DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Pismo Beach Shoreline Protection Project Environmental Assessment/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Pismo Beach Shoreline Protection Project Environmental Assessment/ Mitigated Negative Declaration FINAL PISMO BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared by: LOS ANGELES DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 Assisted by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 (949) 261-5414 In association with: MOFFATT AND NICHOL 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 600 Long Beach, California 90806 April 2014 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT for PISMO BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT CITY OF PISMO BEACH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I have reviewed the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the project in San Luis Obispo County. The proposed project, as evaluated in this EA, is to protect from erosion caused by waves the toe of the bluffs at one site. The attached EA evaluated six potential sites. Two of the six sites (St. Andrews Lift Station and the Vista del Mar Lift Station) were originally proposed in the federal Consistency Determination for California Coastal Commission review, design, and construction. Bluff protection at the Vista del Mar Lift Station has been completed by the city of Pismo Beach. Only one site (St. Andrews Lift Station) is currently planned and funded for construction. Five areas in the northern portion of Pismo Beach have been identified as chronically erosional to the extent that structures are threatened. These five areas from north to south are: 1) St. Andrews Lift Station (a lift station is a pump that raises sewage from a lower elevation sewer line to a higher elevation sewer line), 2) Vista del Mar Lift Station, 3) Ocean Park, 4) Price Street - North, and 5) Price Street - South. At each of these sites, loss of material due to erosion of bluff faces and toes has jeopardized existing street rights-of-way, infrastructure, and public improvement. Because the beach has minimal sand these areas, the bluffs are exposed to direct wave activity during winter storms. A sixth site (Cypress Street Lift Station) at the southern end of Pismo Beach has also experienced chronic bluff-top erosion and bluff toe erosion, jeopardizing a sewer pump station and roadways. The Cypress Street Lift Station site is adjacent to a sand dune fronted by a wide beach; however during storms, waves are able to reach and attack the dune toe, causing instability in the bluff system. Resources analyzed, including geology, oceanography and water quality, air quality, biological resources, cultural, socioeconomic, recreation, safety, land use, noise, traffic, utilities, aesthetics, and climate change analysis, in this EA are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. The Corps obtained a Section 401 (of the Clean Water Act) Water Quality waiver for the authorized project in 2011 meeting the requirements of Sections 401 and 404(b )(1). A 404(b )(1) Evaluation was completed as part of this EA. Project impacts on marine resources will be minor and short-term. No federally listed species will be adversely affected by project implementation. Therefore, formal Section 7 consultation is not required pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended. The USACE has determined that the proposed project will not have a substantial, adverse impact to Essential Fish Habitat. A Consistency Determination (CD-057-12) was prepared for concurrence by the California Coastal Commission. Concurrence was received on December 13, 2013. The Corps has determined this project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the California Pismo Beach Shoreline Protection Project Final EA/MND Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................2 1.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................................................................2 1.4 AUTHORIZATION..........................................................................................................2 SECTION 2.0 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ..........................5 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: ROCK REVETMENT .....................................................................5 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL .................................................18 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: SCULPTED CONCRETE/SHOTCRETE WALL ........................18 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: STEEL SHEET PILE WALL (CYPRESS STREET LIFT STATION SITE ONLY) ................................................................................................33 2.5 CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................35 2.6 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................37 SECTION 3.0 – DESCRIPTION OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES .........................................50 3.1 NO ACTION...................................................................................................................50 3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................50 3.2.1 Offshore Breakwater ............................................................................................50 3.2.2 Groin .....................................................................................................................50 3.2.3 Beach Nourishment ..............................................................................................50 3.2.4 Managed Retreat ...................................................................................................51 SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................................................52 4.1 GEOLOGY .....................................................................................................................52 4.1.1 Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................52 