DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Resources (Includes Historical and Archaeological Resources )

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT . CHAPTER 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDES HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ) PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a CHRONOLOGY OF UPDATES summary of known cultural resources in Napa County. This chapter is based on the review of NOVEMBER 30, 2005—VERSION 1 numerous existing background reports and publications that contain information on prehistoric, historic, scientific, and cultural resources in Napa County. This document and the data assembled provide broad tools for site and regional planning as well as the basis for future planning documents relating to the protection and management of the County’s rich cultural resources. HISTORIC WINE CAVE, CONSTRUCTED IN 1882 NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES FIGURES TABLE OF CONTENTS On page INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................14-1 14-1 Ethnographic Territories of the Wappo, Patwin and Surrounding Tribes ..............................14-9 Purpose ................................................................................................................................14-1 Specialized Terms Used.......................................................................................................14-1 MAPS POLICY CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................................14-1 Federal Policies ....................................................................................................................14-1 Follows page State Policies........................................................................................................................14-2 Local Policies........................................................................................................................14-3 14-1 Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites........................................................................14-18 14-2 Historic Architectural Resources .........................................................................................14-18 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................14-4 Definition of Study Area........................................................................................................14-4 14-3 Cultural Sensitivity...............................................................................................................14-18 Technical Process ................................................................................................................14-4 Methods and Approach.........................................................................................................14-5 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS PREHISTORIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................................14-6 Early Archaeological Investigations in Napa County ............................................................14-6 Recent Research in Napa County ........................................................................................14-7 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation First Inhabitants ....................................................................................................................14-8 BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management Tribal Groups........................................................................................................................14-9 B.P. Before Present CEQA California Environmental Quality Act HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................14-11 Early History .......................................................................................................................14-11 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources Rancho Period....................................................................................................................14-12 GIS Geographic information system Early American Settlement .................................................................................................14-12 MOA Memorandum of agreement Viticulture Industry ..............................................................................................................14-13 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission CONCLUSIONS AND REPORT UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................14-14 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 14-14 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act Archaeological Resources ..................................................................................................14-14 NRHP National Register of Historic Places Architectural and Historical Resources...............................................................................14-14 NWIC Northwest Information Center REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................................14-15 PRC Public Resources Code SB18 Senate Bill 18 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TABLES UC University of California USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation On page USGS U.S. Geological Survey 14-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resource Sites In Napa County................................. 14-4 14-2 Historic Architectural Features In Historic Resource Dataset ............................................... 14-5 14-3 Sensitivity Ranking for Archaeological Sites across the Landscape..................................... 14-6 CULTURAL RESOURCES—VERSION 1, NOVEMBER 2005 -14-i- NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT Historic property is a term defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as any INTRODUCTION prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including artifacts, records, and material remains his chapter provides a detailed discussion of the cultural resources that have been identified related to such a property. T to date throughout Napa County (County). For the purposes of this discussion, the County is discussed as a whole as opposed to according to specific evaluation areas. This chapter Historical resource is a CEQA term that includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts details the federal, state, and local policies that govern cultural resource protection and preservation in that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance the County; the ethnographic, prehistoric, and historic settings for the County; the methods used to and is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). identify and create maps of known archaeological, historic, architectural, recreational, and scientific resources; the likelihood and type of future finds expected; and conclusions regarding cultural resource importance in the County. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS PURPOSE This section discusses the federal, state, and local policies that are relevant to the analysis of cultural resources in Napa County. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive inventory of the known prehistoric, historic, and current cultural resources present in Napa County, a projection of the overall extent (number) of the FEDERAL POLICIES The term cultural resource describes different resources present, a discussion of their context; and recommendations for protection and preservation types of properties and sites—including as appropriate. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT prehistoric, historic, and architectural sites—that have been created, manufactured, or used by This chapter also aims to provide clear guidance regarding the County’s policy and procedures for the The use of federally owned land controlled by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Bureau people of the prehistoric or historic past and that identification and treatment of previously undiscovered cultural resources that have not yet been of Land Management (BLM) or any project involving the use of federal funds triggers review under the that are of cultural or scientific importance. inventoried by professional archaeologists and architectural historians. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA addresses potential adverse effects on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, and requires mitigation SPECIALIZED TERMS USED for loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The following are common specialized terms used to discuss regulatory requirements and the treatment NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT of cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that, before beginning any undertaking, a federal agency take into account the undertaking’s effects on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Cultural resource is the term used to describe several different types of properties, such as those listed below, that have been created, manufactured, or used by people of the prehistoric or historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on these actions. The Section 106 process entails the past. following six basic steps. 1. Initiate
Recommended publications
  • Springs of California

