DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Sacramento River/Delta North Regional Flood Management Plan July 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Sacramento River/Delta North Regional Flood Management Plan July 2014 Lower Sacramento River/Delta North Regional Flood Management Plan July 2014 Lower Sacramento Delta North Region Regional Flood Management Plan Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ ES-1 Plan Participants ................................................................................................................................. ES-3 FloodSAFE/CVFPP ............................................................................................................................ ES-3 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................. ES-4 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ ES-4 Regional Setting ................................................................................................................ ES-5 Land use and Natural Resources ....................................................................................... ES-6 Flood Management Infrastructure..................................................................................... ES-8 Problem Definition............................................................................................................ ES-8 Regional Improvements and Prioritization ....................................................................... ES-8 Financial Plan.................................................................................................................. ES-11 Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... ES-11 1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Regional Flood Management Plans .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Participants ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 West Side Coordinating Committee .............................................................................. 4 1.2.2 East Side Coordinating Committee ................................................................................ 4 1.2.3 Joint Administration Committee .................................................................................... 4 1.2.4 FloodProtect ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 FloodSAFE .................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan ............................................................................ 6 1.4 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Planning Process ......................................................................................................................8 2.1 Plan Development ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Planning Process ............................................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Focus Areas .................................................................................................................. 10 2.1.4 Deliverables ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Stakeholder Outreach ................................................................................................... 12 3.0 Regional Setting .....................................................................................................................13 3.1 Flood History in the Region ............................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Regional Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Economy ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................ 18 3.2.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics ........................................................................................... 20 Regional Flood Management Plan i Lower Sacramento/Delta North July 2014 Regional Flood Management Plan 3.2.5 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 23 3.2.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 24 3.2.7 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.8 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 25 3.2.9 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................... 26 3.2.10 Risks ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Regional Partners .............................................................................................................................. 30 3.3.1 Jurisdictions ................................................................................................................. 30 3.3.2 Roles and responsibilities ............................................................................................ 32 3.4 Existing Infrastructure and Programs ............................................................................................... 39 3.4.1 Structural ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.4.2 Non-Structural.............................................................................................................. 52 3.4.3 Local Governance ........................................................................................................ 57 4.0 Problem Definition .................................................................................................................58 4.1 General Problems ............................................................................................................................. 58 4.1.1 Flood Management Infrastructure ................................................................................ 58 4.1.2 Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 59 4.1.3 Environmental and Ecosystem ..................................................................................... 60 4.1.4 Agricultural Sustainability ........................................................................................... 62 4.1.5 Funding ........................................................................................................................ 63 4.1.6 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 63 4.1.7 Institutional .................................................................................................................. 64 4.1.8 Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ......................................... 65 4.2 Specific Problems ............................................................................................................................. 67 4.2.1 Urban and Urbanizing .................................................................................................. 67 4.2.2 Small Communities ...................................................................................................... 73 4.2.3 Rural ............................................................................................................................. 85 4.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Opportunities ................................................................... 97 5.0 Regional Improvements.......................................................................................................100 5.1 Solano County Improvements .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8 - General Rural District
