|
Sonoma County Water Agency Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)
Water Supply and Transmission System Project (WSTSP) September, 1996 The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), called the Water Supply and Transmission System Project (WSTSP), was released in September, 1996. SCWA was applying for increased water diversion and an expansion of their exiting transmission system. The eight volume environmental review document was the outcome of previous project scoping sessions in 1990 and 1993. The SCWA prepared the document as part of an application to the California Division of Water Rights (DWR) for approval of a permit to appropriate additional water from the Russian River. The SCWA Board of Directors (the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors) have the responsibility for certification of the EIR, project approval and mitigation oversight. The SCWA is the lead agency. SCWA operates the Russian River Project, which consists of the storage of water in Lake Mendocino on the East Fork of the Russian River and at Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek. The SCWA rediverts water released from storage at Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. They use a series of pumps at Wohler and Mirabel Park to directly divert water from the Russian River. The pumping capacity of Wohler Collectors No. 1 and 2 is 30 million gallons per day or MGD; the Mirabel Collectors 3, 4 & 5 have intake facilities for 62 MGD. Installation of Wohler Ranney collectors No.1 & 2 were supervised by the Ranney Method Western Corporation in 1958. The Mirabel or Ballard and Meredith collectors were installed by Agency engineers. The Ranney collectors were originally rated at 40 million gallons but due to the river gravel depletion, less water reaches the lateral pipes due to loss of permeability. Lessening of gravel is the result of gravel mining upstream and the reduction of replenishment due to dams upstream stopping the flow of gravel downstream. SCWA operates aqueduct systems which presently serves south Sonoma County and North Marin County. SCWA has permits already approved by the SWRCB. An early water permit right under Decision 1030 included an agreement between SCWA and the Department of Fish & Game (DFG) dated August, 1959 which set the minimum flows as 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) below Coyote Dam; to the lesser of 150 cfs or the inflow to Lake Mendocino at the Forks; and 125 cfs below Mirabel Park. Decision 1416 from 1973 allows storage of 245,000 acre feet per annum (afa) from Dry Creek in Warm Springs Dam (Lake Sonoma) and included an agreement from February, 1970, between SCWA and DFG which basically requires a minimum flow in Dry Creek of 25 cfs from April 1 to November 30, and between 50 cfs and 75 cfs from December 1 to March 31. The export of stored water for use outside the Russian River watershed was made subject to all present and future appropriations for use within the watershed. Decision 1610 was adopted on April 17,1986. SWRCB approved the completion of construction projects by December 1, 1995 and the time to complete beneficial use of water extended to December 1, 1999. It allowed a maximum combined rate and quantity of direct diversion at the Wohler and Mirabel Park pumping facilities should be limited to 180 cfs and 75,000 afa. Stream flow requirements are 25 cfs in East Fork Coyote Dam to confluence of East Fork with Russian River and flows in the Russian river between Dry Creek and the mouth will be a minimum of 125 cfs. Back in 1990, the SCWA proposed five alternatives for a water appropriation EIR. SCWA was to be the Lead Agency and the State Water Board would function as the Responsible Agency, functions specific to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequently, in February, 1993, SCWA began public meetings on their proposed long-range water supply. In scoping sessions that took place the following September, the SCWA sought an additional 45,000 AFY for a total of 120,000 AFY. The original 1993 scoped project and the 1996 proposed project differ in a number of ways. The 1993 project proposed the following alternatives: 1) Increased use of Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino at no cost; The 1996 DEIR proposed to: 1) implement water conservation measures to result in an 6,600 acre-feet per year (AFY) savings of water and expand the education program, Acre feet per year (AFY) or acre feet per annum (AFA) is used to explain the annual delivery limits for water contractors and the maximum amount of water that the SCWA is authorized to store, divert, and re-divert under water right permits. An acre foot is the equivalent of 326,000 gallons. Million gallons per day or mgd is used to explain the maximum monthly delivery limits for water contractors and is based on the capacity of the transmission system, or the highest rate at which water can be moved through the transmission system. To put this in perspective, the SCWA noted that from 1922 to 1992, diversions into the Russian River watershed averaged 159,000 AFY from the Eel River. In 1993, they estimated Russian River water demand to total 176,646 AFY with 141,716 for Urban demand and 34,930 for Agricultural demand in a normal year. Different source estimates state that the total flow of the Russian River, with