRADE AND THOROUGHFARE DOWNGRADE ................................... 11-115 12 CLIMATE CHANGE ..............................................................................................12-1 INTRODUCTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING......................................12-1 WORLDWIDE, NATIONAL AND STATEWIDE EMISSIONS ..................................................12-3 EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ..........................................................................................12-5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMISSION REDUCTION/ADAPTATION STRATEGIES......................12-8 SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMISSION REDUCTION EFFORTS............................................12-10 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................12-15 CEQA ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................12-41 13 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................13-1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................13-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.........................................................................................13-1 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................13-21 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..........................................................................................13-23 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................13-24 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................13-24 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .....................................................................................13-35 ALTERNATIVE 1: REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST............................................................13-35 ALTERNATIVE 2: FOCUSED GROWTH........................................................................13-36 TOC - 1 Table Of Contents ALTERNATIVE 3: MIXED USE....................................................................................13-36 14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................................................14-1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................14-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.........................................................................................14-2 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................14-11 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..........................................................................................14-12 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................14-13 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS .........................................................................................14-13 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .....................................................................................14-17 ALTERNATIVE 1: REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST ...........................................................14-18 ALTERNATIVE 2: FOCUSED GROWTH .......................................................................14-19 ALTERNATIVE 3: MIXED USE...................................................................................14-20 15 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................15-1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................15-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING...............................................................................15-3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND .......................................................15-13 CULTURAL REGULATORY SETTING ...........................................................................15-15 PALEONTOLOGY REGULATORY SETTING...................................................................15-19 PROPOSED AND EXISTING POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.............................................................15-19 PROPOSED AND EXISTING POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN .................................................15-19 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA: CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................15-20 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................15-21 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................15-22 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS: CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................15-22 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................15-31 REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST ALTERNATIVE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................15-32 FOCUSED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE: CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................15-32 MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................15-32 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................15-33 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................15-34 REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................15-34 TOC - 2 Table Of Contents FOCUSED GROWTH: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................................15-35 MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES .....................................15-35 16 AESTHETICS........................................................................................................16-1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................16-1 EXISTING SETTING ....................................................................................................16-1 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................16-11 