DOCSLIB.ORG

Contra Costa County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contra Costa County, California VOLUME 3 OF 5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number ANTIOCH, CITY OF 060026 BRENTWOOD, CITY OF 060439 CLAYTON, CITY OF 060027 CONCORD, CITY OF 065022 DANVILLE, TOWN OF 060707 EL CERRITO, CITY OF 065027 HERCULES, CITY OF 060434 LAFAYETTE, CITY OF 065037 MARTINEZ, CITY OF 065044 MORAGA, TOWN OF 060637 OAKLEY, CITY OF 060766 ORINDA, CITY OF 060722 PINOLE, CITY OF 060032 PITTSBURG, CITY OF 060033 PLEASANT HILL, CITY OF 060034 RICHMOND, CITY OF 060035 SAN PABLO, CITY OF 060036 SAN RAMON, CITY OF 060710 WALNUT CREEK, CITY OF 065070 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060025 REVISED March 21, 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06013CV003C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: June 16, 2009 Revised Countywide FIS Dates: September 30, 2015 March 21, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 – March 21, 2017 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... 1 1.3 Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.0 AREA STUDIED ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Community Description .................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ................................................................................................ 16 2.4 Flood Protection Measures .............................................................................................. 29 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS ..................................................................................................... 38 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses ....................................................................................................... 38 TABLES Table 1: Initial and Final CCO Meetings ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods .......................................................................... 11 Table 3: Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods .................................................................. 13 Table 4: Letters of Map Change ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 5: Historic Floods ............................................................................................................................. 31 Table 6: Summary of Discharges ............................................................................................................... 56 Table 7: Summary of Elevations ................................................................................................................ 67 i TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued VOLUME 2 – March 21, 2017 Page 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS, continued .................................................................................. 68 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses ......................................................................................................... 68 3.3 Vertical Datum .............................................................................................................. 105 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS ............................................................. 108 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries .................................................................................................. 108 4.2 Floodways ..................................................................................................................... 116 FIGURES Figure 1. Floodway Schematic................................................................................................................. 124 TABLES, continued Table 8: Manning’s “n” Values ................................................................................................................. 97 Table 9: List of Structures Requiring Flood Hazard Revisions ............................................................... 101 Table 10: List of Certified and Accredited Levees .................................................................................. 103 Table 11: Vertical Datum Conversions .................................................................................................... 105 Table 12: Topographic Map Information ................................................................................................. 109 Table 13: Floodway Data ......................................................................................................................... 125 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued VOLUME 3 – March 21, 2017 Page 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 169 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ........................................................................................ 170 7.0 OTHER STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 173 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA ............................................................................................................. 