DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix J Draft Historic Properties Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix J Draft Historic Properties Management Plan FERC Application for License APPENDIX J DRAFT HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project H:\4647-Lassen Lodge\20829-FERC App\Flysheets.docx Draft Historic Properties Management Plan Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project FERC License No. 12496 South Fork Battle Creek Tehama County, California Volume I Prepared for: Prepared by: RUGRAW, LLC 2969 Prospect Park Drive Suite 100 16464 Plateau Circle Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Redding, CA 96001 and 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 240 Seattle, WA 98101 April 2014 Draft Historic Properties Management Plan Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project FERC License No. 12496 Tehama County, California Volume I Prepared for: RUGRAW, LLC Rugraw LLC 16464 Plateau Circle Redding, CA 96001 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 2969 Prospect Park Drive Suite 100 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916) 852-8300 And HRA, Inc. 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 240 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 343-0226 Authors: Lynn Compas, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator, HRA, Inc. Jenna Farrell, BA, Archaeological Field Director/Author, Tetra Tech, Inc. Julia Mates, MA, Architectural Historian/Author, Tetra Tech, Inc. April 2014 Draft Historic Properties Management Plan, Vol. I Summary SUMMARY This Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) is prepared to comply with the conditions of a new license for the Rugraw, LLC (Rugraw) (formally Rugraw Incorporated) Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 12496-000 (Project), when issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and with the anticipated Programmatic Agreement and/or Memorandum of Agreement. The purpose of the HPMP is to manage historic properties located within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). This HPMP follows the FERC’s Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (FERC 2002). This HPMP was prepared in consultation with: . The State Historic Preservation Officer . Tracy Edwards, Redding Rancheria . Barbara Murphy, Redding Rancheria . James Hayward Sr., Redding Rancheria . Jason Hart, Redding Rancheria . Kelli Hayward, Redding Rancheria . Kyle Self, Greenville Rancheria . Clara LeCompte, Maidu Nation . Art Angle, Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians . Glenda Nelson, Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians . Beverly Ogle, Maidu-Pit River-Astugewi The HPMP prescribes specific activities and processes to manage historic properties within the APE. This plan includes the following topics that will guide the Licensee, in applying both general and site-specific treatment measures: . Confidentiality; . General and site-specific treatment measures designed to address effects to historic properties that may be a result of the Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance; . A process of consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies, participating Tribes, and stakeholders; . A plan for public interpretation and education; . Procedures to implement for inadvertent discoveries; Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12496 S-1 H:\4647-Lassen Lodge\20985-HPMP\20985D_LLHEP_Draft_HPMP_final clean.docx Draft Historic Properties Management Plan, Vol. I Summary . Procedure to implement for emergency situations; . Procedures for the treatment of human remains; and . A process for HPMP review and revision (as necessary). Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12496 S-2 H:\4647-Lassen Lodge\20985-HPMP\20985D_LLHEP_Draft_HPMP_final clean.docx Draft Historic Properties Management Plan, Vol. I Contents CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Diversion and Intake Structure .......................................................................... 1-11 1.1.2 Pipeline and Penstock .......................................................................................... 1-11 1.1.3 Transition Structures ............................................................................................ 1-11 1.1.4 Powerhouse ........................................................................................................... 1-11 1.1.5 Substation .............................................................................................................. 1-12 1.1.6 Station Service Line .............................................................................................. 1-12 1.1.7 Transmission Line ................................................................................................ 1-12 1.1.8 Transmission Pulling Sites .................................................................................. 1-13 1.1.9 Switchyard ............................................................................................................. 1-13 1.1.10 Multipurpose Areas ............................................................................................. 1-13 1.1.11 Access Roads ......................................................................................................... 