Archive for the 'Watershed Related' Category

Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide

Published on February 25, 2010 in Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

FYI…From the perspective of ‘life-long-learning’ this new book looks
interesting, especially for those of us directly working on such related
efforts?

I have ordered it, but not yet had it in hand…
Brock

Completion and publication of a layperson’s guide to watershed
hydrology and groundwater hydrology.

The book, entitled “Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical
Guide” is geared towards a relatively broad audience with a varied interest
in water and groundwater.

The book will be useful for folks participating in watershed and groundwater
interest groups; for stakeholder groups in industry, agriculture,
environmental organizations, and NGOs; and for water district, irrigation
district, and water utilities personnel without formal college-level
background in hydrology.

It is also useful as a reference in an introductory undergraduate class.

The full-color book is available through UC ANR Communications at
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/3497.aspx

The book can previewed through Google Books at
http://books.google.com/books/p/anr_publications?id=qfvlzm1A1vMC

The Endowment supported the production of the book with a
contribution of $10,000, which enabled us to print the softcover book
in full color, while keeping the sales prices extremely affordable
($40).

Katy Mamen
Ag Innovations Network
101 Morris St., Suite 212
Sebastopol, CA 95473
Tel: 707.823.6111
Fax: 707.823.6113
katy@aginnovations.org
www.aginnovations.org

Low Impact Development

Published on February 23, 2010 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Low Impact Development - Create a Hydrologically Functional Lot

LID (low impact development) is an alternative method of land development that seeks to maintain the natural hydrologic character of the site or region. The natural hydrology, or movement of water through a watershed, is shaped over centuries under location-specific conditions to form a balanced and efficient system. When hardened surfaces such as roads, parking lots and rooftops are constructed, the movement of water is altered; in particular, the amount of runoff increases and infiltration decreases. This results in increased peak flow rate and volume, and pollution levels in stormwater runoff. LID designs with nature in mind: working with the natural landscape and hydrology to minimize these changes. LID accomplishes this through source control, retaining more water on the site where it falls, rather than using traditional methods of funneling water via pipes into local waterways. Both improved site design and specific management measures are used in LID designs. LID has been applied to government, residential and commercial development and redevelopment, and has proven to be a cost-efficient and effective method for managing runoff and protecting the environment.

Water Hits and Sticks

Published on February 23, 2010 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Findings Challenge a Century of Assumptions About Soil Hydrology

ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 2010) – Researchers have discovered that some of the most fundamental assumptions about how water moves through soil in a seasonally dry climate such as the Pacific Northwest are incorrect — and that a century of research based on those assumptions will have to be reconsidered.

A new study by scientists from Oregon State University and the Environmental Protection Agency showed — much to the surprise of the researchers — that soil clings tenaciously to the first precipitation after a dry summer, and holds it so tightly that it almost never mixes with other water.

The finding is so significant, researchers said, that they aren’t even sure yet what it may mean. But it could affect our understanding of how pollutants move through soils, how nutrients get transported from soils to streams, how streams function and even how vegetation might respond to climate change.

The research was just published online in Nature Geoscience, a professional journal.

“Water in mountains such as the Cascade Range of Oregon and Washington basically exists in two separate worlds,” said Jeff McDonnell, an OSU distinguished professor and holder of the Richardson Chair in Watershed Science in the OSU College of Forestry. “We used to believe that when new precipitation entered the soil, it mixed well with other water and eventually moved to streams. We just found out that isn’t true.”

“This could have enormous implications for our understanding of watershed function,” he said. “It challenges about 100 years of conventional thinking.”

What actually happens, the study showed, is that the small pores around plant roots fill with water that gets held there until it’s eventually used up in plant transpiration back to the atmosphere. Then new water becomes available with the return of fall rains, replenishes these small localized reservoirs near the plants and repeats the process. But all the other water moving through larger pores is essentially separate and almost never intermingles with that used by plants during the dry summer.