rainfall runoff and inflow, is either 1,900,000 AFA to 4-5 million AFA, or 250,000 AFA to 2.5 million AFA. The 1996 DEIR includes growth and cumulative impacts and mitigation measures for the entire project at the "program" level. In addition, the proposed project contains elements reviewed at the "project" level. If the project is been approved, the components of the project would also be approved at the project level and no further environmental documentation would be required. CEQA & Cumulative Impacts Special attention should be given to the use of the terms "Project" and Program" in describing levels of impact and how this is used or misused to determine cumulative impacts. Program level is equated to general impacts of providing water supply over an extended period of time and "some" Project level impacts are for constructing water supply and transmission system facilities. Under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, in Section 15161, a Project EIR is "The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction and operation." In Section 15165, CEQA states, "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed a part of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative effect." Cumulative effects are defined in CEQA Section 15355 as "Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA states that "The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects...The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." It is interesting to note where and how the project is broken down into different components with environmental evaluation to be performed at a later date. Some portions of the project will be designed later with a pending identification of environmental impacts. It is questionable whether or not full cumulative impacts have been addressed appropriately and if therefore there would be adequate mitigation measures. The DEIR document is a program level EIR because it addresses the general impacts of providing a water supply over an extended time period and a project level EIR for constructing water supply and transmission system facilities (Vol I. Pg.I-3). Further discussion shows that the EIR discusses Program Level environmental impacts for growth and cumulative impacts. Curiously, the document states that several aspects of the proposed project have been described at the Project Level in Chapter 4 and the "the following components could be approved on the project level…unless a subsequent environmental document is required by Sections 15162 or 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines." (Pg 4-38) Subsequent EIRs are discussed in CEQA Section 15162. Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless 1) subsequent changes are proposed involving new significant environmental impacts, 2) substantial changes occur such as deterioration of air quality where the project will be located or 3) new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. An addendum to an EIR is discussed in CEQA Section 15164 whereby the Lead or Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum if 1) none of the conditions in 15162 have occurred, 2) only minor changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate, or 3) the changes do not raise important new issues. The DEIR goes on to concede that "Several aspects of the Transmission System Component of the project will need future environmental review in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15168." Later in Section 7-35, "Transmission System Alternatives" the Agency states that the diversion alternatives are the multiple wells and/or Ranney Collectors used to extract more Russian River water at the Wohler/Mirabel sites. CEQA Section 15168 addresses the scope of a Program EIR and that subsequent activities would need a new Initial Study leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. It is questionable whether the impacts from this project, as it compounds the effects of prior projects by the SCWA (and other water appropriators), addressed the cumulative effects on the watershed, including it's inhabitants. Project Scope The DEIR proposed the use of components that would be "mixed and matched" to design a project. Components are combined to create optional Alternatives that make up the proposed Project. The four components would be:
Project Components: In order to understand the project scope, you need to understand the Project Components. Chapter 7 of the SCWA DEIR evaluates four water supply components as "single-component" alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, alternatives for the expansion of the Agency's transmission system and education program study sites are also evaluated. Before addressing the main Project Alternatives, let's review the components as they are summarized below. I. Water Conservation Component: The SCWA selected Program One because the Advisory Service is essentially already in place, and it was deemed unlikely that Program Two would be accepted by the general public. A. Program One - This component would implement eleven selected Best Management Practices (BMPs) including water audits, metering, landscape/irrigation incentives, landscape ordinances, and toilet/shower replacement. Projected to save 6,600 AFY. B. Program Two - This would be the same as Program One with the addition of replacement for washing