DOCSLIB.ORG

Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project RECIRCULATED ◦ FEBRUARY 2019 Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report: Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report: Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Prepared by: California Department of Water Resources Fish Restoration Program, Division of Environmental Services West Sacramento, CA and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Restoration Program, Bay Delta Region (Region 3) Stockton, CA February 2019 February 2019 DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report: Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Lead Agency: California Department of Water Resources The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Dan Riordan California Department of Water Resources 3500 Industrial Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 376-9738 February2019 DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Suggested Citation: Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report: Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project. Prepared by California Department of Water Resources, Fish Restoration Program, Division of Environmental Services, West Sacramento, CA and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Restoration Program, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), Stockton, CA. February. February 2019 DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1-1 2 RECIRCULATION ........................................................................................ 2-1 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 3-1 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES .......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Access to Technical Reports .......................................................... 4-2 4.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................. 4-4 4.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Water Quality .................................................................................... 4-7 4.5 Air Quality ......................................................................................... 4-8 4.6 Noise ................................................................................................. 4-9 4.7 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................. 4-9 4.8 Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-10 5 RECIRCULATED PORTIONS OF THE DEIR .............................................. 5-1 5.1 Revisions to the DEIR Proposed Project Description .................. 5-1 2 Proposed Project Description .............................................................. 5-1 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................. 5-1 2.1.1 Proposed Project location ..................................................... 5-1 2.1.2 Site history ............................................................................. 5-5 2.1.3 Current land use and ownership .......................................... 5-6 2.1.4 Surrounding properties ......................................................... 5-9 2.1.5 Proposed Project context within Delta regional restoration efforts ................................................................................... 5-10 2.2 Proposed Project Actions ............................................................... 5-12 2.2.1 Summary ............................................................................... 5-12 2.2.2 Anticipated future habitat conditions, Proposed Project . 5-18 2.2.3 Description of Proposed Project components and construction activities ......................................................... 5-22 5.2 Revisions to the DEIR Hydrology Analysis ................................. 5-57 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................... 5-57 3.1 Hydrology ....................................................................................... 5-57 3.1.1 Setting .................................................................................. 5-57 3.1.2 Significance criteria............................................................. 5-78 3.1.3 Impacts and mitigation ........................................................ 5-79 5.3 Revisions to the DEIR Water Quality Analysis ............................ 5-91 3.2 Water Quality .................................................................................. 5-91 3.2.1 Setting .................................................................................. 5-91 3.2.2 Significance criteria........................................................... 5-119 February 2019 i DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project 3.2.3 Impacts and mitigation ...................................................... 5-120 5.4 Revisions to the DEIR Air Quality Analysis ............................... 5-135 3.7 Air Quality ..................................................................................... 5-135 3.7.1 Setting ................................................................................. 5-135 3.7.2 Significance criteria ............................................................. 5-148 3.7.3 Impacts and mitigation ........................................................ 5-149 5.5 Revisions to the DEIR Noise Analysis ....................................... 5-158 3.10 Noise ............................................................................................. 5-158 3.10.1 Setting ................................................................................. 5-160 3.10.2 Significance criteria .............................................................. 5-164 3.10.3 Impacts and mitigation ......................................................... 5-165 5.6 Revisions to the Transportation and Traffic Analysis .............. 5-170 3.17 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................... 5-170 3.17.1 Setting ................................................................................. 5-170 3.17.2 Significance criteria .............................................................. 5-173 3.17.3 Impacts and mitigation ......................................................... 5-173 5.7 Revisions to the DEIR Alternatives Analysis ................................. 5-177 4 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 5-178 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 5-178 4.2 Development of Alternatives Considered in this EIR ............... 5-179 4.2.1 Phase 1 screening of conceptual alternatives ..................... 5-179 4.2.2 DRERIP technical review, October 2012 ............................ 5-180 4.2.3 Phase 2 screening of conceptual alternatives ..................... 5-180 4.2.4 Selection of Proposed Project and EIR alternatives ............ 5-180 4.2.5 Alternatives considered and rejected .................................. 5-181 4.3 Alternatives Considered in this EIR ........................................... 5-182 4.4 Alternative 1: No Project ............................................................. 5-183 4.4.1 Description .......................................................................... 5-183 4.4.2 Environmental impacts ........................................................ 5-183 4.5 Alternative 2: Two Breaches and Weir ....................................... 5-188 4.5.1 Description .......................................................................... 5-188 4.5.2 Environmental impacts ........................................................ 5-192 4.6 Alternative 3: Three Breaches .................................................... 5-204 4.6.1 Description .......................................................................... 5-204 4.6.2 Environmental impacts ........................................................ 5-206 4.7 Comparison of Alternatives and Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................................... 5-214 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 6-1 7 ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................ 7-12 February 2019 ii DRAFT Partial Recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Prospect Island Tidal Habitat Restoration Project List of Tables Table 2.2-1. Restoration Activities and Features of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ....................................................................... 5-15 Table 2.2-2. Prospect Island Natural Communities: Existing, As-Built, and Future—Proposed Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life History and Management
