Archive for March, 2007

Response to Laguna Problems

Dear Alan,
I agree with your assessment of this situation. I have held (5) categories of State certifications in pesticide application including aquatic application, and have sprayed thousands of gallons of these compounds over the years. I see the continued use of these chemicals as a predictable failure, and would support litigation to end the practice as soon as possible. While they may be effective in spot clean up of small areas they cannot eradicate this weed by this method. While the physical removal aspects of this project certainly capture a lot of nutrients that are tied up in the Ludwegia, it is clear to me that dredging would do a better job and is an absolute requirement for restoration. This experiment is an unfortunate but predictable failure and needs to be turned around. Perhaps that will require the threat of litigation, and some mediation. Ongoing pesticide and herbicide spraying is like putting makeup on a pimple. It is cosmetic, but does not cure the infection. Spraying is not capable of eliminating the weed, or the root (pun intended) causes of the problem.

It is clear that the chemical being used Glysosate in minute concentrations damages the survival and interferes with the migration patterns of endangered species of salmon by blocking their olfactory senses. We allowed the public health concerns over the West Nile mosquito vector to drive the expenditure of more than a million dollars on this project, without confronting the primary issues responsible for the problem. It is clear to anyone who has spent time analyzing the problem that only a TMDL controlling nutrients and sediment, coupled with dredging sediment laden with these nutrients, will achieve lasting success. Dredging would also improve ground water recharge and flood control objectives.

If the excuse for continuing this band aid spraying approach, is the control of the West Nile threat, allow me to say that there are biological ways to control the mosquito issue which do not require insecticide or pesticide. One of the easiest methods of accomplishing this objective is covered under one of my US patents. The control strategy involves floating solar powered White Knight microbial generators in the impacted areas, while continuing the harvest strategy for those areas which are not under water. The White Knight microbial generator can be charged with a time release packet containing: bacillus therengensis, bacillus subtilus, bacillus lichenoformis, and pseudomonas fluorescens. These microbes are non-pathogenic and designed to be time released into the water column. The bacillus therengensis acts as a stomach poison to mosquito larvae. I have used the other facultative aerobic bacteria assemblage successfully in the Laguna under Fish and Game, and RWQCB oversight, following an apple waste spill that occurred near highway 12 in Sebastopol. The results were spectacular, resulting in odor free, clear and healthy water in the stretch between highway 12 and Occidental road throughout the duration of the project. The aerobic environment (microclimate) created around the White Knight device supports mosquito fish such as gambusia affinis, and other important aerobic creatures, which would otherwise be unable to survive under the current anoxic conditions, and fluctuating pH created by the Ludwegia canopy. This short term method of bioremediation is no substitute for dredging coupled with Nutrient TMDL’s but it is non-toxic, far more effective, and far less expensive in controlling mosquitoes (West Nile Boogey Man) than any method of chemical poisoning of the water. We know that applying any mixture of chemicals like glysosate as this failure demonstrates, is a boondoggle and amounts to a futile attempt to temporarily set back the log growth of an aquatic plant that has unlimited nutrients and ideal conditions at its disposal.

Bob Rawson
887-1811

CWA Letter to Water Board for Laguna’s Ludwigia

The letter attached and pasted below was mailed to the NCRWQB today. It was approved at our meeting last Wednesday. There were four procedural abstentions. There were no votes against.

Stephen

Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Blvd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95403 March 16, 2007

Subject: Inclusion of the Laguna de Santa Rosa on the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - for the invasive hydrophyte Ludwigia - for the next listing cycle.

Sonoma County Water Coalition includes more than 30 organizations representing over 25,000 concerned citizens.

Currently the Laguna de Santa Rosa is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments as impaired as a result of introduced pollutants: sediment/siltation, elevated temperature, biostimulants Nitrogen and Phosphorus, and lack of Dissolved Oxygen.

Surface water monitoring in the possession of the Regional Board indicates that the levels of biostimulants in the Laguna de Santa Rosa are high and are a significant factor contributing to the deteriorating conditions in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Wastewater from the Laguna Subregional Treatment Facility, runoff from agricultural operations, and urban runoff have been identified as the sources of elevated nitrogen and phosphorus. The excess of biostimulatory substances (N and P), along with high levels of sediment, are creating the conditions for secondary water quality impairment by supporting the colonization of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by the invasive and nuisance plant species - Ludwigia.

