DOCSLIB.ORG

EIP Coordination and Measuring Progress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EIP Coordination and Measuring Progress document review 7/15/09 Restoration in Progress Environmental Improvement Program Update planning horizon 2008–2018 Restoration in Progress table of contents The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 Environmental Improvement Program 3 56 Executive Summary Recreation & Scenic Resources Lake Tahoe: A National Treasure It’s our moral obligation to be faithful 18 67 stewards of our Watersheds, Habitat, Applied Science ‘ ‘ & Water Quality heritage and protect this area for futur‘‘ e generations. So that’s why 42 79 we’re here Forest Management Program Support today. Vice President Al Gore Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum July 27, 1997 50 82 Air Quality & Transportation EIP Coordination and Measuring Progress — 2 The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — Executive Summary LAKE TAHOE: A NATIONAL TREASURE Lake Tahoe is one of the largest, deepest, and clearest lakes in the world. Its cobalt blue appearance, spectacular alpine setting, and remarkable water clarity is recog - nized worldwide. The Lake’s earliest inhabitants, the Washoe Tribe, demonstrated a deep respect for the fragile environment that was their home and still revere this magnificent place. Recreational opportunities and scenic vistas have made Lake Tahoe a top national and international tourist destination. Like many national treasures, the Lake Tahoe Basin is threatened by the impacts of the land use and transportation patterns devel - oped in the last generation. The Lake's water clarity declined by nearly a foot every year from the late 1960s to the end of the cen - tury, and has only recently begun to stabilize. Fine sediment par - ticles and algae-nourishing phosphorus and nitrogen continue to flow into the Lake from urban and highway runoff, air pollution, and other sources. The Basin’s transportation infrastructure is inadequate to handle traffic in peak travel seasons and to accom - modate bike and pedestrian users, and public access to the Lake is limited. — THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 3 — Lake Tahoe is situated within the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range straddling the California-Nevada border. The main crest of the Sierra Nevada Range is found to the Elko west and the Carson Range to the east. Two thirds of Lake Tahoe is in California S and the remainder is in Nevada. i e Reno r r a Carson City Sacramento N ev San Francisco a n d c ev a a a li d fo a rn ia Las Vegas Lake Tahoe Fast Facts: Los Angeles • Lake Tahoe is 2 million years old • Average surface water temperatures are • Holds 39 trillion gallons of water 68˚ Fahrenheit in the summer and 41˚ in the winter • Size of watershed: 501 sq. miles • 63 streams feed into Lake Tahoe San Diego • Lake surface area: 192 sq. miles but only one, the Truckee River, *Map not to scale • 12 miles wide flows out • 22 miles long • Approximately 3 million people visit • 72 miles of shoreline Lake Tahoe every year • 1,645 ft. deep • The Lake is designated as an • 6,223 ft. elevation (natural rim) Outstanding National Resource Water • 2 states: CA, NV under the Federal Clean Water Act • 5 counties, 1 city • Lake Tahoe is the second deepest lake in the United States • 66,000 Tahoe Basin year-round residents • Lake Tahoe is so deep that a single drop of water entering the Lake • Majority of private property owners today will take about 650 years to are part-time residents find its way out • USFS and state agencies manage approximately 85% of land area — 4 The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — We have a shared responsibility to build on “ our commitment at all levels to be sure the Lake and its environs are protected. “President Bill Clinton, Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum, July 26, 1997 President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore at the 1997 Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum. The Tahoe Basin is facing several new and A Shared Responsibility emerging challenges. The Angora Wildfire of Restoring and protecting Lake Tahoe has been 2007 raised awareness that the Basin’s over - a shared responsibility since 1969 when the stocked forests have dramatically increased the states of California and Nevada established the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The recent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the appearance of several aquatic invasive species nation’s first bi-state environmental planning also threatens the ecological health of the Lake, and regulatory agency. The United States the quality of its beaches, and the drinking Congress ratified the Bi-State Compact which water supplies of many local communities. created TRPA and the federal government is a Looking to the future, the impacts of climate key partner in this shared responsibility. TRPA change pose a major threat to both the environ - has a unique role in working cooperatively with ment and economy of the Tahoe Basin. The its federal, state, local, and private partners to average surface temperature of Lake Tahoe in protect the ecological health of the Basin while July has risen by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit providing for orderly growth and development since 1999, and more precipitation is falling as consistent with environmental standards. The rain rather than snow. If these trends continue, Agency’s 15-member board includes members sediment-laden runoff may increase, and the from the two states, locally elected officials, Lake may no longer mix enough to retain its and a non-voting Presidential appointee. clarity. These changes could also devastate the The Compact, as revised in 1980, gave TRPA tourist-dependent