Monthly Archive for July, 2007

Free Streams Seminar in Sacramento

The Water Board Academy is hosting a speaker series that includes five stream experts who will present current research about stream concerns and stream improvement possibilities in California. Given the diversity of the topography, geology, geography, land use, climatic conditions and manmade alterations within the state of California; it is not possible to define one method for ensuring the stability of wadeable streams within the state. When healthy, these smaller streams provide critical habitat for fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates, and offer effective pollutant assimilation benefits.

The seminar will explore the relationships among stream hydrology, hydrogeomorphology, and riparian and aquatic ecology, in the context of stream corridor stability and stream restoration efforts. The Academy Speaker Series is open to the public at no cost and will be webcast for anyone who cannot attend in person.

Where: Byron Sher Auditorium, Cal/EPA Bldg., 1001 I Street, Sacramento
When: Monday, July 23rd, 9am to 4pm
Agenda
Time
Session
9:00 a.m.
Welcome and introductory remarks
Greg Gearheart, P.E., SWRCB
9:15 a.m.
The Science and Practice of River Restoration
Desiree Tullos, Ph.D.,Oregon State University

Tullos will present definitions, history and current trends of river restoration in the U.S.; focus on issues specific to western states, including dam removal, channel reconfiguration, and environmental flows; discuss performance evaluation of restoration projects; and evaluate river restoration in an inconclusive hydrologic and regulatory framework.
10:05 a.m.
Stream Ecology-From the Eye of the Fish and California Stream Ecology
Lisa Thompson, Ph.D., University of California, Davis

Thompson will present current research of cold-water fish in wadeable streams in several watersheds in northern and central California and relate fish distribution and habitat use to factors such as temperature, flow regime, water year, large wood (debris), pools, cover, and substrate. These factors influence the abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates as important food sources for stream fish. Restoration of anadromous fish populations and stream habitat should be considered at the watershed scale, incorporating fish passage, seasonal shifts in habitat use due to migration and temperature changes, and inter-annual shifts related to water year.
10:55 a.m.
The Importance of Floodplains to Riverine Ecosystems and Flood Management
Chris Bowles, Ph.D., PWA, Ltd., Sacramento

Highlighting the relationship between ecology and stream functionality, Bowles’ presentation will provide an overview of the importance of floodplains for ecosystem and flood management from a physical process perspective. Traditional, single focus approaches to floodplain management must be developed into holistic, multi-objective approaches in order to maximize the potential, not only for our ecosystems, but for more sustainable flood management and planning.
11:45 a.m.
Lunch
1:00 p.m.
Stability: Trees vs. Grass on Stream Banks-Some Geomorphological and Other Considerations
Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D., UCLA

A contentious element of riparian management is whether trees or grass promote greater stream stability. This review looks at pre-existing conditions and examines stream morphology, bank and floodplain scour, hydroclimatology, stream flood regime, and the inherent strength of banks. Trimble will also help to distinguish between features whose potential for stream bank protection have been demonstrated and those that require more research.
1:50 p.m.
Invasive Plant Species and Revegetation Along Rivers, Streams and Levees in California
Gretchen Coffman, Ph.D., Marine Science Institute, University of California

This presentation will review the problem of plant invasion in streams and riparian ecosystems. Strategies for control and specific removal methods for the most invasive riparian plants in California, the cost and timing of invasive plant removal, riparian re-vegetation, stream restoration and levee stabilization will be discussed. Coffman will discuss monitoring, performance criteria and adaptive management.
2:40 p.m.
Implications for State and Regional Water Boards
Greg Gearheart, P.E., SWRCB

Gearheart will share his observations on how our core regulatory systems behave in relation to the Water Boards’ mission.
3:10 p.m.
Panel Discussion with Questions and Answers
Moderated panel discussion by all the speakers on the topic: California Stream Protection for the 21st Century-Where do we go from here.

California Streams Seminar - July 23rd

For your interest,
CALIFORNIA STREAMS SEMINAR - JULY 23RD

Relative to the GP2020 update issues and Riparian setbacks, etc., this may be of interest to some to get more ³scientific² data to battle the eco-illiterate hoards pitching Private Poverty at the expense of Public Commonwealth. Not that scientifically, we really need more data about the value of stream corridor health and its multi-functionality to society, but as we see most of our policy issues often have little to do with science but rather emotional selfish fear mongering  so maybe showing up with more data based emotional backing is worth while??? Got me…?

