DOCSLIB.ORG

LINAC Coherent Light Source-II Environmental Assessment (DOE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LINAC Coherent Light Source-II Environmental Assessment (DOE LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE‐II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DOE/EA‐1975) SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 2575 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, California 94025 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science July 2014 Cover Photo: SLAC’s Undulator Hall Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 SLAC Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Existing LCLS Facilities ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Proposed Action Overview ........................................................................................................ 1-7 1.4 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................... 1-7 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Equipment and Installation ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1.1 Equipment Dismantling and Removal ........................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1.2 Injector ........................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.1.3 Accelerator ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.1.4 Cryogenic Plant .............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.1.5 Beam Transport/Bypass ................................................................................................. 2-9 2.1.1.6 X-ray Production and Delivery (Undulators) ................................................................. 2-9 2.1.1.7 Changes to Existing LCLS Facilities ............................................................................. 2-9 2.1.2 Cryogenic Component Fabrication and Installation......................................................... 2-10 2.1.2.1 Fabrication ................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.1.2.2 Cryogenic Plant Construction ...................................................................................... 2-10 2.1.3 Other Site Improvements ................................................................................................. 2-11 2.1.4 Excavated Material Handling and Disposal ..................................................................... 2-12 2.1.5 Schedule and Work Force ................................................................................................ 2-12 2.1.6 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 2-13 2.1.6.1 Hazardous Materials Management ............................................................................... 2-13 2.1.6.2 Environmental Sustainability Practices ........................................................................ 2-14 2.1.7 Decommissioning............................................................................................................. 2-15 2.1.8 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ........................................................................... 2-15 2.1.9 Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................................... 2-17 2.2 No Action ................................................................................................................................. 2-17 2.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................................... 2-18 2.3.1 Add Capacity to LCLS ..................................................................................................... 2-18 2.3.2 Build LCLS-II at a “Green Field” SLAC Location.......................................................... 2-18 2.3.3 Build LCLS-II at Another DOE Site ................................................................................ 2-18 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 Regional Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Environmental Assessment Methodology.................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 3-5 3.4.1.1 Criteria Pollutants .......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.1.2 Conformity ..................................................................................................................... 3-7 LCLS-II Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Contents (continued) 3.4.1.3 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants .......................................... 3-8 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.4.2.1 No Action ....................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.5 Biological Resources................................................................................................................ 3-10 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-11 3.5.1.1 Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats .................................................................................... 3-11 3.5.1.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.5.1.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.5.1.4 Fisheries ....................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.5.1.5 Biological Resources at Component Fabrication Sites ................................................ 3-15 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-15 3.5.2.1 No Action ..................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.5.2.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 3-15 3.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-20 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-22 3.6.2.1 No Action ..................................................................................................................... 3-22 3.6.2.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 3-22 3.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-24 3.7.1.1 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.7.1.2 Soils .............................................................................................................................. 3-26 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.2.1 No Action ..................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.2.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 3-26 3.8 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-28 3.8.1.1 Occupational Safety ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LEHIGH PERMANENTE QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No
