DOCSLIB.ORG

Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

State of California California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California September 2017 Dams Listed Alphabetically by County Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California Dams Listed Alphabetically By County September 2017 Photo used with permission from the City and County of San Francisco DSOD – Data Definitions – Page i Dam Number Unique identification number used for inventorying dams in California based on the jurisdictional status of a dam. This number is assigned and used by the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). National Inventory of Dams Identification Number (National ID No.) Unique identification number used for inventorying dams in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ National Inventory of Dams (NID) database. DSOD is responsible for assigning this number for dams in California. Dam Name The dam name as given by the owner, which may not be unique and may differ from the name of the lake. Owner Name The entity or person with legal responsibility for the dam. Owner Type Owners are organized into the following categories: Associations (Home Owners Associations, etc.) City, city agency, or city district County, county agency, or county district Individual owner/Private citizen (Owner Name not provided) Park, sanitation, utility, or water district Private company, corporation, LLC, or partnership Private trusts and estates State Agency Water agency or authority Dam Height Vertical distance from the downstream toe of the dam to the dam crest (measured in feet). Crest Length Distance measured along the dam crest from one abutment to the other (measured in feet). Reservoir Capacity Maximum amount of water that the dam can impound (measured in acre-feet). Dam Type A four letter code describing and categorizing the principal material, style, or construction method of the dam: CORA Constant Radius Arch MULA Multiple Arch CRIB Crib Wall RECT Reinforced Concrete Tank ERRK Earth and Rock ROCK Rock Fill ERTH Earthen Embankment SLBT Slab and Buttress FLBT Flashboard and Buttress VARA Variable Radius Arch GRAV Gravity INFL Inflatable HYDF Hydraulic Fill RCC Roller Compacted Concrete Certified Status The certified status of a dam is one of three statuses: Status Description Jurisdictional sized dams that may safely impound water to the elevation specified on the Certified Certificate of Approval. Jurisdictional sized dams without water impounding capabilities under reasonable Certified/Inop foreseeable conditions, taking into account the size of the drainage area. Jurisdictional sized dams that operate without a Certificate of Approval. Generally, these Not Certified dams are in the process of becoming certified, altered to less than jurisdictional size, or being removed. DSOD – Data Definitions – Page ii Downstream Hazard The downstream hazard is based solely on potential downstream impacts to life and property should the dam fail when operating with a full reservoir. This hazard is not related to the condition of the dam or its appurtenant structures. The definitions for downstream hazard are borrowed from the Federal Guidelines for Inundation Mapping of Flood Risks Associated with Dam Incidents and Failures (FEMA P-946, July 2013). FEMA categorizes the downstream hazard potential into three categories in increasing severity: Low, Significant, and High. DSOD adds a fourth category of “Extremely High” to identify dams that may impact highly populated areas or critical infrastructure, or have short evacuation warning times. Downstream Hazard Loss of Economic, Environmental, Classification Human Life and Lifeline Losses Low None expected Low and generally limited to owner’s property Significant None expected Yes High Probable (one or more expected) Yes, but not necessary for this classification Yes, major impacts to critical infrastructure or Extremely High Considerable property Condition Assessment California DSOD uses NID’s condition rating definitions, with additional criteria, as a guideline in assigning condition assessments. National Inventory of Dams California DSOD Rating Definitions Additional Criteria No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, Satisfactory None hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the applicable regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines Dam has a long-standing deficiency that is No existing dam safety deficiencies are not being addressed in a timely manner recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare Dam is not certified and its safety is under Fair or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic events evaluation may result in a dam safety deficiency. Risk Dam is restricted and operation of the may be in the range to take further action reservoir at the lower level does not mitigate the deficiency A dam safety deficiency is recognized for loading conditions that may realistically occur. Remedial action is necessary. A poor rating Dam has multiple deficiencies or a significant Poor may also be used when uncertainties exist as deficiency that requires extensive remedial to critical analysis parameters that identify a work potential dam safety deficiency. Further investigations and studies are necessary A dam safety deficiency is recognized that Unsatisfactory requires immediate or emergency remedial None action for problem resolution The dam has not been inspected, is not under Not Rated State jurisdiction, or has been inspected but, None for whatever reason, has not been rated Reservoir Restrictions DSOD may direct or order an owner to operate the reservoir to a specified water surface elevation level that is lower than the maximum storage level. In addition, owners may self-impose a restriction as a result of an owner-initiated study that identifies a dam safety issue. Reservoir restrictions are typically imposed for deficiencies of the dam, spillway, low-level outlet, or other appurtenances with respect to dam safety. SeptemberPage 2017 Jurisdictional Dams 1 Pageof 117 1 of 117 Listed Alphabetically by County Dam Dam Reservoir Certified Condition Dam Name Owner Name County Number Height Capacity Status Assessment National Crest Dam Downstream Reservoir Year Latitude Longitude Owner Type ID No. Length Type Hazard Restrictions Built 31.020 Almond East Bay Municipal Utility District 30 20 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00176 37.71 -122.08 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 1,040 ERTH Extremely High No 1954 1.045 Bethany Forebay California Department of Water Resources 95 5,000 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00033 37.78 -121.62 State agency 695 ERTH High No 1961 10.000 Calaveras City and County of San Francisco 210 100,000 Certified Fair Alameda CA00126 37.49 -121.82 City, city agency, or city district 1,200 HYDF Extremely High Yes 1925 31.000 Central East Bay Municipal Utility District 55 485 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00162 37.80 -122.22 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 929 ERTH Extremely High No 1910 31.005 Chabot East Bay Municipal Utility District 142 10,281 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00165 37.73 -122.12 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 450 HYDF Extremely High No 1892 1020.002 Cull Creek Alameda County Public Works Agency 55 140 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00840 37.70 -122.06 County, county agency, or county district 440 ERTH High No 1963 1065.004 Decoto Reservoir Alameda County Water District 33 46 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00898 37.59 -122.00 County, county agency, or county district 1,360 ERTH Extremely High No 1966 1.056 Del Valle California Department of Water Resources 222 77,100 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00043 37.62 -121.75 State agency 880 ERTH Extremely High No 1968 31.018 Dunsmuir Reservoir East Bay Municipal Utility District 43 197 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00174 37.74 -122.14 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 2,275 RECT Extremely High No 1968 1.093 Dyer California Department of Water Resources 30 525 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA01491 37.76 -121.66 State agency 1,850 ERTH High No 2011 10.021 James H Turner City and County of San Francisco 193 50,500 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00132 37.58 -121.85 City, city agency, or city district 2,160 ERTH Extremely High No 1964 1065.002 Middlefield Res Alameda County Water District 147 22 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00896 37.53 -121.95 County, county agency, or county district 1,017 ERTH High No 1958 31.031 New Upper San Leandro East Bay Municipal Utility District 182 42,000 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA01082 37.76 -122.09 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 1,300 ERTH Extremely High No 1977 1.062 Patterson California Department of Water Resources 39 104 Certified Satisfactory Alameda CA00048 37.70 -121.68 State agency 1,275 ERTH High No 1962 SeptemberPage 2017 Jurisdictional Dams 2 Pageof 117 2 of 117 Listed Alphabetically by County Dam Dam Reservoir Certified Condition Dam Name Owner Name County Number Height Capacity Status Assessment National Crest Dam Downstream Reservoir Year Latitude Longitude Owner Type ID No. Length Type Hazard Restrictions Built 1065.000 Patterson Alameda County Water District 100 46 Certified Fair Alameda CA00895 37.54 -122.08 County, county agency, or county district 1,306 ERTH Significant Yes 1962 31.011 Piedmont East Bay Municipal Utility District 64 60 Certified/Inop Satisfactory Alameda CA00170 37.83 -122.22 Park, sanitation, utility, or water district 250 ERTH High No 1905 1065.009 Quarry
Recommended publications
  • Alternatives Analysis

