DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment Discharge of San Lorenzo River at Big Trees (Station 111605000)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sediment Discharge of San Lorenzo River at Big Trees (Station 111605000) Sediment discharge of San Lorenzo River at Big Trees (station 111605000) Data are in tonnes Water Suspended- Bedload Total sediment year sediment discharge discharge discharge 1973 397,500 13,450 411,000 1974 84,700 10,600 95,300 1975 58,200 5,000 63,700 1976 481 94 576 WE1977 CAN DO510 BETTER7 518 1978 304,400 12,400 316,800 1979 26,200 655 26,850 1980 383,500 3,740 387,300 1981 16,900 n/a ----- Jan.4-6, 1982 853,400 3,320 856,720 From Nolan and others, 1983 Sediment-Rating Curves As Rigorous Quantitative Baselines For Evaluating Changes in Habitat-Impairing Sediment Barry Hecht 800 Bancroft Way Berkeley, California 94710 281 Nevada Street Auburn, California 95603 224 Walnut Avenue, Suite E Santa Cruz, California 95060-3836 101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 229 San Rafael, California 94903 10246 Donner Pass Road, Suite B3 Truckee, CA 96161 Overview Why we need new tools of expression and analysis in fluvial-sediment transport Nature of sediment-rating curves How we can apply them Bedload and Suspended Sediment Bedload sediment: Supported primarily by the bed Saltates and rolls Moves much more slowly than the flow Indicative of bed conditions at the time of sampling Suspended sediment Supported mainly by turbulence of flow Moves in suspension, with the flow Indicative of sediment delivery conditions throughout the watershed Bedload sediment + Suspended sediment = Total sediment Why new tools? Sediment is of increasing importance Habitat conditions are now often central to resource management Baselines are needed -- to establish effects or measure restoration Bedload sampling is now proven and standard (since 1980s) Sponsorship is now local or at the state scale; quicker and more informed results are needed Custom or focused inquiries can be done, because sediment sampling is increasingly by scientists or engineers, rather than by technicians We have new aquatic-habitat and geomorphic questions; focusing on sediment-transport process – and not just the yield – gives biologists new capabilities and advances habitat science. Episodic sedimentation DevilsDevils GulchGulch AlamoAlamo Channel CreekCreek incision sitessites PilarcitosPilarcitos Geologic CreekCreek differences sitessites Balance Hydrologics SanSan FrancisquitoFrancisquito Changes Sediment Sampling CreekCreek sitessites over time Locations in the Greater Bay Area Sediment Rating Curve Using Sediment Rating Curves for Baseline Typical Primary Episodic Events of Natural Origin Lagunitas or San Francisquito Watersheds ¾ Major storm or storms ¾ Watershed-scale wildfire ¾ Debris flow entering main channel ¾ Landslide ¾ Drought ¾ Seismic events In many California watersheds, 30 to 50 percent of the long-term sediment yield is associated with episodic pulse-and-recovery events, commonly constituting 5 to 12 percent of the long-term record. Incorporating Episodicity Devils Gulch, Marin County Quantifying Episodic Response Devils Gulch, Marin County, CA Watershed Sediment- Remarks condition transport relations 2.5 Normal, or Ib = 0.00061Q Minimal year-to-year variance, despite ‘chronic’ 3- and 5-year events (1978, 1980) preceding monitoring Storm 2.6 Initial recovery Ib = 0.0060Q Interpreted as removal of sediment stored on bed and sub-0.5 bankfull channel, based on field observations 3.6 Late-stage Ib = 0.000015Q Depletion of high-bank storage recovery Normal, or Resumed pre- Followed by very wet year, so other ‘chronic’ event relations late-stage relations obscured. Effects of Incision • West Alamo and Alamo Creeks, Contra Costa County, California Effects of channel incision on equations of the sediment rating curves Effects of Rock Type Pilarcitos Watershed and Vicinity • Franciscan • Hard sandstones • Weather granitics 10000Corinda Los Trancos Cr. at Highway 92 (incising granitics) Apanolio Cr. at Highway 92 (weathered granitics) Corte Madera Cr. at Westridge Drive (softer sandstones and shales) 1000 Los Trancos Cr. above Arastradero (lithified sandstones and shales) Mills Cr. at Higgins Road (lithified sandstones and shales) 100Devils Gulch at Sir Francis Drake Blvd.: chronic condition (Franciscan) Devils Gulch at Sir Francis Drake Blvd.: episodic condition Influence of (Franciscan) 10 Bedrock Geology 1 Sediment Discharge (tons/day) Discharge Sediment 0.1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Instantaneous Stream Flow (cfs) Effects of geology: comparison of bedload- sediment discharge in the Pilarcitos Creek watershed to other Bay Area streams, water year 2000. Discussion In recent years, use of informed sediment-rating curves has been increasingly: Needed, given new habitat and alluvial-corridor priorities Needed, given new habitat and alluvial- corridor priorities Useful, given the growing number of curves available Needed, given new habitat and alluvial- corridor priorities Useful, given the growing number of curves available Important, given the need for short- term baselines or immediate answers to management issues Needed, given new habitat and alluvial- corridor priorities Useful, given the growing number of curves available Important, given the need for short-term baselines or immediate answers to management issues Responsive, given shifts toward state and local support or funding Needed, given new habitat and alluvial- corridor priorities Useful, given the growing number of curves available Important, given the need for short-term baselines or immediate answers to management issues Responsive, given shifts toward state and local support or funding, and Timely, given increasing proportion of data collection by experienced scientists with multiple questions. Thinking Like A Geographer 1. Identify processes: What is going on? Is this the whole picture? 2. Identify the full nature of the event or condition 3. How can this work be applied regionally? (Regional allegiance) 4. How can this work be applied culturally? 5. How can I learn from cultural wisdom, and add to it? Recap To effectively manage, we need more than a sediment yield Recap (cont’d) Sediment transport can be presented as sediment-rating curves, for both bedload and suspended sediment, which have multiple, critically-needed applications in identifying sediment dynamics. Recap (cont) By illustrating . Pre- and post-project changes Episodic changes in supply and transport Effects of incision Differing responses in varying soil and bedrock types . sediment-rating curves can help distinguish responses, transfer learned lessons, and guide an (immigrant) culture toward sounder management. This is work that bridges the boundaries between biology and hydrology in a way that allows us to understand change over time (1-20 years) and space (from one subwatershed to another), offering the promise of long-term site-specific solutions that lead to sustainable habitat management. Questions? Lagunitas Regional Professional vs. Technical/Specialist-based data collection Scientists/Engineers Generally conducting sediment -source, or -effects studies in the same watershed Often familiar with the whole watershed Can apply results to multiple issues and in multiple venues Data collection more site- or condition-specific Technician/Specialists Data collection and preservation is more uniform Higher level of quality-control Often more data on site conditions at time of sampling Applications TMDL or load-based regulations Navigation or sedimentation management Gravel recruitment Early warning of bed-habitat improvement or deterioration Validation of sampling Table 1. Sediment rating-curve equations for San Francisco Bay Area Creeks Vaild Suspended-sediment Vaild Range of Bedload-sediment Water Year Range of Source of Data Stream Station curve Flow curve d Area Flow Watershe (square miles) (tons/day) (cfs) (tons/day) (cfs) 2.63 Devils Gulch at 2.7 1982 chronic sediment conditions 0.000428*Q all ranges Barry Hecht 2.531 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. 1982 episodic sediment conditions 0.006058*Q all ranges Barry Hecht 2.5 Wildcat Creek 7.78 1978-1980 0.01*Q all ranges data by USGS 2.5 3.18 7.78 2004-2006 0.005*Q all ranges 0.000009*Q all ranges Balance Hydrologics, Inc 1.81 Cull Creek 5.79 1981 to 1984 0.75*Q all ranges USDA, 1987 2.01 San Lorenzo Creek 18.00 1981 to 1984 0.1*Q all ranges USDA, 1987 2.140 Alamo Creek, main branch 1998 to 1999 0.0938*Q all ranges Balance Hydrologics, Inc Coming to www.balancehydro.com soon! Annual Average Flow (cfs) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 1932 1934 Annual peak flow peak Annual flow average Annual 1936 1938 Figure __. 1940 1942 1944 San Francisquito Creek 1946 Golf Course.Golf history: flow peak average andannual flow SanFrancisquitoAnnual Creek at Stanford not gaged 1942-1950 1948 1950 1952 1954 This illustrates totalfor a runoff year as well as intensity the of largest the storm. 1956 1958 1960 1962 Water Year 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Annual Peak Flow (cfs) 25 20 year) 15 10 Annual deposition rate (ac-ft/ rate deposition Annual 5 0 1892 to 1913 1913 to 1929 1929 to 1946 1946 to 1995 1996 to 2000 Searsville Lake annual deposition rates calculated by sequential bathymetric surveys. Volumes of deposition calculated include only deposition below lake level, and exclude deposition in the alluvial margins of the lake; total deposition rates would be significantly higher for the period 1996 through 2000 if margins are included..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California
