DOCSLIB.ORG

Balancehydrologics,Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Balancehydrologics,Inc _________________ BalanceHydrologics,Inc. Sedimentation and Channel Dynamics of the Searsville Lake Watershed and Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Stanford University Prepared by: Gary Kittleson Barry Hecht Daniel O. Holmes Balance Hydrologies, Inc. June 1996 _______________ BalanceHydrologics,Inc. A report prepared for: Philippe Cohen Administrative Director Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve Stanford University (415) 723-1589 Sedimentation and Channel Dynamics of the Searsville Lake Watershed and Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, San Mateo County, California Balance Project Assignment 9536.07 BARRY HECHT NO. S{) Ci'HI1I'1tD Hydrologist IiYDI'lOGEOLOGISr Da~m~~~dc ( Physical Geographer/Hydrologist Balance Hydrologies, Inc. 1760 Solano Ave., Suite 209 Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 527-0727 June 30, 1996 ___~ ______________ BalanceHydrologics,Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Project Setting ...................................................................................... ".................. .5 1.3. Previous Studies ....................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Key Concepts and Terms ......................................................................................... 7 1.5. Limitations ............................................................................................................... 9 2. SEDIMENTATION HISTORy ..................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Watershed History................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1. Native American Period ........................................................................... 11 2.1.2. Spanish-Mexican Period (1777 to 1848) .................................................. 11 2.1.3. Statehood period (1848 to 1888) .............................................................11 2.2. Searsville Dam and Lake Chronology ..................................................................... 14 2.2.1. Searsville Dam .......................................................................................... 14 2.3. Dam and Reservoir Operations ............................................................................... 16 2.4. Searsville Lake Sedimentation ................................................................................. 17 3. HYDROLOGIC INFLUENCES / CONOmONS .................................................................. 19 3.1. Hydrologic Background ........................................................................................... 19 3.2. USGS Gage Summary: San Francisquito Creek at Stanford ................................... 19 3.3. Notable Floods ......................................................................................................... 20 3.4. Los Trancos Creek Stream Gaging ........................................................................... 22 4. GEOLOGIC INFLUENCES AND SEDIMENT SOURCES .................................................... 24 4.1. General watershed description ................................................................................ 24 4.2. Geology ..................................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Soils .......................................................................................................................... 26 4.4. Sources of sedimentation by subwatershed..... :...................................................... 27 4.3.1 Corte Madera Creek subwatershed ............................................................ 28 4.3.2 Sausal Creek subwatershed ............. :......................................................... 32 4.3.3. Alambique Creek subwatershed .............................................................. .33 4.3.4. Westridge Creek subwatershed ................................................................ 34 4.3.5. Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve draw subwatershed .............................. .34 5. PROGRESSIVE SEDIMENTATION OF SEARSVILLE LAKE .............................................. 36 5.1. Detailed Studies Performed .................................................................................... .36 5.2. Bathymetry Survey of 1995 ..................................................................................... 36 5.2.1. Measured Depths ...................................................................................... 37 5.2.2. Discussion of 1995 Bathymetry Survey Results ....................................... 37 5.3. Elevations Along Lowermost Corte Madera Creek. ................................................ 39 5.3.1. Methods ................................................................................................... .40 5.3.2. Results ...................................................................................................... .41 5.3.3. Discussion·()f Corte-Madera Delta Survey ............................................... 42 5.4. Stream Gaging and Sediment Transport Sampling on Corte Madera Creek.. ........ .45 5.4.1. Methods for stream gaging and sediment sampling ................................. 45 5.4.2. Limitations of sediment sampling ........................................................... .46 5.4.3. Discussion of results of stream gaging and sediment transport sampling in Corte Madera Creek 1995-96 ............................................... 46 5.5. Anticipated Sedimentation FolJowing a Wildland Fire or Other Episodic Event . .47 5.5.1. Episodic Sedimentation and Searsville Lake ........................................... 47 ______________. __ ......................... BaJanceHydrologics,Inc. 5.5.2. Sedimentation Following a Wildland Fire ................................................ 48 5.5.3. Ongoing episodic sedimentation.............................................................. .49 5.5.4. Some implications of ongoing episodic sedimentation............................. 50 6. SEDIMENTATION MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ................................................ .51 6.1. Scenario for Future Sedimentation........................................................................... 51 6.2. Issues for Management Prior to Complete Sedimentation ...................................... 52 6.2.1. Family Farm Road ..................................................................................... 