DOCSLIB.ORG

0 What Happened at Lake Berryessa 110718

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
0 What Happened at Lake Berryessa 110718 What Happened At Lake Berryessa? A Condensed Political History 1958 - 2018 by Peter Kilkus Version 11/7/18 Table Of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Lake Berryessa History Timeline .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 How It All Began: The Origins of the “Big Lie” ............................................................................................................................... 11 Will History Repeat Itself In Reverse? What Happened in 1975? ......................................................................................... 17 A Modern History (Short) of Lake Berryessa Issues: 1957 - 2012 ....................................................................................... 19 Napa County Got the Headaches, Solano County the Water ................................................................................. 19 Napa and Solano battled over Berryessa’s fate: Powerful forces aligned against Napa ........................................ 20 Death of Monticello Was a “Heartbreaker” ........................................................................................................... 22 Monticello Dam Proposal Stresses Critical Shortage of Water Throughout California ......................................... 24 Delays in Master Plan Sabotage Berryessa Economy ............................................................................................ 24 Notice of Intent: Solano Project--Lake Berryessa; Napa, California ..................................................................................... 27 The “Big Lie” Continues: Task Force 7 Protests Reclamation’s Unjustified Negative Propaganda ........................ 29 The Facts Fight Back: What You Need to Know About the Battle for Berryessa ............................................................ 30 Local Chamber of Commerce Businesses Fight Back .................................................................................................................. 32 Residents Fight Back: More Than 900 Unleash Scorn on Reclamation Plan .................................................................... 33 The City of Winters Fights Back ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 The Perversion of Public Law 96-375: Demolition Hardball by the Bureau of Reclamation .................................... 38 Reclamation Defends Unjust Requirement to Demolish ALL Existing Facilities At Lake Berryessa ..................... 44 The Pensus Years: The Lake Berryessa News View .................................................................................................................... 45 Pensus: The Short Story That Was Actually A Fantasy ......................................................................................... 45 Pensus Signs Berryessa Contract – Begins Facilities Development – Announces Resort Openings ..................... 46 Springtime at Lake Berryessa: Pensus in Bloom? .................................................................................................. 48 They’re Off Like a Herd of Turtles! Bureaucracy at Berryessa ............................................................................. 49 Lake Berryessa: When Do Past Memories Actually Become “HISTORY”? ........................................................ 52 Goodbye 2011: Another Year of Process Without Progress! Will 2012 Be Any Better? ...................................... 56 A Lake Berryessa Midsummer Night’s Dream (With Apologies to William Shakespeare) .................................. 58 Applehood and Mother Pie! What’s Right, What’s Wrong, and Why ................................................................... 61 Catch-22: The Bureaucratic Double Bind Theory in Practice ................................................................................ 68 Seasons, Cycles, and Radical Change: Chaos Theory - Lake Berryessa Style ...................................................... 70 Floundering About at Lake Berryessa (This is not a fishing story.) ....................................................................... 72 SNAFU, FUBAR and BOHICA: Deciphering Berryessa’s Ancient Rock Sculpture at Steele Park ..................... 75 Feds Final Folly: The Destruction of Steele Park - Public Law 96-375’s Unintended Consequence .................... 77 A Modest Radical Proposal: Transfer Management of Lake Berryessa to Napa County ...................................... 79 A Path Forward To Revitalize Lake Berryessa: Fire The Feds! ............................................................................. 85 1 Open Letter to the Federal Government: Get Out of Lake Berryessa! ................................................................... 87 Napa County and the Bureau of Reclamation: Working Together to Rebuild Lake Berryessa? ........................... 89 Will 2017 Be Lake Berryessa's Lucky Year? ......................................................................................................... 91 Milestone Achieved! A Positive Report on the Potential Future Rebirth of Lake Berryessa! ............................... 93 The Future of Lake Berryessa Looks Brighter, But The Sun Also Rises A Bit Slowly ......................................... 95 Napa County Releases Lake Berryessa Request For Information & Interest ......................................................... 