DOCSLIB.ORG

8-1 A. Introduction a Wide Range of Recreational Facilities And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

8 RECREATION A. Introduction A wide range of recreational facilities and recreational programs are found in Butte County, offering numerous recreational opportunities to local residents and visitors. Most public recreational facilities and parks in the unincorporated County are owned and/or managed by one of five large independent special districts, or by various local, State and federal agencies, sometimes in joint arrangements. Others, including some facilities located within the incorporated jurisdictions, are owned and managed by the municipalities themselves. Privately-owned, commercial facilities such as campgrounds, golf courses, and bowling alleys also provide an important range of recreational and leisure activities. This chapter describes all of these various types of recreational facilities in Butte County. B. Regulatory Setting Parks and recreational open space are the most significantly regulated types of recreation facility. Provision of parks is generally regulated through parks planning standards, which set forth requirements for dedication of open space, or payment of in-lieu fees, in conjunction with new development. In 1996, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) published the Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. In addition, the NRPA has published best practice guidelines for planning, designing, and implementing green infrastructure in parks, financing green infrastructure projects, and safe routes to parks as well as other resource guidelines that can be used as reference by recreation planning agencies. The guidelines are used by many recreation planning agencies as a guide to develop their own standards for their service areas. These national standards serve as a guideline for measurement and are not designed to be considered absolute requirements. The dynamic population characteristics of a particular park district or local jurisdiction will require a certain amount of subjective analysis and professional experience to quantify and use these standards (or some modification thereof) for effective planning. For this reason, the five major recreation districts in Butte County have their own standards to measure and plan for the recreation demand in their service areas. The following sections provide an overview of the various recreation districts that operate parks and facilities in the county and the park planning standards they utilize, and presents information on park planning standards, as established by the special recreation districts in Butte County. 8‐1 BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SETTING AND TRENDS RECREATION 1. Butte County The existing Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan supports a comprehensive and high-quality system of recreational open space and facilities. Policies to achieve this goal include reviewing development proposals to designate sites for new parks and recreation facilities and allowing a density increase when parks are incorporated into certain development projects. The existing General Plan does not identify a parkland ratio standard because the County does not actively maintain any parks or recreation facilities. As previously noted, the majority of park and recreational facilities in unincorporated Butte County are owned and operated by the special districts, the boundaries of which are described herein, and which include unincorporated as well as City land. Fees for these districts are assessed for district residents when a facility is developed or improved and those facilities are provided as a public benefit to County residents. 2. Special Districts Five large special independent districts maintain many of the parks and recreational facilities in Butte County. These districts, which encompass most of the county’s land area, operate as “independent” districts, meaning that each district is governed by a board of directors elected by the voters in that district. The districts in Butte County are also non-enterprise districts, meaning that they depend mainly on property taxes for operating revenue, rather than user fees. In addition to the five main districts, two small swimming pool districts in Gridley and Biggs own and maintain community swimming pools there. The various districts in the county, and their adopted parks planning standards, are described below. The boundaries of the districts are illustrated in Figure 8-1. 