DOCSLIB.ORG

Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Nevada Irrigation District April 5, 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Mitigated Negative Declaration Information Sheet ............................................. 1-1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ................................................... 2-1 2.2 Lead Agency .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Determination of Significance ................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Terminology Used in this Document....................................................... 2-2 2.5 Additional Information and Commenting on this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration .............................................................................. 2-2 3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Environmental and Land Use Setting ..................................................... 3-1 3.3 Background ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.4 Project Purpose and Objectives ............................................................. 3-2 3.5 Project Components ............................................................................... 3-2 3.6 Project Construction ............................................................................... 3-3 4.0 Initial Study Checklist ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources .................................... 4-3 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 4-11 4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 4-30 4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................ 4-35 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 4-39 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 4-42 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................ 4-46 4.10 Land Use Planning ............................................................................... 4-50 4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 4-51 4.12 Noise .................................................................................................... 4-52 4.13 Population and Housing ....................................................................... 4-56 4.14 Public Services ..................................................................................... 4-58 4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................ 4-60 4.16 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................... 4-61 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 4-64 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................... 4-67 5.0 CEQA Determination .......................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Report Preparation and References .................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Report Preparation ................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Lead Agency: Nevada Irrigation District .......................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Document Prepared By: ................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Persons and Agencies Consulted .......................................................... 6-1 6.3 References ............................................................................................. 6-1 List of Tables Table 4-1 — NSAQMD Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 4-8 List of Figures Figure 1 — Site and Vicinity Map ................................................................................... 3-4 Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project i Nevada Irrigation District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 2 — Parcel and Land Use Map ........................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3 — CNDDB 5-mile Radius Figure ................................................................... 4-13 List of Appendices Appendix A — CNDDB Data, Plant List, Special Status Wildlife Table Appendix B — Biological Study Report Appendix C — CRLF Site Assessment Report Appendix D — Archaeological Inventory Survey Appendix E— Mitigation Monitoring Plan Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project ii Nevada Irrigation District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Executive Summary The Loma Rica Reservoir is located directly east of the City of Grass Valley, Nevada County, California, at an elevation of 3,154 feet above mean sea level (msl). The reservoir is located on property owned by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) and it is approximately 1,500 feet east of the Nevada County operated airport and public use runway. The reservoir is part of the NID water-supply system and it stores raw water delivered through the Cascade Canal and the Banner Cascade Pipeline. The reservoir had a maximum capacity of 96.9 acre-feet (31.6 million gallons) when it was first constructed in the early 1960’s. Since then silt and sediment deposited in the reservoir with the incoming water sources have significantly decreased its capacity. This decrease adversely effects capacity of the District’s drinking and irrigation water systems. Water from the Loma Rica Reservoir supplies the Loma Rica Water Treatment Plant and the Chicago Park Canal, an NID supply route for raw-water customers. The reservoir is not directly connected with any local creeks nor does it discharge to any natural water bodies or streams. The Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project proposes to dredge the Loma Rica Reservoir, which would involve removing accumulate sediments and materials. This would restore the reservoir’s original capacity of just under 100 acre-feet. An estimated 40,000–70,000 cubic yards of sediment would be removed over a period of four to six months. The project may also entail including the installation of a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the reservoir in order to minimize the access of the NID’s facility to the public. The removal of the sediment will be accomplished by first draining the reservoir. The sediment would then be excavated using front-end loaders, excavators, drag-lines, suction dredges, dump trucks and/or other suitable equipment. The excavated sediment would be placed on adjacent previously disturbed land in order to drain the sediment of remaining water and to allow for drying. The sediment would then be transported off site to be recycled as fill material, if determined to be suitable for that purpose. The Reservoir cleaning will occur between