    Volume 2: Appendices Final LEHIGH PERMANENTE QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2010042063 Mine ID No. 91-43-0004 Santa Clara County May 2012 Department of Planning & Development Planning Office Volume 2: Appendices Final LEHIGH PERMANENTE QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2010042063 Mine ID No. 91-43-0004 Santa Clara County May 2012 Department of Planning & Development Planning Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Lehigh Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment Final EIR Page Volume 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 2. Introduction to Comments and Responses ............................................................ 2-1 3. Response to Comments ........................................................................................ 3.1-1 3.1 Master Responses ............................................................................................. 3.1-1 3.2 Responses to Written Comments from Public Agencies .................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Responses to Written Comments from Organizations ....................................... 3.3-1 3.4 Responses to Written Comments from the Public ............................................. 3.4-1 3.5 Responses to Oral Comments ........................................................................... 3.5-1 3.6 References .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Registered Employers As of January 25, 2021
    Registered Employers as of January 25, 2021 10X Genomics, Inc. 11 Main, Inc. 129th Rescue Wing, California Air National Guard (Moffett ANG) 1300 Battery dba Fog City 18th Street Commissary Inc 1Life Healthcare, Inc. 1ST CLASS LAUNDRY 1st Northern California Credit Union 1st United Services Credit Union 21st Amendment Brewery Cafe LLC 23andMe 24 Hour Fitness Usa, Inc. 24/7 Customer, Inc. 2K Games, Inc. 3k Technologies, LLC 3Q Digital 3rd Street Collaborative LLC 4 Leaf Inc 4Cs of Alameda County 5 Star Pool Plaster Inc 500 Startups Management Company LLC 6sense Insights, Inc. 7-Eleven, Inc. 85°C Bakery Cafe 8x8 99designs, Inc. A Better Way, Inc. A Is For Apple, Inc. A Runner's Mind A&B Painting West, Inc. A. Diamond Production, Inc. A. T. Kearney, Inc. A.I.J.J. Enterprises, Inc. A^3 by Airbus A-1 Express Delivery Service A-1 JAYS MACHINING INC A10 Networks, Inc. A9.com A-A Lock & Alarm Inc AAA Business Supplies Limited Partnership AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah AAA Sizzle Aap3 Inc AB Sciex LLC Abaxis, Inc. ABB Optical Group Abbott Laboratories Abbott Stringham & Lynch Abbvie Inc Abbyy USA Software House, Inc. Abco Laboratories, Inc. ABD INSURANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ABF Freight System, Inc. ABI Abilities United AbilityPath Able Exterminators, Inc Able Services About, Inc Acalanes Union High School District Accel Management Company Inc Accela, Inc. AccelBiotech, Inc. Accellion Inc. Accentcare, Inc. Accenture LLP Access Information Protected Access Public Relations LLC Acco Brands Corporation Acco Engineered Systems, Inc. ACCO Management Company Accretive Solutions, Inc. Accuray Incorporated Ace Charter School Acer America Corporation AchieveKids Achievers LLC Achronix Semiconductor Corp Acme Bread Co Acme Press, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared by Participants in December 1988 This Report Is Preliminary And
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS VOLUME XXVII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM December 1988 OPEN-FILE REPORT 88-673 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S.Geological Survey editorial standards Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. Menlo Park, California 1988 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS VOLUME XXVII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on October 15, 1988 and cover the period from May 1, 1988 through October 1, 1988. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the five major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 88-673 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS edi­ torial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research.
    [Show full text]
  • PATRICK O. SHIRES President Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer
    CURRICULUM VITAE - PATRICK O. SHIRES President Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer Senior Principal Geophysicist Current Address COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, California 95030 Phone: (408) 354-5542, FAX: (408) 354-1852 Web site: www.cottonshires.com, email: [email protected] Registration Registered Geotechnical Engineer in California, Registered Geophysicist in California Registered Professional Civil Engineer in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Education M.S., Civil Engineering: Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1975 B.S., Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1972 Representative Experience As Senior Principal in Charge of all CSA civil and geotechnical engineering projects, Mr. Shires’s responsibilities range from investigation, analysis and product review to final design participation and project management for large projects. Mr. Shires remains actively involved in the engineering investigation, design, construction, and review for technical investigations. In addition, he is qualified as an expert witness in Civil/Geotechnical Engineering and has testified at over 80 trials and binding arbitrations as an expert witness, including trials resulting in landmark legal decisions involving natural watercourse, earth movement and construction dispute issues. Mr. Shires has over 41 years of professional experience in the fields of civil and geotechnical engineering throughout the western United States. In the early part of his career, he supervised the technical investigation and engineering analyses for many water and wastewater treatment and distribution facilities, dams, nuclear- and fossil-fuel power plant and high-rise building sites throughout the western United States. He investigated over 50 dam sites and was the chief design engineer for a 160-foot high rockfill dam in Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • R-18-127 Meeting 18-37 November 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM
    R-18-127 Meeting 18-37 November 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Update on Actions of Mutual Interest taken by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Lehigh Hanson Heidelberg Cement during the Past Year GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation from the President of West Region - Lehigh Hanson Heidelberg Cement. No formal Board action required. SUMMARY In August 2014, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) agreed to dismiss its judicial appeal challenging Lehigh Southwest Cement Company’s (Lehigh) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in exchange for various public benefits described herein, and based on actions to protect air and water quality, and restore the scenic viewshed (R-14-98, attached). One of the important conditions of the settlement was an agreement for the District and Lehigh to participate going forward in regular, open public meetings regarding opportunities and issues of mutual concern. Two meetings were held in 2015: on May 27 and October 14. No meetings were held in 2016. The last meeting occurred on May 10, 2017. Mr. Daniel Fritz, President of the West Region - Lehigh Hanson Heidelberg Cement, will provide a presentation and answer questions on recent and upcoming site improvements, as well as ongoing and future planned operations. DISCUSSION The Board received presentations from the former President of Lehigh (Mr. Kari Saragusa), on May 27, 2015 (R-15-84), October 14, 2015 (R-15-147), and May 10, 2017 (R-17-55). On November 14, 2018, Mr. Daniel Fritz, will present actions taken by Lehigh over the past year that may be of interest to the District and the community.
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING the DEMAND Material Producers See Uptick in Work Pgs
    OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 3 Vol. 74 #5/MAY 2016 MEETING THE DEMAND Material producers see uptick in work pgs. 12-17 Primary Election endorsements pgs. 27-29 New website is here! pg. 5 NEW THIS MONTH Luis Rivera delivers material for SEE PAGE 12 ...................A smooth operation For The Good & Welfare Graniterock in Redwood City. 16 14 ........... The rock the middle-class By Russ Burns, business manager is built on 27-29 ...................Primary Election endorsements Facebook, new website go live this month I recently came across an article discussing the $13 by these kinds of trials. We must be prepared, and stay EVERY MONTH billion settlement paid out by banking giant JP Morgan informed. 4 .............................. News & Notes Chase and the more than $5 billion paid out from Goldman One of the ways you can do that is by visiting our new Sachs in an attempt to amend the damage they caused to website at www.oe3.org, where you’ll enjoy a very different 4 ........................ Worth Mentioning the U.S. economy in 2008. experience from our previous version. You can check-out Nearly everyone lost a home or job, took a cut in pay or new photos, read several decades’ worth of Engineers News 5 .........................................Unit 12 watched savings deplete thanks to the stock market crisis and get easier access to important information by browsing caused by these greedy bankers and others like them who through the site or signing in to our Members Only side. 6 ............................. Fringe Benefits were involved in the biggest mortgage-fraud scandal our One day, members may have the ability to update their 6 .............................................ATPA nation has ever endured.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 8, 2021 – 7:00 P.M
    CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 – 7:00 P.M. Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference only. Members of the Public may join and participate in the Council meeting at https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1480318380 TO COMMENT DURING THE MEETING members of the public will need to join the meeting using the above link and have a working microphone on their device. To request to speak please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen. Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. TO LISTEN to the City Council Meeting, members of the public may call 1-650-242-4929 (Meeting ID: 148 031 8380). Please note that members of the public who call in using the telephone number will NOT be able to provide public comments. TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS, prior to the meeting, on matters listed on the agenda email [email protected] with the subject line in the following format: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE. Correspondence must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure it can be distributed prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. Please follow this link for more information on submitting written comments. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ESTABLISH QUORUM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION SPECIAL ITEMS • Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Presentation by Board President Curt Riffle • Ending Homelessness Presentation (J.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMER 2010 Greenfootnotes Committee for Green Foothills When Is “Green” Not Green?
