DOCSLIB.ORG

YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL PERMIT REVISIONS Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL PERMIT REVISIONS Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL PERMIT REVISIONS Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 1991073040 September 2004 YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL PERMIT REVISIONS Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 1991073040 September 2004 Prepared for Yolo County Public Works and Planning Department Division of Integrated Waste Management 225 Bush Street 8950 Cal Center Drive 710 Second Avenue 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 1700 Building 3, Suite 300 Suite 730 Suite 102 San Francisco, CA 94104 Sacramento, CA 95826 Seattle, WA 98104 Clearwater, FL 33762 (415) 896-5900 (916) 564-4500 (206) 442-0900 (727) 572-5226 436 14th Street 4221 Wilshire Boulevard 4001 Office Court Drive 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 600 Suite 480 Suite 607 Suite 440 Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Santa Fe, NM 87507 Orlando, FL 32822 (510) 839-5066 (323) 933-6111 (505) 992-8860 (407) 851-1155 202102 TABLE OF CONTENTS YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL PERMIT REVISIONS EIR Page S. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. S-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview and Background .............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project................................................................................. 1-5 1.3 Regulatory Permit Requirements and Status................................................................ 1-5 1.4 Scope of the EIR .......................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5 The EIR Process........................................................................................................... 1-9 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Elements.......................................................................................................... 2-4 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality................................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.3 Biological Resources................................................................................................. 3.3-1 3.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ................................................................................. 3.4-1 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.6 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 3.6-1 3.7 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 3.7-1 3.8 Public Health and Safety........................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Public Services, Utilities, and Energy....................................................................... 3.9-1 3.10 Transportation and Traffic ...................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.11 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 3.11-1 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Growth-Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project ....................................................... 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts................................................................... 4-7 4.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ......................................................... 4-8 4.5 Effects Found Not To Be Significant........................................................................... 4-8 5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ............................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Alternatives Considered But Rejected ......................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIR.............................................................................. 5-3 5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................................... 5-19 Yolo County Central Landfill Permit Revision EIR ii ESA / 202102 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6. EIR AUTHORS, PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED........................ 6-1 6.1 EIR Authors.................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 EIR Consultants........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Persons and Organizations Consulted.......................................................................... 6-2 7. GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Acronyms Used in EIR ................................................................................................ 7-7 APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Agency Comments on NOP B. Transcript of Public Scoping Meeting, Held March 21, 2002 C. Description of Project XL D. Air Quality Calculations E. List of Vascular Plants Identified at the Project Site F. Wetland Delineation G. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) Guidelines H. CDFG Burrowing Owl Recommendations I. USFWS Guidelines for Activities in Giant Garter Snake Habitat J. Long-Term Noise Monitoring Graphs LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 Project Site Location................................................................................................. 2-2 2-2 Existing Site Plan...................................................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................... 2-5 3.1-1 Vantage Point Location Map ................................................................................. 3.1-3 3.1-2 Existing Views from Vantage Points 1 and 2 ........................................................ 3.1-4 3.1-3 Existing Views from Vantage Points 3 and 4 ........................................................ 3.1-5 3.1-4 Existing Views from Vantage Points 5 and 6 ........................................................ 3.1-6 3.1-5 Simulated Views from Vantage Point 1: Permitted and Proposed Final Contours........................................................ 3.1-10 3.1-6 Simulated Views from Vantage Point 4: Permitted and Proposed Final Contours........................................................ 3.1-12 3.1-7 Simulated Views from Vantage Point 5 Permitted and Proposed Final Contours........................................................ 3.1-14 3.1-8 Simulated Views from Vantage Point 6 Permitted and Proposed Final Contours........................................................ 3.1-16 3.4-1 Active and Potentially Active Earthquake Faults in Project Vicinity.................... 3.4-4 3.5.1 Surface Waterways in the Project Vicinity............................................................ 3.5-3 3.7-1 Effects of Noise on People..................................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment ............................... 3.7-6 3.10-1 Roadways in Project Area.................................................................................... 3.10-3 5-1 Simulated View from Vantage Point 1: Reduced Height Alternative Final Contours ...................................................... 5-7 5-2 Simulated View from Vantage Point 4: Reduced Height Alternative Final Contours ...................................................... 5-8 Yolo County Central Landfill Permit Revision EIR iii ESA / 202102 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 5-3 Simulated View from Vantage Point 6: Reduced Height Alternative Final Contours ...................................................... 5-9 LIST OF TABLES S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... S-10 1-1 Current Permit and Approval Status – Yolo County Central Landfill.................... 1-11 3.1-1 Project Consistency with Yolo County General Plan Goals and Policies ............. 3.1-9 3.2-1 Ambient National and State Air Quality Standards............................................... 3.2-4 3.2-2 Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Area.................................................. 3.2-12 3.2-3 Residences Within One Mile of the YCCL ......................................................... 3.2-13 3.2-4 Qualitative Indicators of Air Quality Impacts...................................................... 3.2-15 3.2-5 MM Yolo Fuel Use.............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Appendices
