DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest (USDA 2016A); • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest (USDA 2016B)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest (USDA 2016A); • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest (USDA 2016B) Draft REVISED ‘INIMIM FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for March 2018 U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Yuba Watershed Institute Prepared by Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, PhD, Rebecca Robinson, MS, and Chris Friedel ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Bella Vista Foundation. Special thanks go to the Board of Directors of the Yuba Watershed Institute (Corinne Munger, Ann Hobbs, Bob Erickson, Kurt Lorenz, Gary Parsons, and Daniel Nicholson) for providing extensive comments and edits to earlier drafts, and to Jerry Tecklin for his detailed recollections of past treatments and uncommon plant populations. The data collection effort would not have been possible without the assistance of a stellar field crew, which included Rusty Fites-Kaufman, Casey Fites-Kaufman, and Nathaniel Van Order. TABLE OF CONTENTS Revised ‘Inimim Forest Management Plan 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 2. ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Natural Range of Variability .......................................................................................... 6 2.3 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Landscape Ecology ....................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Traditional Native American Use ................................................................................... 7 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................... 9 3.1 Ecological Groups: Vegetation, Topography, and Soils .............................................. 10 3.1.1 Productivity .............................................................................................................. 11 3.1.2 Topography .............................................................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Ecological Group Descriptions ................................................................................. 12 3.2 Old Forests .................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Habitat Connectivity .................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.4.1 Meadows ................................................................................................................. 17 3.4.2 Seeps and Springs .................................................................................................. 18 3.4.3 Riparian Areas ......................................................................................................... 18 3.4.4 Ponds ....................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Fire .............................................................................................................................. 18 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 20 4.1 Ecological Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 20 4.1.1 Ecological Resilience ............................................................................................... 20 4.1.2 Vegetation Composition and Structure .................................................................... 20 4.1.2.1 Landscape Scale .............................................................................................. 20 4.1.2.2 Patch and Within-Patch Scales ........................................................................ 22 4.1.2.3 Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 22 4.1.2.4 Uncommon Plants and Communities ............................................................... 23 4.1.3 Old Forest ................................................................................................................ 23 4.1.4 Fire as an Ecosystem Process ................................................................................ 23 4.1.5 Habitat Connectivity ................................................................................................. 24 4.1.6 Wetlands and Special Habitats ................................................................................ 24 4.1.7 Animal and Plant Species ........................................................................................ 24 4.2 Fire Safety and Fuels .................................................................................................. 24 4.2.1 Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 24 4.2.2 Safety ....................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.3 Prevention and Education ........................................................................................ 25 4.3 Sustainable Uses and Management ........................................................................... 25 4.4 Traditional Native American Uses ............................................................................... 25 4.5 Adaptive Management ................................................................................................ 25 i Revised ‘Inimim Forest Management Plan March 2018 Preliminary – Subject to Revision Table of Contents 5. MANAGEMENT APPROACHES ........................................................................................ 27 5.1 Practices ..................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.1 Emphasis ................................................................................................................. 27 5.1.2 Burning .................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.3 Thinning ................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.4 Invasive Plants ......................................................................................................... 27 5.1.5 Special Habitats ....................................................................................................... 