DOCSLIB.ORG

HCP Sections 1 -3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HCP Sections 1 -3 Prepared by: December 2011 Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Office i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................3 1.1 STANFORD UNIVERSITY – A UNIQUE LANDOWNER ........................3 1.1.1 History and the Founding Grant .........................................................3 1.1.2 Site Description .......................................................................4 1.1.3 Land Use at Stanford University .........................................................4 1.1.4 Operating Stanford University ...........................................................4 1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT .....................................................6 1.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ..........................................................6 1.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ...............................................6 1.2.3 Five-Point Policy Guidance ..............................................................6 1.3 COVERED SPECIES ...........................................................11 1.4 COVERED ACTIVITIES ......................................................11 1.5 HCP GOALS ..................................................................12 1.5.1 Stanford’s Institutional Goals .......................................................... 12 1.5.2 Stanford’s Biological Goals and Objectives ............................................... 13 1.6 SUMMARY OF STANFORD HCP APPROACH .................................13 2.0 PHYSICAL/BIOLOGICAL SETTING, INCLUDING COVERED SPECIES ...19 2.1 SIGNIFICANT HYDROLOGIC FEATURES ....................................19 2.1.1 San Francisquito Creek Watershed ..................................................... 19 2.1.2 Matadero Creek Watershed ........................................................... 20 2.2 SIGNIFICANT LAND FORMS .................................................20 2.2.1 Santa Cruz Mountains (Jasper Ridge) .................................................. 20 2.2.2 Foothills ............................................................................ 20 2.2.3 Alluvial Plain ........................................................................ 20 2.3 BIOLOGICAL SETTING ......................................................23 2.3.1 Annual Grassland. 23 2.3.2 Oak Woodland/Savanna .............................................................. 23 2.3.3 Riparian Woodland and Creeks ........................................................ 24 2.3.4 Serpentine Grasslands. 25 2.3.5 Chaparral and scrub. 26 2.3.6 Seasonal Wetlands ................................................................... 26 2.3.7 Perennial Standing Water ............................................................. 27 2.3.8 Urban/Suburban .................................................................... 27 2.3.9 Plant Species ........................................................................ 27 iii 2.3.10 Animal Species ...................................................................... 28 2.4 COVERED SPECIES ...........................................................28 2.4.1 California red-legged frog ............................................................. 28 2.4.2 Steelhead ........................................................................... 32 2.4.3 California tiger salamander ............................................................ 35 2.4.4 Western pond turtle. 39 2.4.5 San Francisco garter snake ............................................................ 43 3.0 COVERED ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS .........................49 3.1 LOCAL WATER FACILITIES ..................................................49 3.1.1 Water Diversions . 49 3.1.2 Creek Monitoring Facilities ............................................................ 54 3.1.3 Open-Water Reservoirs. 55 3.1.4 Distribution System .................................................................. 58 3.1.5 Wells ............................................................................... 59 3.1.6 Non-operating Lagunita Diversion ..................................................... 59 3.2 CREEK MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ........................................60 3.2.1 Potential Effects of the Creek Maintenance Activities on the Covered Species ................. 61 3.3 FIELD ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES ..............................................61 3.3.1 Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve ........................................................ 61 3.3.2 Creeks .............................................................................. 61 3.3.3 Foothills and Alluvial Plain. 62 3.3.4 Lagunita ............................................................................ 62 3.3.5 Potential Effects of the Field Academic Activities on the Covered Species .................... 62 3.4 UTILITY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................63 3.4.1 Potential Effects of Utilities on the Covered Species ....................................... 63 3.5 GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...............................................63 3.5.1 Roads and Bridges ................................................................... 63 3.5.2 Fences .............................................................................. 64 3.5.3 Detention Basins .................................................................... 65 3.5.4 Isolated Private Residences ............................................................ 65 3.5.5 Academic Buildings .................................................................. 65 3.6 RECREATION AND ATHLETICS. .66 3.6.1 Stanford Golf Course, Practice Facility, and Driving Range ................................. 