8‐2 BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SETTING AND TRENDS RECREATION DISTRICTS City/Town Limits City/Town SOI Recreation District Chico Area Recreation & Park District Durham Recreation & Park District Feather River Recreation & Park District Paradise Recreation & Park District Richvale Recreation & Park District 32 99 Chico Paradise 70 99 191 149 162 Oroville 162 Biggs 99 70 Gridley NORTH 0 2.5 5 Miles Source: Butte County, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2021. FIGURE 8-1 RECREATION DISTRICTS BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SETTING AND TRENDS RECREATION a. Chico Area Recreation and Park District The Chico Area Recreation and Park District (CARD) is centered around the City of Chico, and extends north to the Tehama County boundary, encompassing approximately 225 square miles. CARD serves approximately 130,000 residents; 90 percent of the population within the district is found in the urbanized area in and around Chico. Although CARD’s land area is not the largest, it owns and operates the greatest number of parks and facilities of any special district in the county. CARD uses the NRPA standards as a guideline and has adopted its own standards in its master planning effort. CARD adopted the Park and Recreation Master Plan in 2008, which established a parkland target of 1.5 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents and 2.5 acres of community parkland per 1,000 residents. In 2019, CARD updated the Park and Recreation Master Plan, but maintained that parkland standard. According to the City of Chico General Plan, one or two community parks and 7 to 14 neighborhood parks are needed to accommodate the anticipated service area population by 2030. The updated Master Plan identifies potential locations for new neighborhood parks and recognizes the need for new community parks. The City of Chico recently published a development impact fee nexus study to evaluate improvement needs to support the city’s growth and development through 2040. The City has not yet provided the results of this study to the Board of Supervisors to request adoption of fee changes to be applied to the unincorporated county. b. Feather River Recreation and Park District The Feather River Recreation and Park District (FRRPD) is centered around Oroville and extends the length of the eastern portion of Butte County, including the City of Oroville and Lake Oroville, Bangor and surrounding rural areas. FRRPD’s boundary is approximately 735 square miles and serves a population of approximately 51,455 people. Other communities served by FRRPD include Palermo, Honcut, and the mountain areas of Feather Falls, Berry Creek, and Forbestown. The FRRPD uses the NRPA standards for evaluating park type and minimum acreage to meet the needs of the community. FRRPD has a Parks Master Plan that was updated in 2020. FRRPD uses the 2020 Parks Master Plan as a resource to inform decision making regarding park facilities in the district. The Master Plan outlines the condition of existing park facilities and provides recommendations to address future park needs for each of the communities served by FRRPD. The Master Plan also includes a service area map, which identifies the location of future community and neighborhood parks. Per the Master Plan, the FRRPD Master Plan Ad-Hoc Committee is required to initiate an 8‐4 BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SETTING AND TRENDS RECREATION annual review of the Plan to ensure it meets the park needs of the district and community. FRRPD is currently in the process of completing an update to the Master Plan for 2030. c. Paradise Recreation and Park District The Paradise Recreation and Park District (PRPD) serves the upper and lower Paradise Ridge area, including areas to the east and west, centered around the community of Paradise. Prior to the 2018 Camp Fire, PRPD’s land area encompassed approximately 169 square miles and had a service population of approximately 41,100 persons. PRPD also managed approximately 456 acres of park land and recreational facilities, of which, only 75 acres were partially or fully developed. In partnership with PRPD, the Conservation Biology Institute and the Nature Conservancy completed the Paradise Nature-Based Fire Resilience Project final report in June 2020. The report describes a method of increasing resiliency to fire risks by incorporating wildfire risk-reduction buffers between the wildlands and urban areas. The report recommends five wildfire risk buffer areas around Paradise, Magalia, and Concow-Yankee Hill. PRPD’s 2016-2024 Master Plan has a goal of providing 5 acres of developed park land per 1,000 people. As of 2016, PRPD had about 2 acres of developed park land per 1,000 people in the district. d. Durham Recreation and Park District The Durham Recreation and Park District (DRPD) service area is located south of Chico and contains the communities of Durham, Dayton, and Nelson. The District boundaries are coterminous with the CARD southern boundary and the Glenn County boundary on the west. It encompasses approximately 220 square miles and serves an estimated population of 5,000 persons. DRPD uses a ratio of 6.4 acres per thousand persons, based on the 2014-2024 Master Plan. Facility improvements identified
Recommended publications
  • C. Natural Resources Management Plan

