DOCSLIB.ORG

2006 Adopted Mono County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2006 Adopted Mono County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mono County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Mono County Town of Mammoth Lakes OCTOBER 2006 Mono County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Mono County Town of Mammoth Lakes Prepared By: Mono County Community Development Department P.O. Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 (760) 924-1800, fax (760) 924-1801 [email protected] Mono County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The Mono County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is intended to be a living document that changes over time as circumstances change and new information becomes available. To suggest amendments to the plan, or to request further information concerning the plan, contact the Mono County Community Development Department. You may also visit the Mono County website or the Town of Mammoth Lakes website (www.monocounty.ca.gov or www.ci.mammoth-lakes.ca.us) to view the document online. The Mono County and Town of Mammoth Lakes websites also include a complete listing of staff members and their contact information. Mono County Community Development Department [email protected] (760) 924-1800 (Mammoth Lakes) (760) 932-5430 (Bridgeport) Mono County CDD Box 8 Bridgeport, CA 93517 Mono County CDD Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department www.ci.mammoth-lakes.ca.us (760) 934-8989 Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department P.O. Box 1609 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolutions of Adoption ............................................................................................. iii Guide to Using the LHMP ............................................................................................ xi I. Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 1 Focus of the Plan .................................................................................................. 1 Relationship Between the LHMP & Local Emergency Operation Plans ..... 1 Planning Process & Participants ........................................................................ 2 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 3 Incorporation of Prior Studies ............................................................................ 4 II. Local Capabilities Assessment ............................................................................. 6 Available Resources for Hazards Mitigation Planning .................................. 6 Human Resources .................................................................................................6 Technical Resources ..............................................................................................8 Local Mitigation Funding Sources ..................................................................... 9 Local Hazard Ordinances ................................................................................. 10 Ongoing Hazards Mitigation ........................................................................... 11 III. Risk Assessment................................................................................................. 18 Natural Hazards Affecting Mono County ..................................................... 18 Mono County Disaster Declarations Since 1950 ............................................ 19 Risk Assessment—Specific Hazards ............................................................... 21 Avalanche Hazards .......................................................................................23 Dam Failure Hazards ...................................................................................29 Flood Hazards ...............................................................................................34 Landslide Hazards ........................................................................................43 Seismic Hazards ............................................................................................48 Severe Winter Storm Hazards .....................................................................57 Volcanic Hazards ..........................................................................................62 Wildfire Hazards ...........................................................................................68 Vulnerability to Identified Hazards: Overview ............................................ 78 Vulnerability: Structures .................................................................................. 79 Estimating Losses ............................................................................................... 80 Development Trends ......................................................................................... 80 Local Hazard Concerns ..................................................................................... 82 i Mono County LHMP October 2006 IV. Mitigation Strategy ............................................................................................. 84 Mitigation Overview ......................................................................................... 84 Proposed Mitigation Actions and Projects ..................................................... 86 V. Plan Maintenance............................................................................................... 101 Monitoring, Evaluating, & Updating the Plan ............................................ 101 Incorporating the LHMP Into Other Planning Documents ....................... 102 Continued Public Involvement ...................................................................... 102 VI. References ........................................................................................................... 