DOCSLIB.ORG

Water-Resources Data Network Evaluation for Monterey County, California, Phase 2: Northern and Coastal Areas of Monterey County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water-Resources Data Network Evaluation for Monterey County, California, Phase 2: Northern and Coastal Areas of Monterey County Water-Resources Data Network Evaluation for Monterey County, California, Phase 2: Northern and Coastal Areas of Monterey County By William E. Templin, Peter E. Smith, Myrna L DeBortoli, and Randall C. Schluter U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4210 Prepared in cooperation with the MONTEREY COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CO Sacramento, California 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For addtional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Federal Building, Room W-2233 Open-File Report Section 2800 Cottage Way Box25286, Mail Stop 417 Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract ..............................................................................................................^^ 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................._^ 2 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Approach................................................................................................................................^ 2 Location of Study Areas.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Limitations....................................................................................................^^ 4 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................^ 4 Climate.............................................................................................................................................^ 4 Land Use.............................................................................................................................................^ 5 Water Use........................................,...,.................................................................................^ 10 Precipitation Networks........................................................................................................_^ 10 Precipitation-Quantity Networks................................................................................................................................. 10 Precipitation Conditions.................................................................................................................................... 10 Objectives ......................................................... 12 Methods Of Evaluation...................................................................................................................................... 12 Precipitation Maps............................................................................................................................................. 12 Description.................................................................^ 13 Factors Affecting Design................................................................................................................................... 16 Possible Modifications....................................................................................................................................... 17 Precipitation-Quality Networks................................................................................................................................... 18 Objectives...........................................................................................................^^ 18 Possible Problems.............................................................................................................................................. 18 Acid Rain................................................................................................................................................. 19 Pesticides................................................................................................................................................. 19 Design................................................................................................................^ 19 Surface-Water Networks..................................................................................................................................................^ 20 StreamflowNetworks.................................................................................................................................................. 20 StreamflowConditions...................................................................................................................................... 20 Objectives..................................................................................^^ 20 Methods of Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 20 Criteria for Site Selection.................................................................................................................................. 21 Description of Streamflow-Gaging Stations...................................................................................................... 24 Possible Additional Streamflow-Gaging-Station Sites...................................................................................... 26 General Criteria for Site Selection and Justification of Proposed Sites ............................................................ 26 Reactivated Stations................................................................................................................................ 26 New Station Sites..................................................................................................................................... 27 Surface-Water-Quality Networks ................................................................................................................................ 28 Surface-Water-Quality Conditions .................................................................................................................... 28 Objectives................................................................^ 29 Methods of Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 29 Station Location and Sampling Frequency........................................................................................................ 32 Description...................................................................^ 33 Stream-Reach Rating System............................................................................................................................ 