    List of Appendices Scroll down to view the Appendices Appendix A - Compatibility Determinations Appendix B - Technical Panel Appendix C - Environmental Assessment Appendix D - Response to Comments Appendix E - Wilderness Review Appendix F - Plant List Appendix G - Bird List Appendix H - Fish List Appendix I - Insect List Appendix J - Fire Management Plan Appendix K - Glossary Appendix A Compatibility Determinations Appendix A - Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination Use: Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography Refuge Name: Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, Contra Costa County, adjacent to Antioch, California; a unit of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR Complex. Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1544) Refuge Purpose: “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species... or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act of 1973) National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). Description of Use(s): Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. As proposed, they would occur from outside the protective fence or under controlled visits inside the protective fence since the Refuge is otherwise closed to the public. Antioch Dunes NWR provides an opportunity for increasing awareness of the two endangered plants and one endangered insect species on the Refuge through guided tours and interpretive programs and information.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Bluff Diversion Dam Final EIS/EIR
    Appendix B Fishery Resources APPENDIX B Fishery Resources Affected Environment The fishery resources in the Sacramento River near the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) consist of a diverse assemblage of fish species including native and non-native (introduced species). Table B-1 provides a species list of those fish that may likely be found at or near RBDD at some time during their life history. Of those species shown in Table B-1, four groups of fish species will be discussed together in this section because of their family relationship, life history characteristics, legal status, and occurrence within the project area. These groups include: • Native anadromous salmonids (NAS) • Other native anadromous fish (NAO) • Non-native anadromous fish (NNA) • Resident native and non-native fish (RN and RNN) TABLE B-1 Fish Found in the Sacramento River near RBDD Common Name Scientific Name Group Native Introduced Chinook salmona Oncorhynchus tshawytscha NASb X Steelheadc Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus NAS X Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka NNASd Xe Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha NNAS Xf Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata NAOg X River lamprey Lampetra ayresi NAO X Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris NAO X White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus NAO X Striped bass Morone saxatilis NNAh X American shad Alosa sapidissima NNA X Rainbow trouti Oncorhynchus mykiss RNj X Hitch Lavinia exilicauda RN X Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus RN X Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus RN X Sacramento pikeminnow Ptychocheilus grandis RN X Speckled dace
    [Show full text]
  • Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department
    Annex K: COSUMNES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FIRE DEPARTMENT K.1 Introduction This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department (Cosumnes Fire Department or CFD), a participating jurisdiction to the Sacramento County LHMP Update. This annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the District. This annex provides additional information specific to the Cosumnes Fire District, with a focus on providing additional details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community. K.2 Planning Process As described above, the Cosumnes Fire Department followed the planning process detailed in Section 3.0 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC), the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants included staff from the following departments: Fire Operations Fire Prevention CSD Administration CSD GIS K.3 Community Profile The community profile for the CFD is detailed in the following sections. Figure K.1 displays a map and the location of the CFD boundaries within Sacramento County. Sacramento County (Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department) Annex K.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure K.1. CFD Borders Source: CFD Sacramento County (Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department) Annex K.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 K.3.1 Geography and Climate Cosumnes Fire Department which provides all risk emergency services to the cities of Elk Grove, and Galt.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.10 Biological Resources
    4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This biological resources section summarizes the natural resources present within the City of Elk Grove Planning Area (Planning Area), and includes a discussion of the special-status species potentially occurring and sensitive habitats present in the area. This section also identifies impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed General Plan. Cumulative impact analysis is also provided in this section. The biological resources setting and impact analysis discussion was prepared by Foothill Associates. 4.10.1 SETTING REGIONAL SETTING Sacramento County lies in the middle of the Central Valley bordered by Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties on the south, Amador and El Dorado counties on the east, Placer and Sutter counties on the north, and Yolo and Solano counties on the west. The County extends from the low delta lands between the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers north to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Plant communities predominant in this region include agricultural croplands, annual grassland, deltaic marsh (freshwater, brackish, and salt), horticultural/landscaped, fallow agricultural lands, oak woodland, open water (rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc.), riparian, and seasonal wetland. LOCAL SETTING The Planning Area, which encompasses approximately 93,560 acres including the City of Elk Grove, is located within the USGS 7.5 minute Bruceville, Buffalo Creek, Carmichael, Clarksburg, Courtland, Elk Grove, Florin, Galt, and Sloughhouse quadrangles. Elevations within the Planning Area range from sea level to approximately 150 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Plant communities within the Planning Area include agricultural cropland, annual grassland, fallow agricultural land, horticultural/landscape, irrigation ditches, irrigated pastures, open waters, perennial and seasonal marshes, riparian woodlands, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthicus Antiochensis COMMON NAME: Antioch Anthicid Beetle CLASS, FAMILY: Insecta, Anthicidae
