Friends of Gualala River Protecting the Gualala River watershed and the species living within it
To the State Water Resources Control Board
From the Gualala River Watershed Council
June 26, 2002
Kathryn Gaffney
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Re: Alaska Water Exports Co. Application #31194, Gualala River
Dear Ms. Gaffney,
The Gualala River Watershed Council (GRWC) is an organization that coordinates watershed programs and provides a forum for Gualala River stakeholders and visitors, which includes persons who either live or have a workplace within, own property, have property interests, or a business within, or use water or other resources from, the Gualala River.
GRWC provides a forum to communicate about the ecology and land uses in the Gualala River watershed. The GRWC is aimed at achieving the following goals:
- Build upon existing efforts that support sustainable resource management;
- Promote educational opportunities to learn about watershed functions;
- Maintain and improve stewardship of natural resources in the watershed;
- Constructively influence land use decisions in the watershed;
- Address the Clean Water Act “Water Quality Attainment Strategy”; and
- Maintain and enhance the economic viability of landowners, resource management and recreational uses in the watershed.
The following is an excerpt from the Gualala River Watershed Technical Support Document For Sediment, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2001, page 8.
2.3.4 Water Rights
The appropriation of water in California falls under the jurisdiction of the State Water Board, Division of Water Rights. Appropriative water rights exist for a total of 2,162 acre-feet/year (af/y) of water from the Gualala River watershed, at a maximum diversion rate of 7.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) (WRIMS 2000). Although municipal use is the dominant water use in the watershed, other uses of diverted water include stockwatering, irrigation, and fire protection. Because the watershed is sparsely populated, riparian extraction in the watershed is minimal (Sommerstrom 1992). The potential peak demand from this use and additional future riparian uses in the watershed was estimated to be 2.5 cfs (EIP 1994). The North Gualala Water Company (NGWC) received an appropriative permit to divert water from the North Fork Gualala in 1964 which allows the extraction of 2 cfs on a year round basis. The NGWC served 902 hook-ups in 1995 and was limited to a maximum of 1034 hook-ups (Higgins 1997 and WRIMS 2000).
In November 1999, the State Water Board stipulated that when the natural flow in the North Fork of the Gualala falls below the minimum requirements of 4 cfs, the NGWC would be prohibited from diverting any water from the North Fork (SWRCB, 1999). In August 2000, the State Water Board ruled that this order applied to both surface water diversions and two NGWC groundwater wells that had been previously found to fall under the State Water Boards jurisdiction (SWRCB, 2000).
The Sea Ranch once drew surface water from the South Fork Gualala by using a summer dam, but they currently draw water from the aquifer below the lower South Fork Gualala and have augmented storage with an off-site reservoir (Higgins, 1997). The Sea Ranchs water right from the State Water Board allows for a maximum extraction of 2.8 cfs, although the maximum diversion in 1994 was 0.56 cfs (EIP, 1994).
Other water users in the Gualala River watershed include agriculture and rural development. As stated in the Gualala River Watershed Literature Search and Assimilation (Higgins, 1997): “While agricultural water use in the Gualala River watershed has been very low in the past, wineries are now being developed in some areas. These wineries may have a direct impact on tributary flow if surface water is used. If wells are drilled in upland areas, and if the aquifer is joined to headwater springs, flows in some tributaries could be affected. EIP Associates (1994) projected that development of vacation homes or residences could result in use of up to 2.5 cfs for the entire basin.” Current low flow constraints in the Gualala River would most likely prohibit future additional appropriative water allocations; however, greater use of the rights allocated to the Sea Ranch is expected in the future (EIP, 1994).
For many years GRWC has planned a scientific assessment of the lower- river and estuary. Funding for the study was approved in 2001 by the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC). The SCC involvement on the lower Gualala River dates back to a 1995 grant from the SCC to the Redwood Coast Land Conservancy to conduct a Gualala River Watershed Literature Search and Assimilation. This report, assembled by Patrick Higgins, provided an overview of the existing scientific record pertaining to the ecological integrity of the Gualala River watershed. The report included no new scientific research, and demonstrated a significant evidentiary gap in the literature with relation to the lower river and estuary.
Acknowledging the importance of coastal estuaries to the overall health of coastal watersheds, the SCC, the Sotoyome Resources Conservation District (SRCD), and the GRWC determined to broaden scientific understanding of the Gualala watershed, particularly the estuary and lower-river. In April 2001, the Board of the SCC approved a grant for $150,000 to the SRCD to assist the GRWC in their efforts to conduct a lower river and estuary assessment and enhancement plan.