This is an event that may be of interest to many of you, and it’s FREE !! The seminar information is from the UC Davis Extension — be sure to click on their Web site (see below) for the flyer and additional information. This is being held in Sacramento, so let us know if you’re interested in car pooling. Please call Linda at 263-4180 x16, and leave a message.

Mark Your Calendar for this Free Event

Water Board Academy Speaker Series - California Streams Seminar
<http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/land_use_and_natural_resources/course/des
cription/?type=A&unit=LUNR&SectionID=138018&course_title=Water%2
0Board%20Academy%20Speaker%20Series-California%20Streams%20Seminar&prgLi
st=WTR&AreaName=Water+Re
>

The Water Board Academy is hosting a free speaker series that includes five stream experts who will present current research about stream concerns and stream improvement possibilities in California . The seminar will explore the relationships among stream hydrology, hydrogeomorphology, and riparian and aquatic ecology, in the context of stream corridor stability and stream restoration efforts.

Brock

Danger Feared from Chemicals Getting into Bay

July 11, 2007
Jane Kay, SF Chronicle Environment Writer

San Francisco Bay Image from Earth Observatory NASA

Chemicals found in household products like antibacterial soap and plastic bottles are found in sewage water that is discharged into San Francisco Bay, posing a threat to wildlife and humans, according to new data.

Sophisticated sewage systems treat biodegradable food, human waste and metals, but they are not designed to capture the thousands of tons of synthetic chemicals used to manufacture consumer products, say officials at the East Bay Municipal Utility District, who found evidence of potentially harmful substances in sewage from businesses and homes.

Chemical ingredients are leaching out of toothpaste, deodorant, canned food liners and vinyl and polycarbonate plastics. They pass through the municipal sewage plants virtually untreated, the experts say.

Over three months last year, EBMUD grabbed two dozen samples from sewage pipes leading from a veterinarian’s office, a nail salon, a diaper service and a coin laundry, among other businesses, as well as from a medical clinic, a hospital and manufacturing plants. Samples also were collected from residences from Richmond south to Oakland. The results will be released today in a report by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization with offices in Oakland. The inspectors found three types of chemicals — phthalates, bisphenol A and triclosan. All are suspected of interfering with hormone systems of humans and wildlife.

Phthalates are banned in some toys in San Francisco, and the state Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit forms of the chemical in toys intended for children under 3. Of 19 locations tested, 18 had sewage discharges containing at least one of the chemicals, and many had more than one. Out of three tests on treated wastewater, all three samples contained phthalates, and two contained bisphenol A or triclosan. “We’re involved because we know that these compounds are out there, and we cannot treat them in the wastewater stream,” said Charles Hardy, EBMUD spokesman. The utility is one of dozens of agencies-including cities, counties and businesses-that discharge treated sewage, storm water or other wastewater into the bay. “Evidence shows that the chemicals are harmful to aquatic life and potentially to humans,” Hardy said. The locations that discharged chemicals into the sewage system aren’t being made public because the discharges aren’t illegal. There are no regulations on the amount of the three chemicals that can be sent to treatment plants.

The utility is asking its customers to stop using antibacterial soaps, which frequently contain triclosan, and other products containing harmful chemicals. The utility supports a ban on chemicals that have been shown to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive damage to lab animals and have the potential to harm humans, Hardy said.

The Environmental Working Group’s 30-page report, entitled, “Down the Drain,” contains test results, chemical information and hints on products to avoid. The environmental group worked with the utility on selecting test locations and turned over a $20,000 grant from the San Francisco Foundation to defray lab costs. As the issue of chemicals from consumer products and pharmaceuticals gains a higher profile among the public, chemical manufacturers are conducting their own studies. Phthalate-makers are working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to test sludge in sewage treatment plants for the chemicals, according to Marian Stanley, a scientist with the industry’s American Chemistry Council. Based on industry studies of rainbow trout and organisms that live in the sediment, she said, “we have found that phthalates at the levels found in the environment are not toxic to aquatic life.” Those tests on algae, mussels, fish and birds have shown that the chemicals don’t move up the food chain as predators eat plants and animals that contain the chemicals, Stanley said.