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..........................................................................................16-18 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................16-18 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................16-19 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .....................................................................................16-21 ALTERNATIVE 1: REMOVE GRANT LINE EAST ...........................................................16-23 ALTERNATIVE 2: FOCUSED GROWTH .......................................................................16-24 ALTERNATIVE 3: MIXED USE...................................................................................16-25 17 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION .........................................17-1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ...................................................17-1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH COULD BE AVOIDED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES...............................................................................................................17-9 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT.................................................................17-10 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ...............................................................17-14 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ...................................................................................17-16 18 SUMMARY OF CEQA ALTERNATIVES...............................................................18-1 LAND USE ................................................................................................................18-1 PUBLIC SERVICES.....................................................................................................18-4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W
    38.371223N 38.381801N 121.978996W 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W l 96.30 n n 96.35 h h LEGEND C g k Slou p l Elk Grove 22020 i E Rd h nklin S Fra 80 ood r H SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE e Hood 34484 v 80 i Union Pacific RR R o Elmira 22146 t Federal American Indian n e L'ANSE RES 1880 m Reservation a r c a S Off-Reservation Trust Land, 7 6 Franklin Blvd Hawaiian Home Land T1880 3 0 1 1 O Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, LO T O EN Alaska Native Village Statistical Area, KAW OTSA 5340 Y M Tribal Designated Statistical Area A R Sprock Rd C Union Pacific RR Vacaville 81554 A State American Indian S Franklin 25506 Reservation Tama Res 4125 State Designated Tribal 96.38 84 d R Lumbee STSA 9815 r Statistical Area d e nd R v ll Isla Ri Randa Ston Stone Lk e L k Sn Alaska Native Regional od g NANA ANRC 52120 r Rd Fogg d Corporation h a nt R g s asa s Kestrel Lake Rd Ple u int o S Po l l 113 S o u k g State (or statistically l h E Wilson Rd Wilson Rd equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 tter S u lo u S g h County (or statistically ERIE 029 0 equivalent entity) 6 1 Courtland 16714 Korn Rd Hwy t s / Minor Civil Division d d R R 1,2 r e (MCD) Bristol town 07485 e Lambert Rd g v d i i H r R B a s h s g S YOLO 113 u o l l o S u g r Consolidated City h e t MILFORD 47500 t u SOLANO 095 S L ev d 5 e R e e R ve 1,3 d e Incorporated Place Vouvray Ln L 5 Davis 18100 Russel Rd Census Designated Place Toe Drn 3 Incline Village 35100 h (CDP) g u o l S Herzog Rd r e Alfalfa Plant Rd t t Census Tract Dierssen Rd gh W Sut u 33.07 u ter Islan S Slo d Cross R Ca che d Dierssen Rd DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL M i n Water Body e Interstate 3 Pleasant Lake r S lo u Vorden Rd gh Richards U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance
    The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance Volume 7, Issue 6 — June 2017 Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. PO Box 7441 Fishing the Klamath River with Jerry Lampkin Auburn, CA 95604 The multi-talented Rooster Tail Fishing Club The Klamath is special among many rivers in 530-887-0479 member and Pro River Guide, Jerry Lampkin California. It is only second by out-flow to the www.roostertailsfishingclub.org invites all members and their guests to a spe- Sacramento River and flows 263 miles cial presentation at the third Friday breakfast through Oregon and northern California emp- Fishing the meeting on June 16th to share his experi- tying into the Pacific Ocean. It drains an ex- Klamath River for ences on the Klamath River. Jerry has been tensive watershed of almost 16,000 square fishing the Klamath for salmon and steel- miles from both states. salmon and head for over 25 years and brings with him a steelhead unique perspective about the river you will Unlike most rivers, the Klamath begins in the want to hear. Jerry and his wife Sherry will be high desert and flows toward the mountains July 12th— available to fisher men and women inter- carving a path through the rugged Cascade ested in fishing the ‘Springer Salmon Run’ and Klamath mountains before reaching the Rooster Tail Day during the week of July 10 – 14. Jerry has sea. The scenery and wild life are varied and spectacular. The area is a nature lover’s on the Klamath set aside Wednesday, July 12th, as Rooster dream and a panacea for photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Sherman Island Wildlife Area Land Management Plan EDAW California Department of Fish and Game I Table of Contents TABLE of CONTENTS
