Archive for the 'Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts' Category

Sheephouse Creek Watershed Update

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”

Response to Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought

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

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.”

###

The Planning and Conservation League, www.pcl.org, partners with hundreds of California environmental organizations to provide a voice in Sacramento for sound planning and responsible environmental policy.

Scoping Meeting on North Bay Water Reuse, Petaluma

The special scoping session for our comments on the Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Reuse Program will be tomorrow:

Wednesday, 8/6, 10am - 11.30am

ESA Consultants Office  (preparers of the EIR/EIS)
1425 N. McDowell Blvd, Suite 105 (Redwood Business Park)
Petaluma, 94954
Phone: 707/ 795-0900

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%221425+n.+mcdowell,+petaluma%22&ie=UTF8&ll=38.277203,-122.666345&spn=0.016104,0.026608&t=h&z=15

To All,

This is our opportunity to provide comments on what we believe should be included in the scope of review in the Draft EIR/EIS.

For instance:

- What alternatives should be included in their documentation, beyond their current 3 project options, “big, bigger and biggest”?
- What impacts, primary and secondary, should be examined?
- Are there better uses for this treated wastewater?
- How important is it for the Draft EIR/EIS to address impacts on the source waters (Russian R, Eel R, groundwater basins)?
- Should NWBRA member sanitary districts (and SCWA) be working to reduce through-put of water/wastewater before trying to build a system to recycle and use as much as possible, in Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties?  Are there incentives to reduce potable water demands in the first place, or is this a vehicle to find long-term, new customers for more water usage?
- Who should pay for storage and distribution costs?
- Should this EIR/EIS be addressing ways to reach zero carbon footprint?  reduced GHG emissions?  lessened horsepower for pumping?

Please take the time to come to this important scoping session - if it’s not suggested, don’t expect SCWA and NBWRA to include your ideas.

See you tomorrow morning.  Thanks again for all your help and interest.

Sincerely,
David Keller

Want Fish? Workshop on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

*SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies*

Tues 8/5, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center Wed. 8/6, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water NOTE: THE REGIONAL BOARD, CAG, PATRICK HIGGINS AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION HAVE GOOD Board’s website at:/ COMMENTS ON FILE

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html

.

Please tell them:- Talking Points Streams are in terrible shape - lower rainfall and unlawful diversion are the problem - the salmon fishery is on the ropes

Legal Framework (AB 2121 - State Water Code ) - puts responsibility on the State Water Board to solve the problem

The State Board must develop policy to support minimum by-pass flows to support fish survival

No new instream diversion should be permitted that would diminish adequate flows for fish survival

Existing illegal diversions and instream impoundments should be curtailed/removed

RECOMMENDATIONS - SHORT LIST

Apart from suggestions and discussion from above, the following summarized suggestions are made:

Proposed policy needs to be reworked to make it more understandable and enforceable

Adhering to the original Joint CDFG/NMFS Guidelines might simplify policy and related implications.

All origins of water use should be considered in Watershed Analysis and setting diversion limitations.

Watershed Analysis and condition setting for permits and license shall be consistent with all State Code (including CEQA, Water Code, and CDFG 1600 permitting) - this includes group actions.

All unauthorized onstream dams and storage facilities that block fish habitat shall be considered for removal on a prioritized basis.

Season of Diversion should be no greater than January through March.

Funding to support permitting and monitoring programs shall be developed through permit fee schedules.

A functional enforcement system shall be developed and employed.

Alan Levine

Water Board’s Workshops on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

Be there, or be ignored.

SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies

Tues 8/6, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center
Wed. 8/7, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The final date for submittal of written comments on the draft policy and its associated environmental document and scientific report was May 1, 2008.
The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water Board’s website at:

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html
.

See you there.
David Keller

Letter to Editor Regarding Syar’s Permit Extension

FYI,

Mining moonscape

EDITOR: It’s wonderful to see The Press Democrat editorial get it right on
an important Russian River issue (”Flashback”).

Gravel mining below Healdsburg has removed millions of tons of gravel from
the riparian corridor. Much of the middle reach of the river beyond a thin
veil of vegetation has been reduced to virtually a moonscape. If you have
the pleasure of seeing this wonderful stretch of river, walk beyond the
10-foot fringe of trees and take a look at the mess gravel mining has left
us.