97 "Holes In History" at Lake Berryessa: Simple Incompetence, Fervent Ignorance, Malicious Arrogance ............. 99 Revitalizing Lake Berryessa - Idling Towards Home .......................................................................................... 101 Beating A Dead Horse With A Stick OR Beating A Horse With A Dead Stick? Berryessa Betrayed AGAIN! . 102 Napa County Frustrated by Bureau of Reclamation Stalling Tactics Talks on Resort Redevelopment .............. 104 Congressman Thompson Interior Department Officials Tour Lake, Discusses Managing Partner Agreement .. 105 Another Bureau of Reclamation Time Warp Moment - The “2020-something…” Schedule ............................. 106 Lake Berryessa History Through Napa Register Editorials .................................................................................................. 108 Stop resort owners from polluting lake: February 27, 2001 ................................................................................. 108 You can help chart future of Lake Berryessa: July 22, 2003 ............................................................................... 108 Berryessa: Put it back in public hands: February 23, 2006 .................................................................................. 109 Berryessa's future brightens: June 15, 2006 ......................................................................................................... 110 Clock ticking at Lake Berryessa: April 12, 2009 ................................................................................................. 110 The local’s view of fiasco at the lake: April 15, 2009 .......................................................................................... 111 Restoring trust at Berryessa: April 17, 2009 ........................................................................................................ 112 Bureau hopes to return Berryessa to its heyday: April 10, 2011 .......................................................................... 113 Inching forward at Lake Berryessa: March 16, 2013 ........................................................................................... 114 Lake Berryessa History Through Napa Register Articles ...................................................................................................... 116 Reclamation considers revamping Berryessa shoreline: February 25, 2001 ........................................................ 116 Trailer Clash: February 25, 2001 .......................................................................................................................... 117 Officials plan makeover for Lake Berryessa: August 12, 2003 ........................................................................... 120 Lake Berryessa public hearings begin: November 13, 2003 ................................................................................ 121 Report says Berryessa better off without trailers: November 9, 2003 .................................................................. 122 Battle over Berryessa: Lake's history full of federal-local tensions: December 11, 2003 .................................... 123 Battle over Berryessa: Trailer owners offer own blueprint for future: December 11, 2003 ................................ 126 Crowd tells feds not to move Berryessa trailers: January 22, 2004 ..................................................................... 127 Residents debate Berryessa's future: January 11, 2004 ........................................................................................ 128 Lake Berryessa trailer owners hire lobbyists: July 26, 2004 ................................................................................ 129 Mobile home park residents challenge feds over lake economy: December 12,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhancing Environmental Flows of Putah Creek for Chinook Salmon Reproductive Requirements
    Enhancing environmental flows of Putah Creek for Chinook salmon reproductive requirements Written by: Chan, Brian; Jasper, Chris Reynolds; Stott, Haley Kathryn UC Davis, California ESM 122, Water Science and Management, Section: A02 Abstract: Putah creek, like many of California’s rivers and streams, is highly altered by anthropogenic actions and historically supported large populations of resident and anadromous native fish species. Now its ecosystem dynamics have changed drastically with the Monticello dam, the Solano diversion canal and the leveeing of its banks. Over time the creek has found a balance of habitats for native and non-native fish species that is mainly dictated by species-preferred temperature tolerances (Keirman et. al. 2012). Cooler temperatures and faster flows upstream from Davis prove to be ideal habitats for native species, in particular, the federally endangered Chinook salmon, which is the most widely distributed and most numerous run occurring in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. As water moves downstream, it becomes shallower and warmer, resulting in ideal conditions for non-native species (Winters, 2005). This report analyzes the environmental flows released into putah creek and how much salmon preferred breeding habitat is available from this flow regime based on temperature. Introduction: Figure 1: Teale GIS Solutions Group (1999), US Census Bureau (2002), USGS (1993) [within Winters, 2005] The Putah Creek watershed is an important aspect in the natural, social, and economic livelihoods of the people of Yolo and Solano counties. The Putah Creek watershed begins at the highest point in Lake County, Cobb Mountain, and flows down to the Central Valley where it empties into the Yolo Bypass at near sea level.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley California
    Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley California By F. H. OLMSTED and G. H. DAVIS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1497 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of ff^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director Tlie TT.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 241. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___________________________________________________ -_ 1 Introduction.-.--- .___-___________-___._--.______-----_ 5 Purpose and scope of the investigation.__________________ ______ 5 Location of area__-__-________-____________-_-___-_-__--____-_- 6 Development of ground water___________________-___-__ ___ __ 7 Acknowledgments....-------- ____________ _________________ 8 Well-numbering system..________________________________ _ 9 Geology--__--_--_--__----_--_-----____----_ --_ ___-__-- 10 Geomorphology_____________________________________________ 10 General features _______________________________________ 10 Mountainous region east of the Sacramento Valley...__________ 11 Sierra Nevada_______________________________________ 11 Cascade Range.._____________________-__--_-__-_---- 13 Plains and foothill region on the east side of the Sacramento Valley..__-_________-_.-____.___________ 14 Dissected alluvial uplands west of the Sierra
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System
    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Path Envisioning Opportunities for a Community
    Putah Creek Path Envisioning Opportunities for a Community Senior Project by Sophie Sears UC Davis Landscape Architecture June 2010 Putah Creek Path Envisioning Opportunities for a Community Accepted and Approved by A Senior Project Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program University of California, Davis in Fulfillment of the Requirement Mark Francis, Senior Project Faculty Advisor for the Degree of Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture Heath Schenker, Faculty Committee Member Eric Larsen, Faculty Committee Member Rich Marovich, Committee Member Cheryl Sullivan, Committee Member Abstract This project focuses on a section of Putah Creek between In- terstate 505 and the Yolo Housing Authority. It examines the possibility of creating a path near the creek along this stretch of the waterway. Current plans for a Winters Putah Creek Nature Park are in the process of being implemented to the west of the trail site. This trail represents an extension of the current Nature Park project which is located between Railroad Avenue and Interstate 505. However, there is a major concern over the safety of pedestrian travel from Yolo Housing to Winters. This project aims to evaluate safe and enjoyable solutions to address this problem while instilling environmental stewardship and providing educational opportunities. Restoration of chan- nel morphology and native vegetation are included in the plan. The restoration of the channel form will additionally mitigate an erosion site that is threatening Putah Creek Road. In addi- tion to the linear path, the project aims to redevelop an area at the west end of the site that is located on the Yolo Hous- ing Property.
    [Show full text]
  • Audit Report
    U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General AUDIT REPORT CONCESSIONS MANAGED BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPORT NO. 00-I-376 MAY 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Concessions Managed by the Bureau of Reclamation Report No. 00-I-376 May 2000 BACKGROUND The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is responsible for overseeing or managing 310 recreation areas established on BOR project lands that are visited each year by about 90 million people for camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, and other recreational activities. The Congress has enacted legislation that requires BOR to "ensure the protection, comfort, and well-being of the public (including the protection of public safety) with respect to the use of Reclamation lands" and "ensure the protection of resource values." Historically, BOR sought Federal partners such as the National Park Service and non-Federal partners such as state and local governments to develop, operate, and maintain recreational sites and facilities for the visiting public. In 1998, approximately 218 concessions provided commercial services and facilities for the public on BOR project lands, consisting of 110 concessions operated by Federal partners, 87 concessions operated by non-Federal partners, and 21 concessions managed directly by BOR. Prior to 1995, BOR-managed concessions were not covered by BOR-wide policies, standards, and directives. However, in 1995, BOR issued interim guidance for concessions management and, in 1998, formally issued policies and standards and directives to guide BOR officials in planning, developing, and managing concessions operations. OBJECTIVE The objective of our audit was to determine whether BOR had adequate policies and procedures for managing its concessions operations and protecting the public with respect to its use of public lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Plenary Session
