DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Final Current Conditions Report University of California, Berkeley Richmond Field Station, Richmond, California November 21, 2008 Prepared for Office of Environment, Health & Safety University of California, Berkeley 317 University Hall No. 1150 Berkeley, California 94720 Prepared by TETRA TECH EM INC. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, California 94105 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION, HISTORY, AND CURRENT USES ..................................................2 1.1.1 Site Description............................................................................................2 1.1.1.1 Climate.......................................................................................3 1.1.1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology.......................................................3 1.1.1.3 Ecology ......................................................................................6 1.1.1.4 Surface Water.............................................................................6 1.1.2 Site History Overview..................................................................................7 1.1.2.1 Early Site History.......................................................................7 1.1.2.2 Formation of Western Stege Marsh ...........................................8 1.1.2.3 Surrounding Sites.....................................................................10 1.1.3 California Cap Company History ..............................................................10 1.1.4 UC Richmond Field Station History and Current Operations ...................12 1.1.4.1 Historical Academic Research and Teaching Activities..........13 1.1.4.2 Current Academic Research and Teaching Activities .............16 1.1.4.3 Facilities Operations ................................................................18 1.1.4.4 Non-UC Berkeley Tenants.......................................................21 1.1.4.5 RFS Chemical and Radioactive Materials Use........................22 1.1.5 Surrounding Off-Site Use History .............................................................32 1.1.5.1 Former Zeneca Site..................................................................32 1.1.5.2 Bio-Rad Laboratories...............................................................37 1.1.5.3 Marina Bay...............................................................................39 1.1.5.4 Liquid Gold..............................................................................40 1.1.5.5 Other Potential Off-Site Sources .............................................42 1.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES ............44 1.2.1 Previous Investigations ..............................................................................44 1.2.1.1 Historic Site Investigations (1981 to 1999) .............................44 1.2.1.2 Field Sampling and Analysis Plan and Tiered Risk Evaluation ................................................................................45 1.2.1.3 Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigations, Upland Portion of Transition Area .......................................................47 1.2.1.4 Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigations, Western Stege Marsh .............................................................................48 Current Conditions Report i UC Berkeley, Richmond Field Station TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1.2.1.5 Human Health and Ecological Tiered Risk Evaluation ...........48 1.2.1.6 Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigations, Upland Areas ...........................................................................49 1.2.1.7 Mercury Treatability Study......................................................49 1.2.1.8 Remediation Project, Initial Study (California Environmental Quality Act) .............................................................................50 1.2.1.9 Biological Assessment.............................................................50 1.2.1.10 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Sediment Monitoring ........51 1.2.1.11 Multi-Incremental/Decision Unit Sampling ............................52 1.2.1.12 Indoor Air Monitoring .............................................................54 1.2.2 Previous Remediation Activities................................................................54 1.2.2.1 Phase 1 .....................................................................................54 1.2.2.2 Phase 2 .....................................................................................55 1.2.2.3 Phase 3 .....................................................................................57 1.2.2.4 Former FPL Wood Treatment Laboratory TCRA ...................57 1.2.2.5 Western Stege Marsh Restoration Project Monitoring ............57 1.2.2.6 Management of Remediation Effects.......................................60 1.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ...................................................61 1.3.1 Summary of Current Chemicals in Soil in RFS Upland Area ...................63 1.3.1.1 Metals.......................................................................................64 1.3.1.2 Pesticides..................................................................................64 1.3.1.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls.......................................................65 1.3.1.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ...........................................65 1.3.1.5 Volatile Organic Compounds ..................................................65 1.3.1.6 Radionuclides...........................................................................66 1.3.2 Summary of Current Chemicals in Soil and Sediment in RFS Transition Area............................................................................................................66 1.3.2.1 Metals.......................................................................................67 1.3.2.2 Pesticides..................................................................................67 1.3.