The study found in one test, for instance, that after the first large rainstorm in October, only 4 percent of the precipitation entering the soil ended up in the stream — 96 percent was taken up and held tightly by soil around plants to recharge soil moisture. A month later when soil moisture was fully recharged, 55 percent of precipitation went directly into streams. And as winter rains continue to pour moisture into the ground, almost all of the water that originally recharged the soil around plants remains held tightly in the soil — it never moves or mixes.

“This tells us that we have a less complete understanding of how water moves through soils, and is affected by them, than we thought we did,” said Renee Brooks, a research plant physiologist with the EPA and courtesy faculty in the OSU Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society.

“Our mathematical models of ecosystem function are based on certain assumptions about biological processes,” Brooks said. “This changes some of those assumptions. Among the implications is that we may have to reconsider how other things move through soils that we are interested in, such as nutrients or pollutants.”

The new findings were made possible by advances in the speed and efficiency of stable isotope analyses of water, which allowed scientists to essentially “fingerprint” water and tell where it came from and where it moved to. Never before was it possible to make so many isotopic measurements and get a better view of water origin and movement, the researchers said.

The study also points out the incredible ability of plants to take up water that is so tightly bound to the soil, with forces nothing else in nature can match.

The research was conducted in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest near Blue River, Ore., a part of the nation’s Long Term Ecological Research, or LTER Program. It was supported by the EPA.

Santa Rosa Groundwater “Recharge”

Published on February 12, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Groundwater and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To All,

One thing you will hear over and over about ground water in the Santa Rosa area is that it is in a “recharge area” . However this paradigm needs to shift. It implies that we can draw from the water resources without consequence because it will always “recharge and come back”. This is not true. What a water recharge area actually is can be greatly varied and un-explained. Some aquifers just dry up. With such little science and information about the county’s primary resource, it is actually quite irresponsible to assume that anyone is actually “managing groundwater”, especially officials tasked to do so.

Lloyd

Public Meeting at Jenner Community Club, Jan. 30

Published on January 26, 2010 in Coastal Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hello Folks,

Please join us on January 30th to learn more about the Sonoma Land
Trust, a few of our partners, and our plans to develop a comprehensive
resource management plan for the Jenner Headlands that balances public
use with the protection of the property’s incredible biological and
cultural resources.  We are holding a public meeting at the Jenner
Community Club from 4-5:30, where we will present an overview of our
planning process and our initial public access plans.  After the
presentation we will have time for Q&A.  The JCC is located in the town
of Jenner at 10432 Hwy 1.

To learn more about the Sonoma Land Trust and the Jenner Headlands
before the meeting, please visit our Web site at www.sonomalandtrust.org
<http://www.sonomalandtrust.org/> .

We look forward to seeing you on the 30th and beginning the next phase
of the Jenner Headlands project.

Brook R. Edwards

Jenner Headlands Project Manager

Sonoma Land Trust

Russian River Gravel Mining Stopped

Published on January 15, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
To All,
In case you haven’t seen it, here are some press releases on the very big win in the gravel mining decision.
Marc

doc4b046ebe08ee6525298528.jpg

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Environmental Forum — Saturday, Jan. 2, 2010

Published on January 2, 2010 in Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hi,

I love every part of the below series of presentations…  What is MOST UNUSUAL AND EXCITING is that Jon Love, ~the co-founder/creator of the Awakening the Dreamer symposium will be presenting!  WOWso if you can only join us for a part of the day I would say 3 PM to 5:30 PM is the most amazing opportunity.  Be the Change immediately following will be a further extension… and very valuable as well!

Thank you.
Happy 2010 and Warmest Regards,
Veronica Sorry for duplications… but this is an amazing opportunity and I think there is something for just about every topic on the listserves I have included!

Environmental Forum — Saturday, Jan. 2, 2010
An all-day series of activities:

— Have Fun

— Connect with our community

— Find ways to be more effective

— Ask How Low Can We Go to reduce our carbon footprint

Join in one or all of the day’s activities.

SCHEDULE:
9 AM – 9:15 AM — Bike Ride on the Greenway to City Hall
Meet at the benches in front of Aroma Roasters near 5th St. and Wilson in Railroad Square at 9 AM.

