Carmel Pine Cone, June 3, 2016 (Main News)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
National Forest Genetic Electrophoresis Lab Annual Report 2003 – 2004 (FY04)
USDA FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST GENETICS LABORATORY (NFGEL) Annual Report 2003 – 2004 (FY04) 2480 Carson Road, Placerville, CA 95667 530-622-1609 (voice), 530-622-2633 (fax), [email protected] Report prepared December 2004 INTRODUCTION This report covers laboratory activities and accomplishments during Fiscal Year 2004. October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 Background NFGEL was established in 1988 as part of the National Forest System of the USDA-Forest Service. The focus of the lab is to address genetic conservation and management of all plant species using a variety of laboratory techniques including DNA analyses. NFGEL services are provided to managers within the Forest Service, other government agencies, and non- government organizations for assessing and monitoring genetic diversity. Purpose of Laboratory The purpose of the Laboratory is to analyze molecular genetic markers (protein and DNA) in plant material submitted by Forest Service employees and those from other cooperating entities. NFGEL provides baseline genetic information, determines the effect of management on the genetic resource, supports genetic improvement program, and contributes information in the support of conservation and restoration programs, especially those involving native and TES (threatened, endangered, and sensitive) species. Alignment to National Strategic Plan for FY04-08 NFGEL’s work aligns to the following National Strategic Plan measures: 1. Goal 1 (Reduce risks from catastrophic wildland fire) 2. Goal 2 (Reduce the impacts from invasive species). 3. Goal 4 (Help meet energy resource needs) 4. Goal 5 (Improve watershed condition) 5. Goal 6 (Mission related work in addition to that which supports the agency goals) NFGEL Projects NFGEL projects were processed to meet a variety of management objectives. -
CIP Report 2001-02
Fort Ord Reuse Authority Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 2001/2002 through 2020/2021 (Final Version – FORA Board Approval, 06/08/01) 1 Table of Contents Page No. I. Executive Summary 3, 4, 5 II. Obligatory Program of Projects – Description of CIP Elements a. Transportation/Transit Projects 6, 7, 8, 9 b. Potable Water Augmentation 10 c. Storm Drainage System Projects 11 d. Habitat Management Requirements 12 e. Public Facility (Fire Station) Requirements 13 f. Building Removal Program 14, 15, 16 g. Water and Wastewater Collection Systems 17 III. FY 2001/2002 through 2020/2021 CIP a. Transportation/Transit Element 18-22 b. Summary of Obligatory CIP Elements 23, 24 c. Summary Spreadsheet (Overall CIP) 25 Appendices A. Protocol for Review/Reprogramming of CIP 26 B. Summary of funded projects through 2000/2001 27-38 C. Protocol for “Candidate Projects” 39-42 as replacements to listed mitigative transportation projects Attachment A D. CIP Revenue Discussion 43-44 2 Executive Summary 1) Overview This Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is responsive to the capital improvement obligations defined under the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (BRP) as adopted by the FORA Board in June 1997. The BRP carries a series of mitigative project obligations defined in Appendix B of that plan as the Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). The PFIP, which serves as the baseline CIP for the reuse plan, is to be re-visited annually by the FORA Board to assure that required projects are implemented in a timely way to meet development needs. The PFIP was developed as a four-phase program spanning a twenty-year development horizon (1996-2015) and was based upon the best at-the-time forecasts of development patterns anticipated in concert with market absorption schedules for the area. -
Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report
Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report as of July 29, 2019 Public Resources Code 5096.310 Net Available for Enacted Bond Section Department/Program Appropriation* Appropriations** Proposed Balance §5096.310(a) Department of Parks and Recreation : Capital Outlay Projects 493,065,557 495,999,175 0 -2,933,618 (b) §5096.310(b) Department of Parks and Recreation : Stewardship Projects 17,661,973 17,661,973 0 0 §5096.310(c) Department of Parks and Recreation : Volunteers Projects 3,924,661 3,924,661 0 0 §5096.310(d) Department of Parks and Recreation : Locally-operated State Park Unit Grants 19,587,303 19,587,303 0 0 §5096.310(e) Department of Parks and Recreation : Office of Historic Preservation Grants 9,793,651 9,793,651 0 0 §5096.310(f) Department of Parks and Recreation : Per Capita Grants 379,854,866 379,828,335 0 26,531 §5096.310(g) Department of Parks and Recreation : Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris Grants 195,800,694 195,791,658 0 9,036 §5096.310(h) Department of Parks and Recreation : Riparian/Riverine Grants 9,789,935 9,789,483 0 452 §5096.310(i) Department of Parks and Recreation : Trail Grants 9,789,936 9,789,485 0 451 §5096.310(j) Department of Parks and Recreation : Murray-Hayden Grants 97,900,346 97,442,392 0 457,954 §5096.310(k) California Conservation Corps : State Projects 2,466,163 2,421,482 0 44,681 §5096.310(l) Department of Parks and Recreation : Zoos, Centers, Soccer Grants 84,682,916 84,679,008 0 3,908 §5096.310(m) Wildlife Conservation Board 261,632,536 262,612,879 0 -980,343 (a) §5096.310(n) California Tahoe Conservancy 49,264,259 -