104 VII. Appendix A—Map Set .................................................................................... A-1 VII. Appendix B—Existing Hazard Policies ....................................................... B-1 TABLES Table 1 Mono County Disaster Declarations Since 1950 ............................................. 19 Table 2 Natural Hazards in Mono County .................................................................... 20 Table 3 Dams and Reservoirs in Mono County ............................................................ 30 Table 4 Mono County, Average Annual Flow, Selected Streams .............................. 34 Table 5 Communities at Risk From Wildland Fires, Mono County .......................... 68 ii Mono County LHMP October 2006 Resolutions of Adoption Resolutions of Adoption from Town of Mammoth Lakes Town Council and Mono County Board of Supervisors: iii Mono County LHMP October 2006 iv Mono County LHMP October 2006 v Mono County LHMP October 2006 vii Mono County LHMP October 2006 viii Mono County LHMP October 2006 ix Mono County LHMP October 2006 x Mono County LHMP October 2006 Guide to Using the LHMP Purpose of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a planning document for hazards mitigation, focusing primarily on natural hazards as required by State and Federal law. Its purpose is to identify natural hazards in the area and ways to mitigate the impacts of those hazards before they occur. The intent of the LHMP is to minimize impacts to people and property from identified natural hazards. It is not intended to provide response scenarios for emergency events. Emergency Operations Plans Both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County have Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) that address specific emergency procedures for a variety of events, including natural hazard events, terrorism, airplane crashes, bioterrorism, etc. The EOPs are specific response plans for emergency response situations. These plans are maintained by the County Office of Emergency Services and by the Town’s Police Department and include lists of emergency response personnel as well as procedures for responding to a variety of events. The plans are updated annually. LHMP Contents The LHMP establishes a planning process for developing the document, incorporates applicable prior hazard studies, assesses the resources available for hazards mitigation planning, including existing ongoing hazards planning and mitigation for the area, identifies natural hazards affecting the area and assesses the risk to people and property from those hazards, and provides mitigation strategies for minimizing the impacts of identified hazards. A separate map set in Appendix A contains various maps and figures pertaining to hazards that affect communities in Mono County. xi Mono County LHMP October 2006 I. PLANNING PROCESS FOCUS OF THE PLAN The Mono County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a multi-jurisdictional hazard plan that addresses the unincorporated areas of Mono County as well as the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the county's only incorporated area. It also considers areas outside the county that either may impact areas within the county or that are accessed from the county; e.g., Rock Creek Lake in Inyo County could affect Mono County and Red’s Meadow in Madera County is accessed from Mono County. Mono County is a sparsely populated rural county located on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The State of Nevada forms the county's eastern border. Approximately 94 percent of the County's 3,103 square miles are publicly owned; the area's spectacular scenery of high valleys and rugged mountain ranges has made it a popular recreation destination. The major population center, and the County's only incorporated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS Chapter 3
    table of contrents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.6 4.6. Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi4.6. Fungi Introduction Part 3.1 of this chapter describes landscape-scale vegetation patterns. Part 3.2 describes the vegetative structure, function, and composition of old forest ecosystems, while Part 3.3 describes hardwood ecosystems and Part 3.4 describes aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. This part focuses on botanical diversity in the Sierra Nevada, beginning with an overview of botanical resources and then presenting a more detailed analysis of the rarest elements of the flora, the threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants. The bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens, and fungi of the Sierra have been little studied in comparison to the vascular flora. In the Pacific Northwest, studies of these groups have received increased attention due to the President’s Northwest Forest Plan. New and valuable scientific data is being revealed, some of which may apply to species in the Sierra Nevada. This section presents an overview of the vascular plant flora, followed by summaries of what is generally known about bryophytes, lichens, and fungi in the Sierra Nevada. Environmental Consequences of the alternatives are only analyzed for the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants, which include vascular plants, several bryophytes, and one species of lichen. 4.6.1. Vascular plants4.6.1. plants The diversity of topography, geology, and elevation in the Sierra Nevada combine to create a remarkably diverse flora (see Section 3.1 for an overview of landscape patterns and vegetation dynamics in the Sierra Nevada). More than half of the approximately 5,000 native vascular plant species in California occur in the Sierra Nevada, despite the fact that the range contains less than 20 percent of the state’s land base (Shevock 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Campground in Yosemite National Park