    C. Natural Resources Management Plan

    C. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL BIDWELL PARK MASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... C.1-1 1.1 Relationship to the Master Management Plan.....................................................................................C.1-1 1.2 Purpose and Organization of the Plan.................................................................................................C.1-1 1.3 Natural Resource Goals and Objectives Summary .............................................................................C.1-1 1.4 Sensitive Resources.............................................................................................................................C.1-2 1.5 Adaptive Management Framework.....................................................................................................C.1-3 1.6 Public Education and Involvement .....................................................................................................C.1-3 2 NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.......................... C.2-1 3 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................... C.3-1 3.1 Oak Woodlands...................................................................................................................................C.3-1 3.1.1 Overview of Bidwell Park Oak Woodlands .................................................................................C.3-1
  • National Prohibition Convention, Music Hall, Cincinnati

    National Prohibition Convention, Music Hall, Cincinnati

    Wright State University CORE Scholar Martha McClellan Brown Correspondence Martha McClellan Brown Papers (MS-147) 6-16-1892 National Prohibition Convention, Music Hall, Cincinnati Oscar B. Todhunter Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ special_ms147_correspondence Part of the Women's History Commons Repository Citation Todhunter , O. B. (1892). National Prohibition Convention, Music Hall, Cincinnati. This Letter is brought to you for free and open access by the Martha McClellan Brown Papers (MS-147) at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Martha McClellan Brown Correspondence by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I I NATIOl'JAL PROHIBllflON -CONVENTION, CO M MITTEE OF ARRANGEMENTS: I PRINTING COMMITTEE: J. B. MARTIN, Chairman, H. T. OGDEN, Chairman, 29 West Fifth Street. MUSIC HALL, CINCINNATI, 65 West Fourth Street. HALL COMMITTEE: MRS. M. McCLELLAN BROWN, Secretary, DR. J. A. THOMPSON, Chairman, Wesleyan College. 154 West Eighth Street. SAMUEL '9ELLS, Treasurer, DECORATION COMMITTEE: 67 Vine Street. JUNE 29-30, 1892. MRS. L. s. PACKER, Chairman, 29 Saunrlers Street. RECEPTION COMMITTEE : FINANCE COMMITTEE: E. J. MORRIS, Chairman, REV. M. C. LOCKWOOD, Chairman, 10 West Third Street. 2 Wesley Avenue. PRESS CO MMITTEE: MUSIC COMMITTEE: OSCAR B. 'l'ODHUNfER, Chairman, JAS. H. FILLMORE, Chairman, . 185 Race Street. 141 West Sixth Street. To Editors: Returns already received from the press of the country indicate that the National Prohibition Convention is attracting a great deal of attention this year, and will be better reported than any of the preceding five National Conventions of the party.
  • Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program

    Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program

    \ ' ,; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF :{cdfa FOOD & AGRICULTURE ~ Karen Ross , Secretary Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program The following sections are extracts from the California Code of Regulations. They have been prepared by the Nursery, Seed, and Cotton Program, Pest Exclusion Branch, California Department of Food and Agriculture. These extracts are provided for information purposes only. For the official text, the user should consult the California Code of Regulatiions published by Barclays Law Publishers. California Code of Regulations Title 3. Food and Agriculture Division 4. Plant Industry Chapter 4. Plant Pathology Subchapter 6. Plant Disease Control 3701. Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program. The following definitions apply to this section. (a) “Applicant” means any person whose application has beeen submitted to but not yet accepted by the Department. (b) “Authorized agent” means any person who has been granted authority by the Department to test plant and/or insect samples for the purposes of these regulations. (c) “Breach” means any detectable opening of a size approximately 0.3 square millimmeters inadvertently made in an insect-resistant structure. (d) "Citrus" means "citrous" and any plants of the genera CCitrus, Fortunella, Poncirus, and all hybrids having one or more of such as parents that could host any disease for which testing is rrequired in Section 3701.6. (e) “Citrus Clonal Protection Program” (CCPP) means the Universsity of Califoornia at Riverside, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology. (f) “Citrus Clonal Protection Program Tag Number” or “CCPP Tag Number” means the unique identifying number assigned by CCPP to a tree. (g) “Citrus tree” means a rooted citrus plant.
  • Unforbidden Fruits: Preventing Citrus Smuggling by Introducing Varieties Culturally Significant to Ethnic Communities

    Unforbidden Fruits: Preventing Citrus Smuggling by Introducing Varieties Culturally Significant to Ethnic Communities