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................54 4.2 OCEANOGRAPHY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................60 4.2.1 Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................60 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................63 4.3 AIR QUALITY ...............................................................................................................71 4.3.1 Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................71 4.3.2 Air Quality Standards ...........................................................................................72 4.3.3 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................77 4.3.4 Climate Change Analysis .....................................................................................95 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................98 4.4.1 Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................98 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................119 4.5 CULTURAL .................................................................................................................152 4.5.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................152 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................156 4.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................160 4.6.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................160 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................160 4.7 RECREATION .............................................................................................................166 4.7.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................166 Chambers Group, Inc. i 20122 Pismo Beach Shoreline Protection Project Final EA/MND Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................167 4.8 SAFETY .......................................................................................................................173 4.8.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................173 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................174 4.9 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................179 4.9.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................179 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................180
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)
    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • Hatston Pier Proposed Extension and Reclamation
    Item: 8 Development and Infrastructure Committee: 8 June 2021. Hatston Pier – Proposed Extension and Reclamation. Report by Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure. 1. Purpose of Report To consider a Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposal to provide a pier extension and reclamation to the existing Hatston Pier and area. 2. Recommendations The Committee is invited to note: 2.1. That, in April 2020, the Council approved the Orkney Harbours Masterplan Phase 1 as a Strategic Plan for the Statutory Harbour Authority. 2.2. That one of the proposals contained within the Orkney Harbours Masterplan Phase 1 is to extend the existing Hatston Pier and carry out sea-bed reclamation to provide increased quay/storage areas. 2.3. The Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, attached as Appendix 8 to this report. 2.4. That, should the project progress through the Capital Project Appraisal process, resources of up to £1,553,838 are required to produce the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal, which could be met from the Miscellaneous Piers and Harbours Fund. 2.5. Options for the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, as outlined in section 4 of this report, with the preferred option being to progress to a detailed Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal. Page 1. 2.6. That, on 25 May 2021, the Harbour Authority Sub-committee recommended to the Development and Instructure Committee that the Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure should submit a report, to the Policy and Resources Committee, regarding funding required to develop the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation of Hatston Pier.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings
    Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-114 September 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 15, Third Edition Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings National Highway Institute Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-NHI-05-114 HEC 15 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings September 2005 Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 15, Third Edition 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Roger T. Kilgore and George K. Cotton 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Kilgore Consulting and Management 2963 Ash Street 11. Contract or Grant No. Denver, CO 80207 DTFH61-02-D-63009/T-63044 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Final Report (3rd Edition) National Highway Institute Office of Bridge Technology April 2004 – August 2005 4600 North Fairfax Drive 400 Seventh Street Suite 800 Room 3202 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Arlington, Virginia 22203 Washington D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Project Manager: Dan Ghere – FHWA Resource Center Technical Assistance: Jorge Pagan, Joe Krolak, Brian Beucler, Sterling Jones, Philip L. Thompson (consultant) 16. Abstract Flexible linings provide a means of stabilizing roadside channels. Flexible linings are able to conform to changes in channel shape while maintaining overall lining integrity. Long-term flexible linings such as riprap, gravel, or vegetation (reinforced with synthetic mats or unreinforced) are suitable for a range of hydraulic conditions. Unreinforced vegetation and many transitional and temporary linings are suited to hydraulic conditions with moderate shear stresses.
