DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantifying Stream Ecosystem Resilience to Identify Thresholds for Salmon Recovery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantifying Stream Ecosystem Resilience to Identify Thresholds for Salmon Recovery Quantifying stream ecosystem resilience to identify thresholds for salmon recovery. PIs: Adina Merenlender, Vince Resh, G. Matt Kondolf, and Peter Moyle Contributors: Matt Deitch, Leah Beche, Ted Grantham, David Newburn G4K10732G4K10732 1 Significance of thresholds Identify stream flow thresholds beyond which changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and decline in salmonid survivorship may result using retrospective analysis of existing data. Ecosystem Services Addressed •Endangered species recovery •Maintain aquatic biodiversity •Increase certainty of water supply for wine grape production/economic vitality. California salmon is an important food source that is culturally significant to some groups. 2 Overarching Goals 1. Using long-term data sets to examine relationships between flow and aquatic communities and salmonid survivorship and identify thresholds where possible (two studies). 2. Work with stakeholders to collect information on water management and provide science-based information to help prioritize restoration efforts. 3. Develop decision-support tools to examine environmental and economic tradeoffs between winter water storage and dry season pumping and better inform water management and policies to enhance salmon recovery and water security. 3 Project overview 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 Streamflow, CFS Streamflow, 200 0 Oct 63 Nov 63 Dec 63 Jan 64 Feb 64 Mar 64 Apr 64 May 64 Jun 64 Jul 64 Aug 64 Sep 64 Aquatic communities Upland stream flow Juvenile salmonid survivorship Quantify demand Decision-support The upland stream flow graph shows data on the upland stream system. Most research conducted to date has focused on the mainstems of large river systems. Thus, there is a major lack of information on upland streams. The project has two datasets: one with data on juvenile salmonids, and another with data on other fish populations (both native and exotic). Increasing amounts of water are being used for agriculture. Thus, the use of water from upland streams has changed rapidly during the past 10-15 years. Some of the work being done on this project will quantify the demands on these upland watersheds. Ultimately, the information gathered will be used to support water policy. 4 Study location There are two study sites. The red area is the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the Russian River Basin area. Salmon survivorship is being studied there. The blue area represents creeks in Napa Valley. 5 Mediterranean-climate Healdsburg, CA precipitation, 1971 (40 inches) 3.5 3 2.5 rainfall 2 1.5 1 0.5 Precipitation, inches 0 Oct-79 Nov-79 Dec-79 Jan-80 Feb-80 Mar-80 Apr-80 May-80 Jun-80 Jul-80 Aug-80 Sep-80 1997 rainfall, Lafayette, Indiana (37 inches) 3.5 3 2.5 rainfall 2 1.5 1 Precipitation, inches Precipitation, 0.5 0 Oct 96 Nov 96 Dec 96 Jan 97 Feb 97 Mar 97 Apr 97 May 97 Jun 97 Jul 97 Aug 97 Sep 97 This figure shows high flow in the winter and low flow in the summer in California. The demand for water in California is highest in the summer. 6 Average annual precipitation (in) by decade: Healdsburg, CA versus Lafayette, IN 1960s 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1970s 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1980s 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1990s 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 This figure shows that the California Mediterranean climate has more year-to-year variability, which increases uncertainty. 7 This figure shows high spatial variability in rainfall. It is interesting to note that extremes are seen only miles apart. 8 Water demand 100 2000 1500 Typical water year: 80 1000 500 0 /sec 60 3 Oct Jan Apr Jul 40 Streamflow, ft Typical streamflow 20 Impaired flow 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Water demand can be met with the amount of winter rainfall. Pumping during the spring and summer can have a cumulative impact on stream flow. 9 GIS analysis of land use types and estimated water demand in the watershed above each reach. 3500 3000 Annual Rural Housing Water 2500 Usage (acre-ft) Annual Vinyard Water Usage (acre-ft) 2000 Water Use/Area 1500 Water1000 Use (acre-ft) 500 0 Middle Green Valley MaacamaLo Maacamawer Maacama Mark Middle Upper Lower West Stream/Reach Middle Mark 0.09 West 0.08 Upper 0.07 Mark West 0.06 Lower 0.05 Santa Rosa 0.04 Middle 0.03 Santa 0.02 Rosa 0.01 Upper Water Use/Area Santa 0 Rosa 10 This is a picture of California wine country. The wine boom in the past 10-15 years has caused complications in the coastal watersheds. 11 Resilience of fish and macroinvertebrates to drought and flow variability over 20 years in two California streams • Fish population and macroinvertebrate community responses to flow variability – Is there concordance between these “slow” and “fast” variables? • Hunting and Knoxville Creeks – Napa & Lake Counties (CA), University of California McLaughlin Reserve – 4 sites on 2 protected streams, 1st-2nd order – 1984 to 2002, annual surveys (April) 12 H1 K1 H2 H3 13 Data collection Fish MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrates • Four 100-m reaches • Five Surber samples (1 sampled per site ft2 = 0.093 m2) per site • electrofishing, • Riffle areas multiple passes per year at each site • Identification to genus • Abundance, length, • 157 taxa collected weight collected for each fish • 3 “core” species 14 Fish species list Core species • California Roach (Lavinia symmetricus) • Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) non-native • Sacramento sucker (Castostomus occidentalis) Rare species Resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis) Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) exotic 15 Rainfall during study period 1200 1000 6-year drought +1 SD 800 600 Mean 400 -1 SD Total rainfall (Oct 1 - Apr 15) (mm) 200 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Water year The researchers are studying the effects of the 6-year drought on the system. 