Monterey County
Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Monterey County Salinas River The Salinas River consists of more than 75 stream miles and drains a watershed of about 4,780 square miles. The river flows northwest from headwaters on the north side of Garcia Mountain to its mouth near the town of Marina. A stone and concrete dam is located about 8.5 miles downstream from the Salinas Dam. It is approximately 14 feet high and is considered a total passage barrier (Hill pers. comm.). The dam forming Santa Margarita Lake is located at stream mile 154 and was constructed in 1941. The Salinas Dam is operated under an agreement requiring that a “live stream” be maintained in the Salinas River from the dam continuously to the confluence of the Salinas and Nacimiento rivers. When a “live stream” cannot be maintained, operators are to release the amount of the reservoir inflow. At times, there is insufficient inflow to ensure a “live stream” to the Nacimiento River (Biskner and Gallagher 1995). In addition, two of the three largest tributaries of the Salinas River have large water storage projects. Releases are made from both the San Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs that contribute to flows in the Salinas River. Operations are described in an appendix to a 2001 EIR: “ During periods when…natural flow in the Salinas River reaches the north end of the valley, releases are cut back to minimum levels to maximize storage. Minimum releases of 25 cfs are required by agreement with CDFG and flows generally range from 25-25[sic] cfs during the minimum release phase of operations. -
Biological Resources of the Del Monte Forest Special-Status Species
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEL MONTE FOREST SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEL MONTE FOREST PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Pebble Beach Company Post Office Box 1767 Pebble Beach, California 93953-1767 Contact: Mark Stilwell (831) 625-8497 Prepared by: Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 Contact: Michael Zander (415) 897-8781 Zander Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Plates 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................1 2.0 Overview of Special-Status Species in the DMF Planning Area...............................2 2.1 Species Occurrences...............................................................................................2 2.2 Special-Status Species Conservation Planning ......................................................2 2.3 Special-Status Species as ESHA ............................................................................7 3.0 Special-Status Plant Species ......................................................................................9 3.1 Hickman's Onion ....................................................................................................9 3.2 Hooker's Manzanita..............................................................................................10 3.3 Sandmat Manzanita ..............................................................................................10 3.4 Monterey Ceanothus.............................................................................................10 -
Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California State Parks (CSP) has prepared this General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carmel Area State Parks (CASP) to cover four separate park units located in Monterey County just south of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea: two classified units of the State Park System - Point Lobos State Natural Reserve (Reserve) and Carmel River State Beach (State Beach, and two unclassified properties - Point Lobos Ranch Property (Point Lobos Ranch) and Hatton Canyon Property (Hatton Canyon). T he park lands were acquired at different times Existing Proposed Park and for different purposes beginning in 1933 with the Reserve Units/Properties Units west of State Route (SR) 1. Acquisition of Carmel River State Point Lobos State Point Lobos State Beach began in 1953. The eastern parcel of the Reserve was Natural Reserve Natural Reserve added in 1962. Other parcels were soon added to the Reserve Carmel River State New State Park - north of Point Lobos and to the State Beach at Odello Farm. A Beach Coastal Area General Plan was adopted in 1979 for the Reserve and State Point Lobos Ranch New State Park - Beach. Point Lobos Ranch was later acquired by CSP in 1998 and Property Inland Area Hatton Canyon was deeded to CSP from the California Hatton Canyon New State Park - Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2001. This General Property Hatton Canyon Area Plan will supersede and replace the 1979 General Plan for the Reserve and State Beach, and include a new general plan for Point Lobos Ranch and Hatton Canyon. -