The gravel remaining filters our drinking water, which is pumped from the
river not far downstream. The destruction of our aquifer, woodland and
riparian habitat was a bad idea decades ago and a worse one today,
considering the increasing scarcity of quality water, not to mention
habitat. Should our Board of Supervisors have a problem ending gravel
mining on the river at the Aug. 19 hearing, one must question the
integrity of the decision-making process.

The passage of the Aggregate Management Plan gave Syar Industries more
than 10 years notice. The board should be having hearings to determine how
Syar is going to restore the moonscape it has left us in the middle reach
of the Russian River.

DAVID HERR

–Larry

Source to Sea Event in San Francisco

SOURCE TO SEA
An event inspired by the California Salmon Crisis. These evenings are a multilayered combination of films, discussions, performance art, story telling, live music, grassroots news telling and a chance to find out how you can help the Salmon be restored to their natural abundance.

Salmon Event in San Francisco - tickets on sale NOW!

SOURCE TO SEA Environmental Film Festival
CounterPULSE: 1310 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
Friday and Saturday July 18 & 19, 7-11 pm $15 each night, $25 for both(Saturday 4pm - free workshop on the salmon crisis and what you can do)
Tickets: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/36398
or call the Source to Sea Coalition at 323-823-5377

The SOURCE TO SEA Environmental Film Festival is hosted by a coalition of bay area activists, artists, and performers working to engage people in the Bay Area with our greater watershed - from the San Francisco Bay to the Yuba River in the Sierra Nevada. Join us and reconnect to your headwaters! A benefit for the Save Yuba Salmon campaign, the SOURCE TO SEA festival presents top films from the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival, (the largest environmental film festival in the United States) along with performance, live music, food, drinks, and discussion of the California salmon crisis. Featured films will explore trans-species communication in “Edge of Eden: Living with Grizzlies” and the 35-year evolution of Greenpeace in “Making a Stand”.

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

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

Appeal for Action on Syar Mining Hearing–July 8th at 2:10 pm

Rescheduled Syar Phase VI Pit Mining hearing July 8th - 2:10pm**

Please help defend one of the biggest victories for the River that our
Supervisors are prepared to reverse - the 10-year limit of Open Pit strip
mining of our aquifer!

Urge the Supervisors to Vote NO on the permit and uphold the 10-year limit
to protect our aquifer and farmland!
This project, if approved, will open the door to continued mining beyond
this permit by breaking the ARM plan regulation that all open pit mining
will end in 2006, increase greenhouse gas emissions, expose our community
and wildlife to toxic levels of Mercury for gravel the market is already
well supplied with.

Please write a letter or attend the hearing on July 8th at 2:10pm!

For US post letters use the following address and subject line:

Chairman Kerns and Members of the Board
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Suite 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing

For E-mail letters please use the following addresses and subject line:

mkerns@sonoma-county.org
vbrown@sonoma-county.org
tsmith@sonoma-county.org
pkelley@sonoma-county.org
mreilly@sonoma-county.org
CC: KELLISON@sonoma-county.org
CSEPPELE@sonoma-county.org

Subject line: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing PLP05-0108

POINTS TO MAKE TO SONOMA CO SUPERVISORS

The 10-year limit was strict mitigation and can’t be undone
The April 2006 phase-out of open pit mining was a HUGE compromise by
conservation community and was mitigation in recognition of the widely
recognized environmental degradation to our floodplains, aquifer and
permanent loss of valuable farmland. The 1-year limit was mitigation for
the cumulative impacts from Open Pit mining and to continue beyond 10
years requires new mitigation and the EIR has no mitigation for the
cumulative impact from continued mining.

Water is more valuable than gravel to our community
Open Pit mining permanently destroys a portion of the Middle Reach zone of
the Santa Rosa aquifer for a year or two of gravel supply compromising
future sustainable water sources the county will require as our population
grows.

Syar’s Air Quality Study is Flawed and will lead to unacceptable cancer
risks from Equipment emissions
A June 2008 study by Atmospheric Dynamics shows that Syar’s reports
understated the cancer risks by not accounting for particulate emissions
by using outdated information on particulates, properly age equipment by
assuming all equipment was brand new with modern emission controls and by
not accounting for higher emissions from off-road equipment. The
independent report shows that the real cancer risk is 2-3 times higher
than Syar’s reports and push the risk above legal thresholds.

