Archive for the 'Logging Impacts' Category

Sheephouse Creek Watershed Update

Published
by
Larry
on August 19, 2008
in Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 1 Comment

On behalf of the “Friends of Sheephouse Creek,” I wanted to provide you an update in our attempt to affect the Ricioli Ranch Non Industrial Timber Management Plan being proposed for 331 acres of Sheephouse Creek watershed in Sonoma County. The timber owners continue to insist they have the right to use an easement road through our property rather than avoid the impacts, both human and environmental, that this NTMP will have upon our family and our property over the next 40 years, not to mention Sheephouse Creek, its watershed and the Coho salmon which are being restored here.

Out of a sense of helplessness, we have written to the Governor for help and he responded through the acting director of California Department of Fish and Game. They have agreed to look at our concerns and to perform a Coho Salmon Impact Evaluation, which determines if the NTMP will result in “take” (harm) or significant impacts to the Coho salmon. Also at risk is the many millions of dollars that the taxpayer has invested in the Coho Salmon Recovery Program, not only in Sheephouse Creek, but in Ward and Mill Creeks.

The NTMP was returned for corrections to the forester, GTE & Associates, on 21 Feb 2008 and to date, it has not been re-filed. No Pre Harvest Inspection of the site has been scheduled at this time. This has given us a little time to make people aware of this NTMP and its potential to do harm to Sheephouse Creek and its watershed. Local fly fishing groups, such as the Golden West Women Flyfishers, have jumped into the fray and have offered to help, as well as the Environmental Protection Information Center, Forests Unlimited, and the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishing Association, among others. !

We are still finding that most people are not aware of Sheephouse Creek or its significance as restoration habitat for the Coho salmon and that it contains Steelhead trout. We have encouraged everyone to obtain and read a copy of the NTMP (or view it online), understand the issues involved, and weigh in with written comments of concern to CDF, Santa Rosa. Could you help with a brief letter of concern, its really important that the community weigh in on this?

Thank you,
Michael Keller
- On behalf of “Friends of Sheephouse Creek”

Two Logging Plans Threaten Sheephouse Creek Watershed

Published
by
admin
on August 19, 2008
in Logging Impacts and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Sheephouse Creek (near Duncans Mills in Sonoma County) is important for its watershed values near the coastal zone as well as an important salmon spawning and rearing area. In addition, there is a current Coho captive broodstock program overseen by the Department of fish and Game.

Sheephouse Creek Boundry Map

A Non-industrial Management Plan (NTMP) for logging of 331 acres and a THP for logging of 81 acres have been filed with CDF (now known as CalFire). Together these plans total 442 acres or 20% of the watershed acreage. If allowed to cut as proposed, these plans together with already approved plans Within the last ten years amount to almost half of the forests in the Sheephouse watershed, creating potential cumulative impacts. Unfortunately, CalFire only does a THP by THP analysis and no real analysis on the broader cumulative impacts within the watershed.

Sheephouse Creek is in danger of being adversely impacted causing, in part, the demise of one of the last few remaining coho streams in Northern California. Currently, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is conducting a Coho Salmon Impact Evaluation for Sheephouse Creek. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has declined to review the plan but sent a letter to Cal Fire stating the critical importance of this habitat area for Coho. It must be pointed out that Cal Fire is the lead agency on approving these plans and has a history of ignoring the professional opinions of other agencies.

Below are links to each logging plan for more information. Also see Activist Corner, this blog, for discussion on what some activists are doing and to get more information to send comments on the plans.

Letters of concern go to:
CDF c/o 135 Ridgeway Avenue,
Santa Rosa, CA. 95402
or at santarosapubliccomment@fire.ca.gov

For the Non-Industrial Management Plan, 1-08-NTMP-004SON, go to:
ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2008/1-08NTMP-004SON

For the Timber Harvest Plan, 1-08-025SON, go to:
ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/THPs2008/1-08-025SON

Sheephouse Creek Watershed Area
Sheephouse Creek Watershed Area
Past, Present, and Proposed Timber Harvest

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

Published
by
Larry
on July 8, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Hello,
SRF has two exciting events this summer: the 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium and the 11th Annual Coho Confab. I have pasted our event announcements below. Please feel free - even encouraged! - to share these PSAs with your co-workers, constituents, list-serves, Events calendars, or other organizations you think might find these events useful and enjoyable.

Thank you for your help in spreading the word!

