DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents Revised Basin Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report--Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Revised Basin Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report--Appendices Draft Appendices PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2000062030 October 2001 Prepared for Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Draft Appendices PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2000062030 October 2001 Prepared for Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency 700 University Avenue, Suite 130 225 Bush Street, Suite 1700 2685 Ulmerton Road, Suite 102 Sacramento, California 95825 San Francisco, California 94104 Clearwater, Florida 33762 (916) 564-4500 (415) 896-5900 (727) 572-5226 1000 Broadway, Suite 410 4221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 480 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4120 Oakland, California 94607 Los Angeles, California 90010 Seattle, Washington 98104 (510) 839-5066 (323) 933-6111 (206) 206-0900 200179 TABLE OF CONTENTS REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT--APPENDICES Page MAP APPENDIX A1-A4 Proposed Pipeline Alignment; Seismic Hazards in the Project Area B1-B4 Proposed Pipeline Alignment; Habitat Characterization in the Project Area APPENDICES A. Plant Species Observed in the Study Area A-1 B. Bird Species Observed During Breeding Surveys B-1 C. Fisheries Resources of the Lower Pajaro River and its Tributaries C-1 D. Determination of the Minimum Bypass Flow in Corralitos Creek for the Expanded College Lake Project D-1 E. Alternative Alignments to the Import Pipeline E-1 F. Technical Memorandum 2.2 – Hydrologic Analysis and Modeling F-1 MAP APPENDIX II 0+00 10+00 II 20+00 30+00 I 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00 90+00 Sargent 100+00 II Fault FRAZIER Zone 110+00 II II 120+00 Mapped Fault Trace 130+00 Surface Fault Rupture II Hazard Zone LAKE 140+00 U.S. 101 UPRR Proposed Pipeline Alignment I 150+00 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 330+00 II 160+00 II Liquefaction Potential 320+00 BOLSA ROAD (HIGHWAY 25) I ROAD Low Liquefaction Potential 170+00 310+00 280+00 II Moderate Liquefaction Potential 270+00 300+00 290+00 260+00 III Moderately High Liquefaction Potential 250+00 180+00 I 240+00 230+00 UPRR 220+00 210+00 190+00 152 200+00 PG&E POW ER LINE College I Lake 152 II 101 25 1 129 WATSONVILLE AROMAS Pacific Ocean 0 2000 Feet PVWMA BMP 2000 EIR / 200179 SOURCES: Alquist-Priolo Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982; Watsonville East and Chittenden Quadrangles, U.S. Geological Survey; Map A1 Liquefaction Potential Map, ABAG 1980; North County Area Plan, Monterey County, 1994; Proposed Pipeline Alignment; PVWMA. Seismic Hazards in the Project Area 330+00 Pe S sc A a d S N e A T r 340+00 N A o T C A A CL R r A e e 350+00 I CRUZ C k C O I O . I 360+00 ek re C t 370+00 490+00 n 500+00 e g 560+00 r a S 520+00 380+00 550+00 510+00 480+00 540+00 470+00 530+00 UPRR 460+00 390+00 450+00 430+00 SAN ANDREAS RIFT ZONE 400+00 440+00 . 420+00 Mapped Fault Trace CO 410+00 San Andreas Fault Zone A R O. A C L O Surface Fault Rupture C IT N Hazard Zone A E I T N B S A N SA U.S. 101 U.S. Proposed Pipeline Alignment I Alternative Pipeline Alignment II Liquefaction Potential HIGHWAY129 I Low Liquefaction Potential II Moderate Liquefaction Potential I III Moderately High Liquefaction Potential 152 College Lake 152 101 25 1 129 WATSONVILLE AROMAS Pacific Ocean 0 2000 Feet PVWMA BMP 2000 EIR / 200179 SOURCES: Alquist-Priolo Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982; Watsonville East and Chittenden Quadrangles, U.S. Geological Survey; Map A2 Liquefaction Potential Map, ABAG 1980; North County Area Plan, Monterey County, 1994; Proposed Pipeline Alignment; PVWMA. Seismic Hazards in the Project Area San Andreas III 620+00 590+00 Isolation I 610+00 Valve 630+00 600+00 Granite 580+00 Rock III 640+00 Quarry 570+00 SAN ANDREAS RIFT ZONE 560+00 650+00 I 550+00 920+00 660+00 I 910+00 900+00 930+00 890+00 III 880+00 III 670+00 870+00 Fault Zone 680+00 860+00 850+00 I 840+00 Pressure 830+00 Regulator I 820+00 Valve Isolation 690+00 810+00 Valve 700+00 I 800+00 770+00 760+00 710+00 790+00 720+00 780+00 750+00 730+00 III SAN JUAN ROAD 740+00 Mapped Fault Trace Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Zone 152 College Proposed Pipeline Alignment Lake 152 101 25 SAN BENITO CO. 1 MONTEREY CO. Alternative Pipeline Alignment 129 WATSONVILLE II Liquefaction