1-14 1.1.12 Ground Disturbance ............................................................................................ 1-17 1.2 Area Of Potential Effects .................................................................................................. 1-17 1.2.1 Amending the APE .............................................................................................. 1-18 1.3 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................... 1-18 1.4 HPMP Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................... 1-19 1.5 Consultation with Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Private Landowners, and the Tribes ..................................................................................................................... 1-20 1.5.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ..................................................................... 1-20 1.5.2 Tribal Consultation .............................................................................................. 1-20 1.6 Confidentiality ................................................................................................................... 1-23 1.7 HPMP Development and Implementation .................................................................... 1-24 1.7.1 HPMP Development ............................................................................................ 1-24 1.7.2 HPMP Implementation ........................................................................................ 1-24 1.8 Measuring Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 1-25 2. PROJECT SETTING ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Geography, Geology, and Climate ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Contemporary Flora and Fauna ........................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Present Land Use and Land Disturbance............................................................ 2-3 2.2 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.1 Prehistoric Context ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.2 Prehistoric Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3 Ethnohistoric Context ............................................................................................ 2-6 2.2.4 Historic Context ...................................................................................................... 2-8 3. PROJECT CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES AND RESULTS ...................... 3-1 3.1 Archaeological Inventory ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Historical Architectural Study ........................................................................................... 3-9 Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12496 iii H:\4647-Lassen Lodge\20985-HPMP\20985D_LLHEP_Draft_HPMP_final clean.docx Draft Historic Properties Management Plan, Vol. I Contents 4. GENERAL TREATMENT MEASURES .......................................................... 4-1 4.1 Licensee Cultural Resource Specialist .............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Information, Education, and Interpretation .................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Employee Education .............................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Avoidance of Impacts to Historic Properties ................................................................... 4-3 4.4 Flagging, Fencing, and Signage Measures ....................................................................... 4-3 4.5 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.6 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation ............................................................................. 4-4 4.6.1 Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study
    U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Social Science Program Visitor Services Project Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study [Insert image here] OMB Control Number:1024-0224 Current Expiration Date: 8/31/2014 2 Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Lassen Volcanic National Park P.O. Box 100 Mineral, CA 96063 IN REPLY REFER TO: January/June 2012 Dear Visitor: Thank you for participating in this study. Our goal is to learn about the expectations, opinions, and interests of visitors to Lassen Volcanic National Park. This information will assist us in our efforts to better manage this park and to serve you. This questionnaire is only being given to a select number of visitors, so your participation is very important! It should only take about 20 minutes to complete. Please complete this questionnaire. Seal it in and return it to us in the postage paid envelope provided. If you have any questions, please contact Margaret Littlejohn, NPS VSP Director, Park Studies Unit, College of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 441139, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, phone: 208-885-7863, email: [email protected]. We appreciate your help. Sincerely, Darlene M. Koontz Superintendent Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study 3 DIRECTIONS At the end of your visit: 1. Please have the selected individual (at least 16 years old) complete this questionnaire. 2. Answer the questions carefully since each question is different. 3. For questions that use circles (O), please mark your answer by filling in the circle with black or blue ink.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey of the Phase 1 Area and Associated Water Tank/Access Road Route for the Tapestry Project, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California
    CONFIDENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE PHASE 1 AREA AND ASSOCIATED WATER TANK/ACCESS ROAD ROUTE FOR THE TAPESTRY PROJECT, HESPERIA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USGS Hesperia, CA 7.5' Quadrangle USGS Silverwood Lake, CA 7.5' Quadrangle Submitted to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 133 N. San Gabriel Blvd, Suite 201 Pasadena, California 91107 March 2014 CONFIDENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE PHASE 1 AREA AND ASSOCIATED WATER TANK/ACCESS ROAD ROUTE FOR THE TAPESTRY PROJECT, HESPERIA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USGS Hesperia, CA 7.5' Quadrangle USGS Silverwood Lake, CA 7.5' Quadrangle Prepared for: Andrea Bitterling HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Prepared by: Tiffany Clark, Ph.D., RPA, and Dennis McDougall Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 133 N. San Gabriel Blvd, Suite 201 Pasadena, California 91107 March 2014 National Archaeological Database (NADB) Type of Study: Literature Search, Intensive Pedestrian Survey and Evaluation Cultural Resources Recorded: CA-SBR-17017 (P-36-026999) through CA-SBR-17097H (P-36-027082) Sites Revisited and/or Updated: CA-SBR-2297H (P-36-002297), CA-SBR-2298 (P-36-002298), CA-SBR-5342 (P- 36-005342), CA-SBR-5366H (P-36-005366), CA-SBR-12646H (P-36-013753), CA-SBR-12650H (P-36-013757); CA-SBR-12651 (P-36-013762), CA-SBR-12656H (P-36-013767), CA-SBR-12657 (P-36-013768); CA-SBR-12658 (P-36-013769), CA-SBR-12661H (P-36-013772), and CA-SBR-12662 (P-36-013773)
    [Show full text]
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arroyo Toad (Bufo Californicus (=Microscaphus))
    Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) Photo by permission of Will Flaxington U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office Ventura, California August 2009 5-YEAR REVIEW Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographies of Northern and Central California Indians. Volume 3--General Bibliography
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 370 605 IR 055 088 AUTHOR Brandt, Randal S.; Davis-Kimball, Jeannine TITLE Bibliographies of Northern and Central California Indians. Volume 3--General Bibliography. INSTITUTION California State Library, Sacramento.; California Univ., Berkeley. California Indian Library Collections. St'ONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Office of Library Programs. REPORT NO ISBN-0-929722-78-7 PUB DATE 94 NOTE 251p.; For related documents, see ED 368 353-355 and IR 055 086-087. AVAILABLE FROMCalifornia State Library Foundation, 1225 8th Street, Suite 345, Sacramento, CA 95814 (softcover, ISBN-0-929722-79-5: $35 per volume, $95 for set of 3 volumes; hardcover, ISBN-0-929722-78-7: $140 for set of 3 volumes). PUB TYPE Reference Materials Bibliographies (131) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS American Indian History; *American Indians; Annotated Bibliographies; Films; *Library Collections; Maps; Photographs; Public Libraries; *Resource Materials; State Libraries; State Programs IDENTIFIERS *California; Unpublished Materials ABSTRACT This document is the third of a three-volume set made up of bibliographic citations to published texts, unpublished manuscripts, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures, and maps concerning Native American tribal groups that inhabit, or have traditionally inhabited, northern and central California. This volume comprises the general bibliography, which contains over 3,600 entries encompassing all materials in the tribal bibliographies which make up the first two volumes, materials not specific to any one tribal group, and supplemental materials concerning southern California native peoples. (MES) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Phases I Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of the Vista Del
    Phases I Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of the Vista del Agua Project, a 277-Acre Parcel Just South of Interstate 10 between Tyler and Polk Streets in the City of Coachella, Riverside County, California APNs: 603-122-05; 603-130-03, -04 & -09; 603-150-04 & -06 thru -12 by Philip de Barros, Ph.D., RPA Principal Investigator Submitted to: Development Services City of Coachella 1515 Sixth Street Coachella, CA 92236 760-398-3102 & CVP Palm Springs, LLC c/o Greg Lansing Lansing and Associates 12671 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92130 858-523-0719 Prepared by: PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES 137310 Via Cima Bella San Diego, CA 92129 760-807-9489 Fieldwork, March 28-30, 2014 Survey Report, October 10, 2014 National Archaeological Data Base Information Type of Study: Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment Sites: CA-RIV-7834, -7835, and -7836; CA-RIV-11775 and -11776 USGS Quad: 1956 (1972 photorevision) 7.5’ Indio quad Township & Range and Section: NW¼, E½ of SW¼, and SE¼ of Section 28 of Township 5 South, Range 8 East (SBBM). Area: 277 acres Keywords: Coachella Valley, City of Coachella, Coachella Canal, Whitewater River, Interstate 10, Riverside County, Avenue 47, Avenue 48, Tyler Street, Polk Street, survey, Salton Brown, Salton Buff, Colorado Beige, direct rims, prehistoric Lake Cahuilla, sand dune, hammerstone, possible groundstone, fish vertebrae, adobe chunk, FAR, flakes, hearth cleanout feature, residential foundation, water control features, standpipes, water pressure regulators, reservoir, well, water flow
