DOCSLIB.ORG

5.0 Evaluation of Environmental Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5.0 Evaluation of Environmental Effects SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Environmental Checklist and discussion describes the impacts of the Project, as detailed in the Project Description. The Environmental Checklist is based on the questions provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Revised 2016). This checklist focuses on 17 different categories. If substantial evidence exists for impacts not described in the checklist, these impacts should also be considered. Potential environmental impacts are described as follows: Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. Less than Significant with Mitigation: An environmental impact that requires the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to less than significant level. Less than Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur; however, the impact would not be considered significant based on CEQA environmental standards. No Impact: No environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Project. 56 | Page SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST I. Aesthetics Would the Project: Environmental Issue Impact Impact Less Than Than Less Than Less Mitigation NoImpact Significant Significant Potentially Incorporated Significant with a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings, within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in X the area? Discussion: The Project is in an area of the City referred to as the Tahoe Sierra subdivision that can be characterized as a High Density Residential Subdivision including both apartment buildings and single-family homes. Surrounding land uses in the Project area include more High Density Residential, Commercial to the north along Hwy 50, and Open Space to the south and east of the Project. Both the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are uniformly consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances outlining the requirements for development for major scenic view corridors and vistas within the Lake Tahoe Basin and Project vicinity. The identified view corridors and vistas in the Lake Tahoe Basin provide views of both Lake Tahoe and the surrounding Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Other examples of scenic resources include areas of wildlife or open space, parks, trails, landmarks, rock outcroppings, etc. a & c) Less than Significant Impact. A majority of the Project elements would be constructed at the existing grade with the exception of directional signage and street light style poles. The project footprint can be described as a high density residential subdivision comprised mostly of single-family homes, accessory structures, small apartment buildings and a church. Depending on time of day there are numerous cars parked along the side of the roadway. Additionally, the Project is visible from TRPA Scenic Roadway Unit #35, which has low scenic quality and in contrast the Project would incrementally improve scenic quality (CSLT, 2017). As proposed, the Project would improve the overall aesthetic nature of the immediate project vicinity by providing orderly parking stalls and landscaping. b) No Impact. According to Caltrans’s Guidelines for the Official Designation of Scenic Highways, a Scenic Corridor is an area of land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway. Highway 50 from Echo Summit to the City limits is the nearest “Officially 57 | Page SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Designated” segment of state highway, which is 2.5 miles southwest of the Project1. Therefore, the Project has no impact on resources within a scenic highway. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Installation of new street lighting along the shared use and pedestrian paths would be necessary for pedestrian safety and security purposes. While there are existing light sources along Sierra Boulevard, the new light source from the addition of street lighting has the potential to increase nighttime lighting and adversely affect nearby residences with short setbacks to the street right-of- away and front facing windows. The City Zoning Code Section 6.10.160 – Exterior Lighting, requires that new light sources installed as part of a Project provide the minimum lighting levels to meet the performance standards. In addition, TRPA Code Section 36.8.1. – Exterior Lighting Standards, provides general standards for lighting including directing lights downward, installation of cut shielding if needed, and maximum fixture height based on appropriateness to the purpose of the lighting. Mitigation Measure AES-1 New light sources installed as part of the project shall provide the minimum lighting levels to meet security and safety purposes; shall be directed downward and away from adjacent residential areas; and shall be shielded, diffused, or indirect to reduce excessive glare into adjacent residential properties. The design engineer shall provide data to the City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works Staff or equivalent that shows the proposed lighting and resulting lighting levels to determine if excessive glare would extend into adjacent residential properties during the design phase of the project. 