    SUMMER 2010 greenfootnotes COmmiTTee FOr Green FOOThiLLs www.GreenFoothills.org When is “Green” not Green? Pillar Point Harbor Proposed site for the Wetlands Big Wave Offi ce Park and Wellness Center Fitzgerald Marine Reserve By Lennie roberts of “green” thinking. This is not an infill site, and the “Saltworks” 30,000 new residents would add tremendous strain to an already o-called “green” developments are not at all “green” if they are out of gridlocked Highway 101 and Woodside Road. Extraordinary sscale, poorly designed, located in sensitive habitats such as wetlands, measures will be necessary to protect future residents from ordi- situated in hazardous locations such as fl oodplains, or consume precious nary flooding, to say nothing of future sea level rise. The developer prime agricultural land. In fact, such projects could well give the bur- recently announced a deal to transfer water from the Kern River to geoning green building movement a bad name. Redwood City for this project. Such a transfer could potentially On the coast, the 225,000 sq. ft . Big Wave Offi ce Park and 70-unit Big involve blending Delta water with the Bay Area’s pristine Hetch Wave Wellness Center propose an impressive array of “green” features, Hetchy water. This could be a significant adverse impact to all including alternative energy systems, on-site wastewater treatment/ 2 million customers of the Hetch Hetchy system. recycling/disposal systems, and restoration of wetlands. Its sponsors are Big Wave and the Redwood City Saltworks mini-city are two huge seeking LEED* Platinum certifi cation. projects located in the wrong places and it’s relatively easy to see their Yet Big Wave is hardly a green project.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Class Guide Page 24
    www.PaloAltoOnline.com 6°Ê888]Ê ÕLiÀÊÎÓÊUÊ>ÞÊ££]ÊÓä£ÓÊN xäZ Summer Class Guide Page 24 With voting districts redrawn, June’s primary election heats up page 28 Pulse 16 Spectrum 18 Eating Out 36 Movies 38 Home 45 Puzzles 70 NNews From art to lawn bowling: fee hikes proposed Page 3 NArts Bringing out gold in the foothills Page 33 NSports Senior swimmers take their fi nal bows Page 40 ')(% %%" %$" ! % * + " ! ! " & ! #% thank you!!$$ ! !$#%%" ! !! !%! !" !"! #"$!"% " Page 2ÊUÊ>ÞÊ££]ÊÓä£ÓÊUÊ*>ÊÌÊ7iiÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*>Ì"i°V UpfrontLocal news, information and analysis Palo Alto looks to raise fees for artist studios, athletic fields $300,000 over the past year, while proposed budget for 2013 includes a opposition, animal lovers aren’t the City also considers charging more for community gardens the city’s contribution for retirees’ $3.1 million increase in revenues, it only residents who could feel an im- and adding fees for lawn bowling medical care will jump by $1.9 mil- also includes a $3.9 million hike in pact should the City Council adopt by Gennady Sheyner lion in fiscal year 2013, according to expenditures. the proposed budget. Lalo Perez, the city’s chief financial Perhaps the most dramatic, and The council’s Finance Commit- aced with skyrocketing pen- ter to balance the budget this year. officer. controversial proposal, in Keene’s tee considered on Tuesday night the sion and health care costs for The fee increases are included in The spiking expenditures are effort to curb costs is elimination budget for the Community Services F city workers and retirees, Palo City Manager James Keene’s budget casting a shadow over good news on of the city’s animal-services opera- Department and heard protests from Alto officials are considering rais- for fiscal year 2013, which begins the revenue front — namely, the fact tion, a move that finance officials more than a dozen residents, in- ing fees for athletes who play on July 1.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Saratoga General Plan 2040
    Administrative Draft - July 15, 2020 City of Saratoga General Plan 2040 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 WHAT IS A CIRCULATION ELEMENT? A Circulation Element is one of seven required elements of a City or County’s General Plan. It identifies the proposed location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use element of the plan1. The Circulation Element plans for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the suburban or urban context of the General Plan. Saratoga’s transportation system is comprised of roadways, bikeways, sidewalks and trails, transit facilities and services, and rail lines. The Circulation Element addresses all travel modes and includes the goals, policies, and implementation measures that guide the development and maintenance of Saratoga’s transportation system. Scenic highway designations and corridor preservation issues are also addressed by this element. 