DOCSLIB.ORG

SCWA Reports List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCWA Reports List Reports List REPORT NAME REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT COST NUMBER YEAR 1983 Progress Report on Water Conservation Program 1 Unknown 1983 $5.60 for the SCWA Service Area Aerial Survey of the Russian River 204 Watershed Sciences, Inc. 2004 $3.90 An Analysis of the Adequacy of the Petaluma Aqueduct 210 SCWA, Jim Flugum, Robert F. 1998 $2.50 Water Delivery Capacity Beach An Analysis of the Water Production Capacity of the 205 SCWA by Jay Jasperse & 2000 $5.30 Sonoma Co. Water Agency Water Diversion Facilities Robert F. Beach Without the Diversion Dam An Assessment of the Groundwater Resources in the 169 Winzler & Kelly Consulting 1986 $3.30 Vicinity of the Community of Salmon Creek, Sonoma Engineers County California An Evaluation of SCWA Water Transmission System 209 SCWA, Robert F. Beach 1997 $2.30 Reliability An Evaluation of SCWA Water Transmission System 208 SCWA 1997 $3.00 Reliability and the Risk of Curtailment Annual Notification for 2011 Maintenance Projects 297 SCWA 2011 $14.00 Annual Post-Maintenance Summary Report for 2009 251 SCWA 2009 $12.10 Maintenance Projects - Sonoma County Water Agency Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) Annual Post-Maintenance Summary Report for 2010 290 Horizon Water and 2011 $12.70 Maintenance Projects - Sonoma County Water Agency Environment Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) Annual Post-Maintenance Summary Report for 2011 81 SCWA 2011 $14.90 Maintenance Projects. SCWA Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) Application for a License for the Warm Springs 2 SCWA 1983 $2.70 Hydroelectric Project No. 3351 at Warm Springs Dam, California (Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Feasibility Report - 148 Parsons Engineering Science, 1995 $3.00 Santa Rosa Long-Term Wastewater Project Inc. Assessment of Parcels With On-Site Wastewater 114 Adobe Associates, Inc. 1996 $3.60 Disposal Systems Within the Russian River County Sanitation District Service Area Background and Policy Issues Relating to the Transfer 3 Dave Allen 1987 $2.70 of Coyote Valley Dam Project Water to Meet the Future Water Requirements of the Ukiah, Hopland, & Alexander Valleys Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian 115 SCWA with assistance from 2010 $23.00 River Estuary, 2000 Merritt Smith Consulting Boyes Springs - Agua Caliente Master Drainage Plan 4 SCWA 1986 $7.00 Calder Creek Hydrologic Study & Hydraulic Analysis 5 SCWA 1978 $2.40 of Existing Flood Control Structures 1 of 13 7/1/2013 Reports List REPORT NAME REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT COST NUMBER YEAR California Award for Performance Excellence 250 SCWA 2006 $4.20 California Prospector Award Application California Award for Performance Excellence 249 SCWA 2005 $2.70 Challenge Award, Government California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment for the 502 SCWA 2012 $0.90 Occidental CSD Wastewater Storage and Irrigation David Cook California's Groundwater: Bulletin 118 - Updated 2003 125 Department of Water Resources 2003 $12.30 Camp Meeker Wastewater Reclamation Project. Draft 76 Brelje & Race 2001 $8.90 EIR Technical Supplement Camp Meeker Wastewater Reclamation Engineering 75 Brelje & Race 2002 $10.00 Report Capital Projects Plan FY 1998/1999-2002/2003 (Water 383 SCWA 1998 $4.40 Agency) Capital Projects Plan FY 1998/2003 (County of 6 SCWA 1998 $12.80 Sonoma) Capital Projects Plan FY 1999/2000 - 2003/2004 384 SCWA 1999 $4.30 & Notice of Completion Capital Projects Plan FY 2000/2001-2004/2005 385 SCWA 2000 $4.40 Capital Projects Plan FY 2001/2002-2005/2006 386 SCWA 2001 $5.60 Capital Projects Plan FY 2002/2003 - 2006/2007 387 SCWA 2002 $5.30 Capital Projects Plan FY 2003/2004 - 2007/2008 388 SCWA 2003 $5.60 Capital Projects Plan FY 2004/2005 - 2008/2009 389 SCWA 2004 $5.80 Capital Projects Plan FY 2005/2006 - 2009/2010 390 SCWA 2005 $5.30 Capital Projects Plan FY 2006/2007 - 