1 Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Nevada and Sierra Counties. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed June 06, 2017. 58 | Page SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Would the Project: Environmental Issue Impact Impact Less Than Than Less Than Less Mitigation NoImpact Significant Significant Potentially Incorporated Significant with a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland X Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland (including livestock grazing) to X non-agricultural use? Discussion: The Project site has historically been a residential neighborhood and not used for agricultural or timberland production. There are no agricultural uses near the Project site. a & e) No Impact. There is no Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland located in the Project area. There will be no impact on potential farmland development as a result of the Project. b) No Impact. The Williamson Act was enacted in 1965 and allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners that restrict the private land from use other than farmland or related open space. The private landowner receives a tax incentive and the land is thus preserved as farmland and not developed. There are no Williamson Act contracts in the Project vicinity, nor are there any agricultural zoning designations in the Project area. c & d) No Impact. According to California Public Resource Code Sections 4526, 12220(g), and 51104 (g), the Project is not located within a designated forest land, timberland, or 59 | Page SIERRA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Timberland Production Zone. Neither El Dorado County nor the City of South Lake Tahoe has designated the Project area as a significant forestland or timberland resource. There will be no potential for forestland development as a result of the Project. III. Air Quality Would the Project: Environmental Issue Impact Impact Less Than Than Less Than Less Mitigation NoImpact Significant Significant Potentially Incorporated Significant with a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing X emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Discussion: The Project is located in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin (LTAB), which extends into portions of El Dorado and Placer Counties in California,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 31. Grass Lake (Beguin and Major 1975, Burke 1987, Berg 1991A
    31. Grass Lake (Beguin and Major 1975, Burke 1987, Berg 1991a) Location This established RNA is in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in the Eldorado National Forest. It lies immediately W. of Luther Pass on State Highway 89 and is approximately 12 miles (19 km) SSE. of South Lake Tahoe. It lies within sects. 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 24 T11N, R18E MDBM (38°47'N., 119°59'W.), USGS Freel Peak quad (fig. 64). Ecological subsection – Glaciated Batholith and Volcanic Flows (M261Ek). Target Element Moss Bog Distinctive Features Significance of the Bog: Peatlands and bogs are rare in California. Grass Lake is Figure 64—Grass the largest Sphagnum bog in California and is considered the best representative Lake RNA floating bog in the Sierra Nevada (fig. 65). Grass Lake has been the focus of several scientific surveys including palynological and phytosociological research. Dashed line = Ecological study area; Solid gray line Varied and Pristine Environment: This is a large site with a complex association = RNA Boundary of habitats ranging from aquatic and meadow types through upland forest types. This diversity, along with a largely intact watershed surrounding the marshlands and meadows, contributes to the value of this site. This site supports a number of boreal plant species unusual in the Sierra Nevada. In addition, several species of plants occur locally at substantially lower elevations than typical elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada. Along with a few uncommon or disjunct plants, the wetlands support three species of carnivorous plants and four species of orchids. The plant associations are relatively pristine with virtually no introduced plants in the bog and meadow associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan
    Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan El Dorado and Placer Counties, California and Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada September 2007 Prepared by: Lake Tahoe Response Plan Area Committee (LTRPAC) Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan September 2007 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. First On-Scene (Fire, Law, EMS, Public, etc.) will notify local Dispatch (via 911 or radio) A complete list of Dispatch Centers can be found beginning on page R-2 of this plan Dispatch will make the following Mandatory Notifications California State Warning Center (OES) (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911 Nevada Division of Emergency Management (775) 687-0300 or (775) 687-0400 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Dispatch will also consider notifying the following Affected or Adjacent Agencies: County Environmental Health Local OES - County Emergency Management Truckee River Water Master (775) 742-9289 Local Drinking Water Agencies 2) After the Mandatory Notifications are made, use Notification (Red Tab) to implement the notification procedures described in the Immediate Action Guide. 3) Use the Lake Tahoe Basin Maps (Green Tab) to pinpoint the location and surrounding geography of the incident site. 4) Use the Lake and River Response Strategies (Blue Tab) to develop a mitigation plan. 5) Review the Supporting Documentation (White Tabs) for additional information needed during the response.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 5, 2019 - 2:00 P.M
    SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 5, 2019 - 2:00 p.m. District Board Room 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California Randy Vogelgesang, President BOARD MEMBERS Kelly Sheehan, Vice President Chris Cefalu, Director James R. Jones, Director Nick Exline, Director John Thiel, General Manager Shannon Cotulla, Assistant General Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (At this time, please silence phones and other electronic devices so as not to disrupt the business of the meeting.) 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Board on any short non-agenda items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. No discussion or action can be taken on matters not listed on the agenda, per the Brown Act. Each member of the public who wishes to comment shall be allotted five minutes, and no more than three individuals shall address the same subject.) 3. CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR (For purposes of the Brown Act, all Action and Consent items listed give a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed. Recommendations of the staff, as shown, do not prevent the Board from taking other action.) 4. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR (Any item can be removed to be discussed and considered separately upon request. Comments and questions from members of the public, staff or Board can be taken when the comment does not necessitate separate action.) 5. CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION/ACTION 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (Eips) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed
    Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (EIPs) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed: General Background The Upper Truckee River Community Watershed (UTRCW) is located in the southern side of the Lake Tahoe Basin primarily in eastern El Dorado County and partially in northern Alpine County. The UTRCW contains the subwatersheds of Camp Richardson (2,652 acres) as well as the Upper Truckee River (36,224 acres), of which is the largest watershed in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The total drainage area of the UTRCW is 69.7 square miles, and the main drainages are The Upper Truckee River, Angora Creek, Sawmill Pond Creek, Big Meadow Creek, and Grass Lake Creek. The northern portion of the watershed consists of the urban areas of South Lake Tahoe and Meyers, whereas the southern portion is primarily US Forest Service land managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The main channel of the Upper Truckee River is 21.4 miles long and originates in the volcanic bluffs surrounding Meiss Meadow near Carson Pass. The river then flows northward through a series of meadows and lakes until it reaches an 800-foot glacial step over, where it enters the head of Christmas Valley. The river flows through Christmas Valley until is it met by Angora Creek, downstream of the present-day Lake Tahoe Golf Course (LTGC). After converging with another unnamed tributary near the tenth hole of the LTGC, the UTR continues to flow northward through Sunset Ranch, the Lake Tahoe Airport, and to the eastern side of the Tahoe Keys through Cove East where it drains to Lake Tahoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe's Seven Summits
    Birds return to Lake Tahoe, page 4 Summer 2014 Drought offers TAHOE’S SEVEN SUMMITS good news, bad By Jeff Cowen news for Lake Tahoe In Depth By Jim Sloan The Lake may be this Region’s Tahoe In Depth most famous geographic feature, but it is Tahoe’s peaks that define our From the shoreline, a long-term landscapes and, at times, the course or severe drought seems to put of our lives. Daily, we glimpse them Lake Tahoe in dire straits. The water towering over our tedium, indelible recedes, streams dry up and the reminders of nature’s greatness and our shoreline beaches expand to expose own impermanence. Succumbing to a bathtub ring along the 72-mile their power, we climb them. shoreline. Some climbers are peak collectors, But from the water, things don’t “bagging” the major summits one by always look so bad. During a one. Others climb on a lark, impulsively drought, many of the pollutants joining friends and unprepared for the that affect Lake Tahoe’s clarity can’t Photo © Steve Dunleavy experience ahead. Regardless of our Pyramid Peak rises above the fog-choked Tahoe Basin. find their way to the Lake. Droughts paths, once we reach their summits, we slow down the rate of urban runoff, feel at once tiny and expansive, earth and rodents. Trees become shorter and neighborhoods. reducing erosion and the flow of fine and time stretching in all directions wider, until they disappear entirely. Our Climbers of even our most benign sediment and other water-clouding below us, the experience undeniably bodies change too.