    CRB Funded Research Reports Research Project Progress Report Unforbidden fruits: preventing citrus smuggling by introducing varieties culturally significant to ethnic communities David Karp, Tracy Kahn, Toni Siebert, Robert Krueger, Richard Lee and Georgios Vidalakis efore long, as you are driving down a country road, you Federal and state agencies strive mightily to stop smug- may be puzzled to see plantings of unfamiliar citrus glers, but it’s impossible for them to catch them all. Only a Band citrus relatives such as curry leaf, bael and etrog, small percentage of agricultural cargo is inspected, and in perhaps grown in greenhouses or on trellises. It might be even any case many of those who smuggle citrus do so for reli- more surprising to learn that the Citrus Research Board has gious and cultural purposes, not fully understanding the po- had a hand in the diffusion of these esoteric crops. tential impact. Unfortunately, these culprits are unlikely to The rationale is unusual but compelling: Although these be deterred by conventional interdiction strategies. crops could be profitable for a few nurseries that sell the trees, Complementary to interdiction, there’s another ap- and for the farmers that grow them, far more important is the proach -- reducing demand -- that can play a crucial role in benefit they could bring to California’s entire citrus industry suppressing smuggling. The concept is simple: if a product by avoiding economic damage from smuggling. As we know is readily available in California, smugglers won’t bother to all too well, illicit imports pose a grave danger of introducing bring it in.
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1865, TO MARCH 3, 1867 FIRST SESSION—December 4, 1865, to July 28, 1866 SECOND SESSION—December 3, 1866, to March 3, 1867 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1865, to March 11, 1865 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—ANDREW JOHNSON, 1 of Tennessee PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—LAFAYETTE S. FOSTER, 2 of Connecticut; BENJAMIN F. WADE, 3 of Ohio SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—JOHN W. FORNEY, of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—GEORGE T. BROWN, of Illinois SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—SCHUYLER COLFAX, 4 of Indiana CLERK OF THE HOUSE—EDWARD MCPHERSON, 5 of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NATHANIEL G. ORDWAY, of New Hampshire DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—IRA GOODNOW, of Vermont POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—JOSIAH GIVEN ALABAMA James Dixon, Hartford GEORGIA SENATORS SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Vacant Henry C. Deming, Hartford REPRESENTATIVES 6 Samuel L. Warner, Middletown REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Augustus Brandegee, New London Vacant John H. Hubbard, Litchfield ARKANSAS ILLINOIS SENATORS SENATORS Vacant DELAWARE Lyman Trumbull, Chicago Richard Yates, Jacksonville REPRESENTATIVES SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Willard Saulsbury, Georgetown George R. Riddle, Wilmington John Wentworth, Chicago CALIFORNIA John F. Farnsworth, St. Charles SENATORS REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE Elihu B. Washburne, Galena James A. McDougall, San Francisco John A. Nicholson, Dover Abner C. Harding, Monmouth John Conness, Sacramento Ebon C. Ingersoll, Peoria Burton C. Cook, Ottawa REPRESENTATIVES FLORIDA Henry P. H. Bromwell, Charleston Donald C. McRuer, San Francisco Shelby M. Cullom, Springfield William Higby, Calaveras SENATORS Lewis W. Ross, Lewistown John Bidwell, Chico Vacant 7 Anthony Thornton, Shelbyville Vacant 8 Samuel S.
  • Citrus from Seed?

    Citrus from Seed?

    Which citrus fruits will come true to type Orogrande, Tomatera, Fina, Nour, Hernandina, Clementard.) from seed? Ellendale Tom McClendon writes in Hardy Citrus Encore for the South East: Fortune Fremont (50% monoembryonic) “Most common citrus such as oranges, Temple grapefruit, lemons and most mandarins Ugli Umatilla are polyembryonic and will come true to Wilking type. Because most citrus have this trait, Highly polyembryonic citrus types : will mostly hybridization can be very difficult to produce nucellar polyembryonic seeds that will grow true to type. achieve…. This unique characteristic Citrus × aurantiifolia Mexican lime (Key lime, West allows amateurs to grow citrus from seed, Indian lime) something you can’t do with, say, Citrus × insitorum (×Citroncirus webberii) Citranges, such as Rusk, Troyer etc. apples.” [12*] Citrus × jambhiri ‘Rough lemon’, ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘Otaheite’ lime Monoembryonic (don’t come true) Citrus × limettioides Palestine lime (Indian sweet lime) Citrus × microcarpa ‘Calamondin’ Meyer Lemon Citrus × paradisi Grapefruit (Marsh, Star Ruby, Nagami Kumquat Redblush, Chironja, Smooth Flat Seville) Marumi Kumquat Citrus × sinensis Sweet oranges (Blonde, navel and Pummelos blood oranges) Temple Tangor Citrus amblycarpa 'Nasnaran' mandarin Clementine Mandarin Citrus depressa ‘Shekwasha’ mandarin Citrus karna ‘Karna’, ‘Khatta’ Poncirus Trifoliata Citrus kinokuni ‘Kishu mandarin’ Citrus lycopersicaeformis ‘Kokni’ or ‘Monkey mandarin’ Polyembryonic (come true) Citrus macrophylla ‘Alemow’ Most Oranges Citrus reshni ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin Changshou Kumquat Citrus sunki (Citrus reticulata var. austera) Sour mandarin Meiwa Kumquat (mostly polyembryonic) Citrus trifoliata (Poncirus trifoliata) Trifoliate orange Most Satsumas and Tangerines The following mandarin varieties are polyembryonic: Most Lemons Dancy Most Limes Emperor Grapefruits Empress Tangelos Fairchild Kinnow Highly monoembryonic citrus types: Mediterranean (Avana, Tardivo di Ciaculli) Will produce zygotic monoembryonic seeds that will not Naartje come true to type.
  • September 30, 2020