machines and dishwashers, and an irrigation advisory service. Projected to save 9,200 AFY. Among the alternatives, the Water Conservation Alternative (either Program One or Program Two) would be the environmentally superior alternative; however, this alternative "would not meet the project objective because it could not meet the defined future needs in the Agency's service area." As part of the Water Conservation Component, the SCWA would select a Water Education Program Alternative. Water Education Program Alternatives The SCWA is proposing to expand its water education program to include a field study site (DEIR Chapter 4.) Alternative locations were assessed, however, costs per Alternative were not included. A. Field Study Site Alternative 1 (The Preferred Field Study site) - This alternative would use the Agency's property in the Wohler area adjacent to the Russian river and north of the Wohler Bridge, approximately 10 miles northwest of the City of Santa Rosa. Minimal improvements would be needed including a small building or portable trailer for classroom and restroom facilities. Class curriculum would be about water resources and local water supply facilities, onsite pond (former gravel pit) and natural wetlands and riverine ecosystems. B. Field Study Site Alternative 2 - This alternative would use Spring Lake Park in the City of Santa Rosa, which is a flood control and recreation facility owned by the SCWA. Maintenance and Operation of the recreational aspects of the park are under contract with the SCWA by the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. Existing facilities include a 2,000 sq. ft. building and amphitheater, in addition to the lake, hiking trails, campgrounds and picnic tables. The building includes solar heating and a passive cooling system. Potential studies could include aquatic and terrestrial plants and wildlife habitats around the lake, biological functions of oak woodlands, and the operation of Spring Lake for flood control. C. Field Study Site Alternative 3 - This alternative would require acquisition of land at the Lazy W Ranch, owned by a third generation family who resides there today. The proposed study site are on parcels located northwest of the Wohler field study site on the west side of the Russian River. It would require the same facilities as Alternative 1 and would be visible from Westside Road. One Ranney collector, #7, and access roads would be constructed on this site. Construction would take two years to complete. D. Field Study Site Alternative 4 - This alternative would use the SCWA's property in the Mirabel area approximately one mile south of the Wohler Bridge. It would require the same facilities as Alternative 1. Class curriculums would include the use of three Ranney collectors, the infiltration ponds and the inflatable diversion dam, however the site has very limited ecological or biological features and the daily operations may not be compatible with an educational program. II. Increased Water Diversion - Russian River Project Component: The Russian River Project (DEIR Chapter 3) is the coordinated operation of the Coyote Valley Dam/Lake Mendocino and Warm Springs Dam/Lake Sonoma. The operational criteria which controls water releases from both lakes would remain the same (DEIR Chapter 4 & Appendix J.) Releases from Lake Mendocino would remain the same. Releases from Lake Sonoma would be increased up to 32,000 AFY. This is expected to result in a potential decrease in the lake level at Lake Sonoma of an average of 33 feet two out of every three years, with the third year being greater than 33 feet. (Depths could vary from 434 feet mean sea level or MSL down to 346 MSL.) Due to increased diversion, it is projected that average dry season flows (June through October) downstream of Mirabel would decrease from 248 cfs to 199 cfs. This is still within the range set by the Division of Water Rights (DWR) in Decision 1610 for a prior SCWA permit that stipulates a minimum flow of 125 cfs at Mirabel. The diversion amounts would be in addition to the 75,000 AFY the SCWA is currently permitted to divert, bringing the total diversion to 107,000 AFY. This would require changes in the transmission system with different diversion facilities, pipelines, tanks and booster pump stations. Without curtailment of water use, due to drought, this component could be used for up to 120,000 AFY. This component would cost $117 million ($100 million is already owed the Federal Government for use of 212,000 AF of water supply storage in Lake Sonoma and is not included.) III. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Component; Transmission System Alternatives & Water Production Facilities (Diversion Alternatives) The diversion alternatives described below would be necessary to divert water from under the Russian River for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) components in the proposed project. The facilities would be located in the Wohler area that is adjacent to the Russian River and north of the Wohler Bridge. The diversion would be dependent on induced infiltration which occurs when a well lowers the ground water level beneath a stream bed or pond which causes the water to move downwards into the aquifer. The development of either conventional wells or additional Ranney collectors would be sized for a total capacity of 66 mgd. The total of 66 mgd includes the increased capacity of 57 mgd and an additional 9 mgd that was previously approved to restore capacity loss at the existing Wohler Collectors. The SCWA currently can extract at a rate of 92 mgd and the proposed project increase of 57 mgd would make a total of 149 mgd (See Appendix O in DEIR.) The SCWA has determined that Diversion Alternative 1A is the environmentally superior diversion alternative because it would have less impact on vegetation and wildlife habitat due to less excavation. A. Diversion Alternative 1: (The Preferred Alternative) - Ranney Collector Wells Without Infiltration Ponds (No Figure) This alternative would include three or four Ranney collectors (#6, 7 & 8 Collectors) at or near the Wohler site. The current area would be excavated, removing all riparian vegetation, and the collectors would be placed on a built-up earthen mound with three areas excavated to create shallow depressions with berms in the flood plain terrace. This alternative would require acquisition of approximately 45 acres. The cost would be approximately $17 million. B. Diversion Alternative 1A: Ranney - Ranney Collector Wells Without Infiltration Ponds (Pump house on Caisson) This alternative is identical to Alternative 1 except that the Ranney collector pump houses would only be placed on the collector well caissons (the cylindrical concrete housing for the wells.) This alternative does not include the excavation areas in Alternative 1 and would not be stabilized against earthquakes by a built-up earthen mound. There was no estimation of cost. C. Diversion Alternative 2: Conventional Wells (DEIR Figure 7-C) This alternative would use approximately #20 high-capacity, vertical wells. About half the wells would be located on current Agency property at Wohler on the east side of the River, and half on the west side ringing the Lazy W Ranch and the Westside Farm, upstream of the Wohler site. The alternative would require approximately 70 acres. The wells would be about 400 feet apart and approximately 100 to 500 feet from the River. This Alternative's design and construction costs would be $16 million and would increase power consumption above the current costs of $1.5 million per year D. Diversion Alternative 3: Three Ranney Collectors with Infiltration Ponds (DEIR Figures 4-H, 4-J & 7-D) Three Ranney collectors (#6, 7 & 8) and infiltration ponds would be located on SCWA's property at Wohler and would be evenly spaced around the outside curve on the east side bank, north of the Wohler Maintenance Yard. The collectors would be located on built-up mounds and the diked ponds would cover approximately 20 acres excavated to a depth of approximately 15 feet. It would require clearing approximately 40 acres of the 55 acres of riparian vegetation now on site. An additional inflatable dam would be used similar to the current dam. Ponds would need to be drained and scraped to retain permeability, as are current ponds. De-watering would be accomplished by constructing cofferdams upstream and downstream and excavating a new diversion channel around the dam abutments to pass flows during construction. The dam would raise the water level approximately 10 feet and would create a pool that would extend for several thousand feet upstream of the dam. Canoers would have to portage around the diversion dam. Underground pipelines would be used to connect to the water transmission pipelines. A larger substation would be built in the Wohler maintenance yard and the PG&E smaller substation would be removed. A chlorination treatment building would be constructed, also. This Alternative's design and construction costs are approximately $33 million. Ground Water Resources - Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) The ASR component would utilize a land area roughly the shape of the State of California with the "Oregon" border running along Guerneville Road, and the "Mexican" border running along Todd Road. The "Pacific Ocean" side would follow Highway 116, and the "Nevada" border would run from Todd Road at a diagonal, over Highway 12, then parallel with Fulton Road. Water would be pumped from the Russian River using the Russian River - Cotati Intertie pipeline to this specified ground water area in the Santa Rosa Plain. Water would be diverted at a maximum rate of 85 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 55 million gallons per day (mgd) when the Russian River exceeds a flow rate of 125 cfs during the period from November to May according to the description on page 7-10 of the DEIR. (In a different description on pages 2-4 & 4-17, the DEIR states water would be diverted at a maximum rate of 31 cfs or 20 mgd at times when the flow in the Russian River exceeds 231 cfs during the period from November to May.) To take advantage of increased withdrawal during high-water seasons, there would be a diversion capacity of 65 mgd that would require four new Ranney collectors. New wells would be needed for both injection and extraction from the aquifer in the Santa Rosa Plain. Approximately 20 to 25 wells would be constructed with vertical turbine pumps to inject and extract water from the aquifer and would have a total capacity of 44 mgd. They would have the capacity to inject 1 mgd and to extract 2 mgd. Each of the 25 wells would require two or three observation wells