DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh Iii Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh Iii Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHILOH III WIND PLANT PROJECT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN P REPARED BY: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Mike Thomas, Chief Habitat Conservation Planning Branch W ITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Schafer 916.737.3000 February 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh III Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan. February. (ICF 00263.09). Sacramento, CA. With technical assistance from ICF International, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Species Covered by the HCP ...................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Proposed Action Addressed in this EA ....................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1‐2 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................. 2‐1 2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.2 Alternative 2: No Action ............................................................................................................. 2‐9 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................................ 2‐9 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................... 3‐1 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 3.1‐1 3.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 3.2‐1 3.3 Air Quality and Climate Change .............................................................................................. 3.3‐1 3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 3.4‐1 3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 3.5‐1 3.6 Geology, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources ................................................................ 3.6‐1 3.7 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................... 3.7‐1 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3.8‐1 3.9 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 3.9‐1 3.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 3.10‐1 3.11 Public Health Hazards ......................................................................................................... 3.11‐1 3.12 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 3.12‐1 3.13 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................................. 3.13‐1 3.14 Utilities and Public Service Systems .................................................................................... 3.14‐1 Chapter 4 Other Required Analysis ................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................................ 4‐1 4.3 Short‐Term Uses versus Long‐Term Productivity ...................................................................... 4‐1 4.4 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.5 Environmentally Preferable Alternative .................................................................................... 4‐6 Chapter 5 List of Preparers .............................................................................................................. 5‐1 Draft Environmental Assessment i February 2011 ICF 00263.09 Tables 3.3‐1 Applicable Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................. 3.3‐1 3.3‐2 Federal de Minimis Threshold Levels for Criteria Pollutants in Nonattainment Areas ....... 3.3‐3 3.3‐3 Federal de Minimis Threshold Levels for Criteria Pollutants in Maintenance Areas .......... 3.3‐4 3.3‐4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Measured at the Fairfield‐Chadbourne and Vallejo Monitoring Stations ................................................................................................. 3.3‐6 3.3‐5 Summary of Construction Equipment ............................................................................... 3.3‐10 3.3‐6 Summary of Construction Emissions (tons) ...................................................................... 3.3‐10 3.3‐7 Summary of GHG Emissions from Construction Activities (metric tons) .......................... 3.3‐11 3.4‐1 Special‐Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region ........................................................................................ follows 3.4‐6 3.4‐2 Special‐Status Plants Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region ......... follows 3.4‐6 3.5‐1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies Conducted in the Plan Area and 1‐Mile Buffer Area .......................................................................................................................... 3.5‐6 3.5‐2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources in the 1‐Mile Buffer Area ......................... 3.5‐8 3.10‐1 Definition of Acoustical Terms .......................................................................................... 3.10‐1 3.10‐2 Typical Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 3.10‐2 3.10‐3 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 3.10‐5 3.10‐4 Amount of Noise Reduction (dB) Required to Achieve 50 dBA CNEL Criterion ................ 3.10‐6 Draft Environmental Assessment ii February 2011 ICF 00263.09 Figures Follows Page 1‐1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1‐2 Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area ................................................................................... 1‐2 2‐1 Turbine Options ...................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2‐2 Impact Analysis Schematic ..................................................................................................... 2‐2 2‐3 Shiloh III Wind Plant Project Features .................................................................................... 2‐2 3.1‐1 Locations of Visual Simulation Viewpoints .......................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.1‐2 Existing and Simulated Views .............................................................................................. 3.1‐4 3.4‐1 Biological Resources in the Plan Area ................................................................................. 3.4‐4 3.10‐1 Locations of Long‐Term Measurement Sites and Sensitive Receptors ............................. 3.10‐4 3.10‐2 Predicted Noise Levels and Criteria at Area Residences ................................................... 3.10‐6 Draft Environmental Assessment iii February 2011 ICF 00263.09 Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill AFB Air Force Base ANSI American National Standards Institute APN Assessor’s Parcel Number area of impact area of potential effects BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMPs best management practices CAISO California Independent System Operator Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CDC California Department of Conservation CEC California Energy Commission CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society County Solano County CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CTS California tiger salamander CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel DFG California Department of Fish and Game EA environmental assessment EIR environmental impact report ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergence Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Frac-out drilling fluid leak GIS geographic information system HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDD horizontal directional drilling ITP incidental take permit kV kilovolt Draft Environmental
