DOCSLIB.ORG

SEA Significant Ecological Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEA Significant Ecological Area SEA Program | DRP Page 1 of 17 Skip To Content (#content) SEA • SEA Home (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/) • Proposed SEAS (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed) • SEA Ordinance (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/ordinance) • SEATAC (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/seatac) • SEA History (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/history) • Studies & Resources (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/studies) • SEAs & The General Plan (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/biological) Significant Ecological Area - Proposed SEAs MARCH 24, 2015 GENERAL PLAN APPROVED AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WITH COUNTYWIDE SEA MAP and POLICY The Los Angeles County General Plan Update, including the SEA Program Goals and Policies, Countywide SEA and Coastal Resource Areas Map (Figure 9.3) (“SEA Map”) and SEA Descriptions were approved at public hearing of the Board of Supervisors on March 24th, 2015. • Click here for Final Draft of the General Plan March 24, 2015 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan/draft) • Click here for the report to the Board (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_board- letter_20150324.pdf) -Click here for a PDF Copy of Map 9.3 (SEAs & CRAs) (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_2014-FIG_9-3_significant_ecological_areas.pdf) SEA and Coastal Resource Areas Map/Figure 9.3: FEBRUARY 2015: MINOR CHANGES TO THE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS TO MATCH THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS LOCAL COASTAL PLAN After the Santa Monica Mountains http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 2 of 17 Local Coastal Plan was adopted minor changes were made to the proposed SEA Map to reflect the final approved boundaries of the Coastal Zone. The changes are not generally visible in figure 9.3. Here is a sample image of the adjustment, with the adjusted Coastal Zone in red, the Proposed SEA in green and the Coastal Resource Area in diagonal stripes. DECEMBER 10: REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: WITH SEA MAP AND POLICY Outcomes: General Plan Update Approved and recommended to the Board of Supervisors. Changes made to the Countywide SEA Map. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed update of the Los Angeles County General Plan and the Draft EIR on December 10th 2014. After hearing testimony the Commission unanimously moved to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Update Project to the Board of Supervisors. http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 3 of 17 SEA Map Changes: This approval included the Countywide SEA Map (Figure 9.3), which includes the changes to the Antelope Valley Area Plan SEA Map that the Board of Supervisors heard on November 12, 2104. At the December 10th hearing the Regional Planning Commission expressed concern that the SEA Map should require specific review for compatibility with community plans in the following communities: Altadena, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights. In order to accomplish this review, the Regional Planning Commission recommended creation of a new SEA category, known as the “Conceptual SEAs”. The Conceptual SEAs are the proposed SEAs prior to the December 10th hearing which have been presented by the Department of Regional Planning within the areas contained in the Community Plans for Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights and Altadena. For these communities the adopted SEAs will be retained and the designation of Conceptual SEA were added as overlay showing where the proposed SEA Boundary updates would be within these three areas. Conceptual SEAs will replace the current adopted SEAs in these three communities only as each community amends or updates its own community plan. These changes have been are reflected in Figure 9.3 which was submitted to the Board of Supervisors in the Board Submittal for the March 24th hearing. • Staff Report November 25, 2014 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_staff-report20141125.pdf) • Attachment 1: Revised Draft General Plan and Appendices, November 25, 2014 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan/draft2014) (Scroll down in webpage for previous drafts) • Attachment 2: General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (http://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan/ceqa) (Scroll down in webpage for previous drafts) http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 4 of 17 • Staff Report December 4, 2014 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_staff- report_20141204.pdf) • Regional Planning Commission Meeting Agendas and Minutes for December 10, 2014 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/view/regional_planning_commission_meeting_2014-12-10/) NOVEMBER 12 2014: ANTELOPE VALLEY AREA PLAN APPROVED AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SEA PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the proposed project and its appurtenant Final Environmental Impact Report on Wednesday, November 12, 2014. After hearing testimony from about a dozen people, the Board unanimously indicated its intent to approve the Area Plan Update and certify its Final EIR. The Antelope Valley Area Plan Update was Item No. 64 on the agenda. This intent to approve the Area Plan Update and certify its Final EIR includes updates to the SEA Map, SEA Program Goals and Policies and SEA Descriptions within the Antelope Valley Planning Area. These changes will not be in effect until 30 days after the