    Springs of California

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
  • Clear Lake Watershed Sanitary Survey Is a Report Made by the Clear Lake Water Utilities to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) On

    Clear Lake Watershed Sanitary Survey Is a Report Made by the Clear Lake Water Utilities to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) On

    PROJECT TEAM PARTICIPATING WATER UTILITIES Buckingham Park Water District Don Bradley Cache Creek Mobile Home Park Steve Grimshaw California Cities Water Company Paul Harris California Water Service Company Tom Fitzgerald City of Lakeport Mark Brannigan Clearlake Oaks County Water District Ellen Pearson Clearwater Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Michael Reust Crescent Bay Improvement Company Roberta Lyons Highlands Water Company Sam Lambert Konocti County Water District William Kochler Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa Jerry Lykkon Lake County Special Districts Steve Brodnansky Nicholas Ring Peggie King Mt. Konocti Mutual Water Company Alan Farr Nice Mutual Water Company Bradley Granger Richmond Park Resort Sharon Ferriera Rivera West Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Westwind Mobile Home Park John Franco Southern California Water Company* David Lancaster CONSULTANT TEAM Archibald & Wallberg Consultants Jeanne Wallberg MWH Americas, Inc. Bonny Starr Robert Zieman Jenni Haas Design Jenni Haas Engelhardt Word Processing Noreen Engelhardt OTHER PARTICIPANTS Department of Health Services – Mendocino District Bruce Burton Leah Walker *For California Cities Water Company TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1
  • Mitigated Negative Declaration

    Mitigated Negative Declaration

    NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME : LOWER LAKE EMERGENCY WATER INTERTIE PROJECT Date of Preparation: June 27, 2019 Lead Agency: Lower Lake County Waterworks District No. 1 Project Description: The project would provide an emergency water intertie between three existing water systems, Lower Lake County Waterworks District No. 1, Highlands Mutual Water Company, and Konocti County Water District. The three water systems serve the community of Lower Lake and parts of the City of Clearlake in Lake County. Project Location: Lower Lake and City of Clearlake, Lake County, CA Findings: Based on the Initial Study dated June 27, 2019, the Lower Lake County Waterworks District No. 1 has determined that: 1. This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor to curtail the diversity of the environment. 2. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-term environmental goals. 3. This project will not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. 4. This project will not have environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Public Review June 27, 2019 to July 26, 2019 Period: Public Review: The Initial Study is available (beginning June 27, 2019) for public review at the Lower Lake County Waterworks District No. 1, 16254 Main Street, Suite B, Lower Lake. The Initial Study can also be viewed at https://llcwd.com/current-projects . All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available at the office of Brelje & Race, 475 Aviation Blvd. Suite 120, Santa Rosa.
  • The Heart of an Industry: the Role of the Bracero Program in the Growth of Viticulture in Sonoma and Napa Counties

    The Heart of an Industry: the Role of the Bracero Program in the Growth of Viticulture in Sonoma and Napa Counties

    THE HEART OF AN INDUSTRY: THE ROLE OF THE BRACERO PROGRAM IN THE GROWTH OF VITICULTURE IN SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES by Zachary A. Lawrence A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History Copyright 2005 By Zachary A. Lawrence ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS I grant permission for the reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provide proper acknowledgement of authorship. Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety must be obtained from me. iii THE HEART OF AN INDUSTRY: THE ROLE OF THE BRACERO PROGRAM IN THE GROWTH OF VITICULTURE IN SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES Thesis by Zachary A. Lawrence ABSTRACT This study examines the role of the Bracero Program in the growth of Sonoma and Napa County viticulture in an attempt to understand how important bracero labor was to the industry. While most histories of the Bracero Program are nationwide or statewide in scope, this study explores the regional complexities of how and why the program was used in Sonoma and Napa Counties, how both the growers and laborers in the region felt about it, and how this was different from and similar to other regions. Government documents provided the statistics necessary to determine the demographic changes in the region due to the Bracero Program. Important primary source material that provided the human side of the story includes a number of oral history interviews I conducted, the collection of Wine Industry Oral Histories, and various regional newspaper articles.
  • Plants Used in Basketry by the California Indians