    [Show full text]
  • Orkney & Shetland
    r’ Soil Survey of Scotland ORKNEY & SHETLAND 1250 000 SHEET I The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Aberdeen 1982 SOIL SURVEY OF SCOTLAND Soil and Land Capability for Agriculture ORKNEY AND SHETLAND By F. T. Dry, BSc and J. S. Robertson, BSc The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Aberdeen 1982 @ The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen, 1982 The cover illustration shows St. Magnus Bay, Shetland with Foula (centre nght) in the distance. Institute of Geological Sciences photograph published by permission of the Director; NERC copyright. ISBN 0 7084 0219 4 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS ABERDEEN Contents Chapter Page PREFACE 1 DESCRIPTIONOF THE AREA 1 GEOLOGY AND RELIEF 1 North-east Caithness and Orkney 1 Shetland 3 CLIMATE 9, SOILS 12 North-east Caithness and Orkney 12 Shetland 13 VEGETATION 14 North-east Caithness and Orkney 14 Shetland 16 LAND USE 19 North-east Caithness and Orkney 19 Shetland 20 2 THE SOIL MAP UNITS 21 Alluvial soils 21 Organic soils 22 The Arkaig Association 24 The Canisbay Association 29 The Countesswells/Dalbeattie/Priestlaw Associations 31 The Darleith/Kirktonmoor Associations 34 The Deecastle Association 35 The Dunnet Association 36 The Durnhill Association 38 The Foudland Association 39 The Fraserburgh Association 40 The Insch Association 41 The Leslie Association 43 The Links Association 46 The Lynedardy Association 47 The Rackwick Association 48 The Skelberry Association 48 ... 111 CONTENTS The Sourhope Association 50 The Strichen Association 50 The Thurso Association 52 The Walls
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Physical Methods for River Training
    Resource Manual on Flash Flood Risk Management – Module 3: Structural Measures Chapter 6: Physical Methods for River Training Flash flood mitigation in the upstream part of a catchment is aimed at reducing the occurrence of flash floods and focuses on reducing slope instability, reducing the amount and velocity of runoff, and preventing erosion. In the downstream areas, the focus is on mitigating the effects and impact of any flash flood that occurs. Some rivers are particularly prone to flash floods (‘flashy rivers’) and it is possible to plan mitigation interventions, even though the timing of individual flash floods cannot be predicted. This chapter looks at some structural measures in the downstream areas. The morphology of a river is a strong determinant of flow, and can thus serve to intensify or mitigate flood waves and torrents. At the same time, when rivers flow in an alluvial plain they often become meandered or braided, and at times of flood, this morphology leads to excessive bank cutting which can destroy agricultural land and human settlements. ‘River training’ refers to the structural measures which are taken to improve a river and its banks. River training is an important component in the prevention and mitigation of flash floods and general flood control, as well as in other activities such as ensuring safe passage of a flood under a bridge. For flash flood mitigation, the main aim is to control the water discharge regime in the watercourse by limiting its dynamic energy, thereby controlling the morphological evolution of the watercourse (Colombo et al. 2002). River training measures also reduce sediment transportation and thus minimize bed and bank erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
    SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2002.1129E State Clearing House No. 2003122131 Draft EIR Publication Date: September 6, 2005 Draft EIR Public Hearing Dates: October 6, 2005 and January 12, 2006 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: September 6, 2005 – January 20, 2006 Final EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2007 DEFINITIONS Some of the terms used in this document may be unfamiliar to readers. This list of definitions is provided to orient readers to the terms used to describe common features of marinas and waterfront developments that are integral to the project. Please refer to this list as necessary when reviewing the attached Environmental Impact Report. Bow: The front of a boat. Breakwater: A barrier that protects a harbor or shore from the full impact of waves. Dock: A platform that forms the space for receiving or mooring a boat. Fill: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission defines fill as “earth or any other substance or material, including pilings or structures placed on pilings, and structures floating at some or all times and moored for extended periods, such as houseboats and floating docks.” Float: A pier that floats on top of the water, with guide piles driven as needed to maintain its location. Gangway: A bridge for getting to and from floats and docks from the shore. Jetty: A structure, such as a pier, that projects into a body of water to influence the current or tide or to protect a harbor or shoreline from storms or erosion. Mole: A solid fill barrier that protects a harbor or shore from the full impact of waves, similar to a breakwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Museum Newsletter Fall 2015