66 3.6.2 Lagunita and Felt Reservoir-Related Recreation .......................................... 69 3.6.3 Recreational Routes .................................................................. 69 3.7 GROUNDS AND VEGETATION ...............................................70 3.7.1 Fire Control and Public Safety ......................................................... 70 3.7.2 Grounds Maintenance ................................................................ 70 iv 3.8 AGRICULTURAL AND EQUESTRIAN Leaseholders ......................71 3.8.1 Intensive Agriculture ................................................................. 71 3.8.2 Equestrian .......................................................................... 72 3.8.3 Grazing. 72 3.9 COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL Leaseholders .....................75 3.9.1 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ................................................. 75 3.9.2 Independent Research Institutions ..................................................... 75 3.9.3 Commercial Leases. 75 3.10 FUTURE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ..........................................75 3.10.1 Development Associated with Santa Clara County 2000 GUP ............................. 76 3.10.2 Development Beyond the Santa Clara County 2000 GUP ................................. 76 3.11 HABITAT MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND ENHANCEMENT ...........79 3.11.1 Potential Effects of Habitat Management, Monitoring, and Enhancement on the Covered Species ............................................... 80 4.0 CONSERVATION PROGRAM ...........................................89 4.1 CREATION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES ......................................89 4.2 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIALLY ADVERSE Effects of THE COVERED SPECIES .............................93 4.2.1 Water Management .................................................................. 93 4.2.2 Creek Maintenance Activities .......................................................... 95 4.2.3 Academic Activities .................................................................. 96 4.2.4 Utility Installation and Maintenance .................................................... 96 4.2.5 General Infrastructure ................................................................ 98 4.2.6 Recreation and Athletics .............................................................100 4.2.7 Grounds and Vegetation .............................................................101 4.2.8 Agriculture and Equestrian Leaseholds .................................................102 4.2.9 Commercial and Institutional Leaseholds ...............................................102 4.2.10 Future Development ................................................................103 4.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF MITIGATION ACCOUNTS ............................104 4.3.1 San Francisquito/Los Trancos Riparian Account ........................................106 4.3.2 Matadero/Deer Riparian Account .....................................................114 4.3.3 CTS Account ......................................................................115 4.4 USE OF MITIGATION ACCOUNT CREDITS .................................119 4.5 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .................................................120 4.5.1 Adaptive Approach ..................................................................120 4.5.2 Role of Monitoring in Adaptive Managements ..........................................120 4.5.3 Modification to the Conservation Program .............................................120 4.5.4 Revisions to the Conservation Measures ................................................121 v 4.5.5 Revisions to the Monitoring and Management Plans .....................................121 4.5.6 Experimental Techniques ............................................................122 4.5.7 Introduction of Threatened or Endangered Species ......................................122
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare
    The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare Kathryn O’Reilly A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Randolph T. Hester Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss Spring 2010 The thesis of Clare Kathryn O’Reilly, titled The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges, is approved: Chair Date: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf Date: Professor Randolph T. Hester Date: Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss University of California, Berkeley Spring 2010 The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges Copyright 2010 by Clare O’Reilly Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Methods 18 CHAPTER 3: Conceptual Framework 22 CHAPTER 4: Case Studies 46 Upper York Creek Dam 47 Searsville Dam 58 San Clemente Dam 72 Matilija Dam 84 Rindge Dam 99 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis & Recommendations 108 REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 136 table OF COnTEnTS i List of Figures CHAPTER 1 Figure 1-1. Sediment deposition from upstream watershed (left) and resulting deposition in reservoir. 2 Figure 1-2. Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) 3 Figure 1-3. Dams in the US by height. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-4. Dams in the US by hazard potential. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-5. Delta deposition in reservoir. (Mahmood, 1987) 5 Figure 1-6. Example of reservoir sediment deposit. 5 Figure 1-7. Infilled reservoir. (Morris & Fan, 1998) 5 Figure 1-8. Bar-lin Dam on the Dahan River in Taiwan, full of sediment in 2006 four years after completion (left), and post-failure in 2007 (right).
