Salmonid Restoration Federation Gives Marshall Ranch Flow Enhancement Project Update

This is a press release from the Salmonid Restoration Federation:

Photo from calsalmon.org

The Marshall Ranch Flow Enhancement project is a proposed 15.3 million gallon offstream pond in Briceland that would be situated on a stable flat on the Marshall Ranch, which is fully protected under conservation easement. The easement was created with the intent to allow restoration work, including building winter water storage to increase dry season stream flows.

The purpose of this proposed project is to enhance in-stream flows for 5.5 miles of Redwood Creek during the five-month dry season for the benefit of endangered salmon and other aquatic species. Yes, this project will require pumping water out of the creek, but only during the wet season when pumping is not a limiting factor on flows. This will ensure the pond reaches the capacity needed to provide sufficient flows during the dry season.

This location was selected based on many factors, including the safety and stability provided by the unique geomorphic terrace underlying the project site. In the last year, Stillwater Sciences has made significant design revisions to ensure stability, including the addition of a pond liner, relocating the pond spillway, and lowering the pond elevation by eight feet.  Consulting engineers from SHN, including licensed engineering geologists and a geotechnical engineer, have analyzed the proposed design modifications and determined that this is a conservative design for this site. To support this finding, two more geotechnical boreholes with groundwater wells are being installed to verify subsurface soil conditions.

Proposed design modifications have been reviewed by technical advisors from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, NOAA Fisheries, and the State Water Board. The project engineer has requested an additional seismic study by a third party to assess if the proposed design could withstand an 8.0 earthquake during saturated conditions. Faculty at UC Berkeley specializing in earthquake engineering will begin this study soon.

Currently, this planning project is at the 90% design phase and the next year will be devoted to completing additional studies, peer review, developing the long-term operations and maintenance plan, refining the final design elements, and obtaining environmental permits. This work will have multiple milestones with peer review, scientific analyses, and community input. Stillwater Sciences submitted the revised draft CEQA documents (MND) and the current Basis of Design Report to Humboldt County and requested that a senior planner review and comment on the submitted documents. Based on input from the County and community, we will be assessing next steps and working with the County to determine an appropriate CEQA timeline, and we will keep the community informed of that timeline.

To learn more about this innovative project, please visit the Marshall Ranch Flow Enhancement webpage.  To learn more about the pond design, there are recorded presentations and radio shows under Resources and Updates.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Briceland
Guest
Briceland
3 years ago

It could be amazing to have the immediate surrounding area accessible to the neighborhood as a park or a trail.

cutomorrow
Guest
cutomorrow
3 years ago
Reply to  Briceland

that’s a great idea

Casey
Guest
Casey
3 years ago

This is no different than any past forest project, only it’s being put up by the anti side. Your science is flawed, same argument that has been put up for years. Don’t ask, only do if it’s good for you. Bull shit lady.

Joan
Guest
Joan
3 years ago

First to clarify, this is a 15.3-million-gallon water earthen berm dam reservoir – not a pond! And it is being proposed directly over my property with the potential of life ending and property damaging effects in the event of a major dam failure. They have ignored the very first rule in pond construction by locating this reservoir over my and neighboring properties. They have had to redesign their original plans because they admitted there were design flaws and now, they have agreed to perform additional seismic studies to try and justify continuing to promote this location for this project. After three design plan revisions we are now being presented with a 90% completed plan. SRF and SS’s proposed solution to the potential catastrophic dam failure has been to design and construct a separate 20 ft. earthen berm, called a deflection berm, to be located exactly in the picture above, just off our north/south shared property line to hopefully deflect the torrential flow away to the west from our home and property and direct this catastrophic flow towards and potentially damage the very creek this project is supposed to enhance.
A project that has the potential to harm human life should never be proposed in the first place no matter what the hoped for beneficial desired results of the project are.
SRF’s own recent years studies show reduced water in the watershed but no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room! Commercial cannabis cultivation, both legal and illegal, are drawing more water out of the watershed than any single water usage. If SRF cared so much about the lack of water in my watershed, why were they not objecting to every cannabis permit being applied for? And if the County and State (and all the other regulatory agencies, State Water, DFW.. ) really felt that Redwood Creek was such a critical and priority watershed, why did all of these agencies allow any cannabis permits to be approved? Certainly, it warrants the illegal grows to have been shut down. SRF has stated how they have spent many years studying water flows in the watershed and have come to the conclusion that we now have to do this one big project to save the fish. They state the proposed purpose of this project will be to enhance in-stream flows for 5.5 miles downstream of the reintroduction site. In reality, this will only provide minimal additional water in stream for a very short distance and the next downstream diversion (either legal or illegal) will be glad for the additional water to slurp out! The studies SRF references is actually one Redwood Creek survey done in 2017 of 100 residences with only 12 responses and another study done by Sanctuary Forest in the Mattole River watershed – hardly adequate “studies” for the basis of a massive, six million dollar tax payer funded science project.
What is even more disturbing is a well know, local renowned geologist who has done fish habitat and rehabilitation work in Redwood Creek has recently reviewed this project and made his comments public to some of us in the community and he reported:
“Another important factor that made me uneasy as the pond project got really big, technically more complicated, and very expensive, is that the location of the pond in the middle of the watershed is not going to supply any water to the best Coho rearing habitat in the headwater streams of Redwood Creek Watershed. The areas in the watershed with good Coho rearing habitat– Miller Creek, Upper Redwood Creek, China Creek, Dinner Creek, and Seely Creek– would all receive NO water from the project. It would be painful to see pond water pouring into almost dry Redwood Creek below the best habitat in the watershed. There is a limited amount of Coho rearing habitat in Briceland…..” and he goes on to say “One very large project in the middle of the watershed is not what’s needed here. If you want to augment water flow, it makes more sense to do smaller pond projects, or habitat improvement projects, or forbearance programs, in headwater streams to improve flow or pool quality habitat.” And he finishes with “this project lacks merit for enhancing Coho salmon and poses a significant safety risk. If I had to make the decision, I wouldn’t let the project go forward.”
We have previously voiced our concerns about the designs of this project and thought SRF and SS were willing to work with us to reach an agreeable design before plans were resubmitted to the County for approval. Over the past eleven months we have made a good faith effort to work with SRF and SS to address plan designs that did not adequately demonstrate or answer our concerns of how our lives and property were either not being threatened or being adequately protected from having a 15.3 million gallon reservoir of water located directly over our home and property.
There was a site tour held October 9th and a large community consensus was that there has not yet been adequate studies, analysis or review of the design plans to ensure public safety. We have asked that they produce complete management, operational, emergency, financial and decommissioning plans and that these be produced before the project is put before County Planning. Then we, as a community, would be able to have an informed voice in if we want to allow this kind of industrial commercial project into our neighborhood.
They have decided to go ahead with submitting these current plans to the County for approval and consequently we are being forced into a position of opposing their plans as they are currently being submitted. We cannot support a project that has life threatening possibilities and the potential to do so much harm.
As this project works its way through the next public comment period and request for another Adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration, we will be submitting further comments on this project at that time. We encourage all of our neighbors and surrounding community to also submit their comments and to come together to oppose this project at this location.