There is significant information in the record, from past monitoring and evidence presented by the Laguna Foundation, to indicate that nuisance aquatic growth of Ludwigia is a serious problem in the Laguna de Santa Rosa - with public health implications for the surrounding neighborhoods. There is evidence that the colonization of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by Ludwigia has spread over the years and presents a mosquito control issue. Control of the Ludwigia by continuous application of herbicides is difficult, expensive, and not effective in the long run. Last year over 5,000 tons of Ludwigia were removed from the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Ludwigia control operations will cost close to $2,000,000 in the next several years.

The Ludwigia control efforts are also compromising water quality standards in the Laguna. Pesticide application with biomass die-off, even with mass removal, leaves behind significant biomass. Eutrophic conditions related to decaying plant matter substantially lowers DO (a listed pollutant) and contributes to the nutrient cycle.

As indicated, the Regional Board has in the record (from previous listing cycles) significant evidence supporting the ongoing existence of the Ludwigia infestation and related nuisance effects where water quality objectives can not be met and beneficial uses can not be protected. In additions there is the ongoing public heath risk presented by this invasive plant as a mosquito and disease vector.

We believe there is sufficient information in the file (prior to February 28, 2007) in the form of monitoring data, data points, history, photos, etc., to support this listing under State Listing Policy - numeric and narrative criteria.

We believe that the effort associated with this listing is justified as it will facilitate progress in finding avenues of control (promoting programs limiting nutrients and sediment inputs) as pesticide control is not all that effective, has definite adverse water quality effects, and can not go on forever.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fuller-Rowell
Sonoma County Water Coalition

Laguna de Santa Rosa Problems

I have been puttering around with this - don’t know quite which way to go - if any.

The outline below is a short discussion regarding some of the outgoing problems in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The Laguna be listed as impaired for sediment, temperature, lack of DO and nutrients (P and K).

Below is a short review of what is going on - then - some legal considerations. I would like to know what you think.

In review of the document Enhancing and Caring for the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Anna Sears, Joseph Honton) you will find scarce mention of nutrients (from waste water discharge and other sources - Ag) as one of the limiting factors causing growth ( as a biostimulant) of Ludwigia ( a serious nuisance plant).

This misdirection and other (political factors) has resulted in activity to control Ludwigia via the application of extremely large amounts of herbicide chemicals.

A reading of the Ludwigia Task Force meeting notes indicates limited efficacy of the herbicide Glyphosate, and inability to mechanically remove biomass from flooded wetlands (CDFG site) and other locations ( in the year one review)

In year two (CDFG site), due to limited success, large amounts of Triclopyr, a broadleaf-specific herbicide by the trade name Renovate (Renovate has been approved for use in aquatic wetland settings) .

Some success of limiting Ludwigia biomass was noted in the channel, but flooded fields maintained a high level of Ludwigia biomass. Stream bank reduction of biomass was also a problem due to sediment. Nutrient enrichment never being mentioned as a problem.

Year two summary of treatment: Both the SCWA and CDFG sites were treated with Glyphosate and Triclopyr. Glyphosate areas were treated at 3 qt/acre, and Triclopyr sites with an initial 2 qt/acre, and 1 qt/acre followup. Both Glyphosate and Triclopyr sites experienced touchup application where initial treatment was not effective.

Mechanical removal of biomass occurs with an excavator - tractors.

At this point, no effectiveness trends can be seen based on different strategies. A suggestion was made that Imazapyr (trade name Habitat - NOT USED IN THE LAGUNA) may not be as effective on Ludwigia as it is on Spartina. Sites that employ a persistent removal program appear to be more effective than those that only use herbicides. Ultimately, there are more questions than answers.

Suggested plan for 2007 plans (SCWA): Herbicide application of Triclopyr at 1 qt/acre, with mechanical removal of the densest areas. Main Channel East: north bank was treated and removed in 2005, while south bank had treatment only. No action was taken in 2006. Plan to remove biomass from South side only, followed by 1 qt/acre treatment with Triclopyr on both banks. West of Stony Point, spot treat with 1 qt/acre Triclopyr.

