DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUXILIARY DAM LEFT ABUTMENT PROJECT ISABELLA LAKE, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA September 2010 Approve

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUXILIARY DAM LEFT ABUTMENT PROJECT ISABELLA LAKE, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA September 2010 Approve DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUXILIARY DAM LEFT ABUTMENT PROJECT ISABELLA LAKE, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA September 2010 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Environmental Resources Branch FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Auxiliary Dam Left Abutment Project Isabella Lake, Kern County, California I have reviewed and evaluated the information in this Environmental Assessment for the Auxiliary Dam Left Abutment Project, Isabella Lake, Kern County, California. The project would involve restoring the height of the Isabella Auxiliary Dam at its junction with the left abutment through the construction of a 200-foot long earthen embankment between the eastern tip of the dam and Highway 178. This work is necessary to correct a potentially dangerous low spot at the left abutment of the Auxiliary Dam which, during a major flooding event, could result in overtopping and the breach of the dam. The embankment and staging area for the work would be located on National Forest System lands and encompass a California Department of Transportation non-exclusive easement adjacent to Highway 178. Fill materials for the work would be obtained from the Kelso Creek Community Material Pit, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Construction would be completed by November 2010 before the start of the rain season. During this review, the possible consequences of the work described in the EA have been studied with consideration given to environmental, social, cultural, and engineering feasibility. In evaluating the effects of the proposed project, specific attention has been given to significant environmental resources that could potentially be affected. I have also considered the views of other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals concerning the project. Any effects on environmental resources would be avoided or minimized by using best management practices. There are no Federally listed species in or near the project area. Based on my review of the EA and my knowledge of the project area, I am convinced that the proposed project is a logical and desirable alternative. Furthermore, I have determined that the project would have no significant effect on the environment. All construction would be implemented in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, and regulations. Based on the results of the environmental evaluation and completion of interagency coordination, I have determined that the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact provide adequate documentation and that the project may proceed as proposed with no further environmental documentation required. _____________________ _______________________________ Date William J. Leady, P.E. Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 1 PROPOSED ACTION....................................................................................................................... 1 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................... 1 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 2 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 2 NO ACTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 AUXILIARY DAM LEFT ABUTMENT (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ................................................. 2 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................... 4 RESOURCES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ................................................................................... 4 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 7 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 8 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 9 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................................. 11 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 15 NOISE ......................................................................................................................................... 17 TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................................................... 19 ESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................. 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 20 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................................ 24 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS .................... 25 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS REQUIRED................................................. 26 COORDINATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......... 27 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 27 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................................. 27 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 28 i TABLES 1. Sensitive animal species with the potential to occur within or near the action area ..............12 2. Sensitive plant species with the potential to occur within or near the action area.................14 3. Estimated Criteria Pollutants…………………………… .....................................................17 4. Truck Trips Estimates for the Auxiliary Dam Left Abutment Project ..................................19 PLATES 1. Auxiliary Dam Abutment Location Map 2. Auxiliary Dam Abutment Vicinity Map 3. Auxiliary Dam Abutment Site Map 4. Auxiliary Dam Abutment Design 5. Haul Route From Construction Site 6. Kelso Creek Community Material Pit Site Map 7. Auxiliary Dam Abutment and Kelso Creek Community Material Pit Site Photographs 8. Auxiliary Dam Recreation Area Photograph 9. Auxiliary Dam Abutment Soil Classification APPENDICES A. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment B. USFWS Species List C. Cultural Resources Documentation D. USFS Standard Form 299 Application E. Caltrans Correspondence F. Mailing List ii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best management practice CARB California Air Resources Board CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CWA Clean Water Act DFG California Department of Fish and Game DSAP Dam Safety Assurance Program DSM Dam Safety Modification EA Environmental Assessment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste IRRM Interim Risk Reduction Measure KCCMP Kelso Creek Community Material Pit KCF Kern Canyon Fault MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCE Southern California Edison SHPO State Historical Preservation Officer SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFS U.S. Forest Service UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle YBP Years Before Present iii 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Background The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been conducting engineering studies since 1996 to determine if the Main and Auxiliary dams at Isabella Lake meet safety regulations regarding earthquake survivability. These studies were authorized under Section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The conclusions were published in the September 2003 report entitled “Seismic Safety Review: Dam Safety Assurance Program Report for Isabella Dam, Isabella Lake, California”. Further investigation in 2005 of the auxiliary dam discovered that there were higher foundation pressures than originally believed. A USACE Geotechnical Seepage Study completed in March 2006 concluded that the pressures in the foundation of the dam had reached very high consequences associated with dam failure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • ABSOLUTE NNN SINGLE TENANT INVESTMENT Investment Grade Credit Tenant - Zero LL Responsibilities 2326 Webb Avenue | Lake Isabella, CA | 93240
    ABSOLUTE NNN SINGLE TENANT INVESTMENT Investment Grade Credit Tenant - Zero LL Responsibilities 2326 Webb Avenue | Lake Isabella, CA | 93240 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1200 | IRVINE, CA 92614 | SNYDER/CARLTON TEAM PROPERTY OVERVIEW We are pleased to offer to qualified investors an opportunity to purchase a brand new Pricing Summary construction, single tenant absolute NNN investment fully leased to Dollar General on a brand List Price $2,262,600 new 15 year corporate guaranteed lease. Located on a large 1.43 acre lot with a brand new NOI $135,756 15 year term and 3 - 5 year options available; this lease provides investors ideal passive long CAP Rate 6.00% term stable cash flow. This is an excellent opportunity to acquire an investment grade credit Operating Expenses NNN tenant, with zero landlord responsibilities located in Lake Isabella, CA; next to the highly visited Taxes, Insurance, CAM Lake Isabella and Kern River. Dollar General | Lake Isabella, CA | P. 2 INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS • Investment Grade Credit Tenant - Pride of Ownership LEASE ABSTRACT • Dollar General Corp. (NYSE: DG) - Rated “BBB” by S&P - Investment Grade • Brand New Construction - New 15 Year Corporate Guaranteed Lease Tenant Trade Name Dollar General • Absolute NNN Lease Structure - Zero LL Responsibilities • Passive Long Term Stable Cash Flow - Ideal 1031 Exchange Asset Lease Start February 17, 2018 • 10% Rental Increases Each Option - 3-5 Year Option Periods Lease Expiration February 28, 2033 • Located next to the Kern River in Lake Isabella, CA • Highly Visited Area for Outdoor Activities Lease Term 15 Years • Dollar General Operated 14,534 Stores in 44 states as of February 2, 2018 • Net Income of Approximately $1.25 Billion - Over $11.6 Billion in Total Assets Term Remaining On Lease 15 Years Base Rent $135,756 Rental Adjustments None 3 - 5 Year Options 10% Increase Each Option Options 3/1/2033: $149,328 3/1/2038: $164,268 3/1/2043: $180,684 Lease Type Absolute NNN Lease Roof & Structure Tenant Responsible Jiffy Lube - Clarksville, TN | P.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Rare Plants Report
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring Program 2019 Rare Plant Survey Report Brand’s Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ) 21 April 2020 i 2019 Rare Plant Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 2 Protocol Development ........................................................................................................ 2 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................. 2 Training ............................................................................................................................... 3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 5 Targeted Surveys ................................................................................................................ 5 Species with Additional Requirements ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Codes Used in the Kern River Valley
