DOCSLIB.ORG

Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church VOLUME I – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH SCH #2003012119 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy May 24, 2004 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH Volume I –Draft Environmental Impact Report PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Melissa Durkin Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 [email protected] www.emcplanning.com May 24, 2004 Table of Contents Summary .......................................................................... S-1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Authorization and Purpose ........................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Setting ...................................................... 1-3 1.3 Project Background and Description .......................................... 1-17 1.4 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans ................................. 1-37 1.5 EIR Uses ............................................................................. 1-44 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ....... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................... 2-21 2.3 Air Quality .......................................................................... 2-41 2.4 Biological Resources .............................................................. 2-54 2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................ 2-84 2.6 Geology .............................................................................. 2-97 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................ 2-107 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................. 2-117 2.9 Land Use ............................................................................ 2-133 2.10 Mineral Resources ................................................................ 2-139 2.11 Noise ................................................................................. 2-142 2.12 Public Services ..................................................................... 2-155 2.13 Transportation ..................................................................... 2-169 2.14 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................... 2-195 3.0 Related Environmental Issues ............................................ 3-1 3.1 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 3-1 EMC Planning Group Inc. 3.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................ 3-12 3.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ............................................... 3-14 3.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................ 3-15 3.5 Alternatives .......................................................................... 3-16 4.0 References ..................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Literature Cited ...................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Persons Contacted................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Report Preparers ..................................................................... 4-4 Appendices Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Responses Appendix B Proposed General Plan Amendment Text Appendix C Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Appendix D SB 610 Water Supply Assessment List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................ 1-5 Figure 2 Project Vicinity .................................................................... 1-7 Figure 3 Property Ownership Map ....................................................... 1-9 Figure 4 Existing Land Uses .............................................................. 1-11 Figure 5a Site Photographs ................................................................. 1-13 Figure 5b Site Photographs ................................................................. 1-15 Figure 6 Specific Plan Land Use Map ................................................... 1-25 EMC Planning Group Inc. Figure 7 South Valley Community Church Project ................................. 1-31 Figure 8 Church Project Elevation ...................................................... 1-33 Figure 9 Church Project Elevations: Preschool and Gymnasium Buildings ....................................................................................... 1-35 Figure 10 Viewshed Photo: Hecker Pass Highway ..................................... 2-5 Figure 11 Viewshed Photo: Santa Teresa Boulevard .................................. 2-7 Figure 12 Important Farmland Map ..................................................... 2-27 Figure 13 Habitat Types .................................................................... 2-61 Figure 14 Historic Resources Map ....................................................... 2-87 Figure 15 Preliminary Geologic Map ................................................... 2-99 Figure 16 Very High Fire Hazard Areas ................................................ 2-109 Figure 17 Consolidated Hazards/Setback Map ...................................... 2-127 Figure 18 Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram ............................................ 2-135 Figure 19 Conceptual Circulation Plan ................................................ 2-181 Figure 20 Specific Plan Conceptual Trail Systems Plan ............................ 2-185 Figure 21 Potable Water Plan ............................................................ 2-201 Figure 22 Recycled Water Plan .......................................................... 2-203 Figure 23 Sanitary Sewer Plan ........................................................... 2-211 Figure 24 Storm Drainage Plan .......................................................... 2-219 Figure 25 Alternative 1: General Plan Target Dwelling Unit/Clustering ...... 3-23 Figure 26 Alternative 2: Reduced Dwelling Unit/Clustering ...................... 3-31 EMC Planning Group Inc. List of Tables Table 1 Land Use Designation Acreages .............................................. 1-22 Table 2 Summary of Church Project Components ................................. 1-30 Table 3 Important Farmland Summary ............................................... 2-25 Table 4 Common Air Pollutants ....................................................... 