Legal Considerations

It is obvious what is going on is experimental, with large amounts of herbicides and stream manipulation occurring without benefit of any environmental review. It appears as the project is flying by the seat of the pants - not totally backed up by science.

The EPA is on record that an NPDES permit is not needed for herbicide (Aquatiic Pesticide) application for mosquito vector control. There is a Ninth Circuit ruling that an NPDES is needed. I believe (but I am not sure - needs research) that the Laguna Foundation and Mosquito Vector Control applies for a yearly Nationwide (NPDES) Permit. It is not clear if all standards, analysis, and monitoring are consistent with CWA mandates. The RB says they are finding no residues - it is unclear as to the extent of monitoring.
The RB is concerned with weed removal an sediment mucking - no action taken, and the concern that there are no considerations being placed on habitat effects on stream condition and nutrient biostimulatory effects on nuisance plant growth.

RB monitoring needs to be assessed.

It is not clear if a CDFG 1600 (Stream Alteration Permit) has been applied for - and - if there was any environmental control or assessment placed on the project.

I am not sure what direction to take on this - if any.

Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468

Phone: Week Days 707 542-4408
Weekends 707 882-2484

Dry Creek Wastewater Pact Nullified by Court Order

By Barry Dugan, Healdsburg Tibune
March 22, 2007

Opponents said lawsuit uncovered “Trojan horse”

A pact between a group of Dry Creek Valley property owners and the Sonoma County Water Agency, which could have forced grape growers to use 1.5 billion gallons of wastewater per year in place of fresh water pumped from the valley and Dry Creek, has been nullified by a judge who agreed with opponents that such an agreement must undergo environmental review.

Continue reading ‘Dry Creek Wastewater Pact Nullified by Court Order’

Dry Creek Water Pact Overturned

Here’s more information on the Dry Creek wastewater ruling:

Judge’s ruling cites need for environmental impact study of pumping limits

By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A Sonoma County judge’s decision last week in an obscure and arcane lawsuit dealing with Dry Creek water pumping rights is bringing back into focus a decade-old dispute over water regulation affecting farmers and grape growers in the north county.

The county Water Agency and the Dry Creek Agricultural Water Users group thought they had sealed an agreement last March that set limits on pumping. But a rival Dry Creek Valley group, Landowners for Water Rights, won a Superior Court decision that invalidated the pact.

Judge Elaine Rushing’s decision was based on a narrow technicality, that the agreement ran afoul of state Environmental Quality Act regulations because it had environmental impacts that need study and consideration.

But it comes on the eve of release of a hugely important draft environmental impact report delving into many of the same thorny water rights issues as the Water Agency proposes water use policies for all 21,000 acres of Dry Creek and Alexander valleys.

The study, tentatively set for release March 20, is the second of three regional projects that involve upgraded sewage treatment plants, improving treated wastewater quality and piping recycled water to customers. A report covering Sonoma Valley came out last October and another covering the Russian River area is next up.

Pumping by the farmers, grape growers and wineries of Dry Creek water is a key piece of the Water Agency’s resource management because the activity occurs between Warm Springs Dam and the pumps at Wohler Bridge on the Russian River that distribute water to urban areas.
So far, the Sonoma Valley recycled water proposal hasn’t been controversial, but the one for Dry Creek and Alexander Valley has been, if community meetings on the draft report are any indication. The project reportedly will involve creation of 18 reservoirs and use of tertiary treated wastewater from the Santa Rosa treatment plant at The Geysers project.

“We objected with a lawsuit because the Water Agency tried to use that agreement to contractually bind growers to use of recycled waste water and that was coercion,” said Fred Corson, a leader in the Landowners group. “I will tell you that the agricultural community is not united in the desirability and safety of using treated wastewater for irrigation.”

Corson is adamant that wastewater, even treated at a higher level proposed for the Sonoma Valley, is not safe and will eventually contaminate ground water. It is not for drinking and shouldn’t be allowed in aquifers or the water table, he said.