    September 30, 2020

    Valley air about to get worse as wildfire smoke has nowhere to go By Corin Hoggard and Dale Yurong Tuesday, September 29, 2020 FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Air quality is about to take a turn for the worse as a changing weather pattern will combine with wildfires to fill the Central Valley with smoke again. The last few months have produced a stretch of the worst air quality on record, according to the Air Pollution Control District. Satellite images show smoke gently blowing from several California fires out to the Pacific Ocean, a weather pattern keeping the Valley's air relatively clean for several days now. "Right now we're seeing the smoke aloft," said Maricela Velasquez of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. "It's above us. But as the week goes through, we'll continue to see that smoke come onto the Valley floor." Here's how: When you have a fire in the Central Valley -- which is essentially just a bowl -- the smoke can usually get out and air quality won't be bad everywhere. But when a high pressure system comes in, it essentially puts a lid on the bowl and the smoke has nowhere to go so it just collects on the Valley floor. "The blocking high, basically, once it sits over a certain spot it likes to stay there for quite a while," said meteorologist Carlos Molina of the National Weather Service in Hanford. Forecasters at the NWS say the lid will sit on our bowl for at least a week. Air Quality Science Director Jon Klassen of the Valley Air District said, "We're expecting that to continue in the coming days." By that time, our air will have collected smoke from the Creek Fire, the SQF Complex Fire, and even more recent fires to our west, like the Glass Fire in the Bay Area.
  • 2 Existing Conditions and Issues

    2 Existing Conditions and Issues

    2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ISSUES 2.1 PARK SUMMARY The following section summarizes the significant natural and cultural resources at Bidwell- Sacramento River State Park (Park), as well as surrounding land uses, recreational and aesthetic resources, and interpretive facilities that characterize the existing conditions at the Park. The evaluation of existing conditions focuses on the current boundaries of the Park, but may address a larger planning area for some issues, where data are readily available and important to the understanding of regional resource conditions affecting the Park; moreover, regional-oriented resource information also provides context to information collected for the Park itself. Information on existing conditions is based on the Resources Inventory and Interpretive Prospectus that were prepared for the Park, recent field work, and additional research conducted during the General Plan preparation process. This information provides the baseline data for developing the area plans and goals/guidelines that comprise the foundation of this document. 2.1.1 STATE PARK CLASSIFICATION The State Park System is organized by a multi-level classification system. The classifications are described in Sections 5019.50 et seq. of Article 1.7 of the Public Resources Code. In 1990, the State Parks and Recreation Commission named and classified the Bidwell River Park Project and the Irvine Finch River Access area as Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park. • State Parks. Units that consist of spacious areas having outstanding natural, cultural, and scenic resources. Preservation of these resources for present and future generations is the primary purpose of State Parks. Improvements may be undertaken in State Parks to make these resources and the recreational opportunities they provide available to the public.
  • Strategic Positioning and Campaigning