to monitor ground water levels, to monitor water quality and to prevent land subsidence. This would raise the number of wells to potentially 100 (25 wells plus 3 observation wells each or 25 plus 75.) Each ASR well and pump would be housed in an insulated building 20 feet long by 20 feet wide by 15 feet high. This component would also include treatment to remove the naturally occurring hydrogen sulfide odor. Chlorination and pH control would be necessary. Two five-million gallon tanks would be needed to store treated water plus additional pumping stations and electricity would be needed. Access roads to each well would also be needed and would be surfaced with shale. Impacts of the ASR component have been identified at the project level with the exception of Collector #9 that will be determined after Collectors # 6, 7, & 8 are constructed. Collector #9 will be subject to future project level environmental review. (Collector #9 would be on the Anderson Property at APN parcels 110-220-09,10, &14 south of the Wohler Bridge.) Impacts of the ASR Water Production Facilities in the Santa Rosa Plain have been identified at the program level because the design and location of the facilities is conceptual and will be subject to future project level review. The use of ASR has a potential for land subsidence. Ground water levels would lowered from 100 to 260 feet and would de-water existing domestic wells. High injection rates could cause higher ground water levels. There is the potential for liquefaction and induced seismicity. There would be an increase in noise, more land right-of-way acquisition, and more energy use. Costs, excluding the land acquisition, would be $215 million. Ground Water Resources - Conventional Wells This component would also use the ground water of the Santa Rosa Plain. (Ground water alternatives were assessed in the hydrogeologic assessment contained in Appendix P of the DEIR.) This alternative would need 28 wells with a pumping rate of 2 mgd per well. Again, the wells would each need a pump motor in an insulated building, the same size as for the ASR wells. Water would be piped to one of two treatment sites for removal of hydrogen sulfide odor, plus treatment with chlorine and with caustic soda or lye for pH corrosion control. Also, two five-million gallon water tanks would be used to store the water. Finally, two booster pump stations with four pumps would be included. There is a potential for land subsidence. Ground water levels would be lowered from 200 to 520 feet and de-watering would occur to existing domestic wells. There would be an increase in noise, more land right-of-way acquisition, and more energy use. Costs, excluding the land acquisition, would be $135 million. Part of the ASR component would be new power lines because of the need for increased electrical power. The alternatives for power are: Power line Alternative Routes (Figure 7-E) - 60 Kilovolts (kv) This component includes a 60 kilovolts (kv or 1,000 volt) power line to be installed to transmit electricity from the existing PG&E power lines to the proposed Mirabel substation. Permanent 50-foot wide easements would need to be acquired for pipeline and power line rights-of-way across private properties. No alternative costs were outlined. A. Power line Alternative 1 (The Proposed Route) The route would begin on Agency property on River Road and extend northwest, crossing Mark West Creek, the Russian River, infiltration ponds and connect to the proposed Mirabel substation. Power poles would be installed on existing Agency right-of-way and would 25 poles approximately 300 feet apart. Safety balls would be suspended from the line where it crosses the Russian River. B. Power line Alternative 2 The route would begin north of River Road and west of Wohler Road and follow a property boundary line along a vineyard and then cross the Russian River and from there follow the same route as Alternative 1. This route would use approximately 17-22 power poles and be a height of 50 to 125 feet in order to clear flood stages. Multi-colored safety balls would be used over the Russian River. C. Power Line Alternative 3 This route would begin near Wohler Bridge and then would cross the Russian River and go south along the levee road. It would use approximately 22 to 27 poles and range in height from 50 to 125 feet in height. Safety balls would be used where it crosses the Russian River. IV. Expanded and revised operation of the Transmission System (water production facilities at the Russian River - except Collector No. 9) Four major water transmission pipelines are proposed They would run parallel to existing pipelines. Pipeline construction would involve the underground installation of approximately 264,000 feet of 18 to 54 inch steel pipe. Alternative routes could be evaluated in future environmental documents. Impacts of pipelines, tanks and booster pump stations have been identified at the program level, with the exception of Kawana Springs tank No. 2, and these facilities will be subject to future project level environmental review. Four pipelines proposed are described as follows. (In addition, the pipeline for connecting Ranney Collectors 6, 7, 8 & 9 would generally run parallel to the Russian River to connect facilities on each side of the river and would cross under the river.) No specific costs were indicated.