2-43 Table 5 Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses .......................... 2-45 Table 6 San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status Designations ....... 2-45 Table 7 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................... 2-47 Table 8 URBEMIS7G Modeling Results (Pounds Per Day) ..................... 2-51 Table 9 Special-Status Species Initially Judged to Potentially Occur in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area ............................. 2-64 Table 10 Existing Specific Plan Area Noise Levels ................................ 2-143 Table 11 The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources ................................................ 2-145 Table 12 Permissible Maximum Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels ........... 2-146 Table 13 Gilroy Unified School District Student Generation Rates .......... 2-163 Table 14 Existing Intersection Operations .......................................... 2-172 Table 15 Existing Road Segment Operations ....................................... 2-174 Table 16 Background Intersection Operations ...................................... 2-175 Table 17 Background Road Segment Operations .................................. 2-176 Table 18 Specific Plan Trip Generation and Distribution ....................... 2-187 Table 19 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Intersection Operations ......... 2-188 Table 20 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Road Segment Operations ...... 2-189 EMC Planning Group Inc. Table 21 Background Plus Church Intersection Operations ..................... 2-191 Table 22 Background Plus Church Project Road Segment Operations ........ 2-192 Table 23 Existing Water Use ............................................................ 2-197 Table 24 Estimated Potable Water Use ................................................ 2-200 Table 25 Estimated Recycled Water Use .............................................. 2-200 Table 26 Estimated Agricultural Use from Existing Wells ....................... 2-205 Table 27 Estimated Wastewater Flow ................................................ 2-210 Table 28 General Plan Land Use and Build Out Calculations ..................... 3-3 Table 29 Existing Plus General Plan Build Out Calculations ...................... 3-3 EMC Planning Group Inc. This side intentionally left blank. EMC Planning Group Inc. Summary CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires an EIR to contain a brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences. The summary identifies each significant effect and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. Summary of Proposed Project Location The specific plan area and the South Valley Community Church site, which is within the specific plan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy
    POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Coyote Creek Parkway Trailhead. Coyote Creek Parkway is a remaining sycamores dot the landscape, creating a beautiful setting to Springs Trail to follow Center Creek into its headwater canyons. The trail paved trail following Coyote Creek for 15 miles from southern San Jose savor the streamside serenity. will eventually cross over into the headwaters of New Creek as it rises to Morgan Hill. Popular with walkers, bikers, equestrians, and skaters, toward the summit of Coyote Ridge, 1.5 miles from the trailhead. much of this trail passes through rural scenery. View riparian woodland 4. Anderson Dam and Reservoir. Anderson dam, built in 1950, species such as big-leaf maple, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, and impounds Coyote Creek, the largest stream in the Santa Clara Valley. The 12. Coyote Lake. Streams carry water and sediment from the hills to the coast live oak along the trail. The oaks produce acorns, which were an dam backs up a deep reservoir, which can store 90,000 acre-feet of water, ocean; damming a stream blocks the flow of both. Sediment typically important source of food to the Native Americans, and still serve many the largest reservoir in Santa Clara Valley. Like SCVWD’s nine other deposits where the stream first enters the lake, forming a broad plain Coyote animal species today. reservoirs built between 1935 and 1957, Anderson Reservoir’s major called a delta. From the county park campground, enjoy a beautiful view purpose is to store wintertime runoff for groundwater recharge during the of the delta of Coyote Creek, Coyote Lake, and the valley below.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP)
    Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) VTA administers and distributes funds from these The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) is the funding sources to Member Agencies, matching appropriate proj- mechanism for planned bicycle projects in Santa Clara ect types and funding amounts with the requirements County. It is developed in conjunction with the VTP of each fund source. VTA assists Member Agencies as update. The bicycle network is an essential component necessary to comply with the various regional, state and of a fully integrated, multimodal, countywide trans- federal procedural rules of each fund source. As part of portation system, and VTA is committed to improving the VTP update, the BEP projects list will be reviewed bicycling conditions that will benefit all users 7 days per and re-adopted approximately every four years as part of week and 24 hours per day, enabling people of all ages to the VTP process. In May 2013, VTA Board of Directors bike to work, school, errands, and for recreation. adopted the BEP Project List (Table 2.7a, Figure 2.6). The BEP was first adopted by the VTA Board of The process for developing the BEP Project List involves Directors in 2000 as a financially constrained list of two main steps: 1) Developing a master list of projects, projects with a ten-year funding horizon. BEP projects and 2) Constraining the master list to the financial con- are solicited from Member Agencies and evaluated by a straints of the VTP. Per the BEP Policies, the projects committee consisting of BPAC members and VTA staff. were divided into two categories: The development of the BEP is guided by the Board- • Category 1—greater than or equal to 50 points adopted Policies and Evaluation Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Flood Report