Continued Open Pit mining exposes our community and wildlife to high
levels of Mercury

Syar’s own data shows their process water slurry to contain toxic levels
of Mercury. Syar and other mining operations have dumped this toxic stew
into the former mining pits contaminating them with mercury. The Syar
processing plant located next to the River and the Phase VI pit will end
up with toxic levels of mercury if Phase VI is allowed to proceed. Syar’s
testing data from groundwater monitoring wells and former pits has a
detection limit 20 times the significant threshold levels set by the
USEPA, the Clean Water Act and Proposition 65.
Due to the failure to test for Mercury at levels required by the USEPA,
the FEIR should NOT be approved until Mercury testing is performed at
levels consistent with the law.

Sonoma County already has adequate gravel supplies
There is no public need served as imported gravel is able to supply entire
Sonoma market with lower Greenhouse gas emissions and much lower
environmental impact to source areas and no sacrifice of farmlands.

Most gravel use is NOT in north county
The EIR completely omits the existing Northern Sonoma County gravel
sources from bar skimming in claiming a "need" for local high quality
aggregate. The truth is that the majority of gravel use is easily served
by imported sources in Petaluma. This is demonstrated via a 2003 Whitlock
& Weinberger Transportation traffic study.

Thank You for opposing the Syar permit and protecting our River and
groundwaters!

**- Since the June 10th hearing was a last minute cancellation and many
showed up so if you want to confirm the hearing before you drive over you
can call our office at 433-1958 or the Clerk of the Board at 565-2241 to
confirm the hearing time after 10am on July 8th! We do not believe this
hearing will be postponed but check-in to be sure!

—————————
Don McEnhill
Russian Riverkeeper
PO Box 1335
Healdsburg, CA 95448
ph: 707-433-1958
fx: 707-433-1989
cel: 707-217-4762
www.russianriverkeeper.org

Regarding the Syar Gravel Permit Extension

(Note: The decision on Syar’s permit extension before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on June 10 was postponed until Tuesday, June 8, at 2:10 pm.)

It will be very interesting to see today how the Board of Supervisors addresses the issues around the requested Syar gravel mining extension as it relates to water supply and filtration.

In conversation yesterday evening with Pam Jeane (SCWA Asst. Managing Engineer) and their fisheries biologist (David Manning) in their Guerneville SCWA public meeting on water shortages, the question came up of whether SCWA would be providing comments to the Supervisors on the impacts of gravel mining on water supply. They stated explicitly that they have not been asked to do so by their boss(es), and so would not be providing any comments.

This is very odd and unfortunate, since it is a hydrological and geological reality that the gravels and sands of a river aquifer are porous. In the Russian River, these 25-40% voids within the gravel bed are filled with water, naturally and for free, every winter. This is a huge reservoir within the gravel bed aquifer of the Russian River.

So, removal of a cubic yard of gravel to aggregate mining removes approximately ~1/3 cu. yd. (about 9 cu. ft, or 68 gallons) of water stored within that gravel and sand. Gravel mining leads directly to lessened water stored within the aquifer, and directly results in lower flows within the river, as those stored waters are slowly released during the dry months as the “base flow” of the river. This is a very significant part of our water supply (and critical fish habitat) during the dry months, as well as for all the other users who are drafting water from the river for agriculture and municipal uses and for swimming and boating. This base flow is supplemented by the releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino to meet the state mandated minimum flows for fish and recreation. So, the less water stored within the aquifer, the more water has to be released from the reservoirs to maintain the flows. This is all compounded by the overdrafting of the river (”over-allocation”) during the summer, with more water taken out of the river than naturally is flowing in it.

(For literally a ‘text book’ examples, discussing the Russian River and other western rivers, see:
Jeffrey Mount [Chair, Geology Dept, UCD], California Rivers and Streams, the conflict between fluvial process and land use, UC Press, 1995, Chapter 11, Mining and the Rivers of California; also,
Thomas Dunne and Luna Leopold, Water in Environmental Planning, W.H.Freeman and Co, 1978, Groundwater storage, p.198+ )

As you well know, in addition, the state Dept. of Health 1949 permit for SCWA’s pumping of water from the river without any filtration (and no treatment required except chlorination for possible in-pipe contamination) is premised on the spectacular abilities of our aquifer to filter our water for cleanliness.

It is very unfortunate that the institutional conflicts between governance roles of the Sonoma Co. Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors SCWA leaves this critical information off the table for their informed consideration of river gravel mining. What we need is for the Board of Directors to instruct their senior staff to provide this kind of data to the Board of Supervisors.

Any help you can provide to get this done would be most welcome.

Thanks for your ear on this. If you’d like to discuss these issues further, please let me know - I’d be happy to sit down with you.

David