173 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES................................................................................. 173 10.0 REVISIONS TO THIS FIS ....................................................................................................... 186 10.1 Coastal Analyses ........................................................................................................... 186 10.2 Coastal Floodplain Boundaries ..................................................................................... 189 10.3 Second Revision – Riverine Analyses .......................................................................... 196 FIGURES, continued Figure 2: Transect Location Maps ............................................................................................................ 190 TABLES, continued Table 14: Community Map History ......................................................................................................... 171 Table 15: Transect Data Table .................................................................................................................. 194 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Along Giant Road from Standard Oil Tank to Rheem Creek Panel 01P Appian Creek Panel 02P Arroyo Del Hambra Creek Panels 03P-04P Brookside Road Tributary Panel 05P Brushy Creek Panels 05P(a)-05P(i) Cascade Creek Panel 06P Clayton Valley Drain Panels 07P-09P Corliss Drive Tributary Panels 10P-11P Deer Creek Panel 12P Ditch No. 2 Panels 13P-14P iii TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued VOLUME 3, continued – March 21, 2017 Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles (continued) Donner Creek Panel 15P East Antioch Creek Panels 16P-19P East Branch Green Valley Creek Panel 20P East Branch Homestead Creek Panel 21P East Branch Refugio Creek Panels 22P-23P East Fork Grayson Creek Panels 24P-25P Farm Bureau Road Drain Panel 26P Frisk Creek Reach 1 Panels 26P(a)-26P(b) Frisk Creek Reach 2 Panel 26P(c) Galindo Creek Panels 27P-32P Garrity Creek Panel 33P Grayson Creek Panels 34P-35P VOLUME 4 Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles (continued) Green Valley Creek Panels 36P-40P Grizzly Creek Panels 41P-42P Happy Valley Creek Panels 43P-45P Hidden Valley Creek Panel 46P Hillcrest Branch East Antioch Creek Panels 47P-48P Homestead Creek Panel 49P Ivy Drive Tributary Panel 50P Jonas Hill Creek Panels 51P-52P Kellogg Creek Panels 52P(a)-52P(f) Kellogg Creek Split Flow Panel 52P(g) Kirker Creek Panels 53P-57P Lafayette Creek Panels 58P-60P Laguna Creek Panels 61P-64P Larch Creek Panels 65P-67P Las Trampas Creek Panels 68P-80P Lauterwasser Creek Panels 81P-83P Lawlor Creek Panels 84P-85P Line A, DA-40 Panel 86P Los Medanos Wasteway Panels 87P-89P Mangini Creek Panel 90P Markley Creek Panels 91P-93P Marsh Creek Panels 94P-100P Middle Branch West Antioch Creek Panels 101P-102P Miranda Creek Panels 103P-104P Mitchell Creek Panels 105P-106P Moraga Creek Panels 107P-109P Mt. Diablo Creek Panels 110P-119P(e) Mt. Diablo Creek-Split Flow Panel 120P iv TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued VOLUME 5 – March 21, 2017 Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles (continued) Murderers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fall 2011  510 520 3876
    BPWA Walks Walks take place rain or shine and last 2-3 hours unless otherwise noted. They are free and Berkeley’s open to all. Walks are divided into four types: Theme Friendly Power Self Guided Questions about the walks? Contact Keith Skinner: [email protected] Vol. 14 No. 3 BerkeleyPaths Path Wanderers Association Fall 2011 510 520 3876. October 9, Sunday - 2nd An- BPWA Annual Meeting Oct. 20 nual Long Walk - 9 a.m. Leaders: Keith Skinner, Colleen Neff, To Feature Greenbelt Alliance — Sandy Friedland Sandy Friedland Can the Bay Area continue to gain way people live.” A graduate of Stanford Meeting Place: El Cerrito BART station, University, Matt worked for an envi- main entrance near Central population without sacrificing precious Transit: BART - Richmond line farmland, losing open space and harm- ronmental group in Sacramento before All day walk that includes portions of Al- ing the environment? The members of he joined Greenbelt. His responsibilities bany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Bay Trail, Albany Bulb, Greenbelt Alliance are doing everything include meeting with city council members East Shore Park, Aquatic Park, Sisterna they can to answer those questions with District, and Santa Fe Right-of-Way, ending a resounding “Yes.” Berkeley Path at North Berkeley BART. See further details Wanderers Asso- in the article on page 2. Be sure to bring a ciation is proud to water bottle and bag lunch. No dogs, please. feature Greenbelt October 22, Saturday - Bay Alliance at our Trail Exploration on New Landfill Annual Meeting Thursday, October Loop - 9:30 a.m. 20, at the Hillside Club (2286 Cedar Leaders: Sandra & Bruce Beyaert.