    Plants Used in Basketry by the California Indians

    PLANTS USED IN BASKETRY BY THE CALIFORNIA INDIANS BY RUTH EARL MERRILL PLANTS USED IN BASKETRY BY THE CALIFORNIA INDIANS RUTH EARL MERRILL INTRODUCTION In undertaking, as a study in economic botany, a tabulation of all the plants used by the California Indians, I found it advisable to limit myself, for the time being, to a particular form of use of plants. Basketry was chosen on account of the availability of material in the University's Anthropological Museum. Appreciation is due the mem- bers of the departments of Botany and Anthropology for criticism and suggestions, especially to Drs. H. M. Hall and A. L. Kroeber, under whose direction the study was carried out; to Miss Harriet A. Walker of the University Herbarium, and Mr. E. W. Gifford, Asso- ciate Curator of the Museum of Anthropology, without whose interest and cooperation the identification of baskets and basketry materials would have been impossible; and to Dr. H. I. Priestley, of the Ban- croft Library, whose translation of Pedro Fages' Voyages greatly facilitated literary research. Purpose of the sttudy.-There is perhaps no phase of American Indian culture which is better known, at least outside strictly anthro- pological circles, than basketry. Indian baskets are not only concrete, durable, and easily handled, but also beautiful, and may serve a variety of purposes beyond mere ornament in the civilized household. Hence they are to be found in. our homes as well as our museums, and much has been written about the art from both the scientific and the popular standpoints. To these statements, California, where American basketry.
  • Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California

    Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California

    Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California This chapter discusses the native language spoken at Spanish contact by people who eventually moved to missions within Costanoan language family territories. No area in North America was more crowded with distinct languages and language families than central California at the time of Spanish contact. In the chapter we will examine the information that leads scholars to conclude the following key points: The local tribes of the San Francisco Peninsula spoke San Francisco Bay Costanoan, the native language of the central and southern San Francisco Bay Area and adjacent coastal and mountain areas. San Francisco Bay Costanoan is one of six languages of the Costanoan language family, along with Karkin, Awaswas, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon. The Costanoan language family is itself a branch of the Utian language family, of which Miwokan is the only other branch. The Miwokan languages are Coast Miwok, Lake Miwok, Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok, Central Sierra Miwok, and Southern Sierra Miwok. Other languages spoken by native people who moved to Franciscan missions within Costanoan language family territories were Patwin (a Wintuan Family language), Delta and Northern Valley Yokuts (Yokutsan family languages), Esselen (a language isolate) and Wappo (a Yukian family language). Below, we will first present a history of the study of the native languages within our maximal study area, with emphasis on the Costanoan languages. In succeeding sections, we will talk about the degree to which Costanoan language variation is clinal or abrupt, the amount of difference among dialects necessary to call them different languages, and the relationship of the Costanoan languages to the Miwokan languages within the Utian Family.
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes

    Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes

    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
  • Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309

    Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309

    A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY At 611 WASHINGTON STREET, CITY OF CALISTOGA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Corporation for Better Housing 5947 Variel Avenue Woodland Hills, California 91367 Keywords: Calistoga 7.5' Quadrangle, City of Calistoga, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Submitted by: Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309 Author: Scott M. Hudlow October 2015 Management Summary At the request of Corporation for Better Housing, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at an approximate .95-acre site for a proposed multi- family residential project, at 611 Washington Street, City of Calistoga, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the .95- acre site and a cultural resource record search. No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation. If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. 2 Table of Contents Management Summary .................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................
  • Media Bulletin 6/1-16/2021

