|
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report PageVII-7
<br /> Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Expansion Project
<br /> SCS Engineers,Air Quality Impact Analysis and Air Toxics Risk Assessment for Proposed
<br /> Landfill Project 2018 Forward Landfill Manteca, California,May 2018.
<br /> SCS Engineers, Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection
<br /> Efficiency,Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills, Version 2.2,
<br /> January 2009
<br /> Solano Archaeological Services. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, Cultural
<br /> Resources Study—Forward Landfill Expansion Project, San Joaquin County, California.
<br /> August 28,2018.
<br /> Soule,M. and M. Gilpin. 1991. The Theory of Wildlife Corridor Capability. In Nature
<br /> Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty&
<br /> Sons.
<br /> Stebbins, R. C. 2003.A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition.
<br /> Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, New York. 533 pp.
<br /> SWT Engineering,Joint Technical Document,Forward Landfill (SWIS NO. 39-AA-0015),
<br /> January 2018
<br /> SWT Engineering and Republic Services, 2013, Joint Technical Document, Volume II—
<br /> Appendices A Through G,Forward Landfill, San Joaquin County, California,
<br /> December
<br /> Teichmann, Audrey. Wildlife Biologist, WRA Environmental Consultants, Letter
<br /> Report to Joseph Lipka, Environmental Manager, Re: June 2017 Biological
<br /> Surveys at the Forward Landfill, San Joaquin County, California, June 23, 2017
<br /> TJKM, Traffic Study for the Proposed Mariposa Lakes Development,2007.
<br /> United States Environmental Proection Agency (USEPA), Solid Waste Disposal Facility
<br /> Criteria Technical Manual, USEPA 530-R-93-017, 1993.
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species.
<br /> Federal Register 32: 4001.
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildife and
<br /> Plants: Determination of Threatened Status of the Giant Garter Snake, Final Rule.
<br /> Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 201. October 20, 1993.
<br /> http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal register/fr2446.12df.
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. Recovery Plan for Species of Upland Species
<br /> of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1 U. S Fish and Wildlife Service
<br /> Portland, Oregon. Available online at
<br /> http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plan/980930a.pdf.
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999a. "Service Lists Sacramento Splittail as
<br /> Threatened Under Endangered Species Act",February 3, 1999,NC-SC-G 99-03.
<br /> Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, USFWS-Region 1.
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter
<br /> Snake. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and The Giant Garter Snake Recovery
<br /> Team. Prepared for Region 1 USFWS.
<br /> httl2://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plan/990702b.pdf
<br /> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
<br /> Plants, Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special
<br /> Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities,
<br /> Final Rule. Federal Register 71(71):19244-19292. April 13.
<br />
|