    FLOODING REPORT (FINAL) COYOTE CREEK, UVAS CREEK, SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, AND WEST LITTLE LLAGAS CREEK JANAURY AND FEBRUARY OF 2017 Prepared by the Hydraulics, Hydrology, and Geomorphology Unit November 2017 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS John L. Varela, Chair District 1 Nai Hsueh District 5 Barbara F. Keegan District 2 Tony Estremera District 6 Richard P. Santos, Vice Chair District 3 Gary Kremen District 7 Linda J. LeZotte District 4 CONTENTS WINTER SEASON SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 JANUARY 6TH THRU 9TH STORM ..................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW & WEATHER ................................................................................................................................ 2 FLOODING – JANUARY 8th ............................................................................................................................. 4 UVAS CREEK .............................................................................................................................................. 4 WEST LITTLE LLAGAS CREEK ...................................................................................................................... 6 FEBRUARY 6th AND 7th STORM ...................................................................................................................... 9 OVERVIEW & WEATHER ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Administrative Draft
    Section 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 3.11 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion evaluates existing cultural and paleontological resources and the environmental effects of implementation of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: • Cultural Resources Existing Setting, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, Basin Research Associates, July 2009. • Cultural Resources Impacts, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, Basin Research Associates, November 2010. • Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, C. Bruce Hanson, September 2010. Copies of these reports are included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft PEIR (Appendix J). 3.11.1 Existing Setting 3.11.1.1 Overview Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater, and have significance in the history, prehistory153, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California, or local or tribal communities. Examples of historic resources include buildings (e.g., houses, factories, churches, hotels); structures (e.g., bridges, dams); districts (i.e., a group of buildings or structures that have a common basis in history or architecture); sites (e.g., prehistoric or historic encampments); objects (e.g., statues, ships, marquees); and areas (e.g., historic mining towns, parks). Cultural resources may include homes, buildings or old roads of early settlers; structures with unique architecture; prehistoric village sites; historic or prehistoric artifacts or objects; rock inscriptions; human burial sites; and earthworks, such as canals or prehistoric mounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 1 – So Santa Clara County Fds SOC Study Report – Final
    This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the South Santa Clara County Fire District Standards of Coverage Assessment—Volume 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 of 2 – Technical Report (this volume) Section Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework ........................................................................................................................ 1 Overall Deployment Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Challenge #1—Daily Staffing Capacity ..................................................................................................... 3 Challenge #2—Fire Station Locations ....................................................................................................... 4 Challenge #3—Mutual Aid Isolation ......................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 5 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Section 1—Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D: Biological Resources Supporting Data
    City of Morgan Hill - Citywide Agriculture Preservation Program and Southeast Quadrant Land Use Plan Draft EIR Appendix D: Biological Resources Supporting Data Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\2086\20860001\4 - Draft EIR\20860001 Sec99-00 Appendix Dividers.doc Biological Resources Supporting Information Citywide Agriculture Preservation Program and Southeast Quadrant Land Use Plan City of Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California Prepared for: Community Development Department 17575 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408.778.6480 Contact: Rebecca Tolentino, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 2540 N. First Street, Suite 290 San Jose, CA 95131 Contact: Angela McIntire, Biologist February 22, 2013 Multiple Occurrences per Page California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database Ambystoma californiense Element Code: AAAAA01180 California tiger salamander Listing Status: Federal: Threatened CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3 State: Threatened State: S2S3 Other: DFG_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable Habitat: General: CENTRAL VALLEY DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED. SANTA BARBARA & SONOMA COUNTIES DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS ENDANGERED. Micro: NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL BURROWS & VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER SOURCES FOR BREEDING Occurrence No. 42 Map Index: 10819 EO Index: 28422 Element Last Seen: 1981-01-20 Occ. Rank: None Presence: Extirpated Site Last Seen: 1981-01-20 Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2001-11-14 Quad Summary: Morgan Hill (3712126) County Summary: Santa Clara Lat/Long: 37.14883 / -121.66995 Accurracy: 1 mile UTM: Zone-10 N4112210 E618114 Elevation (ft): 340 PLSS: T09S, R03W, Sec. 17 (M) Acres: 0.0 Location: MADRONE. Detailed Location: Ecological: General: MVZ 31854 COLLECTED 3 MAY 1931.
