DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Range Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Range Plan Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD) 2019-2024 Long Range Plan INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District’s (”District”) Long Range Plan is to describe the District, identify its priority natural resource issues, establish long-range district goals, and develop a framework to identify priorities for annual district activities. The long range plan also serves as a method of providing information to government agencies, community-based organizations, watershed stakeholders and individual members of the public regarding District programs and goals. The 2019-2024 Long Range Plan establishes the areas of focus for the District using the Board’s knowledge and understanding of current and forecasted circumstances, and lists goals and strategies for addressing these priority areas. The Board then develops an annual work plan each year listing scheduled and planned activities to guide implementation of the strategies during the course of each fiscal year. ABOUT GCRCD Mission The District’s mission is to provide education and technical assistance to constituents and watershed stakeholders to sustainably manage soil, water and wildlife with the best available science. Organization The District is a non-regulatory independent special district of the state of California dedicated to the conservation of natural resources within Santa Clara County. The District is regulated by Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code, and is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors. State law provides for the Board of Directors to be elected to 4-year terms, but as an alternative to the election of directors, the board of directors may, by a resolution presented to the board of supervisors of the principal county, request the board of supervisors to appoint directors.1 On June 1, 2004, in response to increasing County charges to the District for biennial elections, the District’s Board of Directors passed Resolution 2-4-requesting that the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors make appointments to the Board of Directors in lieu of an election2. The District also has volunteer associate directors who provide additional expertise to the Board, including but not limited to the areas of: natural resources conservation and management; agricultural and grazing management 1 California Public Resources Code Section 9314(b)(1) 2 County of Santa Clara Maddy Report (Local Appointments List) GCRCD 2019-2024 Long Range Plan Page 1 of 8 practices; environmental health; land use; engineering; physical and life sciences; public outreach and education; and local government policy and procedures. California's resource conservation districts (RCDs) are leaders in locally-led conservation work throughout the State. RCDs implement on-the-ground projects, provide technical assistance, and help educate the public to improve their local communities. They have a historic relationship of collaboration and partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), formerly known as the federal Soil Conservation Service. History The District is one of two resource conservation districts in Santa Clara County, the other being Loma Prieta RCD, located in south county. The District’s has its roots in two of the county’s original conservation districts, the Black Mountain Soil Conservation District and the Evergreen Soil Conservation District. The Black Mountain Soil Conservation District was organized in 1943 to cover some 5,500 acres of land in the Calabazas Watershed on the west side of Santa Clara Valley. It later expanded to cover most of the hilly land on the west side of the valley from the San Mateo County line to Loma Prieta Mountain and the boundary of the Loma Prieta Soil Conservation District. Most urban lands at the time, as well as the lands of Stanford University, were excluded from the District. The Evergreen Soils Conservation District was formed in 1944 and originally covered about 10,000 acres on the east side of the Santa Clara Valley, largely the Silver Creek Watershed. It later expanded to include most of the land on the east side of the Santa Clara Valley, largely the Coyote Creek Watershed from Morgan Hill to the Alameda County line, excluding the then urban city lands, although city expansions have meant some urban city lands now lie with District limits. In 1972, the Evergreen Soil Conservation District changed its name to the Evergreen Resource Conservation District. In 1977, the Black Mountain Soils Conservation District merged with the Evergreen Resource Conservation District, keeping the Evergreen name until 1995. At the time, the District changed its name to more closely identify with the two largest watersheds in the District. District Profile The District encompasses Y T N ALAMEDA COUNTY U V O A C a r S V l r le o U a , A k S y L UNTY e l y A o S A CO p c r I D e am r M N E e o M r o A A C o T L C r y S A ra A e c Cale r o l e C h Calaveras a e r o m e Reservoir eda C k e approximately 583 square miles re k ek Palo Cal aver as C Alto re e ek k do C re ra olo Milpitas H C o k k e n P lph e d u u and has an estimated service e i S r e n r o G r o u C , C C lc A r h o a e e r %&t( B s r Felt tad e e s r e Ma r ry o k AHË y Lo Lake Cre e k o n ia g c n B e r Mountain Up enit A a p h e r P r n r c B c %&p( l o h o y u View n o G ard C population of 300,577. The District i g e Ag t r r u a g u e a a e n k k C g C e Los o Los e oy I r o u s e B L e a G t e b e r e e u l k C a C Altos Altos d r C e a e r t e e Sunnyvale lu k e n p k e h Hills e abb g k C n R B r e u a e i th e e C Santa v k o b k e S u l J o r ee m e il r v o r u d r er k S S e m A e C C re Ba covers a large portion of the g yo P s Clara , Arr p a o o z yo o a H ff b F nt Cre C a li e k l re a an F e S S e k k C San lip e a e e n C r C A r r e hu n Jose e lp t u o k k S e n Cupertino T i e o r h k o northwestern, northeastern and e C C e m r p r C %&j( s s S o e rt o n e te a t C k v gn a re e e G e n k s R s KÍ k C r Sw reek L o e iss C e ek Yerb a Bu en e S a Cre r k ek C u Stevens n e Campbell t k Creek o H y o central portions of the County, o Reservoir l C l o k S r w mit k o h ree G C F t u Y Saratoga s l c T a k E h N ree Co U C arat k s w S o s C O o g e R C ?ÂE r a e e y ek r l zz Cr e O C i r C e r E e e k Monte k G Y s T including urbanized areas within the T a A M N n Sereno M ?