DOCSLIB.ORG

San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan Photo credit: N.Panton San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan JUNE 2010 Prepared for the Natural Heritage Institute By: Stillwater Sciences 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400 Berkeley, CA 94705 Stockholm Environment Institute 11 Curtis Avenue Somerville, MA 02144 San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center Post Office Box 49 San Gregorio, CA 94074 With an appendix on Groundwater Influences Affecting Aquatic Habitat Potential, San Gregorio Creek Watershed by Robert Zatkin and Barry Hecht Project Managers: Carson Cox Elizabeth Soderstrom, PhD Natural Heritage Institute 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Funding provided by: State Water Resources Control Board, under Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction.....................................................................................1 1.1 Goal and Objectives of the Watershed Management Plan........................................... 1 1.2 Limiting Factors and Watershed Approach ................................................................. 2 1.3 Funding ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Technical and Stakeholder Process.............................................................................. 3 1.5 Geographic Setting of the Watershed Management Plan ............................................ 3 1.6 Supported Agency Goals and Objectives .................................................................... 4 1.7 Other Programs in the Watershed................................................................................ 5 1.8 Updating the Management Plan................................................................................... 6 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION...........................................................7 2.1 Physical Setting and Location...................................................................................... 7 2.2 Sub-basins.................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Mindego Creek.................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 La Honda Creek .................................................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Harrington Creek................................................................................................. 13 2.2.4 El Corte de Madera Creek................................................................................... 14 2.2.5 Clear Creek.......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.6 Seasonal lagoon................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Land Use.................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Historical land use............................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Current land use .................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Climate and Hydrology.............................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Climate ................................................................................................................ 21 2.4.2 Hydrology............................................................................................................ 21 2.4.3 Groundwater........................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Geology and Geomorphology.................................................................................... 25 2.5.1 Geology and tectonics ......................................................................................... 25 2.5.2 Sediment sources................................................................................................. 28 2.5.3 Geomorphology................................................................................................... 34 2.6 Water Quality............................................................................................................. 40 2.6.1 Aquatic bioassessment ........................................................................................ 43 2.6.2 Bacteria................................................................................................................ 43 2.6.3 Temperature ........................................................................................................ 44 2.6.4 Turbidity.............................................................................................................. 46 2.6.5 Beneficial use attainment .................................................................................... 48 2.7 Vegetation.................................................................................................................. 48 2.7.1 Vegetation types.................................................................................................. 49 2.7.2 Special-status plant species ................................................................................. 51 2.7.3 Non-native invasive plant species ....................................................................... 52 2.8 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 54 2.8.1 Special-status species .......................................................................................... 54 2.8.2 Non-native invasive species ................................................................................ 55 2.9 Watershed Characterization Synthesis....................................................................... 56 2.9.1 Water quantity..................................................................................................... 57 2.9.2 Fine sediment ...................................................................................................... 57 2.9.3 Water temperature and bacteria levels ................................................................ 57 2.9.4 Non-native invasive species ................................................................................ 58 i Table of Contents 3 Hydrologic Assessment...................................................................... 59 3.1 Background and Approach ........................................................................................ 59 3.2 The Water Evaluation and Modeling (WEAP) System ............................................. 61 3.2.1 Modeling approach.............................................................................................. 61 3.2.2 Measured precipitation and streamflow .............................................................. 63 3.2.3 Hydrography........................................................................................................ 67 3.2.4 Hydrology............................................................................................................ 68 3.2.5 Climate ................................................................................................................ 71 3.2.6 Water use............................................................................................................. 72 3.2.7 Model schematic ................................................................................................. 74 3.3 Model Calibration and Results................................................................................... 75 3.4 Evaluation of Management Strategies ....................................................................... 76 3.4.1 Minimum bypass flows ....................................................................................... 77 3.4.2 Off-stream storage............................................................................................... 79 3.5 Hydrologic Assessment Summary and Recommendations ....................................... 82 4 Limiting Factors Analysis ................................................................... 84 4.1 Approach.................................................................................................................... 84 4.2 Focal Species Selection ............................................................................................. 85 4.2.1 California red-legged frog................................................................................... 85 4.2.2 Coho salmon........................................................................................................ 85 4.2.3 Steelhead ............................................................................................................. 86 4.2.4 Tidewater goby.................................................................................................... 86 4.3 Focal Species Limiting Factors Analyses.................................................................. 87 4.3.1 California red-legged frog limiting factors analyses........................................... 87 4.3.2 Coho salmon limiting factors analyses................................................................ 91 4.3.3 Steelhead limiting factors analyses ..................................................................
