DOCSLIB.ORG

SUMMARY San Francisco Bay Area Conservation External Evaluation: Assessing Stewardship Outcomes and Project Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SUMMARY San Francisco Bay Area Conservation External Evaluation: Assessing Stewardship Outcomes and Project Impact Prepared for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 6 Blue Earth Consultants, LLC Photo Credits Left: Redwood Cathedral Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA Photographer: Richard Masoner, Flickr Middle: Cows Grazing on Robertson Property, Sonoma County, CA Photographer: Jodi McGraw Right top: Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA Photographer: SF Chronicle Right bottom: Golden Gate Bridge Location: San Francisco, CA Photographer: DHuss, iStock This report is prepared in collaboration with sub-contractors Jenn Fox, Jodi M. McGraw (Jodi McGraw Consulting), and Stuart B. Weiss (Creekside Center for Earth Observation). Disclaimer Blue Earth Consultants, LLC’s research is drawn from review of grant documents and online surveys and interviews with grantees, decision-makers and land managers. While we strive to present the most accurate information as possible, we cannot always guarantee the accuracy and/or timeliness of the information highlighted in documents or shared as perceptions by informants. FINAL November 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... II SECTION 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 THE BAY AREA CONSERVATION SUB-PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 1 1.1. SUB-PROGRAM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES, QUESTIONS, AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 2 1.3. BACS PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW AND IMPACT ............................................................................................................ 4 SECTION 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 LAND PROTECTION GRANT TRENDS AND IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 9 2.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND PROTECTION PORTFOLIO .............................................................................. 9 2.2 SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND PROTECTION PORTFOLIO ............................................................................ 10 2.3 LAND PROTECTION SUBSET CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................... 12 2.4 LAND PROTECTION SUBSET PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 13 2.5 LAND PROTECTION GRANT CHALLENGES, LESSONS LEARNED, AND NEEDS ................................................................... 17 SECTION 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 IMPACTS OF ENABLING INTERVENTION GRANTS ................................................................................................. 20 3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ENABLING INTERVENTION GRANT PORTFOLIO ............................................................................. 20 3.2 ENABLING INTERVENTION SUBSET CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 20 3.3 ENABLING INTERVENTION SUBSET PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 21 3.4 CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................................. 25 SECTION 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 SECTION 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Table of Contents Bay Area Conservation Portfolio External Evaluation Page i FINAL November 2016 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BACS Bay Area Conservation Sub-Program BAECCC Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission Blue Earth Blue Earth Consultants, LLC Caltrans California Department of Transportation C-CAT Climate Carbon Accounting Tool CLN Conservation Lands Network EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District Foundation Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System MROSD Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District NGO Non-governmental Organizations NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services OSA Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Pepperwood Pepperwood Foundation POST Peninsula Open Space Trust RCD Resource Conservation District RLF Resources Legacy Fund SCAPOSD Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District SCC California State Coastal Conservancy State Parks California State Parks TBC3 Terrestrial Biodiversity Climate Change Collaborative TNC The Nature Conservancy UCSC University of California, Santa Cruz USGS U.S. Geological Survey Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Acronyms and Abbreviations Bay Area Conservation Portfolio External Evaluation Page ii FINAL November 2016 SECTION 1 The Bay Area Program’s conservation portfolio 1.1. BAY AREA CONSERVATION SUB-PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (foundation) Bay Area Program’s conservation portfolio, established in 2001, works to preserve and enhance habitat for native species in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), a biologically rich region with a Mediterranean climate and a vast network of open space (Bay Area Open Space Council, 2011). The region is home to over 50 endemic species, 3,000 native plant taxa and supports charismatic megafauna (e.g., mountain lions, black bears, tule elk), endangered birds (e.g., Ridgeway’s rail, marbeled murrelet, northern spotted owl), and threatened amphibians (e.g., yellow-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders) (Ackerly et al., 2012). The diverse assortment of Bay Area ecosystems includes grasslands, wetlands, redwood and Douglas-fir forests, chaparral and others, in over 1.37 million acres of protected open space (Bay Area Open Space Council, 2014). However, the Bay Area faces a suite of risks that could lead to declines in ecosystem and species condition, such as increased human population and associated development demands, limited conservation funding to support ecosystem protection, and climate change and invasive species (Greenbelt Alliance, 2012). Climate change, for instance, is likely to place increased stress on Bay Area ecosystems; sea level rise is expected to lead to increased flooding risk of mudflat and marsh habitats, and warmer and drier conditions are likely to lead to species range contractions and reduced diversity of endemic plants (Goals Project, 2015; Ackerly et al., 2012). Furthermore, continued development and urban sprawl present serious risks to the biodiversity of the region; over 1.24 million acres of the Bay Area’s 4.5 million acres of land have already been converted from natural land to other uses (Bay Area Open Space Council, 2014). Thus, there is still a need to continue and strengthen efforts to protect the Bay Area’s valuable ecosystems. The overarching goal of the Bay Area conservation portfolio is to protect and preserve native habitat and species in the Bay Area. The foundation promotes conservation and protection of Bay Area land and achieves its overarching goal through supporting projects throughout 10 counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma. The program funds “land protection” grants that support acquisition and easement of ecologically valuable properties and “enabling intervention” grants that support collaboration, research and capacity building to advance protection and conservation of Bay Area habitats. The foundation focuses on achieving this goal through three key strategies: Property Acquisition Natural Resources Use Practices Conservation Finance Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Section 1 Bay Area Conservation Sub-Program Evaluation Report Summary Page 1 FINAL November 2016 These strategies lead to a variety of outcomes, such as land acquisition and conservation easements that are grounded in science-based regional conservation planning priorities, and establishing effective conservation finance structures to maximize the impact of funding and ensure financial sustainability of the projects. In September
Recommended publications
  • Impacts of Early Land-Use on Streams of the Santa Cruz Mountains: Implications for Coho Salmon Recovery