Antelope Valley Area Plan returns to the Board of Supervisors on consent. Please refer to the Antelope Valley Area Plan Webpage (http://planning.lacounty.gov/tnc) for further updates or see below for links to additional hearing materials. SEA Program Specific Changes: At the November 12th hearing the Board of Supervisors moved to make the following changes to the Antelope Valley Area Plan regarding the implementation of the SEA Program: • Add a provision that ensures that if a conflict exists between the Antelope Valley Area Plan (AVAP) and any new or existing Significant Ecological Area (SEA) ordinance, the provisions in the AVAP shall control; • Prohibit ground mounted utility-scale renewable energy projects in all SEA and EOA designated areas in the AVAP; • Exempt from the SEA Ordinance single family residences and their accessory structures and animal keeping areas and facilities located within the boundaries of the AVAP; • Exempt from the SEA Ordinance all previously disturbed farmland located within the boundaries of the AVAP; • Exempt from the SEA Ordinance minor subdivisions located within the boundaries of the AVAP; • Exempt from the SEA Ordinance the rebuilding and replacement of structures destroyed in a catastrophic event; Map Changes: At the November 12th hearing the Board of Supervisors moved to make the following changes to the Antelope Valley Area Plan SEA Map: • Adjust the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designation within the East and Central Economic Opportunity Areas (EOA) to the boundaries which generally align with the existing adopted SEAs and do not include any additional SEA expansion in the EOAs; • also, remove the SEA designation from the Rural Land - Maximum 1 Dwelling Unit per gross acre (RL1), Rural Commercial (CR) and Light Industrial (IL) in the West EOA; http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 5 of 17 • Within the West EOA, the SEA overlay/designation shall apply only to the portion of the parcel or lot that are indicated as SEAs in the Land Use Policy Map (Map 2.1) of the AVAP; if a portion of such a lot has an SEA overlay/designation, only that portion of the lot shall be subject to the SEA regulations, not the entire lot notwithstanding Section 22.56.215 of the County Code; • Click here for a PDF of the Antelope Valley Area Plan SEA Map Changes (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/sea/AV_Changes.pdf) • All Materials submitted to the Board for the Antelope Valley Area Plan Update (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/89590.pdf) • Draft Antelope Valley Area Plan (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/89561.pdf) • Final Environmental Impact Report (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/89563.pdf) • Statement of Proceedings at the Board (Minutes) November 12, 2014 (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/sop/cms1_221597.pdf) (Refer to Agenda Item #64) • Video of Proceedings at the Board November 12, 2014 (http://bosvideoap.co.la.ca.us/mgasp/LACounty/VideoPlayer_NS.asp?VideoID=1771&ClipID=20480) (Project is Agenda Item #64) • Motion of Mayor Antonovich (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/89964.pdf) (Agenda Item #64) • Antelope Valley Area Plan Update Webpage (http://planning.lacounty.gov/tnc) SEPTEMBER 27, 2014 ANTELOPE VALLEY AREA PLAN AT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed update of the Antelope Valley Area Plan and the Draft EIR on Saturday, September 27, 2014 in the Antelope Valley. After hearing testimony from approximately 70 persons, the Commission closed the public hearing, and recommended approval of http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 6 of 17 the project to the Board of Supervisors with additional changes. The changes can be seen above in the map for the November 12th hearing of the Board or downloaded below. AV SEA Program Changes At the September 27th hearing the Regional Planning Commission brought forward the following changes to the Antelope Valley Area Plan regarding the SEA Program: “Add broader language in the Plan regarding SEAs and a future SEA ordinance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California
    Upper Piru Creek Wild Trout Management Plan 2012-2017 State of California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program South Coast Region Prepared by Roger Bloom, Stephanie Mehalick, and Chris McKibbin 2012 Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................. 3 Resource status ........................................................................................ 3 Area description ...................................................................................................... 3 Land ownership/administration ............................................................................... 4 Public access .......................................................................................................... 4 Designations ........................................................................................................... 4 Area maps............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1. Vicinity map of upper Piru Creek watershed ............................................ 5 Figure 2. Map of upper Piru Creek Heritage and Wild Trout-designated reach....... 6 Fishery description.................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Photograph of USGS gaging station near confluence of Piru and Buck creeks ..................................................................................................................... 7
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State
    Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters
    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Chapter 2 Program Description