Water Storage Tank Facilities (Figure 4-F) An additional 55.5 million gallons of storage would be needed for the proposed project. The SCWA currently has 16 water storage tanks with capacity for 108.8 million gallons. Three to five new steel water storage tanks would be constructed, operated and maintained to provide adequate water storage along the water transmission system. Tank sites would include secondary storage tanks to allow the removal of at least one tank for servicing. Construction of water storage tanks would be triggered whenever storage in the transmission system is less than 1.5 times the average daily use during the peak month. Approximately 3 to 15 acres of land would need to be acquired in fee for the proposed Cotati tank(s) and for Kastania Tank No. 2. Actual right-of-way for roads will be determined in the future, and will be described in future environmental documents in project level detail. No specific costs were associated with the facilities. Locations of the proposed tanks would be as follows:
The Kawana Springs alternatives are:
Booster Pump Stations (DEIR Figure 4-F) The proposed project includes the construction of a Kawana Booster Pump Station and Cotati-Kastania Booster Pump Station and modification of the existing Sonoma Booster Pump Station. The three booster pump stations are to be constructed, operated and maintained as part of the Transmission System Component of the Water Supply and Transmission System Project. Alternatives for these facilities, including locations and sizes, will be evaluated in future environmental documents in project level detail. No costs were specified. That concludes the project components and their associated alternatives. The SCWA identified 28 conceptual water supply alternatives (Preliminary Report) and selected five alternatives to evaluate, in addition to the No Project Alternative. Preferred Project - Alternative A-1 The SCWA identified Alternative C-1 as the environmentally superior water supply alternative that would meet the project objective. However, the SCWA preferred alternative is Alternative A-1. The "No Project" alternative would be the environmentally superior water supply alternative since no new facilities would be constructed, however, the SCWA also selected an environmentally superior alternative from the other alternatives, "as required by CEQA." A summary of the Alternatives follows. Alternative A-1 (The Proposed Project)
Alternative B-1
Alternative C-1
Alternative D-1
Alternative E-1
No Project
The 1996 Project proposed to begin with the development of Aquifer Storage & Recovery emergency wells in 1997 and end with the construction of the Cotati Tank in 2018 (See Table 4-C and Appendix H in the DEIR.) Environmental Impacts: Significant and Unavoidable Listed below are the impacts designated in the DEIR as significant and unavoidable that must be addressed through mitigation requirements. Special-status species are the Russian River tulle perch, northern red-legged and foothill yellow-legged frogs, northwestern pond turtle and Endangered Species Act listed threatened Steelhead trout and Coho salmon. 1. Berms and excavation areas for water production facilities at the Russian River would result in a permanent change in topography. 2. The project would result in the use of large amounts of water. 3. Construction of water production facilities at the Russian River would result in impacts to plant communities and wildlife habitat. 4. Construction activities and equipment, together with an increased human presence, would result in impacts to wildlife species. 5. During critically dry years, cold water storage in Lake Sonoma would be depleted during late summer and early fall, resulting in an impact to rainbow trout. 6. Construction activities, equipment and pumps for the transmission system facilities would generate noise in the project area. 7. Collectors No. 7 and No. 8 and appurtenances would result in changes to existing land uses. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would result in changes to land uses and in the loss of approximately 45 acres of prime agricultural land. 8. Power poles and colored safety balls on the power line crossing the Russian River would impact the visual quality of the area. 9. The project would result in an increase in energy use. 10. Construction activities for ASR water production facilities would result in impacts to visual quality. 11. Construction activities, changes in topography, structures and some appurtenances for transmission system facilities would result in impacts to visual quality. 12. Increased releases from Lake Sonoma would result in an increased number of months that the Warm Springs ski area and the Yorty Creek Boat Ramp at Lake Sonoma would be closed. 13. Increased releases from Lake Sonoma would result in impacts to the operation of the Lake Sonoma Marina. 14. During critically dry years, increased releases from Lake Sonoma would result in reduced fishing opportunities for rainbow trout. 15. Construction activities in the Wohler area would disrupt recreational activities in the area throughout the construction period. Commentary on the DEIR Public reaction to the released DEIR resulted in the following reactions:
