DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 3-1 Summary of Selected Rainfall Stations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 3-1 Summary of Selected Rainfall Stations Elev. Period of Record Avg Min Max Obser- see Station (ft msl) (WY's) (no. yrs) (in/yr) ver Data Source Table: Santa Cruz 130 1868 - 2008 141 29 10 61 3-5 1931 - 2008 78 31 15 61 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 3-2 NOAA Ben Lomond 4 450 1973 - 2008 36 49 20 96 summary/climsmnca.html 3-3 San Gregorio 2 SE 275 1954 - 2007 54 29 14 55 Lockheed 2,350 1889 - 2007 119 55 20 124 Lockheed Corp. 3-5 1959 - 2007 49 59 24 106 (formerly Boulder Creek Locatelli) 3-2 Ben Lomond (BLO) 2,630 2002 - 2007 6 56 43 88 http://cdec.water.ca. CDF 3-7 gov/snow_rain.html SLVWD Office 1981 - 2008 28 49 19 114 3-6 North Boulder Creek 2007 - 2008 2 Lyon WTP 2007 - 2008 2 SLVWD Quail Hollow Tank 2007 - 2008 2 3-8 Olympia Well 2007 - 2008 2 Pasatiempo Well 6 2007 - 2008 2 El Pueblo Yard 1946 - 2007 62 43 20 86 SVWD 3-9 Table 3-1 Summary of Selected Rainfall Stations Ppt-SC-LH6.xls Tbl-Sta 5/18/2009 6:11 AM NM Johnson WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total Percent of Avg. 1931 3.90 1.60 1.80 0.45 1.10 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1932 0.85 11.90 4.15 5.22 0.93 0.71 1.31 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 1933 0.02 1.13 3.75 9.98 1.51 3.35 0.30 1.47 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.08 21.70 71% 1934 1.43 0.00 7.48 0.61 6.54 0.02 0.40 0.32 1.32 0.00 0.02 0.25 18.39 60% 73% 1935 1.33 3.90 5.95 6.23 0.79 1.60 6.40 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.06 27.00 88% 1936 2.74 0.66 4.68 6.30 11.98 1.55 1.69 1.72 0.84 0.53 0.00 0.00 32.69 106% 1937 1.10 0.06 7.20 7.39 7.49 9.49 0.92 0.08 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01 34.05 111% 1938 0.93 2.82 9.31 7.35 11.92 8.10 2.02 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.12 42.82 139% 1939 3.02 1.36 1.36 4.71 4.06 3.93 0.25 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 21.22 69% 129% 1940 1.07 0.68 1.61 19.13 10.85 8.21 0.71 1.15 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.24 43.79 142% 1941 2.09 1.06 12.83 13.61 14.41 7.61 7.66 1.77 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.03 61.29 199% 1942 0.86 2.22 15.02 6.96 7.28 3.04 4.34 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 42.29 138% 1943 1.62 7.97 7.00 8.80 4.23 7.87 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.50 129% 1944 1.58 0.81 3.33 7.90 8.13 1.41 2.17 1.55 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.39 89% 1945 2.59 8.58 3.62 2.22 8.58 5.95 0.44 1.13 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.19 108% 1946 2.15 3.43 13.48 1.73 3.96 3.64 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.11 30.26 98% 88% 1947 0.38 6.47 2.89 0.94 3.20 4.01 0.22 0.55 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.06 62% 1948 5.22 1.37 2.61 1.38 2.77 4.71 5.07 1.39 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 24.61 80% 1949 0.74 0.70 10.49 4.23 5.13 8.19 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.08 30.04 98% 1950 0.05 2.11 4.91 11.72 7.11 2.48 1.87 0.76 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.35 31.40 102% 117% 1951 1.97 11.39 9.35 5.31 4.20 3.60 1.46 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00 38.35 125% 1952 1.49 2.11 15.79 13.60 3.24 5.87 1.38 0.33 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.58 145% 1953 0.00 2.86 7.82 3.53 0.00 4.10 4.97 0.69 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 24.41 79% 1954 0.33 3.73 0.73 4.60 3.79 6.65 2.56 0.64 0.47 0.00 0.34 0.00 23.84 78% 78% 1955 0.10 5.61 4.82 6.58 1.88 0.48 3.58 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.88 78% 1956 0.05 3.74 21.07 9.34 1.46 0.26 1.89 1.49 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.28 39.67 129% 1957 1.83 0.02 0.96 5.90 4.90 2.03 1.96 4.03 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.29 22.19 72% 121% 1958 5.34 0.97 5.48 7.70 13.86 10.06 5.75 0.43 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.32 50.09 163% 1959 0.06 0.37 0.75 10.40 7.13 1.01 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 4.40 24.77 81% 1960 0.00 0.00 0.78 8.98 7.03 2.44 1.67 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 21.43 70% 1961 0.31 4.35 1.76 3.92 1.27 3.97 0.98 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.11 0.16 17.78 58% 1962 0.17 3.66 2.08 3.68 11.96 4.70 0.80 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.31 27.47 89% 79% 1963 2.95 0.99 3.70 7.15 4.91 5.81 7.41 0.55 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.16 33.74 110% 1964 1.85 6.72 0.33 5.33 0.20 3.26 0.16 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.17 0.20 19.03 62% 1965 1.67 3.81 13.06 3.78 1.71 2.98 3.43 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.00 30.64 100% 1966 0.12 6.93 4.54 2.17 4.72 0.39 0.79 0.10 0.15 0.32 0.10 0.15 20.48 67% 1967 0.05 6.17 6.87 8.74 0.74 7.26 8.26 0.40 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 130% 1968 0.13 2.14 3.10 3.82 4.93 5.64 0.97 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 21.46 70% 1969 1.50 4.31 7.27 14.80 12.01 1.99 2.87 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.07 44.94 146% 1970 1.77 1.34 6.75 13.03 3.11 3.39 0.23 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.18 98% 109% 1971 1.24 9.55 8.18 2.44 1.02 2.45 1.74 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.32 27.24 89% 1972 0.48 3.74 7.48 1.79 1.81 0.32 1.92 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.00 1.33 19.08 62% 1973 3.41 10.54 3.38 7.84 12.99 5.