DOCSLIB.ORG

66814 FSPLT2 054055.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
66814 FSPLT2 054055.Pdf 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. ii Table of Contents Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Description of the Allotments ............................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Dexter Creek Allotment .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 June Lake Allotment ................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Mono Mills Allotment ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.4 Mono Sand Flat Allotment .......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Desired Condition ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 Desired Condition for Range ....................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Desired Condition for Water Quality .......................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Desired Condition for Hydrologic and Soil Function .................................................................. 9 1.4.4 Desired Condition for Air Quality ..............................................................................................10 1.4.5 Desired Conditions for Wildlife .................................................................................................10 1.5 Forest Plan Direction .........................................................................................................................10 1.5.1 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988) ..........................................10 1.5.2 LRMP Amendment #6 – Forest-wide Range Utilization Standards (1995) ...............................10 1.5.3 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004) ..........................................................................11 1.5.4 Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (Scenic Area Plan) (1989) 11 1.6 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................12 1.6.1 Comment and Scoping Period ....................................................................................................12 1.6.2 Native American Consultation ...................................................................................................12 1.6.3 Issues ..........................................................................................................................................13 Chapter 2 Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................14 2.2 Alternative Development Process .....................................................................................................14 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study .....................................................14 2.3.1 Sage Grouse Conservation Alternative .......................................................................................14 2.3.2 Resource Conservation Alternative ............................................................................................15 2.3.3 Current Management Alternative ...............................................................................................15 2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail .....................................................................................................15 2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) ....................................................................................15 2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ................................................................................................16 2.5 Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................................23 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 26 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................26 iii 3.2 Effects Relative to Range Resources ................................................................................................27 3.2.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................27 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................29 3.3 Effects Relevant to Hydrologic Resources, Soil, and Air Quality ..................................................38 3.3.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................38 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................46 3.4 Effects Relative to Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................52 3.4.1 Existing Condition ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5 Effects Relative to Aquatic Wildlife .................................................................................................79 3.5.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................79 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................84 3.6 Effects Relative to Plants and Noxious Weeds .................................................................................85 3.6.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................85 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................88 3.7 Effects Relative to Cultural Resources .............................................................................................91 3.7.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................91 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................95 3.8 Effects Relative to Socio-Economic Factors.....................................................................................97 3.8.1 Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................97 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................98 3.9 Effects Relative to Finding of No Significance (FONSI) Elements ..............................................100 Chapter 4 Lists ............................................................................................................... 105 4.1 Agencies and Persons Consulted.....................................................................................................105 4.2 References Cited...............................................................................................................................105 APPENDIX A: Allotment Maps ..............................................................................................................115 APPENDIX B: Amendment #6 Matrices .................................................................................... 121 APPENDIX C: Capability and Suitability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE YOSEMITE by John Muir CHAPTER I The
    THE YOSEMITE By John Muir CHAPTER I The Approach to the Valley When I set out on the long excursion that finally led to California I wandered afoot and alone, from Indiana to the Gulf of Mexico, with a plant-press on my back, holding a generally southward course, like the birds when they are going from summer to winter. From the west coast of Florida I crossed the gulf to Cuba, enjoyed the rich tropical flora there for a few months, intending to go thence to the north end of South America, make my way through the woods to the headwaters of the Amazon, and float down that grand river to the ocean. But I was unable to find a ship bound for South America--fortunately perhaps, for I had incredibly little money for so long a trip and had not yet fully recovered from a fever caught in the Florida swamps. Therefore I decided to visit California for a year or two to see its wonderful flora and the famous Yosemite Valley. All the world was before me and every day was a holiday, so it did not seem important to which one of the world's wildernesses I first should wander. Arriving by the Panama steamer, I stopped one day in San Francisco and then inquired for the nearest way out of town. "But where do you want to go?" asked the man to whom I had applied for this important information. "To any place that is wild," I said. This reply startled him. He seemed to fear I might be crazy and therefore the sooner I was out of town the better, so he directed me to the Oakland ferry.