33 Ground-Water Networks........................................................................................................_^ 34 Ground-Water Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 34 Geology............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Occurrence of Ground Water............................................................................................................................. 34 Ground-Water Flow........................................................................................................................................... 35 Contents III Flow Barriers.........................................................................................................^ 36 Water-Level Changes........................................................................................................................................ 36 Ground-Water-Quality Conditions.................................................................................................................... 37 Ground-Water-Level Networks................................................................................................................................... 37 Objectives....................................................^ 37 Methods of Evaluation...................................................................................................................................... 38 Well and Network Classification....................................................................................................................... 38 Well-Classification System..................................................................................................................... 38 Network-Classification System............................................................................................................... 39 Description..................................................................^ 39 Possible Additional Monitoring........................................................................................................................ 42 Ground-Water-Quality Networks...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 ONE Official Record of Adoption................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000............................................................ 1-1 1.2 Adoption By Local Governing Bodies and Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 TWO Plan Description...................................................................................................................2-1 Section 3 THREE Community Description......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Location, Geography, and History ........................................................ 3-1 3.2 Demographics ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Land Use and Development Trends ...................................................... 3-2 3.4 Incorporated Communities.................................................................... 3-2 Section 4 FOUR Planning Process.................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Overview of Planning Process .............................................................. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team........................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Formation of the Planning Team............................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Planning Team
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Management Accomplishments in the Big Sur Coast Area
    CCC Hearing Item: Th 13.3 February 9, 2012 _______________________________________________________________ California Coastal Commission’s 40th Anniversary Report Coastal Management in Big Sur History and Accomplishments Gorda NORTHERN BIG SUR Gorda NORTHERN BIG SUR CENTRAL BIG SUR Gorda NORTHERN BIG SUR CENTRAL BIG SUR SOUTHERN BIG SUR Gorda “A Highway Runs Through It” Highway One, southbound, north of Soberanes Point. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 “A Highway Runs Through It” Highway One, at Cape San Martin, Big Sur Coast. CCRP#1649 9/2/2002 “A Highway Runs Through It” Heading south on Highway One. “A Highway Runs Through It” Southbound Highway One, near Partington Point. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 “A Highway Runs Through It” Highway One, south of Mill Creek. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 “A Highway Runs Through It” Historic Big Creek Bridge, at entrance to U.C. Big Creek Reserve. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 “A Highway Runs Through It” Highway One, looking south to the coastal terrace at Pacific Valley. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 “A Highway Runs Through It” Highway One, at Monterey County line, looking south into San Luis Obispo County, with Ragged Point and Piedras Blancas in far distance (on the right). ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 NORTHERN BIG SUR “Grand Entrance View” (from the north) of the Big Sur Coast, looking southwards to Soberanes Point, with Point Sur in the distance (on the horizon to the right). ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 Garrapata State Park/Beach, looking north to Soberanes Point. ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 Mouth of Garrapata Creek (from Highway One). ©Kelly Cuffe 2012 Sign for Rocky Point Restaurant, with Notley’s Landing and Rocky Creek Bridge in distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 1 Effects of Fire on Fauna January 2000 Abstract _____________________________________ Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Fires affect animals mainly through effects on their habitat. Fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals. These increases are moderated by the animals’ ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the postfire environment. The extent of fire effects on animal communities generally depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused by fire. Stand-replacement fires usually cause greater changes in the faunal communities of forests than in those of grasslands. Within forests, stand- replacement fires usually alter the animal community more dramatically than understory fires. Animal species are adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that characterized their habitat in presettlement times. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines. Keywords: fire effects, fire management, fire regime, habitat, succession, wildlife The volumes in “The Rainbow Series” will be published during the year 2000. To order, check the box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Final Environmental United States Department of Impact Statement Agriculture Forest Service Strategic Community Fuelbreak May 2018 Improvement Project Monterey Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, Monterey County, California In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bigbig Sursur