    1 Chapter 2 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3 2.1 Introduction 4 2.1.1 Program Purpose 5 The purpose of the Proposed Program is to establish and implement a permitting program 6 for suction dredging activities consistent with the requirements of Fish and Game Code 7 section 5653 et seq. and the December 2006 Court Order. 8 2.1.2 Program Objectives 9 The objectives of the Proposed Program are as follows: 10 Comply with the December 2006 Court Order; 11 Promulgate amendments to CDFG’s previous regulations as necessary to 12 effectively implement Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.9 and other 13 applicable legal authorities to ensure that suction dredge mining will not be 14 deleterious to fish; 15 Develop a program that is implementable within the existing fee structure 16 established by statute for the CDFG’s suction dredge permitting program, as well 17 as the existing fee structure established by the CDFG pursuant to Fish and Game 18 Code section 1600 et seq.; 19 Fulfill CDFG’s mission to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant 20 resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values 21 and for their use and enjoyment by the public; 22 Ensure that the development of the regulations considers economic costs, 23 practical considerations for implementation, and technological capabilities 24 existing at the time of implementation; and 25 Fulfill the CDFG’s obligation to conserve, protect, and manage fish, wildlife, 26 native plants, and habitats necessary for biologically sustainable populations of 27 those species and as a trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources pursuant to 28 Fish and Game Code section 1802.
    [Show full text]
  • Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project
    DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project April 2005 This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project Prepared for Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91350 Prepared by April 2005 525 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR...................................................................................................1-4 1.4 Permits and Other Approvals Required to Implement the Project.............................1-4 1.5 Related Environmental Documentation .........................................................................1-5 1.6 Public Involvement Process..............................................................................................1-5
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 111-11
    PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 991 Public Law 111–11 111th Congress An Act To designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Mar. 30, 2009 Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. [H.R. 146] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus Public Land SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Management Act (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus of 2009. Public Land Management Act of 2009’’. 16 USC 1 note. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I—ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM Subtitle A—Wild Monongahela Wilderness Sec. 1001. Designation of wilderness, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Sec. 1002. Boundary adjustment, Laurel Fork South Wilderness, Monongahela Na­ tional Forest. Sec. 1003. Monongahela National Forest boundary confirmation. Sec. 1004. Enhanced Trail Opportunities. Subtitle B—Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness Sec. 1101. Definitions. Sec. 1102. Designation of additional National Forest System land in Jefferson Na­ tional Forest as wilderness or a wilderness study area. Sec. 1103. Designation of Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1104. Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1105. Trail plan and development. Sec. 1106. Maps and boundary descriptions. Sec. 1107. Effective date. Subtitle C—Mt. Hood Wilderness, Oregon Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • 28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In
    28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In response to a 12-20-99, federal court order won by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Jumping Frog Research Institute, the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service designated 4,138,064 acres of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The March 6, 2001 designation is comprised of 29 units spanning 28 California counties. UNIT ACRES COUNTY WATERSHEDS AND OWNERSHIP North Fork Feather 115,939 Butte Drainages within the North Fork Feather River watershed including the River Plumas French Creek watershed. 81% Plumas and Lassen National Forests, 19% mostly private land. Weber 59,531 El Dorado Drainages in Weber Creek and North Fork Cosumnes River watersheds. Creek-Cosumnes 64% private lands, 36% El Dorado National Forest Yosemite 124,336 Tuolumne Tributaries of the Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek, a tributary to the Mariposa Merced River 100% Stanislaus National Forest or Yosemite National Park. Headwaters of 38,300 Tehama Includes drainages within the headwaters of Cottonwood and Red Bank Cottonwood Creek creeks. 82 % private lands, 18% Mendocino National Forest. Cleary Preserve 34,087 Napa Drainages within watersheds forming tributaries to Pope Creek 88% private, 12% federal and state Annadel State Park 6,326 Sonoma Upper Sonoma Creek watershed found partially within Annadel State Preserve Park. 76% private, 24% California Department of Parks and Recreation Stebbins Cold 21,227 Napa Drainages found within and adjacent to Stebbins Cold Canyon Preserve Canyon Preserve Solano and the Quail Ridge Wilderness Preserve including watersheds that form Capell Creek, including Wragg Canyon, Markley Canyon, Steel Canyon and the Wild Horse Canyon watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • H. R. 2199 [Report No
