DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT NORTH SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT March 2007 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 440 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95409 and US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 State Clearinghouse No. 2006012130 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project being jointly pursued by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Sonoma County Water Agency The U.S Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) have prepared this joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) on the proposed North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project (NSCARP) to construct and operate a recycled water project. The SCWA is a special district created by California legislation in 1949 that supplies water to cities and public agencies throughout most of the populated areas of Sonoma County and northern Marin County and is the state lead agency, and Reclamation is the federal lead agency for this EIR/EIS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. NSCARP objectives are to provide a reliable, long-term water supply for agricultural interests; reduce discharges from local wastewater treatment plants to local waterways; reduce the use of groundwater and surface water for agricultural purposes in north Sonoma County; provide an environmentally responsible, long-term method of recycled water use; and, increase reliability and long-term sustainability of the regional water supply. NSCARP would result in fewer agricultural diversions from the Russian River and its tributaries, which would enable the SCWA to release less water from storage in Lake Mendocino and Sonoma to meet water demands and instream flow requirements. This would result in more water being conserved in storage in these reservoirs, which would provide more operational flexibility for the SCWA to benefit fisheries sources in the Russian River. The increased operational flexibility would not result in additional water being available for other uses because existing reservoir storage capacity, water rights, and flow requirements would not change. In addition to the No Action alternative, three primary alternatives are under consideration. Alternative 2 represents a recycled water supply project for the entire NSCARP area. It would involve the design and construction of 19 recycled water storage reservoirs totaling about 11,200 acre-feet (af) in storage capacity. In addition, Alternative 2 would involve the design and construction of approximately 112 miles of transmission pipeline, and numerous booster and distribution pump stations for conveying water from the Geysers Pipeline to the storage reservoirs, and for distribution of the storage recycled water from the reservoirs to the agricultural lands. Alternative 3 represents a scaled-down version of the Alexander Valley subarea by limiting storage reservoir development to only the Jordan A and Jordan C reservoirs. Alternative 4 represents a scaled-down version of the Russian River Valley subarea. It limits storage reservoir development to the Russel-Bucher, Bucher, and Becnel #2 reservoir sites and utilizes the existing Gallo Twin Valley Reservoir. The EIR/EIS describes the environmental effects of constructing and operating NSCARP The EIR/EIS also fulfills the requirements of Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and 12898 (Environmental Justice). For further information on this EIR/EIS, contact Mr. David Cuneo, Senior Environmental Specialist, SCWA, 404 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa, California, telephone (707) 547-1935. Comments on the EIR/EIS must be provided by May 18, 2007. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Sonoma County Water Agency Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter/Section Page ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ES-1 ES-1 PROJECT PURPOSE OBJECTIVES AND NEED .......................................... ES-1 ES-2 BACKGROUND............................................................................................... ES-2 ES-3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT........................................................ ES-3 ES-4 APPROACH TO ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ...................................... ES-3 ES-5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN EIR/EIS ................................ ES-4 ES-6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND AVAILABLE MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................ ES-5 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR NSCARP .........................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1-1 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.....................................................................1-3 1.3 BACKGROUND OF PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................1-3 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF EIR/EIS ............................................................................1-5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................2-1 2.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................2-12 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ..............................................................2-56 2.4 PROJECT FUNDING .......................................................................................2-66 2.5 PARTICIPATION IN NSCARP .........................................................................2-67 2.6 USES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .....................................................................................2-67 2.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ......................................................2-68 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREAS...............................................................................3-1 3.1 AESTHETICS..................................................................................................3.1-1 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................3.2-1 3.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................3.3-1 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...........................................................................3.4-1 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................3.5-1 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE..........................................................................3.6-1 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS..................................................................................3.7-1 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...........................................................3.8-1 3.9 LAND USE/POLICY CONSISTENCY.............................................................3.9-1 3.10 NOISE ...........................................................................................................3.10-1 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING.....................................................................3.11-1 North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project March 2007 Draft EIR/EIS -i- 0402-0741 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Sonoma County Water Agency Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Chapter/Section Page 3.