DOCSLIB.ORG

For Upper Green Valley Creek

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Upper Green Valley Creek Upper Green Valley Creek Streamflow Improvement Plan Prepared by: The Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership With Support from: December 2019 Upper Green Valley Creek Streamflow Improvement Plan Acknowledgements This project was funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We would like to thank Sonoma Water, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service and Restoration Center, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the University of California, Berkeley, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and our reviewers. This work would be impossible without the support of the landowners, and many other partners in the Green Valley Creek watershed, and we are grateful for their time, feedback, access, participation, and stewardship. Authors Brock Dolman, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center’s WATER Institute John Green, Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Mary Ann King, Mia van Docto, Gabriella Woodard, and Caitlin Boise, Trout Unlimited Mariska Obedzinski and Sarah Nossaman Pierce, California Sea Grant Katie Robbins, Russian River Coho Partnership & Sonoma Resource Conservation District Upper Green Valley Creek Streamflow Improvement Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Streamflow Improvement Plan overview .............................................................................................. 9 Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 10 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12 2 Watershed conditions .................................................................................................................. 15 3 Human water use ......................................................................................................................... 35 4 Salmonids and flow-related habitat impacts ............................................................................... 45 5 Recommendations: Flow improvement strategies...................................................................... 61 6 Permitting and long-term considerations .................................................................................... 83 7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 97 References ......................................................................................................................................... 100 Appendix A. Recovery Plan actions implemented by the Coho Partnership ..................................... 105 Page 3 Upper Green Valley Creek Streamflow Improvement Plan Figures Figure 1. Coho Partnership and SIP focus area within the Green Valley Creek watershed. ....................... 14 Figure 2. Upper Green Valley Creek watershed land use. .......................................................................... 16 Figure 3. Average monthly high and low temperatures (2000 – 2018) recorded in Graton, CA (NCDC Station USC00043578). ............................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4. Average monthly rainfall recorded at Healdsburg, CA (NCDC Station #3875). ........................... 18 Figure 5. Annual rainfall recorded at Healdsburg, CA, 1941-2018 (NCDC Station #3875). ........................ 19 Figure 6. Annual rainfall recorded at Healdsburg, CA, during the study period 2010-2018 (NCDC Station #3875). ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 7. Streamflow gage locations in the Upper Green Valley Creek watershed. ................................... 22 Figure 8. Streamflow recorded in Upper Green Valley Creek at Bones Rd (GV01), WY2011. .................... 23 Figure 9. Monthly discharge as a percentage of annual discharge in Upper Green Valley Creek, 2011 and 2012 (WY2011 data from GV01, WY2012 data from GV02 [GV01 malfunctioned for part of WY2012]). 24 Figure 10. Upper Green Valley summer streamflow from WY2013 and WY2014, showing how summer rainfall events impact streamflow conditions. ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 11. Streamflow in Green Valley Creek, water year 2010, showing summer baseflow to illustrate the magnitude of the dry season flow recession. ....................................................................................... 25 Figure 12. Summer streamflow conditions in Upper Green Valley Creek, water year 2017, at all gage sites. ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 13. Summer streamflow conditions in Purrington Creek recorded at GV02, water year 2010, showing the impact of direct diversions on streamflow. ........................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Days when Green Valley Creek between project gages GV04 and GV01 was a gaining vs losing reach. Losing reach days were assumed when the difference in mean daily flow value between reaches was below 0.00 ft3/s. .................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 15. Summer streamflow conditions in Upper Green Valley at gage site GV01, water years 2010 and 2011, showing streamflow conditions before the 2012-2016 drought. .............................................. 28 Figure 16. Summer streamflow conditions in Upper Green Valley at gage site GV01, water years 2010 thru 2016, showing streamflow conditions before (in blue) and during (in red) the 2012-2016 drought. 29 Figure 17. Summer streamflow conditions in Upper Green Valley at gage site GV01, water years 2010 thru 2018, showing streamflow conditions before (in blue), during (in red) and after (in green) the 2012- 2016 drought. ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 18. Total summer discharge at gage site GV01, in water years 2010 thru 2018. ............................ 31 Figure 19. Total monthly discharge at GV01 in water years 2010 thru 2018. ............................................ 31 Figure 20. Upper Green Valley groundwater monitoring well and surface water gage locations. ............ 33 Figure 21. Total and summer water use by category in the Upper Green Valley Creek watershed. ......... 39 Page 4 Russian River Coho Partnership Upper Green Valley Creek Streamflow Improvement Plan Figure 22. Comparison of average annual rainfall, streamflow, and human water need in the Upper Green Valley Creek watershed; from TU streamflow monitoring, PRISM data, and land use digitization. 40 Figure 23. Comparison of total summer discharge in Upper Green Valley Creek watershed and human water use. ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 24. Comparison of total monthly discharge in Upper Green Valley Creek watershed and monthly human water use (in black)......................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 25. Locations and types of water rights in the Upper Green Valley Creek watershed in eWRIMS as of July 2019. ................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 26. CSG’s stationary fish monitoring sites and current survey reaches in the Green Valley Creek watershed. Includes year-round PIT tag antenna arrays and the downstream migrant smolt trap operated each spring. Survey reaches, shown in green, receive routine biological and environmental sampling. ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 27. Estimates of adult coho returning to Green Valley Creek each winter. Numbers from 2008/09 and 2010/11 are based on spawner survey observations and the following years are derived from PIT tag antenna data. No adult fish or redds were observed during the 2009/2010 spawner surveys, but a minimum count of two adults was included to account for wild coho young-of-the-year observed in the summer of 2010. ........................................................................................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Austin Creek State Recreation Area Bullfrog Pond Campground
    Austin Creek State Recreation Area Bullfrog Pond Campground 17000 Armstrong Woods Road, Guerneville, CA 95446 (707) 869-2015 or (707) 865-2391 Russian River District Office Austin Creek State Recreation Area is adjacent to Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve and is accessed through the same entrance. Austin Creek offers twenty miles of trails for hiking, backcountry camping and equestrians. Campsites at Bullfrog Pond are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Tables, fire rings, flush toilets and potable water are provided, but no showers are available. PARK FEES are due and payable upon entry into GENERATORS may only be operated between the park. Use the self-registration system at the the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. campground entrance. The campsite fee covers ALCOHOL and glass containers are not allowed one vehicle. There are additional fees for extra beyond your campsite. vehicles, with a maximum of two vehicles. FIRES/FIREWOOD: Fires are only allowed in fire VEHICLES: You may park up to two vehicles at rings provided. Collecting dead or downed wood each campsite. For safety reasons, vehicles more is prohibited. Firewood is available for sale at the than 20 feet long or towing any type of trailer are entrance station. not permitted at Austin Creek SRA. Vehicles may only be parked in your assigned campsite or the BICYCLES are allowed only on paved roads or overflow parking areas. fire roads. Bicycle riders under age 18 must wear a helmet. Bicycles ridden after dark must have a OCCUPANCY: Eight people maximum are light. Please ride safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Surface and Groundwater Modeling and Flow Availability
    Integrated Surface and Groundwater Modeling and Flow Availability Analysis for Restoration Prioritization Planning, Upper Mark West Creek Watershed, Sonoma County, CA Wildlife Conservation Board Grant Agreement No. WC-1996AP Project ID: 2020018 December 2020 Prepared for: Sonoma Resource Conservation District 1221 Farmers Lane, Suite F, Santa Rosa, CA 95405 and State of California, Wildlife Conservation Board 1700 9th Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95811 Prepared by: O’Connor Environmental, Inc. PO Box 794, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Under the direction of: Coast Range Watershed Institute 451 Hudson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 www.coastrangewater.org Jeremy Kobor, MS, PG #9501 Senior Hydrologist Matthew O’Connor, PhD, CEG #2449 President William Creed, BS Hydrologist Dedication In recognition of those many residents of the Mark West Creek watershed that have suffered losses in the past few years to the Tubbs Fire and the Glass Fire, we dedicate this report in their honor. Many of the citizen contributors to this effort have been working for many years to advance the consciousness of the community with respect to wildfire hazards, fuel management and fire safe communities, and it is an unfortunate truth that there remains much to be done. We dedicate this report in the spirit of community service and the example that has been set by these citizens, families, friends, and communities. Acknowledgements Many individuals and organizations contributed to the successful completion of this project including the various members of the project team from the Sonoma Resource Conservation District, Coast Range Watershed Institute, O’Connor Environmental Inc., Friends of Mark West Watershed, the Pepperwood Foundation, and Sonoma County Regional Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Sustaining Our Water Resources
