DOCSLIB.ORG

USGS Professional Paper 1550-E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USGS Professional Paper 1550-E The Lorna Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Hydrologic Disturbances STUART ROJSTACZER, Editor STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUND FAILURE THOMAS L. HOLZER, Coordinator - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1551-E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994 CONTENTS By Stuart Rojstaczer The origin of the tsunami excited by the earthquake- faulting or slumping ------- ------------ ----------- --------- By Kuo-Fong Ma, Kenji Satake, and Hiroo Kanamori Stream-channel adjustment in Fern Canyon near Watsonville, California, after the earthquake ---------- 11 By Deborah R. Harden and Dennis Fox Sources and magnitudes of increased streamflow in the Santa Cruz Mountains for the 1990 water year after the earthquake---------------------------------------- 31 By Robert R. Curry, Brett A. Emery, and Tom Gentry Kidwell I Hydrologic changes associated with the earthquake in the San Lorenzo and Pescadero drainage basinsÑ--- 51 By Stuart Rojstaczer and Stephen Wolf THE LOMA PRIETA, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 17,1989: STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUm FAILURE HYDROLOGIC DISTURBANCES INTRODUCTION By Stuart Rojstaczer, Duke University Seismic events have long been known to cause changes upstream of the fault. The postearthquake surveys of this in the level of oceans, streams, lakes, and the water table. channel suggest that earthquakes without significant surface The great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 induced sig- rupture may induce changes in stream-channel morphology nificant hydrologic changes (Lawson, 1908) that were that, over geologic time, can produce the offset streams qualitatively similar to those changes observed for the characteristic of the San Andreas fault. Tectonic deforma- Loma Prieta earthquake. What is different is that the hy- tion of stream channels occurs at a faster rate than the abil- drologic data sets collected from the Loma Prieta event ity of the channel to readjust by aggradation or erosion. have enough detail to enable hypotheses on the causes for Changes in the magnitude of streamflow in response to these changes to be tested. The papers in this chapter doc- the Loma Prieta earthquake are well documented and are ument changes in ocean level, stream morphology and the subject of three papers in this volume. Briggs examines flow, water table height, and ground-water flow rates in changes in stream flow in Waddell Creek. The earthquake response to the earthquake. Although hydrologic distur- induced a transient increase in discharge in the Creek and bances may have occurred about 1 hour before the main associated springs that exponentially declined over a period shock (Roeloffs, 1993), the papers in this chapter deal of one to two months following the earthquake. Spring strictly with postevent hydrologic changes. The hydrologic flow at higher elevations ceased at an earlier time than responses reported here reflect changes that are not the re- spring flow at lower elevations suggesting that the water sult of surface rupture. They appear to be the result of table elevation declined over time. landslides, the static displacements induced by the earth- On a regional scale, Curry and others state that verifi- quake, and changes in the permeability of the near surface. able changes in stream discharge were noted as far away The Monterey Bay tsunami is examined by Ma and oth- as 88 km from the epicenter. Increases in flow that persist- ers. They use elastic half-space models of the earthquake ed for several months following the earthquake were re- in conjunction with a finite difference model of tsunami stricted to the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco motion in Monterey Bay to examine the origin of the tsu- peninsula. The source of this water appears to be the nami. The waveform of the tsunami cannot be explained ground-water system. Chemical analyses of about 100 sur- solely by the static displacement of the ocean floor in- face water and ground-water samples demonstrated mod- duced by the earthquake. To mimic the observed response, est increases in ionic concentration in some, but not all, Ma and others include earthquake-induced slumping of sampled waters. 0.01 km3 of sediment into the ocean from Moss Landing. The ground-water and surface-water response of the San The response of stream morphology to San Andreas fault Lorenzo and Pescadero drainage basins is discussed by motion is the subject of Harden and Fox. Stream channels Rojstaczer and Wolf. Streamflow increased at most gaging in the Santa Cruz Mountains have been altered by prehis- stations within 15 minutes after the earthquake. Ground- toric earthquakes in this region. Harden and Fox have water levels in the highlands parts of the basins were local- made repeat surveys of a channel within Fern Canyon. ly lowered by as much as 21 m within weeks to months This channel was chosen for detailed study because it after the earthquake. Streamflow reduction in these basins shows evidence of geologically recent disruption by the followed an exponential rate similar to that shown by San Andreas fault and because it has a relatively straight Briggs. In the San Lorenzo basin, changes in stream chem- channel that enters the fault zone at a right angle. The sur- istry were significant. Although cationfanion ratios of the veys indicated that the channel elevation increased along a major constituents remained relatively constant, overall 30-m segment upstream of the fault. The middle 17 m of ionic concentrations and the calcite saturation index of the this reach showed an average of 28 cm of aggradation; the streamwater increased. Solute concentrations declined sig- aggradation