DOCSLIB.ORG

ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN January 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN January 2019 ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER MEMBER AGENCIES: RESOURCE PLAN Alameda Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood January 2019 Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ................................................................... 8 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 8 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 8 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 8 2.3.1 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ................. 8 2.3.2 Other Plans ............................................................................................................. 8 2.3.3 Design Criteria for New and Redevelopment BMPs ................................................ 9 3. Alameda Watersheds Characterization ..................................................... 10 3.1 SWRP Area ...............................................................................................................10 3.2 Alameda County Water Suppliers ..............................................................................14 3.3 Watersheds Characterizations ...................................................................................19 3.3.1 Western Alameda County Watersheds ..................................................................21 3.3.2 Alameda Creek Watershed ....................................................................................30 3.3.3 Eastern Alameda County Watersheds ...................................................................39 4. Water Quality Concerns and Regulatory Requirements .......................... 43 4.1 Pollutant Generating Activities ...................................................................................43 4.2 Pollutants of Concern ................................................................................................43 4.2.1 Applicable Permits and TMDLs ..............................................................................44 4.3 Alameda County Water Quality Compliance Strategies and the SWRP .....................47 5. Identification, Quantification of Multiple Benefits, and Prioritization of Project Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 50 5.1 Overview of Approach ...............................................................................................50 5.2 Identification of Project Opportunities ........................................................................51 5.2.1 Planned Project Opportunities ...............................................................................51 5.2.2 Potential Project Opportunities ...............................................................................51 5.3 Project Classification .................................................................................................53 5.3.1 Green Infrastructure Projects .................................................................................53 Storm Water Resource Plan 2 January 2019 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program 5.3.2 Infiltration Feasibility ..............................................................................................53 5.3.3 Facility Type ..........................................................................................................54 5.3.4 Project Drainage Area............................................................................................55 5.4 Identified Project Database ........................................................................................55 5.5 Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Evaluation and Project Prioritization ..............................55 5.5.1 Multiple Benefit Evaluation .....................................................................................56 5.6 Prioritization of Scored Projects .................................................................................59 5.6.1 Prioritized List of Project Opportunities ..................................................................60 6. Education, Outreach, and Public Participation ......................................... 61 6.1 Overview of Stakeholder Outreach and Coordination Strategy ..................................61 6.1.1 Purpose of the Stakeholder Outreach and Coordination Strategy ..........................61 6.1.2 Outreach Approach ................................................................................................61 6.1.3 Key Stakeholder Audiences ...................................................................................61 6.1.4 Matrix of Outreach Methods ...................................................................................62 6.2 Summary of Outreach Activities .................................................................................63 6.2.1 GI Work Group Meetings and Mailing List ..............................................................63 6.2.2 E-mail List and Targeted E-mail Messages ............................................................64 6.2.3 ACCWP SWRP Web Page ....................................................................................64 6.2.4 Social Media ..........................................................................................................64 6.2.5 Bay Area IRWM Group ..........................................................................................64 7. Implementation Strategy for SWRP ........................................................... 