The proposed project would effect the property at Westside Farms. Ron and Pamela Kaiser (not related to the Kaiser Sand & Gravel Co.) are the owners of the Westside Farm famous to local families and schools as the place that provides the opportunity to visit a working farm. They could potentially lose 23 acres of their vineyard land (a neighbor could lose 43) to the proposed expansion plans of the SCWA. Ron Kaiser had attended the scoping session for the original proposed project but when a package was delivered to his farm, holding the eight volumes of the DEIR for the SCWA, was the first time that agricultural land condemnation had been broached. The Kaisers contacted then Board of Supervisor, Ernie Carpenter, (the Board of Supervisors are the Board of Directors of the Water Agency) and Supervisor Carpenter was taken aback, stating, he had no idea what the Agency was planning. The Kaisers feel that the project is an intensive industrial use that intrudes into an agricultural district. It is in violation of the County General Plan viewshed protecting the Russian River area. Ron states, "I have been at the Agency's Mirabel Area downstream of us. It is a blighted wasteland. They say in their DEIR that they will plant vegetation in the riparian area, but they were supposed to do that in the Mirabel site and never have. I believe what they do and not what they say." The Kaiser's are personally effected, but they state, "This is wrong from a bigger issue viewpoint, not just from our own as effected landowners. They have not selected the alternative with the least impact; it doesn't even make sense financially." The impacts on farming land were a major part of public comments on the project. Comments on the DEIR also addressed gravel mining. The SCWA is supposed to perform oversight and advisory functions in the monitoring of gravel removal from the instream and terrace mining on the Russian River. Due to past mining, the Agency has been compromised in its ability to provide drinking water without expensive operation and maintenance costs. Now, the current facilities at Mirabel and Wohler will be expanded even closer to 80 foot deep terrace pits lining the Russian River. The proposed new collectors will be located near levees that could be breached during floods, causing a devastating downcutting of the Russian River bed. SCWA withdraws water from under the Russian River through the use of Ranney collectors. Two are located approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Wohler) and three are located on the north bank of the River near the confluence with the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Mirabel.) Collector 5 is located about 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence, Collector 4 is a few hundred feet downstream of the confluence and Collector 3 is located approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the confluence. Collector 5 is the only intake collector that is under the influence of surface water. The Agency collectors are at River Mile 25 downstream from five miles of gravel pits including the Basalt pit, Grace ranch Pit, Unnamed Pit, Piombo Pit, Richardson/Argonaut Pit, Passalaqua Pit, Doyle Pit, Hopkins pit, and the McLaughlin, Wilson and Benoist Pits. In addition, there are other acres of proposed terrace mining including the Syar 145 acres at River Mile 30, Syar 127 acres at River Mile 29, Syar 73 acres at River Mile 28, Kaiser 63 acres across the rive at River mile 28, Kaiser 27 acres on the same side at River Mile 27, and Kaiser's 21 acres at River Mile 25. Kaiser Gravel Mining Kaiser Sand & Gravel Company, holders of vested mining rights, has applied for a reclamation plan to mitigate the digging of large pits along the Russian River upstream of the Wohler Bridge and the SCWA collector wells. The pits they must mitigate are the McLaughlin, Wilson and Benoist Pits. They have a conceptual project called the "Windsor Lakes" proposing to create a riverside lake that would be available for boating uses. But if they could offload their current pits to some willing buyer, then they would potentially no longer be responsible for reclamation, the buyer would. In response to Kaiser's May, 1996 application for a Use Permit to mine, County Counsel has stipulated that there is to be a filling of the existing Benoist breach and Kaiser must submit a bond equal to $366,000, estimated to be the cost of repairs for two existing levee breaches. Kaiser is in an opportunistic position to offer their 21 acre plant site to a willing buyer, whether it be the SCWA for water extraction or the City of Santa Rosa for wastewater disposal. Benoist Pit Breach: In March, 1995, Joan Florsheim, Ph.D and Philip Williams, Ph.D. of Philip Williams & Assoc., Ltd., wrote a summary at the request of the California State Coastal Conservancy, in order to document the effects of the January 1995 flood on the Russian River. They found, "Water flowed over the barrier between the Wilson and the Benoist Pit, and from the Benoist Pit into the small tributary south of the pit, and then into the Russian River. The flow breached the strip of land between the Benoist Pit and the tributary. Erosional scarps occurred on the river side of the strip of land separating the river from the Benoist Pit." They observed that there is a pattern of breaches and flow over the gravel extraction pits illustrating the vulnerability of the river to changes during large floods; that the strip of land that separates the river from the pits is not an engineered structure. They also noted that the threat of pit capture, during a larger flood or a flood of longer duration could potentially erode and