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY...................................................................3.12-1 3.13 RECREATION...............................................................................................3.13-1 3.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .....................................................................3.14-1 3.15 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................3.15-1 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..............................................................................................4-1 5.0 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS...................................................................................5-1 6.0 IMPACT CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................6-1 7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...................................................................10-1 8.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................7-1 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................8-1 10.0 ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................9-1 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ ES-7 1-1 Estimated Project Costs..............................................................................................1-2 2-1 Historical Gage Flows of Russian River and Dry Creek..............................................2-7 2-2 Summary of NSCARP Land Use Uses .......................................................................2-8 2-3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Resources
    3.2 Land Resources 3.2 Land Resources 3.2.1 Geologic Setting The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California. The topography of the province is characterized by mountain ranges with intervening valleys trending to the northwest, roughly paralleling the Pacific coastline. The project site is located in the northern portion of the Alexander Valley, which in the area is also referred to locally as the Cloverdale Valley. The Alexander Valley is likely a sediment-filled valley that has been pulled apart by the Maacama and the Healdsburg Fault Zones. Elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 302 to 332 feet above mean sea level, sloping in a southeasterly direction. The project site lies within the eastern flank of the northern Coast Ranges, which is underlain by the Franciscan Complex, an assemblage of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Bedrock underlying the project area is about 50 feet to 60 feet deep and consists of fractured dark greenish-gray shale of the Franciscan Formation. Overlying the bedrock assemblages in the project region are younger (10,000 to 1.6 million years old) alluvium and river channel deposits consisting of various clay, silt, sand, and gravel mixtures. Boring logs revealed that these alluvial sediments occur generally as alternating sandy clay mixtures and gravels from the surface to the interface with the bedrock. The sediment transport and depositional history of the Russian River has controlled the placement of the alluvial sediments and the horizontal and vertical distribution of these materials (Appendix K). 3.2.2 Soils Figure 3.2-1 provides a map of soils on the project site.
    [Show full text]
  • Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project
    APPENDIX D Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. June 6, 2016 An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Santa Rosa, California 95407 June 6, 2016 ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, as requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. This study was designed to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (2008), the Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to improve Coho salmon and steelhead habitat in the Russian River and Dry Creek by modifying the minimum instream flow requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board's 1986 Decision 1610. The current study includes a ⅛ mile buffer around Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, the Russian River from Coyote Valley Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and Dry Creek from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River. The study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 15-1481); archival research at the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley; examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates; and contact with the Native American community. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 June 1, 2017 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 77-285 – California Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas & Electric Company Subject: Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Document submitted by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for relicensing the 9.4-megawatt (MW) Potter Valley Project (FERC No. 77). The proposed project is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian Rivers, in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. The project occupies lands owned by PG&E and National Forest System Lands administered by the United States Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and that the EIS is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process and are circulating the enclosed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the Potter Valley Project. We are also soliciting your comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. We are also requesting that you identify any studies that would help provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Gounty Residents Face Big Challenges
    July 8, 2019 TAC Mtg Agenda Item #5 Attachment 1 WILL THERE BE WATER AFTER AN EARTHQUAKE? Sonoma Gounty Residents Face Big Challenges SUMMARY When the next earthquake arrives, will we have enough water? Engineers say our water supplies will probably be disrupted after a major earthquake. In Sonoma County, most people rely on water supplied by Sonoma Water (formerly known as the Sonoma County Water Agency) to nine city contractors and special districts, and they, in turn, deliver water to residents, businesses, and organizations within their areas. The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury has investigated how well-prepared Sonoma Water is to respond to a major earthquake. Our report seeks to answer this crucial question: What plans and resources are in place in the event of a major earthquake, to provide drinking water to residents of the county who receive water from Sonoma Water? The Russian River is the primary source of water for Sonoma County and northern Marin County. Sonoma Water supplies 90%o of the pressurized water used in nine contracting cities and water agencies (Santa Rosa, Windsor, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District) that together serve over 600,000 customers. Water flows through a network of pumps, pipes, and valves to its final destination in our homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses. Sonoma Water projects that a minor earthquake (5.0 or less) will not impair water supply operations or services, and will not present immediate danger to the health and welfare of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021