economy. authority to adopt environmental quality stan - Significant continued investments will be dards, called thresholds, and to define the needed from federal, state, local, and private capacity of the Region to accommodate addi - sources to effectively address these challenges, tional development. The TRPA Governing and to maintain a collaborative effort in pro - Board adopted the threshold standards in tecting the environment and the economy of 1982, and in 1987 they enacted a Regional the Lake Tahoe Basin. Plan setting forth strategies to achieve the — THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 5 — At left: President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore aboard a research vessel on Lake Tahoe. thresholds. The Compact also requires the The Federal Partnership Regional Plan to contain provisions to help The federal government has a long history of reduce dependency on the private automobile conservation in the Lake Tahoe Basin. in order to better protect air and water quality. Preservation efforts include congressional History of the Environmental approval of the Compact, the consolidation of three national forests into the Lake Tahoe Improvement Program Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) of the US TRPA launched the Environmental Forest Service to protect the watershed, and the Improvement Program (EIP) in an effort to passage of numerous funding bills. better implement the Regional Plan following At the 1997 Lake Tahoe Forum, President the Presidential Forum at Lake Tahoe in 1997. Clinton and Vice President Gore renewed the Recognizing that capital investments, research, federal commitment to Lake Tahoe by issuing and monitoring were essential components of an Executive Order creating the Lake Tahoe the Regional Plan, the EIP called for an invest - Federal Interagency Partnership. Through this ment of $908 million in capital projects and collaborative effort, the federal agencies agreed $58.7 million in research and monitoring. to increase federal funding to strive toward The EIP also identified hundreds of specific attainment of environmental thresholds, and projects and programs to be undertaken by to coordinate all federal activities in the Basin. more than 50 funding partners, including Oversight of the partnership is provided by the federal, state, and local agencies and the pri - Tahoe Regional Executives, which consists of vate sector. The projects were focused on the regional administrators of partner agen - improving air, water, and scenic quality, forest cies. Day-to-day coordination and program- health, fish and wildlife, and public access to level implementation rests with the Lake Tahoe the Lake and other recreation areas. The prime Basin Executive Committee (LTBEC), which directive of the EIP was to move the Tahoe consists of the local federal officials in the Basin closer to environmental threshold Tahoe Basin. attainment. — 6 The Commitment Continues: 2008-2018 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA) of Service, the Natural Resources Conservation 2000 authorized the Federal share of the EIP Service, the Federal Highway Administration, funding, which allowed the Forest Service to United States Geological Survey, and the invest $300 million in EIP projects and pro - Environmental Protection Agency. grams. In 2003, Congress amended the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act State Commitments (SNPLMA) to allow the proceeds from sales of The states of California and Nevada have also surplus federal lands in southern Nevada to played a key role in developing and implement - fund the federal share of the EIP. Through the ing the EIP. In 1997, Governor Wilson of LTRA, SNPLMA, and other sources, the feder - California and Governor Miller of Nevada al agencies invested more than $293 million in convened a gubernatorial summit in anticipa - the EIP from 1997 to 2006. tion of the Presidential Forum, and signed a The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Memorandum of Agreement pledging their (LTBMU) of the U.S. Forest Service adminis - support for the EIP. ters 75 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Voters in Nevada then approved a bond meas - Basin, and is responsible for a broad range of ure to provide $82 million, Nevada’s share of EIP projects and programs. Other federal EIP funding for the first decade. The Divisions agencies providing significant contributions of State Lands, Environmental Protection, and include the Army Corps of Engineers, the Transportation are largely responsible for over - Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife sight and funding of EIP projects in Nevada.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Storm Water Resource Plan | May 2018 Final
    AMERICAN RIVER BASIN Storm Water Resource Plan | May 2018 Final Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board using funds from Proposition 1. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the foregoing, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. American River Basin Storm Water Resource Plan – Final Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Intent and Content ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 WATERSHED IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Watershed Boundaries (IRWMP Section 2.1) ..................................................................... 3 2.2 Internal Boundaries (IRWMP Sections 2.2, 2.8, & 2.9) ...................................................... 5 2.3 Water and Environmental Resources (IRWMP Sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3, & 2.8) ................. 11 2.4 Natural Watershed Processes (IRWMP Sections 2.6.1, 2.6.2, & 2.6.3) ........................... 13 2.5 Watershed Issues and Priorities (IRWMP Sections 2.6.2, 2.7 to 2.9, & Apdx. B) .........