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
    NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section ___ Page __ SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 06000525 Date Listed: 6/23/2006 Manzanita Lake Naturalist 7 s Services Historic District Shasta CA Property Name County State Lassen Volcanic National Park MPS Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. Signature at the Keeper Date of Action --__ — ___=^ _ =z_ _ _ ________________________________________ Amended Tterns in Nomination: Historic Function: The functions are amended to read: Domestic/Institutional Housing; Education/Research facility; and Recreation/Museum, Outdoor Recreation. These clarifications were confirmed with the NFS FPO office DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NPS Form 10-900 OMBNo. 1024-0018 (Rev 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name: Manzanita Lake Naturalist's Services Historic District other name/site number: 2. Location street & number: 39489 Highway 44 not for publication, n/a vicinity: Northwest Entrance, Lassen Volcanic National Park city/town: Shingletown state: California code: CA county: Shasta code: 089 zip code: 96088 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lassen Volcanic National Park August, 2000
    DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lassen Volcanic National Park August, 2000 This document presents a proposed plan and three alternatives for the management and use of Lassen Volcanic National Park over the next 15 years. Alternative A: No Action, assumes that physical facilities would remain largely unchanged and that staffing and operational funding would remain constant over the planning period. Alternative B: Resource Preservation & Basic Visitor Service, provides a program for preserving, and where necessary, restoring significant park resources. It includes significant staffing and funding increases for the park’s resource management functions, restores key elements of the park’s infrastructure, provides for restoration of several specific sites with natural system conflicts, establishes a standards-based management zoning system, and proposes designation of approximately 25,000 acres as part of the National Wilderness System. The plan also includes program increases and visitor facility improvements to provide for quality basic visitor service. Alternative C: Resource Protection and Enhanced Visitor Experience. This alternative is the proposed General Management Plan for Lassen Volcanic National Park. It includes all the features of Alternative B, and provides enhancement to visitor experience by making more facilities available during winter months, and increasing interpretive services, facilities, and information. Alternative D: Resource Protection and Expanded Visitor Opportunities, includes all of the features of Alternative C and in addition, provides for expansion of family and group campgrounds at several locations. It also expands winter access at the north entrance by plowing the park road an additional nine miles to the Devastated Area, and keeping one loop of the campground open for winter camping.
    [Show full text]
  • 8.0 REFERENCES CITED Adams, M.J, Pearl C.A, and Bury, R.B. 2003
    FINAL Pre-Application Document Devil Canyon Project Relicensing 8.0 REFERENCES CITED Adams, M.J, Pearl C.A, and Bury, R.B. 2003. Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecology Letters 6:1–9 Allen, M.F. and T. Tennant. 2000. Evaluation of critical habitat for the California red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). UC Riverside: Center for Conservation Biology. Alvarez, J.A., D G. Cook, J. l. Yee, M. G. van Hattem, D.R. Fong, and R.N. Fisher. 2013. Comparative microhabitat characteristics at oviposition sites of the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8:539−551. American Trails. 2015. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/info/National-Scenic- Trails.html. Accessed: 9/10/15. Aspen Environmental Group. 2006. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, Horsethief Creek Bridge Mojave Siphon Maintenance Road Project. Prepared for DWR. January 2006. Submitted to FERC and filed on June 21, 2006. Aspen Environmental Group Arroyo and Hunt & Associates Biological Consulting. 2005. Arroyo Toad Survey and Habitat Evaluation along the Horsethief Creek and Check 66 Access Road for the Horsethief Creek Repairs Project. Prepared for DWR. October 2005. Atwater, Tanya and Helmut Ehrenspeck. 2000. The Incredible Cenozoic Geologic History of Southern California, National Association of Geoscience Teachers-Far Western Section for Spring Field Conference-April 14-16, 2000 by Department of Geosciences, California State University, Northridge. Backlin, A. R., C. J. Hitchcock, R. N. Fisher, M. L. Warburton, P. Trenham, S. A. Hathaway, and C. S. Brehme. 2003. Natural History and Recovery Analysis for Southern California Populations of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa), Annual Report.