    [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]
  • Wildcat Creek Restoration Action Plan Version 1.3 April 26, 2010 Prepared by the URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL
    wildcat creek restoration action plan version 1.3 April 26, 2010 prepared by THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL Adopted by the City of San Pablo on August 3, 2010 wildcat creek restoration action plan table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 plan obJectives 5 1.2 scope 6 Urban Urban 1.5 Methods 8 1.5 Metadata c 10 reeks 2. WATERSHED OVERVIEW 12 c 2.1 introdUction o 12 U 2.2 watershed land Use ncil 13 2.3 iMpacts of Urbanized watersheds 17 april 2.4 hydrology 19 2.5 sediMent transport 22 2010 2.6 water qUality 24 2.7 habitat 26 2.8 flood ManageMent on lower wildcat creek 29 2.9 coMMUnity 32 3. PROJECT AREA ANALYSIS 37 3.1 overview 37 3.2 flooding 37 3.4 in-streaM conditions 51 3.5 sUMMer fish habitat 53 3.6 bioassessMent 57 4. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 58 4.1 obJectives, findings and strategies 58 4.2 recoMMended actions according to strategy 61 4.3 streaM restoration recoMMendations by reach 69 4.4 recoMMended actions for phase one reaches 73 t 4.5 phase one flood daMage redUction reach 73 able of 4.6 recoMMended actions for watershed coUncil 74 c ontents version 1.3 april 26, 2010 2 wildcat creek restoration action plan Urban creeks coUncil april 2010 table of contents 3 figUre 1-1: wildcat watershed overview to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline wildcat watershed existing trail wildcat creek highway railroad city of san pablo planned trail other creek arterial road bart Parkway SAN PABLO Richmond BAY Avenue San Pablo Point UP RR San Pablo WEST COUNTY BNSF RR CITY OF LANDFILL NORTH SAN PABLO RICHMOND San Pablo
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [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]
  • California Clapper Rail ( Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus ) TE-807078-10
    2009 Annual Report: California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) TE-807078-10 Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento December 16, 2009 Submitted by PRBO Conservation Science Leonard Liu 1, Julian Wood 1, and Mark Herzog 1 1PRBO Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 Contact: [email protected] Introduction The California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) is one of the most endangered species in California. The species is dependent on tidal wetlands, which have decreased over 75% from the historical extent in San Francisco Bay. A complete survey of its population and distribution within the San Francisco Bay Estuary was begun in 2005. In 2009, PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) completed the fifth year of field work designed to provide an Estuary-wide abundance estimate and examine the temporal and spatial patterns in California Clapper Rail populations. Field work was performed in collaboration with partners conducting call-count surveys at complementary wetlands (Avocet Research Associates [ARA], California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina Project [ISP], and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). This report details PRBO’s California Clapper Rail surveys in 2009 under U.S. Fish and Wildlife service permit TE-807078-10. A more detailed report synthesizing 2009 and 2010 survey results from PRBO and its partners is forthcoming. Methods Call-count surveys were initiated January 15 and continued until May 6. All sites (Table 1) were surveyed 3 times by experienced permitted biologists using a point transect method, with 10 minutes per listening station. Listening stations primarily were located at marsh edges, levees bordering and within marshes, boardwalks, boat-accessible channels within the marsh, and in the case of 6 marshes in the North Bay, foot access within the marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed
    A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed by Lisa Owens-Viani Prepared by The Watershed Project (previously known as the Aquatic Outreach Institute) Note: This booklet focuses on the watershed from the San Pablo Dam and reservoir westward (downstream). For a history of the Orinda area, see Muir Sorrick's The History of Orinda, published by the Orinda Library Board in 1970. Orinda also has an active creek stewardship group, the Friends of Orinda Creeks, which has conducted several watershed outreach efforts in local schools (see www.ci.orinda.ca.us/orindaway.htm). This booklet was written as part of the Aquatic Outreach Institute's efforts to develop stewardship of the mid- to lower watershed. The San Pablo Creek watershed is a wealthy one-rich in history, culture, and natural resources. The early native American inhabitants of the watershed drank from this deep and powerful creek and caught the steelhead that swam in its waters. They ate the tubers and roots of the plants that grew in the fertile soils deposited by the creek, and buried their artifacts, the shells and bones of the creatures they ate, and even their own dead along its banks. Later, European settlers grew fruit, grain, and vegetables in the same rich soils and watered cattle in the creek. Even today, residents of the San Pablo Creek watershed rely on the creek, perhaps unknowingly: its waters quench the thirst and meet the household needs of about 10 percent of the East Bay Municipal Utility District's customers. Some residents rely on the creek in another way, though-as a reminder that something wild and self-sufficient flows through their midst, offering respite from the surrounding urbanized landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Presents an Evaluation of the Potential for Increased Erosion, Sedimentation, and Runoff Due to the WTTIP Projects
    3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.5.1 Approach to Analysis This section presents an evaluation of the potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff due to the WTTIP projects. The analysis of water quality impacts is based on field observations and a review of existing EBMUD permits for discharges. In general, implementation of the WTTIP would not have direct long-term effects on the hydrology or water quality of regional and local surface waters. However, short-term construction impacts could result in erosion and sedimentation or discharge of construction-related pollutants to local creeks, causing water quality effects. Diversion of flood flows could also occur. Operational discharges of chloraminated water could cause adverse water quality effects. However, through compliance with existing regulations and established project procedures, as well as mitigation measures specified in this section, construction and operational impacts would be less than significant. 3.5.2 Setting Surface Water Bodies, Drainage, and Flooding The WTTIP project sites lie within the regional drainage of San Francisco Bay; the majority of project sites are located in Contra Costa County, and one project is located in Oakland (Alameda County). Precipitation is variable between East and West Contra Costa County due to the county’s distinct topography and proximity to the California coast. The rain-shadow effect of the East Bay Hills and Mt. Diablo is evident in the average annual rainfall levels, which are highest just east of the crest of the Berkeley-Oakland Hills (33.75 inches per year) and lowest in East County (9.75 inches per year).
