DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine) Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields) Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Lasthenia burkei Blennosperma bakeri Limnanthes vinculans Jo-Ann Ordano J. E. (Jed) and Bonnie McClellan Jo-Ann Ordano © 2004 California Academy of Sciences © 1999 California Academy of Sciences © 2005 California Academy of Sciences Sonoma County California Tiger Salamander Gerald Corsi and Buff Corsi © 1999 California Academy of Sciences Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine) Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields) Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) California tiger salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) 2014 Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected and interested parties. 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. Costs indicated for action implementation and time of recovery are estimates and subject to change. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific actions, and may not represent the views or the official positions of any individuals or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than the Service. Recovery plans represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain: Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine); Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields); Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam); Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. vi + 132 pp. An electronic copy of this draft recovery plan is available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D01T i Acknowledgements The recovery planning process has benefitted from the advice and assistance of many individuals, agencies, and organizations. We wish to sincerely thank and gratefully acknowledge the recommendations and assistance from the following individuals: Valary Bloom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hattie Brown, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Stephanie Buss, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Dave Cook, Sonoma County Water Agency Gene Cooley, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Steven Detwiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lisa Ellis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michael Fawcett, Fawcett Environmental Services Kandis Gilmore, M.S. Student, Sonoma State University Sarah Gordon, Gordon Ecological Cay Goude, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colin Grant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vince Griego, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michelle (Jensen) Halbur, Pepperwood Preserve Ann Howald, Garcia and Associates Josh Hull, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rick Kuyper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Valerie Layne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tracy Love, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Stacy Martinelli, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Geoff Monk, Monk Associates Ray Moranz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maureen Ryan, University of Washington Chris Searcy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Ontario Brad Shaffer, University of California, Los Angeles Christina Sloop, San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Larry Stromberg, Wetlands Consultant Luisa Studen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Steve Tally, Restoration Consultant Pete Trenham, Western Washington University John Vollmar, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Betty Warne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scott Wilson, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ted Winfield, Winfield and Associates ii Executive Summary CURRENT SPECIES STATUS We listed Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine), Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields), and Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) as endangered in 1991 (56 FR 61173). The State of California also listed these species as endangered (L. burkei and L. vinculans in 1979 and B. bakeri in 1992) (CDFW 2014). We listed the Sonoma County California tiger salamander, which we identified as a distinct population segment (DPS), as endangered in 2003 (68 FR 13497). In 2011, we published a final rule designating critical habitat for the Sonoma County California tiger salamander (76 FR 54346). The State of California listed the California tiger salamander as threatened state-wide in 2009 (CDFW 2009). The Central California tiger salamander and the Santa Barbara California tiger salamander are federally listed; however, they are considered distinct entities (as DPSs), and are not addressed in this plan. HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING FACTORS These species occur predominantly on the Santa Rosa Plain, which is located in central Sonoma County, California, and is characterized by seasonal wetlands, predominately in the form vernal pools, and associated upland grassland habitat. Vernal pools form in depressions having a shallow, impermeable soil layer that restricts the downward movement of water. The pools have an outlet barrier that further causes ponding (CH2M Hill 1995) and may be connected and fed by shallow drainage pathways called “swales”. Vernal pools generally fill during winter rains and dry in late spring or summer. “Natural” vernal pools are those that are found occurring naturally in the landscape. “Created” vernal pools are those that have been constructed in an area that was not a vernal pool in the recent past (within the last 100 to 200 years) and that is isolated from existing vernal pools (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005)1. The listed plants grow only in seasonal wetlands. The Sonoma County California tiger salamander uses seasonal wetlands during the breeding season, and the surrounding uplands year-round. The threats to Blennosperma burkei, Lasthenia bakeri, and Limnanthes vinculans, and the Sonoma County California tiger salamander that led to their listing as endangered are many-fold. These are discussed in Section