1.2 WHY UPDATE THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT? Over the last twenty years, Saratoga has not seen significant changes in its transportation system, and traffic volumes have nominally increased by approximately five percent. Population trends within Saratoga are expected to be relatively unchanged over the planning period and therefore, future travel demand will be generated by redevelopment, in-fill projects, and additional through traffic. Thus, the primary goal of the Circulation Element is to manage and improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system while planning for future growth and changes in transportation trends and technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Quarries by ALICE KAUFMAN and LENNIE ROBERTS
    GREENFOOTHILLS.ORG WINTER 2013 greenCOMMITTEE FORfootnotes GREEN FOOTHILLS A Tale of Two Quarries BY ALICE KAUFMAN AND LENNIE ROBERTS PILARCITOS QUARRY LEHIGH PERMANENTE QUARRY PILARCITOS QUARRY creek during the dry season for the benefit of endangered The Pilarcitos Quarry, located off Highway 92 in Nuff steelhead trout and other species. (See sidebar on page 4 for a Canyon, three miles east of Half Moon Bay, is a granite quarry complete description of Pilarcitos Quarry’s environmental that produces rock, sand and gravel (called “aggregate” in the mitigations.) construction industry). Although Pilarcitos Quarry has been Pilarcitos Quarry’s expansion was approved by the County in operation since 1933 and thus predates San Mateo County’s Planning Commission in January 2012, and no environmental permit requirements, the quarry has always obtained the groups or public agencies appealed their decision. necessary county permits rather than arguing that it has a LEHIGH PERMANENTE QUARRY vested right to mine without local permits. The Lehigh Permanente Quarry is located in Santa Clara When the Pilarcitos Quarry proposed expansion of the County, in the foothills next to Cupertino, directly south of existing quarry, the owners contacted CGF and asked for Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The quarry produces advice. Their initial plan was to expand quarry operations limestone aggregate and also operates a cement plant. throughout the pristine upper canyon, which would have Because of the high levels of mercury and selenium present committed the entire 588-acre property to mining. Due to in the limestone at the quarry site, Lehigh’s operations result concerns CGF and agencies had over impacts on wildlife and in significant mercury air emissions from the cement plant and sensitive habitats, the quarry revised their plan to limit expansion selenium discharges to Permanente Creek, which runs through to a much smaller 107-acre footprint.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Andreas and San Gregorio Fault Systems in San Mateo County Selected Field Trip Destinations in the Northern Santa Cruz Mountains and Along the Coast
    The San Andreas and San Gregorio Fault Systems in San Mateo County Selected Field Trip Destinations in the Northern Santa Cruz Mountains and Along the Coast Trip Highlights: San Andreas Fault along the I-280 and Skyline Boulevard corridor, and at Mussel Rock Park; Calero Limestone at Rockaway State Beach; Devil’s Slide; Montara Mountain granite; Seal Cove Fault, the San Gregorio Fault System, and geologic structures exposed along the coast at Montara State Beach, James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and at Pillar Point on Half Moon Bay This field trip focuses on the geology in the northern Santa Cruz Mountains and the coast in San Mateo County. Selected stops highlight landscape features and bedrock along the San Andreas and San Gregorio fault zones, and other localities that reveal information about the geologic evolution of the landscape. The field trip follows a loop route that begins near Crystal Springs Reservoir on I-280. The route follows I-280 and Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) north, then follows Highway 1 south along the San Mateo Coast before returning east on Highway 92. back to I-280. Figure 8-1. Map of the Peninsula showing major faults in the northern Santa Cruz Mountains in San Mateo County. Stops include: A) I-280 Vista Point, 1) Filoli Center, 2) Pulgas Water Temple, 3) Crystal Springs Dam, 4) I-280 Rest Area, 5) Milagro Ridge, 6) Mussel Rock Park, 7) Pacifica Quarry, 8) San Pedro Mountain and Devil’s Slide, 9) Montara Mountain, 10) Montara Beach, 11) James V. Fitzgerald Marine Preserve, 12) Half Moon Bay Airport, and 13) Pillar Point and Mavericks.
    [Show full text]