DOCSLIB.ORG

Pope Creek Weed Management Project ISMND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pope Creek Weed Management Project ISMND NAPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Pope Creek Weed Management Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2019 For accessibility assistance with this document, please contact the Napa County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD) at 707-252-4189, fax to 707-252-4219, or through the California Relay Service by dialing 711. This document includes complex figures and tables that may be difficult to interpret using an assistive device such as a screen reader. NAPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Pope Creek Weed Management Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Napa County Resource Conservation District 1303 Jefferson Street, Suite 500B Napa, California 94559 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, California 94610 Contact: Ken Schwarz (510) 986-1851 December 2019 Horizon Water and Environment. 2019. Pope Creek Weed Management Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. December. (HWE 18.032) Oakland, CA. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Intent and Scope of this Document ............................................................... 1-3 1.4 Organization of this Document ...................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Impact Terminology ....................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Background ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives ..................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Species Targeted for Vegetation Management and Control ......................... 2-2 2.3.1 Tamarisk ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Arundo ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.3 Tree of Heaven ................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.4 Himalayan Blackberry ......................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Weed Management Strategies and Techniques ............................................ 2-3 2.4.1 Chemical Control ................................................................................ 2-4 2.4.2 Mechanical Control ............................................................................ 2-5 2.4.3 Biological Control................................................................................ 2-5 2.5 Implementation Strategy and Restoration .................................................... 2-6 2.5.1 Management Unit A ........................................................................... 2-6 2.5.2 Management Unit B ......................................................................... 2-21 2.5.3 Management Unit C ......................................................................... 2-21 2.5.4 Management Unit D ......................................................................... 2-21 2.5.5 Management Unit E .......................................................................... 2-22 2.5.6 Management Unit F .......................................................................... 2-22 2.6 Monitoring and Adaptive Management ...................................................... 2-25 2.6.1 Maintenance and Monitoring .......................................................... 2-25 2.6.2 Adaptive Management ..................................................................... 2-25 2.6.3 Timing of Work ................................................................................. 2-25 2.6.4 Staging and Access ........................................................................... 2-26 2.6.5 Best Management Practices ............................................................. 2-26 Pope Creek Weed Management Project December 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration v Napa County Resource Conservation District Table of Contents 2.7 Equipment .................................................................................................... 2-38 2.8 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................. 2-38 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. 3-5 3.1.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 3-6 3.1.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses...................................................... 3-7 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................... 3-9 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. 3-9 3.2.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-10 3.2.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-11 3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-13 3.3.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-16 3.3.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-17 3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-22 3.4.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-24 3.4.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-25 3.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 3-33 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-33 3.5.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-36 3.5.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-38 3.6 Energy .......................................................................................................... 3-43 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-43 3.6.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-44 3.6.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-44 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ...................................................................... 3-47 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-48 3.7.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-49 3.7.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-50 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 3-53 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-53 3.8.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-54 3.8.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-55 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 3-57 Pope Creek Weed Management Project December 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vi Napa County Resource Conservation District Table of Contents 3.9.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-57 3.9.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-58 3.9.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-58 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................... 3-61 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-62 3.10.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-64 3.10.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses.................................................... 3-65 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 3-71 3.11.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 3-71 3.11.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 3-73 3.11.3 Discussion of Checklist
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Heart of an Industry: the Role of the Bracero Program in the Growth of Viticulture in Sonoma and Napa Counties
    THE HEART OF AN INDUSTRY: THE ROLE OF THE BRACERO PROGRAM IN THE GROWTH OF VITICULTURE IN SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES by Zachary A. Lawrence A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History Copyright 2005 By Zachary A. Lawrence ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS I grant permission for the reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provide proper acknowledgement of authorship. Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety must be obtained from me. iii THE HEART OF AN INDUSTRY: THE ROLE OF THE BRACERO PROGRAM IN THE GROWTH OF VITICULTURE IN SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES Thesis by Zachary A. Lawrence ABSTRACT This study examines the role of the Bracero Program in the growth of Sonoma and Napa County viticulture in an attempt to understand how important bracero labor was to the industry. While most histories of the Bracero Program are nationwide or statewide in scope, this study explores the regional complexities of how and why the program was used in Sonoma and Napa Counties, how both the growers and laborers in the region felt about it, and how this was different from and similar to other regions. Government documents provided the statistics necessary to determine the demographic changes in the region due to the Bracero Program. Important primary source material that provided the human side of the story includes a number of oral history interviews I conducted, the collection of Wine Industry Oral Histories, and various regional newspaper articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Cultural Resources Supporting Information
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WATSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT City of American Canyon, Napa County, California State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030 July 2018 Appendix D Cultural Resources Supporting Information D1 Cultural Resources Survey Report (Redacted) D2 Addendum to the Watson Ranch Cultural Resources Report: South Napa Junction Road Improvements D1 Cultural Resources Survey Report (Redacted) Redacted Version WATSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, NAPA COUNTY 4GXKUGF%WNVWTCN4GUQWTEGU5WTXG[4GRQTV 2TGRCTGFHQTVJG #RTKN %KV[QH#OGTKECP%CP[QP %QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPV&GRCTVOGPV Redacted Version WATSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, NAPA COUNTY 4GXKUGF%WNVWTCN4GUQWTEGU5WTXG[4GRQTV 2TGRCTGFHQT #RTKN %KV[QH#OGTKECP%CP[QP %QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPV&GRCTVOGPV 2TGRCTGFD[ $TCF$TGYUVGT/# *GKFK-QGPKI/#42# 2CWN<KOOGT$# '5#Ě%WNVWTCN4GUQWTEGU)TQWR -GCTP[5VTGGV 5WKVG 5CP(TCPEKUEQ%# YYYGUCUUQEEQO $GPF 1CMNCPF 5CP(TCPEKUEQ %COCTKNNQ 1TNCPFQ 5CPVC/QPKEC &GNTC[$GCEJ 2CUCFGPC 5CTCUQVC &GUVKP 2GVCNWOC 5GCVVNG +TXKPG 2QTVNCPF 5WPTKUG .QU#PIGNGU 5CETCOGPVQ 6CORC /KCOK 5CP&KGIQ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Environmental Science Associates (ESA) Cultural Resources Group has prepared this cultural resources report for the City of American Canyon (City) Watson Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan area consists of approximately 300 acres on the northeastern edge of the City, east of Broadway (State Route 29) and north of American Canyon Road. The effort to identify cultural resources in the Specific Plan area consisted of archival research, contact with Native Americans organizations/individuals, and a surface survey. The proposed Plan is required to comply with the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. ESA staff conducted a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on August 8, 2013, and updated the search on April 23, 2018.
    [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]
  • 4.E Noise Introduction This Section Summarizes Information on the Noise Environment in the St
    4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.E Noise Introduction This section summarizes information on the noise environment in the St. Helena planning area and provides an evaluation of the noise-related effects of the proposed General Plan Update. The analysis considers existing and projected noise along major roadways, in addition to other noise sources in the area. Mitigation measures are recommended that address General Plan Update policies and implementing actions. The noise element of a city’s general plan is a comprehensive approach for including noise control in the planning process. It is a tool for achieving and maintaining environmental noise levels that are compatible with specific land use types. The Public Health, Safety and Noise Element of the proposed General Plan Update identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources, defines areas of noise impact, and establishes goals, policies, and implementing actions to protect people from excessive noise and vibration. Setting Background Information on Noise Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable Noise is defined as unwanted because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could sound. be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
    City of Calistoga – Enchanted Resorts Project Draft EIR Appendix F: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3808\38080001\3 - Draft EIR\38080001_Sec99-00 Appendix Dividers.doc Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Enchanted Resorts Project City of Calistoga, Napa, California Calistoga, California, USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map Township 8 North, Range 6 West and Township 8 North, Range 7 West of the Rancho Carne Humana Land Grant 88-acre Study Area Prepared for: City of Calistoga Planning and Building Department 1232 Washington Street Calistoga, CA 94515 707.942.2827 Attn: Erik Lundquist, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Bishop Ranch 3 2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA 94583 925.830.2733 Author/Contact: Carrie D. Wills, Senior Project Archaeologist Fieldwork Conducted By: Carrie D. Wills Fieldwork Conducted On: September 8 and 21, 2010 Report Date: November 5, 2010 Keywords: Calistoga, California, USGS topographic quadrangle map, Napa River City of Calistoga - Enchanted Resorts Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Management Summary......................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction.........................................................................................................3 1.1 - Project Location .................................................................................................. 3 1.2 - Project Description.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources (Includes Historical and Archaeological Resources )
    NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT . CHAPTER 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDES HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ) PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a CHRONOLOGY OF UPDATES summary of known cultural resources in Napa County. This chapter is based on the review of NOVEMBER 30, 2005—VERSION 1 numerous existing background reports and publications that contain information on prehistoric, historic, scientific, and cultural resources in Napa County. This document and the data assembled provide broad tools for site and regional planning as well as the basis for future planning documents relating to the protection and management of the County’s rich cultural resources. HISTORIC WINE CAVE, CONSTRUCTED IN 1882 NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES FIGURES TABLE OF CONTENTS On page INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................14-1 14-1 Ethnographic Territories of the Wappo, Patwin and Surrounding Tribes ..............................14-9 Purpose ................................................................................................................................14-1 Specialized Terms Used.......................................................................................................14-1 MAPS POLICY CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................................14-1 Federal Policies ....................................................................................................................14-1
    [Show full text]
  • 3.12 Cultural Resources
    3. Affected Environment / Environmental Setting, Environmental Consequences / Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.12 Cultural Resources This section describes the existing cultural resources in the action area, the applicable regulations at the federal, state, and local levels, and the potential impacts to cultural resources from the North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBWRP). Information for the section was adapted from the Cultural Resources Survey Report completed for the NBWRA (ESA, 2008). The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section defines significance criteria used for the impact assessment and presents a discussion of potential project-related impacts. Determination of significance of impacts in this EIR/EIS apply only to CEQA, not to NEPA. 3.12.1 Affected Environment/Setting Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the NBWRP is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR 800.16[b]). In consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation, an archaeological APE and an architectural/structural APE was determined for the NBWRP (Welch, 2008). Depending upon the project components, the archaeological APE has been determined as the area of direct impact for the NBWRP. For example, trenching for installing the recycled water pipelines would require a maximum width of three feet and a vertical depth of up to six feet; therefore the vertical APE would be six feet. For the NBWRP, an APE of 50-foot wide corridor (25-foot radius from centerline) would be assumed in undeveloped areas to accommodate for areas for staging and spoils.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Creek Watershed Historical Ecology Study
    PART IV // LANDSCAPE CHANGE Part IV assesses how the historical landscape has been transformed into present-day conditions. In the first section, we summarize major events in the land use history of the watershed. Next we describe the trajectories of change in landscape features and associated habitats. In the final section, we discuss some of the implications for watershed restoration and management. SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE // F I N A L R E P O R T IV - C O Y O T E P A R T I V // LAN D SCAPE C H A N G E C 20 San Jose Annual Rainfall (deviation from mean, in REEK WATERSHE Ring Width Rainfall 15 10-year moving avg. (rainfall) 10 D H inches) I S T O R I C A L 5 E Tree Ring Width Index C O L O G Y 0 S -5 TU D Y -10 1695 1705 1715 1725 1735 1745 1755 1765 1775 1785 1795 1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 Climatic Year (July 1 -June 30) FIGURE IV-1. CLIMATE TIMELINE FOR SANTA CLARA VALLEY. Rainfall data for San Jose, 1874-2004, with 1850-1873 extrapolated based upon San Francisco data, courtesy of Jan Null. Tree ring data from a blue oak near Alum Rock Park (unpublished data provided by David Stahle, University of Arkansas). LAND USE CHRONOLOGY enous population for at least 5,000 years. While much remains to be learned about the Native management The present-day landscape is the product of previ- practices (Striplen 2005), the Spanish diaries describe ous land use events and activities, superimposed upon numerous villages, extensive trail networks, and the natural landscape patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Pope Creek Weed Management Project ISMND