    CalCal PolyPoly -- PomonaPomona GeologyGeology ClubClub SpringSpring 20032003 FFieldield TTriprip BigBig SurSur David R. Jessey Randal E. Burns Leianna L. Michalka Danielle M. Wall ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors of this field guide would like to express their appreciation and sincere thanks to the Peninsula Geologic Society, the California Geological Survey and Caltrans. Without their excellent publications this guide would not have been possible. We apologize for any errors made through exclusion or addition of trip field stops. For more detailed descriptions please see the following: Zatkin, Robert (ed.), 2000, Salinia/Nacimiento Amalgamated Terrane Big Sur Coast, Central California, Peninsula Geological Society Spring Field Trip 2000 Guidebook, 214 p. Wills, C.J., Manson, M.W., Brown, K.D., Davenport, C.W. and Domrose, C.J., 2001, LANDSLIDES IN THE HIGHWAY 1 CORRIDOR: GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITY ALONG THE BIG SUR COAST, California Department of Conservation Division of Mines & Geology, 43 p. 0 122 0 00' 122 0 45' 121 30 Qal Peninsula Geological Society Qal G a b i Qt la Field Trip to Salina/Nacimento 1 n R S a A n L Big Sur Coast, Central California I g N qd A e S R Qt IV E Salinas R S a lin a s Qs V Qal 101 a Qs Monterey Qc lle Qt Qp y pgm Tm Qm Seaside pgm EXPLANATION Qt Chualar Qp Qt UNCONSOLIDATED Tm pgm SEDIMENTS Qp Carmel Qal sur Qs Qal Alluvium qd CARMEL RIVER Tm Qal Point sur Qs Dune Sand Tm Lobos pgm 0 S 0 36 30 ie ' r 36 30' pgm ra Qt Quaternary non-marine d CARMEL e S terrace deposits VALLEY a Qal lin a Qt Pleistocene non-marine Tm pgm s Qc 1 Tm Tula qd rcit Qp Plio-Pleistocene non-marine qd os F ault Qm Pleistocene marine Terrace sur sur deposits qd Tm COVER ROCKS pgm qd Tm Monterey Formation, mostly qm pgm qm pgm marine biogenic and sur pgm clastic sediments middle to qdp sur qd late Miocene in age.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising
    Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate Gordon S. Becker Katherine M. Smetak David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S., K.M. Smetak, and D.A. Asbury. 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1. San Mateo County .......................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2. Santa Cruz County .......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3. Montery County .............................................................................................................. 67 Chapter 4. San Luis Obispo County ............................................................................................... 97 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Monterey County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Monterey County Salinas River The Salinas River consists of more than 75 stream miles and drains a watershed of about 4,780 square miles. The river flows northwest from headwaters on the north side of Garcia Mountain to its mouth near the town of Marina. A stone and concrete dam is located about 8.5 miles downstream from the Salinas Dam. It is approximately 14 feet high and is considered a total passage barrier (Hill pers. comm.). The dam forming Santa Margarita Lake is located at stream mile 154 and was constructed in 1941. The Salinas Dam is operated under an agreement requiring that a “live stream” be maintained in the Salinas River from the dam continuously to the confluence of the Salinas and Nacimiento rivers. When a “live stream” cannot be maintained, operators are to release the amount of the reservoir inflow. At times, there is insufficient inflow to ensure a “live stream” to the Nacimiento River (Biskner and Gallagher 1995). In addition, two of the three largest tributaries of the Salinas River have large water storage projects. Releases are made from both the San Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs that contribute to flows in the Salinas River. Operations are described in an appendix to a 2001 EIR: “ During periods when…natural flow in the Salinas River reaches the north end of the valley, releases are cut back to minimum levels to maximize storage. Minimum releases of 25 cfs are required by agreement with CDFG and flows generally range from 25-25[sic] cfs during the minimum release phase of operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Santiago Fire
    Basin-Indians Fire Basin Complex CA-LPF-001691 Indians Fire CA-LPF-001491 State Emergency Assessment Team (SEAT) Report DRAFT Affecting Watersheds in Monterey County California Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………… Team Members ………………………………………………………………………… Contacts ………………………………………………………..…………………….… Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….. Summary of Technical Reports ……………………………………..………………. Draft Technical Reports ……………………………………………………..…………..…… Geology ……………………………………………………………………...……….… Hydrology ………………………………………………………………………………. Soils …………………………………………………………………………………….. Wildlife ………………………………………………………………….………………. Botany …………………………………………………………………………………... Marine Resources/Fisheries ………………………………………………………….. Cultural Resources ………………………………………………………..…………… List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………… Hazard Location Summary Sheet ……………………………………………………. Burn Soil Severity Map ………………………………………………………………… Land Ownership Map ……………………………………………………..…………... Contact List …………………………………………………………………………….. Risk to Lives and Property Maps ……………………………………….…………….. STATE EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT TEAM (SEAT) REPORT The scope of the assessment and the information contained in this report should not be construed to be either comprehensive or conclusive, or to address all possible impacts that might be ascribed to the fire effect. Post fire effects in each area are unique and subject to a variety of physical and climatic factors which cannot be accurately predicted. The information in this report was developed from cursory field
    [Show full text]
  • January 1979
