DOCSLIB.ORG

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.2 City of Sacramento Community Element

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.2 City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.2 City of Sacramento Community Element CITY OF SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY PROFILE The City of Sacramento was founded in 1849 and was the first incorporated city in the State of California. The City was founded at the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers, two of the largest rivers in the state. As California’s capitol city, Sacramento is the center of governmental policy for the entire state, as well as the cultural, educational and business center of a four-county metropolitan region. The City is run by a City Council-City Manager form of government under guidance of a City Charter that was adopted by voters in 1920. Sacramento is known as the “City of Trees” and includes about 165,000 trees in its urban forest, second only to Paris for the most number of street trees. Source: www.cityofsacramento.org The City of Sacramento covers 96.34 square miles and has a population of 411,200. This equates to a population density of 4,268 persons per square mile. Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-1 December 2004 TOTAL VALUES AT RISK FROM HAZARDS The total values at risk from all hazards are presented as a worst-case baseline. Like other values presented in this plan, these are deceptively low because they do not include the values of infrastructure, government and church facilities, or the local economy. Additionally, Assessed Values in California are lower than actual because they are frozen to only reflect the value at the time of the last sale. Source: Sacramento County Assessor's Office, Assessments by Land Use; 9-10-04 The Risk Assessment portion of this plan indicates that the City of Sacramento does not face a catastrophic natural disaster, so damage during any given disaster event would be less than the $28.6 Billion displayed. However, the risk for the City varies from the rest of the County within the mapped floodplain due its different size, and the varying numbers of structures and varying values of those structures. Therefore, the following section takes a closer look at the City of Sacramento’s vulnerability to flooding. FLOOD PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION In the City of Sacramento, the overlapping American and Sacramento River floodplains encompass a landmass of more than 100,000 acres. According to SAFCA, Sacramento’s risk of flooding is the greatest of any major city in the country. A major flood could result in significant loss of life, property damage, and economic disruption. This section follows on to the historic flood problems listed in the Sacramento County Flood History section of this plan and provides a more detailed perspective of the flood hazards and risks within the City of Sacramento. Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-2 December 2004 SACRAMENTO FLOOD HAZARD MAP-AMERICAN/SACRAMENTO FLOODPLAIN Four types of floods can impact the City of Sacramento: localized street flooding, river flooding, levee overtopping/failure, and dam failure. Certain health hazards are common to all of these events. Standing water and wet materials in structures can become a breeding ground for microorganisms such as bacteria, mold, and viruses. This can cause disease, trigger allergic reactions, and damage materials long after the flood. When floodwaters contain sewage or decaying animal carcasses, infectious disease is of concern. Direct impacts such as drowning can be limited with adequate warning and public education about what to do during floods. Due to the large amount of population at risk, warning and evacuation will be paramount to reduce life and safety impacts with any of these types of flood events. Localized Street Flooding. The City’s local drainage system services 100 square miles and is handled by 123 storm drainage basins. Since the City is typically lower than the elevated rivers, the majority of local drainage must be collected and pumped into the rivers. The City operates 102 storm water-pumping plants to keep the drainage pumped down. A major power outage during a rain event could contribute to significant flooding. Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-3 December 2004 River Flooding. River flooding can result from either flash or slow rise flooding in any of the four stream groups that affect the City. Many areas in Sacramento are subject to sheetflow, which is broad shallow, overland flooding generally less than 2 feet deep and characterized by unpredictable flow paths. The warning time associated with slow rise floods will enable life and property protection. Flash floods, however, usually require immediate evacuation within the hour. Once flooding begins, personnel will be needed to assist in rescuing persons trapped by floodwaters, securing utilities, cordoning off flooded areas, and controlling traffic. This could overtax local response capabilities and require outside mutual aid. Levee Failure/Overtopping. Generally, levees fail due to overtopping or collapse due to seepage, subsidence, erosion, or any combination thereof. A catastrophic failure resulting from collapse can occur very quickly with relatively little warning. Levee failure usually occurs when the levee is saturated from high flows or there is an inherent defect in the levee. Floodwater will flow in a relatively shallow path and collect in low-lying areas. The maximum flood pool could exceed 15 feet in depth, which could result in serious life and safety impacts. Levee failure scenario maps have been developed as part of the 1996 City of Sacramento Comprehensive Flood Management Plan. The 21 maps show where the water would go, how long it would take to get there, and how deep it would be in various parts of the City. Historically, levees have been the answer to flood control as the City grew and developed over the years. The cores of today’s levees are often the levees built by farmers and settlers as much as 150 years ago. Early levees were not constructed to current engineering standards, and little care was given to the suitability of foundation soils. It was believed prior to 1986 that the levees containing the Sacramento River and the American River were of sufficient height and stability to protect