We will ride a loop around the block at City Hall to get a message out to the community encouraging biking and walking.  Dress in fun and noticeable attire and display signs encouraging anything green!

9:30 AM – Noon — Safe & Green

Learn how to stay alert and safe when walking, cycling, taking the bus or train.  Experienced Safety instructor Marty Callahan of Academy of Shotokan Karate.

A sense of security is important for families & individuals who choose not to use their cars for every errand.  Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers.

Noon – 1:30 PM — Potluck and Green Home Update
Meet Jennifer Schwab via webcam.  As Director of Sustainability, Jennifer is responsible for all enviro information, education and initiatives at Sierra Club Green Home.www.sierraclubgreenhome.com Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

1:30 PM – 3 PM Water Saving Opportunities for Now & the Future!
Participate in a discussion of Greywater Reuse, Rainwater Harvesting and
Water Conservation.  Presenters from Santa Rosa Utilities Dept. and Sonoma County Water Coalition.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

3 PM – 5:30 PM  Awakening The Dreamer, Changing The Dream Symposium
For relief from the gloom, doom and crisis in the news, learn about a possible new way of life.  This event guides us through inquiry from “Where are we?” and “How did we get here?” to “What is possible for the future?” and “What can we do?”  There is a video presentation, interactive exercises, networking & discussion.  Please register at www.awakeningthedreamer.org (suggested donation $15, but no one turned away for lack of funds) and bring a snack for yourself.  Questions: contact Laura Baker at 707 322-7778 or atdsoco@sonic.net.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

5:30 PM – 8 PM Be the Change!
Network, strategize, share updates on local sustainability and transition projects such as Energy Wise Neighbors, alternative transportation, Youth Green Jobs, Solar Sonoma County and the steps individuals are taking to reduce their carbon footprints.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

The Santa Rosa City Council Chambers are located on Santa Rosa Ave between Sonoma and 1st Street, Next to Room ~10 at the top of the stairs.  There is no charge for any events except a suggested donation for Awakening The Dreamer.  See www.redwood.sierraclub.org/sonoma for updates and additional information.  RSVP 544-7651 or email Veronica Jacobi at VJacobi@sonic.net

Boondogle Water Project Will Waste Water, Energy

Published on December 14, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.
If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.
Stephen
In a message dated 11/28/2009 10:48:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dkeller@eelriver.org writes:
Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?
The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.
Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.  This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.  While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.
Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.
Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?  Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers? Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?  With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.
The timeline for your comments is very short:
SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:
Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.

If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.

Stephen

Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.

Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.

This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.

While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.

Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.

Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?

Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers?

Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?

With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.

The timeline for your comments is very short:

SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:

Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership

Published on December 8, 2009 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