Yet EBMUD and other agencies face a challenge over what to do about the chemicals entering their treatment plants, said board member Doug Linney. “The problem is that they’re coming up with new chemicals faster than we can understand what they do to the environment,” Linney said. Taking the example of antibacterial soaps, he said: “They’re just not necessary. It’s a marketing thing. There’s no reason to degrade our environment.”

Read the report from the Environmental Working Group

Chemicals tested Phthalates — Plastic softener also found in cosmetics, cleaning products, inks and solvents. Linked to reproductive abnormalities in lab animals and alteration of hormone levels in humans. Bisphenol A — A building block of polycarbonate plastic, also used in liners of cans. Associated with an array of health problems in lab animals. Triclosan — An antimicrobial that is used in soaps, detergents, toothpaste, deodorant and plastic cutting boards. Shown to disrupt the thyroid gland in wild frogs and can be acutely toxic to some aquatic organisms.

Problem Products — Perfumes and beauty products labeled “fragrance.” — PVC/vinyl flexible plastic in food wraps, toys and shower curtains. — “Antibacterial” detergents and hand soap with triclosan. — Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in nail polish. — Hard, clear polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and water bottles. — Canned food containing solid colored liners. — Plastic pet products, including toys and some water dishes. — Foam shoe insoles.

Source: Environmental Working Group

America’s Chemically Dependent & Toxic Lawns

67 million pounds of pesticides are applied to roughly 30 million acres of lawns in the U.S. each year. The #1 most water intensive crop in the United States is lawn grass. The average lawn is doused with 10,000 gallons of water each year (in addition to rainfall).

Synthetic fertilizers run off into streets and local waterways, choking aquatic life and polluting our water. The EPA estimates that a mower emits as much pollution in one hour as a car emits in driving 20 miles. Numerous studies have linked common household herbicides and pesticides to asthma, cancer, reduced fertility and neurological harm to fetuses, infants and children

And solution: Convert lawns to native vegetation areas which require minimal or no additional irrigation. Or… THE BEST LOOKING ORGANIC LAWN ON THE BLOCK

  • Relax: Don’t be afraid to let your average lawn height be higher than the local putting green. Taller grass has deeper roots, which requires less watering.
  • Seed: You get what you pay for. If you need to seed bare spots in your lawn, be aware that cheaper grass seeds tend to have more weed contamination than higher-end products.
  • Weed: Use a dandelion digging fork instead of purchasing dangerous pesticides.
  • Mulch: Grass clippings can provide the majority of nutrients needed by a lawn.
  • Fertilize: For yards that require fertilization, most garden centers now carry organic fertilizers that are better for your lawn and the environment.
  • Mow: Use electric, rechargeable or push mowers. Mow grass when it’s dry and make sure the blade is sharp to reduce damage to grass

From Organic Bytes, Organic Consumers Union

Letter Critical of Sonoma County’s General Plan Update Process

To: Greg Carr
Cc: Supervisor Mike Reilly; Sonoma County Planning Commission; Sonoma
Wildlife; Bob Gaiser
Subject: GP2020 Biotic Resource Revisions and Regrets

Greg-

After spending all those long hours with you and others at the Riparian Corridors/Biological Habitat Subcommittee meetings for the purpose of developing policy recommendations for GP2020, you can guess how utterly dismayed and disappointed I am in what is being presented as “draft text changes” for the Planning Commissions/Board of Sups approval. Although the County encouraged public participation during the CAC meetings and the GP Update process as required by CEQA, the publics hard work and long hours were mostly for naught.

During the CAC meetings in 2002 and 2003, those of us who participated were required to support and document our recommendations with articles and research that supported the proposed policies. The County hired a biological expert who recommended even more protective policies for streams and wetlands than what was ultimately approved by the Subcommittee. Rand Dericco, the head of the Subcommittee, represented the grape growers and agriculture. He regularly weighed in on policy language changes. Even still, the recommended policy language produced during the 2002 and 2003 CAC meetings has been thrown out and red-lined in the “draft text changes”.