    [Show full text]
  • And Type Chapter Number
    Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Distrito La Novia Development Project, City of San Juan Capistrano Orange County, California TM 17226 Prepared for: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 665-8509 Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 42145 Lyndie Lane, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 951/506-4038 Project Area: 18.8 acres USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle: Dana Point, Calif. Keywords: Phase I Survey, T8S, R7W, R8W, CA-ORA-924, ICFJSA-NS-1H, Forster Canyon Landfill August 2009 This document should be cited as: ICF Jones & Stokes. 2009. Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Distrito La Novia Development Project, City of San Juan Capistrano Orange County, California, TM 17226. August. (ICF J&S 00527.08.) Temecula, CA. Prepared for: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. Tustin, CA. Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Project Description and Setting ............................................................................. 1 Prehistoric Context ................................................................................................ 2 Ethnography ........................................................................................................... 6 Historic Context ..................................................................................................... 7 Spanish Period ................................................................................................. 7 Mexican Period
    [Show full text]
  • 7.0 References
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE BIOGAS RENEWABLE GENERATION PROJECT REFERENCES 7.0 REFERENCES AtmmAA Inc. 2018. Laboratory Analysis Report for Scholl Canyon Landfill Gas. Aubry, K. B., L. L. C. Jones, and P. A. Hall. 1988. Use of woody debris by plethodontid salamanders in Douglas-fir in Washington. Pages 32-37 in R. C. Szabo, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America. General technical report RM-166. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, D.H. Wilken (eds.) 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed. University Press, Berkeley, California. Bean and Smith, 1978. Handbook of Northern American Indians, Volume 8: California, volume edited by Robert F. Heizer: 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology, 7: 94-108. _____. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228–237. Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440. Bonner, W. 2004a. See page 4.267.Revised Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate VY-313-01 (Scholl Canyon Park), Glen Oaks Boulevard, Glendale, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton. _____. 2004b. Records Search Results and Site Visit for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate VY-480-02 (Eagle Rock), Blue Hill Road and Hillmount Avenue, Eagle Rock, Los Angeles County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Downlist the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus), and a Proposed Rule to Reclassify the Arroyo Toad as Threatened Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke. 1999. Sustainability of Ground-Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186. Denver, Colorado. [USGS 2012] Barlow, P.M., and Leake, S.A., 2012, Streamflow depletion by wells— Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1376, 84 p. Barrett, R.H. and G.H. Birmingham. 1994. Wild Pigs. Chapter D, pp. 65–70. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Editors, Scott E. Hygnstrom, Robert M. Timm, Gary E. Larson. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska. [BIP] Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. 2012. On the Internet at http://www.bipindicators.net/language/en-us/riverfragmentation. Visited October 15, 2012. Blaustein, A.R., L.K. Belden, D.H. Olson, D.M. Green, T.L. Root, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2001. Amphibian Breeding and Climate Change. Conservation Biology 15(6): 1804–1809. Boone, Michelle D, Paul S. Corn, Maureen A. Donnelly, Edward E. Little, and Peter H. Niewiarowski. 2003. Physical stressors. p. 129-151. In Greg Linder, Sherry K. Krest and Donald W. Sparling, editors, Global decline of amphibian populations: an integrated analysis of multiple stressor effects. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Florida. Boone, M.D., R.D. Semlitsch, E.L. Little, and M.C. Doyle. 2003. Multiple stressors in amphibian communities: effects of chemical contamination, bullfrogs, and fish. Ecological Applications 17: 291–301. Bosch, J., L.M.
    [Show full text]