Monthly Archive for November, 2009

Restoration Project in Dry Creek for Lake Sonoma Water

nderstood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg
—– Original Message—–
From: Alan Levine [mailto:alevine@mcn.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:36 PM
To: Adina Merenlender; ‘Carolyn Wasem’; ‘Al Cadd’; ‘Al Nelson’; ‘Alea’;
b. andersson@comcast.net; ‘Bill Cox’; ‘Bill Hearn’; ‘Bob Coey’; ‘Bob Klamt’; ‘Brenda Adelman’; ‘Brian Johnson’; ‘Charlette R.R. Epifanio’; ‘Chuck Bonham’; ‘Colleen Fernald’; ‘Darcy Aston’; ‘David Lewis’; ‘David Manning’; ‘David Ripple’; ‘Dick Butler’; ‘Eric Larson’; ‘Fred Euphrat’; ‘Gail Davis’; ‘Glen Wright’; ‘Jake Mackenzie’; ‘Jane Nielson’; jcollins@kjmail.com; ‘Jennifer Barrett’; ‘Jeremy Sarrow’; ‘John Perry’; ‘Joseph Dillon’; ‘Kara Heckert’; ‘Kate Symonds’; ‘katie Rump’; ‘keith woods’; ‘Lex McCorvey’; ‘Lisa Hulette’; ‘Luana Kiger’; ‘Marc Kelley’; ‘Mary Ann King’; ‘Matt’; ‘Matt Deitch’; ‘Michael Bowen’; ‘Michael D. Corrigan’; ‘Michael Dillabough’; ‘mike B’; ‘Mike Ban’; ‘Nick Frey’; pdowns@kjmail.com; ‘Pete Dayton’; ‘Peter Kiel’; ‘Rachel Golden’; ‘Ralph Locke’; ‘Richard Roos Collins’; ‘Roger Foote’; ‘Ron Rolleri’; ‘S Canter’; ‘Scott Wilson’; ‘Stephen’; ‘Susan Gorin’; ‘Thomas Moore’; ‘Tom Eakin’; ‘Valerie Termini’; ‘Walt Ryan’; ‘Zukowski’ Cc: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com; rrkeeper@sonic.net; jonathan.birdsong@mail.house.gov Subject: Re: restoration outcomes follow up
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
At 05:26 PM 10/30/2009, Adina Merenlender wrote:
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Alan,
Understood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg

Comment on Water Budget and Water Use

To All,

Say for instance we had a practical realistic state water budget, would it be prudent to plug in a reasonable metric or estimate of what illegal water users are using in order to get a handle on water usage and projected uses? For instance if a well capitalized business drills 2 separate but close 24 inch bores 600 feet deep within a declining aquifer in a “race to the bottom” and pumps 200 GPM each for commercial use, this adds up to about 2.3 billion gallons a year. You can’t even begin to figure this problem out in light of other miss-reported or illegal uses with-in the same complex basin. Since the aquifer is misunderstood and comprised of complex sub-alluvial fan deposits it is unlikely that the true damage of the abusive extraction will ever be quantified or modeled properly. (I am talking about the Rohnert Park Graton Rancheria Casino appendix – Y : water well construction description). So what’s a understaffed regulatory agency to do? I know that the USGS in Palo Alto wishes it got more love. It seems like the problem needs a lot of positive solutions from a lot of different angles.

Lloyd

ATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN CALIFORNIA

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

PUBLIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

UPDATING THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP)

FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN CALIFORNIA

Monday, November 30, 2009

1:00 to 5:00 p.m.

Cal/EPA Building, Coastal Hearing Room

1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

1. Welcome and Introductions (1:00 – 1:15 p.m.) – Gita Kapahi, Director of Public

Relations, State Water Resources Control Board.

2. WQMP Update and Workshop, (Background, Purpose,  Proposed WQMP

Contents, and Proposed Update Process) (1:15 – 1:45 p.m.) – Water Board

and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) staff

3. Nominate Stakeholder Group Representatives (1:45 – 3:15 p.m.) –

Facilitator(s)

4. Public Comment Solicitation (3:15 – 4:45 p.m.) – Facilitator(s)

5. Report-Out / Wrap-Up (4:45 – 5:00 p.m.) – Facilitator

6. Adjourn (5:00 p.m.)

Dutch Bill Creek Dam Removal & Restoration Celebration

Save the Date – Dutch Bill Creek Dam Removal & Restoration Celebration

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800

Please join the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District and the Gold 
Ridge Resource Conservation District in a Celebration of Phase I of 
the Dutch Bill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project. Please 
see the attached before and after shots of the bridge.

Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009
Time: 11:00 am – 12:30 pm
Place: Meet at Camp Meeker VFD

v Update on efforts to revitalize the Camp Meeker Beach
v Bridge Dedication
v Refreshment and Merriment to be Provided

Please join us to celebrate this exciting community project. If you 
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Lisa Hulette

State Water Budget?

Say for instance we had a practical realistic state water budget, would it be prudent to plug in a reasonable metric or estimate of what illegal water users are using in order to get a handle on water usage and projected uses?

For instance if a well capitalized business drills 2 separate but close 24 inch bores 600 feet deep within a declining aquifer in a “race to the bottom” and pumps 200 GPM each for commercial use, this adds up to about 2.3 billion gallons a year.

You can’t even begin to figure this problem out in light of other miss-reported or illegal uses with-in the same complex basin. Since the aquifer is misunderstood and comprised of complex sub-alluvial fan deposits it is unlikely that the true damage of the abusive extraction will ever be quantified or modeled properly. (I am talking about the Rohnert Park Graton Rancheria Casino appendix – Y : water well construction description).

So what’s a understaffed regulatory agency to do? I know that the USGS in Palo Alto wishes it got more love. It seems like the problem needs a lot of positive solutions from a lot of different angles.

Lloyd

Importance of Frost Protection Workshop

Yup ! I am I hope I am not the only one.
Is anyone attending the Wednesday, November 18 workshop in Sacramento on Water Diversions for Purposes of Frost Protection in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties?
Zen

Sending this reminder notice – hope some folks attend – this is a big deal – CAG comments – below:

The State Water Resources Control Board will hold a Public Workshop to Consider Recommendations for Actions regarding Water Diversions for Purposes of Frost Protection in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.

The Public Workshop will commence on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. in the Coastal Hearing Room Joe Serna, Jr./Cal-EPA Building 1001 I Street, Second Floor Sacramento, CA

Is anyone attending the Wednesday, November 18 workshop in Sacramento on Water Diversions for Purposes of Frost Protection in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties?

Zen

Yup ! I am I hope I am not the only one.

Alan

This will be a very important workshop on Frost Protection water use protocols, rules, monitoring and enforcement:
11/18, 1pm, Sacramento SWRCB 

David Keller

Environmental Groups Battle Over Water Legislation

by: Rick Cabral, t r u t h o u t | Report,
Thursday 05 November 2009

The California legislature has passed a comprehensive and complex package of water legislation with twin goals of protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while providing adequate water supplies in California. While some environmental groups supported the measure, others are already planning a future impediment to implementation.

Photo: River Kayaker

The historic package, spearheaded by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem, includes an overarching policy bill as well as a $11 billion bond measure that will fund new reservoirs, water supply programs and ecological restoration measures for the Delta. The bond measure will require voter approval in the November 2010 election.

“This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement,” said Governor Schwarzenegger, who appointed the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force in 2006 to address the statewide water issues. The task force’s recommendations formed the cornerstone of this legislative package.

“What some people are calling a ‘watershed moment’ is really a band-aid when what the Delta really needs is a heart transplant,” argues Jim Metropulos of Sierra Club California.

A hallmark of the package is the creation of a seven-member Delta Stewardship Council, an independent state agency that would develop, adopt and commence implementation of the “Delta Plan” by January 1, 2012, to promote statewide water conservation, water use efficiency and sustainable use of water. The policy bill authorizes the governor to appoint a majority of the members.

Other key components in the package include: establishing a statewide groundwater-monitoring program, increasing penalties for illegal water diversions and a significant reduction in water usage.

The legislative package would not have been approved without the support of a fragile coalition of water districts, farm interests and other conservation groups, including the Nature Conservancy, National Resource Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.

Ann Hayden, senior water resources analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in San Francisco, says the EDF supports the legislative package because of the additional oversight provided by the Delta Council and the role it would play in “ensuring the Bay Delta planning process meets, not only the water supply and liability goals, but also the ecosystem restoration and recovery goals. That is an additional piece of oversight that we see is hugely beneficial.”

Other groups, such as Sierra Club California, see it differently. “We have a governor with only one year left on his term, yet his appointees, who basically must have no qualifications in experience, stakeholder or geographic representation, are going to affect water policy for the next six years,” says Metropulos.

The governor is on record as being in favor of a peripheral canal, which would divert fresh water from the Sacramento River, bypassing the Delta, into a southbound aqueduct headed for Central Valley and Southern California.

The Delta Council would have the crucial responsibility of ensuring that a peripheral canal would not adversely impact the Delta. Hayden insists that any plan for such a conveyance facility should provide for necessary safeguards to protect key species, such as salmon.

“Unfortunately, the governor has already said he wants to build the largest peripheral canal he can, tomorrow,” said Evans of Friends of the River. “We think it’s a de facto decision for a very large peripheral canal that can de-water the Delta.”

