APPENDIX P. Bridge Arbor Trail Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Horseback Riding, Bird Watching, Primitive Camping, Commercial And
United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Ukiah Field Office 2550 N. State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 www.ca.blm.gov/ukiah Dear Reader, Enclosed is the Final Cache Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). This plan provides the framework for the future management direction of BLM lands included within the Cache Creek Natural Area. Additional cooperators with this plan include the California Department of Fish and Game, which manages the Cache Creek Wildlife Area, and Yolo County Parks and Resources Management which manages Cache Creek Canyon Regional Park. The Draft CRMP was released in September 2002, and considered several alternatives with varying degrees of habitat development/resource protection and primitive recreation development. Based on public input to this draft at public meetings and from written responses, emails, faxes, and phone messages a Proposed Action was developed that best prioritized the protection of resource values while allowing a compatible level of primitive recreational use. Each of the projects proposed in this CRMP will be evaluated in an Environmental Assessment that will present several alternatives and discuss the environmental impacts of each alternative. I thank everyone who commented on the Draft and provided helpful suggestions in developing this CRMP. Sincerely. Rich Burns Ukiah Field Office Manager U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Cache Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan/ Environmental Assessment Final Prepared by: Ukiah Field Office -
Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis Final
In Cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, Northern District Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis Final March 2006 Lake County Watershed Protection District Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis March 2006 Final Contents Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Lake County Watershed Protection District.........................................................1-1 1.2 Inventory and Analysis Purpose............................................................................1-2 1.3 Inventory Unit Development..................................................................................1-2 1.4 Document Contents..................................................................................................1-3 Section 2 Physical Setting 2.1 Topography ...............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................2-2 2.2.1 Temperature...............................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Precipitation ...............................................................................................2-3 2.3 Surface Water Hydrology........................................................................................2-5 2.3.1 Surface Water Flows and Variability......................................................2-5 2.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................2-11 -
Springs of California
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses -
VGP) Version 2/5/2009
Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A. -
Strategies to Control Mercury Pollution in the Cache Creek Basin, Northern California
STRATEGIES TO CONTROL MERCURY POLLUTION IN THE CACHE CREEK BASIN, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 2011 Group Project Prepared by: Melissa Riley, Amibeth Sheridan, Bethany Taylor, Kristiana Teige, Toshiyuki Yamasaki, and Nick Zigler Faculty Advisor: Arturo A. Keller, Ph.D. Client: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management – California State Office Strategies to Control Mercury Pollution in the Cache Creek Basin, Northern California As authors of this Group Project report, we are proud to archive this report on the Bren School’s website such that the results of our research are available for all to read. Our signatures on the document signify our joint responsibility to fulfill the archiving standards set by the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. _________________________________ _________________________________ Melissa Riley Amibeth Sheridan _________________________________ _________________________________ Bethany Taylor Kristiana Teige _________________________________ _________________________________ Toshiyuki Yamasaki Nick Zigler The mission of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management is to produce professionals with unrivaled training in environmental science and management who will devote their unique skills to the diagnosis, assessment, mitigation, prevention, and remedy of the environmental problems of today and the future. A guiding principle of the School is that the analysis of environmental problems requires quantitative training in more than one discipline and an awareness of the physical, biological, social, political, and economic consequences that arise from scientific or technological decisions. The Group Project is required of all students in the Master’s of Environmental Science and Management (MESM) Program. It is a three-quarter activity in which small groups of students conduct focused, interdisciplinary research on the scientific, management, and policy dimensions of a specific environmental issue. -
Annual Report Highlights This Year’S New Projects
Keeping Wilderness Wild Private inholdings are a threat to the globally unique, 109 million acre preservation system that millions of people have spent 50 years creating. Nearly 180,000 acres of private lands in 2,883 parcels remain within Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas in the lower 48 states. Each landowner has the right to develop their property as they see fit. How do we determine which properties to acquire? The Trust developed what is now a nationally recognized method for prioritizing the acquisition of wilderness inholdings with Colorado State University in the early 1990’s. Go to most Forest Service and BLM offices and ask for information on their wilderness inholdings—you’ll likely get one of our statewide reports. The prioritization method measures three major components for determining the highest priority properties to acquire: 1. Its development potential; 2. The property’s ecological importance to the surrounding wilderness; and 3. The recreational and management impact of the property on the surrounding wilderness. We look at and score 17 unique factors. Lands with road access that fragment threatened and endangered species habitat crossed by a trail go right to the top. We then tenaciously contact landowners, partnering with federal agencies and local wilderness advocacy groups to identify good projects from willing sellers. How is the Trust funded? We implement our land acquisition program through the development of two funds. Each is supported by donors and private foundations who believe that securing our National Wilderness Preservation System is of the utmost importance—and know that the Trust proves its ability to add land to wilderness each and every year. -
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
H. R. 233 One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six An Act To designate certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forests and certain Bureau of Land Management lands in Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate the Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. Sec. 3. Designation of wilderness areas. Sec. 4. Administration of wilderness areas. Sec. 5. Release of wilderness study areas. Sec. 6. Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area. Sec. 7. Wild and scenic river designation. Sec. 8. King Range National Conservation Area boundary adjustment. Sec. 9. Cow Mountain Recreation Area, Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. Sec. 10. Continuation of traditional commercial surf fishing, Redwood National and State Parks. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior. -
