DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian River Stream Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Russian River Stream Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation RUSSIAN RIVER STREAM CROSSING INVENTORY AND FISH PASSAGE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT By Ross N. Taylor, Thomas D. Grey, Anabel L. Knoche, and Michael Love March 31, 2003 Ross Taylor and Associates 1254 Quail Run Court McKinleyville, CA 95519 (707)-839-5022 [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................................4 FINAL PRODUCT OF CULVERT INVENTORY.............................................................................................................................. 5 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Migration Barrier Impacts to Salmonids............................................................................................................................7 County Planning Efforts to Address Migration Barriers.................................................................................................8 METHODS AND MATERIALS .............................................................................................................................................10 LOCATION OF STREAM CROSSINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 INITIAL SITE VISITS.................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Stream Crossing Type..........................................................................................................................................................11 Culvert Location...................................................................................................................................................................11 Longitudinal Survey.............................................................................................................................................................11 Channel widths......................................................................................................................................................................14 Fill Estimate:.........................................................................................................................................................................14 Other Site-specific Measurements .....................................................................................................................................16 DATA ENTRY AND PASSAGE ANALYSES................................................................................................................................. 16 FIRST -PHASE PASSAGE EVALUATION FILTER: GREEN-GRAY-RED............................................................................... 16 FishXing Overview...............................................................................................................................................................19 Fish Passage Criteria – First Deviation from CDFG Protocol...................................................................................19 Hydrology and Design Flow...............................................................................................................................................21 Calculation of Peak Flow Capacity...................................................................................................................................21 Fish Passage Flows..............................................................................................................................................................22 Habitat Quantity...................................................................................................................................................................26 Habitat Quality – Second Deviation from CDFG Protocol..........................................................................................27 Additional Crossings and other Human-related Impediments to Migration..............................................................27 INITIAL RANKING OF STREAM CROSSINGS FOR TREATMENT .............................................................................................. 28 Ranking Criteria...................................................................................................................................................................28 Additional Considerations for Final Ranking..................................................................................................................31 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................................................33 INITIAL SITE VISITS.................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Sonoma County.....................................................................................................................................................................33 Mendocino County................................................................................................................................................................43 PASSAGE ANALYSES.................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Sonoma County.....................................................................................................................................................................48 Mendocino County................................................................................................................................................................53 RANKING MATRIX...................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Sonoma County.....................................................................................................................................................................57 Mendocino County................................................................................................................................................................57 Both Counties – Sites with a Minimum Score of 20.0 Points........................................................................................57 SITE-SPECIFIC TREATMENTS AND SCHEDULING................................................................................................................... 71 High and Moderate Priority Sites......................................................................................................................................71 Design Options and Recommended Criteria....................................................................................................................72 CDFG Allowable Design Options......................................................................................................................................72 NMFS Order of Preferred Alternatives.............................................................................................................................75 Low-Priority Sites.................................................................................................................................................................76 LITERATURE CITED ..............................................................................................................................................................77 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................79 Ross Taylor and Associates 1254 Quail Run Court McKinleyville, CA 95519 (707)-839-5022 [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by funds administered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Standard Agreement P0030473. I would like to acknowledge the following persons and their assistance in the Russian River stream crossing inventory and fish passage evaluation: Bob Coey/CDFG – contract manager, his staff also provided GIS assistance and habitat data. Derek Acomb/CDFG – habitat typing data and final reports. Thomas Grey – field surveys, data entry, data analyses, and report preparation. Anabel L. Knoche – field surveys and report preparation. Michael Love and Associates – FishXing development team and oversight with passage evaluations. Kallie Kull/Chairperson of FishNet 4C - logistical support and coordination with Sonoma and Mendocino County Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel. Russian River Stream Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation 3 FINAL REPORT – March 31, 2003 INTRODUCTION The inventory and fish passage evaluation of stream crossings within the Russian River watershed was conducted between May, 2001 and March, 2003 under contract with CDFG. The primary objective was to assess passage of juvenile and adult salmonids and develop
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stream Maintenance Program