Abies Bracteata Revised 2011 1 Abies Bracteata (D. Don) Poit
Lead Forest: Los Padres National Forest Forest Service Endemic: No Abies bracteata (D. Don) Poit. (bristlecone fir) Known Potential Synonym: Abies venusta (Douglas ex Hook.) K. Koch; Pinus bracteata D. Don; Pinus venusta Douglas ex Hook (Tropicos 2011). Table 1. Legal or Protection Status (CNDDB 2011, CNPS 2011, and Other Sources). Federal Listing Status; State Heritage Rank California Rare Other Lists Listing Status Plant Rank None; None G2/S2.3 1B.3 USFS Sensitive Plant description: Abies bracteata (Pinaceae) (Fig. 1) is a perennial monoecious plant with trunks longer than 55 m and less than 1.3 m wide. The branches are more-or-less drooping, and the bark is thin. The twigs are glabrous, and the buds are 1-2.5 cm long, sharp-pointed, and non- resinous. The leaves are less than 6 cm long, are dark green, faintly grooved on their upper surfaces, and have tips that are sharply spiny. Seed cones are less than 9 cm long with stalks that are under15 mm long. The cones have bracts that are spreading, exserted, and that are 1.5–4.5 cm long with a slender spine at the apex. Taxonomy: Abies bracteata is a fir species and a member of the pine family (Pinaceae). Out of the fir species growing in North America (Griffin and Critchfield 1976), Abies bracteata has the smallest range and is the least abundant. Identification: Many features of A. bracteata can be used to distinguish this species from other conifers, including the sharp-tipped needles, thin bark, club-shaped crown, non-resinous buds, and exserted spine tipped bracts (Gymnosperms Database 2010). -
WHISLER WILSON RANCH Monterey, California CAMPING FEASIBILITY REPORT November 2013
WHISLER WILSON RANCH Monterey, California CAMPING FEASIBILITY REPORT November 2013 Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District . 2 Purpose of the Whisler Wilson Ranch Acquisition . 5 Site Context . 5 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 7 Existing Conditions Mapping . 8 Planning Considerations . 22 MARKET ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 25 Introduction . 26 Population Trends . 28 School Enrollment Trends . 31 Recreational Demand . 35 Recreational Supply . 39 SOCIO-POLITICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 53 Public Input . 54 Socio-Political Context . 64 FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 71 Recreational Use Spectrum . 72 Financial Analysis . 79 Estimated Construction Costs . 88 Next Steps . 91 SURVEY RESPONSES .......................................................................................................................... 93 | iii 1 INTRODUCTION Project Background • Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District • Purpose of the Whisler Wilson Ranch Acquisition • Site Context | 1 Context San -
PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK Monterey, California General Development Plan DRAFT May 2017 LIST of FIGURES Figure 1: Palo Corona Regional Park and Context
PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK Monterey, California General Development Plan DRAFT May 2017 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Palo Corona Regional Park and Context . 4 Figure 2: Parking at Main Entry . 17 Figure 3: South Bank Trail . 17 Figure 4: PCRP and Adjacent Open Space Properties . 19 Figure 5: Topography and Slope Analysis . 21 Figure 6: Soil Types . 22 Figure 7: Watersheds and Hydrology . 25 Figure 8: Vegetation Communities . 26 Figure 9: Opportunities and Constraints Diagram . 34 Figure 10: To Be Developed . XX Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District . 3 Palo Corona Ranch Acquisition . 3 Palo Corona Regional Park General Development Plan . 5 Site Context . 5 SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7 Summary of Existing Studies . 8 Off-Site Assessment . .. 16 On-Site Assessment . 20 Opportunities and Constraints . 35 PUBLIC OUTREACH ............................................................................................................................ 43 Initial Focus Group Meetings . 44 Open House and Public Forum . 50 Additional Focus Group Meetings . 54 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................................................... 59 Trails and Public Access Plan . XX Recreational Uses . XX Support Facilities and Special -
Units by Classification