September15 to March 15. This time frame will minimize environmental impacts and take advantage of lower water demands for the District such that the reservoir inactivity will not significantly affect the Districts operation. The identified potentially significant impacts of the project wil be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project. Potentially significant project impacts and associated mitigation measures include the following: • Air Quality (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 & AQ-2) • Biological Resources (Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6) • Cultural Resources (Mitigation Measure CR-1) • Geology and Soils (Mitigation Measures GEO-1 to GEO-4) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1) • Hydrology and Water Quality (Mitigation Measures GEO-1 to GEO-4) and • Noise (Mitigation Measure NOISE-1) Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project Executive Summary Nevada Irrigation District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INFORMATION SHEET PROJECT TITLE: Loma Rica Reservoir Cleaning Project PROJECT LOCATION: Nevada County DATE: April 5, 2013 PROJECT APPLICANT: Nevada Irrigation District LEAD AGENCY: Nevada Irrigation District CONTACT PERSON: Adrian Schneider PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Loma Rica Reservoir is located directly east of the City of Grass Valley, Nevada County, California, at an elevation of 3,154 feet above mean sea level (msl). It is part of the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) water-supply system and stores raw water delivered through the Lower Cascade Canal and the Banner Cascade Pipeline. No other surface water flows into this reservoir other then minor rain sheet flows from nearby land surface runoff. - A small amount of flows divert through an overflow spillway that drains to a small, shallow, created drainage below the reservoir which supplies a few raw-water customers just south of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Late Cenozoic Stratigraphy of the Feather and Yuba Rivers Area, California, with a Section on Soil Development in Mixed Alluvium at Honcut Creek
    / ( r- / Late CenozoiC Stratigraphy of the Feather and Yuba Rivers Area, California, with a Section on Soil Development in Mixed Alluvium at Honcut Creek U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1590-G AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the cur­ rent-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Sur­ vey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications that are listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" are no longer available. Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated month­ ly, which is for sale in microfiche from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports Section, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL Books OVER THE COUNTER Books . Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications of general in­ Books of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
    4.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources 4.4 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a summary of the cultural, historical, and paleontological resources located in SOI Plan Update area, the applicable federal, state, and local regulatory setting, and the analysis of the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed SOI Plan for the City and specifically, the Consensus Alternative on cultural resources. This section also provides contextual background information on historical resources within the City and SOI Plan Update area including the area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. If needed, mitigation measures in addition to conformance with the LAFCo policies to address adverse impacts are included as needed. A cultural resource is the physical or observable traces of past human activity including, prehistoric habitation and activities, historic-era sites and materials, and places used for traditional Native American observances or places with special cultural significance. Cultural resources, along with prehistoric and historic human remains and associated grave goods, must be considered under various federal, state, and local regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The following sources provided the data to support this section: • California Office of Historic Preservation (2019) • National Park Service (2017) • University of California Museum of Paleontology • Nevada City General Plan • Nevada County General Plan (1995) • Five Views, An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (1998) For the purposes of CEQA, “historical resources” generally refer to cultural resources that have been determined to be significant, either by eligibility for listing in State or local registers of historical resources, or by determination of a lead agency (see definitions below).
    [Show full text]
  • Establishment of Roads
    State of CA, Miscellaneous/Home Rule (34) (2010 Forward) Mtg Date Subject Vol. Page Minutes 01/26/10 Res. 10-028: Encouraging residents of Nevada County to actively 69 267 participate in the Census 2010 01/26/10 Review and direction to the County Executive Officer and/or Board staff 69 291 regarding Fiscal Year 2011 Federal appropriations requests 01/26/10 Mr. Tom Parilo, representing Mr. Tim Crough, Assistant General 69 291 Manager, NID, requested the Board authorize a letter of support from the Board for its project. NID will independently be asking Senator Feinstein to include its request as part of the appropriations, and letters of support are very helpful towards the process. He indicated that February 5 is the deadline for submittal; however, they do receive letters after the deadline 02/09/10 Authorization to send letters in support of the Governor’s proposed trailer 69 296 bill language to authorize the State Water Resources Control Board to issue grants, forgive loan principal, and provide other types of assistance from the Clean Water Revolving Fund. 02/09/10 Prioritization of projects for Fiscal Year 2011 Federal appropriations 69 299 requests to Senator Feinstein’s office. 3/23/10 Mr. Tom Quinn, Forest Supervisor, USFS, presentation on the 69 348 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Motorized Travel Management process on the Tahoe National Forest 3/23/10 Res. 10-122: Approving the issuance by the California Statewide 69 351 Communities Development Authority of Recovery Zone Facility Revenue Bonds to finance construction of the Hotel Avery, located at 10002-10024 South River Street, Truckee, in an amount not to exceed $13,000,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum 13-1
