DOCSLIB.ORG

3 Butkus Wed Session 3.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3 Butkus Wed Session 3.Pdf Laguna de Santa Rosa TMDL Steve Butkus North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board October 14, 2009 Overview of Presentation Review TMDL Overview Review 2008 Data Collection Effort Review 2009 Data Collection Effort Pollutants/Stressors to be addressed by Laguna TMDL Sedimentation High Temperature Low Dissolved Oxygen Organic Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus What is a TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load Federal Clean Water Act §303(d) Amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality objectives Water Quality Objectives have been established to protect beneficial uses TMDL Elements California TMDL Guidance (2005) 1. Project Definition 6. Numeric Target 2. Watershed Description 7. Linkage Analysis 3. Data Analysis 8. TMDL Calculations and Allocations 4. Source Analysis 9. Public Participation 5. Critical Condition and Seasonal Variation 10. Implementation Plan 11. Monitoring Plan Geographic Scope Includes Windsor Creek Extends to confluence with Russian River Monitoring 2008 Monitoring Objectives: ¾Assess Loading from Major Laguna Watershed Tributaries ¾Collect Dissolved Oxygen and Chlorophyll Data for Water Quality Model Calibration ¾Collect Continuous Temperature Data for Temperature Model Calibration Monitoring 2008 Monitoring Locations: ¾Mainstem Laguna Locations Benson Road, Stony Point Road, Todd Road, Joe Rodata Trail, Sebastopol Community Center, Occidental Road, River Road, Trenton-Healdsburg Road ¾3 Santa Rosa Creek Locations Willowside Road, Fulton Road, Yulupa Ave Monitoring 2008 Monitoring Locations: ¾Tributary Locations (near mouth) Abramson Creek, Blucher Creek, Brush Creek Calder Creek, Colgan Creek, Cotati Creek, Gossage Creek, Hinebaugh Creek, Matanzas Creek, Mark West Creek, Peterson Creek, Piner Creek, Turner Creek, Vine Hill Creek, Washoe Creek, Wilfred Creek (Bellevue Flood Control Channel), Windsor Creek Monitoring 2008 Grab Samples ¾Constituents: ¾TSS, BOD5, NH3, NO2+NO3, Total Kjeldahl N, Ortho-P, Total-P, Total Mercury and Methyl-Mercury 9Collected in June and September 9Triplicates of each constituent to assess sampling variability Monitoring 2008 Constituent Grab Samples ABR1 BLU1 BRU1 COL1 COP1 COT1 DSEB D GOS1 I _ HIN1 E MAT1 T I MWC1 S PET1 PIN1 TUR1 VIN1 WAS1 WIL1 WIN1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Ammonia (mg/L) Monitoring 2008 Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen • Compare early morning vs. late afternoon • Calibration issues culled morning data set • Summer DO - 61% exceed WQO • Fall DO – 48% exceed WQO Continuous Temperature at 18 Locations • Exceedance of MWMT for salmonid migration • 100% of 4 Laguna Sites • 35% of 14 tributaries (near Mouth) Monitoring 2008 Stratification Measurements Laguna at Sebastopol Pond Temp_Surface Temp_Bottom 21 20 19 18 17 Temperature (C) 16 15 9/25/08 9/26/08 9/27/08 9/28/08 9/29/08 9/30/08 10/1/08 Date Monitoring 2008 Stratification Measurements Laguna at Sebastopol Pond DO_Surface DO_Bottom 14 12 10 8 6 4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 2 0 9/25/08 9/26/08 9/27/08 9/28/08 9/29/08 9/30/08 10/1/08 Date Monitoring 2008 Chlorophyll Sampling 9Grab samples & in-situ Fluorometry LOR Pond Spatial Variability of Surface Chlorophyll-a 8/27/2008 9/2/2008 9/23/2008 1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 Chlororphyll-a (mg/L) Chlororphyll-a 0.200 0.000 1 2 R R R 3 R 4 R 5 O O LO LO LO L L Thalweg Location Monitoring 2009 Monitoring Objectives: ¾Assess Loading from Specific Land Uses ¾Collect additional Dissolved Oxygen Data for Water Quality Model Calibration ¾Collect Additional Continuous Temperature Data for Temperature Model Calibration Monitoring 2009 Land Use Loading Estimation: ¾ Sites Randomly Selected for Sampling ¾ 18 Dry & 18 Wet weather samples per land use ¾ 7 Land Use Categories: Cropland and pasture Orchards, Groves, Vineyards, Nurseries, and Ornamental Horticultural Areas Residential – sewered Residential – non-sewered Commercial and Services Rangeland Evergreen Forest Land Monitoring 2009 Continuous Temperature Measurement: ¾ Watershed Divided into Lithotopo Units ¾ Existing Data complied from: City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, Sotoyome Resource Conservation District, Cotati Creek Critters, and Regional Water Board. ¾ 26 New Sites Selected to Fill Data Gaps Monitoring 2009 Temperature Monitoring Locations Existing Data New Sites Monitoring 2009 Continuous Data Sonde Measurement: ¾ Sites Selected to Fill Data Gaps ¾ Data collected for QUAL2Kw Model Calibration and Validation ¾ Locations to be Monitored: Laguna near Sebastopol Community Center Laguna near Occidental Road Laguna near Confluence with Santa Rosa Creek Santa Rosa Creek near Willowside Road Santa Rosa Creek near Brookwood Ave Next Steps ¾ Develop Models for Water Quality and Temperature ¾ Assess Different Management Scenarios ¾ Allocation of Loads ¾ Implementation Planning Contact Us Project Manager Rebecca Fitzgerald 707-576-2650 [email protected] v Staff Scientist Steve Butkus 707-576-2834 [email protected] TMDL Unit Lead Matt St. John 707-570-3762 [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Post-Project Appraisal of Santa Rosa Creek Restoration ______