appears to reflect a decrease in the gradient nificantly within several months after the earthquake. E2 HYDROLOGIC DISTURBANCES Although increases in stream and spring flow have been nient, and it is so generally believed that they are likely to sometimes ascribed to fluid sources from the midcrust, the be permanent, that the inhabitants of the town are begin- cause of streamflow increases examined in three of the pa- ning to build cisterns, in order to accumulate artificial res- pers described above appears to be a permeability increase ervoirs of water (p. 95). of the near-surface aquifers and aquitards. Hence, the ob- The hydrologic changes in response to the Loma Prieta served ground-water and surface-water response are not earthquake are much more local in extent than those of the apparently coupled to the earthquake-generation process. New Madrid, but the impact on communities in the region The permeability increases seem to persist for a period was significant. Unlike the hydrologic disturbances observed longer than the time of increased streamflow. Rojstaczer at the time of the New Madrid earthquakes, the causes for and Wolf present a simple diffusipnal model that mimics these changes appear to be well understood. They reflect the the observed streamflow and ground-water changes. The dynamic response of the ocean, streams, and ground water cause for the permeability increases is not known. Curry to earthquake-induced physical changes in the morphology and others speculate that the permeability increase is due and internal fabric of near-surface rocks and sediment. to microbiologic processes. Rojstaczer and Wolf propose that the permeability increase is due to seismically in- duced fracturing and microfracturing. REFERENCES CITED In the papers presented in this chapter, hydrologic changes associated with the Loma Prieta earthquake are Lawson, A.C., chairman, 1908, The California earthquake of April 18, spatially variable, but the overall character of the changes 1906; Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission: can be explained by relatively simple conceptual models. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 87, 451 p. In a study of ground-water disturbances in South Carolina Roeloffs, E., 1993, A reported streamflow increase: U.S. Geological Sur- vey Professional Paper 1550-C, p. 47-52. associated with the New Madrid earthquakes of 181 1- 18 12 Smith, E.D., 1819, On the changes which have taken place in the wells of (Smith, 1819) the following was noted: Whatever may be water situated in Columbia, South-Carolina, since the earthquakes of the cause of this phenomenon, the effects are so inconve- 181 1-12: American Journal of Science, v, 1, p. 93-95. THE LOMA PRIETA, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 17,1989: STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUND FAILUW HYDROLOGIC DISTURBANCES \ 1 THE ORIGIN OF THE TSUNAMI EXCITED BY THE EARTHQUA=- FAULTING OR SLUMPING By Kuo-Fong Ma, California Institute of Technology, Kenji Satake, University of Michigan, and Hiroo Kanamori, California Institute of Technology CONTENTS amplitude of the observed tsunami, the volume of sedi- ments involved in the slumping is approximately 0.012 h3.Thus the most likely Fause of the tsunami observed Abskact ........................................................... at Monterey is the combination of the vertical uplift of the hkoduction....................................................... sea floor due to the main faulting and a large-scale slump- Dab ............................................................ --- Method .............................. -------------- -- ----------- --- ing near Moss Landing. Fault model ........................... -........................... Results----------------------me-------- ------------- ----- -------- --- Conclusions......................... -------------- -------- ----- --- INTRODUCTION References cited --------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood Insurance?
    Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program The passage of the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program in 2012 has made the community’s long term goals for protecting the future of the Santa Clara Valley possible, including: • Supplying safe, healthy water • Retrofitting dams and critical infrastructure for earthquakes • Reducing toxins, hazards and contaminants • Restoring wildlife habitat in our waterways • Providing natural flood protection Even though we are in a drought, flooding can happen. Santa Clara County has had several damaging floods over the years, Extreme dry conditions can harden the ground. Within the first few most notably in 1995 and 1997 along the Guadalupe River and 1998 days of heavy rain, the ground can deflect water into streams and along Coyote and San Francisquito creeks. Call your city’s floodplain creeks, increasing the chances of flash flooding. It can strike quickly manager or the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Community with little or no warning. Projects Unit at 408.630.2650 to determine if you are in a floodplain. Floodwater can flow swiftly through neighborhoods and away from The water district’s flood prevention and flood awareness outreach streams when creeks “overbank” or flood. Dangerously fast-moving efforts reduce flood insurance rates by as much as 10 percent. FEMA’s floodwaters can flow thousands of feet away from the flooded creek National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System (CRS) within minutes. evaluates the flood protection efforts that CRS communities make and provides a rating. While the chances may seem slim for a 1 percent flood* to occur, the real odds of a 1 percent flood are greater than one in four during the In our area, *participating CRS communities (noted on the magnet) earn length of a 30-year mortgage.