    i The Kern River Valley Community Fire Safe Plan Created by HangFire Environmental for the Kern River Fire Safe Council and the citizens they strive to protect. October 2002 The Kern River Valley Community Fire Safe Plan was funded by a grant to the Kern River Valley Fire Safe Council by the United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, National Fire Plan-Economic Action Program. In accordance with Federal law and United States Department of Agriculture policy, Kern River Valley Fire Safe Council in cooperation with the Kern River Valley Revitalization Incorporated is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the United States Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202)720-5964 (voice or TDD). The United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii Table of Contents Kern River Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan................................................................i The Kern River Valley Community Fire Safe Plan........................................................................ii Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • THE JEPSON GLOBE a Newsletter from the Friends of the Jepson Herbarium
    THE JEPSON GLOBE A Newsletter from the Friends of The Jepson Herbarium VOLUME 26 NUMBER 1, Spring 2016 Curator’s Column: Museomics The Jepson Manual: Vascular Reveals Secrets of the Dead Plants of California, Second By Bruce G. Baldwin Edition: Supplement III Over the last decade, herbaria By Bruce G. Baldwin have received well-deserved public- The latest set of revisions to The Jep- ity as treasure troves of undiscovered son Manual, second edition (TJM2) and biodiversity, with the recognition that the Jepson eFlora was released online most “new” species named in the last in December 2015. The rapid pace of half-century have long resided in col- discovery and description of vascular lections prior to their detection and plant taxa that are new-to-science for original description. The prospect also California and the rarity and endanger- has emerged for unlocking the secrets of ment of most of those new taxa have plants and other organisms that no lon- warranted prioritization of revisions ger share our planet as living organisms that incorporate such diversity — and and, sadly, reside only in collections. Map of California, split apart to show newly introduced, putatively aggressive Technological advances that now al- the Regions of the Jepson eFlora. invasives — so that detection of such low for DNA sequencing on a genomic Source: Jepson Flora Project. plants in the field and in collections scale also are well suited for studying Regional dichotomous keys now is not impeded. The continuing taxo- old, highly degraded specimens, as re- nomic reorganization of genera and, to cent reconstruction of the Neanderthal available for the Jepson eFlora some extent, families in order to reflect genome has shown.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Project No. 298-080 – California Kaweah Hydroelectric Project Southern California Edison
    20170518-3018 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/18/2017 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 May 18, 2017 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 298-080 – California Kaweah Hydroelectric Project Southern California Edison Company Subject: Scoping Document 2 for the Kaweah Hydroelectric Project To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Document submitted by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for relicensing the Kaweah Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 298). The proposed project is located on the Kaweah River and East Fork Kaweah River in Tulare County, California. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), which will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and that the EA is thorough and balanced. Our preliminary review of the environmental issues to be addressed in our EA was contained in Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which was issued on February 10, 2017. We requested comments on SD1 and held scoping meetings on March 14, 2017, to hear the views of all interested entities on the scope of issues to be included in the EA. We revised SD1 based on the oral comments we received at the scoping meetings and written comments we received throughout the scoping process. The enclosed Scoping Document 2 (SD2) describes the proposed action and alternatives, the environmental analysis process we will follow to prepare the EA, and a revised list of issues to be addressed in the EA.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests
    Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Order 0513-21-09 Kern River Ranger
    ORDER NO. 0513-21-09 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST KERN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT KERN CANYON AND ISABELLA LAKE GLASS CONTAINER PROHIBITION Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a), and to provide for public safety, the following act is prohibited within the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest. This Order is effective from May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2023. Possessing or storing food or beverages in glass containers in the Kern Canyon and Isabella Lake Glass Container Prohibition Areas, as described on Exhibit A, and shown on Exhibits B, C, and D. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(cc). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from this Order: Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of an official duty. This prohibition is in addition to the general prohibitions in 36 C.F.R. Part § 261, Subpart A. A violation of this prohibition is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559, 3571, and 3581. Done at Porterville, California, this 13th day of April, 2021. TERESA BENSON Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest ORDER NO. 0513-21-09 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST KERN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT KERN CANYON AND ISABELLA LAKE GLASS CONTAINER PROHIBITION EXHIBIT A The Kern Canyon and Isabella Lake Glass Container Prohibition Area is comprised of three segments.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Description of Contractors and Exchange Partners