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Resource Study
    HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Portola Valley, California Deliverable 1: Historic Resource Study October 2013 FINAL October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study TABLE OF CONTENTS HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 II. Historic Overview & Contexts................................................................................ 5 III. Physical Description & Character-Defining Features .......................................... 58 IV. Historic Resource Evaluation ............................................................................ 105 V. Bibliography....................................................................................................... 109 VI. Endnotes VII. Appendix A. Methodology B. Drawings: Hawthorn House, Garage and Cottage October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study I. INTRODUCTION Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment The Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment is a project undertaken by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to assess the history and condition of the Hawthorn property. The District is a special district whose purpose is to purchase, permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWN of PORTOLA VALLEY 7:00 PM – Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 the Sequoias Hanson Hall 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
    Page 1 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY 7:00 PM – Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 The Sequoias Hanson Hall 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 _____________________________________________________________________________ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 PM – CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Aalfs, Mayor Derwin, Councilmember Driscoll, Vice Mayor Richards, Councilmember Wengert ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject may do so now. Please note however, that the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. (1) PRESENTATION – Community Events Committee; Report on Blues and BBQ (3) (2) PRESENTATION – Jayme Ackemann, SamTrans Government Affairs Officer Executive Director; Report on (4) SamTrans Service Plan (3) PRESENTATION – Nicole Pasini, Branch Manager for Portola Valley and Woodside Library’s; San Mateo County Library’s 2011-12 Annual Report (18) CONSENT AGENDA The following items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and approved by one roll call motion. The Mayor or any member of the Town Council or of the public may request that any item listed under the Consent Agenda be removed and action taken separately. (4) Approval of Minutes – Regular Town Council Meeting of October 10, 2012 (35) (5) Approval of Warrant List – October 24, 2012 (47) REGULAR AGENDA (6) Discussion by Town Manager – Options to Improve Committee Volunteer Experience (56) COUNCIL, STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (7) Report from Town Manager – Update on Staffing Plan (66) There are no written materials for this item. (8) Reports from Commission and Committee Liaisons (67) There are no written materials for this item.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Element
    Town of Portola Valley General Plan Historic Element Last amended April 22, 1998 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Background of Community ......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Historic Resource to be Preserved .............................................................................................. 4 Historic Resource to be Noted with a Plaque ............................................................................. 5 Historic Resource Listed for Further
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area
    EVALUATING SMALL DAM REMOVAL PLANNING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Geography: Resource Management and Environmental Planning by Andrea Sarisky Sproul San Francisco, California August 2017 Copyright by Andrea Sarisky Sproul 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area by Andrea Sarisky Sproul, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Geography: Resource Management and Environmental Planning at San Francisco State University. Nancy Lee Wilkinson, Ph.D. Professor of Geography Jerry D. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Geography EVALUATING SMALL DAM REMOVAL PLANNING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Andrea Sarisky Sproul San Francisco, California 2017 Dam removal is now commonly being considered as a river restoration tactic as millions of small dams in the United States outlive their intended purposes and become liabilities or cause environmental degradation. This study evaluates two cases of small dam removal in the San Francisco Bay Area, gauging what aspects of the decision-making and planning process facilitated successful removal. Through the study of the setting, actors, steps of progression, and treatment of risks for each dam removal project, the cases are evaluated against one another via pattern matching and comparing factors of analysis. Planning at the watershed scale, the presence of protected salmonids, available funding, and strong leadership that incorporates multiple stakeholder viewpoints and embraces adaptive management were all found to be important factors leading to successful outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2 Physical/Biological Setting, Including Covered Species
