DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Spartina Control Plans San Francisco Estuary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Invasive Spartina Control Plans San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Control Plans for the San Francisco Estuary 2008-2010 Control Seasons June 2008 Invasive Spartina Control Plans for the San Francisco Estuary 2008-2010 Control Seasons Prepared by Erik Grijalva Drew Kerr and Peggy Olofson Olofson Environmental, Inc. for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2560 9th Street, Suite 216 Berkeley, CA 94710 Revised June 5, 2008 This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Pro- ject with funding from the following contributors: California Coastal Conservancy California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99-054-01 and subsequent) Contents CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1 Program Goals.................................................................................................................................... 1 Shift in Control Program Impacts....................................................................................................... 1 Sub-lethal Herbicide Application to Reduce Clapper Rail Impacts ................................................... 1 Earlier Entry into Clapper Rail Habitats............................................................................................. 4 Spartina Treatment .................................................................................................................. 4 Spartina Monitoring & Mapping ............................................................................................. 4 Response to Newfound Populations................................................................................................... 5 Environmental Compliance ................................................................................................................ 6 CEQA and NEPA..................................................................................................................... 6 Endangered Species Consultation............................................................................................ 6 NPDES Water Quality Permit.................................................................................................. 6 Quality Control, Compliance Monitoring, and Reporting.................................................................. 6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Site 01: Alameda Flood Control Channel, Alameda County........................................................................ 9 Site Partners........................................................................................................................................ 9 Site Description .................................................................................................................................. 9 Treatment Approach......................................................................................................................... 10 Sub-Areas 01a, 01b, 01c and 01d: Alameda Flood Control Channel Mouth, Lower Channel, Upper channel, and Upper Channel (Union City Blvd to Alvarado Blvd) ......................................................................................................................... 10 Sub-Areas 01e and 01f: Shoreline North of AFCC Mouth and Pond 3 (Ecology Marsh)....................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Compliance .............................................................................................................. 13 Site 02: Bair & Greco Islands Complex, San Mateo County...................................................................... 15 Site Partners...................................................................................................................................... 15 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 15 Treatment Approach......................................................................................................................... 16 Sub-Areas 02a, 02b, 02c, and 02d: Belmont Slough/Island, North Point, Bird Island, Steinberger Slough/ Redwood Shores, Steinberger Slough South, Corkscrew Slough, Redwood Creek North, Pond B2 North Quadrant, and Pond B2 South Quadrant-Rookery .......................................................................................... 16 Sub-Areas 02e, 02f, 02g and 02h: West Point Slough NW, Greco Island North, West Point Slough SW and East, and Greco Island South................................................. 18 Sub-Areas 02i and 02j: Ravenswood Slough and Mouth and Ravenswood Open Space Preserve .......................................................................................................... 19 Sub-Area 02k: Redwood Creek and Deepwater Slough Restoration..................................... 20 Sub-Area 02l: Inner Bair Island Restoration.......................................................................... 21 Sub-Area 02m: Pond B3- Middle Bair Island Restoration .................................................... 22 Environmental Compliance .............................................................................................................. 23 Site 03: Blackie’s Pasture, Marin County................................................................................................... 25 Site Partners...................................................................................................................................... 25 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 25 Treatment Approach......................................................................................................................... 26 Sub-Areas 03a and 03b: Blackie’s Creek, Creek Mouth, and Shoreline ............................... 26 Environmental Compliance .............................................................................................................. 27 Site 04: Corte Madera Creek Complex, Marin County............................................................................... 29 State Coastal Conservancy i 2008-2010 Site-Specific Control Plans San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project June 5, 2008 Contents Site Partners...................................................................................................................................... 29 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 29 Treatment Approach......................................................................................................................... 30 Sub-Area 04a: Corte Madera Marsh Ecological Reserve ...................................................... 30 Sub-Area 04b: College of Marin Ecology Study Area........................................................... 31 Sub-Areas 04c and 04d: Piper Park East & West .................................................................. 32 Sub-Area 04e: Larkspur Ferry Terminal................................................................................ 33 Sub-Area 04f: Riviera Circle (Larkspur Marina)................................................................... 34 Sub-Area 04g: Creekside Park............................................................................................... 35 Sub-Areas 04h, 04i, 04j: Corte Madera Creek (Upper, Lower, & Mouth) ............................ 37 Sub-Area 04k: Boardwalk Number One (Arkites)................................................................. 39 Sub-Area 04l: Murphy Creek................................................................................................. 40 Environmental Compliance .............................................................................................................. 