    [Show full text]
  • D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology
    D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, California Coastrange Sculpin Photographed by Jessica Wheeler D.W. ALLEY & Associates, Aquatic Biology Don Alley, Chad Steiner and Jerry Smith, Fishery Biologists With Field Assistance from Kristen Kittleson, Dawn Reis and Jessica Wheeler Prepared For the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department Government Center, 701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Funding From the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, Lompico County Water District, Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz May 2007 Project # 200-04 340 Old River Lane • P.O. Box 200 • Brookdale, California 95007 • (831) 338-7971 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY...................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................31 I-1. Steelhead and Coho Salmon Ecology...................................................... 31 I-3. Project Purpose and General Study Approach ........................................ 34 METHODS ....................................................................................................35 M-1. Choice of Reaches and Vicinity of Sites to be Sampled- Methods........... 35 M-2. Classification of Habitat Types and Measurement of Habitat Characteristics.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
    Local Agency Management Plan For Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112 408-918-3400 www.EHinfo.org July 2014 Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Santa Clara County, California Submitted to: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health July 2014 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................ 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Geographical Area .................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulation of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ............................................................................ 2 Santa Clara County OWTS Requirements ................................................................................................. 3 Organization of this LAMP ........................................................................................................................ 7 Section 2: Environmental Conditions, OWTS Usage and Water Quality Management in Santa Clara County .......................................................................................................................... 9 Surface
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Sam Mcdonald Pescadero
    Topher Simon Topher permitted in trail camps. trail in permitted water is available at trail camps. Backpack stoves are are stoves Backpack camps. trail at available is water who register with the ranger at Memorial Park. No No Park. Memorial at ranger the with register who snakes, and banana slugs. banana and snakes, available for a fee on a drop-in basis for backpackers backpackers for basis drop-in a on fee a for available woodpeckers, Steller’s jays, garter snakes, gopher gopher snakes, garter jays, Steller’s woodpeckers, hikes passing through multiple parks. multiple through passing hikes Trail camps camps Trail at Shaw Flat and Tarwater Flat are are Flat Tarwater and Flat Shaw at tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, foxes, bobcats, bobcats, foxes, opossums, raccoons, deer, tailed State Park, offering the opportunity for several long long several for opportunity the offering Park, State Common wildlife in Sam McDonald includes black- includes McDonald Sam in wildlife Common Trailheads. The trail network also connects to Big Basin Redwoods Redwoods Basin Big to connects also network trail The State Park, and at the Old Haul Road and Tarwater Tarwater and Road Haul Old the at and Park, State leaf maple, and oak trees. oak and maple, leaf a number of trails with Portola Redwoods State Park Park State Redwoods Portola with trails of number a Ranger Station, Portola Trailhead, Portola Redwoods Redwoods Portola Trailhead, Portola Station, Ranger Douglas fir, madrone, California laurel, buckeye, big big buckeye, laurel, California madrone, fir, Douglas Pescadero Creek Park shares its eastern boundary and and boundary eastern its shares Park Creek Pescadero inter-park trail network trail inter-park from the Sam McDonald McDonald Sam the from The forests, dominated by coast redwood, also include include also redwood, coast by dominated forests, The rugged beauty offers a true escape.