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 43.67 142% 1974 2.71 9.56 6.27 5.99 2.00 7.35 4.86 0.02 0.31 2.89 0.00 0.00 41.96 137% 1975 1.94 1.07 3.91 1.28 5.72 6.65 2.63 0.00 0.10 0.14 0.85 0.00 24.29 79% 1976 3.65 0.49 0.30 0.32 3.89 1.93 2.11 0.00 0.20 0.01 1.25 1.22 15.37 50% 59% 1977 0.46 3.80 2.63 1.75 1.55 2.24 0.21 0.74 0.07 0.01 0.00 1.35 14.81 48% 1978 0.26 1.72 6.09 11.40 6.13 5.98 5.30 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.62 37.59 122% 1979 0.00 4.48 1.08 10.06 7.55 3.83 1.29 0.66 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 29.15 95% 1980 3.45 2.52 6.79 9.97 8.69 2.02 2.21 0.61 0.17 0.71 0.00 0.00 37.14 121% 1981 0.04 0.17 2.57 7.05 2.62 8.51 0.26 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 21.74 71% 1982 1.26 7.05 4.36 13.38 6.63 7.84 6.05 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.06 1.19 48.14 157% 117% 1983 2.50 6.47 2.99 9.16 9.74 15.16 5.08 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.23 2.00 53.93 175% 1984 1.07 8.58 8.14 0.33 2.40 1.94 1.18 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 24.01 78% 1985 3.59 11.06 2.39 1.71 3.28 6.60 0.42 0.20 0.14 0.13 0.02 0.14 29.68 97% 1986 0.92 5.68 3.91 6.93 12.20 8.24 0.77 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 40.99 133% 1987 0.05 0.05 1.68 3.47 5.28 4.48 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.85 52% 1988 0.94 3.05 7.16 4.44 0.74 0.05 1.74 0.59 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.73 61% 1989 0.30 4.46 7.78 1.36 1.52 7.00 0.72 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.87 24.20 79% 1990 2.19 1.12 0.05 2.64 3.33 2.65 0.43 4.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.21 16.76 55% 74% 1991 0.67 0.47 1.65 0.81 4.92 10.60 0.80 0.06 0.26 0.02 0.04 0.06 20.36 66% 1992 2.26 1.51 4.25 3.19 11.10 4.35 0.28 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.02 0.00 27.51 90% 1993 1.18 0.23 7.10 13.85 8.02 3.44 1.37 0.94 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.69 119% 1994 0.61 2.73 4.00 2.59 8.18 0.74 1.82 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 22.71 74% 1995 0.36 4.88 3.24 17.56 0.47 8.49 5.13 1.34 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.01 140% 1996 0.00 0.19 6.54 8.40 9.20 3.15 1.58 2.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.49 102% 1997 2.44 7.33 13.74 10.12 0.29 1.26 0.70 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.45 0.01 36.60 119% 131% 1998 0.47 9.59 3.67 15.58 18.63 4.68 3.11 3.87 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.08 59.82 195% 1999 0.88 5.30 1.74 7.44 10.66 4.08 2.97 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.18 33.65 109% 2000 0.29 3.41 0.77 11.86 14.06 2.41 1.60 1.27 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.31 36.39 118% 2001 4.84 1.28 1.04 5.92 7.00 3.29 1.76 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.20 25.45 83% 2002 0.70 6.28 11.07 3.73 2.28 3.52 0.35 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 28.79 94% 88% 2003 0.00 4.27 15.21 1.85 1.86 1.47 3.50 0.90 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 29.14 95% 2004 0.31 3.38 9.93 3.27 5.64 1.34 0.43 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 24.48 80% 2005 5.80 2.20 10.28 5.98 6.26 7.65 3.03 1.34 1.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 43.63 142% 140% 2006 0.12 1.86 12.62 6.37 2.76 10.99 7.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 138% 2007 0.14 3.26 4.73 0.80 5.86 0.33 1.53 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.20 56% 69% 2008 1.40 0.54 3.83 12.16 6.10 0.51 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 25.03 81% Avg 1.36 3.56 5.83 6.49 5.67 4.31 2.14 0.75 0.20 0.07 0.08 0.28 30.73 101% 97% Min 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.32 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.81 48% 59% Max 5.80 11.39 21.07 19.13 18.63 15.16 8.26 4.11 1.54 2.89 1.25 4.40 61.29 199% 140% % of 4.4% 12% 19% 21% 18% 14% 6.9% 2.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 100% Avg WY Sources: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/coop-precip/california.txt; www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cabenl+nca Record appears to be affected by one or more changes in station location.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum 2A- Water Rights Evaluation for Phase 1 Conjunctive Use and Enhanced Aquifer Recharge Project