    [Show full text]
  • R Ic H M O N D , C a L If O R N Ia
    COMPLETING the BAY TRAIL Getting There RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 2007 accomplishments Completed Bay Trail Orton Development Inc.: Point Pinole 1 Planned Bay Trail Regional Harbour Way - Hall Ave to shoreline Shoreline 2 Toll Brothers : Brickyard Landing frontage Point Richmond Gateway Foundation Inc.: 13 3 Point Richmond entry City of Richmond (City): 4 Boat Ramp Street access to Santa Fe Channel off Cutting Blvd National Park Service et al: 14 5 Marina Bay Trail Guide printed and distributed to be built in 2008 Point 15 San Pablo 6 Orton Development Inc: Ford building craneway Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor 11 STG Group : 10 7 Harbour Way frontage of The Cannery San Pablo Creek 1512 18 W at Cr Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) : ildc eek 8 Hall Ave Point Molate 9 Port of Richmond: Canal Blvd to Kaiser Shipyard 3 17 at Point Potrero & Brickyard Cove Rd Point Molate Beach Park 1 10 Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor: shoreline and breakwaters Red Rock Marina Castro Point 18 11 Republic Services Inc: Richmond/San Rafael Bridge completing West County Landfill loop 16 Chevron Long Wharf East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) & Richmond Greenway 12 West County Wastewater District: 3 Wildcat to San Pablo Creek & Landfill 4 Cypress Point Keller Beach Planning & DESIGN Miller Knox Priorities 2008 Regional Shoreline 19 13 EBRPD: Atlas Road entry to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline 21 2 7 8 5 EBRPD: Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Ferry Point 14 1720 1 6 Marina to Richmond Parkway at Goodrick Ave Brickyard 9 Bay Cove Sheridan Pt Park Lucretia Vincent Park Richmond Development Co.