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium
July 10-12, Nevada City, CA

The Salmonid Restoration Federation’s 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium will be held in Nevada City on July 10 followed by field tours on the Yuba River and Butte Creek on July 11 & 12. Symposium speakers include UC Davis Fisheries Professor Peter Moyle who will address Ecological Perspectives on Spring-run Chinook salmon. Session topics will highlight status of populations and specific recovery opportunities for Central Valley Rivers, and recovery challenges including FERC relicensing, climate change, and resurrecting the Klamath run. Afternoon panels will representatives from DFG, NOAA Fisheries, SYRCL, State Water Board and Conservation Groups will discuss recovery through habitat expansion, water supply, and water quality improvements. Field tours will include a Yuba River float, site visits to the Bear-River Feather Set-back Project by way of the Lower Yuba, a Restoration thru Relicensing Driving Tour, Snorkeling Investigations of the South Yuba River, and a Butte Creek tour of Spring-run Fish Populations. Symposium and field tour costs are $105-135 depending on advanced registration which closes on June 15. To access the registration form, please go to: http://calsalmon.org/pdf/RegForm_8X11_050808_hi%20res.pdf

11th Annual Coho Confab
September 26-28 on the Smith River

SRF, Trees Foundation, Smith River Advisory Council, and the Smith River Alliance will host the 11th Annual Coho Confab featuring tours of Mill Creek restoration projects, erosion control and fish passage projects, underwater fish identification, macro-invertebrate sampling, networking, great music and food. Fee $100-125 includes all food and lodging. Limited scholarships and work trade positions are available.

For more info, please call 707 923-7501 or visit the SRF web site.

I hope you are having a great Spring!
Heather Reese
Project Coordinator
Salmonid Restoration Federation
PO Box 784
Redway, California 95560
(707) 923-7501
heather@calsalmon.org

Comments and Article on Governor’s Drought Plan

Published
by
Larry
on June 24, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Since Ag is 80% of total water useage in the State, and domestic use is less than 10%:
Out of 100 acre feet supply:
A 10% savings on domestic use would yield a one acre foot saving A 20% savings on domestic use would yield a two acre foot saving

Where with Ag use:
A 10% savings on Ag use would yield a 8 acre foot saving A 20% savings on Ag use would yield a 16 acre foot saving

A 10% savings on Ag use would double the supply available for domestic use

Do you thing there is at least 10% waste in Ag use - maybe 20% waste?

To dam or not to dam? Sorry, Arnold, that’s not even the question. We have to manage our water resources and watersheds as if we had to drink from them for at least the next 150 years. Minimizing our water demands, protecting our water’s quality, restoring fish and wildlife habitat and populations, increasing efficiencies and creating regionally working solutions are essential to our future. The governor’s plan won’t do this.

Let the governor and your legislators know that we need to do better. We can’t afford not to.

Thank you,
David Keller /Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River/

The Planning and Conservation League

*NEWS RELEASE*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy McIntyre, 916 541-8825 June 4, 2008
* *

*Planning and Conservation League Issues Statement on Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought*

(SACRAMENTO) - The Planning and Conservation League, a leading statewide conservation advocacy coalition, today issued the following statement from Executive Director Traci Sheehan Van Thull regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation:
“Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation offers up a challenge - and an opportunity - for all Californians to conserve water and to work together to find new solutions to solve our water problems.

“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve. We encourage the Governor to embrace measures that will allow California to grow without increasing demand on already over-allocated water sources. We need strong policies that can decrease water demand, provide climate-resilient water supplies, and truly provide relief for the communities, fisherman, businesses and ecosystems that are suffering from lack of reliable water.

“More and more residents and businesses are facing severe water rationing in California, while water demands and communities continue to grow. While the Governor’s proclamation references the need to provide water for our growth, his executive order relies heavily on the same sources of water that are now in decline.”

“Measures such as Assembly Member Krekorian’s /Water Efficiency Security Act/, co-sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would help prevent rationing by ensuring growing California communities have the water they need without further increasing water demand on over-burdened water resources. However, despite a groundswell of support from local water agencies, to city councils, community groups and conservation organizations, this pivotal measure failed to gain traction in the State Assembly.

“Ensuring that new growth in California will not lead to increased rationing and exacerbate the pending water crisis is a critical step to solving California’s water crisis. The Planning and Conservation League has a 43-year history of working toward ensuring there is enough water for all Californians, and we pledge to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to ensure that California’s water supply meets the needs for all communities, businesses and the environment - for today and the future.”

Applying the ‘Water Framework Directive’ to RR Watershed

Published
by
Larry
on May 19, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Conservation, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

I thought you might appreciate this. The DWR has been very supportive of the Russian River Watershed Council, and citing the European “Water Framework Directive” is an interesting approach.