    University of California, Berkeley LDARCH 227 : River and Stream Restoration __________________________________________________________________________ Post-Project Appraisal of Santa Rosa Creek Restoration __________________________________________________________________________ Final Draft Authors: Charlie Yue Elizabeth Hurley Elyssa Lawrence Zhiyao Shu Abstract: The purpose of this project is to assess the success of past Santa Rosa Creek restorations as a form of post-restoration monitoring of previous projects. Core objectives of this creek restoration applied to the reach of the Santa Rosa Creek ranging from E Street to Pierson Street were analyzed to the extent possible with available resources. The overarching objectives were to improve and restore habitat, remediate and maintain a healthy creek ecosystem, and bolster community involvement within this specified reach. To measure the success of these objectives, the team gathered documentation of flora and fauna, pebble counts, and interviews with members of the community. Reported flora showed the creek was composed of about 79% of the original planted species, and of the total observed species, 16% were non-native and 84% were native. Interviews with the community indicated that the creek is used frequently for recreational purposes and that the community is concerned with litter and crime along the creek. With the results from this study, it was determined that the majority of past projects were successful though improvements could be made to maintain healthier, safer, and cleaner paths along the river. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 3 History of the Santa Rosa Watershed and Creek 3 Santa Rosa Citywide Master Plan and Post-restoration Projects 4 Purpose of This Study 6 Chapter 2. Methods 8 Flora and Fauna Identification 8 Stream Composition 8 Community Interaction 9 GIS data Application 11 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Infrastructure
    CITY OF SANTA ROSA EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 2020 CHAPTER 8 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS CHAPTER Water Supply Distribution | Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality | Dry Utilities 8.1 INFRASTRUCTURE FINDINGS Water Supply and Distribution 1. The City’s Water Department provides water service to approximately 178,000 people through 53,000 service connections. The Sonoma County Water Agency supplies most of the water, and the City uses groundwater to supplement the water supply. 2. The City has identified projects needed to increase water delivery capacity. Under the guidance of the Water Master Plan Update, the City has completed the 17 highest- priority capital improvement projects and 55 more projects are currently in design, planned, or under construction. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 3. The City maintains 590 miles of sewer system infrastructure. The sewer system discharges into the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant, which can treat up to 21.34 million gallons per day before releasing it into the Russian River. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan identifies several trunk line replacements or improvements needed to reduce the flow of stormwater and groundwater into the aging sewer system. Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality 5. Santa Rosa uses a combination of closed conduit and open channel systems to convey stormwater runoff from six primary drainage basins to the major creeks that run through the city. The city’s creeks discharge into the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which eventually discharges surface waters into the Russian River. 6. The southern portion of the city has flooded historically along Colgan Creek and Roseland Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stream Maintenance Program