II in detail, but the primary threats are the modification and destruction of suitable habitat due to urbanization, agricultural conversion, and competition with non-native plants. In addition to habitat loss, the fragmented condition of remaining Sonoma County California tiger salamander habitat restricts migration between aquatic breeding sites and upland non-breeding habitat, along with dispersal among aquatic breeding sites (Cook et al. 2005). Since 1991, these threats have continued to such an extent that many populations of the 1 Vernal pool creation is considered an experimental science because the extent to which entire vernal pool plant and invertebrate communities can be successfully recreated is still unknown (M. Showers, CDFW, in litt, 2005). iii listed plants and salamander appear to have been extirpated or severely reduced in numbers. RECOVERY PRIORITY Recovery priority numbers for listed species addressed in this recovery plan are determined per criteria published in the Federal Register (Service 1983) and are based on degree of threat, degree of conflict with construction or other development projects or other economic activity, recovery potential, and taxonomy. The recovery priority number for Blennosperma bakeri is 5C, meaning it is a full species exposed to a high degree of threat and conflict, with a low potential for recovery. Lasthenia burkei and Limnanthes vinculans are ranked 2C, meaning they are full species, are exposed to a high degree of threat and conflict, and have a high potential for recovery. The Sonoma County California tiger salamander is ranked as a 3C, indicating that this DPS faces a high degree of threat and conflict, and has a high potential for recovery. RECOVERY STRATEGY, GOAL, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA AND ACTIONS NEEDED The species covered by this recovery plan, Blennosperma bakeri, Lasthenia burkei, Limnanthes vinculans, and the Sonoma County California tiger salamander, have naturally limited geographic ranges, and are further constrained by inhabiting naturally rare habitat within that geographic range. Because the main cause of the decline and the main current threat to all species is the loss and degradation of habitat, our recovery strategy focuses upon this threat. We will achieve recovery of these species by preserving high-quality habitat that provides essential connectivity, reduces fragmentation, and sufficiently buffers against encroaching development. Management of these preserved areas will provide additional protection to the habitat, and address non-habitat related threats. Surveys and habitat assessments (where
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]
  • 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]
  • June 9, 2017 Project No.: 592-10-16-05 SENT VIA: EMAIL TO: Harish Bagha, Grant Manager State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance
    MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2017 Project No.: 592-10-16-05 SENT VIA: EMAIL TO: Harish Bagha, Grant Manager State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance Kari Holzgang, Program Analyst State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance FROM: Andy Rodgers, Executive Director, Russian River Watershed Association Jarod Thiele, Grant Contact, City of Ukiah REVIEWED BY: Elizabeth Drayer, PE, RCE #46872 SUBJECT: Data Collection and Data Gap Analysis The Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) has prepared this annotated list of information and data collected and reviewed in support of the Russian River Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP). A substantial volume of information is available for the Russian River watershed from a variety of sources. This information comes in the form of reports, plans, permits and geographical information system (GIS) data. DATA COLLECTED The status of information and data collected and reviewed is summarized in three tables below. The reviewed information and data (Tables 1 and 2) are tabulated and further organized by which SWRP element is addressed. Table 3 summarizes known information and data still needing to be collected and the expected source of the data. The Russian River Watershed Association complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please contact Andy Rodgers, Executive Director, at 707-508-3670 with any questions. Russian River Watershed Association Memorandum, June 9, 2017 Page 2 Table 1. Documents Reviewed Year Title Published
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • September 16, 1973 BIG SULPHUR CREEK SONOMA Entire Mouth
    transcribed for KRIS September 16, 1973 BIG SULPHUR CREEK SONOMA Entire Mouth Headwaters 20 miles Russian River 11 N 10 W 7 None Russian Personal Observations EXTENT OF OBSERVATION: Big Sulphur Creek was checked at several points on August 8 by B. Finlayson. The creek was completely surveyed by foot and from car from its confluence with the Russian River to its headwaters by B. Finlayson and J. Nelson on September 4, 5, 7 and 13, 1973. LOCATION: Big Sulphur Creek enters the Russian River two miles north of Cloverdale, California. The creek flows due west from its headwaters near Middletown, California. RELATION TO OTHER WATERS: Big Sulphur Creek contributes winter and summer flows to the Russian River System, provides passage for both upstream and downstream migration of anadromous salmonids to the creeks tributaries. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Watershed and Immediate Drainage System— Big Sulphur Creek and its tributaries drain a basin of approximately 60 square miles, most of which is oak-grassland. The creek flows through a narrow and steep canyon, occasionally opening into shallow valleys. The creek is typified by steep walls (750 feet high carved out of outcroppings of bedrock) and bordered by oak, alder, madrone and some pine. Riparian streamside cover is limited along the entire stream. Altitude— 400 feet at confluence with Russian River: 2400 feet at headwaters. Gradient— 200 feet/mile overall. Width— Average: eight feet; range: three to 30 feet. Depth— One foot average; three inches to six feet range. Flow— Range from 1.9 c.f.s. near mouth to 0.3 c.f.s.