    [Show full text]
  • I I I I I I I I I I I I I
    I I City of San Pablo General Plan I neighborhood parks and facilities Identification of and planning for the needs of special user groups such as children the Citys multicultural population the disabled and the elderly in park and recreation facility I development Identification of potential New facilities in North Richmond are an of I linkages and access between example a in this case Stores City park and recreation corporatecommunity partnership Lucky facilities and open space I areas such as creeks urban open space and nearby regional park facilities Cooperative agreements with WCCC School District and Contra Costa College I Development of an action plan to as identified in accompanying actions prioritize the Citys needs identify and preferred sites for new facilities and I recreation programs identify staffing A planning and improvement approach needs plan for acquisition and for Davis Park Davis Park Master Plan improvements and the establishment of Action 4H I a schedule for acquisition development and maintenance of existing and future Action CF 4B facilities School District Partnership I Actively pursue cooperative efforts with the West Development of an aggressive financing Contra Costa Unified School District to develop strategy for park and recreational jointuse neighborhood park facilities as part of I facilities including the aggressive pursuit or adjacent to schools Discussions should of grant funding include the coordination of recreational programs and community programs from within I the existing facilities and working
    [Show full text]
  • Ebmud East Bay Watershed Trail Info: Northern Trails
    EBMUD EAST BAY WATERSHED TRAIL INFO: NORTHERN TRAILS TRAIL START END DISTANCE (mi) LEASHED DOGS HORSES BICYCLES SUN EXPOSURE DIFFICULTY Pinole Valley Pereira Trailhead Alhambra Valley and 6.66 one way No Yes Yes Mostly sun Difficult Multi-Use Castro Ranch intersection Pinole Ridge Pereira Trailhead Pinole Valley Multi-Use Trail at 2.96 one way No Yes No Mostly sun Difficult Fernandez Ranch Windmill Trail Old San Pablo San Pablo Boat Launch Kennedy Grove Connector Trail 3.4 one way Limited to Yes Yes Equal parts shade and sun Easy (partially paved) park hours Old San Pablo (unpaved) Watershed Headquarters San Pablo Boat Launch 1.4 one way No Yes No Mostly shade Easy Eagle’s Nest San Pablo Recreation Area Nimitz Way 0.83 one way No Yes Yes Mostly shade Difficult Inspiration Inspiration Point Staging Area Old San Pablo Trail 1.98 one way No Yes No Mostly sun Difficult Orinda Connector Bear Creek Rd Watershed Headquarters 0.6 one way No Yes No Full shade Moderate Hampton Hampton Rd Oursan Trail 0.67 one way Yes Yes No Mostly shade Moderate Oursan Briones Overlook Staging Area Bear Creek Staging Area 9.54 one way Yes Yes No Mostly sun Moderate Bear Creek Bear Creek Staging Area Briones Overlook Staging Area 3.81 one way No Yes No Full shade Moderate Skyline Lomas Cantadas Trailhead Sibley Park boundary 1.73 one way No Yes No Equal parts shade and sun Moderate De Laveaga De Laveaga Trailhead Skyline Gardens Trailhead 2.85 one way No Yes No Mostly sun Difficult TRAIL DESCRIPTIONS Pinole Valley Multi-Use: From the Pereira Trailhead, cross the creek and turn left (west) at the Orinda Connector: This trail is a short but important link between the City of Orinda and EBMUD’s trail junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Facilities and Infrastructure
    6 Community Facilities and Infrastructure 4 4 TENNENTTENNENT AVE AVE SYCAM SYCOARMO E ARVEE AVE MapMap 6.1 6.1 VE R AVE EF R Community Facilities LO A UGEF Community Facilities ABLO IO UG P B V IO NPA A SAN LL VA SA EY LL R EY D R HERCULESHERCULES D COUNTYk APPIAN WY R e efu COUNTYk e gio r APPIAN WY R San Pablo Bay Ce Cefre y e ueg Owned and operated by City of Richmond San Pablo Bay it r kio C r C I-80 re r y e Owned and operated by City of Richmond iat k r I-80 P r G a I N G P O I N L O E Y L Libraries V W E A K PINOLE Y Libraries L V W P L A K E PINOLE D LY P N L RED D O Y M NH RD Community Centers Parchester IOC RM H R P Community Centers Community Center in C D Parchester I o R le RE P Community Center iCn D M re oe U le E k L COUNTY C M r B ee U COUNTY k ALH L AMB Owned and operated by partner agencies B R R R ILLTOP D A V heem Cr H ALH A eek Murphy AMB LL R RAEY Owned and operated by partner agencies R HILLTOP D Elementary V R heem Cr Highland A D eek Murphy LL Contra Costa Elementary School EY GIANT RD APPIAN WY Elementary Valley View R Community HighlandSchool D Schools Contra CostaCollege Elementary School Elementary School GIANT RD APPIAN WY Valley View Community School ElementaryMay Valley CommunitySchool Center Schools Creek College San Pablo De Anza High andMay Valley Community Center RUMRILL BLVD Sheldon Colleges ablo Creek Delta Continuation School San P Elementary COUNTY COUNTY AM RD De Anza High and BR O D School Colleges RUMRILLO BLVD RD 20 DR PABL Sheldon OKSID EL PORTAL SAN Delta Continuation School ANCH RD E DR
    [Show full text]