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 13-1 Native American Traditional Cultural Properties Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 December 2012 ©2012, Yuba County Water Agency All Rights Reserved Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 13-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) conducted a Native American Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Study for the Yuba River Development Project (Project), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project Number 2246, from March 2009 through July 2012. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) encompassed 4,306 acres, including the FERC Project Boundary and a 200-foot radius surrounding New Bullards Bar Reservoir. YCWA requested the State Historic Preservation Officer’s (SHPO) concurrence on the APE in a letter dated March 21, 2012, and received SHPO’s concurrence in a letter dated April 19, 2012, in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section (§) 800. For relicensing of the Project, FERC designated YCWA as FERC’s non-federal representative for purposes of consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the implementing regulations found in 36 CFR § 800.2(c)(4). YCWA conducted several consultation meetings with tribes and agencies beginning in 2009 and continuing into 2012. YCWA, tribes, and agencies collaboratively developed study proposals and selection of the TCP Study ethnographer, Albion Environmental, Inc. Invitations to participate in each meeting were sent to tribal representatives, FERC, SHPO, Plumas National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest. Most of these individuals and organizations participated in the meetings. On October 19, 2011, YCWA convened a meeting of tribal groups and agencies to introduce members of YCWA’s team, discuss the FERC-approved study, and to initiate field consultation with the tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Deer Creek Restoration and Flood Mitigation Project
    Little Deer Creek Restoration and Flood Mitigation Project CEQA Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: City of Nevada City Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.& Sierra Streams Institute November 7, 2016 LITTLE DEER CREEK RESTORATION AND FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 1.2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 1.5 1.4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................... 1.5 1.4.1 Stream Improvements ................................................................................. 1.6 1.4.2 Field Improvements ..................................................................................... 1.6 1.4.3 Trail Improvements ...................................................................................... 1.6 1.5 PROJECT PHASING ......................................................................................................... 1.7 1.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................ 1.7 1.6.1 Stream Construction
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Supporting Information
    City of Cotati—Cotati Hotel and Market Hall Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\5068\50680001\ISMND\50680001 Cotati Hotel and Market Hall ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CONDOR COUNTRY CONSULTING March 1, 2018 Mr. Dana Douglas DePietro, Division Lead, Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Re: Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Report for Reverb Hotel and Amphitheater Project. City of Cotati, Sonoma County, California Dear Mr. DePietro: Condor Country Consulting is pleased to provide FirstCarbon Solutions with this report that presents the results of an archaeological reconnaissance survey and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Reverb Hotel and Amphitheater (of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN 144-170-003 and -010) in the city of Cotati, Sonoma County, California. This report is intended to provide you with a compliance document that can be used by state or federal agencies in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Study Area (Figures 2-4) includes the subject parcels and a proposed road. This letter presents the results of the cultural resources inventory and archaeological survey of the Study Area. SUMMARY A record search was conducted by Dana DiPietro of FirstCarbon Solutions at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (File # 5068.0001) on December 19, 2017. The record search revealed that the Study Area has been previously surveyed. Portions of the Study Area have been covered by eight additional survey reports.
    [Show full text]
  • TREE RINGS Agriculture in the Yuba Watershed
    TREE RINGS Agriculture in the Yuba Watershed THE JOURNAL OF THE YUBA WATERSHED INSTITUTE Number Twenty-Seven Winter 2016 IN THIS ISSUE Front Cover Art by Chula Gemignani (Bio on Page 4) Distillations from the Fields by Rowen White…2 What the Possum and the Owl Already Know by Maisie Ganz…5 Knowing or Growing: The Imaginary Gap Between Hunting & Gathering and Agriculture by Hank Meals…6 Opening the Soil by Marney Jane Blair…9 Turning and Reborn a Fox by Dale Pendell…10 A Carpenter’s Confidence by Maisie Ganz…11 Surrounded: A Ridge Dweller’s Perspective on Living in the Midst of Marijuana Grows by Debra Weistar…13 Cultivating a Common Ground by Matthew O’Malley…16 Omishito of Two Minds by Adam Defranco…19 Breaking Ground by Amanda Thibodeau…20 Felix Gillet: the Father of Perennial Agriculture in California by Amigo Bob Cantisano…21 Copyright 2016 All Rights Reserved Tree Rings is published from time to time by the Yuba Watershed Institute, a 501(c)3 organization based on the San Juan Ridge in Nevada County, California. We welcome unsolicited articles, art, letters and notes. EDITORS’ NOTE by Daniel Nicholson and Corinne Munger Agriculture in the Yuba Watershed demonstrates This edition of Tree Rings explores various one of the ways we are supported and nourished expressions of personal and political connections to by our watershed; it is also one of the ways we nature, community, and food found through impact our watershed. Our agricultural systems agriculture in Yuba Watershed. We sincerely hope give shape to our relationships with our watershed, you find inspiration in these pages and that you our community, and our food.
