DOCSLIB.ORG

Low Impact Development (Lid) Siting Methodology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Low Impact Development (Lid) Siting Methodology LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) SITING METHODOLOGY: A GUIDE TO SITING LID PROJECTS USING A GIS AND AHP A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty Of California State University, East Bay In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Geography By Andrew Jack October 30, 2012 Copyright Andrew Jack © 2012 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this research project is to develop a straightforward and cost-effective methodology that local governments and nonprofit organizations can use to identify sites that have the greatest potential for Limited Impact Design (LID) stormwater management projects. The methodology is applied to watersheds in Western Contra Costa County, California. A review of LID manuals guided the selection of site suitability criteria and professional opinions from two stormwater managers guided the ranking of the criteria. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to convert these rankings into coefficients which were then applied to the chosen criteria. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to develop site suitability rankings of the study area. Maps depicting suitable sites for LID placement were generated using this methodology. These maps act as a guide that the aforementioned groups can use for LID project planning. The top ranked sites, suitable for LID, identified by the methodology were primarily areas with large parking lots and building footprints. These sites should be targeted for LID projects because they are often the largest contributors to hydrograph modification and have most significantly altered the site hydrology. iii LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) SITING METHODOLOGY: A GUIDE TO SITING LID PROJECTS USING A GIS AND AHP By Andrew Jack Approved: Date ____________________________ _______________________ Dr. Michael Lee ____________________________ _______________________ Dr. Juliana Gonzalez ____________________________ _______________________ Dr. Gary Li iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the extraordinary feedback and editing of my primary advisor Dr. Michael Lee. His assistance made it possible for me to more clearly articulate my thoughts and technical explanations. I am also grateful to Dr. Gary Li for his guidance and sharing of his vast knowledge of GIS with me which made this thesis possible. I am profoundly grateful to The Watershed Project and particularly to my advisor Dr. Juliana Gonzales for supporting me through the thesis process and providing me with connections and resources in the field of stormwater management. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... viii LIST OF MAPS ...................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 2 2.1 History .......................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Low Impact Development .............................................................................. 12 2.3 Stormwater Models ...................................................................................... 15 2.4 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) .............................................................. 20 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 22 4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Data ........................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Physical Criteria .......................................................................................... 31 a. Land Cover ................................................................................................ 31 b. Imperviousness .......................................................................................... 33 c. Slope Gradient ........................................................................................... 35 d. Soil ........................................................................................................... 38 e. Elevation within the Watershed .................................................................... 40 4.4 Social Criteria ............................................................................................. 45 a. Public Interest/Watershed Groups ................................................................ 45 b. Proximity of LID Project Site from Public Transportation .............................. 46 4.5 Methods ...................................................................................................... 48 a. Primary Criteria Ranking and Coefficient Assignment Using AHP .................. 49 b. Terrain Preprocessing ................................................................................. 54 c. Land Cover Data ........................................................................................ 66 d. Imperviousness .......................................................................................... 72 e. Soil Suitability Scores ................................................................................. 77 f. Elevation within the Watershed .................................................................... 80 vi g. Slope Gradient ........................................................................................... 81 h. Stream Buffering ........................................................................................ 83 i. Proximity to Public Transportation ................................................................ 85 j. Public Interest/Watershed Groups ................................................................. 87 k. LID Site Suitability Model .......................................................................... 89 l. Existing LID ............................................................................................... 93 m. Geostatistics: Cluster Analysis .................................................................... 94 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS ..................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................... 112 6.1 Specific Site Comparison ............................................................................ 116 6.2 Questions for Future Research .................................................................... 120 6.3 Additional Variables to Consider, SSM Flexibility, and Data Resolution .......... 120 6.4 Next Steps ................................................................................................. 121 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 125 APPENDIX I: Questionnaire Results .................................................................... 145 APPENDIX II: Literature Review Matrix .............................................................. 147 APPENDIX III: Meta Data .................................................................................. 149 APPENDIX IV: Watershed Groups within Contra Costa County ............................. 152 APPENDIX V: Land Cover Matrix ....................................................................... 154 APPENDIX VI: Existing LID Sites ....................................................................... 155 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: BAHM Graphical Interface ............................................................................... 17 Figure 2: SWMM Graphical Interface .............................................................................. 18 Figure 3: BASINS Graphical Interface ............................................................................. 19 Figure 4: Criteria and Subcriteria of the SSM .................................................................. 24 Figure 5: Overlay Analysis Example ................................................................................ 26 Figure 6: Basic Workflow of Methodology ...................................................................... 27 Figure 7: Natural vs. Urban Hydrological Cycle ............................................................. 41 Figure 8: Elevation Breaks................................................................................................ 45 Figure 9: Tolerable Walking Distance from Public Transportation ................................. 48 Figure 10: Subcriteria Breakdown .................................................................................... 54 Figure 11: Work Flow for the Terrain Preprocessing Steps ............................................. 56 Figure 12: HydroDEM1 .................................................................................................... 58 Figure 13: HydroDEM2 ...................................................................................................
