DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786 Cossatot River, Arkansas SCENIC Ouachita National Forest 2,595 215 2,810 RECREATIONAL Ouachita National Forest 965 326 1,291 Cossatot River, Arkansas Totals 3,560 542 4,101 Hurricane Creek, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 754 1 755 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 2,949 147 3,096 Hurricane Creek, Arkansas Totals 3,704 147 3,851 Little Missouri, Arkansas WILD Ouachita National Forest 1,017 0 1,017 SCENIC Ouachita National Forest 2,987 100 3,087 Little Missouri, Arkansas Totals 4,004 100 4,104 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Mulberry River, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,653 293 1,946 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 134 134 RECREATIONAL Ozark National Forest 2,702 756 3,458 Mulberry River, Arkansas Totals 4,355 1,182 5,537 North Sylamore Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 3,600 47 3,647 North Sylamore Creek, Arkansas Totals 3,600 47 3,647 Richland Creek, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 1,189 2 1,191 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 2,371 126 2,497 Richland Creek, Arkansas Totals 3,560 128 3,688 Arkansas Totals 34,015 2,928 36,942 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage California Bautista Creek, California RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 2,998 230 3,227 Bautista Creek, California Totals 2,998 230 3,227 Big Sur, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 5,913 0 5,913 Big Sur, California Totals 5,913 0 5,913 Black Butte River, California WILD Mendocino National Forest 4,549 705 5,254 SCENIC Mendocino National Forest 433 624 1,057 Mendocino Other 4 0 4 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 239 239 Black Butte River, California Totals 4,986 1,568 6,554 Cottonwood Creek, California WILD Inyo National Forest 5,407 0 5,407 Cottonwood Creek, California Totals 5,407 0 5,407 Deep Creek, California WILD San Bernardino National Forest 6,395 102 6,497 SCENIC San Bernardino National Forest 332 0 332 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 2,810 82 2,892 Deep Creek, California Totals 9,537 184 9,721 Eel, California WILD Mendocino National Forest 6,552 333 6,885 Six Rivers National Forest 4,096 511 4,607 Eel, California Totals 10,647 844 11,492 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Feather, California WILD Plumas National Forest 10,346 469 10,815 SCENIC Plumas National Forest 3,515 24 3,539 RECREATIONAL Plumas National Forest 5,265 411 5,676 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 3,651 3,651 Feather, California Totals 19,126 4,555 23,681 Fuller Mill Creek, California SCENIC San Bernardino National Forest 599 233 833 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 110 95 205 Fuller Mill Creek, California Totals 710 328 1,038 Kern, California WILD Inyo National Forest 9,575 2 9,577 Sequoia National Forest 10,828 1 10,828 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 81 81 SCENIC Inyo National Forest 1,442 218 1,660 RECREATIONAL Inyo National Forest 216 0 216 Sequoia National Forest 2,993 98 3,091 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 10 10 Kern, California Totals 25,054 409 25,463 Kings, California WILD Sequoia National Forest 1,772 0 1,772 Sierra National Forest 2,982 0 2,982 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 18 18 RECREATIONAL Sequoia National Forest 2,971 0 2,971 Kings, California Totals 7,725 18 7,743 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Klamath, California WILD Klamath National Forest 101 11 111 SCENIC Klamath National Forest 5,384 379 5,764 RECREATIONAL Klamath National Forest 38,852 4,917 43,769 Six Rivers National Forest 2,520 32 2,551 Klamath, California Totals 46,857 5,339 52,196 Merced, California WILD Sierra National Forest 5,042 48 5,090 SCENIC Sierra National Forest 831 45 876 RECREATIONAL Sierra National Forest 1,527 89 1,616 Stanislaus National Forest 1,531 170 1,702 Stanislaus Other 0 3 3 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 723 723 Merced, California Totals 8,931 1,077 10,008 North Fork American, California WILD Tahoe National Forest 8,327 190 8,517 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 3,282 3,282 North Fork American, California Totals 8,327 3,472 11,798 North Fork San Jacinto, California WILD San Bernardino National Forest 1,473 687 2,160 SCENIC San Bernardino National Forest 453 0 453 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 306 72 378 North Fork San Jacinto, California Totals 2,231 759 2,991 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Owens River Headwaters, California WILD Inyo National Forest 1,734 0 1,734 SCENIC Inyo National Forest 1,952 0 1,952 RECREATIONAL Inyo National Forest 1,774 21 1,794 Owens River Headwaters, California Totals 5,460 21 5,480 Palm Canyon Creek, California WILD San Bernardino National Forest 2,405 0 2,405 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 45 45 Palm Canyon Creek, California Totals 2,405 45 2,450 Piru Creek, California WILD Angeles National Forest 597 0 597 Los Padres National Forest 550 0 550 RECREATIONAL Angeles National Forest 508 0 508 Los Padres National Forest 441 0 441 Piru Creek, California Totals 2,096 0 2,096 Sespe Creek, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 7,149 105 7,254 SCENIC Los Padres National Forest 1,209 324 1,533 Sespe Creek, California Totals 8,358 429 8,787 Sisquoc, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 10,084 17 10,102 Sisquoc, California Totals 10,084 17 10,102 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Smith River, California WILD Six Rivers National Forest 26,596 165 26,761 SCENIC Six Rivers National Forest 10,770 111 10,881 RECREATIONAL Six Rivers National Forest 27,722 1,354 29,076 Smith River, California Totals 65,088 1,630 66,719 Trinity, California WILD Six Rivers National Forest 28 0 28 Trinity National Forest 14,902 708 15,610 SCENIC Six Rivers National Forest 31 0 31 Trinity National Forest 7,238 1,991 9,229 RECREATIONAL Six Rivers National Forest 8,809 5,717 14,527 Trinity National Forest 11,605 2,384 13,989 Trinity, California Totals 42,613 10,800 53,414 Tuolumne, California WILD Stanislaus National Forest 6,641 49 6,690 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 367 367 SCENIC Stanislaus National Forest 1,233 0 1,233 RECREATIONAL Stanislaus National Forest 89 0 89 Tuolumne, California Totals 7,963 416 8,379 Whitewater River, California WILD San Bernardino National Forest 4,707 267 4,974 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 0 338 338 Whitewater River, California Totals 4,707 605 5,312 California Totals 307,222 32,748 339,970 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Colorado Cache la Poudre, Colorado
Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game

    Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game

    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
  • State of California

    State of California

    Upper Piru Creek Wild Trout Management Plan 2012-2017 State of California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program South Coast Region Prepared by Roger Bloom, Stephanie Mehalick, and Chris McKibbin 2012 Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................. 3 Resource status ........................................................................................ 3 Area description ...................................................................................................... 3 Land ownership/administration ............................................................................... 4 Public access .......................................................................................................... 4 Designations ........................................................................................................... 4 Area maps............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1. Vicinity map of upper Piru Creek watershed ............................................ 5 Figure 2. Map of upper Piru Creek Heritage and Wild Trout-designated reach....... 6 Fishery description.................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Photograph of USGS gaging station near confluence of Piru and Buck creeks ..................................................................................................................... 7
  • Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound July 2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Techni- cal Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Techni- cal Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78, 125 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound Mary H. Ruckelshaus,
  • Inventory for Fens and Associated Rare Plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

    Inventory for Fens and Associated Rare Plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

    Inventory for fens and associated rare plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Looking west over cloud-enshrouded upper portion of the 9020-310 wetland/fen, Snoqualmie Ranger District. Elev. = 3140 ft. Rick Dewey Deschutes National Forest March 2017 1 Berries of the fen-loving, bog huckleberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) at Government Meadow. Note the persistent sepals characteristic of this species. Government Meadow is the only project site at which V. uliginosum was detected. Acknowledgements This project was funded by a USFS R6 ISSSSP grant spanning 2016-2017. Thanks to Kevin James, MBS NF Ecology and Botany Program Manager, and Shauna Hee, North Zone (Mt. Baker and Darrington Districts) MBS NF Botanist. Special thanks to James for facilitation during the period of fieldwork, including spending a field day with the project lead at the 7080 rd. wetland and at Government Meadow. Thanks also to Sonny Paz, Snoqualmie District Wildlife Biologist, for a day of assistance with fieldwork at Government Meadow, and to the Carex Working Group for assistance in the identification of Carex flava at the Headwaters of Cascade Creek wetland. 2 Summary Sites on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF that were reasonably suspected to include groundwater-fed wetlands (fens) were visited between 8/15-9/28 2006. The intent of these visits was to inventory for rare plants associated with these wetlands, and to record a coarse biophysical description of the setting. Twelve of the 18 sites visited were determined in include notable amounts of fen habitat. Five rare target species and two otherwise notable rare species accounting for eight distinct occurrences/populations at six wetlands were detected during site visits.
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters

    List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters

    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
  • Draft SEIR Chapter 2 Program Description

    Draft SEIR Chapter 2 Program Description

    1 Chapter 2 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3 2.1 Introduction 4 2.1.1 Program Purpose 5 The purpose of the Proposed Program is to establish and implement a permitting program 6 for suction dredging activities consistent with the requirements of Fish and Game Code 7 section 5653 et seq. and the December 2006 Court Order. 8 2.1.2 Program Objectives 9 The objectives of the Proposed Program are as follows: 10 Comply with the December 2006 Court Order; 11 Promulgate amendments to CDFG’s previous regulations as necessary to 12 effectively implement Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.9 and other 13 applicable legal authorities to ensure that suction dredge mining will not be 14 deleterious to fish; 15 Develop a program that is implementable within the existing fee structure 16 established by statute for the CDFG’s suction dredge permitting program, as well 17 as the existing fee structure established by the CDFG pursuant to Fish and Game 18 Code section 1600 et seq.; 19 Fulfill CDFG’s mission to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant 20 resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values 21 and for their use and enjoyment by the public; 22 Ensure that the development of the regulations considers economic costs, 23 practical considerations for implementation, and technological capabilities 24 existing at the time of implementation; and 25 Fulfill the CDFG’s obligation to conserve, protect, and manage fish, wildlife, 26 native plants, and habitats necessary for biologically sustainable populations of 27 those species and as a trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources pursuant to 28 Fish and Game Code section 1802.
  • Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project

    Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project

    DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project April 2005 This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project Prepared for Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91350 Prepared by April 2005 525 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR...................................................................................................1-4 1.4 Permits and Other Approvals Required to Implement the Project.............................1-4 1.5 Related Environmental Documentation .........................................................................1-5 1.6 Public Involvement Process..............................................................................................1-5
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining

    Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining

    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
  • Public Law 111-11

    Public Law 111-11

    PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 991 Public Law 111–11 111th Congress An Act To designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Mar. 30, 2009 Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. [H.R. 146] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus Public Land SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Management Act (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus of 2009. Public Land Management Act of 2009’’. 16 USC 1 note. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I—ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM Subtitle A—Wild Monongahela Wilderness Sec. 1001. Designation of wilderness, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Sec. 1002. Boundary adjustment, Laurel Fork South Wilderness, Monongahela Na­ tional Forest. Sec. 1003. Monongahela National Forest boundary confirmation. Sec. 1004. Enhanced Trail Opportunities. Subtitle B—Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness Sec. 1101. Definitions. Sec. 1102. Designation of additional National Forest System land in Jefferson Na­ tional Forest as wilderness or a wilderness study area. Sec. 1103. Designation of Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1104. Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1105. Trail plan and development. Sec. 1106. Maps and boundary descriptions. Sec. 1107. Effective date. Subtitle C—Mt. Hood Wilderness, Oregon Sec.
  • 28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In

    28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In

    28 Critical Habitat Units for the California Red-Legged Frog In response to a 12-20-99, federal court order won by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Jumping Frog Research Institute, the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service designated 4,138,064 acres of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The March 6, 2001 designation is comprised of 29 units spanning 28 California counties. UNIT ACRES COUNTY WATERSHEDS AND OWNERSHIP North Fork Feather 115,939 Butte Drainages within the North Fork Feather River watershed including the River Plumas French Creek watershed. 81% Plumas and Lassen National Forests, 19% mostly private land. Weber 59,531 El Dorado Drainages in Weber Creek and North Fork Cosumnes River watersheds. Creek-Cosumnes 64% private lands, 36% El Dorado National Forest Yosemite 124,336 Tuolumne Tributaries of the Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek, a tributary to the Mariposa Merced River 100% Stanislaus National Forest or Yosemite National Park. Headwaters of 38,300 Tehama Includes drainages within the headwaters of Cottonwood and Red Bank Cottonwood Creek creeks. 82 % private lands, 18% Mendocino National Forest. Cleary Preserve 34,087 Napa Drainages within watersheds forming tributaries to Pope Creek 88% private, 12% federal and state Annadel State Park 6,326 Sonoma Upper Sonoma Creek watershed found partially within Annadel State Preserve Park. 76% private, 24% California Department of Parks and Recreation Stebbins Cold 21,227 Napa Drainages found within and adjacent to Stebbins Cold Canyon Preserve Canyon Preserve Solano and the Quail Ridge Wilderness Preserve including watersheds that form Capell Creek, including Wragg Canyon, Markley Canyon, Steel Canyon and the Wild Horse Canyon watershed.
  • SEA Significant Ecological Area

    SEA Significant Ecological Area

    SEA Program | DRP Page 1 of 17 Skip To Content (#content) SEA • SEA Home (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/) • Proposed SEAS (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed) • SEA Ordinance (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/ordinance) • SEATAC (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/seatac) • SEA History (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/history) • Studies & Resources (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/studies) • SEAs & The General Plan (http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/biological) Significant Ecological Area - Proposed SEAs MARCH 24, 2015 GENERAL PLAN APPROVED AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WITH COUNTYWIDE SEA MAP and POLICY The Los Angeles County General Plan Update, including the SEA Program Goals and Policies, Countywide SEA and Coastal Resource Areas Map (Figure 9.3) (“SEA Map”) and SEA Descriptions were approved at public hearing of the Board of Supervisors on March 24th, 2015. • Click here for Final Draft of the General Plan March 24, 2015 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan/draft) • Click here for the report to the Board (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_board- letter_20150324.pdf) -Click here for a PDF Copy of Map 9.3 (SEAs & CRAs) (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_2014-FIG_9-3_significant_ecological_areas.pdf) SEA and Coastal Resource Areas Map/Figure 9.3: FEBRUARY 2015: MINOR CHANGES TO THE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS TO MATCH THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS LOCAL COASTAL PLAN After the Santa Monica Mountains http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed 10/18/2017 SEA Program | DRP Page 2 of 17 Local Coastal Plan was adopted minor changes were made to the proposed SEA Map to reflect the final approved boundaries of the Coastal Zone.