    [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]
  • Flood Management Design Manual
    March 2020 Flood Management Design Manual Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95406 This document includes complex figures, formulas, and variables that may be difficult to interpret using an assistive device such as a screen reader. For accessibility assistance with this document, please contact Sonoma County Water Agency, Resource Planning Section at (707) 526-5370, Fax to (707) 544-6123 or through the California Relay Service by dialing 711. Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Management Design Manual Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Contact: Phil Wadsworth (707) 547-1945 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94610 Contact: Ken Schwarz, Ph.D. (510) 986-1851 March 2020 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Flood Management Design Manual ..................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Applicability of the FMDM ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Flood Management Goals ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Flood Management Design
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.3 Fisheries Resources
    CHAPTER 4.3 Fisheries Resources 4.3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing fisheries resources within the area of the Proposed Project. Section 4.3.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting as it relates to fisheries resources. Section 4.3.3, “Regulatory Framework” details the federal, state, and local laws related to fisheries resources. Potential impacts to fisheries resources resulting from the Proposed Project are analyzed in Section 4.3.4, “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, if feasible. Other impacts related to fisheries resources addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to hydrology are addressed in Chapter 4.1, “Hydrology,” impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, “Water Quality,” and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, “Recreation.” 4.3.2 Environmental Setting Russian River Watershed The Russian River measures slightly over 100 miles in length and the watershed drains roughly 1,485 square miles in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The watershed consists of a series of valleys surrounded by two mountainous ranges, the Mendocino Highlands to the West and the Mayacamas Mountains to the east. The Santa Rosa Plain, Alexander Valley, Hopland Valley, Ukiah Valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley and other small valleys comprise about 15 percent of the watershed. The remainder of the watershed area is hilly to mountainous. Principal tributaries of the Russian River include the East Fork Russian River, Big Sulphur Creek, Maacama Creek, Dry Creek, Mark West Creek, and Austin Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout in California
    ! "#$%&'(!")**$+*#,(!#',!-.&/)! 0'!1#$02&.'0#! !"#"$%&'(&#)&*+,-.+#"/0&1#$)#& !"#$%&#'"(&))*++*&,$-"./"012*3&#,*1"4#&5'6"7889" PETER B. MOYLE, JOSHUA A. ISRAEL, AND SABRA E. PURDY CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS DAVIS, CA 95616 -#3$*!&2!1&')*')4! !0:;<=>?@AB?;4C"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"E" F;4G<@H04F<;"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"I" :>!B!4J"B<H;4!F;C"KG<LF;0?"=F;4?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"7E" :>!B!4J"B<H;4!F;C"KG<LF;0?"CHBB?G"C4??>J?!@"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"E7" ;<G4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4!>"=F;4?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"IE" ;<G4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4!>"CHBB?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"NO" 0?;4G!>"L!>>?P"C4??>J?!@"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"OI" 0?;4G!>"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"Q7" C<H4JR0?;4G!>"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"QS" C<H4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"9O" G?CF@?;4"0<!C4!>"G!F;T<="4G<H4"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"SQ"
    [Show full text]
  • PRELIMINARY REPORT on the FISHERIES 0F the RUSSIAN RIVER SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA by Leo Shapovalov Bureau of Fish Conservation Califo
    PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE FISHERIES 0F THE RUSSIAN RIVER SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA1 By Leo Shapovalov Bureau of Fish Conservation California Division of Fish and Game The purpose of this report is to bring together some of the scattered information pertaining to the fisheries of the Russian River system, particularly the Steelhead fishery. Although the report is very incomplete, it is hoped that it will provide a basis for a more comprehensive and detailed study. The sections on climate, stream flows, and development are based largely on U. S. Bureau of Reclamation data. DESCRIPTION 0F THE AREA LOCATION The Russian River enters the Pacific Ocean about 50 miles north of San Francisco Bay. It drains an area of 1,508 square miles of the Coast Range of California. CLIMATE The climate is characterized by a short, rainy winter season and long dry summers. About 82 per cent of the annual rainfall, which totals about 30 inches at Santa Ross, occurs from November to March, inclusive. 1 Submitted August 25, 1944 2 Streams of the Russian River System The following list shows the principal streams in the basin, proceeding upstream, and their lengths: Total Length Name of Stream in Miles Below Healdsburg Reservoir Site Russian River 34 Jenner Creek 3 Sheephouse Creek 2 Willow Creek 5 Freezeout Creek 2 Austin Creek 12 Kidd Creek 3 Austin Creek, East Fork 13 Wards Creek 6 Dutch Bill Creek 7 Green Valley Creek 13 Santa Rosa Creek 20 Mark West Creek 18 Porter Creek 7 Laguna de Santa Rosa 11 Robert Crane Creek 8 Copeland Creek 5 Porter Creek 6 Dry Creek 38 Mill
    [Show full text]