It’s what WE make of it.
Ray
From: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Levine
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:27 AM
To: Brock Dolman Cc: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com; rrkeeper@sonic.net; porgansinc@sbcglobal.net; go7plus@lists.mcn.org; mwlaing@aol.com; phiggins@humboldt1.com Subject: [SCWaterCoalition] Re: [NCWaterNet] Announcing the launch of the new – Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership!!
I am not too sure I am all that excited by this announcement
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation District University of California (UC) Research and Extension Center’s Hopland GIS Lab and UC Cooperative Extension.
The agencies noted above have been complicit in supporting programs (e.g Salmon Coaltion) by giving validation to actions that seek only regulatory relief (absolution) without really addressing deficient habitat conditions – including flows for fish. In many cases these groups are money troughs that exist only to allow continued activities that are limiting factors to riverine and salmonid recovery. From these groups you may see outcomes that testify to BS science that cows are good for streams, water temperature is not an issue, and fish do not need water (this last one a bit of exaggeration).
In fact folks from Sotohyome and Gold Ridge spoke in favor of the BS landowners plan (you saw my review of the testimony) to address the frost protection for water use issue – and flows.  Please do not hurt the landowners – they have worked so hard to come up with a voluntary plan (that does nothing and is unenforceable). Hell they work for Dennis Murphy and the Farm Buruea – what do you think you are going to get.
Dependence on restoration for recovery – will never do a bit of good (except employ some folks) unless land use issue is confronted and flows are restored to fish.
Where are these groups on flow issues. Only Adina Merelender (and Matt Deitch) from UC is available for confronting issue – and the RCDs seem capable of dismissing her concerns.
Process will get you nowhere. Only actions will provide results.  More benefits are derived from doing nothing than some of the BS restoration projects and fish plantings that I have seen.
I also must say that TU (though holding hands with the Grape folks) has set up and done a lot of valuable work – that our challenges should and do rely on.
Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration – I do not know about this group – who is in it??
More process = less fish.
This holding hands thing is a bunch of CRAP.
————- Message from Brock – below
Hi fish & flow folks,
On behalf of all the partners organizations, I wanted to let everyone know about the roll out of the new website for the Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership!
Here is the link – http://www.cohopartnership.org/
The site is just up and so your feedback is desired…
Some info from the homepage to whet your appetite:
In response to the precipitous decline of coho salmon in the Russian River watershed, the Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership (Partnership) is developing a systematic approach to improve streamflow and water supply reliability in five Russian River tributaries critical to the recovery of endangered coho salmon.
The Partnership is funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Partners include:
Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Occidental Arts and Ecology Center WATER Institute Trout Unlimited University of California (UC) Research and Extension Center’s Hopland GIS Lab and UC Cooperative Extension.
Initial efforts will focus in five first-priority streams — Dutch Bill Creek, Grape Creek, Green Valley Creek, Mark West Creek and Mill Creek — where streamflow is believed to limit salmonid survival and where cooperative projects could provide significant opportunities for both salmonids and water users.
Just as the Mediterranean climate of the Russian River watershed can place pressures during the dry season, it can provide opportunities to ameliorate those pressures during the rainy winter. Using a suite of tools ranging from innovative conservation strategies to increase off-stream storage opportunities for use during critical flow periods, the multi-disciplinary team of the Partnership is committed to working with landowners and water users to address complex issues related to salmonid recovery and provide well-developed, long-term solutions for communities and the environment.
The long-term goals of the Partnership are to
Restore a more natural flow regime during the dry season; Increase viability, and ultimately numbers, of coho salmon in the Russian River watershed; Increase water reliability for water users in each watershed; Develop governance mechanisms to carry out these efforts; Develop tools and methods for others to use. To meet the needs of the landowners, the regulatory agencies, and fish and other natural resources, we will employ a science-based approach to identify the areas that have the greatest opportunity for implementing alternative water management strategies and work with landowners to identify, study, permit and finance solutions that improve streamflow.
For more info with targeted watershed maps please visit the website – http://www.cohopartnership.org/
O-fishally Yours, Brock

It’s what WE make of it.

Ray

Brock,

I am not too sure I am all that excited by this announcement

Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation District University of California (UC) Research and Extension Center’s Hopland GIS Lab and UC Cooperative Extension.

The agencies noted above have been complicit in supporting programs (e.g Salmon Coaltion) by giving validation to actions that seek only regulatory relief (absolution) without really addressing deficient habitat conditions – including flows for fish. In many cases these groups are money troughs that exist only to allow continued activities that are limiting factors to riverine and salmonid recovery. From these groups you may see outcomes that testify to BS science that cows are good for streams, water temperature is not an issue, and fish do not need water (this last one a bit of exaggeration).

In fact folks from Sotohyome and Gold Ridge spoke in favor of the BS landowners plan (you saw my review of the testimony) to address the frost protection for water use issue – and flows.  Please do not hurt the landowners – they have worked so hard to come up with a voluntary plan (that does nothing and is unenforceable). Hell they work for Dennis Murphy and the Farm Buruea – what do you think you are going to get.

Dependence on restoration for recovery – will never do a bit of good (except employ some folks) unless land use issue is confronted and flows are restored to fish.