    State Water Resources Control Board Temporary Urgency Change Order (6/14/2021) Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021 Prepared as a requirement of the Order approving Sonoma Water's Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). Instream Flow Requirements as of July 1, 2021 Basis Reach Instantaneous (cfs) 5-day Average (cfs) Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Upper Russian River 15 25 D-1610: Dry Condition Dry Creek 25 - Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Lower Russian River 25 35 Upper Russian River and Lower Russian River based on criteria as established in the Order issued 6/14/2021. Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino Storage 2015 - 2021 and Storage Curve 120,000 100,000 80,000 feet - 60,000 Acre 40,000 July 01, 2021 30,586 Acre-feet 20,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Storage Curve Major Deviation Curve Emergency Regulation Storage Threshold 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/1 2/1 10/1 12/1 11/1 Storage July 1, 2021 30,586 (acre-feet) Total Average Daily Rate Change in Storage Last 30 days -4,337 -145 (acre-feet) Last 7 days -1,112 -159 Min 7 Daily Inflow Last 7 days Max 24 (cfs) Mean 15 Min 82 Release (cfs) Last 7 days Max 84 Mean 83 Release Flow Change Ramping Rates : Approved Adjusted Rates Event Requested: 3/1/2021 Purpose: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has requested the discharge from Coyote Valley Dam be increased from 25 cfs to 100 cfs to facilitate the second and final release of steelhead smolts from the Coyote Valley Fish Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal State Gaming
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, DC 20240 DEC 1 5 2017 The Honorable Chris Wright Chairman, Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians P.O. Box 607 Geyserville, California 95441 Dear Chairman Wright: On October 5, 2017, our office received from the State of California (State) a copy of the proposed Tribal-State Compact (Compact) between the State of California and the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe). DECISION Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may approve or disapprove a proposed compact within 45 days of its submission. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 ( d)(8). If the Secretary does not approve or disapprove the proposed compact within 45 days, IGRA states that the compact is considered approved by the Secretary, "but only to the extent the Compact is consistent with the provisions of [IGRA]." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). We undertook a thorough review of the Compact and the additional materials submitted by the parties. While we have concerns with some provisions in the Compact, we have taken no action within the prescribed 45-day review period. As a result, the Compact is "considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent [it] is consistent with the provisions of [IGRA]." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). We proceed in this "deemed approved" manner because the Compact contains provisions that appear to give the State broad authority over non-gaming activities, such as a hotel and on-reservation development and thus may exceed the lawful scope of State authority in gaming compacts under IGRA.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.5 Geological Resources
    Cotati Downtown Specific Plan GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Draft EIR 4.5 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Issues Although implementation of the DSP will improve buildings in the planning area relative to geologic and seismic safety by upgrading structures or developing new structures subject to current building codes, implementation of the plan will also induce population growth and development in a seismically active area. The evaluation that follows provides a general characterization of the seismic setting, soil types, and associated hazards and risks in the planning area. This analysis is not intended as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical reports that may be required for individual projects in the DSP area under the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Additional study may be required to obtain site-specific data, and to determine the appropriate engineering recommendations based on a particular building’s size, design, and use. 4.5.2 Setting Regional (Structural) Geology California is divided geologically into several physiographic or geomorphic provinces, including the Sierra Nevada range, the Central (Great) Valley, the Transverse Ranges, the Coast Ranges, and others. Cotati lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Range was formed at the intersection of two tectonic plates: the Pacific to the west, and the North American to the east. The compressive and shearing motions between the tectonic plates resulted in a complex system of active strike-slip faults, reverse faults, thrust faults and related folds (bends in rock layers). Locally, the Coast Ranges are characterized by northwest trending valleys and basins. Cotati is located in the topographic area known as the Cotati Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 119/Thursday, June 21, 2007/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 119 / Thursday, June 21, 2007 / Notices 34275 Dated: May 21, 2007. California state law. Further to this associated funerary objects are 157 Sherry Hutt, agreement, human remains from CA– olivella beads, 15 Haliotis beads and Manager, National NAGPRA Program. MRN–27, CA–MRN–254, CA–SON–159, bead fragments, 6 bone awls, 3 bone [FR Doc. E7–11986 Filed 6–20–07; 8:45 am] CA–SON–293, CA–SON–455, and CA- pendants, 5 birdbone tubes, 5 pieces of BILLING CODE 4312–50–S SON–456 were repatriated to officials of worked bone, 7 pieces of red ochre, 10 Ya Ka Ama Indian Education and obsidian tools and flakes, 6 chert tools Development, Inc., a non–federally and flakes, 2 pieces of pumice, 2 pieces DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR recognized Indian group from of micaceous schist, and 2 other lithic Forestville, CA, who reburied the tools. Three items on the original National Park Service human remains in 1992. In 1997, during manifest of artifacts are considered NAGPRA inventory, additional human missing. Notice of Inventory Completion: remains were discovered in the museum Radiocarbon tests from the Reedland Anthropological Studies Center, collection for sites CA–SON–293, CA– Woods site yielded dates of 370 B.C. 190 Archaeological Collections Facility, SON–455, CA–SON–456, CA–MRN– and 30 B.C. 95. Analysis of the artifacts Sonoma State University, Rohnert 254, and CA–SON–159. In 1997 and found at the Reedland Woods site Park, CA 2006, human remains for site CA–MRN– indicate that the human remains were 27 that were on loan to various buried during the Upper Archaic period AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
    [Show full text]