Potential I AROMAS I Low Liquefaction Potential II Moderate Liquefaction Potential Pacific III Moderately High Liquefaction Potential Ocean 0 2000 Feet PVWMA BMP 2000 EIR / 200179 SOURCES: Alquist-Priolo Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982; Watsonville East and Chittenden Quadrangles, U.S. Geological Survey; Map A3 Liquefaction Potential Map, ABAG 1980; North County Area Plan, Monterey County, 1994; Proposed Pipeline Alignment; PVWMA. Seismic Hazards in the Project Area Mapped Fault Trace Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Proposed Pipeline Alignment Alternative Pipeline Alignment III Vergeles Fault II Liquefaction Potential III I Low Liquefaction Potential II Moderate Liquefaction Potential III Moderately High Liquefaction Potential 152 College 152 III Lake 920+00 930+00 101 25 910+00 1 129 WATSONVILLE 940+00 AROMAS 950+00 Pacific Ocean III HAYES ROAD 960+00 I 1000+00 990+00 980+00 970+00 1010+00 1040+00 1030+00 1020+00 1050+00 1060+00 HIGHWAY 1 SALINAS ROAD 1070+00 1080+00 Proposed Water 1090+00 Recycling Facilities 1100+00 WWTF 1110+00 III 1120+00 III 0 2000 Feet PVWMA BMP 2000 EIR / 200179 SOURCES: Alquist-Priolo Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982; Watsonville East and Chittenden Quadrangles, U.S. Geological Survey; Map A4 Liquefaction Potential Map, ABAG 1980; North County Area Plan, Monterey County, 1994; Proposed Pipeline Alignment; PVWMA. Seismic Hazards in the Project Area BB0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 B A 50+00 60+00 A 70+00 80+00 90+00 100+00 A FRAZIER 110+00 120+00 B 130+00 LAKE 140+00 A U.S. 101 A A C UPRR A 150+00 330+00 A STATE R 160+00 320+00 OUT ROAD A 170+00 310+00 280+00 C 270+00 E25 300+00 290+00 260+00 250+00 180+00 240+00 UPRR ( 230+00 B 220+00 OLSA KEY MAP 152 210+00 190+00 200+00 College ROAD) Lake 152 101 25 1 129 WATSONVILLE AROMAS Pacific Ocean NOTES Habitat identified within the survey corridor A Valley Foothill Riparian Unless noted by a letter, habitat is cropland/ Proposed Pipeline Alignment B Freshwater Emergent Wetland orchard/vineyard or urban/developed. Alternative Pipeline Alignment C Annual Grassland 0 2000 D Coastal Scrub Habitat areas are enlarged to enhance visibility and are not to scale (see text). E Coastal Oak Woodland Feet Survey corridor width is 250 feet. PVWMA Revised BMP EIR / 200179 SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates Map B1 Proposed Pipeline Alignment; Habitat Characterization of the Project Area 330+00 P S es A ca d S N e A T r 340+00 A o N C T r A C LARA e e C k C RUZ O 350+00 A CO . A SEE INSET 360+00 360+00 A ek ON RIGHT A re C STATE ROUTE 129 370+00 (RIVERSIDE DRIVE) 490+00 D t A 500+00 n 560+00 e C D rg E a 520+00 A S 380+00 A 550+00 C 510+00 480+00 k C C e 540+00 470+00 E e A 370+00 C UPRR r C 530+00 E 460+00 A E 390+00 A C E A 450+00 t A n e SAN ANDREAS RIFT ZONE rg C a 380+00 E 440+00 430+00 400+00 S 420+00 410+00 O. A C . A O R C A O L T C I N A E T N B A N S A S A U.S. 101 U.S. C 390+00 A C C C STATE ROUTE 129 A (CHITTENDEN ROAD) C C C A A A 400+00 440+00 430+00 D 420+00 O. KEY MAP 152 C A . R O College C Lake 152 A L O 101 T 25 C I 1 N A 129 T E WATSONVILLE N B A N S A 101 U.S. AROMAS S Pacific Ocean NOTES Habitat identified within the survey corridor A Valley Foothill Riparian Unless noted by a letter, habitat is cropland/ Proposed Pipeline Alignment B Freshwater Emergent Wetland orchard/vineyard or urban/developed. Alternative Pipeline Alignment C Annual Grassland 0 2000 Habitat areas are enlarged to enhance visibility D Coastal Scrub and are not to scale (see text). Feet E Coastal Oak Woodland Survey corridor width is 250 feet. PVWMA Revised BMP EIR / 200179 SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates Map B2 Proposed Pipeline Alignment; Habitat Characterization of the Project Area 620+00 590+00 Isolation 610+00 A A Valve 630+00 600+00 580+00 Granite D A Rock 640+00 Quarry D STATE ROUTE 129 D 570+00 (RIVERSIDE DRIVE) SAN ANDREAS RIFTC ZONE 560+00 650+00 A 550+00 920+00 660+00 910+00 900+00 A 930+00 D 890+00 880+00 670+00 E 870+00 A MURPHY ROAD 680+00 860+00 850+00 Pressure CARPENTERIA ROAD 840+00 Regulator 830+00 Valve 690+00 820+00 Isolation 810+00 Valve D 700+00 A 800+00 770+00 760+00 O 710+00 R 790+00 720+00 Y CO 780+00 750+00 730+00 RR UA (SAN JUANUNTY ROAD) RO UPRR Q SAN MIGUEL CANYON ROAD SEE INSET AS RD ON RIGHT 740+00 AROM AD G 11 Pressure 152 KEY MAP Regulator Valve College 780+00 Lake 152 770+00 C 760+00 101 25 E EC 1 E C C B .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood Insurance?
    Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program The passage of the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program in 2012 has made the community’s long term goals for protecting the future of the Santa Clara Valley possible, including: • Supplying safe, healthy water • Retrofitting dams and critical infrastructure for earthquakes • Reducing toxins, hazards and contaminants • Restoring wildlife habitat in our waterways • Providing natural flood protection Even though we are in a drought, flooding can happen. Santa Clara County has had several damaging floods over the years, Extreme dry conditions can harden the ground. Within the first few most notably in 1995 and 1997 along the Guadalupe River and 1998 days of heavy rain, the ground can deflect water into streams and along Coyote and San Francisquito creeks. Call your city’s floodplain creeks, increasing the chances of flash flooding. It can strike quickly manager or the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Community with little or no warning. Projects Unit at 408.630.2650 to determine if you are in a floodplain. Floodwater can flow swiftly through neighborhoods and away from The water district’s flood prevention and flood awareness outreach streams when creeks “overbank” or flood. Dangerously fast-moving efforts reduce flood insurance rates by as much as 10 percent. FEMA’s floodwaters can flow thousands of feet away from the flooded creek National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System (CRS) within minutes. evaluates the flood protection efforts that CRS communities make and provides a rating. While the chances may seem slim for a 1 percent flood* to occur, the real odds of a 1 percent flood are greater than one in four during the In our area, *participating CRS communities (noted on the magnet) earn length of a 30-year mortgage.
    [Show full text]
  • D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology
    D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, California Coastrange Sculpin Photographed by Jessica Wheeler D.W. ALLEY & Associates, Aquatic Biology Don Alley, Chad Steiner and Jerry Smith, Fishery Biologists With Field Assistance from Kristen Kittleson, Dawn Reis and Jessica Wheeler Prepared For the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department Government Center, 701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Funding From the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, Lompico County Water District, Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz May 2007 Project # 200-04 340 Old River Lane • P.O. Box 200 • Brookdale, California 95007 • (831) 338-7971 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY...................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................31 I-1. Steelhead and Coho Salmon Ecology...................................................... 31 I-3. Project Purpose and General Study Approach ........................................ 34 METHODS ....................................................................................................35 M-1. Choice of Reaches and Vicinity of Sites to be Sampled- Methods........... 35 M-2. Classification of Habitat Types and Measurement of Habitat Characteristics.............................................................................................
    [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]
  • San Lorenzo Urban River Plan
    San Lorenzo Urban River Plan A Plan for the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street Marsh Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force with assistance from Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service Adopted June 24, 2003 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 19 Purpose, Context and Goals 1.1 Purpose of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan 9 1.2 Goals and Benefits of the Plan 10 1.3 The Planning Area and River Reach Descriptions 10 1.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans 13 1.5 Plan Organization 13 Chapter 2 15 Plan Setting and Background 2.1 Physical Setting 15 2.2 Social Setting: Development of the City of Santa Cruz 17 2.3 The History of Flooding in Santa Cruz 18 2.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force 19 Chapter 3 21 Riverwide Concepts and Programs 3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway 21 3.2 Defining the Riverway: System-wide Recommendations 22 Chapter 4 23 Reach Specific Recommendations 4.1 Design Improvements 25 4.2 Site Specific Recommendations in River Reaches 29 Estuarine Reach 29 Transitional Reach 39 Riverine Reach 49 Chapter 5 55 Branciforte Creek 5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions 55 5.2 Reach Specific Recommendations for Branciforte Creek 58 Chapter 6 61 Significant Riverfront Areas 6.1 Front Street Riverfront Area 61 6.2 Salz Tannery to 64 Sycamore Grove Riverfront Area 6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area 71 Chapter 7 73 Plan Implementation 7.1 San Lorenzo River Committee 73 Recommendations 74 7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs 75 7.3 Funding Opportunities 75 Chapter 8 79 References Appendix A Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon Enhancement Plan Appendix B Jessie Street Marsh Management Plan PB SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLAN The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan could Acknowledgements not have been developed without the dedication of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force, City staff and the community.