Have a wonderful spring weekend,
Rue

—————
Rue,
In case you haven’t seen this, a March 2008 UCB paper on applying the European ‘Water Framework Directive’ watershed management approach to the Russian River watershed. It cites RRWC & SCWA information.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrc/contributions/208/

regards,
Pierre
J. Pierre Stephens
Water Supply Evaluations Section Chief
Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Central District
California Department of Water Resources

Assessing site specific and cumulative impacts on anadromous fishery resources

Published
by
Larry
on March 12, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Stream Flow Folks:

For thought and discussion:

In my stream flow file I found a document, NMFS/James R. Bybee to Mr. Harry Schueller/SWRCB, dated April 18, 2001 (my how the years fly by - the SWRCB should have a copy of this letter and it should be included in the record). This letter, by NMFS, was written to address a SWRCB staff report “Assessing site specific and cumulative impacts on anadromous fishery resources in coastal watersheds in Northern California”, January 23, 2001.

This document was written to address issue using discussion of subjects and concerns that NMFS has regarding the SWRCB policy proposal - some of which were addressed by the Joint CDFG/NMFS Proposed Guidelines (2000 - and - fixed 2002). The discussion included (short summary): General Approach - Cumulative Impacts related to numbers of un-permitted/unauthorized diversions (numbers in the thousands), limitations for “new” (what time frame constitutes new ?) onstream storage reservoirs, limiting the season of diversion to winter period when stream flow is the highest (Dec. 15 to March 31), providing bypass flows for the purpose of maintaining (recovering) the quality of downstream habitat. In general, NMFS argues that the Joint CDFG/NMFS Proposed Guidelines provided better (more useable solutions) by, 1) allowing diversions only when stream flows are higher then the February median - maintaining some semblance of the natural hydrograph, 2) restricting diversions to a maximum instantaneous rate of withdrawal - also to maintain a near-natural hydrograph. NMFS is critical of the proposed SWRCB policy which, 1) allows diversion when flows are higher than an established minimum (in this case the February median), 2) would establish the max total cumulative volume diverted based on estimated surface runoff - in normal years (discounting dry years) - and during a season from October 1 to March 31 - which would allow interception of all early flows needed by salmon (i.e. the early withdrawal season should not occur to January).

Instream Flow Policy - Northern California Streams - Issues from the NMFS 2001 letter are being highlighted to assess sufficiency of the newly (2008) proposed SWRCB flow maintenance policy to addresses issue and to show differences and potential shortfalls in the proposed policy to address issue.

Other issues:

Migration Barriers - Limitations on new (again define new) onstream dams, solely on basis of migration barrier issues, fails to address the flow needs issue - where the these dams normally fill during the early rain season - limiting critical flows during that period. In this case NMFS speaks strongly against allowing new onstream dams - except on Class III streams and only if the cumulative reduction in stream flow is not seriously (10%) reduced in fish bearing reaches. In addition, existence of such barrier that would preclude fish migration also precludes consideration of the potential to restore salmonids upstream form these unlauthorized and illegal structures. This is in conflict with newly proposed policy.

Season of Diversion - NMFS and the SWRCB seem to agree that the season of withdrawal should be December 15 to March 31 - with instantaneous flows outside the diversion season to be bypassed. This is linked by NMFS to another argument for limiting onstream dams. This is in conflict with the newly proposed policy - allowing October through March diversion.

Bypass Flow - NMFS disagrees with a bypass flow based on the February median flow. Bypass flows must protect all stream functions. “Bypass flows should not be some minimum value that does not fulfill all stream functions; instead it should be a dynamic fluctuating flow that effectuates all needed steam functions and processes” (ref: need to protect the natural hydrograph) The new policy addresses aspects of the flow issue but in a seriously convoluted way. Allowing illegal/unauthorized onstream dams (and diversions) that restrict flows and block migration will preclude attainment of the desired goal - habitat maintenance. NMFS suggests that a depth criterion may be necessary on some streams. This is not considered in the new policy, exception assessment, or cumulative assessment process. NMFS suggests that, both, CDFG and NMFS be included in the depth criterion assessment process.

Cumulative Effects - NMFS agrues for the Joint CDFG/NMFS Guidelines to avoid the “flatlining” of stream flows. NMFS argues that cumulative assessment of diversion impacts should include diversions under riparian right (or estimates of diversion under riparian right) - and - should be included in CEQA based cumulative effects analysis. NMFS, again, argues that the proposed period of permitted diversion starts too early. NMFS argues that historic habitats are not protected - nor are stream flows protected above migration restrictions. NMFS argues that assessments should include representative dry years. Lastly - NMFS recomends that assessment, reports, and cumulative effects analysis be presented in understandable form (this can be said for the wording of the new policy - itself). There is a conflict in the new policy with every issue mentioned in this paragraph.