65 7.1 SWRP Implementation ..............................................................................................65 7.1.1 Responsible Entities ..............................................................................................65 7.1.2 Implementation Schedule ......................................................................................65 7.1.3 Community Participation ........................................................................................66 7.2 Decision Support Tools for Plan Implementation .......................................................66 7.3 Implementation Tracking and Data Management .......................................................66 7.3.1 Tracking and Managing GI Projects .......................................................................67 7.3.2 Pollutant Load Reduction Accounting ....................................................................67 7.3.3 Reasonable Assurance Analysis ............................................................................67 7.4 Water Quality Monitoring ...........................................................................................68 7.4.1 ACCWP Monitoring Program .................................................................................68 7.4.2 Regional Monitoring Program ................................................................................69 7.5 Funding Needs ..........................................................................................................69 8. References................................................................................................... 71 Storm Water Resource Plan 3 January 2019 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Appendix 1. Storm Water Resource Plan Checklist and Self Certification ..................... A1-1 Appendix 2. Project Request for Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Storm Water Resource Plan .......................................................................................................... A2-1 Appendix 3. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Storm Water Resource Plan Outreach Strategy ............................................................................................................... A3-1 Appendix 4. Public Comment and Response Matrix ........................................................ A4-1 Appendix 5. Database of Prioritized Project Lists ............................................................ A5-1 Storm Water Resource Plan 4 January 2019 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP) was created to facilitate the identification of opportunities and future development and implementation of stormwater management projects and programs that provide multiple benefits including improved water quality, reduced localized flooding, increased water supplies for beneficial uses, and community enhancement. Pursuant to Senate Bill 985 (SB 985),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish Or Mexican Authorities
    -::, » . .• f Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities Prepared by the Staff of the State Lands Commission ----- -- -·- PREFACE This report was prepared by Cris Perez under direction of Lou Shafer. There were three main reasons for its preparation. First, it provides a convenient reference to patent data used by staff Boundary Officers and others who may find the information helpful. Secondly, this report provides a background for newer members who may be unfamiliar with Spanish and Mexican land grants and the general circumstances surrounding the transfer of land from Mexican to American dominion. Lastly, it provides sources for additional reading for those who may wish to study further. The report has not been reviewed by the Executive Staff of the Commission and has not been approved by the State Lands Commission. If there are any questions regarding this report, direct them to Cris Perez or myself at the Office of the State Lands Commission, 1807 - 13th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. ROY MINNICK, Supervisor Boundary Investigation Unit 0401L VI TABLE OF CONTENlS Preface UI List of Maps x Introduction 1 Private Land Claims in California 2 Missions, Presidios, and Pueblos 7 Explanation of Terms Used in This Report 14 GRANTS OF LAND BY COUNTY AlamE:1da County 15 Amador County 19 Butte County 21 Calaveras County 23 Colusa County 25 Contra Costa County 27 Fresno County 31 Glenn County 33 Kern County 35 Kings County 39 Lake County 41 Los Angeles County 43 Marin County 53 Mariposa County 57 Mendocino County
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today
    2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today 1 The partners of the Utility of the Future Today are pleased to present the inaugural program’s 61 public and private utilities from across the U.S., Canada, and Denmark selected by a peer committee of utility leaders from an impressive number of first year entries. The recipients were recognized and honored during a September 27 ceremony held in conjunction with WEFTEC 2016 in New OrleansWEF’s 89th annual technical exhibition and conferenceas well as a number of commensurate events sponsored by the partners. The recipients received a display flag and a special certificate to further identify and promote their outstanding achievement as a Utility of the Future Today. The following 61 utilities have met the criteria for Utility of the Future Today by meeting the Organizational Culture requirement plus at least one of the Activities identified above. Recognized Activities are indicated for each utility as identified by a and are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Table of Contents Background 6 Program Purpose 7 Aarhus Vand, Denmark 8 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, NM 17 Alexandria Renew Enterprises, VA 23 Avon Lake Regional Water, OH 34 Baltimore City Department of Public Works, MD 38 Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 50 Charlotte Water, NC 61 City of Cedar Rapids, IA 71 City of Fayetteville, AR 76 City of Fond du Lac, WI 80 City of Grand Rapids, MI 86 City of Gresham, OR 94 City of Los Angeles – LA Sanitation, CA 99 City of Roseville, CA 108 City of San
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021
    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025