    [Show full text]
  • No Ring Fracture in Mono Basin, California
    No ring fracture in Mono Basin, California Wes Hildreth, Judy Fierstein†, and Juliet Ryan-Davis§ Volcano Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT influenced its vent pattern. The apparently rhyolite volcanoes. Kistler mapped a shear zone arcuate chain actually consists of three lin- in Mesozoic granitoids that he interpreted as a In Mono Basin, California, USA, a near- ear segments that reflect Quaternary tec- segment of a much broader ring fracture that he circular ring fracture 12 km in diameter was tonic influence and not Cretaceous inheri- postulated to circle beneath the youthful chain proposed by R.W. Kistler in 1966 to have tance. A rhyolitic magma reservoir under of Mono Craters’ rhyolite domes (Fig. 2). The originated as the protoclastic margin of the the central segment of the Mono chain has following critique of Kistler’s ring fracture hy- Cretaceous Aeolian Buttes pluton, to have erupted many times in the late Holocene and pothesis does not diminish our admiration for been reactivated in the middle Pleistocene, as recently as 700 years ago. The ring frac- his pioneering geologic investigation of one of and to have influenced the arcuate trend of ture idea, however, prompted several geo- the more complex and precipitous terrains of the the chain of 30 young (62–0.7 ka) rhyolite physical investigations that sought a much western USA. domes called the Mono Craters. In view of broader magma body, but none identified a Our reinvestigation assembles geologic and the frequency and recency of explosive erup- low-density or low-velocity anomaly beneath geophysical evidence that bears upon the ring tions along the Mono chain, and because the purported 12-km-wide ring, which we fracture hypothesis and Quaternary magmatism.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Ecosystems
    TWENTY-NINE Alpine Ecosystems PHILIP W. RUNDEL and CONSTANCE I. MILLAR Introduction Alpine ecosystems comprise some of the most intriguing hab­ writing about the alpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada, felt itats of the world for the stark beauty of their landscapes and his words were inadequate to describe “the exquisite beauty for the extremes of the physical environment that their resi­ of these mountain carpets as they lie smoothly outspread in dent biota must survive. These habitats lie above the upper the savage wilderness” (Muir 1894). limit of tree growth but seasonally present spectacular flo­ ral shows of low-growing herbaceous perennial plants. Glob­ ally, alpine ecosystems cover only about 3% of the world’s Defining Alpine Ecosystems land area (Körner 2003). Their biomass is low compared to shrublands and woodlands, giving these ecosystems only a Alpine ecosystems are classically defined as those communi­ minor role in global biogeochemical cycling. Moreover, spe­ ties occurring above the elevation of treeline. However, defin­ cies diversity and local endemism of alpine ecosystems is rela­ ing the characteristics that unambiguously characterize an tively low. However, alpine areas are critical regions for influ­ alpine ecosystem is problematic. Defining alpine ecosystems encing hydrologic flow to lowland areas from snowmelt. based on presence of alpine-like communities of herbaceous The alpine ecosystems of California present a special perennials is common but subject to interpretation because case among alpine regions of the world. Unlike most alpine such communities may occur well below treeline, while other regions, including the American Rocky Mountains and the areas well above treeline may support dense shrub or matted European Alps (where most research on alpine ecology has tree cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis Californiana) and Proposed Taxonomic Revision; Proposed Rule
    Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) and Proposed Taxonomic Revision; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:27 Jul 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25JYP2.SGM 25JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 40956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (TDD), call the Federal Information including or excluding any areas that Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. exhibit those impacts; and Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (6) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 50 CFR Part 17 Public Comments Solicited critical habitat in any way to provide for RIN 1018–AV05 We intend that any final action greater public participation and resulting from this proposal will be as understanding, or to better Endangered and Threatened Wildlife accurate and as effective as possible. accommodate public concerns and and Plants; Designation of Critical Therefore, we seek comments or comments. Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn suggestions on this proposed rule. We If you wish to comment, you may Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) particularly seek comments concerning: submit your comments and materials and Proposed Taxonomic Revision (1) The reasons why we should or concerning this proposal by any one of should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical several methods (see ADDRESSES). If you AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 use e-mail to submit your comments, Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Finalized Critical Habitat
    Tuesday, August 5, 2008 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) and Taxonomic Revision; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:15 Aug 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05AUR2.SGM 05AUR2 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES2 45534 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR listing rule published in the Federal show a unique fixed haplotype for O. c. Register on January 3, 2000 (65 FR 20) californiana from the Sierra Nevada Fish and Wildlife Service and the proposed critical habitat rule (Ramey 1995, p. 433). Based on this published in the Federal Register on finding, bighorn sheep from the Sierra 50 CFR Part 17 July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40955). Nevada could be distinguished from [FWS–R8–ES–2008–0014; 92210–1117– The bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) populations of other subspecies of 0000–B4] is a large mammal in the family Bovidae bighorn sheep (Ramey 1995, p. 433). described by Shaw in 1804 (Shackleton Results indicated that significant RIN 1018–AV05 1985, p. 1). Cowan (1940, pp. 519–569) differences in mtDNA haplotype recognized several subspecies based on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife frequencies can be found among geography and skull measurements. populations that are adjacent to one and Plants; Designation of Critical Recent genetic (Ramey 1993, pp. 62–86; Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn another and separated by short 1995, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Mono County Community Development Department P.O