    1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Premia Capital, LLC 801 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January 18, 2019 1180 MAIN STREET PROJECT, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT, REDWOOD CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This document entitled 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California was prepared by Stantec Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Premia Capital, LLC (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Joanne Grant, Archaeologist, MA, RPA Reviewed by (signature) John A. Nadolski, M.A. Approved
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 203287 Cov Final Vol 1.Ai
    Summary Summary SUMMARY Sections Figures Tables S.1 Introduction and Purpose of S.1 Overview of SFPUC Regional S.1 WSIP Goals and Objectives the PEIR System and Water Supply Watersheds S.2 WSIP Facility Improvement S.2 Program Description Projects S.2 SFPUC Water Service Area – S.3 Environmental Effects San Francisco and SFPUC S.3 Summary of WSIP Facility Construction and Operation S.4 Areas of Controversy and Wholesale Customers Impacts Issues to be Resolved S.3 Annual Average Historical and S.4 Summary of Facility Mitigation S.5 Required Actions and Projected Customer Purchase Measures by Impact Approvals Requests S.5 Summary of Water Supply Impacts S.6 WSIP Variants S.4 WSIP Water Supply Sources, Nondrought Years and Mitigation Measures – S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Tuolumne River System and Program S.5 WSIP Water Supply Sources, Downstream Water Bodies Drought Years S.6 Summary of Water Supply Impacts S.6a Location of WSIP Facility and Mitigation Measures – Improvement Projects – Sunol Alameda Creek Watershed Valley, Bay Division, Peninsula, and San Francisco Regions S.7 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.6b Location of WSIP Facility Peninsula Watersheds Improvement Projects – San Joaquin Region S.8 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.6c Location of WSIP Facility Westside Groundwater Basin Improvement Projects – Hetch Hetchy Region S.9 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.7 Preliminary WSIP Construction Cumulative Water Supply Schedule S.1 Introduction and Purpose of the PEIR (Chapter 1) The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to adopt and implement the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP or proposed program) to increase the reliability of the regional water system that serves 2.4 million people in San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in San Mateo County, California (Corps File No
    March 21, 2019 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2016-00003 Katerina Galacatos, Ph.D. Acting Regulatory Branch Chief Department of the Army San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor, Suite 0134 San Francisco, California 94102-3406 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in San Mateo County, California (Corps File No. 2006-30317S) Dear Dr. Galacatos: Thank you for your letter of July 13, 2016, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the proposed Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in the County of San Mateo, California (Project). The Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to provide authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.), to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to construct the Project. The enclosed biological opinion is based on our review of the proposed Project and describes NMFS’ analysis of the effects on threatened Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. In the enclosed biological opinion, NMFS concludes the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened CCC steelhead. However, NMFS anticipates take of CCC steelhead will occur as a result of dewatering work areas during project construction. An incidental take statement with non-discretionary terms and conditions is included with the enclosed biological opinion.
    [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]
  • 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]