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Context and Evaluation Procedures
    WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures Prepared Jointly by: JRP Historical Consulting Services California Department of Transportation 1490 Drew Avenue, Suite 110 Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, CA 95814 December 2000 © 2000 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report reflects the contributions of many individuals. Its strengths can be attributed to the diverse professional backgrounds and experiences of two multidisciplinary teams, one from the private sector and one from state service. John Snyder of the Caltrans Cultural Studies Office in Sacramento was responsible for the vision that prompted the study, and he oversaw the contract with JRP Historical Consulting Services to produce the initial document. JRP staff, including Jeff Crawford, Rand Herbert, Steve Mikesell, Stephen Wee, and Meta Bunse authored the draft report under that contract. In June 1995, JRP submitted the manuscript to Caltrans, completing their responsibilities under the contract. JRP’s excellent work constitutes the body of this report, with subsequent work by Caltrans staff to meet additional needs not foreseen in the original contract. Caltrans Cultural Studies Office staff Thad Van Bueren, Dorene Clement, Greg King, Gloria Scott, and Laurie Welch contributed to the revisions and preparation of supplementary material, while Kendall Schinke assisted with graphics production. Throughout the process, Meta Bunse and other staff at JRP Historical Consulting Services cooperated in the revisions and rendered invaluable assistance, particularly with regard to the conversion of electronic files. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many professional colleagues who shared their expertise and suggestions during the formulation of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST: 1840-1940 a Cultural Resources Overview History
    HISTORY OF TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST: 1840-1940 A Cultural Resources Overview History Prepared by: W. Turrentine Jackson Rand Herbert Stephen Wee Report Number 15 1982 Jackson Research Projects 702 Miller Drive Davis, California 95616 Contract Number 43-9A63-1-1745 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: Introduction Purpose of the Historical Overview Historical Perspectives on the Development of the Tahoe National Forest Region CHAPTER II: The Environmental and Historical Context of the Tahoe National Forest Region Physical Characteristics of the Area Encompassed by the Tahoe National Forest Pre-Gold Rush History of the Northern Sierra Nevada Region Gold Rush California, 1848-1849: A Regional Overview CHAPTER III: The Era of Individual Enterprise: Mining and Settlement on Tahoe National Forest Lands, 1848-1859 Introduction Gold Mining in Tahoe National Forest, 1848-1859 Mining Settlement and Community Development Supplying the Mines, 1848-1859 Logging and Agricultural Development CHAPTER IV: Era of Development and Diversification, 1859-1906 The Mining Industry on the Forest Transportation Within Tahoe National Forest Logging Industry Within the Tahoe National Forest, 1859-1906 Agriculture in the Forest, 1859-1906 Other Pre-National Forest Industries CHAPTER V: Era of National Forest Management, 1906-1940 Establishment of Tahoe Forest Reserve Tahoe National Forest Administration of Tahoe National Forest Lands, 1906-1940 Logging on the Tahoe National Forest, 1906-1940 Mining on the Tahoe National Forest, 1906-1940 Water Development in the Tahoe National Forest, 1906-1940 Grazing on the Tahoe National Forest, 1906-1940 Recreation on the Tahoe National Forest, 1906-1940 Forest Service Recreational Developments Other Forest Service Improvements CHAPTER VI: Concluding Statements CHAPTER VII: Research Problems and Directions CHAPTER VIII: Management Recommendations CHAPTER IX: Research Locations BIBLIOGRAPHY ILLUSTRATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern California Indian Resistance to State and Corporate Water Development
    Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol 7., No 1, 2018, pp. 174-198 Holding the Headwaters: Northern California Indian Resistance to State and Corporate Water Development Beth Rose Middleton-Manning University of California - Davis Morning Star Gali Bay Area Native Circle - Host Darcie Houck Lawyer Abstract In the context of historic and ongoing California Indian resistance to displacement at the headwaters of California’s immense State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project, we foreground Native land histories to unsettle the logic and perceived permanence of contemporary neocolonial water institutions. Centering California Indian voices on the histories and futures of the headwaters, we disrupt the imperial narrative of these waters and lands as American territories needing development and conservation, replacing it with the reality of these sites as Native Californian lands requiring restitution, protection, and recognition. Beginning with an overview of the history that led to the development of quasi-public projects on Native lands, we offer three case studies of Indigenous resistance and re-framing: the Winnemem Wintu struggle to stop the proposed raise of Shasta Dam; the Maidu Summit’s work to regain ownership of former Pacific Gas & Electric company lands established within their homeland; and the Pit River Tribe’s decades-long struggle to protect the sacred Medicine Lake Highlands from government-approved corporate exploitation of geothermal resources. Holding the Headwaters directly challenges embedded injustices in natural resource policymaking and offers alternative visions for a future that addresses historic injustices and centers California Indian relationships to place. Keywords: California Indian, justice, resistance, water ã B.R. Middleton-Manning, M.
