Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project
APPENDIX D Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. June 6, 2016 An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Santa Rosa, California 95407 June 6, 2016 ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, as requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. This study was designed to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (2008), the Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to improve Coho salmon and steelhead habitat in the Russian River and Dry Creek by modifying the minimum instream flow requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board's 1986 Decision 1610. The current study includes a ⅛ mile buffer around Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, the Russian River from Coyote Valley Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and Dry Creek from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River. The study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 15-1481); archival research at the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley; examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates; and contact with the Native American community. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No. -
Ludwigia Control in the Laguna De Santa Rosa, California
Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California California Invasive Plant Council 15th Annual Symposium Thomas J. McNabb, Clean Lakes, Inc. Julian Meisler, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California CDFA Project Site SCWA Project Site Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California The Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation (Laguna Foundation) contracted with Clean Lakes, Inc. to carry out Year One of a three-year control effort aimed at reducing the area and density of the non-native invasive weed Ludwigia hexapetala within selected areas of the Laguna de Santa Rosa The infestation harbors mosquito vectors of West Nile Virus (WNV) that poses a health threat to humans and wildlife; out-competes native wetland species, severely degrading habitat; and is believed to impair both the water quality and the flood-control functions of the Laguna. On April 28, 2005 the California Department of Fish and Game, Central Coast Region, and the Sonoma County Water Agency, each filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (APAP) to comply with the terms of the General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control (General Permit) On July 1, 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game filed form FG 880, Application No. 05-361, Pesticide Use Recommendation for the work to be performed on the Department of Fish and Game property (Site II). Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California On July 14, 2005, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, issued project approvals via a letter of “Applicability of General NPDES Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control in Waters of the United States and a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Sonoma County” to the Sonoma County Water Agency, Ludwigia Control Project (WDID No. -
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. -
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. -
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 -
4.14 Water Supply
Cotati Downtown Specific Plan WATER SUPPLY Draft EIR 4.14 Water Supply 4.14.1 Issues Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) will increase the demand for water as compared to the existing demand in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Improvements to water supply and conveyance infrastructure may be required to support buildout of the project and the surrounding area. According to the Downtown Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the City will have sufficient water supply for the project. The WSA considers water supply and demand requirements during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. This section is largely derived from the WSA, which is incorporated by reference and included in this EIR as Appendix 4.14. 4.14.2 Setting Planning Area For the purpose of assessing direct impacts, the planning area is the DSP area. The cumulative analysis includes the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) service area (see Figure 4.14-1). The City of Cotati serves the planning area with a 6- to 14-inch waterline distribution system. Water System Water supply to the planning area is provided by the City of Cotati through three city wells and the SCWA aqueduct. The planning area is also served by a 1.0 million gallon (mg) storage tank located on West Sierra Avenue outside the City limits. Cotati receives most of its water supply from the SCWA, using its city wells for supplemental supply. Water Sources Sonoma County Water Agency. The SCWA receives groundwater from wells and surface water from the Russian River, with rights to divert up to 75,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to its customers. -
Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal State Gaming
United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, DC 20240 DEC 1 5 2017 The Honorable Chris Wright Chairman, Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians P.O. Box 607 Geyserville, California 95441 Dear Chairman Wright: On October 5, 2017, our office received from the State of California (State) a copy of the proposed Tribal-State Compact (Compact) between the State of California and the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe). DECISION Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may approve or disapprove a proposed compact within 45 days of its submission. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 ( d)(8). If the Secretary does not approve or disapprove the proposed compact within 45 days, IGRA states that the compact is considered approved by the Secretary, "but only to the extent the Compact is consistent with the provisions of [IGRA]." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). We undertook a thorough review of the Compact and the additional materials submitted by the parties. While we have concerns with some provisions in the Compact, we have taken no action within the prescribed 45-day review period. As a result, the Compact is "considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent [it] is consistent with the provisions of [IGRA]." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). We proceed in this "deemed approved" manner because the Compact contains provisions that appear to give the State broad authority over non-gaming activities, such as a hotel and on-reservation development and thus may exceed the lawful scope of State authority in gaming compacts under IGRA. -
Historical Glimpses of the Laguna De Santa Rosa
“Crystal Laughing Waters” – Historical Glimpses of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by John Cummings December 2003 Copyright – John Cummings, December 20 ©John Cummings, 2003 All rights reserved 2 INTRODUCTION While a visitor to Sebastopol in 1898 described the Laguna as “crystal laughing waters” in the Sebastopol Times, the description is very fanciful. The Laguna is physically a very low flow stream with a fall of at most about 40 feet in the 14 miles between Cotati and the Russian River (a drop of less than three feet per mile – less than two feet per mile north of Sebastopol). While draining a relatively large watershed of 250 square miles – about 16% of the acreage of Sonoma County, the Laguna would have always been a relatively warm stream prone to cloudy water of low water quality – certainly not “crystal”– even in the “pristine” Laguna conditions prior to European settlement of the region in the 1830s. The Laguna north of Sebastopol typically floods its banks to some extent during the winter rainy season and usually does not flow during the late summer, but forms a series of ponds and dry channels. The post-European changes in acreage of habitat types and the abundance of wildlife in the Laguna area in the pristine and the early settlement period, is well established. But from a water quality point of view, post-European settlement made the “natural” poor water conditions of the Laguna highly degraded by, for example, making the water warmer yet by agricultural clearing of the riparian forest shading the waterway or by increasing nutrification of the water with farm wastes, urban sewage and cannery wastewater, etc. -
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. -
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 119/Thursday, June 21, 2007/Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 119 / Thursday, June 21, 2007 / Notices 34275 Dated: May 21, 2007. California state law. Further to this associated funerary objects are 157 Sherry Hutt, agreement, human remains from CA– olivella beads, 15 Haliotis beads and Manager, National NAGPRA Program. MRN–27, CA–MRN–254, CA–SON–159, bead fragments, 6 bone awls, 3 bone [FR Doc. E7–11986 Filed 6–20–07; 8:45 am] CA–SON–293, CA–SON–455, and CA- pendants, 5 birdbone tubes, 5 pieces of BILLING CODE 4312–50–S SON–456 were repatriated to officials of worked bone, 7 pieces of red ochre, 10 Ya Ka Ama Indian Education and obsidian tools and flakes, 6 chert tools Development, Inc., a non–federally and flakes, 2 pieces of pumice, 2 pieces DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR recognized Indian group from of micaceous schist, and 2 other lithic Forestville, CA, who reburied the tools. Three items on the original National Park Service human remains in 1992. In 1997, during manifest of artifacts are considered NAGPRA inventory, additional human missing. Notice of Inventory Completion: remains were discovered in the museum Radiocarbon tests from the Reedland Anthropological Studies Center, collection for sites CA–SON–293, CA– Woods site yielded dates of 370 B.C. 190 Archaeological Collections Facility, SON–455, CA–SON–456, CA–MRN– and 30 B.C. 95. Analysis of the artifacts Sonoma State University, Rohnert 254, and CA–SON–159. In 1997 and found at the Reedland Woods site Park, CA 2006, human remains for site CA–MRN– indicate that the human remains were 27 that were on loan to various buried during the Upper Archaic period AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. -
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. -
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.