The goals of the Gualala River Estuary and Lower-River Assessment and Enhancement Plan project are to: collect baseline data; determine possibly impairing factors on ecological productivity; identify further research needs; and produce an Enhancement Plan. These goals will be addressed by an assessment of current physical, water quality, and biological habitat conditions. This includes identifying timing and use by salmonids throughout the year. The enhancement plan will be developed which will provide specific recommendations for the enhancement of the lower Gualala River and estuary.
Aquatic Ecology Objectives of the study are to determine the use and abundance of salmonids in the Gualala River estuary/lagoon throughout the year; to describe the habitat conditions encountered throughout the year (i.e.: physical characters and water quality conditions); to describe types of habitat available throughout the year; to develop a list of species captured and/or observed (i.e. pinnipeds, river otters, predatory birds) in the estuary/lagoon and indicate their relative abundance through the sampling period; and to determine adult steelhead use and timing within the estuary/lagoon.
Water Quality Objectives of the study are to provide a profile of the spatial and temporal variations within the study area throughout the year. Water quality measurement parameters will include temperature, depth, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity and/or salinity, and turbidity. Marsh Ecology Objectives of the study are to delineate wetland areas. The United States Army Corps of Engineers criteria for wetland delineation will be utilized, but will not be performed to a level of verification by the Corps. Wetlands including any one of the three of the Corps delineation standards, hydrology, vegetation, and soil type, will be duly delineated, and incorporated into a project map.
Terrestrial Ecology Objectives of the study will be to develop a list of plant species in and around the lower estuary floodplain area; to develop a map of plant species, communities, and species distribution; to describe the use of the lower estuary floodplain area by wildlife; and to develop a list of species observed in the wetland/floodplain area during the assessment period.
For more information regarding the “GUALALA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER RIVER ASSESSMENT” please see the attached WORK PLAN, June 2002. The GRWC and its partners have committed significant time and resources to implementing this study and would urge its consideration and incorporation into the evaluation of the proposed water diversion and export project. In that regard, the GRWC has not, in the past, taken a position to support or oppose any project application before any permitting authority. We do anticipate that this proposed water diversion and export project would have environmental review that would include an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The GRWC would appreciate being notified of the environmental review process, including but not limited to, the scoping and initial study.
The GRWC has a multitude of significant concerns regarding the proposed Alaska Water Exports Co. Application #31194 planned for the Gualala River. The Council has specific environmental and economic concerns for the Gualala River Estuary as listed below.
(1) The Gualala River Estuary possesses extraordinary resources that support habitat for steelhead and salmonid fisheries, a nursery for young fish, and a critical transition to both upstream freshwater and ocean habitat for migrating anadromous fish.
(2) An essential component of the resources provided by the Gualala River Estuary are the exceptional water quality necessary for summer survival of steelhead and salmonid juveniles.
(3) California coast highway 1 crosses the Gualala River Estuary providing the public a breathtaking view of the ocean and estuary environment.
(4) Gualala Point Regional [County] Park offers scenic viewsheds and recreational camping, hiking, swimming and boating opportunities to the public.
(5) The Gualala River Estuary also offers private recreational opportunities with private campground and kayak rental businesses.
(6) Recreational steelhead fishing in the Gualala River Estuary has earned world-class historic status.
(7) The Sea Ranch Water Company and the North Gualala Water Company divert water directly from, or from wells that are adjacent to, the Gualala River, that benefits thousands of existing residents and visitors; and needs substantial water resources for planned additional service requirements.
The GRWC has the following specific questions regarding the proposed project.
Project Description
1. Where would the water intake be located?
2. Would it be necessary to drain all or part of the lagoon when the pumping facility is built in the estuary?
3. How long is the construction period? What are the access points for equipment and barges? How would the excavation be accomplished for the instream pumping station and intake facility?
4. Would any portion of the pipeline be laid through the water trace of the stream?
5. What material would the proposed project use for the pipeline thrust blocks and how would they be installed?
6. How does the proposed project propose to lay the pipeline from the pump to the offshore mooring facility?
7. What method would the proposed project use to get the pipeline under the sandspit?
8. What is the size and configuration of the mooring facility?
9. How long would it take to fill one bag?
10. How would the proposed project protect the offshore bags from severe winter storms?
11. In what sea-state would the bags, tug lines or mooring fail?
12. Where would the proposed project have bag repair facilities?
13. How would the pumps be powered and how would the proposed project access that power?
14. How would the proposed project ensure that the pumps do not cause pollution?
15. Where would the proposed project locate treatment plants?
16. Describe the maintenance activity that would be required as a consequence of streambed elevation changes that block the pump intake.