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California Byway Highway # "Tioga Road/Big Oak Flat Road" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 End of Tioga Pass Road on Scenic Tioga Pass Road on State Highway #120, ends at the junction of State Highway #120 Big Oak Road just outside Yosemite Valley within Yosemite National Park, California. Altitude: 6158 feet 0.6 Tuolumne Grove Trail Tuolumne Grove Trail Head, Tioga Pass Road, Tuolumne Grove, is a Head sequoia grove located near Crane Flat in Yosemite National Park, California Altitude: 6188 feet 3.7 Old Big Oak Flat Road South to Tamarack Flat Campground in Yosemite National Park. Has 52 campsites, picnic tables, food lockers, fire rings, and vault toilets. Altitude: 7018 feet 6.2 Old Tioga Road Trail To Old Tioga Road, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, lies in Hetch Hetchy Valley, which is completely flooded by the Hetch Hetchy Dam, in Yosemite National Park, California. Wapama Falls, in Hetch Hetchy Valley, Lake Vernon, Rancheria Falls, Rancheria Creek, Camp Mather Lake. Altitude: 6772 feet 6.2 Trail to Tamarrack Flat Altitude: 6775 feet Campground 13.7 Siesta Lake Altitude: 7986 feet 14.5 White Wolf Road To White Wolf Campground, located outside of Yosemite Valley, just off Tioga Pass Road in California. Altitude: 8117 feet 16.5 Access To Luken's Lake, Yosemite Creek Trail, Altitude: 8182 feet 19.7 Access A mountainous Road/Trail, Quaking Aspen Falls, is a seasonal water fall, that stream relies on rain and snow melting, dries up in summer, located just off Tioga Pass Road, in Yosemite National Park, Altitude: 7500 feet 20.3 Quaking Aspen Falls East of highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment a ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary
    Attachment A ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary Fiscal Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007‐2016 Number of Fires 1 63 64 53 33 66 79 56 56 127 110 707 Total fire acres on NFS 2 1,751,118 1,326,893 549,108 211,327 1,489,029 2,411,413 1,141,353 741,465 1,587,843 1,038,686 12,248,235 High severity acres on NFS 3 842,658 368,595 268,944 76,192 619,020 809,720 513,957 265,045 489,668 397,654 4,651,453 Number of NEPA decisions identified 4 129 Acres of salvage planned in NEPA 5 218 17,255 2,134 14,010 22,761 28,937 13,809 13,264 112,388 Number of NEPA decisions litigated 6 125110332422 Litigation cases won by USFS 7 013110131112 Litigation cases lost by USFS 8 1120001011 7 Litigation cases pending 9 0000001002 3 Acres of salvage reported accomplished 10 328 2,665 8,125 3,464 8,774 6,916 11,672 19,792 16,926 21,234 99,896 1 Fires burning more than 1,000 acres on NFS land 10 Salvage harvest activity records identified as awarded in Forest Service Activity 2 Total acres inside fire perimeter on NFS land Tracking System (FACTS) by GIS analysis of fire perimeters. 3 Classified as greater than 75% mortality using Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) 4 Identified by fire salvage keyword search in PALS (Planning Appeals and Disclaimer: Only the litigation data is believed to be 100% complete and Litigation System) or reported with sale activity records in Forest Service systems accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ANALYSIS of WILDFIRE IMPACTS on CLIMATE CHANGE By
    AN ANALYSIS OF WILDFIRE IMPACTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE By: Taylor Gilson Mentor: Dr. Elaine Fagner 1 Abstract Abstract: The western United States (U.S.). has recently seen an increase in wildfires that destroyed communities and lives. This researcher seeks to examine the impact of wildfires on climate change by examining recent studies on air quality and air emissions produced by wildfires, and their impact on climate change. Wildfires cause temporary large increases in outdoor airborne particles, such as particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) and particulate matter 10(PM 10). Large wildfires can increase air pollution over thousands of square kilometers (Berkley University, 2021). The researcher will be conducting this research by analyzing PM found in the atmosphere, as well as analyzing air quality reports in the Southwestern portion of the U.S. The focus of this study is to examine the air emissions after wildfires have occurred in Yosemite National Park; and the research analysis will help provide the scientific community with additional data to understand the severity of wildfires and their impacts on climate change. Project Overview and Hypothesis This study examines the air quality from prior wildfires in Yosemite National Park. This research effort will help provide additional data for the scientific community and local, state, and federal agencies to better mitigate harmful levels of PM in the atmosphere caused by forest fires. The researcher hypothesizes that elevated PM levels in the Yosemite National Park region correlate with wildfires that are caused by natural sources such as lightning strikes and droughts. Introduction The researcher will seek to prove the linkage between wildfires and PM.
    [Show full text]
  • A Water Year to Remember: Fire to Flood Reflections
    A Water Year to Remember: Fire to Flood Reflections Panelists: Jeremy Lancaster Supervising Engineering Geologist California Geological Survey Rachael Orellana Flood Risk Program Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tom Fayram Deputy Director County of Santa Barbara Pubic Works Department Moderator: Melissa Weymiller Jon Frey Project Manager Engineering Manager Flood Risk Management Program Santa Barbara County U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control District A Water Year to Remember: Fire and Flood Reflections Floodplain Management Association Annual Conference Reno, Nevada Wednesday, 2018 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Jeremy Lancaster – Sup. Engineering Geologist California Geological Survey 2017 Wildfires – Historic Context California Wildfires Years over 1 million acres since 1987 Year Fires Acres 2017 9,133 1,248,606 2008 6,255 1,593,690 2007 6,043 