    Wednesday ursday Friday Saturday 8am Registration and Hospitality Design & Layout by Trees FoundationDesign &Layout by Trees 9am Workshops & Tours 9am - 5pm Workshops & Tours 9am - 5pm Morning Concurrent Sessions Workshops Workshops Reintroduction of Salmon to Plenary Session Historical Habitats: Part 1 West Coast Floodplain Workshop Fish Passage VMC Theater Brunelle Performance Multi-purpose Room from Tidewater to Sierra Courtyard Entrance Multi-purpose Room Arts Theater Visioning Salmon Recovery Multi-purpose Room Evaluating Salmon Habitat State of Beaver Restoration and Watershed Condition in California Hatchery Supplementation Multi-purpose Room Club Room Club Room Lunch 12:15 - 1:15pm Field Tours Field Tours Afternoon Concurrent Sessions Afternoon Concurrent Sessions Stanislaus River Restoration Sites Multi-Use Floodplain Projects in the Lower Sacramento Valley Central Valley Recovery Reintroduction of Salmon to Planning and Restoration Historical Habitats: Part 2 Yolo Bypass and Putah Creek Brunnelle Theater Multi-purpose Room Restoration Projects American River Gravel Augmentation and Floodplain Swirling in Sediment Reviving the San Joaquin River Restoration Tour Multi-puropse Room Club Room Watershed Day at the Capitol Meet in Game Room Using Photogrammetric Protecting, Connecting, and Field Tour participants: and Aerial Vehicle Technology Re-imaging Floodplain Habitat Club Room please pack a lunch and meet VMC Theater outside the front entrance Estimating Juvenile Salmonid Survival VMC Theater 5:30pm Annual Meeting Multi-Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8
    HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.8 This section describes the regulatory setting, regional hydrology and water quality impacts that are likely to result from project implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts related to stormwater drainage, flooding and water quality. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports and studies: City of Davis General Plan (City of Davis, 2001; as amended through 2007); City of Davis Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown Caldwell, 2016); and Rick Engineering Company. Preliminary Drainage Study for Sterling 5th Street Apartments. December 11, 2015. Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Rita Kaich (April 18, 2016). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. 3.8.1 EXISTING SETTING REGIONAL HYDROLOGY The project site is located in the City of Davis, within Yolo County at the southwestern end of the Sacramento Valley, approximately 30 miles north of the confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. The Sacramento Valley is bordered by the Coast Ranges and Delta on the west and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to the east. Water resources in this region include rivers, streams, sloughs, marshes, wetlands, channels, harbors, and underground aquifers. The topography is generally flat, and is drained by the Sacramento River and the Yolo Bypass, which is part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. Climate Summers in the city are warm and dry, and winters are cool and mild. The region is subject to wide variations in annual precipitation, and also experiences periodic dry periods and wild fires in the regional watershed and surrounding areas with chaparral and oak lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004
    Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004 Lower Chiles Valley, Napa County Putah Creek Drainage Prepared By: Phillip Blake, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Napa Sandy Elles & Jennifer Kopp, Napa County Farm Bureau Dave Whitmer, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Bob Zlomke, Napa Co. Resource Conservation District Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Group Steering Committee: Sally Kimsey Jim Frisinger Tucker Catlin Robert Craig Jack Todeschini Don Clark Advisor: Diane Dillon, Supervisor, Dist. 4 1 2 Introduction In July, 2003, the Napa County Farm Bureau organized an informational meeting of landowners and farm agency representatives, to discuss local ramifications for the removal of agricultural waste discharge waivers in the Putah Creek watershed. Following this initial exploration of information known about Irrigated Lands Waivers, the NC Farm Bureau invited farmers in the Napa County Putah Creek area to join a coalition and apply for a group waiver. The group would organize to share best management practices and conduct water quality monitoring. Since that initial meeting, representatives from Napa County Farm Bureau, USDA Natural Resouces Conservation Service, (NRCS) Napa County Resource Conservation District, (NCRCD), UC Cooperative Extension, and the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner have further studied the issue and determined that irrigated lands in the area are primarily drip-irrigated wine grape vineyards. These farm operations typically employ minimal use of chemical inputs and utilize farm cultural practices that present a very limited potential to impact downstream waters with pollutants of concern. Water quality issues have been extensively discussed and addressed through various processes, including 2 different county watershed task forces and several technical advisory bodies, since 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Resources Section Provides Background Information