    303 Second Street, Suite 300 South San Francisco, California 94107 415-243-2150 FAX: 415-896-0999 Technical Memorandum 2A- Water Rights Evaluation for Phase 1 Conjunctive Use and Enhanced Aquifer Recharge Project: November 2010 Prepared for County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services 701 Ocean Street Room 312 Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4011 K/J Project No. 0864005 Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the State Water Resources Control Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 16 November 2010 Technical Memorandum 2A – Water Rights To: Mike Cloud and John Ricker, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency From: Steven Wallner, Meredith Clement, Sachi Itagaki, Michael Maley, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Subject: Water Rights Evaluation Santa Cruz County Conjunctive Water Use and Enhanced Aquifer Recharge Study K/J 0864005 1. Introduction Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (Kennedy/Jenks) is pleased to provide the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (County) with Technical Memorandum 2A (TM2A) in support of the Conjunctive Use and Enhanced Aquifer Recharge Project (Conjunctive Use Project). The Conjunctive Use Project is one of sixteen projects funded by a Proposition 50 Water Bond grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to the Regional Water Management Foundation, a subsidiary of the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. The Conjunctive Use Project is Project #3 of the grant and is being administered by the County.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Redwood Parks
    AMAZING SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REDWOOD PARKS Mount Tamalpais State Park, page 5 I Spring Images / Alamy FEATURED PARKS Samuel P. Taylor State Park: Best alternative to Muir Woods for big trees ..........................................................................................4 Mount Tamalpais State Park: An oasis from sea to peak ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Portola Redwoods State Park: A marvelous forest in the Santa Cruz Mountains .............................................................................. 6 Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve: Sweeping views of Half Moon Bay and the Pacific Ocean .........................................................7 Reinhardt Redwood Regional Park & Roberts Regional Recreation Area: The East Bay’s largest stand of coast redwoods .................................................................................. 8 ADDITIONAL PARKS ............................................................................................................................. 9 Photo by Michael Li, Flickr Creative Commons The centerpiece of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is Purisima Creek Canyon, with its towering redwoods, rushing creek, and understory of ferns, berries, and wildflowers. Save the Redwoods League | ExploreRedwoods.org INTRODUCTION The San Francisco Bay Area is home to more than 40 spectacular coast redwood parks, many within a one-hour drive from San Francisco. In this
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update
    Santa Cruz Water Department in association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 This Page Intentionally Blank 2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 525 Santa Clara, California 95454 650-852-2800 FAX: 650-856-8527 San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 Prepared for City of Santa Cruz 715 Graham Hill Rd. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 In association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District K/J Project No. 17680004*00 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures................................................................................................................................ x List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... I Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... I Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Watershed Sanitary Survey Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Annual Status Report for 2015
    County of Santa Cruz HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 1080 EMELINE AVENUE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 TELEPHONE: (831) 454-4000 FAX: (831) 454-4770 GIANG T. NGUYEN HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DIRECTOR January 19, 2016 Board of Supervisors County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 SUBJECT: Water Resources Management Status Report for 2015 Dear Members of the Board: The Health Services Agency (HSA) Environmental Health Division is submitting its Water Resources Management Status Report for 2015 (2015 Status Report) (attached). This calendar year 2015 Status Report summarizes eight facets of countywide water resource management that include: 1) Drought Response and Water Conservation; 2) Water Supply and Groundwater Management; 3) Small Water Systems; 4) Water Quality; 5) Watershed Health and Aquatic Habitat; 6) Stormwater and Flood Management; 7) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) - Santa Cruz Region; and 8) IRWM- Pajaro Region. Following are highlights for drought, water supply, and regional water management planning. Drought Response 2015 was the fourth calendar year of a critical drought in California. In 2015, the severity of the drought in Santa Cruz county was reduced from ‘Exceptional’ drought level 5 of 5, to “Extreme’ drought level 4, as determined in the U.S. Drought Monitor, sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. December 2014 rains helped to fill the City of Santa Cruz Loch Lomond reservoir to 83% of capacity. However, total winter season rains were insufficient to provide significant groundwater recharge and countywide streamflows continued to remain at historically low levels. Rains so far in the 2015-16 water year (October through September), and the predicted El Nino conditions for 2016 hold promise for some relief from the drought, but water supply conditions in the county will remain tenuous pending long term management actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Capacity and Sedimentation of Loch Lomond Reservoir
