DOCSLIB.ORG

Pescadero-Butano Watershed Assessment (2004)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pescadero-Butano Watershed Assessment (2004) PESCADERO-BUTANO WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Final Report March 5, 2004 PESCADERO-BUTANO WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Final Report March 5, 2004 Prepared for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation 299 Foam Street Monterey, CA 93940 Prepared by Environmental Science Associates Pacific Watershed Associates OʼConnor Environmental, Inc. Albion Environmental, Inc. Dennis Jackson, Hydrologist Photo Credit: Copyright (C) 2002-2004 Kenneth Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org 225 Bush Street 8950 Cal Center Drive 710 Second Avenue 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 1700 Building 3, Suite 300 Suite 730 Suite 102 San Francisco, CA 94104 Sacramento, CA 95826 Seattle, WA 98104 Clearwater, FL 33762 (415) 896-5900 (916) 564-4500 (206) 442-0900 (727) 572-5226 436 14th Street 4221 Wilshire Boulevard 1751 Old Pecos Trail 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 600 Suite 480 Suite O Suite 440 Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Orlando, FL 32822 (510) 839-5066 (323) 933-6111 (505) 992-8860 (407) 851-1155 202395 TABLE OF CONTENTS PESCADERO-BUTANO WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Page 1. Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-1 2. Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations ....................................................... 2-1 The 1955 Flood.............................................................................................................. 2-3 The Watershed Before and after 1982 ........................................................................... 2-9 Erosion and Sediment Delivery Then and Now .......................................................... 2-10 Stream Channels Today: Geomorphology and Fish Habitat ....................................... 2-12 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 2-15 3. History of the Watershed Exploration, Settlement and Land Use .......................................................................... 3-1 The Native Peoples........................................................................................................ 3-1 Spanish Contact – 1769 – A Bare and Treeless Country............................................... 3-2 The Spanish Period – 1770 – 1822 ................................................................................ 3-4 Mexican Era – 1822–1848............................................................................................. 3-5 The Pescadero Grant – 1833.......................................................................................... 3-5 Early American Period – 1848–1868............................................................................. 3-7 The Town of Pescadero ................................................................................................. 3-9 Early Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 3-13 The Pescadero Valley, 1861 ........................................................................................ 3-14 Pescadero – 1870s and 1880s ...................................................................................... 3-17 Early Floods and Clearing ........................................................................................... 3-19 Pescadero and Butano Creeks and Trout Fishing ........................................................ 3-20 Logging in the Butano ................................................................................................. 3-22 Save the Butano – May, 1877...................................................................................... 3-23 Status Report – 1886.................................................................................................... 3-24 The Scent of a Railroad ............................................................................................... 3-25 Impact of the Ocean Shore........................................................................................... 3-26 The Southward March of the Artichoke ...................................................................... 3-27 Diversified Agriculture................................................................................................ 3-28 Pescadero Marsh-Management and Reclamation........................................................ 3-28 Fish Planting-Twentieth Century................................................................................. 3-30 Logging in the Pescadero Watershed........................................................................... 3-30 The Butano Land and Development Company............................................................ 3-30 The Second Campaign to Save the Butano – 1923–1955............................................ 3-31 The Upper Butano-Logging and Restoration............................................................... 3-32 Pescadero-Butano Watershed Assessment ii ESA / 202395 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3. History of the Watershed (cont.) The Introduction of Exotic Species – Beavers............................................................. 3-34 The Ethnic Diversity of the 1930s ............................................................................... 3-34 Straightening the Coast Road ...................................................................................... 3-35 World War II................................................................................................................ 3-36 The End of Flax and Recent Erosion........................................................................... 3-37 Pest Control ................................................................................................................. 3-39 Ground Squirrels.......................................................................................................... 3-39 Recent Trends in Agriculture....................................................................................... 3-40 Postwar Pescadero ....................................................................................................... 3-41 Fishing in Recent Years............................................................................................... 3-41 The Floods of 1937, 1938, 1940 and 1941 .................................................................. 3-44 Three Big Floods: 1955, 1982, and 1998..................................................................... 