Archive for the 'Watershed Related' 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”

Two Logging Plans Threaten Sheephouse Creek Watershed

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

Elmer’s favorite poem

In memory of Elmer Dudik Jr. 1947-2008,
this was Elmer’s favorite poem:

Escape

When we get out of the Glass
Bottles of our ego.

And when we escape the
Squirrels turning in
The cages of our
Personality

And get into the forests again
We shall shiver with cold
And fright

But things will happen to us
So that we don’t know
Ourselves.

Cool unlying life will rush in.
And passion will
Make our bodies taut
With power.

We shall stomp our feet
With new power
and old things will fall down.

We shall laugh, and
Institutions will curl up
Like burnt paper.

D.H. Lawrence

Wetland & Riparian Protection Scoping Meeting–Aug. 18

FYI,

Please find attached a Notice of Public Hearing on the CEQA Scoping Meetings on Phase I of the Wetland & Riparian Area Protection Policy which are scheduled for August 18 (Sacramento) and August 20 (Huntington Beach). Comment deadline is September 8, 2008 by 12 p.m.

Thank you,
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street. 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 341-5600
Fax: (916) 341-5620
E-mail: jtownsend@waterboards.ca.gov

North Bay Water Recycling Program

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472. They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP. The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them. They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma. The proposed date and time is: Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined)
Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability. In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important. This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects. USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:• This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county. We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere.
• This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping.
• The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs.
• Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

• As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast. We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

In Memoriam: Elmer Dudik Jr., N.C. Regional Water Board

Friends,

In Memoriam
Elmer Dudik Jr.

It is with great sadness that we announce that our colleague and dear friend Elmer Dudik passed away this weekend at age 60. He had an allergic reaction to a bee sting while camping with his wife.
Elmer, dedicated father, grandfather, and son, beloved husband and soul mate of Robin Beeman, was a big man. He was our gentle giant. An expert in flora and fauna, he captured the beauty of the natural world through his love and mastery of the art and technique of photography.

Elmer attended Petaluma High School, and served in the U.S. Coast Guard. In the years following he was a self-employed commercial fisherman, operating out of Bodega Bay, and a welder and machinist in Santa Rosa. He attended Santa Rosa Junior College and graduated from Sonoma State University with a degree in Biology, and later enrolled at SSU as a graduate student. He began working as a Student Intern at the North Coast Regional Water Board in 1992.

Elmer had a varied career as an Environmental Scientist at the North Coast Regional Water Board. He worked in the region‚s Timber Harvest, Site Cleanup and Planning programs. He was most recently engaged in the issues associated with the water quality impairments in the Klamath River system. His work as part of the team writing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Klamath River as well as his field work at Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs is a legacy and an inspiration for those who care passionately about our natural resources and water quality. Elmer was looking forward to spending a week in Siskiyou County. There, as before, he would apply his gentle demeanor to the thorny issue of algal blooms and health warnings.
We will miss our renegade Petaluma kid, our nice guy, our passionate expert.

Funeral arrangements are pending.

–Larry

Wetlands & Riparian Public Hearings Notice

Please find attached a Notice of Public Hearing on the CEQA Scoping Meetings on Phase I of the Wetland & Riparian Area Protection Policy which are scheduled for August 18 (Sacramento) and August 20 (Huntington Beach). Comment deadline is September 8, 2008 by 12 p.m.

Thank you,
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street. 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 341-5600
Fax: (916) 341-5620
E-mail: jtownsend@waterboards.ca.gov

notice_ceqa_wetlands-policy

What Will the North Bay Water Recycling Program Really Cost?

This week we focus on a deal being promulgated called the North Bay Water Recycling Program. There is an analysis and commentary by David Keller and an official comment letter by the Sonoma County Water Coalition. Note that the notice of preparation has project objectives not consistent with the analysis. Using the link, download their documents to see for yourself. [See Notice of Preparation Post]

This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county.

We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere.

This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459 acre feet per year of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the cost generated by this pumping. The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs.

Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast. We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller
Bay Area Director Friends of the Eel River

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