DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 Santa Cruz a B D C G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Selected USGS Stream San Lorenzo River watershed Gaging Stations A. Pescadero Ck SLVWD diversion watershed B. San Lorenzo R. Waterman Switch C. Boulder Ck 40 Isohyetal (in/yr)* D. Zayante Ck Precipitation station used E. Bean Ck F. San Vicente Ck in mapping. G. San Lorenzo R. at Big Trees Selected precip. stations: 1. Lockheed 2. SLVWD Office A 3. Ben Lomond 4 B 4. Santa Cruz 1 C 2Boulder Creek Quail Hollow D Ben 3 Lomond Olympia E Scotts F Valley Felton Pasa- tiempo G P ac if ic O ce an 4 *Contours generalized for estimating 1937-96 average watershed Santa precipitation; adopted from larger map by Geomatrix, 1999. Cruz 012miles SLVWD Water Supply Master Plan NM Johnson Figure 3-1. Isohyetal Map of San Lorenzo Valley Tropical moisture entrained in jet stream. a. Cold Cyclonic Storm b. Warm Advective Storm Figure 3-2 Satellite Images of Typical Pacific Storms Imagery source: www.goes.noaa.gov/ SLVWD Water Supply Master Plan NM Johnson Santa Clara Valley Figure 3-3 Radar Image Showing Influence of Ben Lomond Mountain on Rainfall Distributon Southwest Northeast Average Annual Precipitation (in/yr) <30" 50" 60+" 50" <45" 50+" 30" 25" 15" r Santa Clara Valley Bonny Doon Summit South San Lorenzo Valley Castle Rock San Ben Lomond Mtn. Mt. Bielawski Los San Francisco Gatos Coast Rive San Lorenzo Scotts Jose Bay Valley Santa Cruz Mountains Davenport SLVWD Boulder Ck Santa Cruz Watersheds Ben Lomond Felton Figure 3-4 Schematic Coast-to-South Bay Profile Illustrating Orographic Influence on Rainfall Distribution (adopted from Geomatrix, 1999; see Fig. 3-3 for approximate line of profile) ppt-xsec4.xls Fig 6/7/2007 4:18 AM NM Johnson 25% Ben Lomond 4, WY's 1973-2007 20% Santa Cruz, WY's 1931-2006 Lockheed, WY's 1959-2006 15% nnual Rainfall 10% Percent of Average A Average of Percent 5% 0% Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep a. Comparison of Three Rainfall Stations 25% Average of 3 Rainfall Stations (Table 3-4) Average of 6 Gaged Streams (Table 3-9) 20% 15% nnual Rainfall and Streamflow 10% 5% Percent of Average A Average of Percent 0% Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep b. Rainfall versus Streamflow Figure 3-5 Monthly Average Rainfall and Streamflow, Selected Stations Ppt-SC-LH4.xls Fig-MthAvg 6/7/2007 4:00 AM NM Johnson Percent of Time Rainfall is Less Than 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%40% 30% 20% 100 Max. Rainfall* 10 (inches) Date(s) 1-day 11.5 1/4/82 2-day 16.1 1/4-5/82 3-day 16.1 1/3-5/82 7-day 20.4 2/12-18/86 14-day 22.8 12/18-31/05 21-day 27.2 1/30-2/19/86 30-day 32.7 1/26-2/24/98 1 *Based on daily readings Cumulative Rainfall (inches) Rainfall Cumulative 0.1 1-DAY 2-DAY 3-DAY 7-DAY 14-DAY 21-DAY 30-DAY 0.01 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/dly/DLY Percent of Time Rainfall is Greater Than Figure 3-6 Frequency of Cumulative Daily to Monthly Rainfall at Ben Lomond, 1973-2006 BL4-Daily-Hist2.xls Fig 6/7/2007 4:19 AM NM Johnson 200% Santa Cruz 150% 100% 50% Annual Rainfall (% f avg) f (% Rainfall Annual 0% 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Years 200% Lockheed Facility 150% 100% 50% Annual Rainfall (% f avg) f (% Rainfall Annual 0% 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Years 200% Ben Lomond 4 Years with ≤75% average rainfall Years with 76-90% average rainfall 150% Apparent Santa Cruz upward trend partially explained by likely change(s) in station location pre-1950, as indicated by double mass curve analysis (Geomatrix, 1999). Since 1950, Santa Cruz upward trend continues while Lockheed trend becomes flat. 100% Significance of Ben Lomond upward trend uncertain due to short record length. Source: see Tables 3-1 through 3-4. 50% Annual Rainfall (% f avg) f (% Rainfall Annual 0% Figure 3-7 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water-Year Rainfall at Santa Cruz, Lockheed, and Ben Lomond Staions Water Years Ppt-SC-LH6.xls Fig-WYs 5/18/2009 6:16 AM NM Johnson 225% Santa Cruz 200% Lockheed Ben Lomond 4 175% Maximum for Period 150% 125% 100% Minimum Moving-Average Rainfall (percent of average) for Period 75% 50% 25% 0 5 10 15 20 Length of Moving Average Period (yrs) Moving-Average Minimums* Moving-Average Maximums* Yrs Santa Cruz Lockheed Santa Cruz Lockheed 1 35% 1924 37% 1924 213% 1941 226% 1890 2 52% 1976-77 48% 1976-77 182% 1940-41 189% 1982-83 3 62% 1869-71 53% 1929-31 171% 1940-42 159% 1982-84 *Color-coded by 4 66% 1928-31 59% 1928-31 162% 1940-43 145% 1995-98 common 5 67% 1987-91 62% 1927-31 149% 1940-44 140% 1982-86 overlapping periods. 