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS UNITS BY CLASSIFICATION CULTURAL PRESERVES (CP): Marina SB (Marina Dunes NP) McGrath SB (Santa Clara Estuary NP) Carmel River SB (Ohlone Coastal CP) Montaña de Oro SP (Morro Dunes NP) Cuyamaca Rancho SP (Ah-Ha-Kwe-Ah-Mac/Stone- Morro Bay SP (Heron Rookery NP, Morro Estuary wall Mine CP, Cuish-Cuish CP, Kumeyaay Soapstone NP, Morro Rock NP) CP, Pilcha CP) Mount San Jacinto SP (Hidden Divide NP) Hungry Valley SVRA (Freeman Canyon CP, Gorman Natural Bridges SB (Monarch Butterfly NP, Moore CP, Tataviam CP) Creek Wetland NP) Millerton Lake SRA (Kechaye CP) Palomar Mountain SP (Doane Valley NP) Mount Diablo SP (Civilian Conservation Corps CP) Pescadero SB (Pescadero Marsh NP) Ocotillo Wells SVRA (Barrel Springs CP) Pismo SB (Pismo Dunes NP) San Simeon SP (Pâ-nu CP) Point Mugu SP (La Jolla Valley NP) Wilder Ranch SP (Wilder Dairy CP) Providence Mountains SRA (Mitchell Caverns NP) Red Rock Canyon SP (Hagen Canyon NP, Red Cliffs NATURAL PRESERVES (NP): NP) Salinas River SB (Salinas River Dunes NP, Salinas Anderson Marsh SHP (Anderson Marsh NP) River Mouth NP) Benicia SRA (Southampton Wetland NP) San Onofre SB (Trestles Wetlands NP) Big Basin Redwoods SP (Theodore J. Hoover NP) San Simeon SP (San Simeon NP, Santa Rosa Creek Border Field SP (Tijuana Estuary NP) NP) Burton Creek SP (Antone Meadows NP, Burton Silver Strand SB (Silver Strand NP) Creek NP) Sugar Pine Point SP (Edwin L. Z’berg NP) Calaveras Big Trees SP (Calaveras South Grove Sunset SB (Sunset Wetlands NP) NP) Torrey Pines SR (Ellen Browning Scripps NP, Los Carmel River SB (Carmel River Lagoon and Wet- Peñasquitos Marsh NP) land NP) Van Damme SP (Van Damme Pygmy Forest NP) Castle Rock SP (San Lorenzo Headwaters NP) Wilder Ranch SP (Wilder Beach NP) Chino Hills SP (Water Canyon NP) Woodson Bridge SRA (Woodson Bridge NP) Cuyamaca Rancho SP (Cuyamaca Meadow NP) Zmudowski SB (Pajaro River Mouth NP) Folsom Lake SRA (Anderson Island NP, Mormon Island Wetlands NP) REGIONAL INDIAN MUSEUMS: Harry A. -
Wallflower 2020 5-6 CNPS
The Newsletter of the California Native Plant Society Monterey Bay Chapter Erysimum menziesii https://chapters.cnps.org/montereybay/ May/June 2020 Using Native Plants To help with broom at Monterey’s Quarry Park, please contact Al Washburn at [email protected] for Fire Resistant Landscapes Volunteer in your State Park May 9, May 20, June 12, and General Meeting Speaker: Greg Rubin June 20. Go to [email protected] or 574- 9008 for details. Far from being the fire-bombs often depicted in the media, a native landscape can be an ecologically responsible You may find more stewardship opportunities on our approach to creating effective defensible space. Having had chapter’s website at https://chapters.cnps.org/montereybay/ over two dozen properties experience major fire events in FIELD TRIPS & EVENTS (registration info on the last page) San Diego county, not a single home was lost. Intrigued by ALL FIELD TRIPS, EVENTS, ETC. ARE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION his success, the US Navy picked Greg's company to conduct DUE TO COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS UNKOWN AT THE TIME OF a five-year research study into the effectiveness of California PUBLICATION. PLEASE CHECK ON MEETUP OR OUR WEBSITE TO native landscapes as enhanced defensible space. Greg’s Co- LEARN OF ANY CANCELLATIONS. Principle Investigator was Dr. Jon Keeley, one of the world's foremost fire ecologists. Greg will cover the startling Wednesday, May 6 Field Trip conclusions from the research, as well as general principles Limekiln State Park Trails, CNPS Members Only for successful native landscape design, installation, and The drive is a long one but, oh, so beautiful! On this CNPS maintenance. -
Report – September 2018
Agenda # 7-1 November 5, 2018 Meeting To: Board of Directors From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO Subject: Monthly Report – September 2018 Attached is a summary of monthly performance statistics for the Transportation, Maintenance, and Administration departments for September 2018 and a status update on progress made towards achieving FY 2019 Action Plan goals. September 13-14 I attended a meeting of the California Transit Association Executive Committee in San Diego.. September 22-25 I attended committee meetings and workshops at the American Public Transportation Association annual conference in Nashville, TN. Attachment #1 – Dashboard Performance Statistics September 2018 Attachment #2 – Operations Dept. Report – September 2018 Attachment #3 – Facilities & Maintenance Dept. Report September 2018 Attachment #4 – Administration Dept. Report – September 2018 Attachment #5 - FY 2019 Action Plan Update - September 2018 A complete detail of Monthly Performance Statistics can be viewed within the GM Report at http://www.mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/ PREPARED BY: _____________________________ Carl G. Sedoryk Blank Page MST Fixed Route ATTACHMENT 1 YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics September 2018 Fiscal Years 2017-2019 RidershipRidership 1,260,000 1,250,000 Goal = 1,255,067 1,255,067 1,240,000 passengers 1,230,000 1,244,768 1,220,000 1,210,000 1,220,252 Minimum = 1,192,314 1,200,000 1,190,000 passengers 1,180,000 1,170,000 1,160,000 FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total passenger boardings) PassengersPassengers