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed a Proposal for National Monument Designation
    Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed A Proposal for National Monument Designation r! Photo: Marti&v& w, Kaibab Plateau, north rim of tlx Grand Canyon, Arizona 02010 GCWC WIL L1N COUNCIL W1DERNESS cnCtotr- Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed A Proposal for National Monument Designation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A 12,000-year Human Record A Unique Landscape The proposed Monument holds lands of great signifi- Ranging from the arid Sonoran and Great Basin Des- cance to the Kaibab Paiute tribe, as well as Hopi, Zuni, erts to lush, boreal Rocky Mountain forests, the proposed Hualapi, Havasupai, and Navajo tribes, and was home Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument is an eco- to the Clovis, Basketmaker, and Puebloan peoples. More logical wonder. The proposed Monument embraces one than three thousand ancient Native American archaeo- of the most spectacular American landscapes— the Grand logical sites have been documented in the region, repre- Canyon— and encompasses a wild, rugged array of tower- senting just a fraction of the human history of the area. ing cliffs, deeply incised tributary canyons, grasslands, Ranging from settlements or habitations, to temporary and numerous springs that flow into the Colorado River camps, granaries and caches, and rock art, some of the in Grand Canyon. Unique geologic formations contribute sites date from as far back as the Paleo- Indian period— substantially to the proposed Monument' s spectacular 11, 000 BCE. biological diversity, with escarpments and canyons dating Kanab Creek falls within the traditional territory of back millions ofyears. At least twenty-two sensitive species call " Certain [ lanad] of theforest redereee dhoula the landscape home, including the endangered California condor and also be made predereed for the wigforest the rare northern goshawk.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an Evaluation of Population and Habitat Trends Version 3.0 2010
    Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an evaluation of population and habitat trends Version 3.0 2010 Isolated aspen stand. Photo by Heather McRae. Pygmy nuthatch. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Pumpkin Fire, Kaibab National Forest Mule deer. Photo by Bill Noble Red-naped sapsucker. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Northern Goshawk © Tom Munson Tree encroachment, Kaibab National Forest Prepared by: Valerie Stein Foster¹, Bill Noble², Kristin Bratland¹, and Roger Joos³ ¹Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office ²Forest Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Supervisor’s Office ³Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Williams Ranger District Table of Contents 1. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................................... 8 Management Indicator Species Population Estimates ...................................................... 10 SPECIES ACCOUNTS ................................................................................................ 18 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ...................................................................................... 18 Cinnamon Teal .......................................................................................................... 21 Northern Goshawk ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Survey: Scientists Find Variety of Species, Page 3
    Award winning! Bat survey: Scientists find variety of species, page 3 Winter 2014 Bi-state compact to preserve Tahoe STEPS TOWARD REVITALIZATION turns 45 years old Staff Report Redevelopment projects expected to aid environment, economy The partnership between California and Nevada that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency By Devin Middlebrook (TRPA) turned 45 years old in Tahoe Regional Planning Agency December 2014 and is approaching a half-century of progress in the protection and restoration of Lake Lake Tahoe’s communities have struggled Tahoe and its treasured environment. for decades from environmental, economic, and President Richard Nixon signed social pressures. The advent of Native American the bi-state compact to create the gaming throughout Northern California drove TRPA on Thursday, Dec. 18, 1969. massive casino job losses, which were compounded Nixon’s signature in the Oval Office followed the compact’s ratification by the recent recession. To many, a visible clue by Congress, approval by both was the number of run-down or vacant buildings states’ legislatures, and signatures of around the Lake. Many of these buildings were former governors Ronald Reagan in constructed in the 1960s, prior to the Tahoe Regional California and Paul Laxalt in Nevada. Planning Agency being established, during a period U.S. Sen. Alan Bible (D-Nev.) of rampant growth with a lack of development introduced legislation to approve the bi-state compact in Congress. Bible regulations. Fifty years later, as the recession took called Nixon’s signature of the bill hold, the Region looked tired and in disrepair. “the best news possible for those Times are changing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal to Conduct a Water Resouces
    AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, KANE AND TWO MILE RANCHES, EASTERN ARIZONA STRIP: 30 SEPTEMBER 2005 DRAFT FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Stevens Ecological Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 1315 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 [email protected] Prepared for: Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Inc. P.O. Box 1594 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 (928) 556-9306 [email protected] For submission to: The Grand Canyon Trust Attn: Mr. Ethan Aumack N. Ft. Valley Rd. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 [email protected] 30 September 2005 GCWC DRAFT FINAL GCT WATER RESOURCES REPORT - 30 SEPT. 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Acknowledgements Executive Summary Introduction Project Tasks Task 1: Existing data on water resources distribution and study site selection Introduction Methods Results and Discussion Task 2: Historical Land Use of the Eastern Arizona Strip – Kim Crumbo Prehistory Exploration and Settlement Grand Canyon Game Preserve Logging Grazing Task 3: Arial Reconnaissance of the Eastern Arizona Strip Introduction Recommendations Task 4: Field site visits Introduction Methods Results and Discussion Task 5: Water resources assessment and recommendations Introduction Methods Results and Discussion General Recommendations Site-specific Recommendations References Cited Appendices 1 GCWC DRAFT FINAL GCT WATER RESOURCES REPORT - 30 SEPT. 2005 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Water resource site scoring and ranking criteria Table 1.2: Primary (*) and alternate sites used for inventory in 2005 Table 3.1: Several apparently
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Region Description
    Region Description CHAPTER 3.0 REGION DESCRIPTION 3.1 Introduction The Upper Feather River watershed encompasses 2.3 million acres in the northern Sierra Nevada, where that range intersects the Cascade Range to the north and the Diamond Mountains of the Great Basin and Range Province to the east. The watershed drains generally southwest to Lake Oroville, the largest reservoir of the California State Water Project (SWP). Water from Lake Oroville enters a comprehensive system of natural and constructed conveyances to provide irrigation and domestic water as well as to supply natural aquatic ecosystems in the Lower Feather River, Sacramento River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Lake Oroville is the principal storage facility of the SWP, which delivers water to over two- thirds of California’s population and provides an average of 34.3 million acre-feet (AF)/year of agricultural water to the Central Valley. Lands to the east of the Upper Feather River watershed drain to Eagle and Honey Lakes that are closed drainage basins in the Basin and Range Province, while lands to the north, west, and south drain to the Sacramento River via the Pit River, Yuba River, Battle Creek, Thomas Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Butte Creek. Mount Lassen, the southernmost volcano in the Cascade Range, defines the northern boundary of the region. Sierra Valley, the largest valley in the Sierra Nevada, defines the southern boundary. At the intersection of the Great Basin, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Cascade Range, the Region supports a diversity of habitats including an assemblage of meadows and alluvial valleys interconnected by river gorges and rimmed by granite and volcanic mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory and Baseline Monitoring of the Butterfly Fauna of the Carson Range, with Emphasis on the Lake Tahoe Basin Nevada State and Adjacent Lands
    FY 2007 LAKE TAHOE LICENSE PLATE PROGRAM BUTTERFLY INVENTORY PROJECT An Inventory and Baseline Monitoring of the Butterfly Fauna of the Carson Range, with Emphasis on the Lake Tahoe Basin Nevada State and Adjacent Lands DRAFT REPORT Principal Investigators: T. Will Richardson, PhD. and Dennis D. Murphy, PhD. Department of Biology University of Nevada, Reno Contact: Will Richardson 16810 Glenshire Dr. Truckee, CA 96161 530.412.2792 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 4 Focal sites........................................................................................................................ 4 Sampling methods:...................................................................................................... 4 General collection ........................................................................................................... 6 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 6 The Carson Range Butterfly Fauna ................................................................................. 6 Focal Site Sampling .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • And Environmental Conditions
    CHAPTER TWO A CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW OF HUMAN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Susan Lindström with contributions from Penny Rucks and Peter Wigand ©1999 J.T. Ravizé. All rights reserved. CHAPTER TWO A CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW OF HUMAN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Susan Lindström with contributions from Penny Rucks and Peter Wigand Introduction the public’s perception of one. With this latest shift The Lake Tahoe basin embodies the in land use paradigms, the direction of progress for consequences of a long legacy of human and 21st century users of the Tahoe basin is less clear. In environmental history. Here, human land this fragile context, the Lake Tahoe environment is disturbances were initiated by millennia of low- becoming intensively managed, partly based on intensity land management by the Washoe Indians scientific research findings, such as