    [Show full text]
  • Round Lake | El Dorado County | Tahoe Rim Trail
    Facebook Twitter Instagram DFW Fishing Guide DFW Fish Plants E. Sierra Fishing Guide Sierra Web Cams Sierrash.com HOME ABOUT LAKES STREAMS CONTACT SUBMIT REPORT Alpine glow at Round Lake PDFmyURL easily turns web pages and even entire websites into PDF! Fishing: Round Lake - (El Dorado County) 2/10 Tahoe Rim Trail Hiking: July 7, 2018 3/10 Scenery: 6/10 Getting There Solitude: To reach Round Lake in El Dorado County (Tahoe Rim Trail), drive to the Big Meadow Tahoe Rim trailhead by 2/10 taking Highway 89 towards Luther Pass. The trailhead parking lot is situated roughly 60 yards uphill from the actual trailhead. So park and walk down 89 until you see the sign on the lefthand side of the road. The parking Distance: can be sparse on weekends and holidays due to the trailhead being very popular. 3 mi 1-way Map: The Hike The hike to Round Lake is a moderate trek with a quick uphill, switchbacked section at the start. Once you have zigzagged up the intitial hill, you will be rewarded with some easy hiking through the ats of Big Meadow. Elevation Profile: Check out the plentiful Brook Trout in the stream while crossing the wooden bridge. Once you are through Big Meadow the ascents begin again and intensify until you reach the top of the hill. This section can be tiresome but it's worth it as you will be rewarded again with easy downhill trekking as you reach the next valley. Another mile of hiking brings you to the north side of Round Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River Between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California
    LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California Prepared by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ California Tahoe Conservancy (with assistance from ENTRIX, Inc.) Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Sarah Muskopf/Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Richard Vacirca/LTBMU Journey Level Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Shay Zanetti/LTBMU Journey Level Wildlife Biologist Approved by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Journey-level Fish/Wildlife Biologist Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project 1 LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION The Upper Truckee River is the largest source of sediment and nutrients to Lake Tahoe. The USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) and the California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) own and manage land along the Sunset Stables Reach of the Upper Truckee River. The Sunset Stables Reach has experienced active bank failures, channel widening, and degraded aquatic, riparian and meadow habitat. As a result, the
    [Show full text]
  • California Trail W R O MOUNTAINS H P I S Mount Jefferson Ive S SALMON MONTANA CORVALLIS E R M L E 10497Ft S E L MOUNTAINS a DILLON Orn 25 Er WISC
    B DALLAS S La Creole Creek R N E tte S ALEM I N O A B OZEMAN B ILLINGS e Y V r S T. PAUL C om plex m A WALLOWA 90 ive r MINNEAPOLIS 94 T N E R e la Y l N A ello iv M i SALMON RIVER R w sto n e iss U C R issip California Trail W r O M O U N TA IN S H p i S Mount Jefferson ive M S S ALMON MONTANA C OR VALLIS E R L E 10497ft s E L MOUNTAINS A DILLON orn 25 er WISC. te U E B igh iv Designated routes of the E Mary’s River Crossing 3200m u B L H D EA R TO O B R h TH M r California National Historic Trail sc M TS e G e d Riv D B AK ER O ow er G Long Tom River Crossing McC ALL U N P Additional routes T A SOUTH DAKOTA M INNESOTA N A I B B N N I S G S HER IDAN B e 29 90 S A H lle Scale varies in this north-looking EUGENE Jo Fourc he River A BEND h n Da R O perspective view spanning about A y River R Yellowstone O R 35 1,500 miles (2,400 km) from east N C loud Peak PIER R E B orah Peak Lake K to west. Topography derives from Pleasant 5 13187ft R R 12662ft A C ODY GREYBULL M GTOPO30 digital elevation data.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Technical Memo 3