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]
  • Introduction San Andreas Fault: an Overview
    Introduction This volume is a general geology field guide to the San Andreas Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area. The first section provides a brief overview of the San Andreas Fault in context to regional California geology, the Bay Area, and earthquake history with emphasis of the section of the fault that ruptured in the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. This first section also contains information useful for discussion and making field observations associated with fault- related landforms, landslides and mass-wasting features, and the plant ecology in the study region. The second section contains field trips and recommended hikes on public lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains, along the San Mateo Coast, and at Point Reyes National Seashore. These trips provide access to the San Andreas Fault and associated faults, and to significant rock exposures and landforms in the vicinity. Note that more stops are provided in each of the sections than might be possible to visit in a day. The extra material is intended to provide optional choices to visit in a region with a wealth of natural resources, and to support discussions and provide information about additional field exploration in the Santa Cruz Mountains region. An early version of the guidebook was used in conjunction with the Pacific SEPM 2004 Fall Field Trip. Selected references provide a more technical and exhaustive overview of the fault system and geology in this field area; for instance, see USGS Professional Paper 1550-E (Wells, 2004). San Andreas Fault: An Overview The catastrophe caused by the 1906 earthquake in the San Francisco region started the study of earthquakes and California geology in earnest.
    [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]
  • Map Showing Seacliff Response to Climatic And
    MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MF-2399 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY C A 123 122 30' 122 LI 38 FO Table 1. Linear extent of cliff section experiencing slope failure for each of the time periods investigated. The data is further subdivided to Concord Map RN show the type of slope failure for each occurrence, as well as the geologic units involved, if distinguishable. Area INTRODUCTION I A The coastal cliffs along much of the central California coast are actively retreating. Large storms and periodic GULF OF THE earthquakes are responsible for most of the documented seacliff slope failures. Long-term average erosion rates calculated for FARALLONES Debris Debris this section of coast (Moore and others, 1999) do not provide the spatial or temporal data resolution necessary to identify the Time Interval BlBlock k OthOther TtTotalll along-cliffliff NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Oakland processes responsible for retreat of the seacliffs, where episodic retreat threatens homes and community infrastructure. falls flows Slumps (m) Slaking (m) San fll(falls (m) ) ()(m) filfailure per itinterval l Francisco Research suggests that more erosion occurs along the California coast over a short time scale, during periods of severe storms (m) (m) Farallon or seismic activity, than occurs during decades of normal weather or seismic quiescence (Griggs and Scholar, 1998; Griggs, Islands 1994; Plant and Griggs, 1990; Griggs and Johnson, 1979 and 1983; Kuhn and Shepard, 1979). Livermore This is the second map in a series of maps documenting the processes of short-term seacliff retreat through the 0 130130.5 5 113113.4 4 identification of slope failure styles, spatial variability of failures, and temporal variation in retreat amounts in an area that has --------- 0 0 ------------- 0 0 243.9 Pacifica (i(instantaneous) t t ) been identified as an erosion hotspot (Moore and others, 1999; Griggs and Savoy, 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California
    1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Premia Capital, LLC 801 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January 18, 2019 1180 MAIN STREET PROJECT, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT, REDWOOD CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This document entitled 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California was prepared by Stantec Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Premia Capital, LLC (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Joanne Grant, Archaeologist, MA, RPA Reviewed by (signature) John A. Nadolski, M.A. Approved
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Open Space District (District) Completed the Bid Process on Wednesday June 17, 2015 with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving As the Apparent Low Bidder
    R-15-89 Meeting 15-16 June 24, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Contract to Implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving of Half Moon Bay, CA, for a total contract amount not to exceed $613,566, which includes the project proposal amount of $533,536 and a fifteen percent contingency amount of $80,030, to implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. 2. Determine that the recommended action is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Implementation of the La Honda Creek Master Plan, approved by the Board on August 22, 2012. SUMMARY The Request for Bids for the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project (Project) was released on May 20, 2015. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) completed the bid process on Wednesday June 17, 2015 with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving as the apparent low bidder. This project was previously brought before the Board on May 14, 2014 (See R-14-77) to authorize the District to enter into a grant agreement through the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to help fund this important sediment reduction and habitat restoration work. The District has been awarded this grant, which will fund $230,970 of the project construction costs.