    SECTION 2 PHYSICAL/BIOLOGICAL SETTING, INCLUDING COVERED SPECIES 2.0 PHYSICAL / BIOLOGICAL SETTING, INCLUDING COVERED SPECIES 2.1 SIGNIFICANT HYDROLOGIC FEATURES 2.1.1 San Francisquito Creek Watershed The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles and is located on the east- ern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains, at the base of the San Francisco Peninsula (Fig. 2-1). This watershed is located in two counties, San Mateo and Santa Clara, and two of its constituent creeks (Los Trancos and San Francisquito) form part of the boundary between the two counties. The San Francisquito Creek watershed has four major sub-watersheds located at least partially on Stanford lands: Bear Creek (Bear When this HCP was prepared, Stanford had the following Gulch Creek), Los Trancos Creek, San Francisquito Creek, and functioning water diversion facilities in the San Francisquito streams that flow into Searsville Reservoir (including Corte Creek system: Searsville Dam and Reservoir, located down- Madera, Dennis Martin, Sausal, and Alambique creeks). stream from the confluence of Corte Madera Creek and Sausal Creek; Los Trancos diversion on Los Trancos Creek, near A USGS gauging station (11164500) is located on San the intersection of Arastradero and Alpine roads; and an in- Francisquito Creek near the Stanford golf course, approxi- channel pumping station, located in San Francisquito Creek mately 500 meters south (upstream) of the Junipero Serra near the Stanford golf course, south of the Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road intersection. This station has been in Boulevard/Alpine Road intersection. Another diversion facil- operation since the early 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • 38Th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference
    Salmonid Restoration Federation’s Mission Statement 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference Salmonid Restoration Federation was formed in 1986 to help stream March 31 – April 3, 2020 Santa Cruz, CA restoration practitioners advance the art and science of restoration. Salmonid Restoration Federation promotes restoration, stewardship, 2020 Vision for California’s Salmonscape and recovery of California native salmon, steelhead, and trout populations through education, collaboration, and advocacy. 38 th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference • 2020, Santa Cruz, CA Conference • 2020, Restoration Salmonid Annual SRF Goals & Objectives 1. To provide affordable technical education and best management practices trainings to the watershed restoration community. Conference Co-Sponsors Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 2. Conduct outreach to constituents, landowners, and decision-makers Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, California American Water, California Conservation Corps, to inform the public about the plight of endangered salmon and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, the need to preserve and restore habitat to recover salmonid California State Coastal Conservancy, CalTrans, California Trout - North Coast, Cardno, cbec, inc., City of Santa Cruz-Water Branch, County of Santa Cruz, East Bay Municipal Utility District, populations. Environmental Science Associates, Eureka Water Probes, FISHBIO, GHD, Green Diamond Resource Company - CA Timberlands
    [Show full text]
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage San Francisquito
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation May 29, 2014 SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK: LOS TRANCOS AND BEAR CREEKS FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Project No. 13-020-02 Project Manager: Amy Hutzel RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $67,000 to American Rivers to design and prepare for implementation three fish passage improvement projects on two San Francisquito Creek tributaries: Los Trancos Creek and Bear Creek in Portola Valley and Woodside, respectively. LOCATION: Los Trancos Creek and Bear Creek, tributaries to San Francisquito Creek, in Portola Valley and Woodside, respectively, San Mateo County. PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Maps Exhibit 2: Summary Description of Fish Passage Barriers Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31165 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the disbursement of up to sixty-seven thousand dollars ($67,000) to American Rivers to design and prepare for implementation three fish passage improvement projects in the San Francisquito Creek watershed at Los Trancos Creek and Bear Creek, in Portola Valley and Woodside, respectively, San Mateo County. Prior to the disbursement of funds, American Rivers shall submit for review and approval by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy: 1. A work program, including a schedule and budget for the project; 2. The names and qualifications of all contractors to be employed for the project.” Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: Page 1 of 8 SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK: LOS TRANCOS AND BEAR CREEK FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • My Seventy Years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves
    My seventy years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves MY SEVENTY YEARS IN CALIFORNIA J. A. GRAVES MY SEVENTY YEARS IN CALIFORNIA 1857-1927 By J. A. GRAVES President Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles Los Angeles The TIMES-MIRROR Press 1927 COPYRIGHT, 1927 BY J. A. GRAVES My seventy years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves http://www.loc.gov/resource/calbk.095 LOVINGLY DEDICATED TO MY WIFE ALICE H. GRAVES PREFACE Time flies so swiftly, that I can hardly realize so many years have elapsed since I, a child five years of age, passed through the Golden Gate, to become a resident of California. I have always enjoyed reading of the experiences of California pioneers, who came here either before or after I did. The thought came to me, that possibly other people would enjoy an account of the experiences of my seventy years in the State, during which I participated in the occurrences of a very interesting period of the State's development. As, during all of my life, to think has been to act, this is the only excuse or apology I can offer for this book. J. A. GRAVES. ix CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I FAMILY HISTORY. MARYSVILLE IN 1857. COL. JIM HOWARTH 3 II MARYSVILLE BAR IN 1857. JUDGE STEPHEN J. FIELD ITS LEADER. GEN. GEO. N. ROWE. PLACERVILLE BAR AN ABLE ONE 13 III FARMING IN EARLY DAYS IN CALIFORNIA. HOW WE LIVED. DEMOCRATIC CELEBRATION AT MARYSVILLE DURING THE LINCOLN-MCCLELLAN CAMPAIGN 25 IV SPORT WITH GREYHOUNDS. MY FIRST AND LAST POKER GAME 36 V MOVING FROM MARYSVILLE TO SAN MATEO COUNTY 39 VI HOW WE LIVED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY 43 VII BEGINNING OF MY EDUCATION 46 VIII REV.
    [Show full text]