I find it unfair that the individuals who opposed the CAC draft recommendations were not required to produce any documentation to support their recommendations for creeks, streams and wetlands . For example, a man who sat next to me at the Planning Commission public hearing in July 2006 held a single postcard from “Realtors” warning him about violation of his property rights. He and I spoke before the public hearing and I told him about the CAC meetings. He and his wife said they were “too busy” to attend any meetings. His knowledge of the subject material and the County’s process was extremely limited. He was surprised to see that I had a full 3- inch binder from my involvement with the Riparian Corridor/Biological Habitat Subcommittee meetings. During the public hearing he threatened to sue the County. He provided no information during hearing to support his recommendation to leave “everything the same” as the current GP. To my knowledge, he and others who opposed the CAC recommendations were never asked to provide information to show that current GP policy will protect and sustain our biological resources for the next 20 years. In the end, the County listened to him and others and ignored the hard work, documentation and deliberations of the CAC.

Next time, if the County is going to allow GP policy language to be written by an angry mob who are not required to provide documentation to support the policy, please don’t waste my time and the good faith efforts of others on meetings and a process that the County won’t strongly support and that ends up accomplishing nothing. This is not a good way to run government. I think the County should require participation in the Biotic Resources CAC by all parties, so that the draft policy recommended by the CAC can’t just be red-lined like it was for GP2020.

The County should fully SUPPORT the recommendations of the CAC Subcommittee. Please don’t repeat what happened this year on future GPs. I feel the process was very unfair and I would be hesitant to participate again unless an effort to bring all parties to the table was made. I do not hold out any hope that the draft text policy language for riparian and wetlands will sustain or protect these resources into the next 20 years.

Regards and regrets.

Jo Bentz

Sonoma County General Plan Update Hearing

Attached and pasted below is draft GP2020 update platform language crafted during meetings of a coalition of coalitions over recent weeks. It focuses on Climate Change (page 1), Water (page 2) and Land Use (page 3). We added water quality language at our SCWC tech meeting last Wednesday. We will discuss this platform at our next meeting July 11 and then take it to the next meeting of the coalition of coalitions. Some specific language to achieve these general objectives was included in the document circulated a few minutes ago. Hope you can be there July 11.

Stephen
Sonoma County Water Coalition Policy Platform for work on Sonoma County General Plan update The Sonoma County General Plan is in the process of update. After review by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee from 2001 to 2005, the Planning Commission began an update process during 2006 and continuing into 2007. While the Citizen’s Advisory Committee draft did address some of the emerging environmental issues that were identified in 2001 as in need of attention, the landscape - physical and political - has changed considerably since the beginning of the GPU process. With this second round of review, many policies that protect our environment and quality of life have been altered, weakened, or stripped from the Draft General Plan. These actions threaten the future of Sonoma County, and must be reversed and improved in order to avoid significant long-term losses to our livelihoods and way of life. In order to address these problems, the below policies are proposed for adoption into the updated General Plan. Though the process has been going on for some time now, these additions are necessary both to recognize the changed environmental and social realities in Sonoma County, and as mitigations to impacts identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

1) In 2005, the Supervisors unanimously adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2015. In order to reach this goal, emission reduction and energy planning must be made a fundamental part of the General Plan. a. Create, implement and regularly monitor a comprehensive county energy plan, including both internal county operations and the private sector. The energy plan will address greenhouse gas targets approved by the supervisors and bring county policies into compliance with AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act. b. Create a county Energy Department to develop, coordinate and facilitate county-wide energy planning, public education on energy issues, energy conservation and efficiency programs, and greenhouse gas reduction actions. c. Create an ongoing task force to evaluate and propose comprehensive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in Sonoma County. As 50% of greenhouse gases in Sonoma County are released by transportation, meeting the emissions reduction goal will require that the General Plan address reduction of car usage and the underlying land use patterns that contribute to it. Improve policies on transit ridership to provide opportunities for getting people around the County without using their cars In addition to directing growth into existing cities and towns, strengthen urban design standards for unincorporated communities that will emphasize transit use and create walkable/bikeable communities. Collect baseline Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data, and use reduced VMT as a metric for land use policies, and development approvals.