    4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Biological resources section provides background information on sensitive biological resources within Napa County, the regulations and programs that provide for their protection, and an assessment of the potential impacts to biological resources of implementing the Napa County General Plan Update. This section is based upon information presented in the Biological Resources Chapter of the Napa County Baseline Data Report (Napa County, BDR 2005). Additional information on the topics presented herein can be found in these documents. Both documents are incorporated into this section by reference. This section addresses biological resources other than fisheries which are separately addressed in Section 4.6. 4.5.1 SETTING REGIONAL SETTING The Napa County is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Great Valley geomorphic province. A dominant characteristic of the Coast Ranges Province is the general northwest- southeast orientation of its valleys and ridgelines. In Napa County, located in the eastern, central section of the province, this trend consists of a series of long, linear, major and lesser valleys, separated by steep, rugged ridge and hill systems of moderate relief that have been deeply incised by their drainage systems. The County is located within the California Floristic Province, the portion of the state west of the Sierra Crest that is known to be particularly rich in endemic plant species (Hickman 1993, Stein et al. 2000). LOCAL SETTING The County’s highest topographic feature is Mount St. Helena, which is located in the northwest corner of the County and whose peak elevation is 4,343 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Home: a Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail at Putah Creek Exploring Home: a Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail for Putah Creek
    Exploring Home: A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail at Putah Creek Exploring Home: A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Trail for Putah Creek Sage Millar Senior Project June 2008 University of California, Davis Department of Environmental Sciences Landscape Architecture Program A Senior Project Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture program University of California,Davis in fulfillment of the Requirement Exploring Home: for the Degree of A Recreational Day Use and Interpretive Bachelors of Science of Landscape Architecture Trail for Putah Creek Rob Thayer, Senior Project Advisor Presented by: Patsy Owens, Senior Project Advisor Sage Millar at University of California, Davis Steve McNeil, Committee Member on the Thirteenth day of June, 2008 This senior project consists of background research and site analysis as well as a final site plan for a recreational day use area and interpretive trail on Putah Creek. This document contains the background research, site analysis, and program develop- Abstract ment I completed before designing the final site plan. The site is 10 miles west of Winters on Hwy 128 at the base of Monticello Dam where Cold Creek enters Putah Creek. The site is in the Pu- tah Creek Wildlife area and is approximately 25 acres. Because of it’s location near the trailhead into Stebbins Reserve, and Putah and Cold Creeks, the site provides and excellent opportunity to create an educational and interpretive experience for visitors to the area. Hiking trails, informational kiosks and signage will highlight the history and various natural processes that are occur- ring on and around the site. A small interpretive center or outdoor teaching area will enhance the experience of visitors, and also provide an outdoor classroom for gatherings such as field trips.
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces
    Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces Putah Creek Corridor Connecting the Pieces Accepted and Approved by A Senior Project Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program University of California, Davis Steve Greco, Faculty Committee Member in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture Tara Hanlon, Committee Member Rich Marovich, Committee Member Presented by: Claire Napawan, Senior Project Faculty Advisor Kathryn Salfen at University of California, Davis on the Tenth Day of June, 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my senior project committee members for their tremendous help. They all provided me with their knowledge, time and encouragement. THANK YOU! Claire Napawan Steve Greco Rich Marovich Tara Hanlon In addition to my senior project committee members, I would like to thank my parents for all their help not only during this project but for helping through everything! i Abstract This project focuses on Putah Creek as it runs from Lake Berryessa to the Yolo Wildlife Area. It examines the corridor as both a wildlife corridor and as a local trail corridor. With many existing patches of wildlife reserves located along Putah creek, the restoration of riparian forest along the channel will provide full connectivity and functionality to the corridor. On the social scale Putah Creek runs between Winters and Davis. Connecting the existing trails of the UC Davis Riparian Reserve and Winters Putah Creek Nature Park will establish a local trail corridor. This project also examines the need of the design of the trails at Win- ter’s Putah Creek Nature Park to Preserve linear corridors and creating multi-use trails that can allow wildlife movement across the landscape.
    [Show full text]