those contained and their prehistoric predecessors. Within a century’s in this assessment of the Lake Tahoe watershed. time, indigenous practices were replaced by Human beings have been a component of profound resource exploitation by incoming Euro- the Lake Tahoe ecosystem for at least 8,000 to 9,000 American populations. During the last few decades, years. Contemporary land management efforts to agency regulation has struggled to control explosive restore the Lake Tahoe ecosystem benefit from an community growth induced by millions of tourists understanding of the long-term ecological role of who visit the Lake Tahoe basin each year. aboriginal people and Euro-American settlers in the Changing attitudes and assumptions about dynamics of wild plant and animal populations and Tahoe’s environment have both enshrined and their physical environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments 12-16-2013 Inyo NF Draft Forest Assessment
    December 16, 2013 Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200 Bishop, CA 93514 Sent via email: [email protected] Re: Feedback on Draft Inyo Forest Assessment To the Planning Team: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Forest Assessment for the Inyo National Forest (INF). We found many aspects of the INF assessment to be similar to the draft assessments for the Sierra and Sequoia national forests. Because of this quite a few of our comments are similar or exactly the same as comments we made on the SNF and SQF assessments. To the extent that we provide additional comments on the INF assessment that are global and general in nature, they apply equally to the SNF and SQF forest assessments. We plan to share this perspective with the Regional Planning Team. One aspect of the Inyo process to develop the draft forest assessment that differs from the other two forests is the creation of the “topic papers” that are posted on the INF website. We note that these “topic papers” are not the same as the chapters posted on the WIKI. Because of these multiple documents, it is unclear to us the specific information that will be used to assess the need to change the forest plan and to develop a new draft forest plan. It is also not helpful to suggest as has been done in several places in the draft assessment that the revised forest plan will rely on the available information. The assessment process is intended to identify and summary the available information on trends and conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIEECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 295 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART I. SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF JOHN C. HOYT BY « B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the Sacra­ mento River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on page* 98-99. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS; IN SACRAMENTO RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the first of a series of reports on the surface waters of California prepared by the United S tates Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Stat( of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission; George C. Pardee, chairman, Francis Cuttle, and J. P. Baumgartner; and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor, Chajles D. Marx, chairman, S. C. Graham, Harold T. Power, and W. F. McClure. Louis K. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 29,5 to 300 and will bear the following titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Ss .cramento* River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast Btreams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin. 299.
    [Show full text]
  • PROGRESS REPORT Federal Actions at Lake Tahoe Through Fiscal Year
    Progress Report Federal Actions At Lake Tahoe FY 2006-2008 PROGRESS REPORT Federal Actions at Lake Tahoe through Fiscal Year 2008 Prepared August 2009 This report summarizes the activities (from FY2006 through the end of FY2008) of the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership (Partnership). The Partnership was formed in 1997 to coordinate actions to address economic and environmental concerns at Lake Tahoe. The Partnership includes: U.S. Department of Agriculture • Forest Service (USFS) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) U.S. Department of Defense • Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) U.S. Department of the Interior • Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Department of Transportation • Federal Highway Administration (USFHA) • Federal Transit Administration (USFTA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Partnership has produced a number of progress reports since 1997 to document actions taken to improve Lake Tahoe’s clarity and address other key issues such as forest health, air quality and transportation. In addition to these progress reports, the Partnership has produced a report on Presidential Commitments summarizing a decade of progress from 1997 to 2007. The Partnership also co-authored with the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA), “A Federal Vision for the Environmental Improvement Program at Lake Tahoe”. Background President Clinton and Vice President Gore came to Lake Tahoe in July 1997 to recognize the significance of the lake and its surroundings as a national environmental resource, and commend local stakeholders for the innovative partnerships of government, business, and environmental interests working to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin.
    [Show full text]