Where are these groups on flow issues. Only Adina Merelender (and Matt Deitch) from UC is available for confronting issue – and the RCDs seem capable of dismissing her concerns.

Process will get you nowhere. Only actions will provide results.  More benefits are derived from doing nothing than some of the BS restoration projects and fish plantings that I have seen.

I also must say that TU (though holding hands with the Grape folks) has set up and done a lot of valuable work – that our challenges should and do rely on.

Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration – I do not know about this group – who is in it??

More process = less fish.

This holding hands thing is a bunch of CRAP.

Alan

Hi fish & flow folks,

On behalf of all the partners organizations, I wanted to let everyone know about the roll out of the new website for the Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership!

Here is the link – http://www.cohopartnership.org/

The site is just up and so your feedback is desired…

Some info from the homepage to whet your appetite:

In response to the precipitous decline of coho salmon in the Russian River watershed, the Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership (Partnership) is developing a systematic approach to improve streamflow and water supply reliability in five Russian River tributaries critical to the recovery of endangered coho salmon.

The Partnership is funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Partners include:

Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Occidental Arts and Ecology Center WATER Institute Trout Unlimited University of California (UC) Research and Extension Center’s Hopland GIS Lab and UC Cooperative Extension.

Initial efforts will focus in five first-priority streams — Dutch Bill Creek, Grape Creek, Green Valley Creek, Mark West Creek and Mill Creek — where streamflow is believed to limit salmonid survival and where cooperative projects could provide significant opportunities for both salmonids and water users.

Just as the Mediterranean climate of the Russian River watershed can place pressures during the dry season, it can provide opportunities to ameliorate those pressures during the rainy winter. Using a suite of tools ranging from innovative conservation strategies to increase off-stream storage opportunities for use during critical flow periods, the multi-disciplinary team of the Partnership is committed to working with landowners and water users to address complex issues related to salmonid recovery and provide well-developed, long-term solutions for communities and the environment.

The long-term goals of the Partnership are to:

Restore a more natural flow regime during the dry season; Increase viability, and ultimately numbers, of coho salmon in the Russian River watershed; Increase water reliability for water users in each watershed; Develop governance mechanisms to carry out these efforts; Develop tools and methods for others to use. To meet the needs of the landowners, the regulatory agencies, and fish and other natural resources, we will employ a science-based approach to identify the areas that have the greatest opportunity for implementing alternative water management strategies and work with landowners to identify, study, permit and finance solutions that improve streamflow.

For more info with targeted watershed maps please visit the website – http://www.cohopartnership.org/

O-fishally Yours, Brock

Save the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove

Published on December 7, 2009 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hi Friends,  I am attaching my thoughts too.  John
—– Original Message —–
From: John Holland
To: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:08 PM Subject: [SCWaterCoalition] Action Alert – Save the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove
Please mail a letter to CAL FIRE and forward this email to friends,
Thank you for helping to spread the word.
John Friends of the Gualala River
************************************************************
Save the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove
*
*
I am writing to ask you to to take action to help protect the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove located near Gualala, CA. Doty Creek is a small stream in the Gualala River watershed.
Click here to learn more and see pictures of some of the trees. http://www.gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP.html
Please print out, sign and mail this letter to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
Click on this link to print out a letter:
http://gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP-letter.pdf The address for CAL FIRE is on the letter.
The Doty Creek planning watershed covers an area of 4,627 acres. It drains into the Little North Fork of the Gualala River. The California Department of Fish and Game has identified this Old Growth redwood stand as the last known 18 acres of old growth habitat in the Doty Creek planning watershed.
The landowner proposes to cut down most of the Old Growth redwood trees and other mature trees growing on this 18 acres, along with harvesting the largest trees on approximately 600 additional acres of forestland near Gualala.
Please urge CAL FIRE to accept the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game to protect this last Old Growth refuge.
The letter you send is very important. We need to show CAL FIRE that we are concerned and that we are watching what they do.
I cannot stress enough how important it is for CAL FIRE to receive as many letters as possible. This is an essential first step. Letters need to be received by 5:00 p.m. on December 16th.
Please forward this email to your friends and family.
* Thank you,*
John Holland Friends of the Gualala River (707) 886-5355
Visit our website:
www.GualalaRiver.org
************************
* Background information* Visit the Gualala River website http://www.gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP.html
This plan to cut the trees in and around the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove has to be approved by CAL FIRE, a State agency. This means that any California citizen can make comments on this plan, including children.
The Department of Fish and Game has identified the large trees in this Grove as the last 18 acres of Old Growth redwood habitat in the Doty Creek planning watershed.
More than 99% of the original Old Growth in the Doty Creek planning watershed has been eliminated and has been replaced by a much younger forest. The 18 acre Grove represents only .4% of the Doty Creek Watershed.
These large redwood trees are estimated to be at least 120 to 450 years old. More than 65 trees have been identified that measure more than 48 inches across, with legacy trees that range between 85 and 96 inches across.
According to Fish & Game, the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove provides suitable nesting and roosting sites for both marbled murrelets and spotted owls. It is part of an irreplaceable habitat that many animals need to survive.
The Doty Creek Old Growth Grove is hidden in a steep canyon behind the Gualala Airport, in Unit 9 of the proposed Bower NTMP (Non- Industrial Timber Management Plan).
Friends of the Gualala River | PO Box 1543 | Gualala | CA | 95445