cutomorrow
Guest
cutomorrow
3 years ago

” A project that has the potential to harm human life should never be proposed in the first place no matter what the hoped for beneficial desired results of the project are.”

You can move the fish and wild life can’t

onlooker
Guest
onlooker
3 years ago

How can they be doing all this planning prior to CEQA? CEQA is the process by which members of the public and affected parties (like downhill property owners) provide input upon which those plans are supposed to be based. Developing the project and then following up with the CEQA process means that the proponents of the project have already set their plans, and renders public input meaningless. On the other hand, failing to properly implement CEQA requirements will be the first argument to eliminate the project in court. SRF should know that, and so should every public agency that they pull into the project.

local observer
Guest
local observer
3 years ago

this berm construction pond is 2.7 miles away. it looks like it for a large grow. this pond is not much different than the one proposed and in very similar geologic setting.

Ed Voice
Guest
Ed Voice
3 years ago

“we will be assessing next steps and working with the County to determine an appropriate CEQA timeline, and we will keep the community informed of that timeline.”

Its not the “CEQA timeline” you should be addressing, when faced with a discretionary project which is not exempt from (CEQA), a Lead Agency (in this case Humboldt County) must prepare an initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. If such an effect may occur, the Lead Agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The other statement made was:

“The purpose of this proposed project is to enhance in-stream flows for 5.5 miles of Redwood Creek during the five-month dry season for the benefit of endangered salmon and other aquatic species. Yes, this project will require pumping water out of the creek, but only during the wet season when rain is not a limiting factor on flows. This will ensure the pond reaches the capacity needed to provide sufficient flows during the dry season.”

What if you don’t get the amount of rain in the “wet season”, needed to “enhance in-stream flows in the five-month dry season”? Seems this project is dependent on rain to either fill the reservoir or pump from the creek and in todays climate, it maybe a big if…

jim courtois
Guest
3 years ago

Something very important to this massive industrial scale project is missing here. A Mitigated Negative Declaration process is completely inadequate to determine the full environmental consequences this Reservoir will inflict on this ancient site and on the people right below it. This site is also the site of a historic Wailaki settlement, and this project will totally destroy it. How does this honor the “Conservation Easement” that it is using as cover . Joan and I and all the neighbors I spoke with would ask, no demand, that a full E.I.R. be conducted before this project is reviewed by the Planning Department. Anything this massive needs a full E.I.R.

Ed Voice
Guest
Ed Voice
3 years ago

How can SRF square this conclusion, included in your own “Redwood Creek Feasibility Study”, page 4:

https://www.calsalmon.org/sites/default/files/files/Redwood_Creek_Feasibility_Study.pdf

“2.3 Compilation of CDFW Data for the Redwood Creek Study Area”

“Using the mapping and assumptions of Bauer et al. (2015), Stillwater Sciences estimated cannabis-related water use within the Redwood Creek feasibility study area. The approach involved GIS overlay of the study area boundary and the Bauer et al. (2015) mapping. Estimates of cannabis irrigation on 77 parcels in the study area averaged 425 gallons per day (excludes parcels serviced with water from the Briceland Community Service District). This included approximately 36,000 ft2 of greenhouse and 2,200 outdoor cannabis plants. When average domestic use of approximately 300 gallons per day per parcel was added, the average water use determined through this mod s 725 gallons per day (Table 1). The results of this analysis were generally consistent with results from the upper Mattole River survey.”