DOCSLIB.ORG

Peninsulawatershed-MP 2002.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Peninsulawatershed-MP 2002.Pdf Peninsula Watershed Management Plan prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities CCommission prepared by EDAW, Inc. in association with Environmental Science Associates Montgomery Watson Public Affairs Management Wildland Resource Management Spring 2002 A-1 P E N I N S U L A W A T E R S H E D M A N A G E M E N T P L A N TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Vision ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Management Plan Organization .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Appendices .................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.2 Plan Elements ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 History and Organization of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission ........ 1-5 1.3.1 History ....................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Organization .............................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 SFPUC Water System.......................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.1 Regional Location ...................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2 Water System Overview ............................................................................. 1-8 1.4.3 Alameda Watershed .................................................................................... 1-10 1.4.4 Peninsula Watershed ................................................................................ 1-11 1.5 Planning Process.................................................................................................. 1-15 1.6 Peninsula Watershed Plan Description ................................................................. 1-18 2.0 Existing Conditions and Resource Sensitivity 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.7 Fisheries ............................................................................................................... 2-12 2.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 2-12 2.9 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 2-14 2.10 Fire Hazard ....................................................................................................... 2-16 2.11 Land Status and Adjacent Uses ......................................................................... 2-16 2.12 Transportation and Access ................................................................................. 2-19 2.13 Utilities .............................................................................................................. 2-19 2.14 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 2-20 2.15 Recreation .......................................................................................................... 2-20 2.16 Other Watershed Activities .................................................................................. 2-21 2.17 Revenue Generation .......................................................................................... 2-21 2.18 Existing Codes and Regulations ......................................................................... 2-21 2.18.1 Environmental Review .......................................................................... 2-21 2.18.2 Other Relevant Codes & Regulations ................................................... 2-24 2.19 Related Projects and Studies .............................................................................. 2-25 Final Spring 2002 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S i P E N I N S U L A W A T E R S H E D M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 3.0 Watershed Management Issues 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Water Supply ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Natural and Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 3-5 3.5 Fire and Safety .................................................................................................... 3-8 3.6 Watershed Activities.............................................................................................. 3-9 3.7 Fiscal ................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.8 Public Awareness and Agency Participation ......................................................... 3-13 4.0 Watershed Management Goals and Policies 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.2 Water Quality (WQ) ........................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.3 Water Supply (WS) ............................................................................................. 4.3-1 4.4 Vegetation (V)..................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Wildlife (W) ......................................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.6 Aquatic Resources (AR) ..................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.7 Cultural Resources (CR) .................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Fire (F) .............................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4.9 Safety and Security (S) ...................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.10 Watershed Activities (WA) ................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 Administration and Finance (AF) ....................................................................... 4.11-1 4.12 Public Awareness and Agency Participation (PA) ............................................... 4.12-1 5.0 Watershed Management Actions and Guidelines 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5.1-1 5.2 Stormwater (sto)................................................................................................ 5.2-1 5.3 Hazardous Materials and Contaminants (haz) .................................................. 5.3-1 SFPUC Facilities and Procedures ...................................................................... 5.3-1 Spill Containment and Response ........................................................................ 5.3-2 Coordination and Collaboration ........................................................................ 5.3-3 5.4 Waste - Human and Animal (was) .................................................................... 5.4-1 SFPUC Facilities and Procedures ...................................................................... 5.4-1 Lessees and Non-SFPUC Facilities.................................................................... 5.4-1 Additional Surveys and Monitoring .................................................................... 5.4-2 Coordination and Collaboration ........................................................................ 5.4-2 5.5 Roads (roa) ....................................................................................................... 5.5-1 Assessment and Management of Existing Roads ............................................... 5.5-1 New Roads ........................................................................................................ 5.5-3 5.6 Conservation and Reclamation of Water (con) .................................................. 5.6-1 5.7 Fire Management (fir) ....................................................................................... 5.7-1 Fire Pre-Suppression.......................................................................................... 5.7-2 Fire Defense Improvement................................................................................. 5.7-2 Fuel Management .............................................................................................. 5.7-3 Fire Response..................................................................................................... 5.7-4 Fire Management Plan Implementation ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects
    Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects Highlights, Timelines & FAQs In 2018, work was competed on several interconnected efforts by the County of San Mateo and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to make improvements to the Lower Crystal Springs Dam and replaced the bridge on top of the dam, which allows the re-opening of Skyline Boulevard. Below are some key facts: Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Highlights (SFPUC Project): • Doubling the width of the spillway to 200 feet • Raising the parapet wall on top of the dam by 9 feet • Replacing the stilling basin (which stills released water before it enters San Mateo Creek) with a new larger basin and erosion protection at the toe of the dam • $35 million total project cost, over two years (completed December 2012) Skyline Bridge Replacement Highlights (County of San Mateo project): • The new bridge is 626 feet long and 51.5 feet wide and approximately 7 feet higher than the former bridge. • Constructing retaining walls at the Scenic Vista Point parking area due to the change in bridge elevation. • Created a new 15-foot wide recreational trail on the west side of the bridge that is separated from vehicular traffic and providing connectivity for Crystal Springs Regional Trail users. • Installed new split rail fencing. • A new trail section south of the bridge allows trail users to continue along the Crystal Springs Regional Trail to the relatively new “South of Dam” trail section. • PG&E relocated overhead 230kV electrical transmission lines to the underside of the new bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California
    Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Prepared for the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program by EOA, Inc. 1410 Jackson St. Oakland, CA 94612 August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1 2.1 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................1 2.2 Regulatory Information........................................................................................................1 2.3 Previous Water Quality Investigations ................................................................................2 3.0 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................2 3.1 Bioassessment....................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California
    1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Premia Capital, LLC 801 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January 18, 2019 1180 MAIN STREET PROJECT, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT, REDWOOD CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This document entitled 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California was prepared by Stantec Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Premia Capital, LLC (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Joanne Grant, Archaeologist, MA, RPA Reviewed by (signature) John A. Nadolski, M.A. Approved
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Podcast Show Notes & Transcript
    SHOW NOTES & TRANSCRIPT EPISODE SHOW NOTES Episode Title: Crystal Springs Dam Episode # & Date: Episode #24 – April 9, 2020 About this Episode: Peter uncovers the history of San Mateo’s great drinking water and the impressive Crystal Springs Dam that makes it possible. Episode Web Page: https://sanmateofocus.com/crystal-springs-dam/ EPISODE TRANSCRIPT This is San Mateo Focus, I’m Peter Radsliff filling in this week for Judy Gordon. When choosing what to present for this episode, it wasn’t lost on Judy and I how surreal life is right now and whether talking about local topics even made a difference in a San Mateo that is locked- down. But maybe because of this lack of normalcy, it’s all the more important to ensure we have some semblance of routine in our lives. It’s with that in mind that we offer ongoing stories of San Mateo’s history, culture, food, and things to do. Onto this week’s episode. When San Mateans hear the words Hetch Hetchy, most know it’s the name of a valley in Yosemite National Park about a four-hour drive away. Some might also know it’s the site of the impressive 431- foot tall O’Shaughnessy Dam that forms the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which feeds the 160-mile long journey to Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir for us San Mateans to drink. What most probably don’t know is that the Lower Crystal Springs reservoir first existed because of the 141-foot tall Crystal Springs Dam that was built over San Mateo Creek in 1888, a full 35 years before O’Shaughnessy Dam opened in Hetch Hetchy! In this episode we’re going to explore the history of the Crystal Springs Dam and how vital it is to the lifestyle, economy, and safety of San Mateo.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Regional Water System Report
    San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report State of the Regional Water System September 2018 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report List of Contributors: Manouchehr Boozarpour Mary Ellen Carroll Jason Chen John Chester Eric Choi Jonathan Chow Fonda Davidis Andrew DeGraca Alexis Dufour Anna Fedman Stacie Feng Ed Forner Josh Gale Nancy Hom Margaret Hannaford Annie Li Nicholas Martin Adam Mazurkiewicz Chris Nelson Tim Ramirez Scott Riley Brian Rolley Ken Salmon Enio Sebastiani Eddy So Shailen Talati Dan Wade James West Mike Williams Derrick Wong San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 2 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report Table of Contents 1. Overview........................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Value Added Under Water System Improvement Program ...................................................... 14 1.3 Continuing to Invest .................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Recent Notable Events .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Vulnerability Assessment
    SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX TO THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (HAZARD + RISK = VULNERABILITY) San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of Emergency Services J A N U A R Y 2 , 2 0 1 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT County of San Mateo Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of EmergencyServices 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 650-363-4955 www.smcsheriff.com i 01/02/2015 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 1 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROFILE ................................................................................................ 3 HAZARD 1: DAM FAILURE ...................................................................................................... 5 HAZARD 2: DROUGHT ......................................................................................................... 11 HAZARD 3: EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................................... 15 HAZARD 4: EXTREME HEAT .................................................................................................. 23 HAZARD 5: FLOODING ......................................................................................................... 25 HAZARD 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fang Family San Francisco Examiner Photograph Archive Negative Files, Circa 1930-2000, Circa 1930-2000
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb6t1nb85b No online items Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Bancroft Library staff The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2010 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Fang family San BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG 1 Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-... Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Collection number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Finding Aid Author(s): Bancroft Library staff Finding Aid Encoded By: GenX © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files Date (inclusive): circa 1930-2000 Collection Number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG Creator: San Francisco Examiner (Firm) Extent: 3,200 boxes (ca. 3,600,000 photographic negatives); safety film, nitrate film, and glass : various film sizes, chiefly 4 x 5 in. and 35mm. Repository: The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: Local news photographs taken by staff of the Examiner, a major San Francisco daily newspaper.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Ground Motion
    The Lorna Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Strong Ground Motion ROGER D. BORCHERDT, Editor STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUND FAILURE Thomas L. Holzer, Coordinator U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1551-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Manuscript approved for publication, October 6, 1993 Text and illustrations edited by George A. Havach Library of Congress catalog-card No. 92-32287 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution Box 25286, MS 306, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page A1 Strong-motion recordings ---................................. 9 By A. Gerald Brady and Anthony F. Shakal Effect of known three-dimensional crustal structure on the strong ground motion and estimated slip history of the earthquake ................................ 39 By Vernon F. Cormier and Wei-Jou Su Simulation of strong ground motion ....................... 53 By Jeffry L. Stevens and Steven M. Day Influence of near-surface geology on the direction of ground motion above a frequency of 1 Hz----------- 61 By John E. Vidale and Ornella Bonamassa Effect of critical reflections from the Moho on the attenuation of strong ground motion ------------------ 67 By Paul G. Somerville, Nancy F. Smith, and Robert W. Graves Influences of local geology on strong and weak ground motions recorded in the San Francisco Bay region and their implications for site-specific provisions ----------------- --------------- 77 By Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • 203287 TP Final Vol 2.Ai
    4.7 Cultural Resources 4.7 Cultural4.7 4. WSIP Facility Projects – Setting and Impacts 4.7 Cultural Resources Cultural resources include paleontological resources, archaeological resources, historical resources, and human remains. This section provides a program-level assessment of potential WSIP impacts on historical, paleontological, or archaeological resources that might be present in the vicinity of the WSIP projects and/or historic water system facilities. Programmatic mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts on these cultural resources are identified in this section and presented in detail in Chapter 6. This analysis does not identify specific cultural resources at each of the 22 WSIP facility project sites, although some previously identified cultural resources are located at or near those project sites. Site-specific analysis will be conducted as part of separate, project-level CEQA review for individual WSIP projects. 4.7.1 Setting and Resource Types Paleontological Setting Paleontological resources within the WSIP study area consist of the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones) and invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and coral marine). Fossils of microscopic plants and animals, or microfossils, are also considered in this analysis. The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. The geologic formations containing the majority of fossils in the WSIP study area are considered geologically young; the oldest fossil-bearing formation dates to the Paleocene epoch (65 million years old). Most of the fossil-bearing geologic units in the WSIP study area were formed in ancient marine environments such as inland embayments, coastal areas, and extensive inland seas.
    [Show full text]
  • PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report
    San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 Changes from the text of the Draft EIR are indicated by a dot ( ) This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper 225 Bush Street 315 Washington Street 700 University Avenue 4221 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1700 Suite 102 Suite 130 Suite 480 San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, California California California California 94104 94607 95825 90010 (415) 896-5900 (510) 839-5066 (916) 564-4500 (213) 933-6111 930385 TABLE OF CONTENTS PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN EIR Page I. SUMMARY I-1 A. Management Plan Description I-1 B. Fifield/Cahill Ridge Trail (Project-Level Analysis) I-3 C. Principal Environmental Effects I-3 D. Mitigation Measures I-11 E. Management Plan Alternatives I-13 F.
    [Show full text]