Proposed river cuts would crimp recreation

Reduced flows could devastate tourist-dependent business
along Russian River
by Frank Robertson, Staff Writer
A plan to cut the Russian River’s summertime stream flow to
improve native fish habitat has visitor-serving interests fearing
the worst about the possible economic hit to recreational
users.
“It would be devastating,” said Lynn Crescione, owner of
Guerneville’s Creekside Inn & Resort.
Resort and campground operators fear the proposed cuts could end
popular summer recreational activities such as paddling a canoe
down river from Healdsburg and Windsor to Guerneville because the
water would be too shallow.
“I just don’t think they’ve thought it through,” said Crescione,
after the Sonoma County Water Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers unveiled the proposal two weeks ago.
The reduced releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino in
theory would benefit the Russian River’s dwindling native salmon
and steelhead fishery by recreating a flow rate more closely
resembling the river’s historic “natural flow,” according to the
proposal.
The natural flow “is that flow that would occur in the Russian
River if there were no imports of water into the Russian River
basin, no release of stored water and no diversion of water from
the Russian River or any of its tributaries,” according to a
proposed “flow regime” presented at a joint meeting of federal,
state and county officials in Ukiah last month.
The town of Windsor relies on the underflow of the Russian River
for its domestic water supplies. Assistant Town Manager Matt Mullan
said he is aware of the proposed summertime flow reductions, but
the town has not experienced a significant drop in its Russian
River wells during very dry years in the past.
“Our production is directly related to the underflow of the
river and the huge underground aquifer, and the surface flows in
the river,” said Mullan. “We have not realized any significant loss
of production in the past when there have been low flows.”
But the flows in the river do affect how much water the town can
pump. Low river flows typically coincide with the town’s high
demand times, and “we have lost some production capability” during
those periods.
The reduced river flow would also allow the sandbar that closes
the Russian River’s mouth at Jenner to remain intact through the
summer to benefit juvenile salmonids trying to survive in the
estuary.
The Jenner sandbar is now typically bulldozed open a half-dozen
times each year when the backed-up estuary threatens to flood
low-lying homes in Jenner.
The flow reduction, which officials estimate would take about
three years to achieve because of the bureaucratic process
involved, is already drawing protests and petitions from Russian
River recreational interests in Guerneville and Monte Rio.
“We are opposed to any plan that may result in a reduction in
water flow to the Lower Russian River area, said Monte Rio Chamber
of Commerce President Philip Hampton in a letter to 5th District
Supervisor Mike Reilly and other officials attending the June 27
Public Policy Facilitating Committee meeting. Hampton and other
River business owners say there has been little or no opportunity
for River residents and recreational interests to comment on the
proposal.
“This proposed flow reduction is simply not acceptable,” said a
petition gathering signatures from Guerneville business owners last
week. “We are vehemently opposed to any noticeable flow reduction
in the Russian River. We are united in our opposition to this
proposal and amazed that there has been so little communication
with the residents and business owners.”
Summer flows would drop from around 75 cfs to as low as 25 cubic
feet per second in Dry Creek and could go down to 35 cubic feet per
second in the lower Russian River where they are now typically
around 125 cfs during the summer, if the new flow schedule is
approved.
The reduction would require amendments to existing agreements
governing the release of water from Coyote and Warm Springs dams.
The flow reduction plan calls for a complicated juggling of release
rates in order to meet downstream demands such as the Sonoma County
Water Agency’s diversion of drinking water from pumps at Wohler
Bridge below Windsor and at Mirabel in Forestville. The agency has
contracts to supply water to a half-million customers in Sonoma and
Marin counties.
Eventually a pipeline may be necessary from Warm Springs Dam to
the Russian River to meet the Water Agency’s needs while protecting
Dry Creek’s fish habitat, according to the Russian River Draft
Biological Assessment, a 427-page document prepared for the Water
Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers and released last month by
Entrix, Inc., a consultant working on the project. The year-round
releases from Lake Sonoma are not ideal for the fishery.
“People have every right to be concerned about the impacts of
this proposal,” said Supervisor Mike Reilly, a member of the Public
Policy Facilitating Committee that includes Fourth District
Supervisor Paul Kelley as well as representatives from Mendocino
County, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The committee is evaluating the effects of watershed activities on
the Russian River’s native coho salmon and steelhead trout, which
federal officials have identified as species threatened with
extinction and therefore entitled to special protection under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act.
“Two things are driving the flow alternative studies” put forth
as part of the biological assessment under the Endangered Species
Act criteria, said Reilly.
“One is the desirability of a closed estuary in Jenner, as a
more stable environment for juvenile salmonids. Second is to reduce
flows down Dry Creek to avoid scour” of fish habitat during summer
months, said Reilly.
Under the proposed schedule the controlled flow could go as low
as 35 cubic feet per second in the lower Russian River to allow the
the Jenner sandbar to remain closed without the estuary rising to
levels that would cause flooding in Jenner. To achieve that goal
the River would generally be running between 50 to 90 cubic feet
per second at the Hacienda Bridge, according to the biological
assessment.
The overall goal is to reduce summer flows in the entire Russian
River yet provide sufficient water “to satisfy existing water
rights obligations” to meet Water Agency supply requirements and
allow the Jenner sandbar to remain closed in the summer, says the
draft assessment.
In Ukiah where the median summer flow is now between 170 to 230
cfs, under the proposed reduction it would run between 140 and 210
cfs, according to the report presented to officials last month.
In Healdsburg, where the summer flow is typically around 180
cfs, the diminished flow would run between 130 to 160 cfs.
A proposed pipeline from Dry Creek to the River is one
alternative that could help the fishery and at the same time
“create the ability to maintain a more traditional river flow in
the lower river,” said Reilly.
But with the pipeline construction cost estimated at $150
million, “money is the big impediment,” said Reilly.
Reilly has requested studies “to find out the impacts of these
reduced flows” on recreation as well as on River water quality.
“The word needs to get out” said Reilly. The proposed flow
reductions are “probably the most controversial element” of
bringing River watershed activities into compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
The proposal “prioritizes fish recovery and water supply for
domestic and ag users at the expense of recreation,” said Reilly.
“That needs to be looked at. They want to supply growth while
drying up the villages on lower Russian River.”
Since Russian River flows have been and continue to be
artificially manipulated by dams and reservoirs, “I object to them
using the term ‘natural,” said Reilly. “It’s a total misnomer.”
Prior to the diversion of Eel River water into the Russian
River, which began in 1908, summer flows in the lower River “often
dropped to 20 cfs or less,” according to the Entrix report.
Copies of the Russian River Draft Biological Assessment, Part 1,
may be reviewed at the Sonoma County Water Agency on College Avenue
in Santa Rosa and at the Sonoma County main library in Santa Rosa.
Copies are available at the Water Agency for $26.