    [Show full text]
  • DATA SHEET " Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR (Rev
    DATA SHEET " Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Rev. 6-72) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE California COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Nevada INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM ENTRY DATE (Type all entries - complete applicable sections) iilpiii COMMON: Ott's Assay Office/South Yuba Canal Office AND/OR HISTORIC: Ott's Assay Office/South Yuba Canal Office -STREET ANQNUMBER: 130 Main Street CITY OR TOWN: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Nevada City Second COUNTY: 06 Nevada 057 CATEGORY ACCESSIBLE OWNERSHIP STATUS (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC z District (jg Building Public Public Acquisition: O Occupied Yes: o SI Restricted* Site Q Structure Private || In Process §0 Unoccupied Q Unrestricted D Object Both [ | Being Considered | | Preservation work in progress n NO u 'p..R.EJ?JEJHT U ? E (Check One or More as Appropriate) CJ[fcy Insurance Carrier I I Agricultural I I Government D P<"k I I Transportation I | Comments [ | .Commercial [ | Industrial I I Private Residence SI Other (Specify) I | Educational D Military I I Religious Vacant to I I Entertainment I| Museum |~l Scientific iiiiiiilllllilililii:: OWNER'S NAME: n City of Nevada City UJ STREET AND NUMBER: HI III 317 Broad Street o to CITY OR TOWN: Nevada City COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC: County of Nevada STREET AND NUMBER: Courthouse Square CITY OR TOWN: STATE , Nevada City C4if ornia NATIONAL. ———fcm:!:———^ TITUE OF SURVEY: Nevada County Historical Landmarks DATE OF SURVEY: Federal State S3 Counfy- Local DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS: Nevada County Historical Landmarks Commission STREET AND NUMBER: 529 East Broad Street CITY OR TOWN: STATE: Nevada City California 06 (Check One) Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins CD Unexposed CONDITION (Check One) (Check One) Altered S Unaltered Moved (XJ Original Site DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (if known; PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The City Drug Store, which later became Ott's Assay Office, was completed in August, 1S55.
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Context and Evaluation Procedures
    WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures Prepared Jointly by: JRP Historical Consulting Services California Department of Transportation 1490 Drew Avenue, Suite 110 Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, CA 95814 December 2000 December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report reflects the contributions of many individuals. Its strengths can be attributed to the diverse professional backgrounds and experiences of two multidisciplinary teams, one from the private sector and one from state service. John Snyder of the Caltrans Cultural Studies Office in Sacramento was responsible for the vision that prompted the study, and he oversaw the contract with JRP Historical Consulting Services to produce the initial document. JRP staff, including Jeff Crawford, Rand Herbert, Steve Mikesell, Stephen Wee, and Meta Bunse authored the draft report under that contract. In June 1995, JRP submitted the manuscript to Caltrans, completing their responsibilities under the contract. JRP’s excellent work constitutes the body of this report, with subsequent work by Caltrans staff to meet additional needs not foreseen in the original contract. Caltrans Cultural Studies Office staff Thad Van Bueren, Dorene Clement, Greg King, Gloria Scott, and Laurie Welch contributed to the revisions and preparation of supplementary material, while Kendall Schinke assisted with graphics production. Throughout the process, Meta Bunse and other staff at JRP Historical Consulting Services cooperated in the revisions and rendered invaluable assistance, particularly with regard to the conversion of electronic files. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many professional colleagues who shared their expertise and suggestions during the formulation of this study.
    [Show full text]