2) Water is a finite, shared, public trust resource essential to all life. Ineffective water resource management leads to adverse impacts such as flooding, polluted water sources, unreliable water supplies, dry wells, de-watered creeks and loss of fisheries. In Sonoma County, development patterns and environmental change are exacerbating these already grave issues. There is clear popular demand for better management of our water resources to ensure a supply of clean drinking water for the future, adequate treatment of wastewater and productive habitat for aquatic life. a. Strengthen policies on groundwater monitoring, and create a groundwater management plan with timelines. b. Improve policy language on package treatment plants to ensure that they are only permitted where consistent with the General Plan, and necessary to resolve an existing public health hazard. Permit package treatment plants only when they are consistent with the General Plan and when needed to alleviate an existing public health hazard; establish operating procedures, treatment standards and monitoring programs for all plants; require that any package treatment plant discharging more than 1,200 gallons of wastewater per day, or any plant in a State identified groundwater recharge area, treat water to levels suitable for human consumption; require that bonds be posted or sinking funds established to provide for repair, removal or replacement of package treatment plants reaching the end of their intended service life. c. Require that new development shall create no net increase in water usage or wastewater discharge, through the use of water-use reduction technologies, conservation programs and innovative design d. Riparian zones with healthy native vegetation must be protected and re-established within the county. All perennial and intermittent streams must have adequate riparian corridors in which uses are restricted and native vegetation is encouraged. e. Establish Citizens’ Advisory Committees for each watershed, in which there can be a public process for discussing and finding solutions to water problems in each region and reaching agreement on county-wide policies. f. Permit use of recycled wastewater for irrigation only when all wastewater discharge requirements are met. Establish a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to conduct an ongoing review of wastewater issues, with particular emphasis on emerging and unregulated contaminants, and to present a public report on these issues at least once every five years.

3) While Sonoma County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure F in November 2006, endorsing the concept of protection of open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat and water resources, policies are also needed to ensure that these goals will be achieved in the future. The County General Plan 2020 policies are not yet strong enough to protect valuable unincorporated lands from development pressures. a. Adopt guiding language for adoption of new lands as Community Separators. Create additional community separators, as identified in Staff Option #2 before the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Strengthen language to ensure implementation of OSRC Program 6 to guarantee community process to identify new areas for Community Separators expansion. Create new community separators for Cloverdale, Sonoma, and other communities in accordance with Staff Option 2 from the Citizen’s Advisory Committee b. Strengthen rules for new agricultural processing facilities to guarantee that new development on agricultural lands is tightly linked to local production. This will reduce transportation costs, and preserve farmland for agriculture into the future. Adopt the 75% rule for new processing facilities. Allow for on-farms sales of farm-produced products by small farms. c. Institute policies to mitigate the loss of farmlands. Restore and improve language on Transfer of Development Rights program, and draft language for 2:1 mitigation ratio. d. Establish a baseline for the major habitat types (plant communities) and a monitoring program to record the status of each over time. This program will be the first step in stopping and reversing the trend of habitat degradation and loss in Sonoma County. Convene a committee of experts in 2007 to begin developing these baselines. Seek outside funding for mapping needed to fill in the gaps in existing information on habitat types throughout the county.

Supes Meeting on West County Irrigation Project

Tuesday’s Board Meeting, July 10, (10 AM Board of Supervisor’s Chambers in Santa Rosa) on the Russian River County Sanitation District irrigation project would be a great opportunity to use as a bully pulpit and give them hell about this whole pipeline/wastewater/outrageous cost issue. They need to see a bunch of concerned citizens on Tuesday. I need help getting the word out. Can any of you connect with people on your lists and let them know it is very important to get a bunch of people to this meeting? (Even if you sent out notices before, would you send again?)