    IB Union Calendar No. 313 116TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 2199 [Report No. 116–390] To designate certain Federal land in the State of California as wilderness, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APRIL 10, 2019 Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. HUFFMAN, and Ms. HILL of California) in- troduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Nat- ural Resources FEBRUARY 4, 2020 Additional sponsors: Ms. SPEIER, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DESAULNIER, Ms. PORTER, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. BARRAGA´N, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. PETERS, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. COSTA, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. LEVIN of California, Mr. CA´RDENAS, Mr. COX of California, Ms. SA´NCHEZ, Mr. AGUILAR, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. ROUDA, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. SOTO, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. CLAY, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. BERA, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CORREA, Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. BASS, and Mr. SWALWELL of California FEBRUARY 4, 2020 Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 10, 2019] VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:37 Feb 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6652 E:\BILLS\H2199.RH H2199 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 2 A BILL To designate certain Federal land in the State of California as wilderness, and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 Los Padres National R5-MB-078 Forest Strategy September 2005
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Management Plan Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Part 2 Los Padres National R5-MB-078 Forest Strategy September 2005 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, Write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Land Management Plan Part 2 Los Padres National Forest Strategy R5-MB-078 September 2005 Table of Contents Tables ....................................................................................................................................................v Document Format Protocols................................................................................................................ vi LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGY..................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • SOPA) 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Los Padres National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Los Padres National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) 01/01/2009 Page 1 of 24 Los Padres National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Geothermal Leasing - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2008 02/2009 Peter Gaulke Programmatic Environmental Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 703-605-4796 Impact Statement 06/13/2008 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 10/2008 Description: The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service are preparing a joint Programmatic Environmental Impac Statement to analyze the leasing of BLM and USFS administered lands with moderate to high potential for geothermal resources in 11 western states. Web Link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html Location: UNIT - Clearwater National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Bitterroot National Forest All Units, Lewis And Clark National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, San Juan National Forest All Units, White River National Forest All Units, Carson National Forest All Units, Cibola National
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Ventura County Rincon Rincon Creek consists of about 9.7 stream miles. It flows southwest, entering the Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point. The culvert at the Highway 101 crossing is a total passage barrier (Stoecker et al. 2002). A watershed plan prepared for Rincon Creek includes a review of historical steelhead information. The review notes O. mykiss stocking occurred in the 1940s and subsequently. Anecdotal accounts of trout observations from the 1950s to the 1980s also are included (Tetra Tech 2007; Stoecker et al. 2002). Rincon Creek was surveyed in 1993 and no fish were observed. The survey report states, “Sediment inputs from Casitas Creek are destroying downstream habitat” (Unknown 1993). A 1994 DFG memo relayed the results of surveys from that year. The memo states, “The Wheeler Fire [in 1985] could have been the event that eradicated rainbow trout from Rincon Creek, although there is anecdotal information from a landowner along Rincon Creek that suggests that the population was extirpated as early as the 1960’s” (DFG 1994a). The memo adds, “It appears that the Highway 101 culvert has prevented the recolonization of rainbow trout/steelhead in Rincon Creek” (DFG 1994a). Consultants surveyed Rincon Creek as part of a steelhead study, and observed O. mykiss likely representing one year class in 2001 (Stoecker et al. 2002). A 2002 memo from NMFS staff states, “Rincon Creek provides approximately 4 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat…” (NMFS 2002a). A 2002 study report notes water quality impacts on Rincon Creek from the large sediment load carried by Casitas Creek, a tributary (Stoecker et al.
    [Show full text]