Water Agency officials, however, are just as firm in insisting that disinfected, tertiary recycled water is safe for use on crops, playgrounds, vineyards and fish hatcheries, or just about anything that stops short of putting it directly into the tap. Currently, Water Agency facilities treat wastewater at a lower, secondary level, which doesn’t allow it on residential landscaping, on schoolyards or in contact with edible parts of crops.
“We have no problem with the quality of recycled water,” said Pam Jeane, the Water Agency’s chief deputy engineer. “It is being used on vineyards and at dairies in the state and there has not been any illness due to tertiary treated water.”

Jeane said although the court case had little to do with the upcoming environmental review on valley water usage, it does force the Water Agency to rescind the agreement and ask county supervisors for direction.

“Whatever directions the supervisors give, I am sure it will involve continuing to work with the Dry Creek folks,” Jeane said.

Lawsuit Filed on Sonoma County Water Agency’s Water Plan

Santa Rosa – On Monday, March 19, a broad coalition of community organizations representing conservationists, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and recreationists filed a lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court challenging the Sonoma County Water Agency’s (SCWA’s) recently-adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) requires major urban water purveyors such as SCWA to prepare a UWMP every five years to assess available ground and surface water supplies and determine whether they are sufficient to meet projected water demands. SCWA’s most recent UWMP claims that Sonoma County has adequate ground and surface water supplies for substantial urban growth. Continue reading ‘Lawsuit Filed on Sonoma County Water Agency’s Water Plan’

Lavine’s Letter to Water Board on the Laguna de Santa Rosa

Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Blvd.
Santa Rosa, CA

Subject: Inclusion of the Laguna de Santa Rosa on the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - for the invasive hydrophyte Ludwigia - for the next listing cycle.

Currently the Laguna de Santa Rosa is listed on the  Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments as impaired as a result of introduced pollutants: sediment/siltation, elevated temperature,  biostimulants Nitrogen and Phosphorus, and lack of Dissolved Oxygen.

Surface water monitoring in the possession of the Regional Board indicates that the levels of biostimulants in the Laguna de Santa Rosa are high and are a significant factor contributing to the deteriorating conditions in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Wastewater from the Laguna Subregional Treatment Facility, runoff from agricultural operations, and urban runoff have been identified as the sources of elevated nitrogen and phosphorus.  The excess of  biostimulatory substances (N and P), along with high levels of sediment, are creating the conditions for secondary water quality impairment by supporting the colonization of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by the invasive and nuisance plant species - Ludwigia.

There is significant information in the record, from past monitoring and evidence presented by the Laguna Foundation, to indicate that nuisance aquatic growth of Ludwigia is a serious problem in the Laguna de Santa Rosa - with public health implications for the surrounding neighborhoods. There is evidence that the colonization of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by Ludwigia has spread over the years and presents a mosquito control issue. Control of the Ludwigia by continuous application of pesticides is difficult, expensive, and not effective in the long run. Last year over 5,000 tons of Ludwigia were removed from the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Ludwigia control operations will cost close to $2,000,000 in the next several years.

The Ludwigia control efforts are also compromising water quality standards in the Laguna.  Pesticide application with biomass die-off, even with mass removal, leaves behind significant biomass. Eutrophic conditions related to decaying plant matter substantially lowers  DO (a listed pollutant) and contributes to the nutrient cycle.

As indicated, the Regional Board has in the record (from previous listing cycles)  significant evidence supporting the ongoing existence of the Ludwigia infestation and related nuisance effects where water quality objectives can not be met and beneficial uses can not be protected. In additions there is the ongoing public heath risk presented by this invasive plant as a mosquito and disease vector.

We believe there is sufficient information in the file (prior to February 28, 2007) in the form of monitoring data, data points, history, photos, etc., to support this listing under State Listing Policy - numeric and narrative criteria.

We believe that the effort associated with this listing is justified as it will facilitate progress in  finding avenues of control (promoting programs limiting nutrients and sediment inputs) as pesticide control is not all that effective, has definite adverse water quality effects,  and can not go on forever.