    Impacts of Early Land-Use on Streams of the Santa Cruz Mountains: Implications for Coho Salmon Recovery

    Impacts of early land-use on streams of the Santa Cruz Mountains: implications for coho salmon recovery San Lorenzo Valley Museum collection Talk Outline • Role of San Lorenzo River in coho salmon recovery • History of 19th century land-use practices • How these disturbances impacted (and still impact) ecosystem function and salmon habitat Central California Coast ESU Lost Coast – Navarro Pt. Coho salmon Diversity Strata Navarro Pt. – Gualala Pt. Coastal San Francisco Bay Santa Cruz Mountains Watersheds with historical records of Coho Salmon Dependent populations Tunitas Independent populations San Gregorio Pescadero Gazos Waddell Scott San Vicente Laguna Soquel San Lorenzo Aptos Land-use activities: 1800-1905 Logging: the early years • Pit and whipsaw era (pre-1842) – spatially limited, low demand – impacts relatively minor • Water-powered mills (1842-1875) – Demand fueled by Gold Rush – Mills cut ~5,000 board ft per day = 10 whip sawyers – Annual cut 1860 = ~10 million board ft • Steam-powered mills (1876-1905) – Circular saws doubled rate to ~10,000 board ft/day x 3-10 saws – Year-round operation (not dependent on water) – Annual cut 1884 = ~34 million board ft – Exhausted timber supply Oxen team skidding log on corduroy road (Mendocino Co. ca 1851) Krisweb.com Oxen team hauling lumber at Oil Creek Mill San Lorenzo Valley Museum collection oldoregonphotos.com San Vicente Lumber Company (ca 1908): steam donkey & rail line Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History Loma Prieta Mill, Mill Pond, and Rail Line (ca 1888) Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History The Saw-Dust Nuisance “We have always maintained that lumberman dumping their refuse timber and saw-dust into the San Lorenzo River and its tributaries were committing a nuisance.
  • The 2019 TRIVALLEY San Francisco Business Times Publication

    The 2019 TRIVALLEY San Francisco Business Times Publication

    SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT AUGUST 2, 2019 Leaders of three thriving Tri-Valley companies met at the new City Center complex in San Ramon (from left): Scott Walchek, founder and CEO of Trōv; Ben Hindson, co-founder and CSO of 10x Genomics; Burton Goldfield, president and CEO of TriNet. TRI-VALLEY The heart of the matter Darrell Jobe of Vericool 10 Ken Gitlin of Robert Half 13 Derek Maunus of GILLIG 13 Lauren Moone of Mirador 16 SPONSORS: A Sunset Development Project 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT TRI-VALLEY | THE HEART OF THE MATTER SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES A relationship aged to perfection. Proudly celebrating 55 years in the Tri-Valley. Fremont Bank is uniquely positioned as the only independent, locally Proud to offer 5 convenient owned, full-service community bank in the San Francisco Bay Area. From Tri-Valley locations: our 55 years of partnering with our Tri-Valley communities, to offering Danville Branch unprecedented access to local decision makers who understand your Pleasanton Branch goals, Fremont Bank is proud to be the Tri-Valley’s trusted financial Livermore Branch partner. San Ramon Branch Dublin Branch Call or stop by one of our Tri-Valley Branches to experience The Bay Area’s Premier Community Bank for yourself. (800) 359-BANK (2265) | www.fremontbank.com Equal Housing Lender | Member FDIC | NMLS #478471 | LCOM-0277-0719 AUGUST 2, 2019 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 Talent, innovation and heart drive success in the Tri-Valley ositioned at the geographic center of the Northern Cal- ifornia Mega-Region, the Tri-Valley innovation hub is lo- P cated at the heart of the region and delivering significant economic benefit.
  • Foster City, a Planned Community in the San Francisco Bay Area