    SECTION 8 - GENERAL RURAL DISTRICT SECTION 8 - GENERAL RURAL DISTRICT Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the General Rural District is to provide locations for agriculture, agriculturally- related development, and housing on lots without public sewer or water services. All uses not listed as Permitted Uses, Conditional Use Permits or Interim Use Permits shall not be allowed within the General Rural Zoning District. Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses 1. Agricultural Uses 2. Communication Towers up to 200’ in height (see Section 16.5) 3. Daycare, Family 4. Docks, Temporary 5. Feedlots and/or Manure Storage Areas (Tier 1) meeting the requirements of Section 17, Subd 16 6. Grading, Filling or Excavating Temporary 7. Home Occupation 8. Motor Sport Facilities, Private 9. Private and/or Commercial Kennel (see Ordinance No 134) 10. Single-Family Housing 11. Windpower Management (Hobbyist) Sherburne County Zoning Ordinance Sec 8 General Rural District - 1 - Amended August 2020 SECTION 8 - GENERAL RURAL DISTRICT Subdivision 3. Conditional Uses Land in the General Rural District may be used for any of the following purposes upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Refer to Section 16 for a description of the requirements of each of these Conditional Uses. 1. Aircraft Landing Strip, Private 2. Airport, Public 3. Aquaculture 4. Cemeteries 5. Churches 6. Communication Towers up to 200’ in height (see Section 16.5) 7. Daycare, Commercial 8. Farm Related Business 9. Farm Related Bunkhouse for a Temporary Residence 10. Feedlots and/or Manure Storage Areas (Tier 2 – Tier 5) meeting the requirements of Section17, Subd 16 11. Game Refuge, Private 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Environmental Flows of Putah Creek for Chinook Salmon Reproductive Requirements
    Enhancing environmental flows of Putah Creek for Chinook salmon reproductive requirements Written by: Chan, Brian; Jasper, Chris Reynolds; Stott, Haley Kathryn UC Davis, California ESM 122, Water Science and Management, Section: A02 Abstract: Putah creek, like many of California’s rivers and streams, is highly altered by anthropogenic actions and historically supported large populations of resident and anadromous native fish species. Now its ecosystem dynamics have changed drastically with the Monticello dam, the Solano diversion canal and the leveeing of its banks. Over time the creek has found a balance of habitats for native and non-native fish species that is mainly dictated by species-preferred temperature tolerances (Keirman et. al. 2012). Cooler temperatures and faster flows upstream from Davis prove to be ideal habitats for native species, in particular, the federally endangered Chinook salmon, which is the most widely distributed and most numerous run occurring in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. As water moves downstream, it becomes shallower and warmer, resulting in ideal conditions for non-native species (Winters, 2005). This report analyzes the environmental flows released into putah creek and how much salmon preferred breeding habitat is available from this flow regime based on temperature. Introduction: Figure 1: Teale GIS Solutions Group (1999), US Census Bureau (2002), USGS (1993) [within Winters, 2005] The Putah Creek watershed is an important aspect in the natural, social, and economic livelihoods of the people of Yolo and Solano counties. The Putah Creek watershed begins at the highest point in Lake County, Cobb Mountain, and flows down to the Central Valley where it empties into the Yolo Bypass at near sea level.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley California
    Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley California By F. H. OLMSTED and G. H. DAVIS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1497 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of ff^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director Tlie TT.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 241. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___________________________________________________ -_ 1 Introduction.-.--- .___-___________-___._--.______-----_ 5 Purpose and scope of the investigation.__________________ ______ 5 Location of area__-__-________-____________-_-___-_-__--____-_- 6 Development of ground water___________________-___-__ ___ __ 7 Acknowledgments....-------- ____________ _________________ 8 Well-numbering system..________________________________ _ 9 Geology--__--_--_--__----_--_-----____----_ --_ ___-__-- 10 Geomorphology_____________________________________________ 10 General features _______________________________________ 10 Mountainous region east of the Sacramento Valley...__________ 11 Sierra Nevada_______________________________________ 11 Cascade Range.._____________________-__--_-__-_---- 13 Plains and foothill region on the east side of the Sacramento Valley..__-_________-_.-____.___________ 14 Dissected alluvial uplands west of the Sierra
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Education in Alabama's K-12 Rural Public Schools
    Rural Educator 32(2) Winter 2011 The State of Education in Alabama’s K-12 Rural Public Schools Ronald A. Lindahl Alabama State University The purpose of this study was to compare Alabama’s rural school districts with its city, suburban, and town districts. Descriptive statistics were used for this population study, with effect sizes calculated using Cohen’s d. Findings indicated Alabama’s rural school districts serve slightly less affluent student populations, with a lower percentage of minority students, than their counterparts. They are funded at slightly lower levels than their counterparts in other categories, yet spend approximately the same percentage of their budgets on administration and on instruction. They spend a considerably higher percentage on transportation. Although rural district dropout rates are similar to those of their counterparts, from the third to the eleventh grade, student performance on standardized examinations falls gradually behind that of the students in other locale categories. Keywords: Alabama schools; rural schools; student performance; school funding Alabama is among the 13 states where rural education is 3. To what extent does the socio-economic level of the most important to the overall educational performance of students the districts serve vary by the locale of the the state (Johnson & Strange, 2007, p. i), yet it is among district? the four states least conducive to rural educational 4. To what extent do per-pupil expenditures vary in achievement (p. ii). Clearly, rural education is one relation to the locale of the school district? aspect of the public educational system that merits 5. To what extent do the percentages of funds districts serious attention, particularly in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a Transportation Study
    APPENDIX A Transportation Study Submitted by: 2990 Lava Ridge Court Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 DRAFT OCTOBER 2011 Chapter 4|THE PLAN Exhibit 4-1. Preferred Alternative Plan Prepared for: Old Sacramento State Historic Park General Plan and EIR | Page 4-5 Final Transportation Study for the Old Sacramento State Historic Park and California State Railroad Museum General Plan December 2011 RS10-2810 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 9 Project Area Transportation Facilities ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
