Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Submitted to: Yuba County IRWM Plan Water Management Group
Date: February 2008 Project No: 054310
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Abbreviations and Acronyms i
Executive Summary ES-1
1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need of Yuba County IRWM Plan 1-1 1.3 Participating Agencies 1-3 1.3.1 Regional Agency 1-4 1.3.2 Regional Water Management Group 1-4 1.4 Related Regional Water Management Activities 1-6 1.4.1 Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 1-6 1.4.2 Cosumnes, American, Bear, Yuba IRWMP 1-7 1.5 Planning Horizon 1-8 1.6 Organization of the Report 1-9 1.7 Guide to How the Yuba County IRWM Plan Meets the State Standards 1-10
2 Description of the Region 2-1 2.1 Plan Area 2-1 2.1.1 Valley Floor Area 2-1 2.1.2 Foothill and Mountain Areas 2-3 2.1.3 Appropriateness for Yuba County IRWM Plan 2-3 2.1.4 Economic Conditions and Trends, Disadvantaged Communities, and Cultural Makeup 2-4 2.1.5 Ecological and Environmental Considerations 2-6 2.2 Planning Subareas 2-6 2.3 Water and Land Management Agencies 2-9 2.3.1 Yuba County Water Agency 2-9 2.3.2 Browns Valley Irrigation District 2-12 2.3.3 Ramirez Water District 2-12 2.3.4 Cordua Irrigation District 2-14 2.3.5 Hallwood Irrigation Company 2-14 2.3.6 Brophy Water District 2-14 2.3.7 South Yuba Water District 2-15 2.3.8 Dry Creek Mutual Water Company 2-15
i Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
2.3.9 Wheatland Water District 2-15 2.3.10 Yuba County 2-16 2.3.11 Yuba County Resource Conservation District 2-16 2.3.12 City of Marysville 2-17 2.3.13 City of Wheatland 2-17 2.3.14 Linda County Water District 2-18 2.3.15 Olivehurst Public Utility District 2-18 2.3.16 North Yuba Water District 2-18 2.3.17 Camp Far West Irrigation District 2-19 2.3.18 Plumas Mutual Water Company 2-20 2.3.19 Beale Air Force Base 2-20 2.3.20 RD 784 2-20 2.3.21 RD 10 2-21 2.3.22 RD 2103 2-21 2.3.23 RD 817 2-21 2.3.24 Marysville Levee Commission 2-21 2.3.25 Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority 2-21 2.3.26 Yuba City 2-22 2.3.27 River Highlands Community Services District 2-22
3 Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption 3-1 3.1 Stakeholder Involvement 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Water Management Group 3-2 3.1.2 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies 3-3 3.2 Public Outreach 3-5 3.3 Plan Preparation 3-6 3.4 Public Hearings, Meetings, and Process for Adoption 3-7
4 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues 4-1 4.1 Surface Water Resources 4-1 4.1.1 Yuba River 4-2 4.1.1.1 Yuba River Surface Water Facilities 4-3 4.1.1.2 Yuba River Water Supply and Fisheries Operations 4-7 4.1.1.3 Yuba River Water Supplies 4-7 4.1.1.4 YCWA Water Rights 4-8 4.1.1.5 YCWA Member Units Water Contracts 4-8 4.1.2 Other Rivers in Yuba County 4-9 4.1.2.1 Feather River and Lake Oroville 4-10 4.1.2.2 Honcut Creek 4-10 4.1.2.3 Bear River 4-10 4.1.3 History of Yuba County Floods 4-11 4.1.3.1 Yuba and Feather Levees 4-13 4.1.3.2 Flood Channel Capacities 4-15 ii Table of Contents