52 6.2.3. Water Levels in Middle Lake .................................................................... 53 6.2.4. Upper Marsh Issues ................................................................................. .53 6.2.5. Delta Front Stability ................................................................................. 53 6.2.6. Sedimentation Monitoring Within.. the Lake ................... ,.... ,............. " ...... 53 6.3. Management Considerations Which Continue After Filling .................................... 54 6.3.1. Flood Peak Attenuation............................................................................ 54 6.3.3. Aquatic Habitat Sedimentation................................................................ 55 . 6.3.4. Turbidity Persistence ............................................................................... .55 6.3.5. Woody Debris Management ..................................................................... 56 6.3.6. Protection of the Downstream Face of the Dam ...................................... 56 6.3.7. Vector Control. .......................................................................................... 56 6.3.8. Other Considerations ................................................................................ 57 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 58 Sources of Sediment ........................................................................................................ .5 8 Historical Rates of Sedimentation ................................................................................... 58 Expected Life of Searsville Lake ..................................................................................... 59 The Current Episode of Sedimentation ........................................................................... 60 Family Farm Road ............................................................................................................ 60 Management Considerations Prior to Filling of the Lake ................................................ 61 Likely Uses and Management Considerations Once Filled ............................................. 62 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... 64 9. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX A. ELEVATIONS AT SEARSVILLE DAM: RESOLVING DISPARITIES IN PRIOR REPORTS ............................................................................................................. 73 APPENDIX B. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE MEASUREMENTS ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Study Appendix B
    Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Patrick Boursier, Principal (408) 458-3204 H. T. Harvey & Associates Los Gatos, California Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Solomon Tegegne, Associate Civil Engineer Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Highway and Bridge Design 408-573-2495 Concurred By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Tom Holstein Environmental Branch Chief Office of Local Assistance Caltrans, District 4 Oakland, California 510-286-5250 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department: Solomon Tegegne Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110 408-573-2495 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations The Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project) is proposed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department in cooperation with the Office of Local Assistance of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and this Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared following Caltrans’ procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Resource Study
    HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Portola Valley, California Deliverable 1: Historic Resource Study October 2013 FINAL October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study TABLE OF CONTENTS HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 II. Historic Overview & Contexts................................................................................ 5 III. Physical Description & Character-Defining Features .......................................... 58 IV. Historic Resource Evaluation ............................................................................ 105 V. Bibliography....................................................................................................... 109 VI. Endnotes VII. Appendix A. Methodology B. Drawings: Hawthorn House, Garage and Cottage October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study I. INTRODUCTION Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment The Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment is a project undertaken by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to assess the history and condition of the Hawthorn property. The District is a special district whose purpose is to purchase, permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 1982 Flood Report
    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
    [Show full text]
  • CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy
    POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Coyote Creek Parkway Trailhead. Coyote Creek Parkway is a remaining sycamores dot the landscape, creating a beautiful setting to Springs Trail to follow Center Creek into its headwater canyons. The trail paved trail following Coyote Creek for 15 miles from southern San Jose savor the streamside serenity. will eventually cross over into the headwaters of New Creek as it rises to Morgan Hill. Popular with walkers, bikers, equestrians, and skaters, toward the summit of Coyote Ridge, 1.5 miles from the trailhead. much of this trail passes through rural scenery. View riparian woodland 4. Anderson Dam and Reservoir. Anderson dam, built in 1950, species such as big-leaf maple, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, and impounds Coyote Creek, the largest stream in the Santa Clara Valley. The 12. Coyote Lake. Streams carry water and sediment from the hills to the coast live oak along the trail. The oaks produce acorns, which were an dam backs up a deep reservoir, which can store 90,000 acre-feet of water, ocean; damming a stream blocks the flow of both. Sediment typically important source of food to the Native Americans, and still serve many the largest reservoir in Santa Clara Valley. Like SCVWD’s nine other deposits where the stream first enters the lake, forming a broad plain Coyote animal species today. reservoirs built between 1935 and 1957, Anderson Reservoir’s major called a delta. From the county park campground, enjoy a beautiful view purpose is to store wintertime runoff for groundwater recharge during the of the delta of Coyote Creek, Coyote Lake, and the valley below.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis
    Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis Informational Report March 17, 2015 County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department CONTENTS I: Introduction 1 County Parks’ Role in the Implementation of the Countywide Trails Master Plan 1 II: Countywide Trails Master Plan Status 2 Progress since 1995 2 Alignment Status 5 Remaining Gaps 5 III: Trail Prioritization 9 Prioritization Process 9 Criteria-Based Prioritization 9 Priorities Identified by Cities 13 Priorities Identified by the County 16 Priorities Identified by other Partners 16 Countywide Trail Priorities 17 IV: Challenges and Strategies 18 Countywide Challenges 18 Funding 18 Property Acquisition 19 Pending Flood Protection Improvement Projects 19 Physical Barriers 20 Riparian Zone Permitting 20 Remediation 20 Trails within the Street Right-of-Way 21 V: Next Steps for County Parks 22 Role I: Lead Agency in the Unincorporated Areas 22 Role II: Funding Partner in Acquisition in the Incorporated Areas 25 Role III: Lead Partner in Updates to the CWTMP and Related Countywide Trail Planning Efforts 27 Appendix A: Tier I Trail Network Gaps Analysis 29 Appendix B: Assessment of Unincorporated Urban Pockets 43 I: INTRODUCTION In 2012 the County Board of Supervisors approved the Santa Clara County Parkland Acquisition Plan Update along with recommendations to prioritize countywide trails planning. To follow this direction, this Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis Report presents the status of the Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (CWTMP), adopted by the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1995. This report has the following goals: 1. Report the current status of the trail alignments in the CWTMP 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Uvas Creek, California, Downstream of a Reservoir
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Fall 2014 Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Uvas Creek, California, Downstream of a Reservoir Carole Ann Foster San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Foster, Carole Ann, "Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Uvas Creek, California, Downstream of a Reservoir" (2014). Master's Theses. 4494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.xj7k-ak6r https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4494 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IN UVAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA, DOWNSTREAM OF A RESERVOIR A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Carole A. Foster December 2014 © 2014 Carole A. Foster ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IN UVAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA, DOWNSTREAM OF A RESERVOIR by Carole A. Foster APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY December 2014 Dr. Jerry J. Smith Department of Biological Sciences Dr. Paula Messina Department of Geology Steven V. Fend United States Geological Survey ABSTRACT BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IN UVAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA, DOWNSTREAM OF A RESERVOIR By Carole A. Foster I sampled macroinvertebrates in May, July, and October 2008 in Uvas Creek, a reservoir-regulated stream in south Santa Clara County, California, to assess what factors (including canopy closure, turbidity, and stream flow) downstream of the reservoir were related to food availability for rearing juvenile Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
    [Show full text]
  • South County Stormwater Resource Plan
    2020 South Santa Clara County Stormwater Resource Plan Prepared By: Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division Environmental Planning Unit South Santa Clara County Stormwater Resource Plan January 2020 Prepared by: Valley Water Environmental Planning Unit 247 Elisabeth Wilkinson Contributors: Kirsten Struve James Downing Kylie Kammerer George Cook Neeta Bijoor Brian Mendenhall Tanya Carothers (City of Morgan Hill/City of Gilroy) Sarah Mansergh (City of Gilroy) Vanessa Marcadejas (County of Santa Clara) Julianna Martin (County of Santa Clara) Funding provided by the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................2 1.1 Background and Purpose .................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Previous and Current Planning Efforts ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2: South Santa Clara County Watershed Identification ...........................................................5 2.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Internal Boundaries ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Santa Cruz Mountains
    33 3. Field Trip to Lexington Reservoir and Loma Prieta Peak Area in the Southern Santa Cruz Mountains Trip Highlights: San Andreas Rift Valley, Quaternary faults, Stay in the right lane and exit onto Alma Bridge Road. Follow landslide deposits, Franciscan Complex, serpentinite, stream Alma Bridge Road across Lexington Reservoir Dam and turn terrace deposits, Lomitas Fault, Sargent Fault, Cretaceous fos- right into the boat dock parking area about 0.6 mile (1 km) sils, deep-sea fan deposits, conglomerate from the exit on Highway 17 north. A Santa Clara County Parks day-use parking pass is required to park in the paved lot. This field trip examines faults, landslides, rocks, and The park day use pass is $5. Vehicles can be left here for the geologic features in the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault and day to allow car pooling (the park is patrolled, but as always, other faults in the central Santa Cruz Mountains in the vicinity take valuables with you). of both Lexington Reservoir and Loma Prieta Peak (fig. 3-1). Detailed geologic maps, cross sections, and descriptions The field trip begins at Lexington Reservoir Dam at the boat featuring bedrock geology, faults, and landslide information dock parking area. To get to Lexington Reservoir Dam, take useful for this field-trip area are available on-line at theUSGS Highway 17 south (toward Santa Cruz). Highway 17 enters San Francisco Bay Region Geology website [http://sfgeo. Los Gatos Creek Canyon about 3 miles (5 km) south of the wr.usgs.gov/]. McLaughlin and others (2001) have produced intersection of highways 85 and 17.