    [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]
  • R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM
    R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to include One Proposed New Trail Loop and New Trail Names for the Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve an amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to add a one-mile trail loop; 2. Approve the following trail names: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve; “Folger Ranch Loop Trail” for a new loop trail off the main ranch road; “Coho Vista Trail” for the existing trail to the vista point in upper La Honda Creek; and “Cielo Trail” for an existing trail leading to the Redwood Cabin area. SUMMARY Phase I implementation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP) Master Plan includes opening the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area, establishing the main Driscoll Ranch road in lower La Honda Creek as a hiking and equestrian trail, and providing permit-only equestrian parking at the former Event Center. The General Manager recommends adding an additional one-mile segment of an existing ranch road to the Phase I Trails Plan, to provide a seasonal loop opportunity, as an amendment to the Master Plan. In preparation for the opening of the Preserve, the General Manager also recommends new trail names for lower and upper La Honda Creek. The proposed trail names for lower La Honda Creek are: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road and “Folger Ranch Trail” for the new loop.
    [Show full text]
  • POS538-Landscapes C5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 1
    POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 1 PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST Landscapes FALL 2010 POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 2 Going with the Flow: Watershed Protection on POST Lands “To put your hands in a river is to feel the chords that bind the earth together.” — BARRY LOPEZ 2 ■ landscapes POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 3 Water defines us. It’s the reason we call our region the WBay Area. It shapes the Peninsula and sculpts the land. It cleans the air. It comes down from the sky as rain and fog, and comes up from the earth via springs and aquifers. It makes up more than 70 percent of most living things. Beach Bubbles © 2003 Dan Quinn Land carries the water, but water makes the land come alive, coursing through the earth and giving it health and vitality. Watershed protection has long been a priority at POST, and by helping us save open space, you preserve the natural systems found there, including critical water resources that nourish and sustain us. Connecting Land and Water There are 16 major watersheds in the 63,000 acres POST has saved since its founding in 1977. These watersheds supplement our Contents sources of drinking water, support native wildlife habitat, provide 14–5 Watershed Map places of recreation and help us grow food close to home. 16 Spotlight: Saving land surrounding vulnerable waterways is the first step San Gregorio Watershed to ensuring the quality of our water. When it flows over land, water picks up things along the way, including nutrients, sediment and 17 A Water Droplet’s Point of View pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BRIDGE PROJECTS Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
    MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BRIDGE PROJECTS Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for January 2016 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BRIDGE PROJECTS Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for January 2016 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego Santa Cruz Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130573.02 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Bridge Projects Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1. Project Description 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Project Background and Need 1-1 1.3 Proposed Project 1-5 1.4 Approvals or Permits for the Project 1-15 1.5 Report Organization 1-15 1.6 Agency Use of this Document 1-15 2. Environmental Checklist 2-1 2.1 Environmental Factors
    [Show full text]
  • The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park Aptos Creek Road, Off Soquel and State Park Drive, Aptos, CA 95003 (831) 763-7062
    Our Mission The Forest of The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and early 10,000 acres of education of the people of California by helping N Nisene Marks to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and forest offer a hushed oasis cultural resources, and creating opportunities State Park for high-quality outdoor recreation. with panoramic ocean views from its hilltops. California State Parks supports equal access. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at (831) 763-7062. If you need this publication in an alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park Aptos Creek Road, off Soquel and State Park Drive, Aptos, CA 95003 (831) 763-7062 © 2012 California State Parks (Rev. 2018) The 1880s cost of building this railroad, part of today’s main Fire Road, was estimated at $50,000 per mile. The Loma Prieta Mill became the largest in the 19th-century Santa Cruz Mountains until disastrous landslides during San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake paused logging efforts. Reforestation began when the lumber company planted 50 acres of redwood and non-native eucalyptus seedlings. Logging resumed from 1909 until 1924, when most he serene trails within The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park give scant hint of the of the Loma Prieta Mill was dismantled and Tredwood forest’s turbulent natural and human history.
    [Show full text]