    [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]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [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]
  • 1982 Flood Report
    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising
    Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate Gordon S. Becker Katherine M. Smetak David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S., K.M. Smetak, and D.A. Asbury. 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1. San Mateo County .......................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2. Santa Cruz County .......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3. Montery County .............................................................................................................. 67 Chapter 4. San Luis Obispo County ............................................................................................... 97 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
    Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan EIR Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section is based on information from the following documents: • Gateway South Office Building and Fire Station Draft Supplemental EIR, City of Scotts Valley, January 2004 • Gateway South Office Building and Fire Station Hydrology Technical Report, City of Scotts Valley , January 2004 • Polo Ranch Draft Recirculated EIR, City of Scotts Valley, December 2005 • 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Scotts Valley Water District. • Groundwater Modeling Study of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin • 2007 Annual Report. Scotts Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Program. May 2008. 4.7.1 Setting a. Physical Setting. Drainage. The City of Scotts Valley occupies the valley of Carbonera Creek and its main tributary to the north, Bean Creek. The project site is located within both the watershed of Carbonera Creek and Bean Creek (see Figure 4.7-1). Carbonera Creek is a tributary of the San Lorenzo River system, which drains south from the Santa Cruz Mountains into the Monterey Bay at the City of Santa Cruz. The San Lorenzo River watershed drains approximately 137 square miles, and its principal tributaries include Boulder Creek, Kings Creek, Bear Creek, Newell Creek, Zayante Creek, Bean Creek, and Branciforte Creek. The Carbonera Creek watershed drains 3.6 square miles at United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge near the Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD) southern boundary. Unlike Bean Creek, Carbonera Creek typically becomes dry or near dry during the summer months. The creek flows generally southwest from its headwaters in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and discharges to Branciforte Creek in the City of Santa Cruz.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the San Lorenzo River Watershed by Lee Summers
    Understanding the San Lorenzo River Watershed By Lee Summers Water is the drink of life that pours through our veins, cradles us as babes in the womb, carves valleys and mountains, cleans our air and keeps our planet green and growing. About 71 percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water. Of that, about 2½ percent is fresh water and only about 1.2 percent of fresh water can we easily access, treat, and drink.1 What’s more, about 60 percent of the human body is water. It comes in quite handy as cellular building material; to regulate our temperature; transport food; flush waste; absorb shock to the brain, spine, and fetus; and lubricate joints.2 We can find water as a liquid, gas and solid. Its solid form is less dense than liquid, which allows lakes to freeze from the top down. It dissolves substances better than any other liquid, which means it easily transports nutrients through a body. It absorbs a lot of heat before it gets hot, so it keeps the air temperature more constant, especially near the coast. It sticks to itself, which allows it to ball into drops as well as get pulled up the tallest redwood trees. In fact, if we weren’t surrounded by it our entire lives, it would amaze us. Water is essential for life on this planet, yet most people have no idea where their water comes from when they turn on the faucet. If they really understood, they would likely never take water for granted again.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Water Quality Monitoring for Bacteria Indicators in the Lower San Lorenzo River Watershed, 2014 and 2016
    Report of Water Quality Monitoring for Bacteria Indicators in the Lower San Lorenzo River Watershed, 2014 and 2016 Prepared for the San Lorenzo River Alliance, Water Quality Working Group, with participants from: City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department City of Santa Cruz Water Department County of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works County of Santa Cruz Department of Environmental Health Services Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Coastal Watershed Council Surfrider Foundation Prepared by: Armand Ruby, Technical Director, Coastal Watershed Council Alev Bilginsoy, River Scientist, Coastal Watershed Council December 29, 2017 INTRODUCTION The Water Quality Working Group of the San Lorenzo River Alliance (SLRA) was first assembled in 2013 to help address water quality issues in the San Lorenzo River and its tributaries. Working Group participants include personnel with water quality expertise from: City of Santa Cruz Public Works and Water Departments, County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services and Public Works, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Nonprofit organizations Surfrider Foundation and Coastal Watershed Council. The Working Group has taken a collaborative approach to improving water quality in the San Lorenzo River watershed. The initial focus of the Working Group’s activity has been to address impairment of river water quality by fecal indicator bacteria. The reasons for this focus are: 1. The SLRA wishes to improve the general quality and beneficial uses in the San Lorenzo River, and 2. The SLRA seeks to participate with other stakeholders and help municipalities in response to the impairment of beneficial uses of the river, as described in the San Lorenzo River Watershed Pathogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulation (Central Coast Water Board Resolution R3-2009-0023).
    [Show full text]