    I S S U E N U m b E r 4 • F A L L 2 0 1 5 Failed RailRoad led to thRiving FerrY SeRvice by Dennis Evanosky Niles Canyon Railroad. On October 2, 1866 an inspection party visited the Western Pacific Railroad’s tracks in today’s Niles Canyon. The Western Pacific’s inability to finish this railroad through the canyon and on to Sacramento led to a decision to run the transcontinental n December 1862, Timothy railroad into Oakland, giving the East Bay ferries a near monopoly on getting passengers IDame, Peter Donahue and Charles into San Francisco. McLaughlin formed the Western Pacific Railroad (WP). These men were Jose and finally north up the peninsula boat industry, which had already been already busy building the San Francisco to San Francisco on SF&SJ tracks. carrying passengers from “Contra & San Jose Railroad (SF&SJ), which Costa,” as most called today’s East began running between San Francisco In 1866, the WP ran out of money after completing the first 20 miles of Bay, to and from San Francisco for 17 and Menlo Park in October 1863. The years. “Ferry service from San Francisco SF&SJ initiated service to San Jose in track. This forced the railroad to halt construction east of Vallejo Mills in the to the East Bay began in 1850, when January 1864. Ten months later, the Captain Thomas Gray began sailing Central Pacific Railroad (CP) gave the middle of the desolate canyon along Alameda Creek. The following year the small steamer Kangaroo from WP the rights to build a railroad that San Francisco to San Antonio Creek, connected Sacramento with San Jose.
    [Show full text]
  • Item 7: Hatston Pier
    Item: 7 Harbour Authority Sub-committee: 25 May 2021. Hatston Pier – Proposed Extension and Reclamation. Report by Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure. 1. Purpose of Report To consider a Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposal to provide a pier extension and reclamation to the existing Hatston Pier and area. 2. Recommendations The Sub-committee is invited to note: 2.1. That, in April 2020, the Council approved the Orkney Harbours Masterplan Phase 1 (OHMP1) as a Strategic Plan for the Statutory Harbour Authority. 2.2. That one of the proposals contained within the OHMP1 is to extend the existing Hatston Pier and carry out sea-bed reclamation to provide increased quay/storage areas. 2.3. The Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, attached as Appendix 8 to this report. 2.4. That, should the project progress through the Capital Project Appraisal process, resources of up to £1,553,838 are required to produce the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal, which could be met from the Miscellaneous Piers and Harbours Fund. 2.5. Options for the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, as outlined in section 4 of this report, with the preferred option being to progress to a detailed Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal. It is recommended to the Development and Infrastructure Committee: 2.6. That the Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure should submit a report, to the Policy and Resources Committee, regarding funding required to Page 1. develop the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation of Hatston Pier.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue for Sale of Orkney Books and Artwork
    Catalogue for Sale of Orkney Books and Artwork Thursday 5th August 2021 at 10am Selling Lots 1 to 406 & Friday 6th August 2021 at 10am Selling Lots 407 to 722 Catalogue price £1 Grainshore Road, Hatston, KIRKWALL, Orkney Telephone (01856) 872520 E-mail – [email protected] No Book Title Author Published Price Collection 1 1 A Time to Keep George Mackay Brown 1969 2 Life in the Orkney Islands Chick Chalmers 1979 3 The Masked Fisherman and other stories George Mackay Brown 1989 4 Skara Brae V Gordon Childe 1931 5 Letters to Gypsy George Mackay Brown 1990 6 A Spell for Green Corn George Mackay Brown 1970 7 Humours of a Peat Commission ( Vol 1) Arthur Abernethy 1918 8 Hawkfall George Mackay Brown 1974 9 Grievances and Oppression of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland James Mackenzie 