    Alternatives Analysis

    DRAFT NCCP/MSAA/HCP APPENDIX P ‘B’ Alternatives Analysis Note to Reader: The comparative alternatives analyses in this Appendix combine Habitat Reserve and Supplemental Open Space (SOS) acres because both are designated open space. The Habitat Reserve and SOS are identical for all areas outside of Rancho Mission Viejo (RMV) property. The more refined conservation analysis presented in Part I, Chapter 13 for the RMV, County of Orange and San Margarita Water District (SMWD) proposed Covered Activities separates the Habitat Reserve and SOS components because Habitat Reserve open space will be managed under the Habitat Reserve Management Program (HRMP) described in Part I, Chapter 7. SOS will not be subject to management under the HRMP. All figures referenced in this Appendix are located in the NCCP/MSAA/HCP Part IV, Map Book. SECTION 1.0 ALTERNATIVE B-8 SECTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE B-8 ALTERNATIVE (FIGURE 129-M) 1.1.1 Overview of Major Landscape and Habitat Reserve Planning Features of the Proposed Habitat Reserve on RMV Property a. Major Landscape Features In comparison with the B-10M and B-12 Alternatives, the B-8 Alternative proposes to maximize the open space on RMV lands with the result that County housing needs are addressed to a far lesser extent than in any of the other Alternatives. Alternative B-8 identifies Chiquita Canyon, Verdugo Canyon and all of the RMV portion of the San Mateo Creek Watershed as open space. All of the habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors identified in the Draft Southern Planning Guidelines and Draft Watershed Planning Principles would be protected (Figure 156- M).
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy

    Mining's Toxic Legacy

    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
  • Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016

    Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016

    SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS FOR YEAR ENDING 2016 (Government Code § 12599) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES SUMMARY 1 - 5 TABLE SUBJECT/TITLE 1 ALPHABETICAL LISTING BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 2 LISTING BY PERCENT TO CHARITY IN DESCENDING ORDER 3 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – GOODS PURCHASED FROM CHARITY 4 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – MANAGEMENT FEE/COMMISSION 5 VEHICLE DONATIONS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 6 COMMERCIAL COVENTURERS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION California Department of Justice November 2017 SUMMARY Every year Californians provide generous support to a wide array of charities, either directly or through commercial fundraisers that charities hire to solicit donations on their behalf. The term “commercial fundraiser” refers generally to a person or corporation that contracts with a charity, for compensation, to solicit funds. The commercial fundraiser charges either a flat fee or a percentage of the donations collected. By law, commercial fundraisers are required to register with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and file a Notice of Intent before soliciting donations in California. For each solicitation campaign conducted, commercial fundraisers are then required to file annual financial disclosure reports that set forth total revenue and expenses incurred. This Summary Report is prepared from self-reported information contained in the annual financial disclosure reports filed by commercial fundraisers for 2016 and includes statistics for donations of both cash and used personal property (such as clothing and vehicles) for the benefit of charity. Only information from complete financial reports received before October 20, 2017 is included.
  • North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid

    North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2f59n5kg No online items North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Xiuzhi Zhou and Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2000 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining mssHM 51035-51130 1 Co. Records: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records Dates (inclusive): 1890-1891 Collection Number: mssHM 51035-51130 Creator: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company. Extent: 96 pieces in 1 box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection consists primarily of letters from the secretary to the president of the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company of Nevada County, California, in 1890-1891 related to the company and hydraulic mining. Language: English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item]. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.
  • Flood Mitigation Plan

    Flood Mitigation Plan

    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
  • Focused Municipal Service Review

    Focused Municipal Service Review

    10/10/2018 FOCUSED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW City of San Juan Capistrano Water and Wastewater Utilities ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 MSR Background and Determinations ...................................................................................................... 2 Focused MSR Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4 Governance Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 7 Affected Agencies’ Profiles ....................................................................................................................... 8 II. FOCUSED MSR DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................................................... 17 III. PLAN FOR SERVICE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45 IV. MSR Assessments (See Appendices 1 and 2) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND APPENDICES Exhibit 1: City of San Juan Capistrano Vicinity Map ......................................................................................5 Exhibit 2: City of San Juan Capistrano Population ..……..…………………….………………………………………………..…..6 Exhibit 3: City of San Juan Capistrano Profile ............................................................................................
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
  • Executive Summary

    Executive Summary

    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Executive Summary Published March 2008 by The Sierra Fund The Sierra Fund’s Initiative to address legacy mining pollution has been made possible by the support of: The California Endowment The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and True North Foundation Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Is human health, water quality or the environment at risk from historic mining toxins? The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today. Working with partners from state, federal, and tribal governments as well as from the academic, health, and environmental communities, The Sierra Fund’s report “Mining’s Toxic Legacy” is the first comprehen- sive evaluation of what happened during the Gold Rush, including: the cultural, health, and environmental impacts of this era; the obstacles that lie in the way of addressing these impacts; and a strategic plan for taking action on the longest neglected environmental problem in the Golden State of California. The California Gold Rush clawed out of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada considerable gold—93 tons or 2.7 million troy ounces in the peak year of 1853 alone... In the course of doing so, everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s.
  • Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds

    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds

    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds Presentation Summaries (in order of appearance) Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service Steelhead as Threatened Species: The Status of the Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." To assist NMFS apply this definition of "species to Pacific salmon stocks, an interim policy established the use of "evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The listing of steelhead as "threatened" in the California Central Coast resulted from a petition filed in February 1994. In response to the petition, NMFS conducted a West Coast-wide status review to identify all steelhead ESU’s in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. There were two tiers to the review: (1) regional expertise was used to determine the status of all streams with regard to steelhead; and (2) a biological review team was assembled to review the regional team's data. Evidence used in this process included data on precipitation, annual hydrographs, monthly peak flows, water temperatures, native freshwater fauna, major vegetation types, ocean upwelling, and smolt and adult out-migration (i.e., size, age and time of migration). Steelhead within San Francisco Bay tributaries are included in the Central California Coast ESU.
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project

    Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project

    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
  • Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)

    Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)

    COM MENTS OF THE SAN JUAN RIDGE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN JUAN RIDGE MINE Submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department December 4, 2012 Sacramento Bee, December 31, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4 III. OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................8 A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................8 B. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................10 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .........14 A. THE EIR MUST CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT; CEQA DEMANDS AN ACCURATE, STABLE AND FINITE PROJECT DEFINITION THAT ADDRESSES THE “WHOLE OF THE ACTION” UNDER REVIEW. ...........................................................................................................14 1. The Proposed Action Should Be Described in a Manner that Provides for Full Disclosure and Evaluation of Potentially Significant Impacts ..............................................15 2. Additional Information Is Needed ..................................................................................19 B. CEQA REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY “SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS