America's Great Outdoors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lloyd Shoals
Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R. -
Planning Commission County of Alpine, State of California
PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF ALPINE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTED AGENDA Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:00 P.M. Nick Hartzell, Chair Meeting Location: Jim Holdridge, Vice-Chair VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY Tom Sweeney Bob Broyer VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Planning Commission meeting will be conducted virtually and not available for in person public participation (pursuant to State Executive Order N-29-20). The meeting will be an internet based video and phone conference. Public participation is available at the following: Website link: https://zoom.us/j/97965207316 Phone number: 669-900-9128 Zoom meeting ID: 979 6520 7316 IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19 AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING To participate in this Alpine County Planning Commission meeting, the public are invited to observe and address the Commission telephonically or electronically. Instructions for public participation are below: Public Participation Instructions: The meeting will be conducted via teleconference using the Microsoft Zoom program, and Commissioners will attend electronically or telephonically. The meeting will have no physical location to physically attend. The public may observe the Zoom meeting via computer by clicking on the following link: https://zoom.us/j/97965207316 or the public may listen via phone by dialing 1-669-900-9128 and then when prompted, entering the Meeting ID Access Code 979 6520 7316 You will be asked for a “Participant ID”. You do not need a Participant ID to join the meeting, press the pound key (#) again and you will be automatically connected. 1. If a member of the public wishes to comment on a particular agenda item, the public is strongly encouraged to submit their comments in writing via email to the Community Development Department at [email protected] by 2:00 p.m. -
Anacostia RI Work Plan
Comment Form Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Anacostia River Sediment Project, Washington DC Commenter/ Section/Table/Figur Page Number Representative Organization Type e Nos. No. Comment Response The discussion of Sources does not seem to treat the re-suspension of in situ legacy sediments as a source of the toxics under The re-suspension and re-deposition of sediments is expected to occur during storm inv estigation. It may well be that a major source of the toxic sediments in any one place is depostion of these resuspended toxic ev ents and is a secondary source of sediment contaminants. The relativ e Anacostia materials af ter they hav e been stirred up by storms , dredging or other ev ents. While the extent of this source and the nature in which it signif icance of this process is dif f icult to quantif y and would v ary f rom storm to Watershed Citizens 1 William Matuszeski Env ironmental Group 3.1.2 24 deliv ers these toxics is dif f icult to determine, it is important to establish its relativ e contribution as a source. storm. Although the concentration distribution in sediments is expected to change in Adv isory response to these processes ov er time, the sampling approach presented in the RI Committee Work Plan will prov ide the data needed to support an ef f ectiv e f easibility study . The discussion of Ongoing Activ ites should include a detailed discussion of the current ef f ort by EPA and DCDOE to develop a new Total DDOE is engaged in an ef f ort to characterize the tributary mass loadings of the key Maximum Daily Load f or toxics in the Anacostia. -
Inside This Issue
February 1998 Inside This Issue... Air Quality Improvement Initiative Board Briefs Board Member Profile Getting Acquainted: American Land Conservancy Green Money (excerpts reprinted with permission from the Trust for Public Land) If It's Green, Is It Clean? Keeping Open Space Open News Notes SNA Goes Global SNA Kicks Off Regional Meetings Thanks to our Recent Donors President's Letter Air Quality Improvement Initiative The Planning & Conservation League (PCL), a statewide coalition of citizens and conservation groups and a member of the Alliance, is sponsoring a statewide ballot initiative for the November 1998 ballot which would provide tax credits for voluntary investments in vehicles and equipment that will reduce air pollution in California. In terms of Sierra impacts, the initiative is directed toward reducing NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions and particulate matter, two of the factors at the heart of the destructive effects of air pollution on both our health and the health of our forests and plant communities. For example, scientists have discovered that air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels (including motor vehicle and diesel engines) is the major casue of acid rain, which impairs tree growth, severely impacts high mountain lakes, and can be carried by rainwater to further affect surface run-off and soils. PCL encourages conservation organizations to support this measure. For more information, call Steve Jacoby at PCL: 916-444-8726, ext. 6. Endorsers: American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Nevada Alliance, California Native Plant Society, Greenbelt Alliance, League to Save Lake Tahoe, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and more. Board Briefs Linda Blum was a panelist at the Great Lakes Forest Alliance conference on Timber & Tourism. -
Remedial Investigation Report (Draft)
Prepared for: Prepared by: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services AECOM Washington, D.C. Beltsville, Maryland February 2016 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, NE Washington, DC 20019 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, N.E. Washington, DC 20019 PREPARED FOR: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services 701 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20068 PREPARED BY: AECOM 8000 Virginia Manor Road, Suite 110 Beltsville, MD 20705 February 2016 AECOM Project Team ________________________________ ________________________________ Robert Kennedy Betsy Ruffle Data Management and Forensics Lead Human Health Risk Assessment Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Maryann Welsch Helen Jones Ecological Risk Assessment Lead Background Data Evaluation Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Ben Daniels John Bleiler Field Operations Lead and Report Compiler Senior Technical Reviewer ________________________________ Ravi Damera, P.E., BCEE Project Manager ES-1 Executive Summary This draft Remedial Investigation Report presents the results of recently completed environmental investigation activities at Pepco’s Benning Road facility (the Site), located at 3400 Benning Road NE, Washington, DC. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Study Area consists of a “Landside” component focused on the Site itself, and a “Waterside” component focused on the shoreline and sediments in the segment of the Anacostia River adjacent to -
Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill
Public Access Points within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill Public Access Point Boat Ramp Fishing Swimming Restrooms Hiking/Trekking Location 2900 Virginia Ave NW, Thompson's Boat Center X X X X Washington, DC 20037 3244 K St NW, Washington, DC Georgetown Waterfront Park X X 20007 George Washington Memorial Theodore Roosevelt Island X X X Pkwy N, Arlington, VA 22209 West Basin Dr SW, Washington, West Potomac Park X X DC 20024 Capital Crescent Trail, Washington Canoe Club X Washington, DC 20007 600 Water St SW, Washington, DC Ganglplank Marina X X X X 20024 George Washington Memorial Columbia Island Marina X X X Parkway, Arlington, VA 22202 99 Potomac Ave. SE. Washington, Diamond Teague Park X X DC 20003 335 Water Street Washington, DC The Yards Park X 20003 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Anacostia Boat House X Washington, DC 20003 700-1000 Water St SW, Washington Marina X X X X Washington, DC 20024 Anacostia Park, Section E Anacostia Marina X X X Washington, DC 20003 2001-2099 1st St SW, Washington, Buzzard's Point Marina X X X DC 20003 2038-2068 2nd St SW, James Creek Marina X X X Washington, DC 20593 Anacostia Dr, Washington, DC Anacostia Park X X X 20019 Heritage Island Trail, Washington, Heritage Island X DC 20002 Kingman Island Trail, Washington, Kingman Island X DC 20002 Mt Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA Gravelly Point X X 22202 George Washington Memorial Roaches Run X X X X Pkwy, Arlington, VA 22202 1550 Anacostia Ave NE, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens/Park X X X Washington, DC 20019 Capital Crescent Trail, Jack's Boat House X X Washington, DC 20007 Daingerfield Island X X X X 1 Marina Dr, Alexandria, VA 22314 67-101 Dale St, Alexandria, VA Four Mile Run Park/Trail X X X 22305 4601 Annapolis Rd. -
The River - Welcome
Placeholder Image Return to the River - Welcome N Annual Meeting Luncheon & State of the Capitol Riverfront a Thursday, January 17, 2019 m e D a t e Capitol Riverfront “Dashboard” • 500 acres • 37.5M square feet • 65% built-out • 34,000 employees • 9,500 residents • 7 subareas • 2 grocery stores • 2 sports stadiums • 13 acres of parks Why We Are Here… River Connections “Eventually everything connects – people, places, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se.” Charles Eames “Take me to the river, drop me in the waters…washing me down” Talking Heads We are all Connected… Physically Spiritually Generationally By Place By Social Media By Events And Rivers Connect Us… Anacostia Destinations Arboretum Tidal Basin/ Langston Golf Hains Point Kingman Island Yards Park Kenilworth RFK Stadium Aquatic Gardens Washington Channel Poplar Point Anacostia Park Anacostia Destinations Rivers Have Sustained Us… Early Settlements Shipping/Commerce Manufacturing Agriculture Hydro-Electricity Water Supplies Recreation But We Have Not Always Been Kind… Inspiration 2003 Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan “You can’t be unhappy in the middle of a big, beautiful river.” Jim Harrison Framework Plan Themes 15 Years of Implementation “A Plan Is Not Great Unless It Is Put Into Action.” Connections Clean the River Public Parks Community Events Boating Communities Infrastructure Recreation Fields s n o i t c e n n o C s n o i t c e n n o C Partners in the Effort Anacostia River Corridor Anacostia River & Parklands • 8.5 mile river corridor connects 1,800 acres of public parks • Connects to amenities such as: Washington Channel, Hains Point, Yards Park, Anacostia Park, Kingman & Heritage Islands, National Arboretum & Kenilworth Gardens, Nats Park, Audi Field, etc. -
Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ................................................................................................................... -
5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth. -
California Water Trust Network
RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION -
Respect and Admiration for Patty and John Have
FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY PO Box 431 Markleeville, CA 96120 Newsletter winter 2020 Respect and Admiration for Patty and John Have No Boundaries Alpine County’s Sierra jewels, Hope and Bagley Valleys, would probably have been developed, if Patty and John Brissenden had not bought Sorenson’s Resort in the early 1980s. For the They arrived in Alpine County with lots of political and conservation experience, having preservation of the worked in Santa Cruz and Sacramento for years on environmental issues. scenic, recreational and historic use of At the time Sorensen’s Resort was a run-down resort that had been neglected for years. With Hope Valley and Patty and John’s hard work and dedication, Sorensen’s has become a world class destination resort: quaint cabins and a quality restaurant in a beautiful and peaceful setting. Recently Alpine County’s Sorensen’s Resort has been sold, and Patty and John are moving on to their next adventure. eastern Sierra slope. After their arrival it became apparent to them that local ranchers could no longer make a living in the Valleys. Patty and John wanted to preserve the land, founded Friends of Hope BOARD OF DIRECTORS Valley and, in time, ‘walked the halls of congress’ acquiring federal dollars used to purchase Hope and Bagley Valleys, preventing any future development. They also worked with Debbi Waldear California Fish and Wildlife, encouraging it to purchase other land in the area, including the The Friends of Hope Valley want to thank you for your past support. We hope that you will President water rights to Red Lake and the creation of fishing piers for people with disabilities. -
Geologic Guide to Stone Mountain Park
GEOLOGIC GUIDE TO STONE MOUNTAIN PARK by Robert L. Atkins and Lisa G. Joyce Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Geologic Survey GEOLOGIC GUIDE 4 Common Misconceptions About Stone Mountain An average of four million people visit Stone Mountain Park each year. Very little geologic information is available to these visitors. With this lack of information, some misconceptions have developed concerning Stone Moun tain and the granite named after the mountain. Several of these misconcep tions are discussed below. MYTH 1: Stone Mountai n granite underlies half of Georgia, all of Geor gia, three states, seven states, etc. FACT: The Stone Mountain Granite is a relatively small unit. It extends northward to U.S. 78, southward to the park boundary, and its western contact lies within the park limits. It extends eastward towards C enterville (see Geologic Map of the Stone Mountain Area, p. 12-13). MYTH 2: Stone Mountain is the largest exposed granite outcrop in the world. FACT: Stone Mountain's size is quite inspiring. It probably is the largest granite dome east of the Mississippi River, as it rises approxi mately 750 feet (ft) above the surrounding topography; how ever, it is not the largest dome in the world. Many granite domes in the Sierras in the western United States are larger. MYTH 3: Stone Mountain is 300 million years old. FACT: The granite that forms Stone Mountain is approximately 300 million years old, but the mountain itself has only been exposed for approximately 15 million years. MYTH 4: Stone Mountain used to be a volcano. FACT: Although Stone Mountain Granite, like all other granites, is igneous in origin, it was formed quite differently from a volcano.