2010/2011 391 SCWA 2006 $4.00 Capital Projects Plan FY 2007/2008 - 2011/2012 392 SCWA 2007 $2.15 Capital Projects Plan FY 2008/2009-2012/2013 393 SCWA 2008 $5.00 Capital Projects Plan FY 2009/2010-2013/2014 394 SCWA 2009 $5.00 Capital Projects Plan FY 2010/2011-2014/2015 395 SCWA 2010 $4.80 Capital Projects Plan FY 2011/2012 - 2015/2016 396 SCWA 2011 $5.00 Capital Projects Plan FY 2013/2014 - 2015/2016 516 SCWA 2013 $5.95 Central Sonoma Watershed Project - Spring Creek 91 USDA, Soil Conservation 1980 $8.60 Subwatershed, Sonoma County, California, Final Service, & SCWA EIR/EIS Central Sonoma Watershed Work Plan (Supplemental 10 Santa Rosa Soil Conservation 1958 $11.40 Items Include: Supplemental Watershed Work Plan District, SCWA, U.S. Dept. of Agreement No. 1 Between Santa Rosa Soil Agriculture Soil Conservation Conservation District & Sonoma County Flood Control Service & Water Conservation District-June 1960; Central Sonoma Watershed Work Plan Supplemental Narrative- October 1968; Work Plan Supplement No. 6 Central Sonoma Watershed-March 1984) 2 of 13 7/1/2013 Reports List REPORT NAME REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT COST NUMBER YEAR City of Rohnert Park Groundwater Level Monitoring 271 PES, Environmental Inc. 2008 $7.30 Report: December 2007-February 2008, March-May 2008 & June-August 2008 Comments of the SCWA on the Draft EIR for the Long- 11 SCWA 1987 $3.40 Range Wastewater Management Plan of the City of Santa Rosa Corrosion Control Study: Submitted to U.S. 79 SCWA 1994 $5.30 Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, in compliance with the Federal Lead & Copper Rule Cotati Drainage Plan West Area Extension 12 SCWA 1992 $10.00 Coyote Valley Dam and Lake Mendocino Russian 201 US Army Corps of Engineers 1986 $14.00 River, CA Appendix I to Master Water Control Manual, Russian River Basin, CA Defined Future Annual Potable Water Demands of the 126 SCWA 1992 $4.00 Water Transmission System Contracting Agencies Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation 13 SCWA 1996 $11.90 Facilities (INCLUDE COMPANION BOOK "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities Approved Materials List Information" Report #14) Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation 14 SCWA 1996 $5.50 Facilities Approved Materials List Information (COMPANION BOOK FOR "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities" Report #13) Documenting Biodiversity of Coastal Salmon in 463 Dennis Hedgecock/ Bodega 2002 $3.00 Northern California - Final Report Marine Laboratory UC Davis Dry Creek: Warm Springs Dam to Russian River 264 Inter-Fluve, Inc 2010 $4.60 Current Conditions Inventory Report - Final Eel River / Potter Valley Project - Model Development 16 SCWA 1988 $3.20 Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation. 214 US Army Corps of Engineers 2008 $45.00 Biological Opinion for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations and Channel Maintenance Engineering & Economic Report – Russian River-Cotati 17 SCWA 1974 $2.80 Intertie Project Engineers Report for Establishment of Zone 3A - 18 Sonoma County Flood Control 1966 $3.10 Valley of the Moon Zone and Water Conservation District Environmental Impact Statement Riparian Habitat 161 US Army Corps of Engineers 1982 $3.80 Protection - Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma Project, Sonoma County, California 3 of 13 7/1/2013 Reports List REPORT NAME REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT COST NUMBER YEAR Environmental Site Assessment Phase I - 10600 453 PES, Environmental Inc. 2006 $6.40 Westside Road, Healdsburg, California Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma 122 Department of Water Resources 1982 $4.00 County; Volume 3 Petaluma Valley; (DWR Bulletin 118-4) Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma 123 Department of Water Resources 1982 $4.00 County; Volume 4: Sonoma Valley; (DWR Bulletin 118-4) Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma 124 Department of Water Resources 1983 $4.00 