    2018 Stream Maintenance Program Improving water quality in our streams while providing flood protection for our community This summer the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) will be working in streams and channels throughout Sonoma County to improve water quality and provide flood protection. As part of our comprehensive Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), we will be removing sediment and garbage and planting trees to create shady riparian canopies. These canopies help cool the water and shade out less desirable species of plants, which can catch debris and reduce the streams’ water-carrying capacity. If necessary, we will remove some non-canopy forming trees such as arroyo willows as well as certain dense shrubs such as non-native and invasive blackberries. Sediment removal activities include planting native trees, shrubs, and some aquatic plants according to a certain pattern to establish canopy while maintaining channel capacity. The Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (SCYEC), a workforce training and ecosystem education program aimed at educating youth and young adults in environmental stewardship and restoration, will be working with the SMP this summer. The SCYEC provides youth and young adults paychecks, valuable work experience, environmental education, and the opportunity to contribute to their community through ongoing outdoor experiences. Below is the list of streams the Water Agency will be maintaining this summer. For a more detailed list, map of locations, and information on stream maintenance, visit www.sonomacountywater.org.
    [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]
  • The Sonoma County Water Agency 2006 Stream Maintenance Program Providing Flood Protection for Our Community
    The Sonoma County Water Agency 2006 Stream Maintenance Program Providing Flood Protection For Our Community This summer, the Sonoma County Water Agency targeted 36 streams within Sonoma County to perform flood protection maintenance. Now that summer is over, the Agency is continuing to complete work on as many streams as possible before weather conditions prohibit outdoor work. Below is an updated list of streams the Sonoma County Water Agency has completed work on and will be continuing maintenance on this fall. The goal of the maintenance work is to form and promote the development of shaded riparian canopies with alders and other trees that grow tall and stretch their branches over the creek, cooling the water and shading out bushes, brush and less desirable species of trees that reduce the water-carrying capacity of the creek. Petaluma Stream Name General Location Description Status Adobe Upstream of Maria Dr. SSRCD removed Willows and Cattails Capri Ely Rd. to McDowell Blvd. Scheduled for the week of 11/6 Capri Hwy. 101 to Petaluma River Cattails removed Corona Tribs. McDowell Blvd to Hwy. 101 Cattails, Willow, Trees removed Lichau Removed blockages in select locations Lynch Hwy 101 to the Petaluma River Cattails and Willows removed East Washington Airport to Garfield Dr. Willows, Trees removed East Washington Maria Dr. to Washington Creek Cattails, Willow, Trees removed Petaluma River Denman Reach SSRCBB removed Willows Washington Maria Drive to Hwy 101 Sediment removal from McDowell Blvd. to southbound Hwy 101 exit ramp and at Maria Dr. Willows and Cattails removed between Maria Dr. and McDowell Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritizing Investments in Our Community's Recovery & Resiliency
    Prioritizing Investments in Our Community’s Recovery & Resiliency PG&E Settlement Funds Community Input Survey Data Compilation Responses collected September 15 to October 25, 2020 1 Begins on Page 3 ………………………………………………………. Graph data for Spanish Survey Responses Begins on Page 22 …………………………………..…………………. Graph Data for English Survey Responses Begins on Page 42 ……………….. Open-Ended Response: Shared ideas (Spanish Survey Responses) Begins on Page 44………………….. Open-Ended Response: Shared ideas (English Survey Responses) Begins on Page 189 ..………... Open-Ended Response: Comments for Council (Spanish Responses) Page 190………..……….. Open-Ended Response: Comments for Council (English Survey Responses) 2 SPANISH SURVEY RESPONSES Did you reside within the Santa Rosa city limits during the October 2017 wildfires? Total Responses: 32 yes no 6% 94% 3 SPANISH SURVEY RESPONSES Was your Santa Rosa home or business destroyed or fire damaged in the 2017 wildfires, or did a family member perish in the 2017 wildfires? Total Responses: 32 yes no 25% 75% 4 SPANISH SURVEY RESPONSES Do you currently reside within the Santa Rosa city limits? Total Responses: 32 yes no 13% 87% 5 SPANISH SURVEY RESPONSES Survey Respondents Current Area of Residence 32 Surveys Did not Respond Outside SR within 3% Sonoma County 3% Northwest SR 38% Northeast SR 22% Southwest SR 34% 6 SPANISH SURVEY RESPONSES Where do you reside? Outside City Limits No Response City Limits Out of County Out of State within Sonoma County Provided Northeast Sebastopol 1 - 0 - 0 unknown 1 Fountaingrove 1