    Media Bulletin 6/1-16/2021

    LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Page 1 MEDIA BULLETIN 06/01/2021 - 06/16/2021 06/17/2021 00:21 TRAFFIC STOP 2106010001 Officer initiated activity at Pomo Pumps, E State Hwy 20, Upper Lake. RED SEDAN. Disposition: WARNING. 00:26 WIRELESS 911 HANG UP 2106010002 Occurred on Prather Mountain Rd, in Loch Lomond. Tx to cpd. Disposition: REFERRED TO ANOTHER AGENCY. 01:01 TRAFFIC STOP 2106010003 Officer initiated activity at Pomo Pumps, E State Hwy 20, Upper Lake. Disposition: WARNING. 01:12 WIRELESS 911 HANG UP 2106010004 Occurred on Lakeshore Bl, in Lakeport. Tx to cdf. Disposition: REFERRED TO ANOTHER AGENCY. 01:23 TRAFFIC STOP 2106010005 Officer initiated activity at E State Hwy 20/SCHINDLER, Clearlake Oaks. Disposition: WARNING. 02:07 TRAFFIC STOP 2106010007 Officer initiated activity at State Highway 53/OGULIN Canyon Rd, Clearlake. Disposition: REPORT TAKEN. 02:33 ALARM 2106010008 Occurred at County Of Lake Annex on Lakeport Bl. , in Lakeport. AUD S/E OFFICE MOTION. Disposition: CHECKS OK. 03:07 WIRELESS 911 HANG UP 2106010012 Occurred on E State Hwy 20, in Lucerne. TX TO CDF. Disposition: REFERRED TO ANOTHER AGENCY. 03:14 WIRELESS 911 HANG UP 2106010013 Occurred at Loch Lomond Rd/State Hwy 175, in Loch Lomond. LINE DISCONNECTED, ON CALL BACK MALE ANSWERED THEN DISCONNECTED, ON CALL BACK X2 STRAIGHT TO VOICEMAIL, UNABLE TO LEAVE MESSAGE MAILBOX NOT SET UP W/ 1709 METERS. Disposition: WIRELESS HANGUP . 03:19 ALARM 2106010015 Occurred at Big Valley Rancheria on Mission Rancheria Rd. , in Lakeport. AUD ENTRY MOTION RESP -PENDING. Disposition: FALSE ALARM. 04:15 WIRELESS 911 HANG UP 2106010016 Occurred on E State Hwy 20, in Clearlake Oaks.
  • An Environmental and Cultural History of the Pilot Creek Watershed [1994]

    An Environmental and Cultural History of the Pilot Creek Watershed [1994]

    An Environmental and Cultural History of the Pilot Creek Watershed [1994] By Thomas S. Keter Heritage Resources Six Rivers National Forest [This paper was first published in 1994 as the cultural resources input section of the Six Rivers National Forest Pilot Creek Watershed Assessment; I have placed a copy on the web to make it more easily accessible to researchers and the general public.] 1 solararch.org Authors Note: I wrote this paper during the late winter and early spring of 1994 as a member of a Six Rivers National Forest interdisciplinary team (biologists, botanists, foresters, hydrologists, archaeologists) studying the ecosystem of the Pilot Creek watershed. Since then I have continued to research the environmental and cultural history of this area. I suggest those interested in further information on "Pilot Ridge Country" visit my web site: www.solararch.org I have tried to refrain from making changes to the original text except for minor editing. I have, however, in a few places included in text boxes or in brackets comments due subsequent research that in some way (for better or worse) has led me to change or modify my data or conclusions. TK November 2015 Three Rivers,CA Introduction The Pilot Creek Watershed has had a long history of human occupation. This paper presents a brief overview of the region since humans first entered the area during the prehistoric period. The land-use activities resulting from human occupation, during both historic and prehistoric periods have had a significant influence on the environment of the Pilot Creek Watershed. The prehistoric era dates from as early as about five thousand years ago until the beginning of the historic period when Euro-American explorers first the region in about 1850.
  • Lake County CEDS 2014

    Lake County CEDS 2014

    COUNTY OF LAKE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 5, 2013 APPROVED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION: MARCH 7, 2014 Lake County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy - 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................2 SECTION ONE: ANALYSIS...............................................................................................3 I. BACKGROUND: THE AREA AND ITS ECONOMY...........................................................3 A. General Description of the Area ..................................................................................................... 3 B. Economy........................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Natural Resources............................................................................................................................ 9 D. Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................... 12 E. Political Geography....................................................................................................................... 17 F. Employment in Lake County........................................................................................................