    Foster City, a Planned Community in the San Francisco Bay Area

    FOS T ER CI T Y - A NEW CI T Y ON T HE BAY A TRIBU T E T O PROFESSOR MI C HAEL MCDOUGALL KAL V IN PLATT As a tribute to Michael McDougall, long-time friend and colleague, Kalvin Platt revisits the Kalvin Platt, FAIA, is project for Foster City, a planned community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mike was a Chairman of the SWA Group, an International principal planner and designer of this successful story of a new community which, as early Planning and Landscape as 1958, pioneered several planning and urban design maxims that we value today in good Architectural consulting place-making and sustainability. Foster City is a lesson for all of us. firm with 7 offices and award winning projects around the world. Mr. Platt has In the early 1960s; when I came to California as a planner and joined Wilsey, Ham, and Blair, an extensive experience Engineering and Planning Company in Millbrae; I met Michael McDougall. He was working on Foster in Planning New Towns and Communities, City, a new town along the San Francisco Bay. The sinuous “Venice-like” lagoon system that formed Sustainable Land the backbone of the plan amazed me with its inherent beauty and appropriateness to the natural Planning, Urban sloughs that ran along the Bay. What also amazed me was that this was a Master Planned New Design and Park and Town, the first significant effort of this post-WWII large scale planning concept in California and it had Conservation Planning. begun to be built as planned.
  • San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

    San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

    12/10/2015 San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia San Francisco Metropolitan Area officially known as the "San Francisco­Oakland­Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area" is a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes a number of its core cities and counties. It is defined by the Office of Management and Budget to include core areas more directly economically influenced by San Francisco rather than outlying cities such as San Jose which has its own MSA, the San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA MSA. Until 2013, this MSA was known as the San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA.[1][2] The Federal Government definition states that it consists of 5 counties, grouped into three divisions.[2] Those 5 counties are San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, and San Mateo County.[2] The three divisions are Oakland–Hayward–Berkeley (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco–Redwood City–South San Francisco (San Francisco and San Mateo Counties), and San The component Metropolitan Statistical Rafael (Marin County).[2] Areas and their geographical location within the San Jose–San Francisco– The MSA is a subset of the 9 county San Francisco Bay Area, as Oakland, CSA. The San Francisco– well as the 12 county Combined Statistical Area, the San Jose–San Oakland–Hayward, CA MSA is in red. Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA. Three North Bay counties are
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco

    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 .
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    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.
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview

    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.
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
  • Mapping Ghost Towns in the Santa Cruz Mountains

    Mapping Ghost Towns in the Santa Cruz Mountains

    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University GSP Projects Student and Alumni Works Fall 12-2020 Mapping Ghost Towns in the Santa Cruz Mountains Sarah Christine Brewer Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/gspproject Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Geographic Information Sciences Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Brewer, Sarah Christine, "Mapping Ghost Towns in the Santa Cruz Mountains" (2020). GSP Projects. 1. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/gspproject/1 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Student and Alumni Works at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in GSP Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mapping Ghost Towns in the Santa Cruz Mountains GSP 510 Final Project BY: SARAH BREWER DECEMBER 2020 Abstract This project identifies areas of archaeological sensitivity for historic resources related to the segment of the South Pacific Coast Railroad that spanned from Los Gatos to Glenwood in the steep terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Central California. The rail line was only in use for 60 years (1880-1940) until the completion of a major highway drew travelers to greater automobile use. During the construction and operation of the rail line, small towns sprouted at the railroad stops, most of which were abandoned along with the rail line in 1940. Some of these towns are now inundated by reservoirs. This project maps the abandoned rail line and “ghost towns” by using ArcGIS Pro (version 2.5.1) to digitize the railway, wagon roads, and structures shown on a georeferenced topographic quadrangle created in 1919 (Marshall et al., 1919).
  • Conifer Communities of the Santa Cruz Mountains and Interpretive