Reminder: Guerneville needs a small amount of summer irrigation for their treatment system. There are adequate opportunities in Guerneville to provide the small amount of area needed. There is no serious option in the EIR to do this. What they are giving us is a 32 mile pipeline to irrigate grapes that will get built on an “as-needed” basis. (Grapes use far less water than redwoods, so much more acreage is needed.) There are no potential users identified and there is no cost analysis for the proposed project. The sky’s the limit!!! The Environmental Impact Report is totally inadequate! This whole project is crazy and the EIR is the worst I have seen in 28 years of doing this work.

Please come and encourage people to come even if they don’t intend to speak.

Brenda

Too Much Water?

Warm Springs Dam, Lake Sonoma

Lake Sonoma was built to provide water to the North Bay, but federal officials say increased flow could threaten coho salmon.

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT July 2007

Sonoma County is drawing too much water out of Lake Sonoma, jeopardizing the recovery of two threatened fish species in a rural creek, federal wildlife officials say.

The finding pits the survival of tiny coho salmon and steelhead in Dry Creek against the needs of 600,000 North Bay customers who depend on the lake’s water.

In the looming showdown, the people likely will spend millions of dollars to continue drinking and irrigating from the lake and using the creek, a critical fish habitat, as an aqueduct.

That’s after spending $360 million three decades ago on Lake Sonoma, the vast reservoir behind Warm Springs Dam near Healdsburg. Nearly brimful with 76 billion gallons of water — a two-year supply despite a dry spring — the lake is fulfilling its dual mission of controlling floods and impounding water along the Russian River system.

In 1983, when the dam was completed, no one dreamed that fish would constrain its water delivery to the 600,000 customers from Windsor to Sausalito.

The situation is “dripping with irony,” said Chris Murray of the Sonoma County Water Agency.

The conflict emerges at an inopportune time for the Water Agency, which is coping with a springtime drought this year and, with an eye on the future, seeking a 35 percent increase in Lake Sonoma water rights to accommodate North Bay growth.

On Sunday, the Water Agency’s call for mandatory water conservation went into effect, aimed at a 15 percent cut in use through Oct. 28. That step, along with curbing summer flows on the Russian River, is intended to compensate for paltry spring rains that left the region low on water for the third time in the past six years.

Other overtures to put more water in the Russian River, such as raising Lake Mendocino’s dam near Ukiah or revising a Potter Valley power plant’s operation, appear to be thwarted or delayed by high costs, bureaucratic delays and a Western water war that dates back to the early 1900s, emblematic of Mark Twain’s observation: “Whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over.”

With no cheap or immediate relief available to the 750,000 people in Sonoma, Mendocino and Marin counties who draw their water from the river, experts say the low-flow summer of 2007 is a harbinger of the future.

“Better get used to (water) conservation,” said Bill Hearn of the National Marine Fisheries Service office in Santa Rosa. “These are the problems we need to wrestle with.”

The dilemma is, indeed, replete with irony.

Lake Sonoma

Lake Sonoma’s abundant water supply can’t be tapped fast enough to meet summer demand without endangering the federally protected fish in Dry Creek. Meanwhile, Lake Mendocino’s smaller water pool must be gingerly conserved to provide enough river flow for migrating fish in the fall. Aggravating the water woes this year was a rain-scant spring, with precipitation about 50 percent below average, and new limits on the historic diversion of Eel River water into the Russian River.

Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Reilly calls it a “regulatory drought” and is pursuing a larger diversion through the Potter Valley project. Other officials are cool to the idea, and Eel River interests flatly oppose it.

“There is no more water coming out of the Eel River,” said David Keller of Petaluma, Bay Area director for Friends of the Eel River. “That is not going to happen.”

Already, there have been at least two emergencies this year as water managers struggle to meet the growing needs of homes, farms and businesses from Ukiah to Tiburon with an increasingly constrained water supply.

In February, Mendocino County farmers secured a one-time boost in Eel River water to provide a frost-fighting supply for their apple and pear crops.

In May, the county Water Agency won state approval to cut flows in the Russian River, followed by an order two weeks ago for the mandatory water conservation measures starting Sunday.

“It makes for a bizarre situation,” said Murray, the Water Agency’s chief of water resources planning.

The latest constraint stems from a rather unusual conclusion by federal fisheries biologists. Too much water, they say, as opposed to too little, can jeopardize the coho salmon and steelhead that spend the first summer of their lives in Dry Creek.

