Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. References Cited Spautz, H., and E. Strauss. 2005. Sears Point Restoration Site Bird Surveys State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2000. Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. (Phase I of the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan) Sacramento, CA. ———. 2005. Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. Last revised: April 10, 2006. Available: . Accessed: November 29, 2007. ______. 2006. Resolution R2-2006-0052 Amending the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region to Establish New Mercury Water Quality Objectives and to Amend the Total Maximum Dailty Load and Implemtation of Plan for Mercury in San Francisco Bay. Available: . Accessed March 17, 2012. Stewart, S.B., J. Meyer, and M. Newland. 2001. Phase One Investigations for the Fort Baker Archaeological Survey, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Marin County, California. Prepared for Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service, San Francisco, California. Takekawa, J.Y., M.A. Bias, I. Woo, S.A. Demers, G.T. Downward. 2002. Restoration Research and Monitoring in Bayland Wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Estuary: The Tolay Creek Project. Vallejo, CA. Prepared for the U. S. Geological Survey. Tom Origer & Associates. 2003. A Cultural Resources surveySurvey for the Graton Rancheria Casino Project Highway 37 at Lakeville Highway Sonoma County, California. Prepared for John Brosnan, Sonoma Land Trust, Santa Rosa, California. Tom Origer & Associates.———. 2005. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Dickson Ranch Property near Sears Point, Sonoma County, California. Prepared for John Brosnan, Sonoma Land Trust, Santa Rosa, California. ———. 2010a. Evaluation of Historical Resources for the Sears Point Restoration Project, Sonoma County, California. Prepared for Ducks Unlimited. July. ———. 2010b. Native American Contact Effort Sears Point Restoration Project, Sonoma County. July 28. ———. 2011a. Cultural Resource Assesment for the Sears Point Restoration Project, Southern Sonoma County. October 10. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 7-15 April 2012
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. References Cited ———. 2011b. Letter to Gene Buvelot, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria: Re: Proposed Power Line Installation Project and the Marsh Restoration Project, Tubbs Island, Sonoma County. September 28. ———. 2011c. Letter to Frank Ross, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria: Re: Proposed Power Line Installation Project and the Marsh Restoration Project, Tubbs Island, Sonoma County. September 28. ———. 2011d. Letter to Greg Sarris, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria: Re: Proposed Power Line Installation Project and the Marsh Restoration Project, Tubbs Island, Sonoma County. September 28. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2000 .Updates: Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. National Research Council. Washington, DC. Trulio, Lynne. 2007. Notes on Carbon Sequestration and Tidal Salt Marsh Restoration. Compiled by Lynne Trulio, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0115 with comments from John Callaway, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Environmental Science, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 and Steve Crooks, Ph.D., Geomorphologist, Philip Williams and Associates, San Francisco, CA 94108-2404. URS Corporation (URS). 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prepared for the Water Transit Authority. ———. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Trans Bay Cable Project. Prepared for the City of Pittsburg. October. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (USACE). 1994. Montezuma Wetlands Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I. October. (State Clearinghouse No. 91113031.) San Francisco District. San Francisco, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under development. Long-Term Management Strategy for the Delta Sediments. ______. Corps. 2007. Corps of Engineers Studies on Methylmercury Methylmercury: Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project. Available at: http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/ltms/science_symposium/USACE%20meHg %20Studies%20at%20Hamilton.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Water Resources Control Board. 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco, CA. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 7-16 April 2012
Page 1 and 2:
Sears Point Wetland and Watershed R
Page 3 and 4:
Sears Point Wetland and Watershed R
Page 5 and 6:
Contents List of Tables ...........
Page 7 and 8:
California Department of Fish and G
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Executive Summary This summary prov
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and
Page 33 and 34:
Table ES-1. Continued Page 3 of 141
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Table 1-1. List of Local, State, an
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1-1. Continued Page 3 of 3 Ag
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Table 2-2. Action Alternatives Cons
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2-2. Continued Page 3 of 4 Ut
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and
Page 121 and 122:
Section 3.1 Geology, Soils, and Pal
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Section 3.2 Surface-Water Hydrology
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Section 3.3 Water Quality Introduct
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Section 3.4 Public Health and Safet
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Table 3.5-2. Special-Status Species
Page 225 and 226:
Table 3.5-2. Continued Page 3 of 12
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Section 3.6 Land Use and Public Uti
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Section 3.7 Agricultural Resources
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Section 3.11 Air Quality Introducti
Page 349 and 350:
Table 3.11-1. Ambient Air Quality S
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Table 3.11-32, Continued Page 2 of
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Section 3.12 Noise Introduction Thi
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Section 3.13 Cultural Resources Int
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Section 3.14 Aesthetics Introductio
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416: Section 3.15 Environmental Justice
Page 417 and 418: California Department of Fish and G
Page 423 and 424: Chapter 4 Consultation and Other Re
Page 425 and 426: Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consul
Page 443 and 444: Chapter 5 Public Involvement and Sc
Page 453 and 454: Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
Page 465: Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
show all

Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?