    Mono County Community Development Department P.O. Box 347 Planning Division P.O. Box 8 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Bridgeport, CA 93517 (760) 924-1800, fax 924-1801 (760) 932-5420, fax 932-5431 [email protected] www.monocounty.ca.gov March 2007 MONO BASIN WATERSHED ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction Watershed approach California watershed programs and Mono County’s involvement What is a watershed assessment? Publicly perceived problems and issues Water quantity Water quality Aquatic habitat Recreation Wildfire Invasive species List of assorted issues Publicly perceived key resources Driving questions Watershed boundaries 2. Descriptive geography Climate Precipitation Snowpack Air temperature Wind Evaporation Climate change impacts Topography Geology and soils Upland vegetation Special-status plants Wildfire history and risk 3. Riparian areas and wetlands Rush Creek Parker Creek Walker Creek Bohler Creek Horse Creek Lee Vining Creek Post Office Creek Mill Creek Planning / Building / Code Compliance / Environmental / Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) / Local Transportation Commission (LTC) / Regional Planning Advisory Committees (RPACs Wilson Creek DeChambeau Creek 4. Fish and wildlife Fish Invasive species Wildlife 5. Human history and land use Land use Agriculture Timber harvesting Mining Gravel extraction Roads Hydroelectric development Residential development Recreation Land ownership and interagency cooperation 6. Descriptive hydrology Runoff generation processes Water balance Streamflow averages and extremes Floods and droughts Lakes Groundwater Diversions and storage Water rights, use and management Domestic water systems Lee Vining Public Utility District Lundy Mutual Water Company June Lake Public Utility District Conway Ranch Wastewater treatment and disposal 7. Descriptive geomorphology Stream channels Surface erosion Hillslope processes Sediment transport Human influences Restoration 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Guide
    G 83 after a major snowfall. major a after Note: Service to stops 15, 16, 17, and 18 may stop stop may 18 and 17, 16, 15, stops to Service Note: Third Class Mail Class Third Postage and Fee Paid Fee and Postage US Department Interior of the December 17, 2008 - February 17, 2009 17, February - 2008 17, December Guide Yosemite Park National Yosemite America Your Experience US Department Interior of the Service Park National 577 PO Box CA 95389 Yosemite, Experience Your America Yosemite National Park Vol. 34, Issue No.1 Inside: 01 Welcome to Yosemite 05 Programs and Events 06 Services and Facilities 10 Special Feature: Lincoln & Yosemite Dec ‘08 - Feb ‘09 Yosemite Falls. Photo by Christine White Loberg Where to Go and What to Do in Yosemite National Park December 17, 2008 - February 17, 2009 Yosemite Guide Experience Your America Yosemite National Park Yosemite Guide December 17, 2008 - February 17, 2009 Welcome to Yosemite Keep this Guide with You to Get the Most Out of Your Trip to Yosemite National Park information on topics such as camping and hiking. Keep this guide with you as you make your way through the park. Pass it along to friends and family when you get home. Save it as a memento of your trip. This guide represents the collaborative energy of the National Park Service, The Yosemite Fund, DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Yosemite Association, The Ansel Adams Gallery, and Yosemite Institute—organizations dedicated to Yosemite and to making Illustration by Lawrence W. Duke your visit enjoyable and inspiring (see page 11).
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
    lEe ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE SIERRA NEVADA BIGHORN SHEEP Final Economic Analysis | May 20, 2008 prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 prepared by: Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 INDUSTRIAL ECONOM I CS , INCORPORATED lEe May 20, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 CHAPTER 1 FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS 1-1 1.1 Background 1-2 1.2 Categories of Potential Economic Effects of Species Conservation 1-3 1.3 Analytic Framework and Scope of the Analysis 1-8 1.4 Information Sources 1-17 1.5 Structure of the Report 1-18 CHAPTER 2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO GRAZING 2-1 2.1 Impacts to Grazing and Sheep Operations in the Study Area 2-1 2.2 Pre-Designation Baseline Impacts 2-11 2.3 Post-Designation Baseline Impacts 2-11 2.4 Post-Designation Incremental Impacts 2-12 2.5 Regional Economic Analysis of Grazing Restrictions 2-13 2.6 Sources of Uncertainty 2-16 CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT 3-1 3.1 Habitat Management Activities 3-1 3.2 Habitat Management for Mining Activities 3-3 3.3 Pre-Designation Baseline Impacts 3-6 3.4 Post-Designation Baseline Impacts 3-7 3.5 Post-Designation Incremental Impacts 3-8 3.6 Sources of Uncertainty 3-9 CHAPTER 4 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO RECREATION 4-1 4.1 Recreational Activities in Bighorn Sheep Habitat 4-1 4.2 Pre-Designation Baseline Impacts 4-5 4.3 Post-Designation Baseline Impacts 4-5 4.4 Post-Designation Incremental Impacts 4-6 4.5 Sources of Uncertainty 4-7 REFERENCES R-1 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED APPENDIX A SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS AND ENERGY IMPACTS ANALYSIS A-1 APPENDIX B PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT MAPS B-1 APPENDIX C DETAILED UNIT BY UNIT IMPACTS C-1 APPENDIX D DETAILED CALCULATIONS FOR GRAZING IMPACTS D-1 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED lEe May 20, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Canterbury\My Documents
    Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) May 2003 Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: The Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep was developed by the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with: National Park Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Director, California Department of Fish and Game XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Director, National Park Service XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Primary Author The primary author of this recovery plan is: John D. Wehausen, Ph.D. University of California White Mountain Research Station 3000 East Line St. Bishop, CA 93514 The recovery plan was written with the assistance of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team (see Acknowledgments). i Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometime preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and other Federal agencies, Tribes, and other affected and interested parties involved. Recovery plans do not obligate cooperating or other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Director, Regional Director, or California/Nevada Operations Manager as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    United States Department of the Interior Pacific Southwest Region FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Reno Fish and Wildlife Office 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234 Reno, Nevada 89502 Ph: (775) 861-6300 ~ Fax: (775) 861-6301 June 12, 2018 File No. 2018-F-0098 Tammy Randall-Parker Forest Supervisor Inyo National Forest 351 Pacu Lane Bishop, California 93514 Subject: Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan (Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mono, and Tulare Counties, California and Esmeralda and Mineral Counties, Nevada) INTRODUCTION This document represents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed revision of the Inyo National Forest (Inyo NF) Land Management Plan (LMP), and its effects on seven federally- listed species and their designated critical habitat, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). Your request for formal consultation and Biological Assessment (BA) were received by the Service on November 14, 2017. The USFS determined that six programs/activities (Fire Management, Vegetation and Fuels Management, Range Management, Recreation Management, Restoration Activities, and Roads and Other Infrastructure) in the revised LMP would adversely affect the federally-listed as threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT; Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT; Oncorhynchus clarkiii seleniris), and Yosemite toad (YT; Anaxyrus canorus), and the federally-listed as endangered Owens tui chub (OTC; Gila bicolor ssp. snyderi), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF; Rana sierrae), Northern Distinct Population Segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF; Rana muscosa), and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS; Ovis canadensis sierrae).
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California
    STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS WILDERNESS AREAS Mineral Resources of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California By U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY and U.S. BUREAU OF MINES A. Regional Setting, Geology, and Geechemical Studies of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California By N. KING HUBER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SuRVEY B. Geophysical Studies of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California By HOWARD W. OLIVER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SuRVEY C. Geothermal-Resource Evaluation of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California By ROY A. BAILEY, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SuRVEY D. Economic-Mineral Appraisal of the Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California By HORACE K. THURBER, MICHAEL S. _MILLER, C. THOMAS HILLMAN, DAVIDS. LINDSEY, and RICHARD W. MORRIS, U.S. BUREAU OF MINES STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS - WILDERNESS AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1516-A-D An evaluation of the mineral potential of the area UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1982 • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Mineral resources of the Minarets Wilderness and adjacent areas, Madera and Mono Counties, California. (Geological Survey bulletin ; 1516-A-D) Bibliography: p. 154-160 Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:1516-A-D 1. Mines and mineral resources--California. I. United States. Geological Survey. II. United States. Bureau of Mines. ! III. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Bulletin 1516-A-D. QE75.B9 no. 1516-A-D 557.3s 81-607191 [TN24.C2J [553'09794'48] AACR2 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.
    [Show full text]
  • Lanning Commission Agenda
    MONO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PO Box 347 PO Box 8 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Bridgeport, CA 93517 760.924.1800, fax 924.1801 760.932.5420, fax 932.5431 [email protected] www.monocounty.ca.gov AGENDA September 12, 2013 – 10 a.m. Supervisors Chambers, County Courthouse, Bridgeport *Videoconference: BOS Conference Room, third floor, Sierra Center Mall, Mammoth Lakes Full agenda packets, plus associated materials distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public review at the Community Development offices in Bridgeport (Annex 1, 74 N. School St.) or Mammoth Lakes (Minaret Village Mall, above Giovanni’s restaurant). Agenda packets are also posted online at www.monocounty.ca.gov / boards & commissions / planning commission. For inclusion on the e- mail distribution list, interested persons can subscribe on the website. 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Opportunity to address the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda 3. MEETI NG MINUTES: Review and adopt minutes of August 8, 2013. – p. 1 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10:10 A.M. A. USE PERMIT APPLICATION UP 13-001/West Portal Wireless Telecommunications Facility – p. 4 would allow for the development, operation, and maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility on the west side of US Highway 395 (APN 014-020-001), between the communities of Lee Vining and June Lake. The project consists of a 50’ x 50’ lease area with a 60’ monopole, designed for three future carriers, surrounded by a 6’ chain-link fence. Verizon will be the initial user of the site.
    [Show full text]