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls.......................................................67 1.3.2.4 pH Values.................................................................................68 1.3.3 Summary of Current Chemicals in Off-Site Property Areas to the North and East......................................................................................................68 1.3.3.1 Off-Site Property North Area...................................................68 1.3.3.2 Off-Site Property East Area.....................................................68 1.3.4 Summary of Current Chemicals in Sediment in Western Stege Marsh.....69 1.3.4.1 Metals.......................................................................................70 Current Conditions Report ii UC Berkeley, Richmond Field Station TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1.3.4.2 Pesticides..................................................................................71 1.3.4.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls.......................................................71 1.3.4.4 pH Values.................................................................................72 1.3.5 Extent of Chemicals in Backfill Soils and Sediment.................................72 1.3.5.1 Analytical Protocols.................................................................73 1.3.5.2 Screening Criteria ....................................................................73 1.3.5.3 Fill Sources and Analysis by Phase .........................................74 1.3.6 Extent of Chemicals in Surface Water.......................................................77 1.3.7 Extent of Chemicals Present in Groundwater on RFS...............................77 1.3.7.1 Extent of Chemicals in Shallow-Zone Groundwater...............78 1.3.7.2 Extent of Chemicals in Intermediate-Zone Groundwater........82 1.3.7.3 Extent of Chemicals in Deeper-Zone Groundwater.................83 2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ........................................................................................83 2.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES AND MIGRATION PATHWAYS ................................................84 2.1.1 Potential Sources........................................................................................84 2.1.2 Migration Pathways ...................................................................................87 2.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT OF IDENTIFIED CHEMICALS.................................................88 2.2.1 Metals.........................................................................................................88 2.2.1.1 Mercury....................................................................................90 2.2.1.2 Arsenic .....................................................................................92 2.2.1.3 Copper......................................................................................93 2.2.1.4 Lead..........................................................................................93 2.2.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls.........................................................................94 2.2.3 Pesticides....................................................................................................94 2.2.4 Other Organic Compounds ........................................................................95
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fall 2011  510 520 3876
    BPWA Walks Walks take place rain or shine and last 2-3 hours unless otherwise noted. They are free and Berkeley’s open to all. Walks are divided into four types: Theme Friendly Power Self Guided Questions about the walks? Contact Keith Skinner: [email protected] Vol. 14 No. 3 BerkeleyPaths Path Wanderers Association Fall 2011 510 520 3876. October 9, Sunday - 2nd An- BPWA Annual Meeting Oct. 20 nual Long Walk - 9 a.m. Leaders: Keith Skinner, Colleen Neff, To Feature Greenbelt Alliance — Sandy Friedland Sandy Friedland Can the Bay Area continue to gain way people live.” A graduate of Stanford Meeting Place: El Cerrito BART station, University, Matt worked for an envi- main entrance near Central population without sacrificing precious Transit: BART - Richmond line farmland, losing open space and harm- ronmental group in Sacramento before All day walk that includes portions of Al- ing the environment? The members of he joined Greenbelt. His responsibilities bany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Bay Trail, Albany Bulb, Greenbelt Alliance are doing everything include meeting with city council members East Shore Park, Aquatic Park, Sisterna they can to answer those questions with District, and Santa Fe Right-of-Way, ending a resounding “Yes.” Berkeley Path at North Berkeley BART. See further details Wanderers Asso- in the article on page 2. Be sure to bring a ciation is proud to water bottle and bag lunch. No dogs, please. feature Greenbelt October 22, Saturday - Bay Alliance at our Trail Exploration on New Landfill Annual Meeting Thursday, October Loop - 9:30 a.m. 20, at the Hillside Club (2286 Cedar Leaders: Sandra & Bruce Beyaert.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources
    Section 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Introduction This section presents information on known and potentially existing cultural resources at the RBC site and analyzes the potential for development under the proposed 2014 LRDP to affect those resources. Information and analysis in this section is based on previous archaeological surveys (see Section 4.4.5) and those conducted for the current project: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Richmond Bay Campus, Alameda County (GANDA 2013) and Historic Properties Survey Report for Richmond Bay Campus (Tetra Tech 2013). Cultural resources can be prehistoric, Native American, or historic. Prehistoric resources are artifacts from human activities that predate written records; these are generally identified in isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources are typically archaeological and can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic scatters, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, petroglyphs, rock features, and burial plots. Historic resources are properties, structures, or built items from human activities that coincide with the epoch of written records. Historic resources can include archaeological remains and architectural structures. Historic archaeological sites include townsites, homesteads, agricultural or ranching features, mining-related features, refuse concentrations, and features or artifacts associated with early military and industrial land uses. Historic architectural resources can include houses, cabins, barns, lighthouses, other constructed buildings, and bridges. Generally, architectural resources that are over 50 years old are considered for evaluation for their historic significance. Public and agency NOP comments related to cultural resources are summarized below: For construction activities proposed in a state right-of-way, Caltrans requires that project environmental documentation include results of a current Northwest Information Center archaeological records search.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance
    DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO HABITAT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND NEST SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY FINAL REPORT To the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2002 Hildie Spautz* and Nadav Nur, PhD Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 *corresponding author contact: [email protected] PRBO Black Rail Report to FWS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We conducted surveys for California Black Rails (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at 34 tidal salt marshes in San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, northern San Francisco Bay and western Marin County in 2000 and 2001 with the aims of: 1) providing the best current information on distribution and abundance of Black Rails, marsh by marsh, and total population size per bay region, 2) identifying vegetation, habitat, and landscape features that predict the presence of black rails, and 3) summarizing information on nesting and nest site characteristics. Abundance indices were higher at 8 marshes than in 1996 and earlier surveys, and lower in 4 others; with two showing no overall change. Of 13 marshes surveyed for the first time, Black Rails were detected at 7 sites. The absolute density calculated using the program DISTANCE averaged 2.63 (± 1.05 [S.E.]) birds/ha in San Pablo Bay and 3.44 birds/ha (± 0.73) in Suisun Bay. At each survey point we collected information on vegetation cover and structure, and calculated landscape metrics using ArcView GIS. We analyzed Black Rail presence or absence by first analyzing differences among marshes, and then by analyzing factors that influence detection of rails at each survey station.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrologic Investigation of Concrete Flood Control Channel at UC Berkeley’S Richmond Field Station
    Hydrologic Investigation of Concrete Flood Control Channel at UC Berkeley’s Richmond Field Station by Patrick Nichols Abstract The Richmond Field Station Natural Restoration Project is a five year multimillion dollar effort. The first stages involve the remediation of polluted marsh lands, then the restoration of the upland prairie habitat, finishing with the adjacent channel. The concrete flood control channel is slated to become a free flowing creek and riparian corridor by the restoration planners at the university. The dynamics of this system must be understood to properly design a restoration, or creation plan since historically no creek existed there. This study assesses multiple aspects of the concrete channel to determine its health and qualifications for restoration. We calculated flow measurements at various intervals along the channel using velocity observations and the known cross sectional areas. We observed the depths creating a predictive relationship between depth and flow. Water quality characteristics: dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and conductivity were measured on a weekly basis for three months during the winter/spring of 2004. This information is used to help answer the question of what is the health of this system with regards to these variables, and what are its hydrological characteristics. Results show a consistent base flow of about 1 cubic foot per second with a peak flow around 152cfs. A linear relationship exists between depth and flow. The slope of the channel water surface is about 0.36%. The water quality parameters were indicative of a healthy system. The results of this project provide a base of knowledge for future investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project Recirculated DEIR
    PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development October 2014 PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development October 2014 Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 120546 TABLE OF CONTENTS Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................. ES-2 ES-3 Project Setting and Location ............................................................................. ES-3 ES-4 Project Description ............................................................................................ ES-3 ES-5 Alternatives ....................................................................................................... ES-8 ES-6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................ ES-9 ES-7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist
    City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist Public Review Draft October 2015 Lead Agency: City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist Public Review Draft October 2015 Lead Agency: City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................ 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................ 12 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 12 B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 15 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 17 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 22 E. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 28 F. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 32 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed
    A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed by Lisa Owens-Viani Prepared by The Watershed Project (previously known as the Aquatic Outreach Institute) Note: This booklet focuses on the watershed from the San Pablo Dam and reservoir westward (downstream). For a history of the Orinda area, see Muir Sorrick's The History of Orinda, published by the Orinda Library Board in 1970. Orinda also has an active creek stewardship group, the Friends of Orinda Creeks, which has conducted several watershed outreach efforts in local schools (see www.ci.orinda.ca.us/orindaway.htm). This booklet was written as part of the Aquatic Outreach Institute's efforts to develop stewardship of the mid- to lower watershed. The San Pablo Creek watershed is a wealthy one-rich in history, culture, and natural resources. The early native American inhabitants of the watershed drank from this deep and powerful creek and caught the steelhead that swam in its waters. They ate the tubers and roots of the plants that grew in the fertile soils deposited by the creek, and buried their artifacts, the shells and bones of the creatures they ate, and even their own dead along its banks. Later, European settlers grew fruit, grain, and vegetables in the same rich soils and watered cattle in the creek. Even today, residents of the San Pablo Creek watershed rely on the creek, perhaps unknowingly: its waters quench the thirst and meet the household needs of about 10 percent of the East Bay Municipal Utility District's customers. Some residents rely on the creek in another way, though-as a reminder that something wild and self-sufficient flows through their midst, offering respite from the surrounding urbanized landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • December 15, 2020
    RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, December 15, 2020 The Richmond City Council Evening Open Session was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference. Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra Costa County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders that allowed cities to hold public meetings via teleconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20). DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to Councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below. Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting. The public was able to view the meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT- Live. Written public comments were received via email to [email protected]. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on December 15, 2020, were summarized at the meeting, put into the record, and considered before Council action. Comments received via email after 1:00 p.m. and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were put into the record. Public comments were also received via teleconference during the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Marina Bay Trail
    ↓ 2.1 mi to Point Richmond ▾ 580 Y ▾ A Must see, must do … Harbor Gate W ▶ Walk the timeline through the Rosie the Riveter Memorial to the water’s edge. RICHA centuryMO ago MarinaN BayD was Ma land ARIthat dissolvedNA into tidal marshBAY at the edge TRAIL SOUTH Shopping Center K H T R ▶ Visit all 8 historical interpretive markers and of the great estuary we call San Francisco Bay. One could find shell mounds left U R learn about the World War II Home Front. E A O G by the Huchiun tribe of native Ohlone and watch sailing vessels ply the bay with S A P T ▶ Fish at high tide with the locals (and remember Y T passengers and cargo. The arrival of Standard Oil and the Santa Fe Railroad at A your fishing license). A H A L L A V E . W B Y the beginning of the 20th century sparked a transformation of this landscape that continues ▶ Visit the S. S. Red Oak Victory ship in Shipyard #3 .26 mi M A R I N A W A Y Harbor Master A R L and see a ship’s restoration first hand. Call U today. The Marina Bay segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail offers us new opportunities B V O 510-237-2933 or visit www.ssredoakvictory.org. Future site of D to explore the history, wildlife, and scenery of Richmond’s dynamic southeastern shore. B 5 R Rosie the Riveter/ ESPLANADE DR. ▶ Be a bird watcher; bring binoculars. A .3 mi A WWII Home Front .37 mi H National Historical Park Visitor Center Marina Bay Park N Map Legend Sheridan Point I R ▶ MARINA BAY PARK was once at the heart Bay Trail suitable for walking, biking, 4 8 of Kaiser Richmond Shipyard #2.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory Report For
    CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR PORTIONS OF THE RICHMOND PROPERTIES RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 2013 PREPARED FOR: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 PREPARED BY: Barb Siskin, M.A., RPA Erica Schultz, M.H.P Kruger Frank, B.A. Garcia and Associates 1 Saunders Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the results of the cultural resources investigation, which included the identification of archaeological resources and cultural landscape features, for portions of the University of California’s Richmond properties in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. Within the 133-acre area comprised of these properties, the University of California proposes to consolidate the biosciences programs of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and to develop additional facilities for use by both the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, and other institutional or industry counterparts for research and development focused on energy, environment, and health. The Phase 1 development plan would construct the first three buildings within a smaller 16-acre area on these properties. Due to the involvement of the United States Department of Energy, the proposed Phase 1 development is a federal undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800. Therefore, only the smaller 16-acre area is subject to Section 106 regulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property (i.e., district, site, building, structure, or object) that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RESOLUTION No
    >AI: ^mmxw^ i i 1 ' ffl 'it:3 t \^ nffl I IFfif. ii. V «> » Mi . Foreward Resolution of Adoption . Master Plan Background Introduction PURPOSE AND ROLE OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT A. Purpose B. Role in the Community C. Role Policy and Objectives . DISTRICT PLANNING A. Master Plan Definition B. Planning Goals and Policies 1. Goal for Equitable Parkland Distribution " 2. Balanced System—Design Criteria Policy 3. The Balanced Parkland Plan Description I 4. The Balanced Parkland Plan ! 5. Parkland Classification Policy and Designation 11 a. Parkland Classification Policy 10 Regional Park 10 Regional Shoreline \ \ i 1 Regional Preserve 1 Regional Wilderness 1< Jfe. /y Regional Recreation Area 18 Regional Trail Regional Land Bank Parkland Map wfiK b. Existing and Potential Regional Parkland, Site Classifications "' Designations c. Projects for Federal or State Implementation or Joint Study . .27 6. Acquisition Policy 7. Area of Influence Policy 8. Intergovernmental Policies 9. Parkland Planning Policy 10. Park Use Planning Policy 1 1 Planning Policy for the Park and Recreational Needs of Special Groups 12. Policy for Those Who Are Handicapped 13. Parkland Naming Policy IX. FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING POLICIES 40 m. A. One and Three-year Financial RECREATION POLICIES 30 Projection Policy 40 A. Outdoor Emphasis Policy 30 B. Guidelines for Acquisition, B. Need and Demand Survey Policy 30 Development and Operation C. Regional Outdoor Activities Policy ... .30 of District Parklands 40 D. Special Interest Recreation Policies 30 C. Acquisition and Development Borrowing Policy 40 E. Camping Policy 31 D. User Fee Policy 40 F. Hostels Policy 31 Policy 40 G.
    [Show full text]