    CAPACITY AND SEDIMENTATION OF LOCH LOMOND RESERVOIR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Ronald P. Fogelman and Karen L. Johnson U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 85-485 Prepared in cooperation with the CITY OF SANTA CRUZ CN rH I CN CN O Sacramento, California 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section Water Resources Division Western Distribution Branch U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2234 Box 25425, Federal Center Sacramento, Calif. 95825 Denver, Colo. 80225 (Telephone: (303) 236-7476) CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Location and general features 2 Purpose and scope 2 Capacity of Loch Lomond Reservoir 4 Field methods 4 Computation of reservoir capacity 4 Results of computations 9 Sedimentation in Loch Lomond Reservoir 9 Summary 12 Selected references 12 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Map showing topographic contours of Loch Lomond Reservoir, Santa Cruz, California, and ranges established in 1982 survey In pocket Figure 1. Index map showing location of Loch Lomond Reservoir 3 2. Graph showing surface-area and capacity curves for Loch Lomond Reservoir, based on 1982 survey 10 3. Graph showing particle-size distribution of sediment in Loch Lomond Reservoir 11 4. Thalweg profiles of Loch Lomond Reservoir, 1960 and 1982 11 5. Loch Lomond Reservoir cross sections, August 1982 13 TABLES Page Table 1. Vertical range data 5 2. Horizontal range data 6 3. Particle-size distribution and specific weight of sediment deposited in Loch Lomond Reservoir, based on samples collected in August 1982 8 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 29 Awesome Dog-Friendly Redwood Parks
    29 AWESOME DOG-FRIENDLY REDWOOD PARKS Roy’s Redwoods Open Space Preserve, page 22 Photo by Cameron Potratz I CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................1 About Redwoods ...........................................................................................................................................................2 Coast Redwood Parks Map ...................................................................................................................................3 NORTH COAST REDWOODS Arcata Community Forest ......................................................................................................................................4 Headwaters Forest Reserve .................................................................................................................................. 5 Redwood National and State Parks (Redwood National Park and Jedediah Smith, Del Norte Coast, and Prairie Creek Redwoods State Parks)................................................................................................ 6 Sequoia Park .....................................................................................................................................................................7 Shady Dell and Additional Parks ..................................................................................................................... 8 CENTRAL COAST REDWOODS Hendy
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Resource Considerations for the San Lorenzo River Watershed Conjunctive Use Plan (Revised Final)
    Fisheries Resource Considerations for the San Lorenzo River Watershed Conjunctive Use Plan (Revised Final) Prepared for: San Lorenzo Valley Water District County of Santa Cruz 13060 Highway 9 701 Ocean St. Boulder Creek, CA 95006 Santa Cruz CA 95060 Prepared by: Mike Podlech, Fisheries Biologist November 21, 2019 This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Fisheries Resource Considerations for the San Lorenzo River Watershed Conjunctive Use Plan – Revised Final Page Chapter 1, Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................ 1-3 Chapter 2, Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Watershed Overview ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Fisheries Resources ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1 Surface Water Resources ........................................................................ 2-4 2.3.2 Groundwater Resources ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Cultural, Historical, Recreational and Educational Resources
    San Lorenzo Valley Water District Watershed Management Plan, Final Version Part I: Existing Conditions Report CHAPTER 6: CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, RECREATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 6.0 Introduction This chapter summarizes the existing cultural, historical, recreational, and educational resources of the San Lorenzo River watershed, with an emphasis on District-owned land. It should be noted that climate change could affect the resources discussed in this chapter. For example, impacts from unauthorized recreational use on District property could be exacerbated by the more extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts and more intense rainfall. These changes would likely increase erosion and compaction in disturbed areas. 