Stream Flow Estimation - NMFS has some issue with reliance on USGS stream flow data (being uneven and sparse), and the Rational Runoff method. How will the unimpaired flow numbers be derived? The precipitation-based hydrologic model is given more support - but accuracy is questioned. This is a problem acknowledged by the SWRCB - with the suggestion that enforcement may be the key to the issue; ” …. a vigorous program to identify unauthorized diversions and bring them into the water rights process would be an important step in the right direction. If the problem is ignored it will only get worse.” (SWRCB 2000). NMFS agreed with the preceding statement. NMFS recommends a monitoring and research program for developing stream flow estimates. To date (during the last 10 years when this policy was on the table) little progress has been made in this area.

Verification - Variability and uncertainty regarding the adequacy and implementation of any set of guidelines or preceedures for regulating stream flow diversions for the purpose of protecting anadromous salmonids - demands verification or adaptive management. A program validating adequacy of such program should be put in place.

Compliance Monitoring - Any policy or program for limiting environmental impacts of water diversions on coastal streams will contribute little protection of fish and wildlife resources if there is inadequate oversight and enforcement of those programs or policy. “SWRCB must develop a credible compliance, monitoring, and enforcement program to ensure that requirements for bypass flows, rates of withdrawal, and a limited diversion season are met. SWRCB must also bolster its enforcement capability to discourage illegal appropriations of water. “(NMFS)

Given the above - short - review of issue, can it be said that the some areas of the new proposed policy is not consistent with NMFS concerns voiced in the 2001 letter to the SWRCB? Or - that the policy meets the criteria of meeting basic standards of being Understandable (Interpretable), Implementable, Enforceable? The Answer is that the policy is not there - yet.

This discussion, above, related to proposed SWRCB on insteam flows from 2000 and NMFS response (2001) can be applied to the current proposed Stream Flow - Maintenance policy now on deck. There are many open issues that need fixing. This discussion can be applied to that task.

Many of these comments are likely to appear in CAG’s final comments on SWRCB Stream Flow Policy. There are many more questions to be answered; e.g. How does the proposed policy and project review, with exceptions, fit in with CEQA?, How are unauthorized water transfers to be handeled?

Alan Levine

On Low Salmon Returns

Published
by
Larry
on February 18, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Coastal Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

To All,

On my note (included below) to groups and individuals on the subject of low salmon returns I was properly reminded by my friend Brian Hines that the conditions for these low returns, as presented by me, failed to account for poor ocean conditions and potential global warming effects.

It is true. All of these elements have an effect on salmon survival - we need both productive ocean conditions that will bring the fish back, fat and happy - and - we need spawning and rearing habitat in our rivers to will sustain salmon in their various life stages.

This does not mean that hatchery practices do not have an effect - and ditto for predation by bass in the Bay Delta (see notes below)?

Alan:
How are we going to improve conditions? Three ways:

1) The Public Trust Doctrine.

2) The Clean Water Act.

3) The Endangered Species Act.

– Brian

Brian,
I agree with your take on this. We need,both, an ocean with conditions to support salman - and - reviers that support spawing and survival of youg (during those life stages).

The question is; how do we get this to happen?

Alan:
I have always resisted claims, “It’s the Ocean Conditions!” made by spoilers of watershed habitat. It sounds kind of like, “It’s those damn seals!”. But now we really have to start looking at the ocean conditions when the salmon meat turns white from lack of krill and populations from good watersheds drop like Lagunitas. When people used to say “It’s Ocean Conditions!” I would say, “That’s funny, Lagunitas had a normal run of 500 Coho last year. I wonder what ocean they were swimming in?”

– Brian

Brian,

I think ocean conditions play a big role.

On the Sacto - Why now? Why not before now?

The smaller coastal rivers all went down in one big wumpf (short time frame) - after many years of obuse. It was not all that gradual.

Alan:
Don’t forget Climate Change and its negative effect on upwelling off the Pacific Coast. A very scary prospect if it continues. When the wild Lagunitas Coho returns go down we have to look at ocean conditions and what happened in the watershed when this year class was spawning (winter 04/05) and rearing in 05 and 06.

– Brian

Brian,
Low salmon run returns have been reported up and down the coast for both coho and chinook (King).

A hole in the Marin county returns is a bad sign for coho.

On the Sacramento the low chinook returns are making DFG and the SWRCB nervous. The causal factors for this fishery collapse can be many - or - cumulative. Large amounts of water diverted from the Bay Delta is one reason often pointed at. Another reason pointed at by Ag is the maintenance of large bass populations in the Delta. The bass love to eat the millions of chinook salmon fingerlings dumped in the delta every year. The finger also can be pointed out to loss of spawning habitat.