6 71% 1987-92 63% 1926-31 145% 1938-43 139% 1995-00 7 73% 1869-75 65% 1924-30 141% 1937-43 130% 1995-01 8 74% 1924-31 62% 1924-31 138% 1936-43 127% 1995-02 9 74% 1869-77 65% 1923-31 133% 1937-45 123% 1978-86 10 77% 1868-77 66% 1922-31 131% 1936-45 123% 1965-74 12 78% 1869-80 69% 1921-31 126% 1995-06 122% 1995-06 Figure 3-8 14 79% 1918-31 67% 1920-31 123% 1993-06 118% 1993-06 Minimum and Maximum Moving- 16 80% 1916-31 69% 1919-21 122% 1937-52 116% 1969-84 20 80% 1869-88 72% 1916-35 117% 1937-56 116% 1967-86 Average Rainfall Ppt-SC-LH4.xls FigMvAvg 6/7/2007 4:01 AM NM Johnson 200% 100% 1917-37 Drought 0% 1987-94 1975-77 Drought Drought -100% Pre-1890 Drought -200% Average (% of average) -300% -400% -500% Cumulative Departure from Departure Cumulative Lockheed (entire record) Drought = downward segments -600% Santa Cruz (since 1889) Average period = flat segments Santa Cruz (entire record) Wet period = upward segments -700% 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Years Figure 3-9 Water-Year Rainfall Cumulative Departure from Average Ppt-SC-LH6.xls FigCumDepAvg 5/18/2009 6:17 AM NM Johnson 8 3 8 Source: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/info.jsp 6 Monthly CIMIS Reference Evapotranspiration for Santa Cruz County Zones ) Zone 1 -- Coastal Fog Belt Zone 2 --Coastal Mixed Fog 5 Zone 3 -- Coastal Valleys 4 3 2 1 Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo, inches 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-10 CIMIS Reference Evapotranspiration for Central Coast Region CIMIS Map2.xls CentralCoast 6/7/2007 4:20 AM 1 Pilarcitos Ck at Half Moon Bay 17 Carbonera Ck at Scotts Valley 2 Purisima Ck near Half Moon Bay 18 Branciforte Ck at Santa Cruz 3 San Gregorio Ck at San Gregorio 19 West Br. Soquel Ck near Soquel 4 Pescadero Ck near Pescadero 20 Soquel Ck near Soquel Palo 5 Butano Ck near Pescadero 21 Soquel Ck at Soquel Alto 6a Scott Ck above Little Ck 22 Aptos Ck near Aptos 6b Scott Ck near Davenport 23 Aptos Ck at Aptos 7 San Vicente Ck near Davenport 24 Corralitos Ck near Corralitos 8 Laguna Ck near Davenport 25 Corralitos Ck at Freedom 9 Majors Ck near Santa Cruz 26 San Francisquito Ck at Stanford University 10 San Lorenzo R at Waterman Switch 27 Saratoga Ck at Saratoga 11 Boulder Ck at Boulder Creek 28 Los Gatos Ck at Los Gatos 12 Bear Ck at Boulder Creek 29 Guadalupe Ck at Guadalupe 13 Newell Ck at Ben Lomond 30 Uvas Ck above Uvas Res near Morgan Hill 14 Zayante Ck at Zayante 31 Bodfish Ck near Gilroy 15 Bean Ck near Scotts Valley 32 Pescadero Ck near Chittenden 16 San Lorenzo River at Big Trees (See Table 3-8 for summary of gaged records) Los Gatos P Morgan a c Hill ifi c O c e a n SLVWD Diversions Davenport Figure 3-11 USGS Gaged Watersheds in Santa the Santa Cruz Mountains Region Cruz (adopted from Geomatrix, 1999) 30 Ben Lomond Mtn Adjusted to 1937-1996 average (Table 3-8) SLVWD diversion watershed estimate* Quail Hollow Zaynte Soils 25 Soil-Water Budget Estimates (Table 3-6) Laguna Carbonera Ben Lomond Boulder 20 Scott above Little San Vicente Bean Uvas SLRBT WB SoquelMajors Scott Soquel at SqLos Gatos Saratoga 15 Branciforte Bear Zayante Butano Corralitos at Cor Newell Soquel SLR at Waterman Switch Apots near Aptos near Sq Guadalupe Pescadero San Gregorio Purisima 10 Aptos at Aptos San Francisquito Santa Cruz Corralitos at Fdm Pilarcitos Watershed Average Unit Streamflow (in/yr) Bodfish 5 Pescadero 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 *Adopted from Geomatrix, 1999. Watershed Average Rainfall (in/yr) See Figure 3-11 for map of gaged watersheds. Figure 3-12 Correlation Between Estimated Mean Annual Rainfall and Unit Streamflow for USGS Gaged Streams in the Santa Cruz Mountains Region ppt-q-4.xls Fig 6/7/2007 4:12 AM NM Johnson 300% San Lorenzo River at Big Trees* 250% 200% 150% 100% Annual Streamflow (% f avg) 50% 0% 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 *Adjusted (Table 3-9) Water Years 400% Pescadero Creek 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% Annual Streamflow (% f avg) 100% 50% 0% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Years Years with ≤50% average streamflow Years with 50-90% average streamflow Figure 3-13 Water-Year Streamflow of San Lorenzo River and Pescadero Creek Source: see Table 3-10.
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.............................................................................................
  • Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