    Winter Chinook salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life history and management Wim Kimmerer Randall Brown DRAFT August 2006 Page ABSTRACT Winter Chinook is an endangered run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Central Valley of California. Despite considerablc efforts to monitor, understand, and manage winter Chinook, there has been relatively little effort at synthesizing the available information specific to this race. In this paper we examine the life history and status of winter Chinook, based on existing information and available data, and examine the influence of various management actions in helping to reverse decades of decline. Winter Chinook migrate upstream in late winter, mostly at age 3, to spawn in the upper Sacramento River in May - June. Embryos develop through summer, which can expose them to high temperatures. After emerging from the spawning gravel in -September, the young fish rear throughout the Sacramento River before leaving the San Francisco Estuary as smolts in January­ March. Blocked from access to their historical spawning grounds in high elevations of the Sacramento River and tributaries, wintcr Chinook now spawn below Kcswick Dam in cool tail waters of Shasta Dam. Their principal environmental challcnge is temperature: survival of embryos was poor in years when outflow from Shasta was warm or when the fish spawned below Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), where river temperature is higher than just below Keswick. Installation of a temperature control device on Shasta Dam has reduccd summer temperature in the discharge, and changes in operations of RBDD now allow most winter Chinook access to the upper river for spawning.
    [Show full text]
  • Concord Naval Weapons Station Epa Id
    EPA/ROD/R2005090001493 2005 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EPA ID: CA7170024528 OU 07 CONCORD, CA 09/30/2005 Final Record of Decision Inland Area Site 17 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord Concord, California GSA.0113.0012 Order N62474-03-F-4032; GSA-10F-0076K June 10, 2005 (Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team West, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Daly City, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 175 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, California San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, California Prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 543-4880 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAM MANAGEMEN1 OFFICE WEST 1455 FRAZEE AD, SUITE 900 SAN DIEGO, CA 92’ 08-4310 5090 Ser BPMOW.JTD/0361 April 17, 2006 Mr. Phillip A. Ramsey US. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco. CA 94105 Dear Mr. Ramsey: The Final Record of Decision (ROD), Inland Area Site 17, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, California, of June 10, ;!005, was fully executed on February 1, 2006. Copies of the ROD were provided to regulatory agencies shortly after final signatures. TMs letter is provided to you to document the transmittal of the ROD following its execution. Should you have any questions concerning this document or if you need additional information, please contact me at (619) 532-0975.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Floods Ir the United States During 1960
    Summary of Floods ir the United States During 1960 By J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1960 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1790-B Prepared in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies CNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE DTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.G. 20402 - Price 45 cents (pap^r cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_--_____-__-____---_--__-______-___-___.____________ Bl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 Determination of flood stages and discharges_________________________ 6 Explanation of data_________________-__-___________________-_____- 11 Summary of floods of 1960_____________________________________ 13 Floods of: February 8-10 in northern California._______________________ 13 March 7-9 in southern Idaho.______,____-__-__-_-_____-____ 18 March 17-April 5 in central Florida.________________________ 20 March-April in the Skunk River and lower Iowa River basins, Iowa_ _________________________________________________ 24 March 29-April 6 in southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois.----.-.-_____________________________-. 27 March-April in eastern Nebraska and adjacent areas._________ 30 March 30-April 6 in New York___-_-_____---_-__-_-_--__-__ 47 April 15^19 in west-central Missouri.________________________ 51 April and May in northern Wisconsin and Michigan Upper Peninsula. ___ ___________-_-______-__-_-_--___-_-_-_-_-__ 53 May 4-6 in northwestern Arkansas and east-central Oklahoma. _ 58 May 5-9 in southern Mississippi.___________________________ 60 May 6 in south-central Missouri.- __________________________ 64 May 19-22 in southwestern Arkansas and southeastern Okla­ homa.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS 7.5-Minute Image Map for Clifton Court Forebay, California
    O C O A C T S N I O U C U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Q CLIFTON COURT FOREBAY QUADRANGLE A A U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY R O CALIFORNIA T J 4 N N 7.5-MINUTE SERIES O Union Island A n█ C 121°37'30" 35' S 32'30" 121°30' 6 000m 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6270000 FEET 37°52'30" 22 E 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 37°52'30" C S A O N N T J 6 5 . R . .. O ( . .. 4 ! 3 2 2 . .. 3 .. .. A A C Q U Victoria O I S N Island T C 2140000 A O 4192000mN CAMINO DIABLO C O CAMINO DIABLO FEET 4192 Widdows Island 7 8 10 Eucalyptus 9 10 11 11 Island Old 41 h Riv 91 g Kings er u o l . Island . S ... 4191 . n n .. D a R i l I I a T t T I E . N . O . .. .. .... B . .. .. S CAL PACK RD . .. .. 4190 ... ○ 4190 . ... ... ... .. 14 ... 18 17 Coney Island 16 15 . 15 . .. .. 14 . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Clifton Court . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. Forebay . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ ... .. ....... .. .. T1S R4E CLIFTON CT RD 4189 4189 CLIFTON CT . .. .. .... .... Union Island . .... .. .. .. Brushy ... Cr ... .. .. Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010 Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas Names...............................................................GNIS, 2010 50' 50' Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010 Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 4188 23 22 HOLEY RD 23 19 20 21 22 23 Byron 41 Byron 88 Airport Airport t 24 c u d e u q A a a i n r o f i l . a .