    LOWER SHERMAN ISLAND WILDLIFE AREA LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL APRIL 2007 iÿPWA EDAW ranr HILLIJVIbJMKWII LOWER SHERMAN ISLAND WILDLIFE AREA LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL PREPARED FOR: CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SACRAMENTO VALLEY CENTRAL SIERRA REGION 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 CONTACT; SARAHDLM AREA MANAGER 916/353-2881 PREPARED BY: EDAW 2022 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CAUFORNIA 95814 CONTACT; JOHN HUNTER 916/414-5800 APRIL 2007 EDAW ig/PWA FINAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LOWER SHERMAN ISLAND WILDLIFE AREA PREPARED FOR: California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento Valley Central Sierra Region 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 PREPARED BY: EDAW, Inc. 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916)414-5800 APPROVED BY: Acting Regional Manager, Bay-Delta Region Date Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose and History of Acquisition ........................................................................................................ES-2 Property Description and Management Setting.......................................................................................ES-2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................................ES-2 Management Goals................................................................................................................................ES-13
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Atlas
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ATLAS August 1987 FOREWORD The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was originally a tidal marsh formed at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and Suisun Bay. More than 80 percent of this former marsh was leveed and developed for agriculture from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s. Today the Delta islands and levees are of statewide importance for agriculture, water quality, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife, water supply, commercial shipping, transportation, and other benefits. This Atlas is the result of information gathered during Department of Water Resources studies on Delta programs and, in particular, the recent studies for Delta levee improvements. The Atlas provides background information that should be helpful for people trying to understand and address complex problems of this estuary. The information is presented in a series of figures, photographs, and tables for easy reference. David N. Kennedy, Director Department of Water Resources The Resources Agency State of California iii CONTENTS FOREWORD iii INTRODUCTION 1 Tables 1 Improvements on Delta Islands 2 2 Emergency Work Expenditures on Nonproject Levees, 1980-1986, Ranked by Total Cost Expended 44 3 Emergency Work Expenditures on Nonproject Levees, 1980-1986, Ranked by Cost per Acre 45 4 Annual Levee Maintenance, 1981-1986, Ranked by Total Cost per Mile 46 5 Delta Statistics 60 Figures 1 Fresh Water Tidelands, 1872 4 2 Delta Waterways, 1987 5 3 Waterways
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Delta Recreational Boating
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 h g u Bascule lo Br. S S n o Marinas AND r AND d L e g t L t r u a IS 84 h IS s AND S g Marinas Actively Distributing and Collecting s L 4 u 5 o l ugh Absorbents for Free IS S A o A CITIES 35 Sl TWIN RD S l h o Certified Used Oil Collection Centers, Free Drop Off C g u u g a g t c o h h a l a h o e S b S R Y Swing Marinas with Sewage Pumpouts m E a Br. e T CT t E13 S T S l h 99 o g U u BERT u S Marinas with Fuel Dock Open to the Public g SPE r lo h LI e h S O ug in lo M S PR D s Bridges R w do ea RD M ELM SIMMERHORN RD Y R A t E L 34 5 Interstate Highway L c e G A L T in HARVEY RD BOESSOW RD d p Bascule s s C ST ay o LOCKE r Br. AVE LINE Sl. P 16 CARO 84 RYER NEW HOPE RD 6 17 State Highway GRAND 10 RIV 15 Fixed 220 ER RD W A L N U T RD Br. KOST RD J9 Howard Landing B ISLAND G R O V E IL B Ferry County Roads Cable VA Swing RD LAUFFER RD EE Ferries V E Br. L LD H 31 O 41 v RT NO R D RD C W WALNUT GROVE 0 5 Miles R a E D ISLAND c h R h g J11 e u V N lo I O 75 S T 71 E R 0 L 5 Kilometers W S I NE HOPE A LANDING RD W RD L KER J8 ND S 56 160 l ISLA o TRACT u RD ANDRUS Slough g IS J10 L.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Climate Change and Engineered Water Conveyance Affect Sediment Dynamics in the San Francisco Bay-Delta System?
    Climatic Change (2017) 142:375–389 DOI 10.1007/s10584-017-1954-8 How can climate change and engineered water conveyance affect sediment dynamics in the San Francisco Bay-Delta system? Fernanda Achete1 & Mick van der Wegen1,2,3 & Jan Adriaan Roelvink1,2,4 & Bruce Jaffe5 Received: 22 March 2016 /Accepted: 16 March 2017 /Published online: 24 April 2017 # The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract Suspended sediment concentration is an important estuarine health indicator. Estu- arine ecosystems rely on the maintenance of habitat conditions, which are changing due to direct human impact and climate change. This study aims to evaluate the impact of climate change relative to engineering measures on estuarine fine sediment dynamics and sediment budgets. We use the highly engineered San Francisco Bay-Delta system as a case study. We apply a process-based modeling approach (Delft3D-FM) to assess the changes in hydrody- namics and sediment dynamics resulting from climate change and engineering scenarios. The scenarios consider a direct human impact (shift in water pumping location), climate change (sea level rise and suspended sediment concentration decrease), and abrupt disasters (island flooding, possibly as the results of an earthquake). Levee failure has the largest impact on the hydrodynamics of the system. Reduction in sediment input from the watershed has the greatest impact on turbidity levels, which are key to primary production and define habitat conditions for endemic species. Sea level rise leads to more sediment suspension and a net sediment export if little room for accommodation is left in the system due to continuous engineering works.
    [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]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]