17. What precisely is the proposed projects definition of the mouth of the river?
18. What happens when there is an intake of flow, but no bag in which to pump it?
19. Under what sea conditions would the proposed project expect to have to suspend operations?
20. How would the proposed project deliver water in the summer season when the diversion is occurring during the winter period?
21. How would the proposed project interfere with the navigation of the river and for what period of time?
22. Would the instream facility be visible at low water in a drought year? Would this interfere with navigation, recreation or aesthetics?
23. If the proposed project intends to extract approximately 20,000 acre-feet from the Gualala River each year using water bags that hold 40 acre-feet, then this would require a total of 500 trips to San Diego. At a shipping rate of 9 trips per week, this would require that the shipping operation be conducted over a period of about 56 weeks, or over 12 months per year! Since the proposed project applicant has stated that “surplus” peak flow is not to be stored in the Gualala area, then is the intent of the proposed project to extract water year-round? If not, then what is the duration of operations expected each year how is that calculated and where is the storage?
Environmental Impact
24. What are the significant adverse impacts of constructing the facilities for this proposed project? How would these impacts be mitigated to a level of insignificance?
25. Would the export of water from the Gualala River Estuary cause significant adverse impact, both individually and cumulatively, to the beneficial uses of water for the Gualala River Watershed?
26. Would the results of the “GUALALA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER RIVER ASSESSMENT” Study being conducted by the GRWC be used in the EIR?
27. How would the State and Federal agencies assess the individual and cumulative impacts on listed species that may be adversely impacted by this proposed project? Would an incidental take permit be required for anadromous fish?
28. How would fresh water flow changes in the estuary be assessed for adverse impacts on aquatic species and on salt-water intrusion both instream impacts and adjacent groundwater wells?
29. Does the State agree with the proposed project applicant that the water taken from the alluvium is not replenished by surface water? If so, how is this justified?
30. How would the State determine the minimum peak flows required in the river in order to determine if there is any “surplus” water to be harvested?
31. How would the State determine that the river flow volume is insufficient to divert for this proposed project at any one time; and how would that be monitored and administered?
32. How would the structure of the riverbeds be protected from erosion from building and maintaining the infrastructure?
33. How would the proposed project infrastructure affect recreational activities, such as, fishing, boating and swimming?
34. What wildlife and aquatic species would be affected by the turbidity and sediment related to the proposed project infrastructure?
35. How would the effects of turbidity and sediment related to the infrastructure be mitigated?
36. How would the filters at the intake be maintained and chemically treated?
37. What period of year does “excess” water flow occur? Doesnt this vary each year? How would the State determine how much water is available for export each year?
38. Would the shipping impacts on the environment be considered for adverse impacts to aesthetics, recreation and public health and safety?
39. What additional resources would be needed to service the coastal shipping this proposed project would require, such as, onshore facilities and harbor improvements?
40. How would the diversion of 20,000 acre-feet or more from the Gualala River each year impact the significance on the timing and nature of the opening of the river mouth and on the water quality and impacts on aquatic habitat, the recreational and other beneficial uses of the estuary?
41. What indemnities would the proposed project provide for environmental damage due to failure of tugs, bags and mooring facilities?
42. How would the proposed project mitigate the visual impact from bluff top trails and from the town of Gualala?
43. What is the adverse aesthetic and visual impact from the proposed projects mooring and loading operations from the town of Gualala, the bluffs along Hwy 1, or from the regional park bluffs and beach?
44. Would the proposed project require nighttime illumination and marine hazard warnings, such as foghorns?
45. Would bag deployment and tug operations be conducted at night? If so, how bright would the lights be and how would this adverse visual impact be mitigated.
46. What is the mean time between failures for the proposed projects pump, pipeline, waterbag mooring and towing systems?
47. How would the proposed project mitigate the effects of the proposed projects bag and tug operations and pipeline and mooring facilities on the marine mammals (gray whales, resident harbor seals, etc.) that frequent the near-shore area of Gualala Point Regional Park?
48. How would the proposed northward extension of the National Marine Sanctuary to Cape Mendocino affect the proposed project?