    25c • BIG SUR, CALIFORNIA 93920 1979 Leavy Asks Highlanders Seek CAC for'CZ' Prescriptive Rights • Rezoning Coastal Co:mllUSEllOfler who also sits as a Solutions of the Citizen An"""",.." lJOlmUUUee, asked GARY KOEPPEL For the fifth time in as many month!!, residents of the • Carmel Highlands and Coastal Zone turned out in numbers to question the Coastal Commissioners about the origin, seope, problems created by the controversial prescriptive rights investigations being condllded in the name of the Coastal Commission the State Attorney General's Office. Carmel resident Robert the for clarification as to whether or not • had been for a '''-''''''Tntl.l Drl~sente,d a letter dated November 6 from General Ken Williams to Leo Woods Association which names Imlestigation. Carbon of letter • General Charles Getz '. THE GREENING of Big Sur.· Begiaming revered by residents. With fewer Vijllitnr·,1. with the rains and eetinuing \lotil 'and little enjoy. the Big "quiet period" is Sur. and that the Commissioners is being seriously wasted. Reselttment against the Commission • Carter grows. Trespass is increasing, titles remain cloufled, property values are threatened, and owners are being treated like squatters on their own land," be concluded. INCORPORATION Approves Another Highlands resident, Clare Willard, e.x- on controversial pressed disapproval of the "duplicity which my political outside ~ the USFS's queries have been answered" and because "many of my of their jurisdictions. questions. have been answered with lies.". argued that the COMMITTEE "Behind Back" • committee 'should write a Rare II She said on November 20 she and other residents had letter to the supervisors The Carter administration been assured by Chairperson Hendersen, Deputy recommendipg 1m­ announced last week its Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications
    Communications Ecological Applications, 21(2), 2011, pp. 313–320 Ó 2011 by the Ecological Society of America Interacting disturbances: wildfire severity affected by stage of forest disease invasion 1,3 1 2 1 MARGARET R. METZ, KERRI M. FRANGIOSO, ROSS K. MEENTEMEYER, AND DAVID M. RIZZO 1Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 USA 2Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223 USA Abstract. Sudden oak death (SOD) is an emerging forest disease causing extensive tree mortality in coastal California forests. Recent California wildfires provided an opportunity to test a major assumption underlying discussions of SOD and land management: SOD mortality will increase fire severity. We examined prefire fuels from host species in a forest monitoring plot network in Big Sur, California (USA), to understand the interactions between disease- caused mortality and wildfire severity during the 2008 Basin Complex wildfire. Detailed measurements of standing dead woody stems and downed woody debris 1–2 years prior to the Basin fire provided a rare picture of the increased fuels attributable to SOD mortality. Despite great differences in host fuel abundance, we found no significant difference in burn severity between infested and uninfested plots. Instead, the relationship between SOD and fire reflected the changing nature of the disease impacts over time. Increased SOD mortality contributed to overstory burn severity only in areas where the pathogen had recently invaded. Where longer- term disease establishment allowed dead material to fall and accumulate, increasing log volumes led to increased substrate burn severity. These patterns help inform forest management decisions regarding fire, both in Big Sur and in other areas of California as the pathogen continues to expand throughout coastal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Patterns of Burn Severity in the Soberanes Fire of 2016 Christopher Potter* NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA
    hy & rap Na g tu o r e a Potter, J Geogr Nat Disast 2016, S6 l G f D o i s l a Journal of DOI: 10.4172/2167-0587.S6-005 a s n t r e u r s o J ISSN: 2167-0587 Geography & Natural Disasters ResearchResearch Article Article OpenOpen Access Access Landscape Patterns of Burn Severity in the Soberanes Fire of 2016 Christopher Potter* NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA Abstract The Soberanes Fire started on July 22, 2016 in Monterey County on the California Central Coast from an illegal campfire. This disastrous fire burned for 10 weeks at a record cost of more than $208 million for protection and control. A progressive analysis of the normalized burn ratio from the Landsat satellite showed that the final high burn severity (HBS) area for the Soberanes Fire comprised 22% of the total area burned, whereas final moderate burn severity (MBS) area comprised about 10% of the total area burned of approximately 53,470 ha (132,130 acres). The resulting landscape pattern of burn severity classes from the 2016 Soberanes Fire revealed that the majority of HBS area was located in the elevation zone between 500 and 1000 m, in the slope zone between 15% and 30%, or on south-facing aspects. The total edge length of HBS areas nearly doubled over the course of the event, indicating a gradually increasing landscape complexity pattern for this fire. The perimeter-to-area ratio for HBS patches decreased by just 3% over the course of the fire, while the HBS clumpiness metric remained nearly constant at a relatively high aggregation value.
    [Show full text]
  • Carmel Area Land Use Plan
    CARMEL AREA LAND USE PLAN LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CERTIFIED APRIL 14, 1983 MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA UPDATE INDEX CARMEL AREA LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS As certified by the California Coastal Commission for the following date, with final acceptance by the Board of Supervisors: 1. January 22, 1985 - AMEND TEXT - 4.5.H - APN 009-131-20. Single Duplex on one lot in Carmel Woods (PC-5162, Gump, 1-84). Resolution 87-267. 2. April 9, 1986 - AMEND POLICY - 2.4.4.B.8 - Add language to regulate wastewater runoff (PC-5433, 1-86). Resolution 87-267. 3. April 9, 1991 - AMEND POLICY - 2.2.5.2 - and MAP CHANGE - Change zoning designation from MDR/2(24) to MDR/2(18). Reduce height in Carmel Meadows from 24 to 18 feet (PC 6780, 1-89, 1-91). Resolution 91-348 and 91-349, Ordinance 3546. 4. April 9, 1991 - AMEND POLICY - 2.2.5.2 - and MAP CHANGE - Change zoning designation from MDR/2(24) to MDR/2(18). Reduce height in Carmel Point from 24 to 18 feet (PC 7299, Gushman, 1-91). Resolution 91-348 and 91-351. 5. June 13, 1991 - AMEND POLICY - 4.4.3.F.1.a - and CIP 20.146.120.C.1(a)(1). Allow expansion of visitor serving facilities. (PC 7594, Mission Ranch, 2-91). Resolution 91-348 and 91-352. 6. June 13, 1991 - MAP CHANGE - APN 009-511-03, fronting on and southerly of 15th and Dolores Streets - AND AMEND POLICIES AND TEXT - 4.4.3.F.1.c, 4.5.H and 4.6 - AND AMEND CIP - 20.146.120.1(a)(3).
    [Show full text]