    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 7. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Table of Contents page page BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................. 7-1 Tables SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern in the RESOURCE CONSERVATION ..................................................... 7-2 Planning Area ........................................................... 7-3 Animal Life.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Potential Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Plant Life............................................................................. 7-4 in the Planning Area .................................................. 7-6 Soil Resources ..................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods and Structures ..................... 7-15 Sand and Gravel............................................................... 7-10 Cultural Resources............................................................. 7-11 Figures OPEN SPACE LANDS............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-1 Generalized Land Cover, 2005 .................................. 7-5 Recreational Open Space................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-2 Aggregate Resources and Reclamation ...................... 7-12 Water Management, Habitat, and Recreation...................... 7-24 Figure 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain and Wetland Assessment for the Site 300 Entrance/Exit Corral Hollow Road Widening Project
    LLNL-AR-820616 L L NFloodplain and Wetland L - XAssessment for the Site 300 X XEntrance/Exit Corral X -Hollow Road Widening X X XProject Adjacent to the X XLawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site March 15, 2021 Floodplain and Wetland Assessment for the Site 300 Entrance/Exit Corral Hollow Road Widening Project Prepared by: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC Environmental Functional Area Water Resources and Environmental Planning Group Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Livermore Field Office Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ii Floodplain and Wetland Assessment for the Site 300 Entrance/Exit Corral Hollow Road Widening Project Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Project Site ........................................................................................................ 2 Potential Floodplains Impacts ......................................................................................................... 3 Potential Wetlands Impacts............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sediment / Unlock Alameda Creek
    PUBLIC SEDIMENT / UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK WWW.RESILIENTBAYAREA.ORG ◄ BAYLANDS = LIVING INFRA STR CTY\, E' j(II( ........ • 400 +-' -L C Based on preliminary 0 analysis by SFfl. A more , detailed analysis is beinq E TIDAL MARSH conducted as part of -l/) the Healthy Watersheds l/) ro Resilient Aaylands E project (hwrb.sfei.org) +-' C QJ E "'O MUDFLAT QJ V1 SAC-SJ DELTA 0 1 Sediment supply was estimated by 'Sediment demand was estimated multiplying the current average using a mudflat soil bulK density of annual c;ediment load valuec; from 1.5 q c;ediment/rm c;oil (Brew and McKee et al. (in prep) by the number Williams :?010), a tidal marsh soil of years between 201 r and2100. bulK density ot 0.4 g sed1m ent / cm 3 c;oil (Callaway et al. :?010), and baywide mudflat and marsh area circa 2009 (BAARI vl). BAYLANDS TODAY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 3' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 7' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY WE MUST LOOK UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES FEED THE BAY SONOMA CREEK NAPA RIVER PETALUMA CREEK WALNUT CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK COYOTE CREEK GUADALUPE CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK SEDIMENTSHED ALAMEDA CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED - 660 SQMI OAKLAND ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE THE CREEK BUILT AN ALLUVIAL FAN AND FED THE BAY ALAMEDA CREEK SOUTH BAY NILES CONE ALLUVIAL FAN HIGH SEDIMENT FEEDS MARSHES TIDAL WETLANDS IT HAS BEEN LOCKED IN PLACE OVER TIME LIVERMORE PLEASANTON SUNOL UNION CITY NILES SAN MATEO BRIDGE EDEN LANDING FREMONT NEWARK LOW SEDIMENT CARGILL SALT PONDS DUMBARTON BRIDGE SEDIMENT FLOWS ARE HIGHLY MODIFIED SEDIMENT IS STUCK IN CHANNEL IMPOUNDED BY DAMS UPSTREAM REDUCED SUPPLY TO THE BAY AND VULNERABILITIES ARE EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE EROSION SUBSIDENCE SEA LEVEL RISE THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SAN MATEO BRIDGE UNION CITY NILES RUBBER DAMS BART WEIR EDEN LANDING PONDS HEAD OF TIDE FREMONT 880 NEWARK TIDAL EXTENT FLUVIAL EXTENT DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan Appendix a Stakeholder and Public Comments
    SCAPE ARCADIS CONVEY RE:FOCUS SFEI HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE HAYWARD AREA SHORELINE PLANNING AGENCY (HASPA) PART OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD, HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED 10/02/2020 PUBLIC ONLINE SURVEY 02/27/19 - 03/15/19 ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY A 23-question survey was conducted on behalf of the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) to assess the public’s general understanding of Hayward Regional Shoreline, mainly in regard to sea level rise, potential flooding, and participants’ feelings, concerns, and predictions regarding these issues. In the spring of 2019, this survey was completed by approximately 900 people throughout the Bay Area, primarily those who live, work, commute through, or recreate at or near the shoreline. 1. Are you familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline that is managed by East Bay Regional Park District and Hayward Area Recreation and Park District? The majority of people surveyed are familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline. 2. What’s your association with the project area? The majority of those surveyed either drive through the area or enjoy the views of the Shoreline. Approximately two thirds of those surveyed visit the Shoreline and about one third live near the Shoreline. A smaller percentage (about ten percent) specified that they enjoy activities such as birding, cycling, jogging or walking along the Shoreline. A negligible amount of those surveyed stated they’d like to see restaurants built on the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San
    ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND.
    [Show full text]