    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
  • San Lorenzo Urban River Plan

    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.
  • Central Coast

    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 ..............................................................................................
  • Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952

    Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952

    Our Mission The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and xquisite sandstone Castle Rock education of the people of California by helping E to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological State Park diversity, protecting its most valued natural and formations and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. sculpted caves are among the treasured features within this California State Parks supports equal access. park’s vast wilderness. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at (408) 867-2952. If you need this publication in an alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952 © 2011 California State Parks (Rev. 2017) C astle Rock State Park is a place of The Smead and Partridge farms were abundant solitude, wilderness, high cliffs, the largest operations on the ridge, with and sweeping vistas. Unique patterns on orchards of apples, pears, walnuts, and weathered sandstone, lush forests, and grapes. Near the park’s interpretive shelter, stream-fed canyons make up the park’s heritage trees planted in the early 1900s diverse features. still bear fruit. From one of the highest ridges in the Creation of the Park Santa Cruz Mountains, visitors enjoy Judge Joseph Welch of Santa Clara Valley panoramic views of Monterey Bay.
  • San Mateo County

    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).
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California

    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.
  • Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail Statement of Significance

    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
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising

    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
  • 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

    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.
  • Understanding the San Lorenzo River Watershed by Lee Summers

    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.
  • 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

    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).