the county from 100-year or greater storms. The storms that occurred in February 1986 demonstrated that the levees were not sufficient. The USACE also concluded that the levees along the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal which protect Natomas and the Dry Creek area to the east, were too low to safely contain the flows produced by the coincidence of peak discharges in Dry and Arcade Creeks and maximum flood releases from Folsom. As a result of these findings, FEMA reassessed the 100-year floodplain in the Sacramento area and issued new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These maps, which became effective in November 1989, mandated the purchase of flood insurance by all residents and businesses within the 100-year floodplain and caused the City of Sacramento to impose severe restrictions on new residential development in the Natomas area. Source: City of Sacramento Comprehensive Flood Management Plan (CFM), 1996. In May 22, 2000 the AR Zone was re-designated A99 after substantial improvements were made to the levee system that brought the level of protection back to the 100-year flood. This removed the AR development requirements, while maintaining the insurance requirements. Additional levee work and erosion control efforts were completed in 2004 that will change the A99 zone to X zone. The City submitted a Letter of Map Revision to FEMA in October 2004 requesting the change in flood zone and was awaiting response during the final draft of this plan. The change of the City’s floodplain zones over time is displayed in the series of maps below, followed by a larger version of the recent proposed changes. Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-4 December 2004 Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-5 December 2004 Sacramento County City of Sacramento Community Element Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6.2-6 December 2004 Dam Failure. The remote possibility of dam failure flooding also exists from Folsom and Nimbus Dams. A catastrophic dam failure could easily overwhelm local response capabilities and require mass evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time available and the resources to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result and there would be associated health concerns as well as problems with the identification and burial of the deceased. City of Sacramento Drainage Areas This section documents the stream groups and drainage areas that pose flood problems to the City of Sacramento. The drainage patterns affecting the City of Sacramento can be divided into the following groups and geographic areas: • Natomas Area Stream Group (Northwest Sacramento) • American River Stream Group (Downtown and Northeast Sacramento) • Morrison Creek Stream Group (South Sacramento) • Sacramento River (Western edge of Sacramento) Slopes of the main drainage ways in these areas increase from west to east, thereby reflecting the general topographic pattern of the surrounding region. Stream gradients vary from 0.5 foot per mile to 10 feet per mile and average approximately two feet per mile. Natomas Area Stream Group. In 1911 the Reclamation District No. 1000 was created and approximately 43 miles of levees were constructed around approximately 55,000 acres. This area came to be known as the Natomas Basin. It is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek and Natomas East Main Drainage Canals and on the south by the American and Sacramento Rivers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APPENDIX a Transportation Study
    APPENDIX A Transportation Study Submitted by: 2990 Lava Ridge Court Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 DRAFT OCTOBER 2011 Chapter 4|THE PLAN Exhibit 4-1. Preferred Alternative Plan Prepared for: Old Sacramento State Historic Park General Plan and EIR | Page 4-5 Final Transportation Study for the Old Sacramento State Historic Park and California State Railroad Museum General Plan December 2011 RS10-2810 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 9 Project Area Transportation Facilities ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources
    Chapter 7—Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 7.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing conditions (environmental and regulatory) and assesses the potential cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources impacts of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (proposed MTP/SCS). Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. The information presented in this chapter is based on review of existing and available information and is regional in scope. Data, analysis, and findings provided in this chapter were considered and prepared at a programmatic level. For consistency with the 2016 MTP/SCS EIR, paleontological resources are addressed in this chapter even though these resources are grouped with geology and soils in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (SACOG 2016). Impacts to unique geologic features are addressed in Chapter 9 – Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Mineral Resources. Cultural resources include archaeological sites or districts of prehistoric or historic origin, built environment resources older than 50 years (e.g., historic buildings, structures, features, objects, districts, and landscapes), and traditional or ethnographic resources, including tribal cultural resources, which are a separate category of cultural resources under CEQA. Paleontological resources include mineralized, partially mineralized, or unmineralized bones and teeth, soft tissues, shells, wood, leaf impressions, footprints, burrows, and microscopic remains that are more than 5,000 years old and occur mainly in Pleistocene or older sedimentary rock units. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), SACOG received comments related to cultural and tribal cultural resources from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GEI Report Template Feb2009 and Msword 2007
    Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District July 2017 Prepared by: Consulting Engineers and Scientists Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Contact: Name: Melissa Montag Title: Senior Environmental Manager Phone: 916-557-7907 Prepared by: GEI Consultants, Inc. 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95670 (916) 631-4500 Contact: Barry Scott, RPA Senior Archaeologist (916) 213.2767 July 17, 2017 Barry Scott, MA, RPA Senior Archaeologist Project No. 1602400 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary and Content of Document .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction and Description of the Undertaking ................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Application of the Historic Properties Management Plan .......................... 1-1 1.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Description of the Undertaking .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Name___6. Representation In
    RECEIVED FHR-&-300 (11-78) AUG 2 7 1982 United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name_______________ historic Blue Anchor Building (California Fruit Exchange) and/or common Same 2. Location street & number 1400 Tenth Stj not for publication city, town Sacramento 'v "vicinity of congressional district 3rd state California code 06 county Sacramento code 067 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district X public X occupied agriculture museum _Ji_ building(s) private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process yes: restricted x government scientific being considered JL_ yes: unrestricted industrial transportation x N/A no military other? 4. Owner of Property name State of California, Department of General Services street & number 915 Capitol Mall vicinity of state California 95314 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. County Recorder' S Of f i ce street & number 901 "G" Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 6. Representation in Existing Surveys City of Sacramento title Historic Resources Inventory has this property been determined elegible? yes no date 1981 federal state county local depository for survey records Sacramento City Planning Department, 915 I Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 7. Description Condition Check one Check one X excellent • deteriorated unaltered x original site aood ruins _JL_ altered * moved date N/A fair unexposed * interior Describe the present and original (iff known) physical appearance The Blue Anchor Building is an "L" shaped, two story structure constructed of steel and concrete, finished in stucco, and capped by a low-pitched red tile roof.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Art Implementation Budget
    CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON DISTRICT PUBLIC ART IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 5 SECTION 1 . BACKGROUND . 9 SECTION 2 . PROPOSED ART CONCEPTS . 25 SECTION 3 . IMPLEMENTATION . 69 APPENDICES . 79 APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY ENGAGEMENT AND SURVEY SUMMARY APPENDIX B: COLLECTION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY intentions for art investments, the WDPAIP will expand PURPOSE opportunities to integrate art into the planning, funding, Public art helps to support a vibrant urban riverfront. and design of capital improvement projects and new It encourages pedestrian, scooter, and bicycle travel private investment. The WDPAIP builds upon the by adding visual interest and wayfinding to the public interaction between the development and redevelopment streetscape and enriching the pedestrian and bicycling of new housing and commercial projects with walkability, experience. Public art is a driver of local economic transportation pathways and nodes, iconic architecture, development and has the potential to catalyze and foster the River Walk, and historical landmarks. Anselm Keifer Sculpture, London community identity. The Washington District Public Art Implementation Plan (WDPAIP) defines a distinct art POLICY CONTEXT West Sacramento, and the Crocker Art Museum, to create investment strategy to foster transit-oriented, pedestrian- a comprehensive plan for public art and arts experiences A primary impetus for the plan is Washington Realized, and bike-friendly development patterns. This Plan connecting both cities with pedestrian-friendly pathways. A Sustainable Community Strategy, which was adopted in provides guidance the City will use to develop public 2015 as a framework for updating the 1996 Washington artworks that highlight the Riverfront, gateway corridors, District Specific Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department Records
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8j390d9 No online items Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Sean Heyliger Center for Sacramento History 551 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Phone: (916) 808-7072 Fax: (916) 264-7582 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.centerforsacramentohistory.org/ © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) CTY0008 1 Planning Department records Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Collection number: CTY0008 Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, CA Processed by: Sean Heyliger Date Completed: 2019-08-19 Encoded by: Sean Heyliger © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Dates: 1955-2008 Bulk Dates: 1976-1996 Collection number: CTY0008 Creator: Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department Collection Size: 16 boxes(16 linear feet) Repository: Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Abstract: The Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department records consist of 16 boxes of Sacramento residential and non-residential building surveys conducted mostly between 1976-1996. Each survey consists of a historical/architectural survey form which includes information about the structure such as building type, architect, builder, date of construction, style, significant architectural features, additions/alterations, evaluation desingation and a photograph of the structure. Physical location: 7H1, 7H2, 7I1 Languages: Languages represented in the collection: English Access Collection is open for research use. Publication Rights All requests to publish or quote from private collections held by the Center for Sacramento History (CSH) must be submitted in writing to [email protected]. Permission for publication is given on behalf of CSH as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the patron.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project
    Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 July 16, 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 Contact: Jennifer Parson Senior Environmental Planner Prepared by: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Suzanne Enslow Project Manager 18010209.01 July 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Draft EIR ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of this Draft EIR ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
    [Show full text]
  • Item 20, July 24, 1986
    MINUTE ITEM This Calel'!dar Item No. ~ 0 w:-s acorc·... ;d as f':!inute Item No. a:o b·: t:~~ S . .:re Lands Co·nmiss!.:·n· :y c vote 9J--L to 0 c:t its ~/;z.,.. h:tL: m..:~ting. CALENDAR ITEM 20 A 10 07 /24./86 . w 20936 PRC 7001 s 6 A. Scott Hadly APPROVAL OF A 49-YEAR PUBLIC AGENCY ~~ASE APPLICANT: City of Sacramento Attn: "Doc" Wisham City Hall 91S "I" Street Sacramento, California 95814 BACKGROUND: The City of Sacramento has during the past years been in the process of developing "Old Sacra~ento" as a historically correct recreation of the area as it appeared in the early 1850's. As part of this process, the City has proposed the development of the waterfront in a manner that would depict the riuer front as it was in the same-time frame as the "Old Sacramento" development. lhe City has begun the construction of the necessary improvements along the river such as docks, piers, buildings and floating vessels which are historically correct in their placement and outward appearance. These improvements ~ill be used for commercial income producing ~ctivities as well as other non-income generating public uses. lbe City has funded the construction of the necessary public facilities and some of the access structures leading to private developments located on the ,river. Funding for this construction has been through the City's Redevelopment Agency and construction has occurred over the past several years. The first major commercial development the "Delta King" is to be located on the waterfront before the end of this year.
    [Show full text]
  • David L. Joslyn Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8cr618s No online items Guide to the David L. Joslyn papers Julie Dominguez and Judith Ann Lewinski Center for Sacramento History 551 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Phone: (916) 808-7072 Fax: (916) 264-7582 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.centerforsacramentohistory.org/ © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Guide to the David L. Joslyn MS0056 1 papers Guide to the David L. Joslyn papers Collection number: MS0056 Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, CA Processed by: Julie Dominguez and Judith Ann Lewinski Date Completed: 1979 Encoded by: Sean Heyliger © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: David L. Joslyn papers Dates: circa 1850-1963 Bulk Dates: 1875-1948 Collection number: MS0056 Creator: Joslyn, David L. Collection Size: 2.5 linear feet(2 boxes) Repository: Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Abstract: The David L. Joslyn papers consist of photographs and manuscripts mostly documenting Joslyn's work as a photographer and his early memories of living in Sacramento, California. Most of the photographs were taken by David Joslyn during the 1920's while he was an employee of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Therefore, many of the photos deal with the Southern Pacific and Central Pacific Railroad Lines. Some of the photographs are copied from earlier photos, drawings and lithographs. Joslyn also took numerous photographs of the State Capitol and the surrounding park as well as many shots from rooftops around the area of downtown Sacramento. These photographs are invaluable when searching for specific locations or businesses in early 20th century Sacramento.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    A Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 ................................................................................ A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ............................................................................. A-13 A.1.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-19 A.2 Project Information Meetings A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ............................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Dates, Locations and Attendance .............................................................................................. A-57 A.2.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-59 A.3 Section 106 Consultation A-65 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letters, November 2013 ................................................................... A-67 A.3.2 Comments from the November 2013 Letters ........................................................................... A-107 A.3.3 Section 106 Consultation Letters, April 8, 2014 ....................................................................... A-115 A.3.4 Section 106 Concurrence Letters............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement ...................................................................................... A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 .......................................................................... A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ....................................................................... A-13 A.1.3 Comments from the Early Notification Announcement ........................................................ A-19 A.2 Project Meetings ................................................................................................................ A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ......................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Project Meeting Sign-In Sheets, September 2013 ............................................................... A-59 A.2.3 Comments from the Project Meeting ................................................................................... A-65 A.3 Section 106 Consultation .................................................................................................. A-71 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letter, November 21, 2013 ......................................................... A-73 A.3.2 Comments from the Section 106 Consultation Letter .......................................................
    [Show full text]