DOCSLIB.ORG

Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED VISION PLAN A LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORT Urban Creeks Council Restoration Design Group, LLC PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED VISION PLAN A LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORT Prepared by: Urban Creeks Council of California Restoration Design Group, LLC In Partnership with: City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Grant funding provided by: California Coastal Conservancy June 2004 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements We wish to give special thanks to all who provided their time and energy to this effort. In particular we want to thank Frank Nunes, Roger Leventhal, Carole Dwinell, Ann Riley, Roger Hartwell, Kevin Emigh, and Bob Power. We are also indebted to the Pinole Valley High School and the Pinole Public Library for the use of their meeting facilities. Vision Planning Group Signatures Joseph R. Mariotti Nancy E. Stein Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Watershed Program Local Historian Watershed Management Planning Specialist William G. Voigt Roger D. Hartwell Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed EBMUD Fisheries Biologist GIS Analyst and Biologist Frank E. Nunes Carol Thompson Briones Valley Rancher Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Pre-school teacher Carole Dwinell Geoff Chandler Briones Valley landowner Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Pinole Valley High School, Env. Studies Academy Administrator Jeffra Cook Tim McDonough Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Hercules homeowner Carol Arnold Nancy Voisey Watershed Coordinator, Pinole Creek City of Pinole Clean Water Program Watershed Vision Plan Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan i Contents Contents Acknowledgements.................................................................................................i Vision Planning Group Signatures..................................................................i Preface.............................................................................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary.............................................................................................1 Vision Statement...................................................................................................2 Watershed Components.......................................................................................3 Physical..................................................................................................................3 Biological...............................................................................................................4 Historical...............................................................................................................6 Political................................................................................................................9 Social....................................................................................................................10 Planning Process.....................................................................................................12 Community Meetings........................................................................................13 Field Trips............................................................................................................13 Guest Speakers...................................................................................................13 Results...........................................................................................................................14 Water Quality......................................................................................................15 Habitat.................................................................................................................17 Education............................................................................................................18 Private Property .................................................................................................18 Development & Design.....................................................................................18 Flood Management............................................................................................19 Goals & Actions.......................................................................................................20 Pinole Creek Vision Watershed Plan ii Contents Opportunities &Constraints...........................................................................24 Lower Pinole Creek Restoration Project..........................................................24 Pavon Creeks......................................................................................................29 Trailer Storage Site.............................................................................................30 Development & Design.....................................................................................30 Contra Costa Resource Conservation District................................................32 Stream Management Program for Private Landowners...............................32 Watershed Council.............................................................................................32 Conclusions................................................................................................................34 Appendices Appendix A: Funding Options - Lower Pinole Creek Maintenance........................36 List of Figures Pinole Location Map........................................................................................................iv Historical Alignment of Pinole Creek.............................................................................7 Pinole Creek Watershed Profile.....................................................................................11 Lower Pinole Creek Restoration Concept - Cross Sections........................................25 Pinole Creek Restoration Design Concept (Lower Channel)....................................26 Reach 1 Opportunities & Constraints..........................................................................27 Reach 2 Opportunities & Constraints..........................................................................28 Pinole Creek Watershed Projects...................................................................................31 Pinole Creek Watershed Goals Relationship Model..................................................35 Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan iii Pinole Location Map Pinole Location Map 5 80 YOLO 101 50 505 Davis NAPA SACRAMENTO SONOMA Santa Rosa Vacaville Napa SOLANO Petaluma Fairfield 80 Lodi Rio Vista 5 MARIN Pinole 680 Antioch Stockton Richmond Concord Berkeley SAN Walnut Creek JOAQUIN CONTRA COSTA Oakland 99 Alameda SAN FRANCISCO San Leandro 580 Livermore Pleasanton ALAMEDA Fremont 5 Half Moon Bay 280 San Jose SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ 17 101 Pinole Creek Vision Watershed Plan iv Preface Preface The Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan initially provided a broad community perspec- tive to the Pinole Creek flood control channel redesign project. This California Coastal Conservancy funded plan is a result of a collaborative process between the Urban Creeks Council of California (UCC), Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, the City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. A related project is the redesign of the existing flood control channel on lower Pinole Creek. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for that project, local partners felt it was important to provide the USACE with a locally based design alternative that exemplifies a larger community-based watershed vision. A separate report, also funded by the Coastal Conservancy, presents the community-supported lower channel restoration concept. This concept is summa- rized briefly in this Vision Plan and is supported by participants in the Vision Plan process. Introduction After more than two years of effort, the UCC is pleased to present the Pinole Creek Watershed Vision Plan. While the UCC and the Restoration Design Group made significant contributions to the planning process from 2001 to present, the report represent decades of work by many individuals, agencies and elected Cattle and the golden hills of the upper watershed officials. The vision plan has been devel- oped through an open democratic process and reflects a wide range of communal inter- ests that may guide public policy. Executive Summary The consensus building approach used in the vision planning process established multi- ple priorities aimed to achieve and maintain a healthy Pinole Creek watershed. The realization of each priority is interrelated to the other priorities and reflects the connec- tivity between the community and the watershed. The consensus building approach emphasized by Drew Goetting and the Restoration Design Group integrated many different perspectives into the decision making process. This plan is the product of a constructive and exploratory dialogue. It is this democratic communicative process that has become one of the underlying principles of the vision. A watershed council that provides a public forum for community members to continue their involvement in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan
    Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan Prepared for the Urban Creeks Council By Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 207 Second Street, Ste. B Sausalito, CA 94965 November, 2003 The Codornices Creek watershed assessment and salmonid restoration planning project, the results of which are reported here, was funded by the Watershed Program of the California Bay-Delta Authority, through Contract No. 4600001722 between the California Department of Water Resources and the Urban Creeks Council. The Urban Creeks Council is a non-profit organization working to preserve, protect, and restore urban streams and their riparian habitat. The Urban Creeks Council may be reached at 1250 Addison Street, Ste. 107, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510- 540-6669). Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... ii Introduction Fish and stream habitat records................................................................................................. 1 Other Codornices Creek studies................................................................................................ 1 Methods: How Each Element of the Project Was Undertaken Fish population assessment methods ........................................................................................ 2 Salmonid habitat assessment methods.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April 11, 2014 City Council Weekly Digest
    City Council Weekly Digest TO: MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL Friday FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager April 11, 2014 ITEMS INCLUDED: ATTACHMENTS: Summer Activity Guide Information to be Released Washington Post article April 21st mentioning Menlo Park’s “Nutty the Squirrel” Menlo Park Police Department Appoints New K-9 Handler SF Bay Restoration Authority Brochure and Supporters List $565,000 Approved for Menlo Park Projects under Measure A Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Letter to C/CAG re: Circulation Element 4/17 Workshop on FAA Proposed Changes to NorCal Compliance with Complete Airspace and Draft Environmental Assessment Report Streets Act of 2008 4/23 Meeting Regarding Changes to the National Flood SF Creek JPA Flood insurance Insurance Program (NFIP) meeting flyer 4/23 Public Hearing for West Bay Sanitary District’s Menlo Park Construction Proposed Sewer Service Fee Increase News Update 04/11/2014 Update on Menlo Park’s OBAG/Complete Streets City Council Only: Eligibility Invitation to 4/24 Pacific Union Office Opening Potential Solar on Five City Buildings and Electric Invitation to 4/24 Redwood Vehicle Charging Stations Coming Soon! City Health Center Event Invitation to 4/30 Youth Potential Regional Ballot Measure to Fund Bay Community Service Annual Restoration Luncheon Invitation to 5/7 HEART C/CAG Public Opinion Mail Survey for Potential Storm Opening Doors Event Water Funding Initiative Council Digest – April 11, 2014 Summer Activity Guide Information to be Released April 21st The much anticipated Summer Activity Guide will be mailed to residents and available to the public starting on Monday, April 21st. Registration will open for Menlo Park residents on Monday, April 28th and for non- residents on Monday, May 5th.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Five Creeks Letters Re Restoration of Codornices Creek
    The letters below deal with F5C’s early involvement in Codornices Creek. They shed some light on challenges that faced efforts to restore our area’s only trout stream, and the role citizens played. These are by no means the whole story. Most credit for the big projects on Codornices west of San Pablo goes to the partnership of creek-restoration pioneers Carole Schemmerling, who headed the now defunct Urban Creeks Council, and consulting hydrologist Dr. Ann Riley, whose now defunct private consulting firm Watershed Restoration Institute. The two shared offices; UCC was effectively the nonprofit arm of WRI, able to receive grants and similar government support. Credit also goes to longtime environmental visionary Richard Register, who with UCC played a large role in bringing Codornices out of its pipe between 8th and 9th Streets in 1994-5. This was one of Berkeley’s pioneer “daylighting” projects. Friends of Five Creeks 1000 San Pablo Ave. Albany, CA 94706 412 7257 October 4, 1998 Mr. Ron Gervason San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay St., 14th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected] Re: Triannual Review of Water Quality Control Plan of San Francisco Bay Basin Friends of Five Creeks is a grassroots organization that seeks to protect and restore creeks in Albany, California. While Albany’s natural creeks are mostly in culverts, one, Codornices, is substantially free flowing and has a small trout population. Efforts are ongoing to restore another, Cerrito Creek. We believe that the few creeks in our urbanized area that can or do support relatively natural aquatic life, especially cold-water or anadromous fish, should receive the highest possible degree of protection, including that of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring San Francisco Bay
    Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • (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]
  • Examples of Projects Anticipated to Be Eligible for Restoration Authority Grants
    Examples of projects anticipated to be eligible for Restoration Authority grants. PROJECT COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD ORGANIZATIONS Peninsula and South Bay Completion of restoration and park improvements (entry, parking, Candlestick Point - San California State Parks signs, and trails), monitoring of restored wetlands, and operation and Yosemite Slough Francisco Foundation maintenance of wetlands and visitor amenities San Design and construction of a new soft shoreline to create habitat, China Basin Port of San Francisco Francisco improve public access, and protect the park from sea level rise. Environmental education programs for students of all ages at the Golden Gate National Crissy Field Center. The Center offers place-based exploration that focuses Crissy Field Educational San Parks Conservancy, on the interaction between humans and nature and makes use of the Programs Francisco National Park Service, natural and cultural resources of the restored Crissy Field wetland and the Presidio Trust Tennessee Hollow watershed. Design and construction of a living, natural shoreline to protect Heron’s Head park from erosion and sea level rise, create habitat San enhancements and protect public access; expansion of the Port’s existing Heron’s Head Park Port of San Francisco Francisco habitat education and outreach program for K-12 graders on Bay habitat and natural history; and removal of a creosote-pile pier in the waters to the north side of Heron’s Head Park, to improve wildlife habitat. San Design and construction of shoreline improvements to support habitat Islais Creek Port of San Francisco Francisco creation, protect against erosion and remove creosote piles. Design and construction of a new 4-acre shoreline and park area, San Pier 70 - Slipways Park including natural habitat areas, living shoreline, wetlands, and public access Port of San Francisco Francisco areas.
    [Show full text]