    [Show full text]
  • Wine Map Cover Inside Back Cover
    BAY AREA WINE TASTING WINE TRAIL 20 19 LEARN EXPLORE AND IMMERSE Just a short drive By the early 1900’s, Our winemakers are producing from Silicon Valley with over expansion, globally recognized wines, winning and Santa Cruz in the Great Depression, medals for best of class, gold and a lush valley between Prohibition and then silver as well as being honored as the Santa Cruz Mountains Phylloxera, over 10,000 having some of the top wines in the and the Diablo Mountain acres vanished. In 1910, over state. Range sits the Wineries of half the wineries were gone. Expect to taste an array of wines, Santa Clara Valley, an Those families with deep roots from traditional Santa Clara Valley association of over thirty endured, and within time, Zinfandel and Carignane to grapes wineries representing the winemaking made a roaring from the French regions of first premier wine production comeback. Burgandy (Pinot Noir & region in California. In 1989, the Santa Clara Valley Chardonnay), Bordeaux (Cabernet The history of the Santa Clara was designated a distinct Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc & Valley dates back to the 1700s American Viticultural Area Merlot) and Rhone (Viognier, when Spanish padres first (AVA) which also includes two Grenache and Syrah) as well as arrived. Seeing snarls of native smaller AVAs, Pacheco Pass Italian varietals such as Charbono grapevines along the creeks AVA and San Ysidro District and Sangiovese - all proudly and valleys was a sign that AVA. exhibiting a spectacular blend of COME FOR THE DAY OR their grape cuttings would In 2014, the 30 mile Santa microclimate, geography and history.
    [Show full text]
  • Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment – Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation
    PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy March 27, 2018 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy, Planning Division Susan O’Strander, Planning Manager 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel 408 846‐0451 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Stuart Poulter, MCRP, Associate Planner [email protected] March 27, 2018 This document was produced on recycled paper. Community Development Department Planning Division (408) 846-0440 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 City File Number: Z 16‐02 Project Description: Name of Project: Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment – Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation Nature of Project: The proposed project includes four components: 1) Changing the planned Hecker Pass Highway and Third Street intersection from a standard intersection to a one-lane roundabout; 2) Addition of a Class I bike path south of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152); 3) Changes to specific plan language related to fencing within the Hecker Pass Highway setback corridor, as well as other fencing restriction modifications in the specific plan; and 4) Elimination/modification of two specific plan EIR transportation-related
    [Show full text]
  • PLEASE JOIN US for the 2007 BURROWING OWLS CENSUS! "Tear up Your Field Guide and Paste It Back Together: What DNA Sequences
    Only Copy Please Do Not Remove The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society May - June 2007 PLEASE JOIN US FOR THE 2007 BURROWING OWLS CENSUS! Annual Potluck by Ruth Troetschler of the current statewide population Dinner at resides in these areas? As those of you who have read the last two issues oftheAvo­ c) How has the statewide McClellan Ranch cet know that protecting the Burrowing Owl locally has proven population changed since 1993 to be a difficult task, It is no surprise then, that the Burrowing Park when the last IBP census was Owl is a California Species of Special Concern. In order to completed? How has the state­ see Page 5 help protect our favorite owl via changes in the law, we need wide distribution of the species more data-change always requires data. changed, and what hav.e been the trajectories of the various Again this year, the Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) is sub-populations in the state's constituent regions? continues its state-wide , volunteer-based survey to assess Bur­ rowing Owl distribution and abundance throughout the entire How The Survey Works breeding range of the species in California-including the 1PMhas divided the BUOWs California range into 11 geo­ Great Basin and desert areas . In order to do this they need the graphic regions, and then subdivided each region into 5-km by help of dedicated volunteers and volunteer coordinators from 5-km census blocks. 