16 Macroinvertebrate results Site: K1 (1st order) 1.5 1.5 86_w 86_w 1.0 1.0 91_d 88_d 91_d 88_d 89_d 89_d 90_d 90_d 0.5 92_d 0.5 92_d S S I I X X A A 2 95_w 2 95_w 93_w 85_d 93_w 85_d V V 0.0 87_d 0.0 87_d 03_w 03_w Axis 2 94_d 94_d 98_w 02_a 84_a 98_w 02_a 84_a -0.5 96_a -0.5 96_a 00_a 00_a 97_w 97_w 01_a 01_a -1.0 99_a -1.0 99_a -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 V1AXIS Axis 1 V1AXIS Distinct wet and dry Prolonged drought communities resulted in long-term community shifts in 1st- order streams Species recover quickly. In the beginning of the study, the area was a dry community. It then became a wet community. Dragon flies do well in dry periods; beatles and true bugs do well in wet periods (pool pond species). Wet years have few taxa that are characteristic (greater abundance of mayflies and caddisflies in the wet years). Differences between macroinvertebrate community composition (log10-transformed density) between wet, dry, and average precipitation years were examined using multi- response permutation procedure (MRPP, Bray-Curtis distance). Years were classified as: wet, if precipitation was > 1 standard deviation (SD) above the long-term mean (1938- 2004); dry, if < 1 SD below the mean; and average for all other years. Similarly, an MRPP comparing drought years (1985, 1987-1992, 1994) to all other years was performed. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination was used to examine temporal patterns in community composition and the influence of flow on these patterns (using Spearman rank correlation). Furthermore, the relationship between fish and macroinvertebrate communities was examined at site H3 using a Mantel test. Analyses were performed using the vegan package (Oksanen, Kindt, Legendre, & O’Hara, 2007) in R 2.4.1 (R Development Core Team, 2006). 17 sunfish increasedduringthedrought. California roachdeclined duringthedroughtand This graphshowstheaveragesforH3 Mean Abundance (#/100m) Mean number per 100 m Mean number per 100 m 100 150 200 250 10 15 20 25 30 35 50 0 5 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 drought 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 siteduringthedrought period.Thenative 1993 Green sunfish 1994 roach California 1995 then recovered after. Theinvasivegreen 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 CV =65.8% CV =74.8% 18 Summary • Macroinvertebrates: distinct “wet” and “dry” communities • Macroinvertebrates: no lag time in response to flow conditions •Fish:response lag of 1-3 years to flow •Fish:prolonged drought Æ establishment and success of invasive species (Green sunfish) • Fish and macroinvertebrate communities significantly “concordant” (Mantel test) – Reflects influence of flow on both At one site, the non-native green sunfish flourished during the drought and then became the dominant species. At another site, the native California roach came back as the dominant species. 19 Flow Variability and Juvenile Steelhead Survivorship in Russian River Tributaries 1) Is stream flow a limiting factor to juvenile steelhead survivorship? 2) How do habitat conditions and land use affect survivorship under different flow regimes? 3) Can we empirically detect a low flow threshold on survivorship? This is another dataset on salmon from the Russian River tributaries. Water is a factor that is limiting the salmon population in California. 20 during thespring. areas,In most theamount ofwater allocated Mean dailyflowhydrographforwateryears1964and1965 10000 10000 Mean daily flow, cfs 10000 1000 1000 Mean daily flow, cfs 1000 100 100 100 0.1 0.1 10 10 10 1 1 1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep O ct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep O ct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep bytheState exceedstheamountavailable W a te r ye hydrograph a r 1 9Diversion 6 5 W ater year 1964 year W ater hydrograph Diversion 21 Juvenile Salmonid Surveys Conducted in summer (June-July) and fall (October) in selected habitat units, from 1994 to 2002 ─M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    SOUTHEAST GREENWAY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING DRAFT EIR CITY OF SANTA ROSA HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This chapter includes an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project that are related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, this chapter describes the environmental setting, including regulatory framework and existing conditions, and identifies mitigation measures, if required, that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. 4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA authorizes the USEPA to implement water-quality regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating stormwater discharges into the waters of the United States. California has an approved State NPDES program. The USEPA has delegated authority for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 1). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify water bodies or segments of water bodies that are “impaired” (i.e., not meeting one or more of the water-quality standards established by the state).
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Water Management Plan
    PhasePhase IIII NPDESNPDES StormStorm WaterWater ManagementManagement PlanPlan March 2005 Prepared By WINZLER&KELLY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Town of Windsor Phase II NPDES Storm Water Management Plan Project No. 03-228303-003 Project Contacts: Toni Bertolero Project Manager [email protected] Brian Bacciarini Staff Scientist [email protected] Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 495 Tesconi Circle, Suite 9, Santa Rosa, California 95401 Phone: (707) 523-1010 Fax: (707) 527-8679 March 2005 Reviewed by:__________ Date:__________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Background...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Regulatory Background..................................................................................................1 1.2 Town Resources .............................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Public Works Department..................................................................................2 1.2.2 Planning Department..........................................................................................2 1.2.3 Building Division ...............................................................................................3 1.2.4 Economic Development and Community Services Department .......................3 1.2.5 Administrative Services Department .................................................................3 1.3 Outside Agencies............................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]