    SUSTAINING OUR WATER RESOURCES Watersheds are nested drainages, incorporating the entire land surface that collects water flowing to a geographic point. Different maps and planning documents refer to the Laguna channel and the Laguna watershed in dif- ferent ways, sometimes splitting off the Santa Rosa and Mark West Creeks as separate drainages. Within this plan, we define the Laguna watershed as the area that incorporates all these sub-basins, and when this definition needs to be underscored the phrase “greater Laguna watershed” is applied. This watershed definition is more ecologically appropriate, reflecting the biological and physical properties of the system. However, for regulatory purposes, the Laguna, Santa Rosa Creek and Mark West Creeks are split into separate drainages, as discussed below. Water quality concerns in the Laguna cannot be easily separated from the issues related to the Laguna’s hydrology and water dynamics. Restoring the Laguna’s water resources will require integrated research, planning and collaboration. HYDROLOGY The Laguna watershed has a complex and diverse hydrology—cool-water high-gradient creeks in the upper watershed flow down the hillsides to High gradient creeks, vernal pools, slow moving the broad, flat, vernal pool-dotted Santa Rosa Plain, meeting the warm, channel slow-moving Laguna main channel, that flows northward to join the Rus- sian River. During very large storms, the Russian River backs up into the Laguna’s low-gradient basin near Windsor and Mark West Creeks: this alleviates flooding in the lower Russian River valley, and strongly affects the Laguna ecosystem. In part because of these back flows, and in part Backflow, sediment retention, disconnected because of localized topographic constrictions, the Laguna does not have ponds scouring floods, and retains much sediment within its channels and flood- plains.
    [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]
  • Catalog of Hydrologic Units in Kentucky
    James C. Cobb, State Director and Geologist Kentucky Geological Survey UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY CATALOG OF HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN KENTUCKY Daniel I. Carey 2003 CONTENTS HYDROLOGIC UNITS.............................................................................................................................................................................4 Ohio River Basin - Region 05 (38,080 sq. mi.)..........................................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River Basin - Subregion 0507 (2,290 sq. mi.) ......................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Accounting Unit 050702 (2,290 sq. mi.)...........................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Catalog Unit 05070201 (478 sq. mi.) ..............................................................................................................5 Upper Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070202 (359 sq. mi.).........................................................................................................7 Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070203 (1,116 sq. mi.)...............................................................................................................12 Big Sandy River, Blaine Creek - Catalog Unit 05070204 (337 sq. mi.).......................................................................................18 Tygarts Creek, Little Sandy River,
    [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]
  • Investigating Geochemistry and Habitability at Continental Sites of Serpentinization
    Investigating Geochemistry and Habitability at Continental Sites of Serpentinization: The Cedars, California, USA and the Tablelands, Newfoundland, CAN by © Amanda Rietze, B.Sc. (Hons) A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Earth Sciences Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2015 St. John’s Newfoundland ABSTRACT This study investigates the geochemistry and habitability of spring fluids associated with active continental serpentinization at The Cedars, California, USA and the Tablelands, Newfoundland, CAN. These ophiolite complexes were host to several springs discharging ultra-basic (>11) and highly reducing (<-400 mV) fluids rich in H2 gas that were geochemically distinct from the surrounding groundwater. C2+ hydrocarbons at both ophiolite complexes suggest hydrocarbons were thermogenic in origin; however, an abiogenic contribution could not be ruled out. Methane at The Cedars was dominated by a microbial origin with a contribution of non- microbial sources, while methane at the Tablelands was dominated by a non-microbial source (i.e. thermogenic or abiogenic or mixture of the two). Spring fluids lacked electron acceptors and nutrients which adds further complications to the already unusually high pH and limited carbon fixation possibilities in this extreme environment. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of those who have offered intellectual, emotional, and physical help over the past few years. Above all else I would like to thank my supervisor Penny Morrill for being a tremendous mentor for me and for introducing me to the topic of serpentinization and the amazing sites where I had the pleasure to work on a number of occasions.
    [Show full text]