1PM selects a random sample of census Audubon Society chapters and other birding groups, to census blocks within each region, and then augment the sample with BUOWs throughout the state, to provide regional and statewide blocks that contain known Burrowing Owls breeding sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for Santa Clara County Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants August 2016 SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 14700 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Prepared by SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 60 Stone Pine Road Half Moon Bay, CA, 94019 Telephone: (650) 440-4160 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 33985 August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) acknowledges the efforts of the CWPP Core Team, who without their ongoing contributions, expertise and commitment to wildfire preparedness in Santa Clara County, this CWPP would not have been developed. SWCA Environmental Consultants i August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan This page intentionally left blank SWCA Environmental Consultants ii August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan SIGNATORY PAGE (Placeholder) SWCA Environmental Consultants iii August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan This page intentionally left blank SWCA Environmental Consultants iv August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildfire continues to be a threat to communities across the United States; in the last few years, most western states have experienced the largest wildfires in their histories. Wildfires with a broad range of sizes and locations have destroyed hundreds of homes; the cost to suppress wildfires across the nation typically exceeds one billion dollars annually. In recognition of this threat, many communities have worked to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans, bringing together many stakeholders to develop strategies to mitigate the occurrence and effects of wildfire.
    [Show full text]
  • Uvas Creek Levee Rehabilitation Project
    Uvas Creek Levee Rehabilitation Project Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration Project No. 62084001 April 2018 Prepared by: Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3614 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................III KEY TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................. IIV SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................... 244 SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ......................................................................25 SECTION 5: REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................86 SECTION 6: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................87 TABLES TABLE 1.1: SUMMARY OF AGENCY APPROVALS ................................................................ 3 TABLE 2.1: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................12 TABLE 2.2: CONSTRUCTION OFF-SITE TRIPS .....................................................................12 TABLE 2.3: CONSTRUCTION HAUL TRIPS
    [Show full text]
  • Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17,1989: Performance of the Built Environment
    The Lorna Prieta, California, Earthquake/ of October 17, 1989-Lifelines ANSHEL J. SCHIFF, Editor PERFORMANCE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Thomas L. Holzer, Coordinator U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1552-A Prepared in cooperation with the National Science Foundation UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1998 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles GoGroat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does no$ imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Manuscript approved for publication, August 5, 1997 Text edited by George A. Havach Library of Congress catalog-card No. 92-32287 For sale by the U. S . Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Pages Modeling the impact of the earthquake on telecommunication services------ 37 By Michael L. Cohen Water and wastewater systems...................................................... 47 By LeVal Lund, John McLaughlin, Curt Edwards, Gordon Laverty, Holly Cornell, Alvin R. Guerrero, Michael Cassaro, Andries Godshack, George Brodt, Donald B. Ballantyne, Ronald Eguchi, Mary Pickett, Omar Abu-Yasein, Chenwun Lay, Anshel J. Schiff, James R. Blacklock, and Steven French Water- and wastewater-treatment plants------ - - - ---------- - ------ - - 79 By William Heuback and Donald B. Ballantyne Lessons learned by water and wastewater utilities-------------------------------- 87 By Mark Pickett and Gordon L. Laverty Transportation systems...............................................................
    [Show full text]