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]
  • Contra Costa County
    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 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]
  • Board Meeting Packet
    June 1, 2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Board Meeting Packet SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2021 at 1:00 pm Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 and the Alameda County Health Officer’s Shelter in Place Orders, the East Bay Regional Park District Headquarters will not be open to the public and the Board of Directors and staff will be participating in the Board meetings via phone/video conferencing. Members of the public can listen and view the meeting in the following way: Via the Park District’s live video stream which can be found at https://youtu.be/md2gdzkkvVg Public comments may be submitted one of three ways: 1. Via email to Yolande Barial Knight, Clerk of the Board, at [email protected]. Email must contain in the subject line public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item #. It is preferred that these written comments be submitted by Monday, May 31, 2021 at 3:00 pm. 2. Via voicemail at (510) 544-2016. The caller must start the message by stating public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item # followed by their name and place of residence, followed by their comments. It is preferred that these voicemail comments be submitted by Monday, May 31, 2021 at 3:00 pm. 3. Live via zoom. If you would like to make a live public comment during the meeting this option is available through the virtual meeting platform: *Note: this virtual meeting platform link will let you into the https://zoom.us/j/94773173402 virtual meeting for the purpose of providing a public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Baxter Creek Gateway Park Restoration a Post-Project Appraisal
    Baxter Creek Gateway Park Restoration A Post-project appraisal University of California, Berkeley LD ARCH 227 - Restoration of Rivers and Streams By: Yiwen Chen Yuanshuo Pi Dec 16, 2019 1 Abstract This paper is seeking to evaluate the results of the Baxter Creek Gateway Restoration Project located in an urbanized section of Baxter Creek, northern El Cerrito, California, and figure out how the channel transforms and how it impacts the site and its surroundings. We appraisal the project by the condition of the creek bed and bank, vegetation, water management and public accessibility. Making a comparison of 2006 and 2019 status of the creek to figure out how the stream performed and transformed in the last 13 years. Moreover, depending on the analysis of the water catchment area, planting evolvement, space quality to study the impact of the project for the surrounding area. In the end, we devote to discuss the possibilities of improvement of the site by studying other similar precedents, trying to explore the future design directions of river restoration projects. 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Site location & History Baxter Creek Gateway Restoration project is located in El Cerrito (Figure 1.1.1). The site is located on 1.6 acres of land and is 700 feet long, consisting of a branch of one of the three tributaries of Baxter Creek (Figures 1.1.2 and 1.1.3). [1] The City of El Cerrito hired Hanford Applied Restoration Conservation contractors in 2005 to restore the creek and construct a new civic gathering area facing San Pablo Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [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]
  • Pt. Isabel-Stege Area
    Tales of the Bay Shore -- Pt. Isabel-Stege area Geology: The “bones” of the shoreline from Albany to Richmond are a sliver of ancient, alien sea floor, caught on the edge of North America as it overrode the Pacific. Fleming Point (site of today’s racetrack), Albany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Brooks Island, scattered hillocks inland, the hills at Pt Richmond, and the hills across the San Pablo Strait (spanned by the Richmond Bridge) all are part of this Novato Terrane. Erosion and uplift eventually left their hard rock as hilltops in a valley. Still later – only about 5000 years ago -- rising seas from the melting glaciers of our last Ice Age flooded the valley, forming today’s San Francisco Bay. The “alien” hilltops became islands, peninsulas linked to shore by marsh, or isolated dome-like “turtlebacks.” Left: Portion of 1911 map of SF Bay showing many Native American sites near Pt. Isabel and Stege. Right: 1853 U.S. Coastal Survey map showing N. end of Albany Hill, Cerrito Creek, Pt. Isabel, and marshes/ to North. Native Americans: Native Americans would have watched the slow rise of today’s Bay. When Europeans reached North America, the East Bay was the home of Huchiun Ohlone peoples. Living in groups generally of fewer than 100 people, they moved seasonally amid rich and varied resources, gathering, hunting, fishing, and encouraging useful plants with pruning and burning. They made reed boats, baskets, nets, traps, mortars, and a wide variety of implements and decorations. Along the shellfish-rich shoreline they gradually built up substantial hills of debris – shell mounds -- that kept them above floods and served as multipurpose homesites, burial sites, refuse dumps, and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Participation and Creek Restoration in the East Bay of San Francisco
