DOCSLIB.ORG

Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan December 2014 Prepared for: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris Street, Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview and Purpose .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Preserve Description ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Conservation Values ....................................................................................... 2 2 Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................... 2 2.1 Literature Search and Review of Existing Studies ........................................... 2 2.2 Field Surveys ................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Public Input ..................................................................................................... 5 3 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Ownership and Access .................................................................................... 5 3.2 Existing Infrastructure and Improvements ..................................................... 6 3.3 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................... 6 3.4 Historic Land Use ............................................................................................ 7 3.5 Watershed and Hydrology .............................................................................. 7 3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 8 4 Existing Habitats ......................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Plant Communities .......................................................................................... 9 4.2 Wildlife Communities.................................................................................... 21 5 Special‐status Species .............................................................................................. 28 5.1 Definition of Special‐status ........................................................................... 28 5.2 Plants ............................................................................................................. 29 5.3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 31 6 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................. 33 7 Natural Resource Management ............................................................................... 33 7.1 Goals for Natural Resource Management .................................................... 33 7.2 Habitat Conservation and Enhancement ...................................................... 34 7.3 Hydrology and Erosion Control ..................................................................... 39 7.4 Invasive Plant Species Management ............................................................ 41 7.5 Special‐status Plant Protection ..................................................................... 48 7.6 Native Habitat Revegetation and Enhancement .......................................... 49 7.7 Invasive Wildlife Species Management ........................................................ 53 Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan December 2014 i 7.8 Management of Public Uses ......................................................................... 55 8 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................. 58 8.1 Access and Parking ........................................................................................ 58 8.2 Trail Construction, Maintenance, and Decommissioning ............................. 60 8.3 Trash .............................................................................................................. 61 8.4 Biological Survey Guidelines ......................................................................... 62 8.5 Contaminant and Pathogen Control Guidelines ........................................... 63 8.6 Vegetation Management for Fire Risk Abatement ....................................... 64 9 Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 66 10 References ............................................................................................................... 69 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Plant Communities within the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve ...... 10 Table 2. Special‐status or Animal Species of Interest with Documented Occurrences or High Likelihood of Occurrence on the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve ......... 32 Table 3. Invasive Species Management Guidelines .................................................... 44 Table 4. Monitoring Tasks for Natural Resource Management on the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve .............................................................................................. 67 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Preserve Location and Hydrology Exhibit 2. Soils and Topography Exhibit 3. Trail and Preserve Features Exhibit 4. Biological Communities Exhibit 5. Regional Occurrences of Special‐status Species Exhibit 6. Areas of Management Concern Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan December 2014 ii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Plant Species Observed on the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve During Field Surveys Appendix B: Vertebrate Wildlife Species Observed on the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve During Field Surveys, April – June 2013 Appendix C: Special‐status Plants Considered in the Evaluation of the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Based on the Background Literature Review and Field Surveys Appendix D: Special‐status or Animal Species of Interest Considered in the Evaluation of the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Based on the Background Literature Review and Field Surveys Appendix E: A Cultural Resources Survey of the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve, Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California. Prepared by Tom Origer & Associates. (Draft – April 29, 2013) PLAN AUTHORS Liza Prunuske – President/Principal Jennifer Michaud – Senior Wildlife Biologist/Project Manager Joan Schwan – Vegetation Ecologist PHOTO CREDITS All photos by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI) except river otter which was taken by Stuart Martin, Land Acquisition Specialist with the District. All photos were taken on the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve. Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan December 2014 iii This page intentionally blank. Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve Management Plan December 2014 iv 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE The Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve (Preserve) is a 155‐acre property that consists of a mosaic of grasslands, serpentine chaparral, oak woodlands, wetland features, and mixed deciduous forest surrounded by dense suburban housing, vineyards, and undeveloped lands. The properties comprising the Preserve were purchased in 2003 by the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (District) and also include a small conservation easement owned by the City of Healdsburg (City). In 2008, an interim management plan was prepared as a collaborative effort between the District and City with the intention of transferring ownership and management of the Preserve to the City by mid‐2015 (District 2008). The interim management plan highlighted public access and resource management needs as well as operation and maintenance tasks to be completed over a 5‐year period. Since 2008, the management of the Preserve has represented a unique collaboration between the District and the City whereby the District has completed a capital improvement plan and the City has provided volunteer patrols, educational and outreach events, and maintained access points and the trail system. The City has been working closely with LandPaths to complete the trail watch program trainings and educational outings on the Preserve. As a condition of the agreement between the District and the City, the following updated and comprehensive Management Plan was prepared to guide the long‐term management of the natural resources on the Preserve while continuing to provide public access. This Management Plan summarizes the existing ecological conditions on the Preserve and their regional context. Based on this scientific foundation, in combination with knowledge of Preserve purposes and existing uses, the Management Plan identifies key management considerations and provides guidelines for addressing each. 1.2 PRESERVE DESCRIPTION The Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve is located northeast of Healdsburg and east of Highway 101 in Sonoma County (Exhibit 1). The Preserve is comprised of three properties: the Asborno parcel (98 acres), Fox Pond parcel (54 acres), and Parkland Farms Conservation Easement (2.97 acres). It extends from 453 feet at the Preserve ridgeline above the Russian River Valley to 110
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology
    CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic conditions within the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Area. Section 4.1.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting, including important water bodies and related infrastructure, surface and groundwater hydrology, geomorphology, and flooding. Section 4.1.3, “Regulatory Setting” details the federal, state, and local laws related to hydrology. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1.4, “Impact Analysis” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and mitigation measures are proposed that could reduce, eliminate, or avoid such impacts. Other impacts to related resources are addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Water Quality; impacts to fish are addressed in Chapter 4.3, Fisheries Resources; and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, Recreation. 4.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for hydrology includes all areas that could be affected by activities associated with the Proposed Project. As stated in Chapter 3, Background and Project Description, the objective of the Fish Flow Project is to manage Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma water supply releases to provide instream flows that will improve habitat for threatened and endangered fish, while updating the Water Agency’s existing water rights to reflect current conditions. The Water Agency would manage water supply releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to provide minimum instream flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek that would improve habitat for listed salmonids and meet the requirements of the Russian River Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Jones, W. E. 2000
    NMFS California Anadromous Fish Distributions California Coastal Salmon and Steelhead Current Stream Habitat Distribution Table Table to be used with DeLorme Topo Quads, Bibliography, and Contacts & Expertise list (Streams listed from north to south) Stream 1/Tributary Upper Limit Sources Comments Survey (RM=river mile) Species of Run 2 References / Dates 3 / Run (RM=river mile) Pers. comm. Chinook Salmon - California Coastal ESU Coho Salmon - Central California Coast ESU Steelhead - Northern California Coast Steelhead ESU Sonoma County Streams Gualala River SH RM-3.5 Kimsey Electrofished: caught juvenile SH 20 yards below the confluence of the 1952 T11N, R5W, Sec. 27 North Fork and the South Fork in August. COH RM-3.5 Brown and Moyle Report: COH reported in this stream in the report “Status of coho 1991 salmon in California, 1991". Jones Personal observation: the presence of SH were well known in the lower 1997 reach (3.5miles) of the Gualala River below the South Fork. South Fork Gualala SH RM-17.0 Fox and Quinn Survey: found juvenile SH present in September from the headwater 1964 River down to Sprowle Creek. Populations of 100/100 feet of stream were T11N, R15W, Sec. COH RM-? seen for the first 6 miles, numbers of 25/100 feet of stream for next 2 26. miles and 10/100 feet for last 5 miles of survey. Boccone and Survey: from North Fork to Wheatfield Fork 7 miles. Juvenile SH 1977 Baracco present 73 electrofished in 100 feet of stream. Brown and Moyle Report: COH reported in this stream in the report “Status of coho 1991 salmon in California, 1991".