    Conifer Communities of the Santa Cruz Mountains and Interpretive

    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA CONIFERS: CONIFER COMMUNITIES OF THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE FOR THE UCSC ARBORETUM AND BOTANIC GARDEN A senior internship project in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS in ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES by Erika Lougee December 2019 ADVISOR(S): Karen Holl, Environmental Studies; Brett Hall, UCSC Arboretum ABSTRACT: There are 52 species of conifers native to the state of California, 14 of which are endemic to the state, far more than any other state or region of its size. There are eight species of coniferous trees native to the Santa Cruz Mountains, but most people can only name a few. For my senior internship I made a set of ten interpretive signs to be installed in front of California native conifers at the UCSC Arboretum and wrote an associated paper describing the coniferous forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Signs were made using the Arboretum’s laser engraver and contain identification and collection information, habitat, associated species, where to see local stands, and a fun fact or two. While the physical signs remain a more accessible, kid-friendly format, the paper, which will be available on the Arboretum website, will be more scientific with more detailed information. The paper will summarize information on each of the eight conifers native to the Santa Cruz Mountains including localized range, ecology, associated species, and topics pertaining to the species in current literature. KEYWORDS: Santa Cruz, California native plants, plant communities, vegetation types, conifers, gymnosperms, environmental interpretation, UCSC Arboretum and Botanic Garden I claim the copyright to this document but give permission for the Environmental Studies department at UCSC to share it with the UCSC community.
  • Ahead of the Curve

    Ahead of the Curve

    ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT JULY 27, 2018 On Board for Innovation: Les Schmidt, left, is CEO and founder of the Bishop Ranch Innovation Intelligence Accelerator. He is with Alex Mehran Jr., President and COO of Sunset Development, developers of Bishop Ranch, on one of the autonomous buses that serve the complex. TRI-VALLEY Ahead of the curve Phil Wente, Dale Eldridge Kay, Tim Harkness Brian Won Bin Lee, Winegrower, Wente Family Estates CEO, Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group Founder, Unchained Labs Student entrepreneur SPONSORS A Sunset Development Project 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT TRI-VALLEY | AHEAD OF THE CURVE SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES A relationship aged to perfection. Celebrating over 50 years in the Tri-Valley. Fremont Bank is uniquely positioned as the only independent, locally Proud to offer 5 convenient owned, full-service community bank in the San Francisco Bay Area. Tri-Valley locations: From our 50 plus years of partnering with our Tri-Valley communities, Pleasanton Branch to offering unprecedented access to local decision makers who Livermore Branch understand your goals, Fremont Bank is proud to be the Tri-Valley’s San Ramon Branch trusted financial partner. Danville Branch Dublin Branch Call or stop by one of our Tri-Valley Branches to experience The Bay Area’s Premier Community Bank for yourself. (800) 359-BANK (2265) | www.fremontbank.com Equal Housing Lender | Member FDIC | NMLS #478471 | PR-1014-0718 JULY 27, 2018 TRI-VALLEY | AHEAD OF THE CURVE ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 THE TRI-VALLEY What is the 101 880 REGION 580 Tri-Valley? 680 Danville he Tri-Valley is a quintet of cities in Northern California lo- San Ramon cated in the eastern Bay Area, centered around the conver- gence of Interstates 580 and 680.
  • Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Land Acknowledgment for the City of San Jose and Surrounding Region Thámien Ancestral Muwekma Ohlone Territory

    Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Land Acknowledgment for the City of San Jose and Surrounding Region Thámien Ancestral Muwekma Ohlone Territory

    Mákkin Mak Muwékma Wolwóolum, ’Akkoyt Mak-Warep, Manne Mak Hiswi! We Are Muwekma Ohlone, Welcome To Our Ancestral Homeland! Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Land Acknowledgment For The City of San Jose and Surrounding Region Thámien Ancestral Muwekma Ohlone Territory We would like to recognize that while we gather at the Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley located in the City of San Jose, we are gathered on the ethno-historic tribal territory of the Thámien Ohlone- speaking tribal groups, which included the lands of the Paleños - whose tribal region was named after their powerful chief Capitan Pala, and the two Mexican land grants located in the East Hills above San Jose - and who were intermarried with the direct ancestors of some of the lineages enrolled in the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, whom were missionized into Missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Francisco. The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, with an enrolled Bureau of Indian Affairs documented membership of over 600 members, is comprised of all of the known surviving Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace the Tribe’s ancestry through the Missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Francisco, during the advent of the Hispano-European empire into Alta California beginning in AD 1769. The Muwekma families are the successors and living members of the sovereign, historic, previously Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County, now formally recognized as the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of San Francisco Bay Area. Muwekma means La Gente – The People in our traditional Chochenyo-Ohlone language.