    United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fox Meadow Drainage Improvement Project
    VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTH FOX MEADOW STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT In association with WESTCHESTER COUNTY FLOOD MITIGATION PROGRAM Rob DeGiorgio, P.E., CPESC, CPSWQ The Bronx River Watershed Fox Meadow Brook Bronx River Watershed Area in Westchester 48.3 square miles (30,932 acres) 15 Sub-watersheds Percent of undeveloped land in the Watershed 3.3% (0.8 acres in Fox Meadow Brook (FMB) FMB watershed) 928 acres (5.7% of watershed) Bronx River Watershed Fox Meadow Brook George Field Park High School Duck Pond Project Philosophy and Goals •Provide flood mitigation within the Fox Meadow Brook Drainage Basin. •Reduce peak run off rates in the Bronx River Watershed through dry detention storage. •Rehabilitate and preserve natural landscapes and wetlands through invasive species management and re- construction. •Improve water quality. • Petition for and obtain County grant funding to subsidize the project. Village of Scarsdale Fox Meadow Brook Watershed SR-2 BR-4 SR-3 BR-7 BR-8 SR-5 Village of Scarsdale History •In 2009 the Village completed a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. •Critical Bronx River sub drainage basin areas identified inclusive of Fox Meadow Brook (BR-4, BR-7, BR-8). •26 Capital Improvement Projects were identified, several of which comprise the Fox Meadow Detention Improvement Project. •Project included in Village’s Capital Budget. •Project has been reviewed by the NYS DEC. •NYS EFC has approved financing for the project granting Scarsdale a 50% subsidy for their local share of the costs. Village of Scarsdale Site Locations – 7 Segments 7 Project Segments 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Operations Plan and Monitoring Special Study Prepared by the Department of Water Resources and the U.S
    August 25, 2019 Comprehensive Operations Plan and Monitoring Special Study Prepared by the Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation In Accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Estuary—December 12, 2018 This Comprehensive Operations Plan (COP) and Monitoring Special Study (MSS) describes current and potential future actions that fully address the impacts of the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) export operations on water levels and flow conditions that may affect salinity conditions in the southern Delta, including the availability of assimilative capacity for local sources of salinity. The COP includes detailed information regarding the configuration and operations of facilities relied upon in the COP and identifies performance goals for these facilities. Comprehensive Operations Plan Current SWP/CVP Operations Exports The Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) operate the State Water Project and Central Valley Project (collectively Projects), respectively, in compliance with the terms and conditions contained in their water rights permits and licenses issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In December 1999 (and amended in March 2000), the SWRCB issued Water Rights Decision 1641 (D-1641), which amended the associated water rights permits with additional terms and conditions to protect beneficial uses in the Delta. This included assigning responsibility to DWR and Reclamation for meeting specific water quality and flow objectives (DWR, 2006). In addition, DWR and Reclamation must also comply with regulatory requirements, as applicable, contained in, but not limited to: • 2008 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4-6 Hydrology, Water Quality and Hazardous Materials
    Section 4-6 Hydrology, Water Quality and Hazardous Materials This section addresses potential impacts related to hydrology, water quality, and hazardous materials resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Impacts on surface water and groundwater resources that may result from the Proposed Project are identified, and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate for potentially significant impacts on surface water and groundwater resources are described. The potential impacts related to hazardous materials that may exist as a result of the prior farmstead and agricultural use on the Alamo site will also be described. The Proposed Project contains existing agricultural water supply lines. No additional water supply would be required as a result of Project implementation, therefore this issue is not discussed in this section. 4-6.1 STUDY METHODS Methods used to identify and evaluate hydrological resources in the study area consisted of a review of existing documentation. Hazardous materials discussion is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update and Phase II investigation for the Alamo Creek Detention Basin (Dunn Environmental 2010). 4-6.1.1 Regional Setting Vacaville is located in the southern Sacramento Valley at the eastern foot of the Vaca Mountains on east- sloping alluvial fan surfaces that drain to the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River Basin encompasses approximately 26,500 square miles and is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Cascade Range and Trinity Mountains to the north, and the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to the south. Five creeks (Alamo, Ulatis, Gibson Canyon, Sweeney, and Horst Creek) pass through and provide drainage for the Vacaville area.
    [Show full text]
  • Solano 4 Wind Project EIR 8 References Executive
    Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 8 References Executive Summary No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 1, “Introduction” No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 2, “Project Description” California Energy Commission. 2018 (August). Operational Wind Projects, Solano Wind Resource Area, 2018. Map scale 1:24,000. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/wind/WindResourceArea_Solano.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Solano County. 1987 (May). Solano County Wind Turbine Siting Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, CA. U.S. Geological Survey. 2019 (January). U.S. Wind Turbine Database. Available: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#14.02/38.16164/-121.79729. Accessed February 9, 2019. USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” Section 3.1, “Aesthetics” Black & Veatch. 2019 (January 3). Solano Wind Energy Project, Wind Project Shadow Flicker Assessment. California Department of Transportation 2019. Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed March 18, 2019. Federal Aviation Administration. 2018 (August 17). Obstruction Marking and Lighting, including Changes 1 and 2. Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L. Chapter 13, “Marking and Lighting Wind Turbines.” Federal Highway Administration. 2015 (January). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. FHWA-HEP-15-029. Washington, DC. Page 8-1 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. See National Research Council. Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2007 (September). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SMUD Solano Wind Project Phase 3.
    [Show full text]