    Technical 3 Memo C Appendix Appendix C Technical Memo 3 Hydrology and Hydraulics Review TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REVIEW September, 2008 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate the fresh water and recycled water facilities owned and operated by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) in Alpine County, California. The hydraulic capacity and operational management of the existing conveyance and storage structures will be evaluated, as well as the capacity required for potential new operational scenarios. In addition, the hydrology of the watershed areas that affect the District’s facilities will be reviewed. The components of the District’s fresh water system that were reviewed in this analysis include the West Fork of the Carson River, the Snowshoe Thompson #1 and #2 Ditches, Indian Creek, the Upper Dressler Ditch, Millich Ditch, the Upper and Lower Harvey Channels and Indian Creek Reservoir. The components of the District’s recycled water system reviewed in this analysis include the Harvey Place Reservoir and the Diamond Ditch system to the Upper Celio Dressler Ditch Diversion. SITE DESCRIPTION The District’s fresh water and recycled water facilities are located in northeastern Alpine County on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. The facilities analyzed in this memorandum extend from approximately Woodfords, California and Indian Creek Reservoir to the California/Nevada State line (Figure 1). The fresh water system begins with a diversion from the West Fork of the Carson River near Woodfords at an elevation of approximately 5,750 feet above sea level. Fresh water diverted from the West Fork of the Carson River is conveyed to Indian Creek Reservoir via the Snowshoe Thompson #1 and Upper Dressler Ditches (reference Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan's Tahoe
    MORGAN’S TAHOE By William A. Morgan 2nd Edition All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 Published by Memdewee Books LLC Cover Photo by Craig Morgan Printed in the United States of America FOREWORD The following is sort of a memoir, a series of articles about some of the experiences of the author while he lived and worked in the Lake Tahoe Basin of California and Nevada. During the period from the spring of 1965 to the fall of 1989, he was involved in a wide range of activities, some of which had considerable influence on the environment and the political situation in the Basin. As Forest Supervisor of the National Forest lands at Tahoe for nine years, followed by four and a half years as the Executive Director of the most controversial agency in existence at Tahoe during this period, he provides his unique perspective of happenings and accomplishments with which he was associated. Some of these tales might satisfy the curiosity of residents of Tahoe as well as those who visit the area and wonder, “How did that come about?” Or “What’s the story behind the 64 Acres?” Or “What happened to the Jennings Casino?” You can learn about those things in this book. Some of you will come across familiar names, too. Maybe your own. ~ 2 ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS These people provided me information and/or assistance, that helped make it possible for me to write this book, and I’m indebted to them. Dave Allessio – Retired USFS Lori Allessio – Retired USFS Virgil Anderson – Retired USFS Gary Cooper – Retired USFS Bill Craven – Fallen Leaf Jonathan Cook-Fisher Tom
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Accounts of Focal Aquatic Ecosystems And
    APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS Matthew D. Schlesinger and Erik M. Holst, editors Focal Aquatic Ecosystem: Upper Truckee River Upper Truckee River watershed, harvested land was By Erik M. Holst being grazed by dairy cattle, and indiscriminate, unregulated sheep grazing was occurring in those General areas not suitable for cattle (see Chapter 2; From its headwaters at approximately 2,804 Supernowicz pers. comm.). During this same period, m (9,200 ft), near Red Lake Peak, the Upper Truckee land use activities in the headwaters of the Upper River flows north for a distance of 34.6 km (21.5 mi) Truckee River were primarily limited to grazing; no into Lake Tahoe (CDFG 1987). Within the 146.6 commercial logging occurred. By the 1910s, the km2 (56.6 mi2) drainage, 24 tributaries flow into the development of a seasonal grazing allotment system Upper Truckee River (CDFG 1987). The Upper throughout the watershed dedicated land to specific Truckee River and the tributaries which make up the uses and limitations. The allotment system attempted Upper Truckee River Watershed comprise the to reduce the previous levels of resource damage and largest contribution to the waters of Lake Tahoe essentially eliminated indiscriminate sheep grazing (CWQCB 1999). (Supernowicz pers. comm.). However, four decades Using Moyle’s (1996) aquatic habitat later the California Department of Fish and Game classification, the Upper Truckee River can be noted the Upper Truckee River was experiencing divided into two aquatic habitat types: alpine streams erosion problems due to past cattle grazing (CDFG and mainstem rivers and their larger tributaries.
    [Show full text]