6.1 Cultural and historical resources in the San Lorenzo River watershed This section begins with an overview of the cultural and historical resources of the San Lorenzo River watershed, and ends with a similar overview of the District’s ownership. Big Basin State Park provides a sampling of the rich and varied cultural history of the watershed, from pre-historic Native American sites, homesteading and logging sites, to the many 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps park improvements. Ohlone hunting and gathering nomadic settlements were followed by the influx of Spanish missionaries, and again by waves of fortune- seekers of the California Gold Rush. The Spanish constructed Mission Santa Cruz, and introduced cattle-grazing and European farming techniques. The Gold Rush settlers introduced major extractive industries to the area, including logging and mining. Historical evidence from these previous land uses is still very much evident today. 6.1.1 Ohlone history and archeology Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology (2001) summarized pre-historical evidence in the area for the City of Santa Cruz Watershed Management Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Sempervirens Fund 2020 Impact Report
    IMPACT REPORT 2020 To Our Steadfast Community, A generation ago, many long-term strategic plans were in development that referenced 2020 and the clarity of vision that would be achieved and realized by that magical year. Instead, 2020 was as unplanned as any year in recent memory. Throughout a worldwide health crisis, devastating wildfires, and civic and political upheaval, our community—all of you—came together, for redwoods and for each other. We have suffered great loss, and we’ve experienced steadfast resolve. We’ve been “Valley” and “Mountain” Strong. We’ve looked to the redwoods for solace, connection, and community, and for reflection on our own resilience. When I think about communities getting stronger in the face of adversity, I think about redwoods. A single coast redwood tree can live for thousands of years, bear the scars of numerous fires, be shaped by drought, weather torrential storms, and live on. Redwoods— like us—are strongest when connected, from roots to canopies, in a community of trees, facing the elements together. Despite the challenges and setbacks, we are stronger as an organization because of you. We made significant headway to protect new lands in the coming years and to prepare protected lands for public access and to be added to regional state parks. And we were virtually joined by thousands of new supporters in times of crisis. In this year’s impact report, we look back at a year shaped by events we never imagined and look ahead to a bright future, possible because of your support and care. We cannot wait to celebrate with you in the cool shade of a redwood grove again.
    [Show full text]
  • Storage Capacity and Sedimentation of Loch Lomond Reservoir, Santa Cruz, California, 1998 by Kelly R
    Storage Capacity and Sedimentation of Loch Lomond Reservoir, Santa Cruz, California, 1998 By Kelly R. McPherson and Jerry G. Harmon U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4016 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Description of Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Previous Investigations and Limitations...................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Storage Capacity.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Santa Cruz Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan
    CITY OF SANTA CRUZ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN for the ISSUANCE OF AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 10(a)(1)(B) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Prepared for: City of Santa Cruz 715 Graham Hill Rd. Building A Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Prepared by: Ebbin, Moser + Skaggs LLP Hagar Environmental Science Dana Bland & Associates Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. Kittleson Environmental Consulting Services Biotic Resources Group DRAFT Administrative Draft City of Santa Cruz O&M HCP Executive Summary The City of Santa Cruz (City or Applicant) has applied for an incidental take permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to incidentally take the federally endangered Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone); the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata); the federally endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi); the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)(a species not currently listed under the ESA); the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); and the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a federal species of concern. Additionally, the City is proposing to include four plant species in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP or Plan) and permit because of the benefits provided to such species as a result of the Plan’s conservation strategy and to receive the “No Surprises” regulatory assurances. The four plant species are the federally endangered Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana); the federally endangered Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta); the federally threatened Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia); and the State endangered San Francisco popcornflower (Plagiobothrys diffuses).
    [Show full text]