3-44 Recent Changes in the Pescadero-Butano Area: Year-Round Residency ................... 3-46 Opportunities for Future Research............................................................................... 3-46 4. Analysis of Gauging Record Introduction....................................................................................................................4-1 Flood Record ................................................................................................................. 4-3 Changes in Streambed Elevation at the USGS Gauge................................................... 4-6 Interpretation................................................................................................................ 4-10 5. Re-Survey of Bridge Cross Sections Introduction....................................................................................................................5-1 Bridge Survey Procedure............................................................................................... 5-1 Discussion of the Bridge Surveys.................................................................................. 5-5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 5-19 6. Sediment Source Analysis Purpose, Scope, and Methods........................................................................................ 6-1 Sediment Source Categories and Data Collection ....................................................... 6-14 Sediment Source Assessment Results.......................................................................... 6-22 Discussion.................................................................................................................... 6-38 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 6-48 Recommendations for Future Study ............................................................................ 6-50 7. Current Channel Conditions Objectives ......................................................................................................................7-1 Methods .........................................................................................................................7-1 Results ........................................................................................................................... 7-7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 7-29 8. Fisheries Habitat Assessment Methodology.................................................................................................................. 8-1 Fish Habitat Assessment Results ................................................................................... 8-7 Pescadero-Butano Watershed Assessment iii ESA / 202395 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 9. Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • FINAL Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (Edits Included) Green Oaks Restoration Project SCH# 2021040278
    FINAL Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (Edits included) Green Oaks Restoration Project SCH# 2021040278 August 2021 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SANTA CRUZ DISTRICT 303 BIG TREES PARK ROAD FELTON, CA 95018 Green Oaks Restoration Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: Green Oaks Restoration Project LEAD AGENCY: California State Parks AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS: The Initial Study for this Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available throughout the 30-day public review period at the reference desks of the Felton Branch Library. It was also available at the public information desks of DPR's Santa Cruz District Headquarters and the Año Nuevo State Park Headquarters offices and available on DPR’s website (www.parks.ca.gov). The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting materials will be available, by request, at DPR's Northern Service Center. APPROVAL OF THE GREEN OAKS RESTORATION PROJECT On behalf of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), I approve the proposed Green Oaks Restoration Project (Proposed Project). DPR, as Lead Agency for the Proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number #2021040278), hereby approves the Proposed Project based on the following findings: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Green Oaks Restoration Project will reestablish the natural hydrology and enhance the ecosystem functions of the former Steele Ranch property, a 235-acre portion of Año Nuevo State Park. The project will use the natural topography of the landscape to enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat for wildlife, while reducing the level of future intervention required from State Parks staff to maintain this habitat. FINDINGS An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the proposed project's potential impacts on the environment and the significance of those impacts and is incorporated in the Draft MND.
    [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]
  • University of California Santa Cruz NO SOMOS ANIMALES
    University of California Santa Cruz NO SOMOS ANIMALES: INDIGENOUS SURVIVAL AND PERSEVERANCE IN 19TH CENTURY SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY with emphases in AMERICAN STUDIES and LATIN AMERICAN & LATINO STUDIES by Martin Adam Rizzo September 2016 The Dissertation of Martin Adam Rizzo is approved: ________________________________ Professor Lisbeth Haas, Chair _________________________________ Professor Amy Lonetree _________________________________ Professor Matthew D. O’Hara ________________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright ©by Martin Adam Rizzo 2016 Table of Contents List of Figures iv Abstract vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 Chapter 1: “First were taken the children, and then the parents followed” 24 Chapter 2: “The diverse nations within the mission” 98 Chapter 3: “We are not animals” 165 Chapter 4: Captain Coleto and the Rise of the Yokuts 215 Chapter 5: ”Not finding anything else to appropriate...” 261 Chapter 6: “They won’t try to kill you if they think you’re already dead” 310 Conclusion 370 Appendix A: Indigenous Names 388 Bibliography 398 iii List of Figures 1.1: Indigenous tribal territories 33 1.2: Contemporary satellite view 36 1.3: Total number baptized by tribe 46 1.4: Approximation of Santa Cruz mountain tribal territories 48 1.5: Livestock reported near Mission Santa Cruz 75 1.6: Agricultural yields at Mission Santa Cruz by year 76 1.7: Baptisms by month, through
    [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]
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS
    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
    [Show full text]