DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project State Clearinghouse No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project State Clearinghouse No PUBLIC DRAFT ◦ JULY 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019XXXXXX PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 3 Stillwater Sciences P.O. BOX 1011 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400 Walnut Grove, CA 95690 Berkeley, CA 94705 and MBK Engineers 455 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Stillwater Sciences PUBLIC DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project Suggested citation: Stillwater Sciences and MBK Engineers. 2019. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project, Sacramento County, California. Public Draft. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California and MBK Engineers, Sacramento, California for Reclamation District No. 3, Walnut Grove, California. Cover photo: Grand Island’s Project levee. July 2019 Stillwater Sciences i PUBLIC DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project PROJECT SUMMARY Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project Reclamation District No. 3 CEQA lead agency name and P.O. BOX 1011 address Walnut Grove, CA 95690 • California Department of Water Resources CEQA responsible agencies • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Mike Kynett Project Engineer, or Tina Anderson Project Manager Contact person and phone MBK Engineers number 455 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Office: (916) 456-4400 Fax: (916) 456-0253 Project location Grand Island, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento County Reclamation District No. 3 Project sponsor’s name and P.O. BOX 1011 address Walnut Grove, CA 95690 (916) 776-1945 Zoning Agriculture Repair approximately 1,250 feet of Grand Island’s levee system by Description of Project constructing a seepage cutoff wall. Surrounding land uses and The Project is on land zoned for agriculture and is adjacent to Steamboat setting Slough to the west. • California Department of Water Resources, funded under the Flood System Other public agencies whose Repair Project approval may be required (e.g., • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 408 Permit) permits, financing approval, or • participation agreement) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement) July 2019 Stillwater Sciences ii PUBLIC DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project: Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project Lead Agency: Reclamation District No. 3 Project Location: Grand Island is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, between the cities of Walnut Grove, Rio Vista, and Courtland in Sacramento County, California. The Project is located on the western border of Grand Island along the left bank of Steamboat Slough between stations 245+00 and 265+00. Project Description: Reclamation District No. 3 plans to repair approximately 1,250 linear feet of levee on the west side of Grand Island, along the left river bank of Steamboat Slough, to address critical seepage problems by constructing a cutoff wall. Findings: An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the Project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, Reclamation District No. 3 has determined that the Project, including mitigation measures included in the Project design, will not have significant effects on the environment. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: • The Project will have no impacts on the following: agricultural resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities/service systems. • The Project will result in less than significant impacts on the following: aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. • Mitigation is included in the Project design to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for: biological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, and hydrology/water quality. Mandatory Findings of Significance: • The Project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The Project will not have environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. • The Project will not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. • The Project will not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. • No substantial evidence exists that the Project will have a negative or adverse effect on the environment. July 2019 Stillwater Sciences iii PUBLIC DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Grand Island Levee Seepage Cutoff Wall Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Area ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ 3 1.4 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Site preparation and road closure .......................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Cutoff wall construction methods ......................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Imported materials ................................................................................................. 7 1.4.4 Site maintenance, clean-up, and seeding ............................................................... 7 1.4.5 Equipment, personnel, and staging ........................................................................ 7 1.4.6 Construction schedule and timing ......................................................................... 8 1.4.7 Conservation measures .......................................................................................... 8 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS ............................................................ 13 2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Agricultural Resources .............................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 18 2.3.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 18 2.3.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 20 2.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 22 2.4.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 29 2.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 31 2.5.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 35 2.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................ 36 2.6.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 36 2.6.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 36 2.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................... 37 2.7.1 Environmental setting.......................................................................................... 38 2.7.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 39 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................