    [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]
  • Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark West Creek
    ABSTRACT Mark West Creek is an important stream for the recovery of salmon in the Russian River watershed. One of the principal challenges to recovering these fishes is maintaining sufficient flowing water through the summer dry season, when human water demands can result in reduced flow during a time when it is naturally very low. Analyses of rainfall dynamics, streamflow dynamics, and human development indicate that there is sufficient water on an annual scale to meet existing human and environmental water needs; but diverting water from aquifers, springs, and streams has likely contributed to less water in upper portions of Mark West Creek than would be present naturally. Agricultural needs and residential needs are similar in magnitude, and if water is stored in winter to meet these needs rather than obtained during the dry season, these management changes could have a meaningful benefit on streamflow during the dry season. Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration West Creek November 14, 2014 (updated January 28, 2015) Cover photo: Mark West Creek downstream of Neal Creek, Summer 2013. Contents Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark West Creek.......................................................... 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Rainfall .......................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Draft North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement
    DRAFT NORTH SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT March 2007 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 440 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95409 and US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 State Clearinghouse No. 2006012130 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project being jointly pursued by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Sonoma County Water Agency The U.S Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) have prepared this joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) on the proposed North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project (NSCARP) to construct and operate a recycled water project. The SCWA is a special district created by California legislation in 1949 that supplies water to cities and public agencies throughout most of the populated areas of Sonoma County and northern Marin County and is the state lead agency, and Reclamation is the federal lead agency for this EIR/EIS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. NSCARP objectives are to provide a reliable, long-term water supply for agricultural interests; reduce discharges from local wastewater treatment plants to local waterways; reduce the use of groundwater and surface water for agricultural purposes in north Sonoma County; provide an environmentally responsible, long-term method of recycled water use; and, increase reliability and long-term sustainability of the regional water supply. NSCARP would result in fewer agricultural diversions from the Russian River and its tributaries, which would enable the SCWA to release less water from storage in Lake Mendocino and Sonoma to meet water demands and instream flow requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Associate. 2001
    X-FILE Prepared for: ADOBE CREEK AGUA CALIENTE CREEK Mennen Environmental Foundation ALDER CREEK PO Box 29903 ALLEN CREEK San Francisco, Calif. 94129 AMERICANO CREEK ANTONIO CREEK ARROYO SECO CREEK Prepared by: ASBURY CREEK ATASCADERO CREEK The Watershed Associate WEST FORK ATASCADERO CREEK PO Box 3477 AUSTIN CREEK UNDERFLOW BARNES CREEK Napa, Calif. 94558 BARRELLI CREEK BIDWELL CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK All information obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board BIG SULPHUR CREEK BLOXUM CREEK Thank you to the following people: BLUCHER CREEK Jerry Johns - Assistant Division Chief, State Water Resources Control Board BRIGGS CREEK Joan Jurancich - Environmental Specialist, State Water Resources Control Board BROOKS CREEK Alana Gibbs – Engineer, State Water Resources Control Board CALABAZAS CREEK CARRIGER CREEK Janelle Fortner – Associate WRC Engineer, State Water Resources Control Board CARSON CREEK CHAMPLIN CREEK **A special thank you to the Mennen Environmental Foundation for their support and their vision.** CHENEY GULCH CHERRY CREEK SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT CLEAR CREEK COBB CREEK This report presents selected data from the surface water appropriation permit files maintained by the California State Water COLEMAN VALLEY CREEK Resources Control Board for all surface water appropriation permits issued by the Board in Sonoma County through 3/22/01 and all CRANE CREEK surface water appropriation permit applications pending in Sonoma County as of 3/22/01. The research presented here was CROCKER CREEK completed on 8/24/01. Permit applications with a date in either the “Permit Date” or “License Date” column are issued. Applications DRY CREEK DRY CREEK UNDERFLOW with no date in the “Permit Date” column are pending, and confer no right to appropriate or use surface water.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Local Coastal Plan Public Review Draft
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PLAN September 2019 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Adopted by Resolution No. 19-XXXX of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors September XX, 2019 Local Coastal Plan, Public Review Draft, September 2019 LOCAL COASTAL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION LAND USE ELEMENT AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT CIRCULATION AND TRANSIT ELEMENT PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT NOISE ELEMENT GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A: Design Guidelines Appendix B: Public Access Plan Appendix C: Right to Farm Ordinance Appendix D: Scenic Resources Appendix E: Natural Resources Appendix F: Shoreline Protection Structure Guidelines Appendix G: Bodega Bay Focused Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Strategies Appendix H: 2010 Sonoma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Local Coastal Plan Page i Local Coastal Plan, Public Review Draft, September 2019 APPENDICES (Continued) Appendix I: Categorical Exclusions Appendix J: Historic Resources Inventory Page ii Local Coastal Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Sonoma County Local Coastal Plan INTRODUCTION September 2019 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Adopted by Resolution No. 19-XXXX of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors September XX, 2019 Introduction, Public Review Draft, September 2019 INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 1 1.1 Authority for and Administration of Local Coastal Plan 1 1.2 History of the Local Coastal Plan 7 2. REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXT 8 2.1 Regional and Sonoma County Coast Setting 8 2.2 History of Sonoma County Coastal Protection by Citizens 10 2.3 Intergovernmental Planning Coordination 13 2.4 Adaptation to Change 15 3.
    [Show full text]