Leo Winternitz, Delta program director of the Nature Conservancy, admits the Delta water legislation is not perfect. “We feel it offers the best path forward for the Delta and California as a whole.”

Pointing to the decline in species, such as the endangered smelt, Winternitz noted that restoration is crucial to saving the Delta.

“We’ve got to start moving to recovery of species and not just mitigate for impacts, but actually start doing enhancements and improvements that lead toward recovery. Without restoration it’s unlikely we’ll be able to recover the list of species and without a path to recovery we’re not going to get water supply reliability.”

Another of the legislation’s touted benefits is water conservation, with a goal of reducing water usage 20 percent statewide by 2020. The Sierra Club has argued that the bill unfairly exempts some water districts and all agricultural water users from the requirement. Agriculture consumes about 41 percent of the state’s water in a normal year, while 48 percent is dedicated to environmental uses, according to the state’s Department of Water Resources.

If approved by voters, the debt service on the $11 billion bond would present an additional $700 million drain on the state’s general fund each year,” notes Metropulos. “Most of these projects should be paid for by user fees and revenue bonds.”

Groups such as Sierra Club California, Friends of the River, other environment groups, Delta farmers and Delta communities are already considering organizing a “No on Water Bond” committee, says Evans. “Things aren’t over.”

Which means the north-south debate over water usage and its impact on the Delta should be a prime election year issue in 2010.

Who Is Stealing California’s Water?

Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, November 4, 2009

We must stop pretending that water is free and unlimited, available to anyone who can put a siphon in a river or drill another groundwater well.

What do I mean by stealing water? I mean people extract water from our rivers and streams without a right to do so. Legal water rights are managed by the State Board. Water rights permit and license holders are required by the California Code of Regulations to file reports with the State Water Board on their water diversion and use amounts. Fewer than 70 percent of permit holders actually submit these reports. There is no penalty for failure to file a report and, worse, no verification of the numbers reported. Further, information is not available to compare face value of water rights to actual use. Some, perhaps many, rights holders are likely taking more than their right allows.

Moreover, the State Board does not have authority over the earliest water rights claims — so-called Pre-1914 rights — and the Board estimates that there are approximately 1,600 unreported Pre-1914 and riparian diversions in the Delta. How much water are these diverters taking? No one knows, or looks, or measures. The story is even worse for groundwater. Percolating groundwater is not subject to the State Water Board’s permitting system (as though it was magically different from surface water. It isn’t.) and, in most of the state is not regulated by any other public agency. How can we sustainably manage what we don’t even measure? Where is our groundwater going? What is the effect of this groundwater use on surface flows? Who knows?

As bad as things are for understanding existing rights and use, there are thousands of water users extracting water with no rights at all. Or so we think. Why don’t we know?

Water Number: Eight. There are only eight people statewide with responsibility for policing water theft and rights violations at the State Water Resources Control Board, and even they have other demands on their time. Republicans (and some Democrats), in the recent debate over water legislation, opposed increasing that number to around 30, and also opposed more stringent requirements that water uses be measured and reported.

Why? Because a small number of powerful people, though not most of us, and certainly not the environment, benefit from our ignorance on this issue. If actual water uses were limited to those allowed by water rights, some of us suspect that there would be a lot more water left in the rivers or available to junior water rights holders. Maybe a part of the problem with water in California, and part of the problem with the health of the Delta fisheries, is water theft, not just over-allocation and inefficient use. Wouldn’t it be nice to know?

But this would require — gasp! — actually measuring and monitoring all water use, from surface sources to groundwater. And it would require enforcing water rights. What radical concepts. It is time for Californians to demand that we stop pretending that water is free and unlimited, available to anyone who can put a siphon in a river or drill another groundwater well. When these things are left unregulated, or as badly regulated as they are now, we rob current and future generations.

Dr. Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an internationally recognized water expert and a MacArthur Fellow.

Rainwater Catchment & Water Conservation Workshop

image

BZA Meeting for Winery in Mark West Creek Watershed

This is a very contentious issue in the Mark West Creek watershed, an important fisheries being negatively impacted by piece-mealing construction for a winery.

The applicant, Dumol Winery, is trying to get approval in the sensitive upper Mark West Creek watershed with its significant steelhead habitat. The creek already has significant impacts from the winery and vineyards activities including dewatering and silt runoff.

This area is prone to landslides as well as being a water scarce area. The owner is associated with Goldman-Sachs, bailed out with multi-million tax dollars, now used to create an elite winery to produce high-end wine most people can not afford to buy.

Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Time: 1:30 PM

Where: PRMD Hearing Room, 2550 Ventura Ave, Santa Rosa