Every drop the Water Agency draws from the river near Forestville must run down the creek, which flows 14 miles through grape-growing Dry Creek Valley from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River.

“They are basically treating 14 miles of critical habitat as a conveyor belt,” said Hearn, a supervising biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Even a relatively low summertime flow, controlled by releases from the dam, is devastating to the fingerling coho salmon and steelhead in Dry Creek, according to fisheries officials, who are discussing the implications with county water managers.

At flows of more than 100 cubic feet a second, typical for summer dam operations, the flow creates havoc for the fish. “It’s like a fire hose. It’s blasting them,” Hearn said.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has circulated a draft version of its Dry Creek flow assessment, called a biological opinion, which is not available to the public but is under discussion by county and state officials.

Murray said the opinion is “truly the basis for the future of the river” and agrees that the status quo will not stand. “It’s time for real change,” Hearn said.

The draft opinion does not stipulate changes, but Hearn said it establishes that flows like last week’s 122-cubic-feet release are untenable. (A cubic foot is 7.5 gallons; minimum flows in the Russian River, under the state-approved summer flow plan, are 75 to 85 cfs.)

To continue using Dry Creek as an aqueduct, the Water Agency must install a pipeline along the creek, reconfigure the creek channel with boulders and logs to create slow-water refuges for the fish, or both. Interagency discussions this summer will determine the specifics, officials said.

Reducing the creek flow to 50 cfs “looks great,” Hearn said. But with sufficient modifications, the channel could handle 150 cfs without harm to the coho and steelhead, he said.

No cost estimates for a creekside pipeline or for channel modifications have been made, Hearn and Murray said.

The county has revived consideration of a pipeline that would parallel Dry Creek to the river or run all the way to the Water Agency intake near Wohler Bridge, a project that would take years and millions of dollars to complete.

Peak water demand at Wohler is 120 cfs, and Murray said the Water Agency, aware of federal concerns, is trying to stay within a self-imposed limit of 90 cfs in Dry Creek, with the balance coming downstream from Lake Mendocino.

The recent 122 cfs release was needed to meet increased demands because of a sudden heat wave, he said.

There is no government mandate on Dry Creek flows, an issue that was unforeseen when Warm Springs Dam was designed and built, with the reservoir more than 20 miles from the county water intake.

The new biological bottleneck on the creek would presumably have to be resolved before Sonoma County could draw an additional 26,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Sonoma, intended to meet growing demand from customers in Sonoma and northern Marin counties.

Murray said it is impossible to tell now how large a flow on Dry Creek would be needed to extract the added water.

“I’d love to be able to go higher than 90″ cfs, he said.

Cold water released from the dam is perfect for coho salmon, listed as an endangered species from Santa Cruz to Humboldt County and found in only six tributaries of the Russian River, including Dry Creek.

With suitable flow levels, Dry Creek could be a potent nursery for the once plentiful coho, accounting for 39 percent of its rearing habitat in the Russian River watershed, Hearn said.

But coho and steelhead, the latter a threatened species, are vulnerable to high-velocity water. Both species spawn in Dry Creek, their offspring incubating in the gravel streambed and emerging as small fry from April into early summer.

Coho return to the ocean the following spring; steelhead spend up to three years in the creek. Fast-flowing water literally sweeps away the fingerlings that are only a few inches long, the federal biologists say.

Urging of Attendance on Irrigation Project

Russian River County Sanitation District Irrigation Reliability and Beneficial Reuse Project: Public Hearing
Hear testimony on the Russian River County Sanitation District Irrigation Reliability and Beneficial Reuse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Supervisor’s Chambers
Sonoma County Administration Bldg.
575 Administration Dr., Room 102A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887
Phone 707-565-2241

Next Tuesday is a VERY important meeting on the massive irrigation project
planned by SCWA for little Guerneville’s system. (10 AM Board of Supervisor’s
Chambers on July 10th)

This project involves 32 miles of pipeline to the Graton/Green Valley area
on two different routes leading to the same destination. Formerly the two
routes were separate alternatives, but they have now been merged into one
alternative. It intends to offset potable water supply by irrigating with
treated wastewater. This project is overkill like I have never seen before.
A similar project described in a 1998 EIR cost about $15 million. Given the
big cost hike in construction materials, we believe this project, if built,
could go much higher than that.