28 5.1.6 Prioritization ............................................................................................................. 28 5.1.7 Extent of Treatments ............................................................................................... 28 5.1.8 Traditional Ecological Management ......................................................................... 28 5.1.9 Heterogeneity and Marking Guidelines .................................................................... 28 5.2 Treatment Types and Limitations by Vegetation Type and Environmental Setting ..... 29 5.3 Prioritizing Treatments ................................................................................................ 31 6. MONITORING ..................................................................................................................... 33 7. COMMONLY USED TERMS ............................................................................................... 34 8. LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX A. ECOLOGICAL GROUPS ................................................................................. 42 A.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 42 A.1.1 Classifications and Terminology used to Describe Vegetation ............................... 42 A.2 Ecological Group Descriptions .................................................................................... 43 A.3 Mapped Ecological Groups ......................................................................................... 44 A.3.1 Dry Productive ......................................................................................................... 44 A.3.2 Dry Low Productive ................................................................................................. 44 A.3.3 Moist Productive ...................................................................................................... 45 A.3.4 Moist Low Productive .............................................................................................. 45 A.3.5 Moderate Productive ............................................................................................... 46 A.3.6 Moderate Low Productive .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016
    SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS FOR YEAR ENDING 2016 (Government Code § 12599) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES SUMMARY 1 - 5 TABLE SUBJECT/TITLE 1 ALPHABETICAL LISTING BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 2 LISTING BY PERCENT TO CHARITY IN DESCENDING ORDER 3 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – GOODS PURCHASED FROM CHARITY 4 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – MANAGEMENT FEE/COMMISSION 5 VEHICLE DONATIONS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 6 COMMERCIAL COVENTURERS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION California Department of Justice November 2017 SUMMARY Every year Californians provide generous support to a wide array of charities, either directly or through commercial fundraisers that charities hire to solicit donations on their behalf. The term “commercial fundraiser” refers generally to a person or corporation that contracts with a charity, for compensation, to solicit funds. The commercial fundraiser charges either a flat fee or a percentage of the donations collected. By law, commercial fundraisers are required to register with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and file a Notice of Intent before soliciting donations in California. For each solicitation campaign conducted, commercial fundraisers are then required to file annual financial disclosure reports that set forth total revenue and expenses incurred. This Summary Report is prepared from self-reported information contained in the annual financial disclosure reports filed by commercial fundraisers for 2016 and includes statistics for donations of both cash and used personal property (such as clothing and vehicles) for the benefit of charity. Only information from complete financial reports received before October 20, 2017 is included.
    [Show full text]
  • North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2f59n5kg No online items North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Xiuzhi Zhou and Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2000 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining mssHM 51035-51130 1 Co. Records: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records Dates (inclusive): 1890-1891 Collection Number: mssHM 51035-51130 Creator: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company. Extent: 96 pieces in 1 box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection consists primarily of letters from the secretary to the president of the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company of Nevada County, California, in 1890-1891 related to the company and hydraulic mining. Language: English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item]. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Executive Summary Published March 2008 by The Sierra Fund The Sierra Fund’s Initiative to address legacy mining pollution has been made possible by the support of: The California Endowment The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and True North Foundation Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Is human health, water quality or the environment at risk from historic mining toxins? The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today. Working with partners from state, federal, and tribal governments as well as from the academic, health, and environmental communities, The Sierra Fund’s report “Mining’s Toxic Legacy” is the first comprehen- sive evaluation of what happened during the Gold Rush, including: the cultural, health, and environmental impacts of this era; the obstacles that lie in the way of addressing these impacts; and a strategic plan for taking action on the longest neglected environmental problem in the Golden State of California. The California Gold Rush clawed out of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada considerable gold—93 tons or 2.7 million troy ounces in the peak year of 1853 alone... In the course of doing so, everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)
