Page 9 - Sonoma County Gazette February 2017

FLOWS cont’d from page 8
production of salmon prey and negative affects on recreation from water quality and conditions too shallow for kayaking and canoeing.
Let’s think about how we could reduce these impacts and still
achieve the project goals.
One of the goals of the RRBO and Flow EIR is to preserve cold water in Lake Mendocino for fall migration, a good idea. Of Course we’ve been told summer flow reductions over the last 8 years are intended to preserve that cold water – but its never been used to benefit salmon. We must use the water rights petition process to assign a “block” or water or water right to 15,000-20,000 acre feet of water in the lake. We should assign rights to this block of water for salmon ahead of other rights to guarantee it’s there when they need it, like many other CA salmon streams.
Looking at alternatives to reducing flows to preserve more cold water in Lake Mendocino, we look to the Sacramento River and Delta. The
Toxic Blue-Green algae species in RR, it loves warmer water Delta watersheds temps and increased nutrients that reduced flows will produce! like the Russian River, has thousands of water diversions for various needs that compete with preserving water quality for endangered fish. In the delta the State Division of Water Rights places affirmative restrictions on some classes of water rights to ensure water is
available for fish.
On the Russian River during summer most water in the upper Russian comes
from Lake Mendocino, which is stored during the rain season and re-released later in the year. Riparian rights to water in the Russian are limited to natural flow.
In the Delta when natural flow runs out, riparian diversions are prohibited to ensure water released from dams for fish isn’t taken inappropriately. This legal limit on water diversions would result in more water saved in Lake Mendocino and could offset the need for reducing summer flows up to 44%. This could keep cold water in the Lake for fish and reduce impacts from reduced flows.
Let’s take a different look at the estuary issue.
The Flow EIR states high flows increase the need to breach the sandbar at the river mouth, which degrades habitat for salmon. We have a different view that it’s the less than two dozen structures like Sonoma State Beach Visitor’s Center (shack on stilts),
Jenner Post Office (shipping container like structure), decks and non- residential structures at risk of flooding that causes the need to breach the sandbar and degrade habitat.
Current flows or poorly sited structures causing the estuary problem? Elevating structures would mitigate need for reduced flows and issues that brings.
According to widely accepted Sea Level Rise predictions, these structures will be underwater at high tide due to climate change in roughly a decade – why not spend a few million and elevate these structures? There are state funds that can help offset the cost to homeowners and the County. If we elevated these few structures as we have upstream, then the estuary could rise higher and create even more habitat in places like lower Willow Creek. This alternative eliminates the major driver for reducing flows and achieves the goal of improving estuary habitat.
If approved as is, the Fish Flow Project would result in drought-like conditions for recreation and endangered salmon – no matter how much rain we get. There are feasible alternatives to the proposed 44% flow reduction as the only solution to improving salmon habitat that would accomplish project objectives.
We believe the proposed “fish flows” are just too low for either
Let’s all work towards realistic Flow EIR alternatives and mitigations to ensure that we improve habitat for salmon and preserve water quality so our residents and visitors can have a safe, healthy summer.
salmon or humans.
2/17 - www.sonomacountygazette.com - 9