Direct Protection Areas
Thorn Junction Benbow Knob, The 6486 ' EEL Panther Peak R, S FK Windy Mountain Shasta-Trinity 1862 ' 7081 ' Thorn E Vinegar Peak Schofield Peak Six Rivers E L 6549 ' 1992 ' R FK , Little Butte , M M N R Booth Knoll EEL A F B K 5632 ' E T 2427 ' A T Shelter Cove R O C L HUMBOLDT R E Walker Butte K Hopkins Peak , E S R K F 2404 ' A 6749 ' K Reed Mountain W Round Mountain E Sugarloaf Mountain Chamisal Mountain Whitethorn Beall Place 3101 ' R A E L Pilot Peak K 5000 ' L 7367 ' Harvey Peak E A Big Butte R 2598 ' E C Brush Mountain , 4092 ' R 5922 ' M 7361 ' 4200 ' F Island Mountain K D CR Linn, Mount Linn Mount Lake Mountain , N EA IL Moose Peak F F G 8092 ' 2467 ' 3851 ' K O TRINITY 1787 ' LM Oven Lid BA South Yolla Bolly South Yolla Bolly Mountains 6662 ' E Island Mountain L Solomon Peak 2460 ' D 3286 ' 8092 ' E Cooks Valley 7581 ' R C Horse Ranch Peak R, N Twin Peaks FK K 4156 ' F Nielson Place S 7403 ' , R EEL R, L N FK E E Hammerhorn Mountain 7563 ' Noble Butte Andersonia 2435 ' EE L R, Little Butte S FK, E Wildhorse Peak BR 1800 ' R 3564 ' C Piercy Table Rock IS H R F AN C Ramsey 3360 ' DI Island Mountain Delmonico Place IN 3847 ' Bald Mountain Bell Springs Mountain 3938 ' 3861 ' Mina EE L R, M FK Bell Springs R Ball Rock C S Griffin Place 6663 ' Camel Rock E Castle Peak M 3837 ' O 6216 ' Steuben Place High Tip E H E T L R 372 ' , S Mitchell Place F R K L Cold Springs Workcenter Kenny E E Red Rock 6050 ' TEHAMA Red Mountain Little Baldy Beaver Glade Fire Station 4095 ' 3646 ' Pratt Place Buck Mountain Leech Lake Mountain Ball Mountain -
Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 2020 Strategic Fire Plan
Figure: 1 Capell Incident Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 2020 Strategic Fire Plan Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amendments Description of Updated Date Section Updated Page Numbers Updated Update By 5/26/2020 ALL ALL Annual Update S.Cardwell 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SIGNATURE PAGE ........................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 6 SECTION II: UNIT PREPAREDNESS AND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES ............... 9 SECTION III: VALUES .................................................................................................. 12 History of Large Fires ................................................................................................. 12 Values at Risk ............................................................................................................ 12 Section IV: PRE-FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATAGIES & TACTICS ........................... 13 Communication and Collaboration ............................................................................. 13 Pre-Fire Planning ....................................................................................................... 14 Section V: MONITORING PROGRAMS EFFECTIVNESS .......................................... 16 Emergency Command Center ................................................................................... -
Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment
Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment A Document of the Scotts Creek Watershed Council Prepared for: West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd Lakeport, CA 95453 (707) 263-4180 Funded by Proposition 50 through the CALFED Watershed Program Administered by the California Department of Water Resources Prepared by: County of Lake Department of Public Works Water Resources Division 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel. 707-263-2341 and West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd. Lakeport, California 95453 Tel. 707-263-4180 February 2010 Acknowledgements Author Erica Lundquist, Lake County Water Resources Division Plates by Greg Dills, West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts Glossary by Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Project Partners Lake County Division of Water Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service Bureau of Land Management Upper Lake Habematolel Pomo Indians Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Big Valley Watershed Council Middle Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Group Scotts Creek Watershed Council Technical Advisors and Reviewers Frank Arriaza, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Pardee Bardwell, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Voris Brumfield, Lake County Code Enforcement Division Mark Brannigan, City of Lakeport Richard Burns, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Caroline Chavez, Lake County Public Services Department Kim Clymire, Lake County Public -
A Trail Through Time: Hopland to Lakeport on an "Old Indian Trail"
A Trail through Time: Hopland to Lakeport on an "Old Indian Trail" by Mary Gerbic A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Cultural Resources Management Margaret Purser, Ph.D., Chair Department of Anthropology Matthew Clark, Ph.D. Department ofGeography and Global Studies Donna Gillette, M.A. Date Copyright 2011 by Mary A. Gerbic ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTERS THESIS/PROJECT I grant permission for the reproduction ofthis thesis in its entirety, without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgement of authorship. Date: Signature III A Trail through Time: Hopland to Lakeport on an "Old Indian Trail" Thesis by Mary Gerbic Abstract Purpose ofthe Study: The purpose ofthis study is to generate a context for describing the use and reuse of a trail through the Mayacmas Mountains, historically described as the "Trail between Hopland and Lakeport", and also having its origins as an "Indian Trail". This study area for this project is the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC), because the trail is thought to pass through the HREC property. The study ofthis trail also has the potential to contribute to ongoing regional archaeological studies in the southern North Coast Ranges and highlight areas of potential interest for future research. Methods: The study used archaeological, ethnographic, historic, geographic data and local knowledge to identify the route ofthis trail. Sections of the hypothesized route were surveyed, mapped within a GIS, and evaluated using ANOVA and T -Test to determine if there was statistical probability ofa relationship between the trail segments and a set of archaeological sites, as compared to a set of randomly generated points. -
Lake County CEDS 2014
COUNTY OF LAKE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 5, 2013 APPROVED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION: MARCH 7, 2014 Lake County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy - 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................2 SECTION ONE: ANALYSIS...............................................................................................3 I. BACKGROUND: THE AREA AND ITS ECONOMY...........................................................3 A. General Description of the Area ..................................................................................................... 3 B. Economy........................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Natural Resources............................................................................................................................ 9 D. Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................... 12 E. Political Geography....................................................................................................................... 17 F. Employment in Lake County........................................................................................................