49. How would the proposed project monitor whether the proposed project is having detrimental effects on wildlife or on aquatic life?
50. How would the proposed project cooperate with on-going State and community supported river restoration activities?
51. How would the proposed project change the total hydraulic horsepower of the river system and the end-velocities and velocity patterns at the ocean/river interface?
52. What river sediment transport model is the proposed project using? Has the proposed project evaluated the worst-case conditions for a 100-year storm?
53. The fresh water component of the estuary and near-shore ecology would be altered. How would the State assess the significance of the water quality changes in such parameters as mineral content, suspend sediment, Ph, micro-organisms, etc.
54. If a waterbag burst enroute, would the micro-organisms in the water be distributed to other environments and what impact might this have?
55. Would the alternative project analysis seriously address a conservation program for San Diego and other alternative supply sources, such as desalinization?
56. How would the proposed project safely moor and fill water bags during the winter when quite often seas of 6 to 20+ feet occur along the sandspit at the mouth of the Gualala River?
57. The Gualala Point Regional Park area, including the sandspit that the proposed project proposes to trench through is a federally listed Formerly Used Defense Site with possible live ordnance from aerial and ship bombardment. How would the proposed project warrant that trenching would not set off buried munitions?
58. Gray whales on their northward migrations often come in and swim just off the sandspit and appear to be rolling in the sand. Is the fresh water flow through the sandbar part of what attracts them, and is this something they need to alleviate skin parasite infestations? Regardless, how would the proposed project mooring, bag filling and tug operations avoid interference with the whales?
59. The river mouth sandbar has become denuded of vegetated during the past 100 years and waves now break against the downtown Gualala River bank at times during the winter, and waves also enter the estuary / lagoon and drive kelp, flotsam and jetsam up beyond the Highway 1 bridge. How will the proposed project maintain a clear intake pipe to the diversion pump?
60. A railroad ran for many years along the north bank of the Gualala River, and a boom with associated cribs was built in the estuary lagoon. What measures would the proposed project take to protect these and other historic archaeological structures?
Water Rights
61. How does the State determine that the water the proposed project seeks to appropriate and to extract from the Gualala River is available as unappropriated water?
62. Would adjacent and upstream landowners lose their opportunity for future appropriations for beneficial uses, if this proposed project appropriates all “surplus” peak flow?
63. How does the State justify approving the export of water from the watershed that diminishes the opportunity for landowners in the watershed to their entitlement of beneficial uses of the water?
64. Under what conditions could water rights granted Alaska Water Exports gain precedence over the rights of the Gualala and Sea Ranch water ompanies to expand their service within their current boundaries? Would the build-out of these communities and other areas in the watershed based upon approved Community, Specific and General Plans be considered in the water availability analysis?
65. Are water rights granted in perpetuity?
66. Would the anticipated future needs of existing water rights holders in the watershed have precedence over this proposed projects rights?
67. How does the proposed project establish a baseline above which water is deemed to be excess?
68. If the State approves the proposed project that exports water to other users outside the watershed, how does the State protect the property interests of those landowners in the watershed who at this time do not use all their surface water, riparian or groundwater entitlement, or do not appropriate water from the river watercourses, from the over-appropriation of the water capacity of the watershed? Particularly in drought years or during the low-flow summer period.
69. Has exporting water from other watersheds in California or the Western United States been problematic? What water rights, environmental and economic problems have occurred from water diversion exports out of such watersheds as the Trinity River, the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, the Salton Sea, or the Colorado River?
For purposes of notification of GRWC and if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Douglas Simmonds, GRWC Coordinator at P.O. Box 48, Annapolis, CA 95412, (707) 886-5148 (voice), (707) 886-5155 (fax), e-mail: simmonds@mcn.org
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Simmonds, Coordinator
Gualala River Watershed Council
Enclosure: GUALALA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER RIVER ASSESSMENT, WORK PLAN, June 2002
Cc (without enclosure):
David Colfax, Supervisor
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1090
Ukiah, CA 95482
Mike Reilly, Supervisor
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Rm 100-A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Ron Rolleri, President
Sotoyome RCD
P.O. Box 11526
Santa Rosa, CA 95406
Craig Blencowe, Chairman
Mendocino County RCD
405 South Orchard Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Paul D. Thayer, Executive Officer
State Lands Commission
100 Howe Ave Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
Sara Wan, Chair
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Susan Warner, Executive Director
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Andrea E. Tuttle, Director
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
P.O. Box 94426
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