It is part of a major Treatment Plant expansion that is simply not needed
for current ratepayers. Along with a few other components that are being
considered separately, it would double the amount of sewage that could be
handled at the Guerneville TP. This is an EIR that is one of three
expansion projects that are all being considered separately. (More storage,
a new disinfection system and a pipeline from Camp Meeker and Occidental are
all being considered in separate EIRs.)

They have no users signed up for the water and they didn’t even identify
POTENTIAL users in the EIR. They said they would build the project on an as
needed basis, depending on who wants the water. They have no cost figures
in the DEIR so we have no idea what the capital costs will be, nor the
operational costs. They have eliminated discussion of many categories of
impacts, including land use, public services, population and housing, etc.
claiming that this is only a pipeline with no significant impacts in those
categories.

Their alternatives analysis consists of a few pages in the back where they
mention a few alternatives and then dismiss them in a few pages. Part of a
local (Guerneville) solution analysis is dismissed and another part is
tagged onto the massive project with no details and no way to separate it
from the monster project.

I am attaching a letter that we composed asking people to sign and turn in.
Comments are open until July 20th. You can sign and turn in this letter or
use it for a template to write your own. If you have questions, I would be
happy to answer them. Simply respond to this email with questions.

Please consider coming to the meeting even if you don’t want to speak.

We are working with groups in the Green Valley Rd. area. We also know the
Sonoma County Water Coalition is very concerned. We have alerted people in
the Guerneville area and some of them will be there. Unfortunately, many of
our Guerneville supporters are summer people who don’t generally attend
Supervisor meetings, but many have submitted letters.

Please try to attend. We need your help.

More Information on the 15% Reductions at Water Meeting

Just how much is each water contractor reducing their demands on the SCWA Russian River Project for water? A number of cities are already saying they’ve hit or exceeded 15% reductions from 2004 river diversions, and seem to be saying they don’t have to do more. Will this meet the State Water Resources Control Board’s order for 15% reductions in diversions from the Russian River?

Find out at the Water contractors’ [Water Advisory Committee] Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.
Monday, 9am, July 2; Laguna Treatment Plant, Santa Rosa
Agenda below.

Are cities saying that they can get what they need from groundwater wells instead of the river or demand reductions from their customers? What happens to groundwater overdrafts in this scenario? What happens to demands upstream of SCWA’s service area? Are we seeing voluntary reductions from the various Mendocino County water agencies and districts? From Ukiah? From grapegrowers and other agricultural operations?

PGE’s response to SCWA’s requests for greater coordination and information sharing regarding Eel River diversions through the Potter Valley Project are also on the table. Is there still some belief that they can get more water from the Eel River, or is there finally an acknowledgement that Eel River diversions will stay the same or be reduced? [see attached docs]

How is all the reduced Russian River diversion program affecting new growth in the contractors’ cities? Will there be a reduction in long term demands, as Petaluma is doing?

This is a public meeting: come witness, listen and ask questions of the representatives of all the contracting cities to the WAC.

David Keller
Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel River
Petaluma, CA
——

Water Advisory Committee (WAC)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday: July 2, 2007
Laguna Treatment Plant
4300 Llano Road, Santa Rosa, CA

9:00 a.m. (Estuary / Wetlands Conference Room)

1. Check In

2. Public Comment

3. Follow up from June 4th TAC meeting

4. Recap of June 5th SWRCB Workshop and Order WR 2007-0022

a. SCWA Response to Ordered Reduced Diversions

b. Contractor Conservation/Local Supply/RW Efforts

5. Water Conservation Subcommittee

a. Sonoma/Marin Partnership Feedback

b. Funding Allocation Options

6. Biological Opinion Update

7. Update on PG&E’s PVP

8. Water Project Subcommittee

a. Temporary Impairment MOU

9. SCWA Assistant GM Solicitation
10. WAC Brochure
11. Items for next agenda
12. Check Out

scwa-pge_pvp-info-demands-6-8-07.pdf

scwa-pge_pvp-response-6-22-07.pdf