41 Site 05: Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough Complex, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties........................... 43 Site Partners...................................................................................................................................... 43 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 43 Treatment Approach......................................................................................................................... 44 Sub-Area 05a: Mowry & Calaveras Marshes ........................................................................ 44 Sub-Area 05b: Dumbarton/Audubon Marsh.......................................................................... 45 Sub-Area 05c: Newark Slough............................................................................................... 46 Sub-Area 05d: LaRiviere Marsh ............................................................................................ 48 Sub-Area 05e: Mayhew’s Landing ........................................................................................ 49 Sub-Area 05f: Coyote Creek (Alameda County) ................................................................... 50 Sub-Area 05g: Cargill Pond (W Hotel).................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C<Uoln I£ »-I<;U Q£O SKU Op <U Rtf Uu> L, . 3 Kl 5 Z
    c <u o Ln I £ f—i »-i <; u Z Q O £ p o < S u K Z U 3 rtf 2 §u u > L, u £ a o . 3 Kl 5 z « £ > r A couple of visits by you to City Council meetings on June 2 and June 9 will almost certainly mean $15*000 worth of free hot lunches for Washington School children next year. On June 2 the Community Development Commission recom­ mendation to spend $1 5 ,0 0 0 next year for these children will be on Council agenda. The Council will probably send it to committee. The staff will probably recommend its passage and also funding for free hot lunches for two other schools. Then it will probably come up for a vote June 9 or maybe June 1 6 . We are doing trail-breaking work here. These lunches will be paid for by Federal block-grant funds and matched by Federal Nutri­ tion funds. The city has the money because the Potrero project cost less than expected. It won't cost the school district a cent. And it won't raise your property taxes. Thirty-three percent (33%) of these kids are on welfare. But they are our kids - they go to school in our community. Our community includes these children as well as people who are threatened by ammonia tanks. So even if you don't have children, and maybe especially if you don't have children - PLEAoE GO TO THESE MEETINGS. You people in Brickyard Cove - and on Western Drive - the councilmen know who you are.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1
    Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed action or "project" addressed by this EIR. The description is based on information provided to the City by the project applicant, Glenborough-Pauls LLC. As stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project description has been detailed to the extent needed for adequate review and evaluation of environmental impacts. In addition to describing key elements of the proposed project, this chapter is supplemented by project description details in individual environmental chapters 4 through 15. The description that follows includes (a) the project setting (location, boundaries, and local setting of the project site); (b) the project background (site history); (c) a statement of the basic project objectives sought by the applicant; (d) the project's physical and operational characteristics (i.e., land use components, densities, building types, architectural design, landscaping/open space, circulation and parking plans, marina and shoreline modifications, infrastructure provisions, project management, and other pertinent features); (e) the anticipated project construction schedule; and (f) the various anticipated permits and jurisdictional approvals required to allow construction of the project. 3.1 PROJECT SETTING 3.1.1 Regional Location As illustrated on Figure 3.1 (Regional Map), the proposed project site is located at the northern edge of the developed portion of Redwood City, on the San Francisco Bay side of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). U.S. 101 provides regional access to the approximately 46.45-acre project site; East Bayshore Road and Bair Island Road provide local access.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco
    Oak_Mus_Baylands_SideA_6_7_05.pdf 6/14/2005 11:52:36 AM M12 M10 M27 M10A 121°00'00" M28 R1 For adjoining area see Creek & Watershed Map of Fremont & Vicinity 37°30' 37°30' 1 1- Dumbarton Pt. M11 - R1 M26 N Fremont e A in rr reek L ( o te C L y alien a o C L g a Agua Fria Creek in u d gu e n e A Green Point M a o N l w - a R2 ry 1 C L r e a M8 e g k u ) M7 n SF2 a R3 e F L Lin in D e M6 e in E L Creek A22 Toroges Slou M1 gh C ine Ravenswood L Slough M5 Open Space e ra Preserve lb A Cooley Landing L i A23 Coyote Creek Lagoon n M3 e M2 C M4 e B Palo Alto Lin d Baylands Nature Mu Preserve S East Palo Alto loug A21 h Calaveras Point A19 e B Station A20 Lin C see For adjoining area oy Island ote Sand Point e A Lucy Evans Lin Baylands Nature Creek Interpretive Center Newby Island A9 San Knapp F Map of Milpitas & North San Jose Creek & Watershed ra Hooks Island n Tract c A i l s Palo Alto v A17 q i ui s to Creek Baylands Nature A6 o A14 A15 Preserve h g G u u a o Milpitas l Long Point d a S A10 A18 l u d p Creek l A3N e e i f Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Creek & Watershed Calera y A16 Berryessa a M M n A1 A13 a i h A11 l San Jose / Santa Clara s g la a u o Don Edwards San Francisco Bay rd Water Pollution Control Plant B l h S g Creek d u National Wildlife Refuge o ew lo lo Vi F S Environmental Education Center .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Late Holocene Anthropogenic Depression of Sturgeon in San Francisco Bay, California
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 35, No. 1 (2015) | pp. 3–27 Late Holocene Anthropogenic Depression of Sturgeon in San Francisco Bay, California JACK M. BROUGHTON Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ERIK P. MARTIN Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 BRIAN MCENEANEY McEaneaney Construction Inc, 10182 Worchester Cir., Truckee, CA 96161 THOMAS WAKE Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles DWIGHT D. SIMONS Consulting Archaeologist, 2334 Tiffany Way, Chico, CA Prehistoric resource depression has been widely documented in many late Holocene contexts characterized by expanding human population densities, and has been causally linked to a wide range of other significant changes in human behavior and biology. Some of the more detailed records of this phenomenon have been derived from the San Francisco Bay area of California, including a possible case of anthropogenic sturgeon depression, but evidence for the latter was derived from limited fish-bone samples. We synthesize and analyze a massive ichthyoarchaeological data set here, including over 83,000 identified fish specimens from 30 site components in the central San Francisco Bay, to further test this hypothesis. Allometric live weight relationships from selected elements are established to reconstruct size change in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) through time, and—collectively—the data show significant linear declines over the last 3,000 years in the relative abundance of sturgeon compared to all other identified fishes, as well as declines in the maximum and mean weights of the harvested fish. Both these patterns are consistent with resource depression and do not appear to be related to changes in the estuarine paleoenvironment.