County; Volume 5: Alexander Valley and Healdsburg; (DWR Bulletin 118-4) Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives Water 25 Parsons Engineering Science, 1995 $4.40 Supply and Transmission System Project Inc. Expected Future Water Demand for Existing and 147 SCWA 2004 $6.00 Proposed Development Projects - Summary Report Farm Level Payment Capacity for Secondary-and 26 SCWA and Northwest 1997 $2.60 Tertiary-Treated Water in Sonoma County - Final Economic Associates Report Final EIR - Camp Meeker Wastewater Reclamation 138 Brelje & Race 2002 $8.80 Project Final EIR for Mirabel Heights Water Pollution Control 137.1 Winzler & Kelly Consulting 1998 $10.60 Project, Volume II-Response to Comments Engineers Final EIR for Mirabel Heights Water Pollution Control 137 Winzler & Kelly Consulting 1998 $21.50 Project, Volume I-Revised Draft EIR Engineers Final Hydraulic Design Calculations for the Sonoma 194 Brelje & Race 1993 $11.60 County Water Agency Starr Creek Drainage Improvements Fisheries Enhancement Program Annual Reports (1997- 127 SCWA 2002 $4.90 2001) Flood Control Design Criteria 112 SCWA 1983 $9.80 Flood Control Financing Study 80 SCWA 1982 $7.50 Flood Control Program Staff Report 33 SCWA 1997 $6.80 Flood Plain Report for the Petaluma River 34 M. Hudis/Consulting Civil 1970 $6.80 Engineers Flood! December 1964-January 1965 35 Sonoma County Flood Control 1966 $6.30 and Water Conservation District Forestville & Graton Wastewater Facilities 37 Environmental Science 1993 $35.00 Improvement Project - Draft EIR Associates, Inc. Forestville & Graton Wastewater Facilities 36 Environmental Science 1978 $14.50 Improvement Project - Response to Comments on Draft Associates, Inc. EIR Foss Creek Study for the City of Healdsburg 38 SCWA 1978 $3.00 4 of 13 7/1/2013 Reports List REPORT NAME REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT COST NUMBER YEAR Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, 206 USGS 2006 $9.00 and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, CA Geohydrology and Water Chemistry of the Alexander 158 USGS 2006 $8.70 Valley, Sonoma County, California Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and 185 G.T Cardwell and the U.S. 1958 $27.40 Petaluma Valley Areas Sonoma County California Department of the Interior Groundwater Level Monitoring Report - Dec.
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]
  • Russian River Recorder
    I I I II I -T RUSSIAN RIVER m RECORDER FALL 2018 • ISSUE 141 An Official Publication of the Healdsburg Museum & Historical Society Pari One In This Issue Welcome to our first in a series issue of the Cardiff contributed an interesting profile of his Russian River Recorder focused on "Healdsburg's great-great grandfather, the prominent pioneer Pioneers." Once a year we will publish an issue Healdsburg merchant Franz Conrad Rudolph Hertel. filled with profiles of the people who settled and Great-granddaughter Lynda Taylor Pheasant has built our town in its first twenty years, 1857 to 1877. written a compelling "genealogy of a house" by Some of the names may be familiar; some will be revealing the interconnected early residents of the less well known. In either case, we think you'll Mary Thistle cottage. discover new and interesting stories about each of The Museum staff writers have each them. produced a new piece for this issue. Office Executive Director/Curator Holly Hoods Manager and avid historical researcher Jane establishes the historic context of this era with the Bonham, who can trace her own Bonham roots to appropriately named article, "Life in Pioneer the founding years of Healdsburg, provided Healdsburg." This vivid description of a small additional context with her piece on Healdsburg's town's early years quickly dispels any romantic pioneer builders. Holly Hoods presented the notions regarding the realities of pioneer life. unusual journey of the first African-American We happily welcome several first-time residents of Healdsburg, the Martha and William contributors to our publication.