    [Show full text]
  • Be Part of the Sollution to Creek Pollution. Visit Or Call (408) 630-2739 PRESENTED BY: Creek Connections Action Group DONORS
    1 San Francisco Bay Alviso Milpitas olunteers are encouraged to wear CREEK ty 2 STEVENS si r CR e iv Palo SAN FRANCISQUITO long pants, sturdy shoes, gloves n E 13 U T N Alto 3 N E V A P l N Mountain View i m A e d a M G R U m E A and sunscreen and bring their own C P 7 D O s o MATADERO CREEK A Y era n L O T av t Car U E al Shoreline i L‘Avenida bb C ean P K E EE R a C d C SA l R S pick-up sticks. All youth under 18 need i E R RY I V BER h t E E r R a E o F 6 K o t M s K o F EE t g CR h i IA i n r C supervision and transportation to get l s N l e 5 t E Ce T R t n 9 S I t tra 10 t N e l E ADOBE CREEK P 22 o Great America Great C M a to cleanup sites. p i to Central l e Exp Ke Mc W e h s c s i r t a n e e e k m r El C w c a o 15 4 o o m w in T R B o a K L n in SI a Santa Clara g um LV S Al ER C Sunnyvale R 12 16 E E K 11 ry Homestead 17 Sto S y T a l H n e i 18 O F K M e Stevens Creek li 19 P p S e O O y yll N N ll I u uT l C U T l i R Q h A t R 23 26 C S o Cupertino 33 20 A S o ga O o M T F t Hamilton A a O a G rba z r Ye B T u 14 S e 8 a n n d n O a R S L a 24 A N i A 32 e S d CLEANUP 34 i D r M S SI e L K e V o n E E R E Campbell C n t M R R 31 e E E C t K e r STEVENS CREEK LOCATIONS r S Campbell e y RESERVOIR A Z W I m San L e D v K A CA A E o S E T r TE R e V C B c ly ENS el A s Jose H PALO ALTO L C A a B C a HELLYER 28 m y 30 xp w 1 San Francisquito Creek d Capitol E PARK o r e t e n Saratoga Saratoga i t Sign up online today! u s e Q h 21 C YO c O T 2 Matadero Creek E n i C W R E ARATOGA CR E S 29 K 3 Adobe Creek VASONA RESERVOIR
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP)
    Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) VTA administers and distributes funds from these The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) is the funding sources to Member Agencies, matching appropriate proj- mechanism for planned bicycle projects in Santa Clara ect types and funding amounts with the requirements County. It is developed in conjunction with the VTP of each fund source. VTA assists Member Agencies as update. The bicycle network is an essential component necessary to comply with the various regional, state and of a fully integrated, multimodal, countywide trans- federal procedural rules of each fund source. As part of portation system, and VTA is committed to improving the VTP update, the BEP projects list will be reviewed bicycling conditions that will benefit all users 7 days per and re-adopted approximately every four years as part of week and 24 hours per day, enabling people of all ages to the VTP process. In May 2013, VTA Board of Directors bike to work, school, errands, and for recreation. adopted the BEP Project List (Table 2.7a, Figure 2.6). The BEP was first adopted by the VTA Board of The process for developing the BEP Project List involves Directors in 2000 as a financially constrained list of two main steps: 1) Developing a master list of projects, projects with a ten-year funding horizon. BEP projects and 2) Constraining the master list to the financial con- are solicited from Member Agencies and evaluated by a straints of the VTP. Per the BEP Policies, the projects committee consisting of BPAC members and VTA staff. were divided into two categories: The development of the BEP is guided by the Board- • Category 1—greater than or equal to 50 points adopted Policies and Evaluation Criteria.
    [Show full text]