Alan Levine

California Supreme Court weighs In on the Evaluation of Future Water Supplies

Over the past several years, the fate of large-scale planned development projects in California has rested on the proven availability of water supplies. Due to state legislation referred to as S8 610/221 and a string of appellate cases decided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), developers and water agencies are now called upon to prove a reliable water supply for both proposed development projects and all future growth over a twenty­year period. Given that heightened legal scrutiny, one of the key unanswered questions is: under what circumstances can a developer rely on a future water supply? Continue reading ‘California Supreme Court weighs In on the Evaluation of Future Water Supplies’

Levine’s Water Law Talk from SRFC

Below - is a copy of my presentation at the Salmonid Restoration Federation Conference

Bits and pieces of this presentation may be useful to some.

COAST ACTION GROUP - P.O. BOX 215 - POINT ARENA, CA 95468 - (707) 542-4408
Presented by Alan Levine

California Water Law Can Help Salmon - A Short “How To” Guide

This is an appeal to create interest in, or make the case, that action (activity) is needed on to protect salmon from the position of protection - as much as from the position of restoration. In fact without folks out there addressing projects and miss-use, there would be little to drive the restoration side of the issue.

Who is it that comments on projects, works on Water Board appointments, comments and works on TMDL policy, Basin Planning Policy, Waivers of Waste Discharge,  chases down Timber Harvest Plans, deals with legislation (knocking down bad stuff, launching good stuff), etc, etc.???

Without a piece of litigation that got a Consent Decree for scheduling TMDLs and work on State TMDL Policy and maintaining Listings for Impaired waterbodies much of the horse power behind current Restoration Funding Would not be there.

Restoration vs. Protection  - You can not assume that salmon can be recovered through restoration - alone. Recovery of salmon depends on capability of employing a combination of all tools available. Why restore it if you can’t protect it? There is necessity to work all angles within restoration and protection Utilities to be successful in the goal of recovery of salmon. This means that salmon resource-based concerned parties must be well versed in the application of all regulatory regimes that will support and aid in goal attainment.

Regulatory Utilities/Tools - ALL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED AND WORKED ON -  AND - that can help aid salmon recovery include: California Water Code (pollution and flow law), Basin Plan for the North Coast (Water Quality Objectives, pollution standards, TMDL Action Plans, anti-degradation language), Fish & Game Code, Forest Practice Act, and other aspects of Cal Resources Code including the California Environmental Quality Act.

“Well versed” means that the regulatory framework must be understood and used to secure compliance with the law and whatever protections and/or restorative processes supported by law.

This work includes:  developing relationships with agency staff, requesting notice on projects of interest, and participating in project environmental review and policy development processes: Water -  Regional and State Water Board rulemaking, TMDL Action Plans, permitting process - including  Water Rights Adjudication - Appeals - Complaints , and Basin Plan Amendments - ON THE TABLE RIPARIAN PROTECTION - SEDIMENT.

Water quality issues fall into other agency regulatory mandates: Fish & Game Code (1600 permitting process and pollution sanctions, Coho Recovery Guidelines), Forest Practices ( Board of Forestry rule making - anti-pollution regs, Threatened and Impaired Rules).

Clean Water Regulations can help protect salmon and support recovery and restoration.

Pollution and lack of sufficient flows are both aspects (often related) that effect the biologic function of streams, fishery loss.  The failure of most north coast rivers and streams to meet Water Quality Standards has resulted in their listing on the State’s CWA 303 (d) List of Impaired Waters.

Flows - Surface water flows and use fall under the jurisdiction of the SWRCB - Division of water Rights. Tools: Water Rights Complaints for unlawful/wasteful use, Protest Water Rights applications - applications fall under CEQA review. Petition SWRCB. TMDL flow objectives.

Ongoing Actions: TU/Peregrine Audubon Petition to SWRCB, Flow issues in TMDLs - Should the Riparian Protection Basin Plan Amendment include flow issues? Do flow issues affect instream pollutant issues (temperature, algae, hydrophytes)?

Water Quality -  Failure to meet Water Quality Standards (WQS =  WQ Objectives + Beneficial Uses noted in the Basin Plan) mandates impaired listing and a TMDL (with Action Plan if promulgated by the State).