    [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]
  • Foss Creek Pathway Plan
    Foss Creek Pathway Plan City of Healdsburg Foss Creek Pathway Plan Prepared for City of Healdsburg Metropolitan Transportation Commission Prepared by City of Healdsburg Planning Department Landmark Planning and Permit Service Andy Gustavson, Principal Alta Planning + Design George Hudson, Principal Josh Abrams, Associate In association with North Coast Railroad Authority Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Adopted by Healdsburg City Council October 2, 2006 Table of Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................ii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................3 1.1 Summary............................................................................................. 3 1.2 Background.......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Plan Process......................................................................................... 3 1.4 Plan Organization .................................................................................. 4 2 Pathway Setting............................................................................................5 2.1 Foss Creek ........................................................................................... 5 2.2 Northwestern Pacific Railroad ................................................................... 5 2.3 Geysers Wastewater Pipeline .................................................................... 6 3 Planning
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • February 25, 2021 | 5 :00 Pm
    SONOMA COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Online Meeting Due to Sonoma County’s Shelter in Place Order February 25, 2021 | 5 :00 pm MEMBERS PLEASE CALL IF UNABLE TO ATTEND In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20, the February 25, 2021 Advisory Committee meeting will be held virtually via Zoom. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY NOT ATTEND THIS MEETING IN PERSON *UPDATE REGARDING VIEWING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN February 25, 2021 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING* The February 25, 2021 Advisory Committee Meeting will be held online through Zoom. There will be no option for attending in person. Members of the public can watch or listen to the meeting using one of the following methods: Join the Zoom meeting on your computer, tablet or smartphone by clicking: https://sonomacounty.zoom.us/j/94187528658?pwd=WHNRZDBHaDlwRVd6NUVyNFk4TXlEUT09 1. If you have the Zoom app or web client, join the meeting using the Password: 390647 2. Call-in and listen to the meeting: Dial 1 669 900 9128 Enter meeting ID: 941 8752 8658 PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING: You may email public comment to [email protected]. All emailed public comments will be forwarded to all Committee Members and read aloud for the benefit of the public. Please include your name and the relevant agenda item number to which your comment refers. In addition, if you have joined as a member of the public through the Zoom link or by calling in, there will be specific points throughout the meeting during which live public comment may be made via Zoom and phone.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the California Freshwater Shrimp
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan forthe California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pw~jflca Holmes 1895) Total Postorbital Length Carapace Length Rostrum Length CL RL First Antenna Pleopod I (PerelopodI) Second Antenna Figure 1. The California freshwater shrimp, Syncaris pac~fiCa. CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispac~fica Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Manager, Califo~~~i’evada Operations Office Region 1, U.S. wish and Wildlife Service Date: CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispa~flca Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regionai Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2016