    COM MENTS OF THE SAN JUAN RIDGE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN JUAN RIDGE MINE Submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department December 4, 2012 Sacramento Bee, December 31, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4 III. OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................8 A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................8 B. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................10 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .........14 A. THE EIR MUST CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT; CEQA DEMANDS AN ACCURATE, STABLE AND FINITE PROJECT DEFINITION THAT ADDRESSES THE “WHOLE OF THE ACTION” UNDER REVIEW. ...........................................................................................................14 1. The Proposed Action Should Be Described in a Manner that Provides for Full Disclosure and Evaluation of Potentially Significant Impacts ..............................................15 2. Additional Information Is Needed ..................................................................................19 B. CEQA REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY “SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract and Presentation by Steve Evans, Friends of the River
    PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS Reclaiming the Sierra Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines Reclaiming the Sierra: Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines May 3 - 5, 2012 Miners Foundry Nevada City, California Presented by THE SIERRA FUND INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A PASSIVE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO TREAT MINING INFLUENCED WATER FROM THE MAGENTA DRAIN PORTAL AT EMPIRE MINE STATE HISTORIC PARK, GRASS VALLEY, CA James Gusek, Lee Josselyn, William Agster, Steve Lofholm, and Daniel Millsap Abstract. Empire Mine State Historic Park (EMSHP) near Grass Valley, CA contains historic mine workings that flooded with ground water since the Empire Mine closed in 1957. Mining influenced water (MIW) perennially flows from portions of the underground workings via the Magenta Drain portal located near the northwest corner of the Park and into an unnamed channel. The MIW water has a neutral pH (no acid mine drainage), but contains elevated concentrations of iron, arsenic, manganese, and various other trace metals. Design treatment flows vary significantly from 20 gallons per minute to a maximum 100 year storm event level of 1,200 gallons per minute. Several active treatment alternatives were evaluated including traditional lime dosing and green sand; passive treatment technologies, including biochemical reactors were also considered. However, bench scale test results indicated that simple settling of suspended iron oxy-hydroxide (with co-precipitated arsenic) and passive aerobic precipitation of manganese oxide could meet regulatory mandated effluent limits. Passive treatment methods are economical, with lower initial capital costs, lower long term operations and maintenance costs and smaller carbon footprint than active treatment methods. Keeping with California’s Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Mission Statement, “to preserve the State’s extraordinary biological diversity and protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources,” the technology is green and sustainable which is critical since the passive treatment system (PTS) will, in principle, operate into perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
    SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • History of Mining on Spring Creek and Shady Creek
    History of Mining on Spring Creek and Shady Creek San Juan Ridge is between the Middle Yuba River and the South Yuba River. Fifty million years ago there were a series of gold bearing (auriferous) streams here in what geologists call the Tertiary Period. This was prior to the formation of the Sierra Nevada. Possibly 20 million but certainly by 10 million years ago the northern Sierra was uplifted and tilted to the west. This was a gradual process that caused the Yuba and other streams to flow generally westward. In the process the westerly flowing streams eroded portions of the tertiary streams releasing gold into the Feather, Yuba, Bear, and American River drainages. The streamside gold that was the impetus for the gold rush was, in large part, eroded from the ancient streams beds. Meanwhile segments of the tertiary channels were left intact as gravel beds on present- day ridges. In many places there is a volcanic lava cap covering the tertiary gravels but on the lower San Juan Ridge, between North Columbia and French Corral, the lava cap has eroded away. Easy access to tertiary gravels combined with sufficient water to mine them facilitated mining in the area. The headwaters of Spring Creek and Shady Creek are near the junction of two large tertiary streams “where the auriferous gravel deposits are extensive” (Mac Boyle 1919:100, Lawler:1989). 1849 – 1853 The first recorded placer gold mining on Shady Creek was in 1850. The miners were Cherokee Indians who had their own homeland overrun and mined for placer gold beginning in 1829.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Consent Items 2. Financial Report 3. Operations Report 4. State Water Project Activities 5. Manager's Report 6. Enginee
    Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Regular Board Meeting March 09, 2021, 8:30 AM NOTICE: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held entirely by web access and teleconference. The public can view or listen to the meeting and offer public comment by logging/calling into the following web address/conference line at the time the meeting is scheduled: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/82838297904 Meeting ID: 828 3829 7904 Password: 013638 Telephone Dial-in: (669) 900-6833 Any changes to this information will be posted on the District’s website (www.rrbwsd.com) at or before the meeting is called to order. Please check the District’s website if you are unable to hear the meeting. 1. CONSENT ITEMS a) Regular Board Meeting Minutes- February 9, 2021 2. FINANCIAL REPORT a) Treasurer’s Report b) Accounts Payable c) Revenue and Expenditures Report 3. OPERATIONS REPORT a) District Groundwater Levels Report b) Operations Report c) Maintenance Report d) Consideration of Encroachment Permit 4. STATE WATER PROJECT ACTIVITIES a) Update on State Water Project Operations b) California Delta Conveyance Project 5. MANAGER’S REPORT a) Operational Exchange Agreement 6. ENGINEER’S REPORT a) Onyx Ranch i. Operations Report b) Drought Relief Project i. Status Report ii. Consideration of Pumping Plant Flow Meter Replacement c) Recharge and Conveyance Projects i. Consideration of SCADA Flow Measurement Improvements 7. COMMITTEE/SPECIAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES a) Groundwater Banking Authority b) James Groundwater Banking Authority c) Kern Groundwater Authority d) Rosedale Management Area Committee i. Ratification of Accounting Platform Technical Services Agreement ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada County History, Museums and Historical Sites
    Nevada County History, Museums and Historical Sites The Gold Rush History of Grass Valley and Nevada City The calendar may say 21st Century, but all around the Gold Rush towns of Nevada City and Grass Valley it looks, feels and even sounds like the 1850s. A trend in historical tourism has brought more visitors to this history-rich region on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. Here, visitors will discover quaint villages with fine examples of restored Gold Rush architecture, museums filled with gold mining, railroad and Donner Party memorabilia, and living history demonstrations with costumed characters from the past. Truckee’s Rich History The Truckee-Donner Summit area is known as the site where the emigrant Donner Party was trapped beneath the snows of 1846, however Truckee’s era as a mountain community began a few years later. Modern day Truckee originated in 1863 when a man named Gray built an outpost that would become known as Gray’s Station. The station was later purchased by a man named Coburn and became known as Coburn’s Station. During Coburn’s ownership, the growing community befriended a local Paiute Indian chief, whose name was pronounced “tro-kay,” meaning “all is well” in the Paiute language. The town of Truckee derives its name from this colorful individual who made himself known by his friendly assistance to thousands of westward-bound emigrants. In the years to come, a lumber industry grew and the Central Pacific Railroad would come through town. The ice mills of the tiny community of Boca packed ice in sawdust and shipped it to San Francisco in the pre-refrigerator days.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California
    State of California California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California September 2017 Dams Listed Alphabetically by County Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California Dams Listed Alphabetically By County September 2017 Photo used with permission from the City and County of San Francisco DSOD – Data Definitions – Page i Dam Number Unique identification number used for inventorying dams in California based on the jurisdictional status of a dam. This number is assigned and used by the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). National Inventory of Dams Identification Number (National ID No.) Unique identification number used for inventorying dams in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ National Inventory of Dams (NID) database. DSOD is responsible for assigning this number for dams in California. Dam Name The dam name as given by the owner, which may not be unique and may differ from the name of the lake. Owner Name The entity or person with legal responsibility for the dam. Owner Type Owners are organized into the following categories: Associations (Home Owners Associations, etc.) City, city agency, or city district County, county agency, or county district Individual owner/Private citizen (Owner Name not provided) Park, sanitation, utility, or water district Private company, corporation, LLC, or partnership Private trusts and estates State Agency Water agency or authority Dam Height Vertical distance from the downstream toe of the dam to the dam crest (measured in feet). Crest Length Distance measured along the dam crest from one abutment to the other (measured in feet).
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region
    Special Report 245 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION: CONCRETE AGGREGATE IN THE GREATER SACRAMENTO AREA PRODUCTION-CONSUMPTION REGION 2018 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AGENCY DAVID BUNN JOHN LAIRD DIRECTOR SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WILLIAM R. SHORT, ACTING STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2018 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. “The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. SPECIAL REPORT 245 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION: CONCRETE AGGREGATE IN THE GREATER SACRAMENTO AREA PRODUCTION-CONSUMPTION REGION By Matt D. O’Neal and Fred W. Gius (PG 7788) 2018 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICES: Southern California Regional Office Library and Headquarters Office Bay Area Regional Office 320 West 4th Street, Suite 850 801 K Street, MS 14-31 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Sacramento, CA 95814-3531 San Mateo, CA 94403 (213) 239-0878 (916) 445-5716 (650) 350-7301 Table of Contents INDEX OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii PART I – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]