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix BIO Biological Resources Assessment
    Appendix BIO Biological Resources Assessment Rezone Sites for Housing Project Biological Resources Assessment SCH #2020030351 prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 4825 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95819 prepared on behalf of Sonoma County Permit Sonoma 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95403-2809 Contact: Nina Bellucci October 2020 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC. Environmental Scientists | Planners | Engineers rinconconsultants.com Rezone Sites for Housing Project Biological Resources Assessment SCH #2020030351 prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 4825 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95819 prepared on behalf of Sonoma County Permit Sonoma 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95403-2809 Contact: Nina Bellucci April 202 1 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC. Environmental Scientists | Planners | Engineers rinconconsultants.com This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31
    MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31, 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: Millicent Cowley-Crawford, Russian River Watershed Association Jarod Thiele, Grant Contact, City of Ukiah REVIEWED BY: Elizabeth Drayer, PE, RCE #46872 SUBJECT: Task 4.3 Description of Approach to Addressing Water Quality The Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) has prepared this memorandum to provide a description of the approach to address water quality requirements in the Russian River Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP). The approach identifies activities generating or contributing to polluted runoff or that impair beneficial uses of storm water and dry weather runoff and outlines potential strategies to address these issues. In addition, the consistency of the SWRP with applicable water quality regulatory requirements is outlined. STORM WATER RESOURCE PLANNING AREA The Planning Area of the Russian River SWRP has been determined in the Task 3.2 Planning Area and Watershed Descriptions memorandum dated June 9, 2017. As a brief overview, for the purposes of the SWRP, the Russian River watershed includes three divisions with nine U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 10 watersheds, and 43 HUC 12 subwatersheds. With twenty major tributaries and covering an area of 950,360 acres, the Russian River runs a length of 110 miles and is susceptible to water quality threats both in its tributaries and mainstem. The Russian River Watershed Association complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • California Tiger Salamander Is One of the Most Imperiled Species in the United States
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE SONOMA COUNTY POPULATION OF THE CALIFORNIA TIGER SALMANDER AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CITIZENS FOR A SUSTAINABLE COTATI, PETITIONERS June 11, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sonoma County population of the California tiger salamander is one of the most imperiled species in the United States. On February 21, 1992 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) received a formal petition from Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer, a leading scientific expert on the species, to list the California tiger salamander as an endangered species throughout its range. On August 13, 1993, Dr. Shaffer petitioned the USFWS for emergency listing of the Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County populations of the California tiger salamander. The USFWS responded to these petitions by classifying the species “Warranted But Precluded” and a “Candidate Species” in 1994. The Santa Barbara County population of the California tiger salamander, which has a similar conservation status and faces similar threats as to the Sonoma County population, was listed on an emergency basis on January 19, 2000. The Sonoma County population has inexplicably continued to languish in administrative purgatory. Because the California tiger salamander is currently listed as a Candidate Species, the USFWS is required to implement a system to effectively monitor its status, and is required to make prompt use of its emergency listing authority to prevent a “significant risk to the species.” 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(3)(C)(iii) and (b)(7). This petition demonstrates that the Sonoma County population of the California tiger salamander faces a significant risk.
    [Show full text]