    Appendix A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Estimates Pope Creek Weed Management Project December 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 23 Date: 4/30/2019 1:13 PM Pope Creek Weed Management Project - Napa County, Annual Pope Creek Weed Management Project Napa County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Recreational 1.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 3.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2021 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Based on Project Schedule Off-road Equipment - Other Material Handling Equipment - Morookas, Other Construction Equipment - UTV Off-road Equipment - Other Construction Equipment - Helicopter Off-road Equipment - Based on Equipment Info Trips and VMT - Roughly 5 workers per day Grading - Material imported for road/ramps. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 23 Date: 4/30/2019 1:13 PM Pope Creek Weed Management Project - Napa County, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 1.00 tblGrading MaterialExported
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Ecology for Sulphur Creek Watershed
    Final Draft for Review ECOLOGICAL, GEOMORPHIC, AND LAND USE HISTORY OF THE SULPHUR CREEK WATERSHED: A COMPONENT OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SULPHUR CREEK WATERSHED, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT AND WATERSHED ASSESSMENT IN THE NAPA RIVER WATERSHED: A CALFED PROJECT CALFED CONTRACT NO. 4600001703 NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY Robin Grossinger Chuck Striplen Elise Brewster Lester McKee Sulphur Creek Historical Ecology Robin Grossinger, Chuck Striplen, and Lester McKee: San Francisco Estuary Institute Elise Brewster: Brewster Design Arts This report should be cited as: Grossinger, R., C. Striplen, E. Brewster, and L. McKee, 2003. Ecological, Geomorphic, and Land Use History of Sulphur Creek Watershed: A component of the watershed management plan for the Sulphur Creek watershed, Napa County, California. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program, SFEI Contribution 69, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland CA. 2 San Francisco Estuary Institute Sulphur Creek Historical Ecology Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................ 8 Methods......................................................................................................10 Results and Discussion .................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • A Frontier Apart: Identity, Loyalty, and the Coming of the Civil War on the Pacific Coast
    A FRONTIER APART: IDENTITY, LOYALTY, AND THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR ON THE PACIFIC COAST By BRYAN ANTHONY CARTER Bachelor of Arts in History Eastern Washington University Cheney, WA 2005 Master of Arts in History Eastern Washington University Cheney, WA 2010 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 2014 A FRONTIER APART: IDENTITY, LOYALTY, AND THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR ON THE PACIFIC COAST Dissertation Approved: Dr. James L. Huston Dissertation Adviser Dr. L. G. Moses Dr. Joseph Byrnes Dr. Stephen Perkins ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the many inspirations and supporters in my research over the past few years. The wonderful professors at Eastern Washington University and my thesis committee with Dr. J. William T. Youngs and Dr. Larry Cebula who helped inspire my interest in history and encouraged me to pursue my doctorate. Dr. Cebula with his practical advice and continuing support of my professional pursuits. The faculty and staff at Oklahoma State University who backed my research through many discussions, colloquiums, and considerable financial backing via scholarships, fellowships, and assistantships. I especially wish to thank Dr. Richard Rohrs, Dr. Amy Carriero, Dr. Michael Logan, Dr. Michael Smith, Dr. Ronald Petrin, Dr. Brian Frehner, and Dr. Bill Bryans for their participation and support through classwork, advice, and direction. I would like to recognize Dr. Ron McCoy who was a tremendous personal inspiration and offered considerable advice and encouragement during the early stages of my project.
    [Show full text]
  • Maps of Private Land Grant Cases of California, [Ca
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb8489p15p Online items available Finding Aid to the Maps of Private Land Grant Cases of California, [ca. 1840-ca. 1892] Finding aid written by Mary W. Elings Funding for processing this collection was provided by the University of California Library. The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected]/ URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu © 2004 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Maps of LAND CASE MAP 1 Private Land Grant Cases of California, [ca. 1840-ca. 1892] Finding Aid to the Maps of Private Land Grant Cases of California, [ca. 1840-ca. 1892] Collection number: LAND CASE MAP The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected]/ URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu Funding for processing this collection was provided by the University of California Library. Finding Aid Author(s): Finding aid written by Mary W. Elings Date Completed: December 2004 Finding Aid Encoded By: GenX © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Maps of private land grant cases of California Date (inclusive): [ca. 1840-ca. 1892] Collection Number: LAND CASE MAP Creator: United States. District Court (California) Extent: ca. 1,450 ms. maps : some hand col.1396 digital objects (1862 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected]/ URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu Abstract: Placed on permanent deposit in The Bancroft Library by the U.S.
    [Show full text]