    SCIENTIFIC NAME: Anthicus antiochensis COMMON NAME: Antioch anthicid beetle CLASS, FAMILY: Insecta, Anthicidae ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: Werner, F.G. 1975. Additions to the nearctic Anthicus (Coleoptera: Anthicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 77(4): 474 (fig. 1, habitus drawing of male; fig. 5, views of aedeagus). TYPE MATERIAL: Holotype: Male – California: Contra Costa County; Antioch, 29 June 1953, collected by R.O. Schuster, deposited in California Academy of Sciences, type #15042. Paratypes: 18 same data as holotype, 5 various collectors and dates between 19 May 1952 and 5 October 1953, depositories not given. RANKING/STATUS: G1S1 (NatureServe- CNDDB). (Previously ranked GH.) GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Anthicid beetles somewhat resemble ants in general appearance, and have a strongly deflexed head which is narrowly constricted behind the eyes. DIAGNOSTIC CHARACTERS: Adults of Anthicus antiochensis are very large for the genus, measuring 4.7-5.4 mm in length. The elytra are subtruncate at the apex and have a subapical darkened area which varies in extent and color intensity; the underside and legs are covered with shaggy pubescence. The outer edge of the front tibia is sharp and modified for digging. OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS: Davis (1991) illustrates the adult in Plate 1 and the larva in Plate 9. DISTRIBUTION: Anthicus antiochensis is apparently extirpated from the type locality at Antioch Dunes. Stabilization of the dunes in the 1950s may have eliminated the loose, sandy substrate preferred by this species. In the early 1990s it was collected for the first time at several sites along the Sacramento River in Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, and Solano Counties, and from one site at Nicolas on the Feather River in Sutter County (Davis 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Settlement Contractors Environmental Impact Statement
    Final Report Sacramento River Settlement Contractors Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 2004 W062004004RDD_020 COVER SHEET Title of Proposed Action: Sacramento River Settlement Contractors Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Officials: Mr. Kirk Rodgers (Lead Agency) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Suite E-1604 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Dr. Buford Holt (Lead Agency) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard Shasta Lake, CA 96019 Legal Mandate: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Location of Proposed Sacramento Valley, California Action: December 2004 iii Final SRSC EIS RDD/043270002 (CAH2882.doc) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1-1 Background and Proposed Action.............................................................................. 1-2 Summary of Alternatives and Impacts....................................................................... 1-3 No Action Alternative.................................................................................... 1-3 Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative – Negotiated Contract ...................................... 1-3 Alternative 2: Reclamation’s Initial Contract Proposal ................................. 1-4 Alternative 3: Sacramento River Settlement Contractors’ Initial Counter Proposal.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Friday J uary 6, 1989 MEN Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Notice of Review • 554 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regional Director (FWE/SE), U.S. Fish least at times, to merit conSideration for and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, addition to the List of Endangered and Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505/ Threatened Wildlife. The accompanying 766-2321 or FTS 474-2321). table identifies many of these taxa 50 CFR Part 17 Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, (including, by definition, biological Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, subspecies and certain populations of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wisconsin. vertebrate animals) and assigns each to and Plants; Animal Notice of Review Regional Director (AE/SE), U.S. Fish one of the three categories described AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, below. Unless it is the subject of a Interior. Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota current published proposed or final rule 55111 (612/725-3276 or FTS 725-3276). determining endangered or threatened Notice of review. ACTION: Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, status, none of these taxa receives Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, SUMMARY: The Service issues a revised substantive or procedural protection notice identifying vertebrate and Mississippi, North Carolina, South pursuant to the Act (those species that invertebrate animal taxa, native to the Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and are the subject of a proposed or final the Virgin Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
    Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Map Index Number: 34038 EO Index: 12605 Key Quad: Merritt (3812157) Element Code: AAAAA01180 Occurrence Number: 384 Occurrence Last Updated: 1996-07-09 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense Common Name: California tiger salamander Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank: State: Threatened Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_VU-Vulnerable CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3 State: S2S3 General Habitat: Micro Habitat: CENTRAL VALLEY DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED. SANTA NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL BARBARA & SONOMA COUNTIES DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS BURROWS, & VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER ENDANGERED. SOURCES FOR BREEDING. Last Date Observed: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Rank: Unknown Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant Location: SOUTH WEST CORNER OF COVELL BLVD AND LAKE BLVD, IN THE CITY OF DAVIS. Detailed Location: FOUND IN THE PARKING LOT AT THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS. Ecological: Threats: URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL FIELDS AND TWO VERY BUSY ROADS. General: APARTMENT COMPLEX PARKING LOT LOCATED ACROSS LAKE BLVD FROM "WET POND" A CITY OWNED WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA MANAGED BY THE YOLO AUDUBON SOCIETY. PLSS: T08N, R02E, Sec. 07 (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 UTM: Zone-10 N4268740 E605722 Latitude/Longitude: 38.56082 / -121.78655 Elevation (feet): 50 County Summary: Quad Summary: Yolo