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]
  • 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]
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2011 California Regulations for Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting, Public Lands
    Table of Contents CALIFORNIA General Information Contacting DFG ....................................... 2 10-11 Licenses, Stamps, & Permits................... 3 Waterfowl & Upland Shoot Time Tables ................................... 4 Game Hunting and Unlawful Activities .......................... 6 Hunting & Other Public Uses on State & Federal Waterfowl Hunting Lands Regulations Summary of Changes for 10-11 ............... 7 Seasons and Limits ................................. 9 Effective July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Waterfowl Consumption Health except as noted. Warnings ............................................. 12 State of California Special Goose Hunt Area Maps ............ 14 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Waterfowl Zone Map ....Inside Back Cover Natural Resources Agency Upland Game Bird, Small Game Secretary Lester A. Snow Mammal, and Crow Hunting Regulation Summary ............................. 16 Fish and Game Commission President Jim Kellogg Seasons & Limits Table ......................... 17 Vice President Richard B. Rogers Hunt Zones ............................................ 18 Commissioner Michael Sutton Hunting and Other Public Uses on Commissioner Daniel W. Richards State and Federal Areas Acting Executive Director Jon Fischer Reservation System .............................. 20 General Public Use Activities on Department of Fish and Game Director John McCamman All State Wildlife Areas ....................... 23 Hunting, Firearms, and Archery Alternate communication formats are available upon request. If reasonable
    [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]
  • Solano 4 Wind Project EIR 8 References Executive
    Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 8 References Executive Summary No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 1, “Introduction” No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 2, “Project Description” California Energy Commission. 2018 (August). Operational Wind Projects, Solano Wind Resource Area, 2018. Map scale 1:24,000. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/wind/WindResourceArea_Solano.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Solano County. 1987 (May). Solano County Wind Turbine Siting Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, CA. U.S. Geological Survey. 2019 (January). U.S. Wind Turbine Database. Available: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#14.02/38.16164/-121.79729. Accessed February 9, 2019. USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” Section 3.1, “Aesthetics” Black & Veatch. 2019 (January 3). Solano Wind Energy Project, Wind Project Shadow Flicker Assessment. California Department of Transportation 2019. Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed March 18, 2019. Federal Aviation Administration. 2018 (August 17). Obstruction Marking and Lighting, including Changes 1 and 2. Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L. Chapter 13, “Marking and Lighting Wind Turbines.” Federal Highway Administration. 2015 (January). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. FHWA-HEP-15-029. Washington, DC. Page 8-1 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. See National Research Council. Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2007 (September). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SMUD Solano Wind Project Phase 3.
    [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]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory Report and Addendum
    APPENDIX E1 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT This page intentionally left blank CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEZUMA II WIND PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P REPARED FOR: NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard, MS FEW/JB Juno Beach, FL 33408 Contact: Cliff Graham 561.304.5372 P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Andrea Nardin 916.737.3000 August 2010 ICF International. 2010. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Montezuma II Wind Project, Solano County, California. August. (ICF 00336.10). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, Juno Beach, FL. Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Area of Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project
    Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project Prepared for CSAMP/CAMT Project funded by State and Federal Water Contractors Prepared by Graham Long and Sally Rudd Compass Resource Management Ltd. 604.641.2875 Suite 210- 111 Water Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6B 1A7 www.compassrm.com Date May 4, 2018 April 13th – reviewed by TWG and comments incorporated Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Trade-offs ................................................................................................. 17 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................
    [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]
  • Suisun City General Plan
    B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES B ACKGROUND R EPORT Biological Resources In This Background Report Page Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Habitat Types ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sensitive Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 9 Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................................................. 10 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... 40 Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ...................................................................... 41 State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ......................................................................... 43 Regional and Local Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Ordinances .......................................... 44 General Plan Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 46 References ............................................................................................................................... 47 P AGE BIO‐ 1 C ITY OF
    [Show full text]