TMDLs - Pollutant, point and non-point source, assessment and planning device for impaired waterbody - includes problem statement, pollutant source assessment, and allocation of pollutant loads that will achieve attainment of WQS - including targets for pollutant reduction and land use management to attain WQS. EPA TMDLs have no Action Plans.  Regional Board TMDLs are Water Quality Control Plans under state Water Code and must be adopted into the Basin Plan with an Action Plan that complies with Section 13242 Cal Water Code - including a description of actions to be taken, timelines for implementation, and monitoring to assure compliance.

TMDL Status: Garcia - Default land use rules with option to develop “voluntary plans” - Garcia is recovering rapidly, Scott - relies heavily on voluntary actions, no default land use prescriptions with back up from WDRs,  Shasta - same as Scott with flow objectives. Basin Plan Amendment for Sediment and Riparian/Wetland protection to be a backup for TMDLs.

Basin Plan -  What is it?  Is enforceable law. Includes: Beneficial Uses, Water Quality Objectives - numeric or narrative description, and Implementation Plans - including: Prohibitions , Anti-deg language, adopted TMDL/Action Plans,  and other Basin Plan Amendments. Ongoing Actions: Sediment and Riparian and Wetland Protection Amendments (which may include new WQ Objectives), TMDLs/Action Plan for Klamath and Russian River/Laguna de Santa Rosa. Approved TMDLs/Action Plans - Garcia, Shasta, and Scott Rivers

Violation of the Basin Plan = violation of state law and should be reported to Regional Board.

Regional Board enforcement and Implementation Responsibility - Waste Discharge Requirements and Conditional Waivers for Waste Discharge Requirements, 401 certifications (of Federal 404 permits), Timber Harvest Plan review,  CEQA project review, ACLs, Cleanup and Abatement Orders, Grants.

What You Can Do - Things to Be On Top Of:

• Maintain Listings - Initiate Listings - Impaired Water Bodies

• Report Basin Plan Violations

• Comment on Projects - TMDL Development - Action Plans,  Development Projects - Diversions (also a project) - THPs

• Request City and County Compliance with State Water Code/NPS Program via TMDL development, Grading Ordinance,  County and City Stormwater Plans.

• Report violation of Diversion/Water Rights License.

• Participate in Policy Development - CESA Coho protections, FPRs, Basin Plan Amendments.

Books by Solano Press: Forest Practice Act and Related Laws,  California Water, Wetlands, Streams and Other Waters, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
(800) 931-9373  www.solano.com

Sites for more info:

KRIS Coho (good science bibliography) -   http://krisweb.com
EPA TMDL sites - www.epa.gov/OWOW
EPA Region 9 - TMDLs and other programs - www.epa.gov/region9
State Water Resources Control Board - www.swrcb.ca.gov
Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast - www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb1
Department of Water Resources (DWR)- Water Data Library (WDL) - http://wdl.water.ca.gov/
“Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers” http://www.crwp.org/pdf_files/riparian_setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf
“Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations”, http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/600R05118/600R05118.pdf

Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468

Phone: Week Days 707 542-4408
Weekends  707 882-2484

State of the Laguna Conference

I imagine you all got this but just in case . . .

Save the Date!

Thursday March 29 through Sunday, April 1, 2007.

Nearly 18 years after the first State of the Laguna Conference led to the formation of the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, the Foundation will convene a second State of the Laguna Conference to discuss the future of Sonoma County’s most important wildlife area.

Addressing issues of water quality, wildlife habitat and biodiversity, flood protection, invasive species, outdoor recreation and other public concerns, the Conference will present the recommendations of Enhancing and Caring for the Laguna, a restoration and management plan for the Laguna watershed published by the Foundation in winter of 2006.

The four-day conference will include a two-day Science Symposium, where scientists and students will present and discuss current studies and future research directions in the Laguna watershed and the Santa Rosa Plain, followed by a full day of presentations and panel discussions with experts and public agency representatives on Saturday. Sunday will be dedicated to field tours of the Laguna, with docent and local expert led discussion. Attendees may choose to attend any or all days of the Conference.

Details and registration information will be available on our website, www.lagunafoundation.org in mid-January. For more information, please contact Maggie Hart at (707) 527-9277 x107.

We look forward to seeing you at Sonoma State Cooperage on March 29th through April 1st!

State of the Laguna Conference 2007
Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation
(707) 527-9277 x107
www.lagunafoundation.org