    Louise A. Mozingo Community Participation and Creek Restoration and Recreation, had been inspired by an article of Bay Area Community Participation and historian Grey Brechin on the possibilities of daylighting creeks Creek Restoration in the East in Sonoma County north of San Francisco (Schemmerling, 2003). Doug Wolfe, a landscape architect for the City of Bay of San Francisco Berkeley, proposed that a short culverted stretch of Strawberry Creek crossing a new neighborhood park in Berkeley then culverted, be opened or “daylit.” As a first step in proposing Louise A. Mozingo the unprecedented idea, Wolfe named the new open space Strawberry Creek Park. As he later reported, this “lead to the ABSTRACT question ‘Where is this creek?’ My answer was that it was ‘Twenty feet down and waiting’” (Wolfe, 1994, 2). Controversial The creeks of the upper East Bay of San Francisco in the extreme, Wolfe found political support from Carol have been the location of two decades of precedent Schemmerling, and David Brower, founder of Friends of the setting creek restoration activities. This discussion will Earth, and a city council member. With vocal citizen support review the essential role of both citizen activism and at public meetings the radical concept prevailed. The notion NGOs in the advent of a restoration approach to creek that a reopened creek could be an asset rather than a hazard management. Beginning with small pilot projects to proved to be a lasting inspiration (Schemmerling; Wolfe, 2-3). “daylight” a culverted creek and spray paint signs on street drain inlets, participation in the restoration of the Also in Berkeley, a small but telling community education act East Bay creeks has evolved into a complex layering took place on city streets.
    [Show full text]
  • E a St Shor E Pa R K Proj Ec T Gen Er a L Pl
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2002022051 July 2002 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2002022051 Gray Davis Governor Mary D. Nichols Secretary for Resources Ruth Coleman Acting Director of Parks and Recreation P.O.Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR........................................................................................................ 1 B. PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 2 C. PLANNING PROCESS......................................................................................................... 4 D. EIR SCOPE............................................................................................................................ 5 E. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 5 F. REPORT ORGANIZATION................................................................................................. 7 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................... 9 A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • El Cerrito Agenda
    THE CITY OF EL CERRITO AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, March 6, 2012-6:40 p.m. Hillside Conference Room REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, March 6, 2012-7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING- CLOSED SESSION Tuesday, March 6, 2012- Immediately Following the Municipal Services Corporation Meeting Hillside Conference Room Meeting Location El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo A venue, El Cerrito Bill Jones - Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Greg Lyman Councilmember Ann Cheng Councilmember Rebecca Benassini Councilmember Janet Abelson 6:40p.m. ROLLCALL CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Comments are limited to 3 minutes per person and to this special agenda only. COMMISSION INTERVIEWS, STATUS AND APPOINTMENTS Conduct interviews of candidates for city boards and commissions. Interviews may result in an announcement of appointment at the meeting. The City Council may also discuss scheduling of future interviews. ADJOURN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLLCALL 7:00p.m. CONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 of 4 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG - led by Mayor Pro Tern Lyman. 2. COUNCIL I STAFF COMMUNICATIONS (Reports ofClosed Session, commission appointments and informational reports on matters ofgeneral interest which are announced by the City Council & City Staff) 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC All persons wishing to speak should sign up with the City Clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes per person. Please state your name and city of residence for the record. Comments regarding non-agenda, presentation and consent calendar items will be heardfirst. Comments related to items appearing on the Public Hearing or Policy Matter portions ofthe Agenda are taken up at the time the City Council deliberates each action item.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council
    Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council: This is the report for the week ending January 18th, 2019. 1. Meeting Notes The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, nd January 22 . Closed Session begins at 5:30 PM, and the Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council will begin at 6:30 PM. The agenda may be found by clicking this link: January 22nd City Council Agenda. 2. Upcoming Events MLK National Day of Service at Parchester Garden 1 Join us at the garden at Parchester Park (900 Williams Drive, Richmond, CA) from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM on Monday, January 21, 2019! The Parchester Village Children's Edible Garden was created by Richmond Love Your Block mini-grant recipients Patricia Duncan Hall and Raynard Lozano. Established in 2016, the garden provides residents with fresh vegetables each year, including peppers, squash, and several varieties of tomatoes. The community has since decided to dedicate the garden to late community activist Mary "Peace" Head, who was a World War II Rosie and known to many as "Mayor of Parchester". In preparation for the garden dedication, Parchester Neighborhood Council, the Office of Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond Love Your Block, Richmond Tool Library, and #Parchester residents are hosting a #communitygarden work day. We will be adding new soil to the planter boxes, planting seeds and/or seedlings, removing weeds, and spreading mulch. Tools, supplies, and refreshments will be provided for volunteers. For more information, e-mail [email protected]. Volunteer Opportunities in Richmond on January 21st – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    [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]