    Attachment "A" SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 26, 2016 MINUTES 5:05 pm Meeting convened at the District office, 747 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 100, Santa Rosa, California Members Present Cary Fargo Bill Smith Laurie Gallian Jan McFarland John Nagle John Dell’Osso Sue Conley Steve Rabinowitsh Curt Nichols Members Absent Don McEnhill Jeffrey Holtzman Gary Wysocky Kristin Thigpen Doug Lipton Staff Present Bill Keene, General Manager; Sheri Emerson, Stewardship Program Manager; Kathleen Marsh, Stewardship Coordinator; Bob Pittman, County Counsel; Mariah Robson, Advisory Committee Clerk Chair Rabinowitsh called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. Public Comment Duane DeWitt spoke about the Roseland neighborhood in Santa Rosa. The District has helped protect many areas of Roseland and Mr. DeWitt expressed his gratitude toward the District for helping this disadvantaged area of Santa Rosa. However, he feels that the City of Santa Rosa is not taking care of the protected areas to stay in a natural state, but instead are developing the land. He asked that the Advisory Committee and District staff help him and the Roseland neighbors to keep the parks and nature areas natural and undeveloped. Approval of Minutes Chair Rabinowitsh asked for the approval of the minutes. Bill Smith motioned for approval, and Cary Fargo seconded the motion. The minutes of April 28, 2016 were approved with one correction submitted by Laurie Gallian. She asked that in the announcement of the Mayors’ and Councilmember’s meeting, the wording should change from ‘will have Measure AA on the agenda’ to ‘will endorse Measure AA which is on the agenda’.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4 Water Quality Compliance
    SECTION 4 :DWHU4XDOLW\&RPSOLDQFH 7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH6:53SURYLGHVDQRYHUYLHZRI SWRP CHECKLIST GUIDELINES EHQHILFLDOXVHVRIZDWHUVZLWKLQWKH5XVVLDQ5LYHU ZDWHUVKHG ZDWHU TXDOLW\ UHJXODWRU\ VWDQGDUGV ܈ Plan identifies activities that generate or contribute SRWHQWLDOVRXUFHVRISROOXWDQWVDQGDQH[SODQDWLRQ to the pollution of storm water or dry weather runoff, or that impair the effective beneficial use of RIKRZWKH6:53LVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKH[LVWLQJDQG storm water or dry weather runoff. SODQQHGUHJXODWRU\UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGSHUPLWV ܈ Plan describes how it is consistent with and assists in, compliance with TMDL implementation :$7(548$/,7<35,25,7,(6 plans and NPDES permits. See also Section 7.3.2. 7KH 1&5:4&% KDV LGHQWLILHG D YDULHW\ RI ܈ Plan identifies applicable permits and describes how it meets all applicable waste discharge EHQHILFLDOXVHVIRUWKHZDWHUVRIWKH5XVVLDQ5LYHU permit requirements. 7KH XVHV DUH RXWOLQHG LQ WKH 1&5:4&%¶V :DWHU4XDOLW\ &RQWURO 3ODQ IRU WKH 1RUWK &RDVW 5HJLRQ%HQHILFLDOXVHVDUHLGHQWLILHGE\WKH6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUG 6:5&% IRUDOO ZDWHUVRIWKH6WDWHDVGHILQHGE\&DOLIRUQLD:DWHU&RGHDQGPD\LQFOXGHDQ\RIWKHXVHVOLVWHG LQ7DEOHVXFKDV x $JULFXOWXUDODQG,QGXVWULDO6XSSO\ x *URXQGZDWHU5HFKDUJH x 1DYLJDWLRQ x :DWHU&RQWDFW5HFUHDWLRQ x 1RQ&RQWDFW:DWHU5HFUHDWLRQ x &RPPHUFLDODQG6SRUW)LVKLQJ x :DUPDQG&ROG)UHVKZDWHU+DELWDW x :LOGOLIH+DELWDW x 5DUH7KUHDWHQHGRU(QGDQJHUV6SHFLHV x 0LJUDWLRQRI$TXDWLF2UJDQLVPV x 6SDZQLQJ5HSURGXFWLRQDQGRU(DUO\'HYHORSPHQW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKHVH EHQHILFLDO XVHV WKH 5XVVLDQ 5LYHU ZDWHUVKHG KDV WKH SRWHQWLDO WR VXSSO\ LQGXVWULDOSURFHVVHVVXFKDVPLQLQJFRROLQJZDWHUVXSSO\K\GUDXOLFFRQYH\DQFHJUDYHOZDVKLQJ
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H: Biological Resources Special Status Species Table
    Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report Appendix H: Biological Resources Special‐Status Species Table H‐1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST TABLE H‐1: FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR PROPOSED PLAN BAY AREA PROJECTS Listing Status Common Name USFWS/CDFG Scientific Name / CNPS General Habitat SPECIES LISTED AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp FE/‐‐ Endemic to grasslands of the northern two‐thirds of Branchinecta conservatio Critical the Central Valley; found in large turbid seasonal Habitat pools. Longhorn fairy shrimp FE/‐‐ Endemic to the eastern margin of the central coast Branchinecta longiantenna Critical mountains in seasonal grassland vernal pools; typically Habitat found in sandstone depressions or clear‐to‐turbid clay or grass bottomed pools. Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT/‐‐ Grassland vernal pools. Branchinecta lynchi Critical Habitat Vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE/‐‐ Vernal pools and swales in the Sacramento Valley with Lepidurus packardi clear to highly turbid water; pools commonly found in grass‐bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands, also can be mud‐bottomed and highly turbid. San Bruno elfin butterfly FE/‐‐ Coastal scrub. Callophrys mossii bayensis Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT/‐‐ Dependent on elderberry bushes, which may occur Desmocerus californicus dimorphus individually or associated with riparian habitats. Bay checkerspot butterfly FT/‐‐ Serpentine bunchgrass grassland. Euphydryas editha bayensis Critical Habitat Mission blue butterfly FE/‐‐ Grasslands with Lupinus albifrons, L. formosa, and Plebejus icarioides missionensis L. varicolor. H‐1 Appendices Appendix H: Biological Resources TABLE H‐1: FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR PROPOSED PLAN BAY AREA PROJECTS Listing Status Common Name USFWS/CDFG Scientific Name / CNPS General Habitat SPECIES LISTED AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED Callippe silverspot butterfly FE/‐‐ Grasslands with Viola pedunculata as larval food plant.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue …
    Vine Times News from the Sonoma County Winegrowers WINTER 2016 IN THIS ISSUE … President’s Report . 2 Marketing News . 6-7 Sustainability Update . .9 Grower Programs . 11 Sponsor Listings . 12 Sangiacomo Vineyard Sangiacomo Community Recognition . .13-14 Photo credit: credit: Photo Proud recipient of California’s highest environmental honor, the 2016 Governor’s Environmental & ANOTHER SENSATIONAL HARVEST Economic Leadership Award IN SONOMA COUNTY! Page 6: With the last grapes picked and delivered to local wineries in mid-October, Sonoma 10th Anniversary County is now celebrating another successful harvest season. The 2016 vintage will of Grape Camp be remembered for what didn’t happen - as it was a relatively stress-free year with ideal growing conditions and weather, including adequate rainfall that replenished the Page 9: aquifers after several years of drought, no major threats from frost in the spring, and New Sustainability moderate temperatures throughout the summer with only a few days of heat spikes. Manager Thank you, Mother Nature! From all reports, 2016 has produced an outstanding, sensational crop in terms of qual- ity, flavors, etc. that has excited our winemaker partners. This vintage has also turned out to be an average year in terms of yield, and that’s true across the board for most varieties around the county. Page 10: All the credit for this year’s exceptional quality goes to you, our grape growers, who Sonoma County Grape work tirelessly year ‘round, day and night, to ensure we farm and grow the best wine- Growers Foundation grapes possible. Cheers to you! All of us at the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission extend our best wishes to you and your family this holiday season.
    [Show full text]
  • A Message from the Director Creating a Resilient Russian River As The
    Inspiring the Community to Protect the Russian River Forever A PUBLICATION OF RUSSIAN RIVERKEEPER SUMMER 2015 A Message from the Director For our economy and river ecosystems to not just survive but thrive in the next drought we can take four steps that are key to creating a Resilient Russian River: Creating A Resilient Russian River As the Weather 1. Permanently reduce our per capita water use, whether on city Gets More Extreme water or private wells 2. Invest in groundwater recharge, from farms to homes to schools, to bank more water Over the last two years our research into improving the health 3. Invest in reducing pollution levels to protect and preserve of the Russian River has led us in many directions with one more potable water common theme emerging at every turn – we are extremely 4. Increase the width of the river to dramatically improve vulnerable to changing weather patterns on the Russian River. groundwater recharge We see our weather patterns shifting dramatically from the last 50-100 years of records, lining up with predictions of disasters from too much or too little rainfall. We’re already seeing these issues in Healdsburg- in the middle of a multi-year drought we had a major flood on Foss Creek on December 11th and today are right back into drought conditions. The source of vulnerability in our community is two fold - first, we channelized our creeks to make more room for buildings and second, we replaced permeable soils with concrete, pavement and rooftops. The hard surfaces cause rainfall on developed areas to rapidly move to under-sized creeks, carrying all the pollutants from hard surfaces right into our water supply.
    [Show full text]