Real Solutions

To NVLSA (Jan. 2):   I think we should stake a claim for wanting to move forward on specific or general projects which lead to true environmental gain.  The STEWARD program would be an example.  Fish ladders on all Municipal Dams, neglected for the last 50 years, would be another.  Water contributions to fish habitat currently stressed by premature drying, would be another--the entire County should at minimum be able to match private releases in this category, but currently contributes zero gallons.  Municipal or Urban areas which insist on raising watercourse velocities for Flood Management should adopt other, surrogate Watersheds as mitigation requires.  Installation of submersible, telemetry-sending stream gages and a draw-down agreement with downstream users from Bell Canyon, raising the dam and adding the straight-flow pipe would be another. These gages and telemetry station could have been installed for less than $100K, probably what has been spent on this mind-numbing paper chase.  

I favor spending the next conservation dollar on true conservation action that targets definable gains.  Perhaps each Supervisor that supports the concept of this Ordinance should write us a letter explaining just exactly which Environmental gains will be accomplished by enactment, and where.  Which changes to water quality, flood risk or whatever?  What does it mean if no one in the Conservation Dept and none of the Supervisors can articulate what meaningful gains will accrue? NO map, NO parcel list, NO calculations, NO goals that correspond to the latest available science.  Put up or shut up, I say.  - Ed 

Ed,
      I have read and reread your Jan. 2nd e-mail to NVLSA with intense interest, but since this is not my field of expertise I'm having a little difficulty following your lingo and where your logic is coming from and going to. Bear with me. I'm wondering if you could answer a few questions for a knuckle-head like me. I'm genuinely fascinated. It's just that this stuff goes right over my head if it's not explained in layman's terms.
   Ed, I have a hunch, that once more of the non-scientific thinkers in the group can grasp this stuff it's going to produce more epiphanies. I'm already beginning to see by way of what you're presenting that STEWARD also needs to include a list of chores for local government, as well as its growing list of duties for property owners.

1. How well do you think fish ladders on municipal dams will work?
2. What kind of results would you expect to see in the fish population due to fish ladders?
3. Who would design them and who would install them?
4. Could you tell more about your ideas for "water contributions to fish habitat"? Where would the contributions come from, and how would it work?
5. First, what do you mean by private releases, and second, what do you mean by the county being able to match private releases?
6. Do you have any estimates as to how much water is available to bring water levels up?
7. What are the problems with current urban flood management practices such as the raising of watercourse velocities? How is this problematic to fish, water levels, and water cleanliness, etc.?
8. What do you see as a better alternative?
9. Would you explain the benefits of the "installation of submersible, telemetry- sending stream gauges?
10. What is a "draw down agreement"?
11. What would be the advantage of "raising the dam and adding the straight flow pipe"?
   
Well, there it is,- my ignorance in all its glory. I hope I'm not burdening you with these questions, but once I can get a handle on these ideas I can be helpful in making sure these ideas make it into the package.
Thanks Ed,

Jeremiah

Jeremiah-- Although fish ladders work poorly on Hydroelectric dams, our Municipal dams are for water retention, and so there is every reason to think that well-made ladders could have a very beneficial effect.  Rector poses an engineering challenge, because the rise is so steep in a short distance.  The ladders have to be combined with effective detours at the top, so fish don't get sucked in. The limitations are money and commitment to do the job.

I think Fish and Game and the RCD are way better suited to oversee the work.  Usually they hire private contractors in a bidding process.

I suggest you read the Limiting Factors Analysis from start to finish.  www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/Programs/TECHNICAL%20REPORT.pdf

Premature drying of otherwise wonderful fish-breeding habitat is killing the hatch every year.  The fish can't get to where they used to go, and the places they go now don't have running water late enough in the year to get them up to size, or they die in evaporating puddles. The reasons for this are numerous, but none of the reservoirs that retain water for urban use contributes one drop elsewhere, and they slow the release on their own watercourse to a trickle, or worse.

Rector and Milliken are connected through City pipelines.  Small one-inch diversions into useful habitat like Sarco, Tulocay, Carneros, and Dry Creeks could make all four creeks into fish-supporting habitat, where they are limited, at best, now.  A relatively small amount of water can make these creeks flow enough to keep fish happy.  We have been doing this for years on our own creek, with a hose and flow limiting valve, which runs every time we turn on the well pump to irrigate.  First the Groundwater Moratorium in our area, and now this latest crap with setbacks has us wondering if we should give a damn.  Maybe there are other landowners who give some water back to their creeks, but for the moment, our program alone exceeds the total Municipal commitment, County-wide.

Approximately 1-2000 gallons per week will give sufficient flow to these creeks--roughly the same usage as 1 or 2 households weekly requirements.

Raising  watercourse velocity diminishes the habitat value for fish, they don't nest as well, the eggs get flushed downstream and don't hatch, and the molts get swept away too. 

Certain streams need to be designated for fish-hatching, and it is unlikely to be Napa Creek or Salvador Channel, for example.  The Urban requirements of Flood Control are too high.  So fine, recognize reality and have Urban areas assist in the solution, as a mitigation measure.  Contribute some water, and ask the landowners to help out.

Submersible telemetry-sending stream gages enable anyone who is pumping water from a creek, as many people do, to limit what they do intelligently.  It is especially important during frost-protection periods, when people's allegiance is torn between caring for fish, and having a frost-burnt crop.

A draw down agreement would set flow limits that would not be compromised, in theory.  If the fixed-flow pipe is sending x gallons per minute, all the users should not reduce the flow below x.  Irrigation schedules have to be rotated and there is always uncooperative weather, freezing or hot, which needs to have a fudge factor.  The telemetry over the whole watercourse enables all the users,  to spot localized trouble.

Raising the dam and fixing a substantial flow from the excess retention would be the first municipal contribution to Fish habitat in the entire County.

Ed