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]
  • Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
    Water Hyacinth Control Program FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. Copies of this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report in hard copy form, or on computer compact disc (CD), can be obtained from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. To request a report copy, please contact: Ms. Terri Ely Aquatic Weed Program California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95815 (916) 263-8138 [email protected] Cover photo: March 14, 2008, by NewPoint Group, Inc., of the Wheeler Island Duck Club, at Honker Bay. [PARTIAL] Water Hyacinth Control Program Water Hyacinth Control Program A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 Prepared by: The California Department of Boating and Waterways With Technical Assistance from: NewPoint Group, Inc. 2555 Third Street, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95818 (916) 442-0508 www.newpointgroup.com ~----Pei:at f~m.A; _ _,__,..._... AniJru--~- ' --sepat Table of Contents Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... AA-1 Executive Summary.......................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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 .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Century of Delta Salt Water Barriers
    A Century of Salt Water Barriers in the Delta By Tim Stroshane Policy Analyst Restore the Delta June 5, 2015 edition Since the late 19th century, California’s basic plan for water resource development has been to export water from the Sacramento River and the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. Unfortunately, this basic plan ignores the reality that the Delta is the very definition of an estuary: it is where fresh water from the Central Valley’s rivers meets salt water from tidal flow to the Delta from San Francisco Bay. Productive ecosystems have thrived in the Delta for millenia prior to California statehood. But for nearly a century now, engineers and others have frequently referred to the Delta as posing a “salt menace,” a “salinity problem” with just two solutions: either maintain a predetermined stream flow from the Delta to Suisun Bay to hydraulically wall out the tide, or use physical barriers to separate saline from fresh water into the Delta. While readily admitting that the “salt menace” results from reduced inflows from the Delta’s major tributary rivers, the state of California uses salt water barriers as a technological fix to address the symptoms of the salinity problem, rather than the root causes. Given complex Delta geography, these two main solutions led to many proposals to dam up parts of San Francisco Bay, Carquinez Strait, or the waterway between Chipps Island in eastern Suisun Bay and the City of Antioch, or to use large amounts of water—referred to as “carriage water”— to hold the tide literally at bay.
    [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]
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062
    FINAL ◦ MAY 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 2028 Stillwater Sciences (Bacon Island) 279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Davis, CA 95618 Stockton, CA 95202 Stillwater Sciences FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Suggested citation: Reclamation District No. 2028. 2016. Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California for Reclamation District No. 2028 (Bacon Island), Stockton, California. Cover photo: View of Bacon Island’s northwestern levee corner and surrounding interior lands. May 2017 Stillwater Sciences i FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project PROJECT SUMMARY Project title Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Reclamation District No. 2028 CEQA lead agency name (Bacon Island) and address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Andrea Lobato, Manager CEQA responsible agencies The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Deirdre West, Environmental Planning Manager David A. Forkel Chairman, Board of Trustees Reclamation District No. 2028 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Cell: (510) 693-9977 Nate Hershey, P.E. Contact person and phone District
    [Show full text]
  • Berryessa Recycling Facility
    Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W
    38.371223N 38.381801N 121.978996W 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Sacramento County, CA 121.448951W l 96.30 n n 96.35 h h LEGEND C g k Slou p l Elk Grove 22020 i E Rd h nklin S Fra 80 ood r H SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE e Hood 34484 v 80 i Union Pacific RR R o Elmira 22146 t Federal American Indian n e L'ANSE RES 1880 m Reservation a r c a S Off-Reservation Trust Land, 7 6 Franklin Blvd Hawaiian Home Land T1880 3 0 1 1 O Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, LO T O EN Alaska Native Village Statistical Area, KAW OTSA 5340 Y M Tribal Designated Statistical Area A R Sprock Rd C Union Pacific RR Vacaville 81554 A State American Indian S Franklin 25506 Reservation Tama Res 4125 State Designated Tribal 96.38 84 d R Lumbee STSA 9815 r Statistical Area d e nd R v ll Isla Ri Randa Ston Stone Lk e L k Sn Alaska Native Regional od g NANA ANRC 52120 r Rd Fogg d Corporation h a nt R g s asa s Kestrel Lake Rd Ple u int o S Po l l 113 S o u k g State (or statistically l h E Wilson Rd Wilson Rd equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 tter S u lo u S g h County (or statistically ERIE 029 0 equivalent entity) 6 1 Courtland 16714 Korn Rd Hwy t s / Minor Civil Division d d R R 1,2 r e (MCD) Bristol town 07485 e Lambert Rd g v d i i H r R B a s h s g S YOLO 113 u o l l o S u g r Consolidated City h e t MILFORD 47500 t u SOLANO 095 S L ev d 5 e R e e R ve 1,3 d e Incorporated Place Vouvray Ln L 5 Davis 18100 Russel Rd Census Designated Place Toe Drn 3 Incline Village 35100 h (CDP) g u o l S Herzog Rd r e Alfalfa Plant Rd t t Census Tract Dierssen Rd gh W Sut u 33.07 u ter Islan S Slo d Cross R Ca che d Dierssen Rd DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL M i n Water Body e Interstate 3 Pleasant Lake r S lo u Vorden Rd gh Richards U.S.
    [Show full text]