Hi Friends,  I am attaching my thoughts too.

John

Please mail a letter to CAL FIRE and forward this email to friends,

Thank you for helping to spread the word.

John, Friends of the Gualala River

************************************************************

Save the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove

I am writing to ask you to to take action to help protect the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove located near Gualala, CA. Doty Creek is a small stream in the Gualala River watershed.

Click here to learn more and see pictures of some of the trees. http://www.gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP.html

Please print out, sign and mail this letter to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

Click on this link to print out a letter:

http://gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP-letter.pdf The address for CAL FIRE is on the letter.

The Doty Creek planning watershed covers an area of 4,627 acres. It drains into the Little North Fork of the Gualala River. The California Department of Fish and Game has identified this Old Growth redwood stand as the last known 18 acres of old growth habitat in the Doty Creek planning watershed.

The landowner proposes to cut down most of the Old Growth redwood trees and other mature trees growing on this 18 acres, along with harvesting the largest trees on approximately 600 additional acres of forestland near Gualala.

Please urge CAL FIRE to accept the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game to protect this last Old Growth refuge.

The letter you send is very important. We need to show CAL FIRE that we are concerned and that we are watching what they do.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for CAL FIRE to receive as many letters as possible. This is an essential first step. Letters need to be received by 5:00 p.m. on December 16th.

Please forward this email to your friends and family.

* Thank you,*

John Holland Friends of the Gualala River (707) 886-5355

Visit our website:

www.GualalaRiver.org

************************

* Background information* Visit the Gualala River website http://www.gualalariver.org/forestry/Bower-NTMP.html

This plan to cut the trees in and around the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove has to be approved by CAL FIRE, a State agency. This means that any California citizen can make comments on this plan, including children.

The Department of Fish and Game has identified the large trees in this Grove as the last 18 acres of Old Growth redwood habitat in the Doty Creek planning watershed.

More than 99% of the original Old Growth in the Doty Creek planning watershed has been eliminated and has been replaced by a much younger forest. The 18 acre Grove represents only .4% of the Doty Creek Watershed.

These large redwood trees are estimated to be at least 120 to 450 years old. More than 65 trees have been identified that measure more than 48 inches across, with legacy trees that range between 85 and 96 inches across.

According to Fish & Game, the Doty Creek Old Growth Grove provides suitable nesting and roosting sites for both marbled murrelets and spotted owls. It is part of an irreplaceable habitat that many animals need to survive.

The Doty Creek Old Growth Grove is hidden in a steep canyon behind the Gualala Airport, in Unit 9 of the proposed Bower NTMP (Non- Industrial Timber Management Plan).

Friends of the Gualala River | PO Box 1543 | Gualala | CA | 95445