DOCSLIB.ORG

San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Existing plans and reports ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Wetland Habitat Condition ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Watershed Stressors ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Wetland Habitat Loss and Change ............................................................................................................................ 8 Special Status Species ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Existing plans and reports ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Wetland Habitat Condition ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Stressors .................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Watershed Stressors ........................................................................................................................................... 14 CRAM Stressor Checklist ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Wetland Habitat Loss and Change .......................................................................................................................... 16 Special Status Species ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Prioritization Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 19 Description of Prioritization Methods ..................................................................................................................... 20 Initial Steps .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Prioritization #1: Threshold Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 20 Prioritization #2: Condition-Vulnerability Evaluation .......................................................................................... 20 Prioritization #3: EPA Decision support tool ........................................................................................................ 21 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Prioritization #1: Threshold Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 22 Prioritization #2: Condition-Vulnerability Graph ................................................................................................. 22 Prioritization #3: EPA Decision support tool ........................................................................................................ 23 Prioritization Support Tool .................................................................................................................................. 23 Management Opportunities ......................................................................................................................... 24 General Priority Actions .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Wetland Habitat Condition-CRAM ...................................................................................................................... 24 Watershed Stressors ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Wetland Habitat Loss and Change ...................................................................................................................... 25 Prioritization of Sites for Restoration Actions ......................................................................................................... 25 Assessment of Selected Sites .................................................................................................................................. 25 Habitat Loss and Recovery .................................................................................................................................. 25 References .................................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 1: CCWG Wetland Classification Chart ........................................................................................ 28 1 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County Appendix 2: Site-Specific Data Summaries .................................................................................................. 29 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1.CONCEPTUAL FIGURE OF A) OPEN, B) PARTIALLY OPEN, AND C) CLOSED BAR-BUILT ESTUARY. .............................................................. 3 FIGURE 2.HYDROGRAPH INDICATING VARIABILITY IN DEPTH AND SALINITY OF A BBE OVER TIME. ...................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3. LOCATIONS OF ALL COASTAL CONFLUENCES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY. (BLUE=BBE, GREEN=CREEK MOUTH, RED=BAY/HARBOR, PINK=OPEN ESTUARY, YELLOW=COASTAL DEPRESSION). .................................................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 4.COASTAL CONFLUENCE AREA (HECTARES) BY CONFLUENCE CLASSIFICATION TYPE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ............................................ 5 FIGURE 5 SELECTED SITES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 6.CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BBE CRAM SCORES FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY (ORANGE) AND THE CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA (BLUE). .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 7.CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BBE CRAM SCORES FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY (ORANGE) AND CALIFORNIA AS A WHOLE (BLUE). ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 8. GRAPH OF TOTAL NUMBER OF CRAM STRESSORS COMPARED TO CRAM INDEX SCORE FOR ALL SITES. ............................................. 16 FIGURE 9. GRAPH OF WATERSHED AREA COMPARED TO HISTORICAL WETLAND AREA FOR ALL SITES. ................................................................ 17 FIGURE 10. TOTAL WETLAND AREA FOR ALL SITES FOR THE HISTORICAL (1850’S) AND CURRENT TIME PERIODS. ................................................ 17 FIGURE 11. HISTORICAL (A) AND CURRENT (B) LEVEL 2 HABITAT COMPOSITION FOR ALL SITES. PERCENT CHANGE IN LEVEL 2 HABITAT COMPOSITION BETWEEN TIME PERIODS (C AND D). ........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Planning and Natural Resources Committee R-19
    PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE R-19-140 October 22, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan to Expand Conservation Grazing into the South Pasture GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the Board of Directors to adopt an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan as an amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan that adds the south pasture as part of the conservation grazing area on the property. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends adoption of an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch (Mindego) Grazing Management Plan (Grazing Plan) (Attachment 1) to expand the conservation grazing area within Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Russian Ridge). The addendum identifies the existing resources and current uses in the proposed south pasture expansion area, and provides recommendations for future improvements, management, and monitoring at the site. The recommendations include: installation of additional water infrastructure, updates to fencing, management of brush encroachment into grasslands, and monitoring of resource management activities. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff and the current grazing tenant have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to secure cost-sharing support for the anticipated improvements. Implementation of the recommended infrastructure improvements is estimated to cost $119,341, of which approximately $85,000 is projected to be the District’s share with the remainder funded by the NRCS. Recommended improvements would span four years with work anticipated to begin in July 2020. If approved, the District’s share would be allocated across the next four fiscal years and requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan development process.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents to Discover the Past and Imagine the Future
    Winter 2014-2015 LaThe Journal of the SanPeninsula Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xliii, No. 1 Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents To discover the past and imagine the future. Is it Time for a Portolá Trail Designation in San Mateo County? ....................... 3 by Paul O. Reimer, P.E. Our Mission Development of Foster City: A Photo Essay .................................................... 15 To enrich, excite and by T. Jack Foster, Jr. educate through understanding, preserving The San Mateo County Historical Association Board of Directors and interpreting the history Paul Barulich, Chairman; Barbara Pierce, Vice Chairwoman; Shawn DeLuna, Secretary; of San Mateo County. Dee Tolles, Treasurer; Thomas Ames; Alpio Barbara; Keith Bautista; Sandra McLellan Behling; John Blake; Elaine Breeze; David Canepa; Tracy De Leuw; Dee Eva; Ted Everett; Accredited Pat Hawkins; Mark Jamison; Peggy Bort Jones; Doug Keyston; John LaTorra; Joan by the American Alliance Levy; Emmet W. MacCorkle; Karen S. McCown; Nick Marikian; Olivia Garcia Martinez; Gene Mullin; Bob Oyster; Patrick Ryan; Paul Shepherd; John Shroyer; Bill Stronck; of Museums. Joseph Welch III; Shawn White and Mitchell P. Postel, President. President’s Advisory Board Albert A. Acena; Arthur H. Bredenbeck; John Clinton; Robert M. Desky; T. Jack Foster, The San Mateo County Jr.; Umang Gupta; Greg Munks; Phill Raiser; Cynthia L. Schreurs and John Schrup. Historical Association Leadership Council operates the San Mateo John C. Adams, Wells Fargo; Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments; Barry County History Museum Jolette, San Mateo Credit Union and Paul Shepherd, Cargill. and Archives at the old San Mateo County Courthouse La Peninsula located in Redwood City, Carmen J.