¾E i id U s a u Vasona d N m A q O o l A T e C Reservoir S F n o Z r a k s Creek k Co U e S re C anoa y R C o e t C e p A u C l T Los r a N e d ek A a S Gatos u ek ter Gu City of San Jose and portions of the G re a lch C C a d W M le o r i o o s , w s A k is r c s ro i y a p o p P Lit tle C i o y C o r s te e g C Guadalupe k g r oo e Guadalupe Coyote ri e H ver C C B ek e r e r k Reservoir e ek e r e k historic Coyote Valley. It includes C k Lexington e S Resource Conservation District re s o C to Anderson da Reservoir on i Sp c m Calero ri n a Reservoir n i l g N R A s n Reservoir C yo o City Limits (Incorporated Areas) a n r Hook t ?âE er Gulch h F or ek k P Lakes and Reservoirs re a rt C C c be o most of the hilly and mountainous H er ek Ro h re y e n u c s C gh G o o o u t a lc e C y g h Creeks a re n l C L e a Morgan r k e Lake C e t k e Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District Elsman r Hill r a B Chesbro Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District Uva land surrounding the Santa ittle s L C Reservoir r e ek L 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ittle L Miles la g Coyote This map created by the Santa Clara County Planning Office.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5
    5.6 Westside5.6 Groundwater 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources This section describes the potential effects of the WSIP water supply and system operations and associated WSIP projects on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related water resources, including Lake Merced. The proposed water supply sources under the WSIP include 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply every year in all years (including nondrought periods) from implementation of conservation, water recycling, and groundwater supply programs in San Francisco; in addition, the proposed water supply option includes a long-term conjunctive-use program in the San Mateo County portion of the Westside Groundwater Basin, referred to as the South Westside Groundwater Basin, as part of the drought-year water supply for the regional system. The recycled water and groundwater components of this supply would be achieved through two WSIP projects, the Local and Regional Groundwater Projects (SF-2) and the Recycled Water Projects (SF-3), which are described in Chapter 3. The potential effects of the WSIP on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related resources are discussed in the context of ongoing activities in this area occurring among the SFPUC, City of Daly City, California Water Service Company (Cal Water, the municipal water purveyor to South San Francisco), and the City of San Bruno. 5.6.1 Setting 5.6.1.1 Westside Groundwater Basin The Westside Groundwater Basin extends from San Francisco south to San Mateo County (Figure 5.6-1). With an area of about 45 square miles, this groundwater basin is the largest in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Flows for Fish Below Dams
    ASSESSING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE 5937 THEODORE E. GRANTHAM PETER B. MOYLE CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS ONE SHIELDS AVENUE DAVIS, CA 95616 OCTOBER 22, 2014 This report was prepared by: Theodore E. Grantham and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Corresponding author: Theodore (Ted) Grantham [email protected] Copyright ©2014 The Regents of the University of California All rights reserved The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Please cite this report as: Grantham, T. E. and P. B. Moyle. 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Biological Resources
    JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Introduction This section describes the biological resources setting and existing conditions as they relate to the BART to Livermore Extension Project, discusses the applicable regulations, and assesses the potential impacts to biological resources from construction and operation of the Proposed Project and Alternatives. For the purpose of this analysis, the study area for potential direct impacts includes the collective footprint—the combined footprints of the Proposed Project, Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative, and Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. In addition, the bus routes and bus infrastructure improvements for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, as well as for the feeder buses for the Proposed Project and other Build Alternatives, which are anticipated to extend along existing streets and within the street rights-of-way (ROWs), are addressed programmatically in this analysis, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. To produce a comprehensive species list for the study area, the analysis considered sensitive wildlife and plant resources that are documented within 5 miles of the collective footprint. The analysis presented in this section is based on a review of existing information and results from site surveys, which include the following: . Focused and reconnaissance-level wildlife, botanical, and wetland surveys performed by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) from 2013 to 2016 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . City of Dublin General Plan6 1 Environmental Science Associates, 2013a. BART to Livermore Extension (BLVX) Project Consolidated Biological Resources Report, Site 7 [I-580 Corridor Area], Alameda County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPAETMENT OF THE INTEEIOE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DiRECTOB WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 297 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART III. PACIFIC COAST AND GREAT BASIN STREAMS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1913 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained on streams in the Great Basin and the streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 241-244. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE PACIFIC COAST DRAINAGE BASINS AND THE GREAT BASIN, CALIFORNIA. ____ By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the third of a series of reports on the surface waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and bear the following titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacra­ mento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN January 2019
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER MEMBER AGENCIES: RESOURCE PLAN Alameda Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood January 2019 Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ................................................................... 8 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 8 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 8 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 8 2.3.1 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ................