1,520,362 1999 11,125 1,172,850 1987‐2016 average: 555,700 acres Source: CAL FIRE http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/radarArchive.php Post‐Wildfire Hazards to Life and Property PHYSICAL HAZARD EXPOSURE CHEMICAL HAZARD EXPOSURE • Flooding – 2 to 3 Times the • Incinerated household and Water industrial waste • Debris Flow – 20 Foot thick • Runoff laden with toxic soil boulder laden surge fronts • Degradation of water quality • Rockfall – Can be triggered by wind after a fire! • Hazard Trees – They fall on things! Public knowledge of these hazards generally lacking! Atlas Fire Napa/Solano Counties January 9, 2018; 5pm 2.6 inches, January 8‐ 10 • 1 Death ‐ debris slide/debris flow on CA‐121 ~5pm at Wooden Valley Road • CA‐121 Closed for one day Detwiler Fire March 22, 2018; 6:15p Mariposa County • 2 Deaths • 2 Residences flooded • High School flooded • Elementary School flooded • 11 Roadway Crossings Flooded Slinkard Fire May 21, 2018; 6:27p Mono County • U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Exclusion Record
    1 Decision Memorandum on Action and for Application of: Categorical Exclusion 1.12 Evaluation of Pinyon Removal Effects Typical of a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fuels Reduction Project Mono Basin, CA CER Number: CA-170-05-35 U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Bishop Field Office Mono County, California Purpose and Need for the Action The BLM Bishop Field Office has identified a critical resource management need to develop ecologically sound and cost-effective fuel treatment prescriptions for areas where pinyon-juniper woodlands have expanded into sagebrush steppe during the 1900s (Miller et al. 1999, Miller 2000). The vegetative fuels of such areas, including the Mono Basin, are now well outside their natural range of variability for the current climate conditions, thus making these areas highly susceptible to large, high-intensity wildland fires. Many of these encroaching pinyon stands are also within designated Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) areas, placing residents, homesites, and other structures at significant risk. In just the past five years, several large, high-intensity wildland fires have burned through pinyon – juniper areas of the eastern Sierra, most notably in the Walker – Coleville area of northern Mono County. The fuels conditions (Fire Regime/Condition Class 2 and 3) associated with this proposed project are similar to those that existed in the Walker – Coleville area and other areas of the eastern Sierra prior to these recent large, high-intensity wildland fires. The management of these pinyon-juniper fuels, especially where communities and homesites are threatened, is one of the top priorities for the BLM and other agencies in the southwestern Great Basin and the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transportation Plan
    MONO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mono County Local Transportation Commission Mono County Community Development Department Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department MONO COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS Fred Stump, Chair (Mono County) Shields Richardson, Vice-Chair (Mammoth Lakes) Jo Bacon (Mammoth Lakes) Tim Fesko (Mono County) Larry Johnston (Mono County) Sandy Hogan (Mammoth Lakes) STAFF Mono County Scott Burns, LTC Director Gerry Le Francois, Principal Planner Wendy Sugimura, Associate Analyst Jeff Walters, Public Works Director Garrett Higerd, Associate Engineer Courtney Weiche, Associate Planner C.D. Ritter, LTC Secretary Megan Mahaffey, Fiscal Analyst Town of Mammoth Lakes Haislip Hayes, Associate Civil Engineer Jamie Robertson, Assistant Engineer Caltrans District 9 Brent Green, District 9 Director Ryan Dermody, Deputy District 9 Director Planning, Modal Programs, and Local Assistance Denee Alcala, Transportation Planning Branch Supervisor Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) John Helm, Executive Director Jill Batchelder, Program Coordinator TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 Transportation Directives .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Needs and Issues ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Southern Sierras: Water, Snow & Ecosystem
    Exploring the Southern Sierras: Water, snow & ecosystem monitoring across the range The Sierra Nevada marks the geographic boundary between the great Central Valley of California to the west and the Basin and Range province to the east. The range comprises diverse ecosystems: traveling from west to east, you encounter rolling oak woodlands, dense montane coniferous forests, alpine meadows and peaks, and back down to Pinyon pine-Juniper forests and scrublands on the eastern face of the range. In this semi-arid climate, snowpack accumulation in the mountain range constitutes a critical resource for the larger region. Runoff from the Sierras is used by more than 10% of the population of the United States. Sierra Nevada runoff also sustains agriculture in the Central Valley of California, a multi-billion dollar industry providing a considerable portion of the country's produce. Research on hydrology, climate, and ecosystem interactions in this region has immense implications for regional livelihoods and policies. To study these topics in the Sierra Nevada, there are several long-term monitoring sites scattered across the region. This trip will give you a first-hand look at many of the sites, including the SNOTEL installation at Virginia Lakes Ridge, the GLORIA monitoring site, long- term collaborative monitoring of the Mono Basin , the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory, and monitoring efforts by the National Park Service Inventory & Monitoring Program at Yosemite National Park. The trip will take approximately 3 days and include travel to elevations as high as 10,000’/3048 m (as well as an optional hike to near 11,000’/3353 m).