    [Show full text]
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview
    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting
    PPRROOPPOOSSAALL FFOORR PPIILLLLAARR PPOOIINNTT RRVV PPAARRKK PPUUBBLLIICC RREESSTTRROOOOMM AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEE DDEESSIIGGNN,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG,, PPEERRMMIITTTTIINNGG AANNDD CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS Submitted to: San Mateo County Harbor District Submitted by: Questa Engineering Corporation In Association with: Ware Associates Zeiger Engineers, Inc. mack5 October 7, 2019 October 7, 2019 San Mateo County Harbor District Attn: Deputy Secretary of the District 504 Ave Alhambra, Ste. 200 El Granada, CA 94018 Subject: Proposal for Pillar Point RV Park Public Restroom and Green Space Design, Engineering, Permitting and Construction Support Services Dear Mr. Moren: Questa Engineering Corporation is pleased to present this Proposal for the Pillar Point Project. We have assembled a highly qualified team, including Ware Associates (architecture/engineering services), Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (electrical engineering), and mack5 (cost estimating). Questa is widely recognized as one of California’s leading park and trail planning and engineering design firms for open space and natural park areas in constrained and challenging sites, including coastal and beach areas. We also have extensive experience in trail planning and design in parks, and sites with complex environmental and geotechnical issues. Questa provides complete services in planning, landscape architecture and engineering design of recreational improvement projects, from preliminary engineering investigations/feasibility studies and constraints
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents to Discover the Past and Imagine the Future
    Winter 2014-2015 LaThe Journal of the SanPeninsula Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xliii, No. 1 Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents To discover the past and imagine the future. Is it Time for a Portolá Trail Designation in San Mateo County? ....................... 3 by Paul O. Reimer, P.E. Our Mission Development of Foster City: A Photo Essay .................................................... 15 To enrich, excite and by T. Jack Foster, Jr. educate through understanding, preserving The San Mateo County Historical Association Board of Directors and interpreting the history Paul Barulich, Chairman; Barbara Pierce, Vice Chairwoman; Shawn DeLuna, Secretary; of San Mateo County. Dee Tolles, Treasurer; Thomas Ames; Alpio Barbara; Keith Bautista; Sandra McLellan Behling; John Blake; Elaine Breeze; David Canepa; Tracy De Leuw; Dee Eva; Ted Everett; Accredited Pat Hawkins; Mark Jamison; Peggy Bort Jones; Doug Keyston; John LaTorra; Joan by the American Alliance Levy; Emmet W. MacCorkle; Karen S. McCown; Nick Marikian; Olivia Garcia Martinez; Gene Mullin; Bob Oyster; Patrick Ryan; Paul Shepherd; John Shroyer; Bill Stronck; of Museums. Joseph Welch III; Shawn White and Mitchell P. Postel, President. President’s Advisory Board Albert A. Acena; Arthur H. Bredenbeck; John Clinton; Robert M. Desky; T. Jack Foster, The San Mateo County Jr.; Umang Gupta; Greg Munks; Phill Raiser; Cynthia L. Schreurs and John Schrup. Historical Association Leadership Council operates the San Mateo John C. Adams, Wells Fargo; Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments; Barry County History Museum Jolette, San Mateo Credit Union and Paul Shepherd, Cargill. and Archives at the old San Mateo County Courthouse La Peninsula located in Redwood City, Carmen J.
    [Show full text]