The one issue that is rarely mentioned is the reliance on hatchery fish for the Sacto salmon run. For many years DFG has dumped millions upon millions of hatchery raised fish in the delta. Hatchery fish are genetically and physically weak. Hatchery monoculture progeny are subject to disease and lacking genetically disposed skills for feeding and survival in various conditions. The hatchery fish, if they do return, compete with wild fish and alter wild fish genetics - thus imposing limiting factors on wild fish survival where enough problems already exist.

This hatchery problem extends to coho also - but to a somewhat lesser extent - as the practices are done on such a smaller scale. Coho salmon need specific conditions for survival. If these conditions are altered - removal of riparian shade, warm water, and silted spawning gravels all will limit coho production, return, and survival.

Alan

Alan Levine

Workshop Feedback on Instream Flows

Published
by
Larry
on February 13, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

SWRCB Technical Workshop on Draft Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows for Northern California Coastal Streams
Feb. 6, 2008

The meeting in Santa Rosa was fully packed (exceeding the meeting room safety limitations), primarily with ranchers and grape growers protesting issuance of new policies for setting and maintaining minimum instream flows and other impacts to their ability to get and keep water permits.

More environmentalists, watershed and fisheries advocates must attend these meetings and provide comments, so that the SWRCB Board members and staff can see support for working on what they can in this complex field, and receive suggestions and feedback to make their policies more successful.

The presentation pdf is at http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/docs/instreamflow/techstaff_workshop020608.pdf
Details of the proposals are at: http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs.html

Thank you.

David Keller

Book: California Water II by Solano Press

Published
by
Larry
on January 17, 2008
in Coastal Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

I am please do let you all know that Solano Press has their new water book out - CALIFORNIA WATER II

For those of use who work in water, fishery, and forestry resources, this book will be a great help - meaning we all should own a copy.

From Water Rights (riparian and appropriative) to Endangered Species implications and the responsibilities of the State and Regional Boards - this book is well organized to help interested parties understand and apply the law.

Very much like another Solano Press publication, The Forest Practice Act and Related Laws (another indispensable publication for those interested in forest practices with good grounding and references in CEQA, ESA, and the Clean Water Act), activists will be much more effective owning a copy of CALIFORNIA WATER LAW II.

Please review attachments - Announcement and Table of Contents.

You can contact Solano Press at spbooks@solano.com or by phone at 1-800-931-9373

Alan Levine

On the Water Board’s Sediment Control Plan

Published
by
Larry
on December 17, 2007
in Coastal Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 1 Comment

Daniel:

You comments are spot on - and - appreciated. I am copying them to other concerned parties that might make use of them. Thank you.

Anderson is correct. It will be tough to get money for staffing in this environment. That is why we all must work hard on supporting this and at approaching our political reps.

Anderson is in a peculiar position. He has conflicts of interest that he must be aware of. This policy may effect his grape growers interest group. He should not participate on issue that effects them.

You are correct there are legal mandates that support completion of tasks outlined in the Sediment Work Plan. I do mention them in my comments.

The Sediment Work Plan should in no way effect voluntary work or voluntary compliance plans. I do not understand the basis of that complaint or issue. I will mention it to staff.
Alan Levine
Coast Action GroupAllen,

Alan,

Thanks for your draft letter and comments on the excess sediment work plan. I attended the meeting yesterday in Eureka. There was no significant organized opposition just the usual whining. On balance a lot of positive feedback supporting the approach. Holly L said that it has general board support and should be approved at the next board meeting. Anderson characterized it as a Christmas Wish List and didn’t see how it could be funded in the current atmosphere. He asked how much do the 19 Pys represent as a percentage increase in staffing.(21%)

My public comments were mostly responsive to his—the fact the addressing the impaired watersheds is not optional but mandated by CA and federal law—the funding issue is a debate for Sacramento not the board, and that the staff levels have been reduced in recent years by far more than this recommended increase.

There were some comments that the proposed plan would make it harder for watershed groups to do voluntary remedial. You can respond to that. I would suspect the opposite is true and part of the reason for not replicating the Garcia as a model.

I believe the draft resolution is weak and should make a step by step case that this program must be funded, tacitly acknowledging liability should it not go forward. I recall you did a lot of the word smithing on the resolution of 2004.

I’ll send you the SC draft for comment.

Daniel

Oh Cobett mentioned something about the Klamath work starting to have another life and the board may have to take some additional action to keep up?