    [Show full text]
  • East Walker River Watershed Assessment
    East Walker River Watershed Assessment March 2012 Contributors and Acknowledgements Assessment and plan written by Rick Kattelmann Ph.D., retired hydrologist who specialized in watershed management and snow hydrology. He worked and contracted for a variety of agencies, public utilities, and conservation groups. Rick was the principal hydrologist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project in the mid-1990s and authored more than 150 scientific and technical papers. He served two terms on the Mono County Planning Commission and wrote watershed assessments for the other principal watersheds of Mono County. Rick holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry and watershed hydrology at U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in snow hydrology from U.C. Santa Barbara. Assessment and plan production managed by Eastern Sierra Land Trust: Aaron Johnson, Lands Director, Heather Freeman, Office Coordinator, Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director Assistance with cartographic design and spatial analysis: Kimberly Forkner Funders/Support: Funding for this project has been provided by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an agency of the State of California. The maps and cartographic products included in this report were made possible through a generous grant of the ArcGIS software by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) through the ESRI Conservation Program. Disclaimer Watershed Assessments are a snapshot in time of a location, synthesizing all the known information concerning that area. Omissions, errors, an d misunderstandings can occur. The authors request that corrections, additions, and suggestions be sent to the address below. Eastern Sierra Land Trust P.O. Box 755 Bishop, CA 93515 East Walker River Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BOARD PACKET ~ Page 1 of 72 GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
    GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION Meeting Date & Time Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 10:00 am Meeting Location Town of Mammoth Lakes Council Chambers 437 Old Mammoth Road (Suite Z) Mammoth Lakes, California 93546 District Board John Wentworth, Town of Mammoth Lakes, Chair David Griffith, Alpine County, Vice Chair Ron Hames, Alpine County Dan Totheroh, Inyo County Fred Stump, Mono County Matt Kingsley, Inyo County Larry Johnston, Mono County Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer 157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514 (760) 872-8211 E-mail: [email protected] Phillip L. Kiddoo Air Pollution Control Officer GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514‐3537 Tel: 760‐872‐8211 www.gbuapcd.org GOVERNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 10:00 AM Town of Mammoth Lakes Council Chambers 437 Old Mammoth Road (Suite Z) Mammoth Lakes, California 93546 Assistance for those with disabilities: If you have a disability and need accommodation to participate in the meeting, please call Tori DeHaven, Board Clerk, at (760) 872-8211 for assistance so the necessary arrangements can be made. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District is a California regional government agency that works to protect the people and the environment of Alpine, Mono and Inyo Counties from the harmful effects of air pollution. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda (No Action) 3. Consent Items (Action) a. Approval of the September 14, 2017 Regular Governing Board Meeting Minutes .........1 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall Color Guide
    P M P M P C 6 B . 9 o i O O O s o a 0 Why do leaves u h n m . n EASTERN HIGH SIERRA N B B D o o t m p . y o o r C M o x x a A o o w turn color? t 6 4 a f h r u e 0 8 e i n n I r 3 , a L n t , M N a S y y M C C k t o , e very autumn, cottonwood, quaking a r T r h e t I e m a n o a o s n e m . aspen and willow are transformed into u S m m d t C S r T , m - e C i o o FALL b O B colorful hues of gold, orange and russet. s p C o t u e - E m 1 h i e t 1 s r r 5 h n Before long, their leaves will fall and again 8 h i L s d o a o L a m e f p become part of another cycle that feeds the n k a n , d C e k c a C s soil. What causes this yearly cycle, and what e o e F , n s A m , , i C d l determines which color the leaves turn? C C m m 9 A R A 3 A COLOR During spring and summer, leaves e 5 9 e C 9 r 1 9 3 c c o 3 4 actively produce foods necessary for plant 3 5 r e 5 m e 5 4 2 4 6 a m growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope Valley Fire Protection District Mono County, California
    Municipal Service Review And Sphere of Influence Recommendation Antelope Valley Fire Protection District Mono County, California February 2009 Prepared By: Mono County Local Agency Formation Commission P.O. Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 phone (760) 924-1800; fax (760) 924-1801 [email protected] Antelope Valley Fire Protection District -- Municipal Service Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary........................................................................................................................................ 1 Municipal Service Review Determinations .............................................................................. 1 Sphere of Influence Findings....................................................................................................4 Sphere of Influence Recommendation...................................................................................... 4 Reorganization Recommendation............................................................................................. 4 I. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6 Municipal Service Reviews ...................................................................................................... 6 Relationship Between Municipal Service Reviews and Spheres of Influence ......................... 6 II. Antelope Valley Fire Protection District............................................................................... 7 District Overview.....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]