    Strategic Positioning and Campaigning

    1 Introduction To give a sense of the politics of extreme parties, the Appendix lists all candidates in U.S. presidential elections who won at least half a percent of the popular vote. For each election year, the table lists candidates by my reading of their ideology, with the most conservative candidate listed at the top, and the most liberal candidate listed at the bottom. Candidates not belonging to one of the two major parties are shown with an asterisk after the party affiliation. Also shown is the percentage of the popular vote each won. The data begin with the election of 1832, the first election in which virtually all states chose presidential electors by popular vote. Ordering parties by ideology entails some subjective judgment. A prin- cipal difficulty is that for much of the nineteenth century slavery and the consequences of the Civil War were the main issues, whereas in the twenti- eth century economic issues can distinguish parties. I classify Republicans as more liberal than Democrats through the election of 1872. From 1876 (when Reconstruction ended) and thereafter I classify Republicans as more conservative than Democrats. Two features are of note. • Third parties, even popular ones, rarely become major parties. Indeed, only one minor party, the Republican party, ever became a major party. • Most small parties have extreme ideologies, in the sense of not lying between the ideologies of the two major parties. Of the 41 elections, 28 had small parties which won at least 0.5 percent of the vote. Of these 28 elections, only four had a moderate party.
  • Question Answer Equation Joan Found 70 Seashells on the Beach

    Question Answer Equation Joan Found 70 Seashells on the Beach

    Question Answer Equation Joan found 70 seashells on the beach . she gave Sam some of her seashells . She has 27 seashell . How many seashells did she give to Sam ? 43 X = 70 - 27 There were 28 bales of hay in the barn . Tim stacked bales in the barn today . There are now 54 bales of hay in the barn . How many bales did he store in the barn ? 26 X = 54 - 28 Mary is baking a cake . The recipe wants 8 cups of flour . She already put in 2 cups . How many cups does she need to add ? 6 X = 8 - 2 Sara 's high school played 12 basketball games this year . The team won most of their games . They were defeated during 4 games . How many games did they win ? 8 X = 12 - 4 There are 22 walnut trees currently in the park . Park workers will plant walnut trees today . When the workers are finished there will be 55 walnut trees in the park . How many walnut trees did the workers plant today ? 33 X = 55 - 22 Mike had 34 peaches at his roadside fruit dish . He went to the orchard and picked peaches to stock up . There are now 86 peaches . how many did he pick ? 52 X = 86 - 34 There were 6 roses in the vase . Mary cut some roses from her flower garden . There are now 16 roses in the vase . How many roses did she cut ? 10 X = 16 - 6 Joan went to 4 football games this year . She went to 9 games last year .
  • Loyalton Resource Supply Assess Report Final Redacted 20210204

    Loyalton Resource Supply Assess Report Final Redacted 20210204

    BIOMASS FUEL AND LOG SUPPLY AVAILABILITY AND COST ASSESSMENT FOR A BIOMASS POWER FACILITY AND SAWMILL COLLOCATED AT LOYALTON, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: February 4, 2021 Final Report REDACTED VERSION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TSS Consultants wishes to thank individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in support of this investigation. These include, but are not limited to: • Amy Berry, Chief Executive Officer, Tahoe Fund • John B. Jones, Jr., Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Boyd, Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Turner, Chief Operations Officer, Sierra Valley Enterprises • Jon Shinn, Forest Products Manufacturing Consultant • Steve Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council USFS Vegetation Management, Contracting and Biomass Utilization Staff: o Larry Swan, Regional Office o Tim Howard, Regional Office o Dan Smith, Eldorado National Forest o Brian Garrett, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o Victor Lyon, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o David Fournier, Tahoe National Forest o Annabelle Monti, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest o Will Brendecke, Plumas National Forest • Coreen Francis, State Forester, California and Nevada, Bureau of Land Management • Mike Vollmer, Forester, Nevada Division of Forestry • Steve Brink, Vice President, California Forestry Association • Bob Rynearson, Forester, W.M. Beaty and Associations • Mike Mitsel, Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries • Dan Porter, The Nature Conservancy • Craig Thomas, The Fire Restoration Group • Niel Fischer, Forest Manager, Collins Pine Company • Nic Enstice, Sierra Nevada