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 1St Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–149 " !
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±149 " ! ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996 JUNE 20, 1995.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MYERS of Indiana, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 1905] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for en- ergy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT Page Number Bill Report I. Department of DefenseÐCivil: Corps of engineersÐCivil: General investigations ................................................................. 2 6 Construction, general .................................................................. 3 26 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Il- linois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee .................................................................................. 5 36 Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 5 38 Regulatory program ..................................................................... 6 52 Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... 6 52 Oil spill research .......................................................................... 7 52 General expenses ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [Show full text]
  • 550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed
    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed Below. (a) State Wildlife Areas: (1) Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (Sierra County) (Type C); (2) Ash Creek Wildlife Area (Lassen and Modoc counties) (Type B); (3) Bass Hill Wildlife Area (Lassen County), including the Egan Management Unit (Type C); (4) Battle Creek Wildlife Area (Shasta and Tehama counties); (5) Big Lagoon Wildlife Area (Humboldt County) (Type C); (6) Big Sandy Wildlife Area (Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties) (Type C); (7) Biscar Wildlife Area (Lassen County) (Type C); (8) Buttermilk Country Wildlife Area (Inyo County) (Type C); (9) Butte Valley Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type B); (10) Cache Creek Wildlife Area (Colusa and Lake counties), including the Destanella Flat and Harley Gulch management units (Type C); (11) Camp Cady Wildlife Area (San Bernadino County) (Type C); (12) Cantara/Ney Springs Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type C); (13) Cedar Roughs Wildlife Area (Napa County) (Type C); (14) Cinder Flats Wildlife Area (Shasta County) (Type C); (15) Collins Eddy Wildlife Area (Sutter and Yolo counties) (Type C); (16) Colusa Bypass Wildlife Area (Colusa County) (Type C); (17) Coon Hollow Wildlife Area (Butte County) (Type C); (18) Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Merced County), including the Upper Cottonwood and Lower Cottonwood management units (Type C); (19) Crescent City Marsh Wildlife Area (Del Norte County); (20) Crocker Meadow Wildlife Area (Plumas County) (Type C); (21) Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area (Yuba County)
    [Show full text]
  • C a S E S T U D Y R E P O R T Sherman Island Delta
    C A S E S T U D Y R E P O R T SHERMAN ISLAND DELTA PROJECT November 2013 Written by Bradley Angell, Richard Fisher & Ryan Whipple a project of Ante Meridiem Incorporated with the direct support of the Delta Alliance International Foundation © 2013 Ante Meridiem Incorporated ABSTRACT This report is an official beginning to a model design for Sherman Island, an important land mass that lies at the meeting point of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers of the California Delta system. As design is typically dominated by a particular driving discipline or a paramount policy concern, the resulting decision-making apparatus is normally governed by that discipline or policy. After initial review of Sherman Island, such a “single” discipline or “principle” policy approach is not appropriate for Sherman Island. At this critical physical place at the heart of California Delta, an inter-disciplinary and equal-weighted policy balance is necessary to meet both the immediate and long-term requirements for rehabilitation of the project site. Exhibiting the collected work of a small team of design and policy specialists, the Case Study Report for the Sherman Island Delta Project outlines the multitude of interests, disciplines and potential opportunities for design expression on the selected 1,000 acre portion of Sherman Island under review. Funded principally by a generous grant from the Delta Alliance, the team researched applicable uses and technologies with a pragmatic case study approach to the subject, physically documenting exhibitions of each technology as geographically close to the project site as possible. After study and on-site documentation, the team compiled this wealth of discovery in three substantive chapters: a site characterization report, the stakeholders & goals assessment, and a case study report.
    [Show full text]