make deeper breaches than what occurred in 1995. In particular, the threat is the greatest on the outside of meanders or in locations historically occupied by the river. Both of which occurs at the Benoist/Wilson pit site. This is the same area that experienced a breach in 1993. Why would the SCWA want to locate their intake wells at the point in the river identified as the place most likely to have a pit breach? A pit capture would cause quick and devastating down cutting upstream and downstream as the river tries to reach equilibrium between it's natural river bottom and the bottom of 60-80 foot pits. 1994 Aggregate Resource Management (ARM) Plan Recreation Site The ARM plan identified the Kaiser south terrace pit area, including the Wilson, McLaughlin and Benoist pits and Kaiser's processing plant site, as an appropriate location for future public recreation use. It found the site to be well located to serve the regions, connected with other publicly-owned lands, and minimized conflicts with the valley's prime vineyard operations. The action that is to be taken is the Board of Supervisors will direct the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department to prepare a needs assessment, site evaluation, and feasibility study to development a regional park on the 260 acre pits on the east side of the river. The County Open Space map designates the Russian River as a Waterway Trail and designates only two general locations for future public parks in the terrace gravel mining area, one near Wohler Bridge. The DEIR did not address this impact to future recreation use. Santa Rosa Wastewater DEIR/EIS In the Santa Rosa Wastewater DEIR/EIS released in July, 1996, which addressed the proposed disposal/reuse of the City of Santa Rosa (and other cities) wastewater, there is an alternative called Alternative 5A. This alternative proposes releases of wastewater into the Russian River at a maximum 20% rate of discharge of high water, winter flows. The location for the pipeline and the Outfall Structure is at the Kaiser Sand & Gravel quarry area on the east bank of the Russian River located approximately 0.75 miles west of Eastside Road. This would be approximately two miles upstream of the current SCWA water supply intakes (See the SR Wastewater DEIR/EIS Figure 3.1-8 and Appendix D) and about 4 miles upstream of the river's confluence with the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The structure would consist of a vault with a valve to maintain pressure in the pipeline, 40 feet of 54-inch pipe to stabilize flow downstream of the valve, a concrete baffle outlet structure to anchor the pipe and reduce foaming and turbulence prior to discharge to the river, a flap on the end of the discharge pipe; and concrete erosion control wings and ramp into the river channel. The bank and structure stabilization measure would include an 100-foot by 100-foot permanent construction. The site was selected along a reach they thought had relatively stable banks and where the direction of river flow is parallel to the bank so that there would be "minimal tendency for bank erosion." The outlet will be located within the 100-year flood plain and be designed for submergence with the capability to withstand increased scouring velocities during floods. The SCWA DEIR did not address the Santa Rosa Wastewater DEIR/EIS even though both were running parallel for a number of years. Summary The SCWA DEIR has been written in order to expand the SCWA's current diverted/rediverted water quantity. The use of ground water aquifer in the Santa Rosa Plain is presumed to use retrieved water from earlier injections but might include additional ground water removal. With the use of condemnation, this project will take not only water away from future agricultural use but now even the prime agricultural land itself. There has been a response to the public request for conservation by the Agency, but some would see it has a half-hearted attempt. The study of the impacts to fisheries only assesses impacts back to 1923 and does not address the normal, native species habitat, nor the impacts from the artificial, year round, warm water flows nor reduction of gravels through the introduction of three major dams. It does not address the cumulative impacts on the endangered species, the steelhead and the coho salmon. It completely side steps the issue of continued impacts from gravel mining and even places potential well and collector sites in area of known risk caused by terrace pit mining. Again, this DEIR addresses population growth based on General Plans for modeling projected needs but loses sight of the issue of what it will do in the event of a worst-case scenario drought with increased pressure from added population. Response to Comments On December 10, 1996, the Board of Directors of SCWA published Minute Order No. 96-1620 directing the General Manager to respond to the Public Comments on the DEIR. The first item was to reduce impacts on agricultural lands and assess alternative diversion site on Kaiser Sand and Gravel property. The Board of Directors also directed the General Manager to evaluate an increase, beyond one year, in the monitoring period of wells adjacent to proposed Ranney Collectors. Also the Board asked for an additional evaluation of potential decreases in Potter Valley Project (PVP) diversions from the Eel River because, as a Program EIR, the overall or cumulative impacts should be addressed. |