    [Show full text]
  • SURFACE WATER SUPPLY of the UNITED S WES 1938 J I Od - PART 11 * PACIFIC SLOPE BASINS in CAI§Fprnia
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. MENDENHALL, Director Water-Supply Paper 861 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY of the UNITED S WES 1938 J I od - PART 11 * _ PACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CAI§FpRNIA S en* £" 'jNv** <D NATHAN C. GROVER, Chief HydraulifEiJgirfeJ;r H. D. McGLASHAN and G. H. CANFIE|®<~' Vt District Engineers "^tT < \ "'*^*j** d Prepared in cooperation with the Statb*i@l ^ CALIFORNIA AND OREGON ^"" i i S: S UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1939 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 40 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Scope of work........................................................................ i Definition of terms.................................................................. i Explanation of data.................................................................. 1 Accuracy of field data and computed results.......................................... 2 Publications......................................................................... 3 Records of discharge collected by agencies other than the Geological Survey.......... 9 Cooperation.......................................................................... 9 Division of work..................................................................... 10 Gaging-statlon records............................................................... 11 Tia Juana River Basin.............................................................. 11 Cottonwood Creek at Morena Dam, Calif...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation
    San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of the San Francisco Estuary August 2007 By Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining David A. Asbury Andrew Gunther, Ph.D Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy Grant Agreement Number 04-094 and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Grant Agreement Number 2004-0194 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Ave., Suite 325, Oakland, CA 94611 www.cemar.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary pg. 1 Introduction pg. 2 Methods pg. 3 Results pg. 6 Discussion and recommendations pg. 22 Tables, figures, and maps Table 1. San Francisco Estuary watersheds criterion 1 screening results pg. 9 Table 2. Suitable and available O. mykiss rearing habitat in key SF Estuary watersheds pg. 10 Table 3. Open space information for SF Estuary anchor watersheds pg. 10 Table 4. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary anchor watershed streams pg. 20 Figure 1. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary watersheds pg. 13 Figure 2. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Esutary anchor watershed streams pg. 21 Map 1. Study area pg. 7 Map 2. Suitable and available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary watersheds pg. 11 Map 3. Anchor watersheds and essential streams of the SF Estuary pg. 15 Appendix A. Methods used for evaluating Bay Area watersheds pg. 33 Appendix B. Results of evaluating Bay Area watersheds pg. 37 Appendix B tables and figures Table B-1. Status of SF Estuary watersheds and streams with respect to reproducing O.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges March 2019 District 01 Del Norte County Bridge Bridge Name Location Historical Significance Year Number Built
    Structure Maintenance & SM&I Investigations Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges March 2019 District 01 Del Norte County Bridge Bridge Name Location Historical Significance Year Number Built 01C0001 HOPPOW CREEK 500' E OF RT 101/169 SEP 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1965 01C0002 HOPPOW CREEK WEST OF ROUTE 101/169 SEP 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1965 01C0006 MIDDLE FORK SMITH RIVER 0.05 MI SE JCT SR199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1956 01C0008 GILBERT CREEK 0.8 MI S OF RT 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1947 01C0009 ROWDY CREEK 1.75 MI E OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1962 01C0010 MIDDLE FORK SMITH RIVER 0.1 MILE N/O RTE 199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1960 01C0011 HUNTER CREEK 0.1 MI WEST OF RT101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1949 01C0012 SALT CREEK 0.4 MI WEST OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1958 01C0015 ROWDY CREEK 1/2 MI S OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1989 01C0017 JORDAN CREEK 3.7 MI N OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1954 01C0018 ELK CREEK 0.1 MILE NE/O RTE 199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1925 01C0020 SALT CREEK 0.1 MI N/O REQUA RD 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1975 01C0022 SHEEP PEN CREEK 0.74 MI S/O SOUTH FORK RD 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1975 01C0032 EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK 5 MI FROM ROUTE 199 5.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B Photos
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Rancho Cañada de Pala Preserve Area 3 Long-term Management Plan Prepared by Navroop Jassal, Biologist III Lisa Porcella, Environmental Services Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District with Steve Rottenborn, Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Associate Plant Ecologist Robin Carle, Senior Wildlife Ecologist Maya Goklany, Plant Ecologist Matt Wacker, Certified Rangeland Manager H. T. Harvey and Associates, Los Gatos, CA Prepared Under the Direction of Norma J. Camacho Chief Operating Officer Watersheds SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 November 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Property Purchase ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose of this Long-term Management Plan and Relationship to Conservation Easement 1 1.3 CE Holder and Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 3 1.4 Land Manager and Responsibilities..................................................................................... 3 1.5 Stream and Watershed Protection Program (S&WPP or Program) and SMP Mitigation Credits ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]