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo Urban River Plan
    San Lorenzo Urban River Plan A Plan for the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street Marsh Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force with assistance from Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service Adopted June 24, 2003 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 19 Purpose, Context and Goals 1.1 Purpose of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan 9 1.2 Goals and Benefits of the Plan 10 1.3 The Planning Area and River Reach Descriptions 10 1.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans 13 1.5 Plan Organization 13 Chapter 2 15 Plan Setting and Background 2.1 Physical Setting 15 2.2 Social Setting: Development of the City of Santa Cruz 17 2.3 The History of Flooding in Santa Cruz 18 2.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force 19 Chapter 3 21 Riverwide Concepts and Programs 3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway 21 3.2 Defining the Riverway: System-wide Recommendations 22 Chapter 4 23 Reach Specific Recommendations 4.1 Design Improvements 25 4.2 Site Specific Recommendations in River Reaches 29 Estuarine Reach 29 Transitional Reach 39 Riverine Reach 49 Chapter 5 55 Branciforte Creek 5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions 55 5.2 Reach Specific Recommendations for Branciforte Creek 58 Chapter 6 61 Significant Riverfront Areas 6.1 Front Street Riverfront Area 61 6.2 Salz Tannery to 64 Sycamore Grove Riverfront Area 6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area 71 Chapter 7 73 Plan Implementation 7.1 San Lorenzo River Committee 73 Recommendations 74 7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs 75 7.3 Funding Opportunities 75 Chapter 8 79 References Appendix A Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon Enhancement Plan Appendix B Jessie Street Marsh Management Plan PB SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLAN The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan could Acknowledgements not have been developed without the dedication of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force, City staff and the community.
    [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]
  • San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2
    Assessment and Management Prioritization Regime for the Bar-built Estuaries of San Mateo County Summary Report San Pedro Creek Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Area Coastal Program by: Central Coast Wetlands Group Moss Landing Marine Labs 8272 Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 November 2016 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Need .................................................................................................................................... 3 What are BBEs and Why are they Important ............................................................................................................ 3 BBE are the most dominant estuarine resource on the San Mateo County coastline .............................................. 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ranchos of California
    COUNTY RANCHO By Cities on or near this rancho Alameda San Antonio Spain Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany,Emeryville, Piedmont, San Leandro Alameda San Ramon Mexico Dublin area and also in Contra Costa County Alameda Agua Caliente Mexico Fremont (Warm Springs area) near the mission Alameda Los Positas Mexico Livermore area Alameda Canada Vaqueros Mexico Livermore, but mostly in Contra Costa County Alameda San Leandro Mexico San Leandro, San Lorenzo area Alameda El Valle de San Jose Mexico Pleasanton, Sunol Alameda Potrero de los Cerritos Mexico Union City Alameda San Lorenzo Mexico Hayward, Castro Valley Alameda Arroyo de la Alameda Mexico Fremont (Niles area) Alameda Santa Rita Mexico Livermore, Dublin, Sunol Alpine No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Amador No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Butte Rancho del Arroyo Chico Mexico Along the river in Chico Butte Esquon Mexico Chico, Butte Creek, 7 miles south of Chico Butte Aguas Frias, later known as the Mexico South of Durham Pratt Grant Butte Bosquejo Mexico Between Chico and Los Molinos; Red Bluff (in Tehama County) Butte Llano Seco, later known as the Mexico Near Chico and Durham Parrott Grant Calaveras No early Ranchos See San Joaquin & Shasta counties Colusa Larkin Grant (surveyed by John Mexico West bank of Sacramento River in Princeton area and into Bidwell) Glenn County. Contra Costa San Pablo Mexico El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo. Contra Costa San Ramon Mexico San Ramon Valley, Dublin, Alamo, and surrounding areas Contra Costa El Sobrante de San Ramon Mexico Walnut Creek, Tice Valley, East of Alamo (Stone Ranch area) Contra Costa Acalanes Mexico Lafayette, Happy Valley area Contra Costa Los Medanos (Meganos) Mexico Brentwood and Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail Statement of Significance
    State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: __California Historical Landmarks Associated with the Ohlone-Portolá Heritage Trail______ Page __1___ of __36__ B10. Statement of Significance (continued): The following Statement of Significance establishes the common historic context for California Historical Landmarks associated with the October-November 1769 expedition of Gaspar de Portolá through what is now San Mateo County, as part of a larger expedition through the southern San Francisco Bay region, encountering different Ohlone communities, known as the Ohlone-Portolá Heritage Trail. This context establishes the significance of these landmark sites as California Historical Landmarks for their association with an individual having a profound influence on the history of California, Gaspar de Portolá, and a group having a profound influence on the history of California, the Ohlone people, both associated with the Portolá Expedition Camp at Expedition. This context amends seven California Historical Landmarks, and creates two new California Historical Landmark nominations. The Statement of Significance applies to the following California Historical Landmarks, updating their names and historic contexts. Each meets the requirements of California PRC 5024.1(2) regarding review of state historical landmarks preceding #770, and the criteria necessary for listing as California Historical Landmarks. Because these landmarks indicate sites with no extant
    [Show full text]
  • 1982 Flood Report
    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
    [Show full text]