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Candidate Review for Listing As Endangered Or Threatened
    58982 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: Interested persons or Street, Anchorage. Alaska 99501 (907— organizations should submit comments 786—3605). Fish and Wildlife Service regarding particular taxa to the Regional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director of the Region specified with Jamie Rappaport Clark, Chief, Division 5OCFRPartI7 each taxon as having the lead of Endangered Species (703—358—2171) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife responsibility for that taxon. Comments or Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in and Plants; Animal Candidate Review of a more general nature maybe the appropriate Regional Office(s) listed for Listing as Endangered or submitted to: Chief—Division of above. Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Threatened Species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 452 ARLSQ AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C. 20240. Written Background Interior. comments and materials received in The Endangered Species Act (16 ACTION: Notice of review. response to this notice will be available U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the for public inspection by appointment in Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce SL.YMARY: In this notice the U.S. Fish the Regional Offices listed below. according to vested program and Wildlife Service (Service) presents Region 1.—California, Hawaii, Idaho, responsibilities) to determine whether an updated compilation of vertebrate Nevada, Oregon, Washington, wildlife and plant species are and iA~vertebrateanimal taxa native to Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana endangered or threatened, based on the the United States that are being Islands, and Pacific Territories of the best available scientific and commercial reviewed for possible addition to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM EIS/EIR W022002003RDD 02 (2/27/02) 3.14 TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION Being Analyzed
    3.13 AIR QUALITY 3.13 Air Quality 3.13.1 Affected Environment The proposed project is located in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which includes Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, and Yuba counties. Air quality in the basin is regulated under the authority of both the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clear Air Act with the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District as the local agency responsible for regulating air quality in Tehama County. Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, EPA has established national ambient air quality standards for several major pollutants. Pollutants of primary concern for this project are ozone and its precursors, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). The State of California has established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (see Table 3.13-1). TABLE 3.13-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Federal Standard Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard Primary Standard Secondary Standard 3 PM10 Annual Geometric Mean 30 g/m Same as primary 24-hour 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 Same as primary Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 50 g/m3 Same as primary Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Same as primary (180 g/m3) (235 g/m3) 8-hour --- 0.08 ppm Same as primary (157 g/m3) ppm = parts per million. g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Currently, Tehama County is not in attainment with the state standard for PM10 and ozone. Tehama County is in attainment with the federal PM10 standard, and was in attainment with the federal 1-hour ozone standard.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Technical Studies and 20-Year Retrospective for the Cache Creek Area Plan
    2017 TECHNICAL STUDIES AND 20-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE FOR THE CACHE CREEK AREA PLAN Prepared for: Yolo County Administrator’s Office 625 Court Street Woodland, CA 95695 Prepared by: Mark Tompkins, P.E., Ph.D. Paul Frank, P.E., CED Andrew P. Rayburn, Ph.D. In Consultation With: Elisa Sabatini, Manager of Natural Resources, Project Director Heidi Tschudin, TSCHUDIN CONSULTING GROUP, Project Manager Casey Liebler, Natural Resources Program Assistant, Project Assistant March 17, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Table Of Contents ............................................................................................................................ i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1 – Fluvial Geomorphology Study .................................................................................. v Chapter 2 – Hydrology and Water Quality Study ........................................................................ vi Chapter 3 – Biological Resources Study .................................................................................... viii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 – Fluvial Geomorphology Study .................................................................................. x Chapter 2 – Hydrology and Water Quality Study ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Discussion Describes the Plant and Animal Species That Have Been Afforded Special Recognition by Federal, State, O
    2.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES REGULATORY SETTING The following discussion describes the plant and animal species that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Listed and special- status species are of relatively limited distribution in the Sacramento region and may require specialized habitat conditions. Listed and special-status species are defined as: • Listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts; • Protected under other regulations (e.g. Migratory Bird Treaty Act); • CDFG Species of Special Concern; • Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; or, • Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the CDFG Code, or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A list of special-status species and sensitive habitats known to occur within the region was compiled from a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence records within 16 km (10 miles) of the project area, a review of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists for special-status species occurring within the Florin quadrangle, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) literature (Table 2.3.5-1). The locations of special- status species occurrences in the project vicinity are shown in Figure 2.3.5-1, which is from a search of the CNDDB. Table 2.3.5-1 includes the common name and scientific name for each species, regulatory status (federal, state, local, CNPS), habitat descriptions, and potential for occurrence within the project area.
    [Show full text]