    [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]
  • SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14
    (ENDORSED) 1 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, Chief Counsel ANDREW H. SAWYER, Assistant Chief Counsel 2 M. G. TAYLOR, III, Senior Staff Counsel FILED • BARBARA A. KATZ, Staff Counsel JAN 2 9 1993 3 901 P Street WARREN SLOCUM, County C!cri( Sacramento, California 95814 j:,\!l;.l"'if' ",.,;;."""" ''­ :':y , J:.;i";J 1 "~1."""....ii, ..': .. ;• .'.~ 4 Telephone: (916) 657 -209 7 • C'EPu;Y C~:~~~~ 5 Attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 In the Matter of the ) No. 355792 Determination of the Rights of ) 10 the various Claimants to the ) DECREE Water of ) 11 ) SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------------------------------) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i . , , 4 INDEX OF CLAIMANTS ........................................... iii " 5 Defini tions ............................................. 2 6 State Water Resources Control Board Map ................. 4 7 General. Entitlement ..................................... 4 8 Priori ty of Rights ...................................... 5 9 Post-1914 Appropriations ................................ 6 10 Seasons of Use .......................................... 7 11 Domestic Use ............................................ 7 12 S tockwa tering Use ....................................... 7 13 Irrigation Use .......................................... 8 14 Domestic and Stockwatering Uses During
    [Show full text]
  • Rancho Corral De Tierra- Palomares
    Rancho Corral de Tierra- Palomares Biological Report & Study Compilation July, 2001 Peninsula Open Space Trust Rancho Corral de Tierra-Palomares Biological Report Contents I. Overview & Summary Biological Report Introduction 1 Physical Description 2 Landscape History 3 Geographic Location 6 Parcel Description & Topography 7 Geology and Soils 9 Climate 9 Current Biological Status Summary Biological Importance 10 Beyond the Borders 11 Unique Biological Resources Plant Communities 12 Special Status Plants 13 Animal Communities 14 Special Status Animals 15 II. Biological Description of Rancho Corral de Tierra Methodology 16 Unique Biological Communities 19 Special Status Species Key 22 Plants 23 Reptiles 30 Birds 31 Amphibians 32 Invertebrates 33 Mammals 35 Fish 35 Watershed Delineations & Resources 37 Martini creek watershed 38 Daffodil Valley drainage 41 Farallone drainage 42 Montara creek watershed 44 Sunshine Valley drainage 46 San Vicente creek watershed 47 Denniston creek watershed 50 Other watersheds and drainages 53 Alien and Invasive Species 54 List of Identified Biological Reports & Sources 58 Rancho Corral de Tierra-Palomares I. Overview As the morning mist clears along Hwy. 1, residents who commute daily and first-time travelers experience wonder as the breathtaking views are revealed around the last curve and rocky outcropping that begin the descent into Montara from Devil’s Slide. Mountain cliffs meet crashing waves as vistas of sea and mountains whiz by. Most coastside visitors, blissfully unaware of the efforts to preserve such beauty stretching along the Pacific Coast, lack an identification and understanding of this special area and the flora and fauna it supports. To enjoy and appreciate its stunning views are enough without delving into the past and its legacy.
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary
    North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz Water Department June 2020 Please cite as follows: Berry, C., Bean, E., Bassett, R., Retford, N., Sedoryk, M., and Hagar, J. 2020. North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. Santa Cruz, CA. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 7 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 7 LAGUNA CREEK .................................................................................................................................................... 7 LIDDELL CREEK .................................................................................................................................................... 8 MAJORS CREEK ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
    [Show full text]