    2018 Stream Maintenance Program Improving water quality in our streams while providing flood protection for our community This summer the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) will be working in streams and channels throughout Sonoma County to improve water quality and provide flood protection. As part of our comprehensive Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), we will be removing sediment and garbage and planting trees to create shady riparian canopies. These canopies help cool the water and shade out less desirable species of plants, which can catch debris and reduce the streams’ water-carrying capacity. If necessary, we will remove some non-canopy forming trees such as arroyo willows as well as certain dense shrubs such as non-native and invasive blackberries. Sediment removal activities include planting native trees, shrubs, and some aquatic plants according to a certain pattern to establish canopy while maintaining channel capacity. The Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (SCYEC), a workforce training and ecosystem education program aimed at educating youth and young adults in environmental stewardship and restoration, will be working with the SMP this summer. The SCYEC provides youth and young adults paychecks, valuable work experience, environmental education, and the opportunity to contribute to their community through ongoing outdoor experiences. Below is the list of streams the Water Agency will be maintaining this summer. For a more detailed list, map of locations, and information on stream maintenance, visit www.sonomacountywater.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of FISH and GAME STREAM INVENTORY REPORT Big Austin Creek Report Revised April 14, 2006 Report Complete
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STREAM INVENTORY REPORT Big Austin Creek Report Revised April 14, 2006 Report Completed 2000 Assessment Completed 1995 INTRODUCTION Stream inventories were conducted during the summers of 1995 and 1996 on Big Austin Creek. The inventories were conducted in two parts: habitat inventory and biological inventory. The objective of the habitat inventory was to document the amount and condition of available habitat to fish, and other aquatic species with an emphasis on anadromous salmonids in Big Austin Creek. The objective of the biological inventory was to document the salmonid and other aquatic species present and their distribution. The objective of this report is to document the current habitat conditions, and recommend options for the potential enhancement of habitat for Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead trout. Recommendations for habitat improvement activities are based upon target habitat values suitable for salmonids in California's north coast streams. WATERSHED OVERVIEW Big Austin Creek is a tributary of the Russian River, located in Sonoma County, California (see Big Austin Creek map, page 2). The legal description at the confluence with the Russian River is T7N, R11W. Its location is 38°27'58" N. latitude and 123°2'57" W. longitude. Year round vehicle access exists from Austin Creek Road via Highway 116 near Cazadero. The upper road was only accessible through private locked gates. Big Austin Creek and its tributaries drain a basin of approximately 68.7 square miles. Big Austin Creek is a fourth order stream and has approximately 13 miles of blue line stream, according to the USGS Guerneville, Duncans Mills, Fort Ross, and Cazadero 7.5 minute quadrangles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sonoma County Water Agency 2006 Stream Maintenance Program Providing Flood Protection for Our Community
    The Sonoma County Water Agency 2006 Stream Maintenance Program Providing Flood Protection For Our Community This summer, the Sonoma County Water Agency targeted 36 streams within Sonoma County to perform flood protection maintenance. Now that summer is over, the Agency is continuing to complete work on as many streams as possible before weather conditions prohibit outdoor work. Below is an updated list of streams the Sonoma County Water Agency has completed work on and will be continuing maintenance on this fall. The goal of the maintenance work is to form and promote the development of shaded riparian canopies with alders and other trees that grow tall and stretch their branches over the creek, cooling the water and shading out bushes, brush and less desirable species of trees that reduce the water-carrying capacity of the creek. Petaluma Stream Name General Location Description Status Adobe Upstream of Maria Dr. SSRCD removed Willows and Cattails Capri Ely Rd. to McDowell Blvd. Scheduled for the week of 11/6 Capri Hwy. 101 to Petaluma River Cattails removed Corona Tribs. McDowell Blvd to Hwy. 101 Cattails, Willow, Trees removed Lichau Removed blockages in select locations Lynch Hwy 101 to the Petaluma River Cattails and Willows removed East Washington Airport to Garfield Dr. Willows, Trees removed East Washington Maria Dr. to Washington Creek Cattails, Willow, Trees removed Petaluma River Denman Reach SSRCBB removed Willows Washington Maria Drive to Hwy 101 Sediment removal from McDowell Blvd. to southbound Hwy 101 exit ramp and at Maria Dr. Willows and Cattails removed between Maria Dr. and McDowell Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology
    CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic conditions within the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Area. Section 4.1.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting, including important water bodies and related infrastructure, surface and groundwater hydrology, geomorphology, and flooding. Section 4.1.3, “Regulatory Setting” details the federal, state, and local laws related to hydrology. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1.4, “Impact Analysis” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and mitigation measures are proposed that could reduce, eliminate, or avoid such impacts. Other impacts to related resources are addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Water Quality; impacts to fish are addressed in Chapter 4.3, Fisheries Resources; and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, Recreation. 4.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for hydrology includes all areas that could be affected by activities associated with the Proposed Project. As stated in Chapter 3, Background and Project Description, the objective of the Fish Flow Project is to manage Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma water supply releases to provide instream flows that will improve habitat for threatened and endangered fish, while updating the Water Agency’s existing water rights to reflect current conditions. The Water Agency would manage water supply releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to provide minimum instream flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek that would improve habitat for listed salmonids and meet the requirements of the Russian River Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Information for Persons with Water Service from the City Of
    Special Information for Persons with Water Service from the City of Sebastopol regarding the Russian River Tributaries Water Conservation and Informational Order Emergency Regulation. This information is for our customers with City water service who have received correspondence from the State Water Resources Control Board regarding these emergency regulations. The City of Sebastopol’s water is sourced from wells which are not within the watershed boundaries of the four Russian River tributaries (Dutch Bill Creek, Green Valley Creek, Mark West Creek and Mill Creek) that are part of the Russian River Tributaries Emergency Regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 876). The Russian River Tributaries Emergency Regulation was submitted to the Office of Administrative Law on June 24, 2015 and was anticipated to go into effect on or around July 4, 2015. If all of your water is supplied by the City of Sebastopol, meaning you have no groundwater wells or surface water diversions and you do not receive water from any other sources, your responsibility under the Emergency Regulation is limited to the informational order provisions of the emergency regulation. If you receive an informational order from the State Water Board and you do not have a groundwater well or surface diversion, you would be required to provide minimal information indicating that your sole source of water is provided by the City of Sebastopol. Additional information on the Russian River Tributaries Emergency Regulation is available online at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/ water_action_russianriver.shtml If you have questions regarding this information please contact the State Water Resources Control Board through the Russian River Tributaries Emergency Regulation Phone Number at (916) 322-8422 or by e-mail at [email protected] .
    [Show full text]