1836 10 The Salving of the German Fleet J Pottinger (Stromness Museum) 1974 11 Poetical Descriptions of Orkney (1652) 1971 12 The General Grievances and Opression of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland James Mackenzie 1836 13 History of the Orkney Islands George Barry 1975 14 Orcadian Papers M M Charleson 1905 15 County Folklore (Vol III) Orkney & Shetland Islands G F Black 1901 16 Images in Time N F Sinclair/Myles Hodnett 1997 17 Fauna Orcadensis Rev George Low 1813 18 Following a Lark (Paperback) George Mackay Brown 1996 19 The Darkness Within Alanna Knight 2017 20 Portrait of Orkney George Mackay Brown 1981 21 History of the Church in Orkney Rev J B Craven 1941 22 State of the Process Alexander Earl of Galloway against James Earl of Morton 1757 23 Notice of Runic
    [Show full text]
  • The Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2008-2011 Comprises Three Sections
    Version 1.1: A targeted action plan for 2008 - 2011 This page is blank 1 Contents Page 1 Introduction 3 1.2 Biodiversity Action Planning - The National Context 4 • Scottish Biodiversity Strategy • Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plans 1.3 Changes to Environmental Legislation 5 • The Water Framework Directive • The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive • The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 1.4 Biodiversity and the Local Authority Planning Process 7 • The Biodiversity Duty • The Scottish Biodiversity List • The Species Action Framework • Planning and Biodiversity 1.5 Biodiversity and Rural Development Policy 9 • The Common Agricultural Policy • Scotland Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 1.6 Links with the Orkney Biodiversity Records Centre 11 2 Selection of the Ten Habitats for Inclusion in the Orkney Biodiversity Action Plan 2008-2011 12 • Road verges 14 • Eutrophic standing waters 18 • Mesotrophic standing waters 24 • Coastal sand dunes 28 • Aeolianite 35 • Coastal vegetated shingle 37 • Coastal strandline 41 • Coastal saltmarsh 44 • Seagrass beds 48 • Saline lagoons 51 Appendix I Orkney LBAP Species which are included on the UK BAP List Appendix II BAP categories of habitat found in Orkney Appendix III Orkney LBAP Species which are included on the Scottish Biodiversity List Appendix IV Correspondence between Orkney LBAP habitat types and Scottish Biodiversity List habitats. 2 Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2008-2011 Section 1 Introduction The Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2002-2007 (OLBAP) has come to the end of the plan period and it is now time to review progress that has been made and to publish a further more targeted Plan which will guide the conservation and enhancement of key features of biodiversity in Orkney over the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • WP Mileposts Nov 1951 No. 28
    WESTERN PACIFIC J1!!~~p.,~Sls Milepost No. 28 Vol. III, No. 4 NOVEMBER, 1951 Department of Public Relations WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RENO BRANCH SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY TIDEWATER SOUTHERN RAILWAY 526 Mission Street, San Francisco 5 Reno, Nevada, the "Biggest Little neither stock, bonds, nor debt, and all Lee "Flash" Sherwood, Editor Arthur Lloyd, Jr., Associate Editor City in the World," is better known expenses were paid monthly in cash. Member American Railway Magazine Editors' Association Member Northern California Industrial Editors' Association for its gambling palaces and marital A 50-mile extension was built from couplings and un couplings than as an Honey Lake to Madelain Plain, Cali­ industrial center. Behind all its glam­ fornia. The extended road was incor­ CONTENTS our and clinking of silver dollars, how­ porated March 31,1888, as the Nevada ­ Page ever, Reno is much like any other California-Oregon Railway (referred 3-8 Reno Branch American city. Situated in the Washoe to by many as the "Narrow, Crooked 9,10 WP Will Remember Valley at the eastern base of the Sierra and Ornery"). Later, the road from 10 Nevada and divided by the Truckee Madelain (formerly Madelain Plain) Flaming Youth . 11 River, it is a place of many fine homes, to Likely, California, was built, ex­ Mileposts in Gold 12,13 stores and hotels, the beautiful Uni­ tended to Alturas, California, and In Memoriam 13,14 versity of Nevada, growing industries finally on to Lakeview, Oregon, in In the Armed Forces and friendly people. J anuary of 1912. 15 "Oscars" For industrial development, a city 16, 17 In 1900, a branch line had been built The Last Gold Spike requires good transportation, and from Plumas Junction to Mohawk, 17 New Home for SN .
    [Show full text]