    Final EA-15-022 Appendix A Description of Contractors and Exchange Partners Summary of Cross Valley Contractors The following description characterizes each Cross Valley Contractor and associated subcontractor: County of Fresno The County of Fresno has a water service contract (Contract No. 14-06-200-8292A-IR15) for up to 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) that is provided for municipal and industrial (M&I) uses to specific developments within its CVP service area. The County draws its water directly from Millerton Lake after its Delta supply has been exchanged for Friant supplies with Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison). The County’s CVP water supplies have been administered by Arvin-Edison for the last 20 years pursuant to an agreement between the County and Arvin-Edison. County of Tulare The County of Tulare has a water service contract (Contract No. 14-06-200-8293A-IR15) for up to 5,308 AFY of water. The County of Tulare is comprised of 10 subcontractors (both agricultural and M&I) and all are located in the same geographical area as the Friant Division Contractors. Of the 10 subcontractors, only five have routinely taken water deliveries via the County of Tulare’s contract in recent years. The County of Tulare’s CVP contract supply is divided among the 10 subcontractors as shown below: Alpaugh Irrigation District (Alpaugh) – up to 100 AFY (agricultural) Atwell Island Water District (Atwell Island) – up to 50 AFY (agricultural) City of Lindsay – up to 50 AFY (M&I) City of Visalia – up to 300 AFY (M&I) Fransinetto Farms LLC – up to 400 AFY (agricultural) Hills Valley Irrigation District (Hills Valley) – up to 2,913 AFY (agricultural) Saucelito Irrigation District (Saucelito) – up to 100 AFY (agricultural) Stone Corral Irrigation District (Stone Corral) – up to 950 AFY (agricultural) Strathmore Public Utility District (Strathmore) – up to 400 AFY (M&I) Styro-Tek, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Plant Diversity in the California Floristic Province
    ES45CH16-Baldwin ARI 27 October 2014 11:34 Origins of Plant Diversity in the California Floristic Province Bruce G. Baldwin Jepson Herbarium and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-2465; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2014. 45:347–69 Keywords The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and California flora, endemism, plant evolution, phytogeography, speciation Systematics is online at ecolsys.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: Abstract 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135847 Recent biogeographic and evolutionary studies have led to improved under- Copyright c 2014 by Annual Reviews. standing of the origins of exceptionally high plant diversity in the California All rights reserved Floristic Province (CA-FP). Spatial analyses of Californian plant diversity and endemism reinforce the importance of geographically isolated areas of high topographic and edaphic complexity as floristic hot spots, in which the Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2014.45:347-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org relative influence of factors promoting evolutionary divergence and buffer- Access provided by University of California - Berkeley on 12/03/14. For personal use only. ing of lineages against extinction has gained increased attention. Molecular phylogenetic studies spanning the flora indicate that immediate sources of CA-FP lineages bearing endemic species diversity have been mostly within North America—especially within the west and southwest—even for groups of north temperate affinity, and that most diversification of extant lineages in the CA-FP has occurred since the mid-Miocene, with the transition toward summer-drying. Process-focused studies continue to implicate environmen- tal heterogeneity at local or broad geographic scales in evolutionary diver- gence within the CA-FP, often associated with reproductive or life-history shifts or sometimes hybridization.
    [Show full text]
  • About Kern County • Background Kern County • Water Use • Water Sources R.I
    Water in Bakersfield and Kern County About Kern County • Background Kern County • Water use • Water sources R.I. Connecticut 1,212 sq. mi. • Entities that control water 5,018 sq. mi. • Groundwater recharge Delaware 2,045 sq. mi. Area 8,170 sq. mi. – Kern County covers 5.21 million Sources: acres, roughly the area of Tom Haslebacher, Kern County Water Agency Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Jon Parker, Kern Water Bank Authority Island. About Kern County About Kern County Delano Kernville Area Ridgecrest McFarland About one-third of Inyokern Wasco Kern’s area is on Shafter the valley floor, Oildale BAKERSFIELD which is intensively Population Lamont cultivated. Kern County’s Arvin California City Taft There are 860,000 irrigated acres population is Tehachapi 677,400. It is one of on the valley floor, one-third of Maricopa which are permanent crops. the fastest growing counties in the state, Kern consistently ranks 3rd or 4th in growing 19% since the state in value of production. 1995, and about 2% per year. Kern is California’s 14th most populous county. Annual water usage in Kern County: Municipal and industrial - 182,000 acre-feet Agricultural - 2,250,000 acre-feet 1 Gross Water Supplies and Net Water Requirements San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County Acre-Feet July 5, 2001 4,500,000 4,000,000 Additions to Kern County water sources: 3,500,000 Groundwater Storage 3,000,000 Kern River - 22% 2,500,000 Withdrawals from 2,000,000 Groundwater Storage State Water Project (California Aqueduct) - 1,500,000 23% 1,000,000 500,000 Federal (Friant-Kern
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]