4.2 Groundwater Resources 4-16 4.2.1 Alluvial Groundwater Basins 4-17 4.2.1.1 2004 Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction 4-18 4.2.1.2 Groundwater Level Trends 4-20 4.2.1.3 Groundwater Storage 4-20 4.2.1.4 Groundwater Quality 4-21 4.2.2 Foothill and Mountain Area Groundwater Resources 4-22 4.3 Water Demands, Supplies, and Budget 4-22 4.3.1 Land Use Analysis Methodology 4-23 4.3.2 Land Use Conditions 4-24 4.3.2.1 Existing Land Use Conditions (2005) 4-24 4.3.2.2 Near-Term Future Land Use Conditions (2015) 4-25 4.3.2.3 Buildout 2030 Land Use Conditions 4-27 4.3.3 Water Use Conditions 4-28 4.3.3.1 Existing Water Use Conditions 4-28 4.3.4 Future Water Use Conditions (2015) 4-30 4.3.4.1 Agricultural Water Uses 4-31 4.3.4.2 Urban Water Uses 4-31 4.3.5 Change in Water Use Conditions (2015 less 2005) 4-31 4.3.6 Buildout 2030 Water Use Conditions 4-33 4.3.6.1 Agricultural Water Use 4-33 4.3.6.2 Urban Water Use 4-33 4.4 Regional Water Management Issues 4-33 4.4.1 Flood Management Issues 4-34 4.4.1.1 Local Flood Management Activities 4-35 4.4.1.2 Integration with Regional and State Efforts 4-41 4.4.2 Water Supply Reliability Issues 4-44 4.4.2.1 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord 4-45 4.4.3 Ecosystem Preservation and Enhancement 4-47 4.4.3.1 Fishery and Riparian Resources 4-48 4.4.3.2 Habitats, Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife 4-51 4.4.3.3 Other Foundational Planning Efforts 4-52 4.4.4 Public Access and Recreation 4-55 4.4.4.1 Existing Yuba River Recreational Facilities 4-55 4.4.4.2 Existing Bear River Recreational Facilities 4-59 4.4.4.3 Existing Feather River Recreational Facilities 4-59 4.4.4.4 Agencies with Recreation and Public Access Management Responsibilities 4-60
5 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities 5-1 5.1 Process of Determination of Goals and Objectives 5-1
iii Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
5.2 Goals and Objectives 5-2 5.2.1 Flood Management Goals and Objectives 5-2 5.2.1.1 Flood Management Goals 5-3 5.2.1.2 Flood Management Objectives 5-3 5.2.2 Water Supply Reliability Goals and Objectives 5-4 5.2.2.1 Water Supply Reliability Goal 5-5 5.2.2.2 Water Supply Reliability Objectives 5-5 5.2.3 Groundwater Management Objective 5-5 5.2.3.1 Groundwater Management Goal 5-6 5.2.3.2 Groundwater Management Objectives 5-6 5.2.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Goals and Objectives 5-7 5.2.4.1 Water Quality Goal 5-7 5.2.4.2 Water Quality Improvement Objectives 5-8 5.2.5 Ecosystem Restoration Objective 5-8 5.2.5.1 Ecosystem Restoration Goal 5-8 5.2.5.2 Ecosystem Restoration Objectives 5-8 5.2.6 Recreation and Public Access Objective 5-9 5.2.6.1 Recreation and Public Access Goal 5-9 5.2.6.2 Recreation and Public Access Objectives 5-9 5.3 Statewide Objectives and Priorities 5-9 5.4 Regional Priorities 5-10 Primary Priorities 5-10 Secondary Priorities 5-10
6 Assessment of Water Management Strategies 6-1 6.1 Flood Management Strategy 6-1 6.1.1 Flood Management Strategy Approach 6-1 6.1.2 Yuba County Flood Management Strategies 6-2 6.1.2.1 Strategy 1 – Levee Improvement 6-3 6.1.2.2 Strategy 2 – Upstream Flood Control 6-9 6.1.2.3 Strategy 3 – Non-Structural Flood Management 6-10 6.1.2.4 Strategy 4 - Stormwater Management 6-15 6.1.3 Flood Management Projects 6-21 6.2 Water Supply Reliability Strategy 6-23 6.2.1 Water Supply Reliability Strategy Approach 6-23 6.2.2 Yuba County IRWM Plan Water Supply Reliability Management Strategy 6-23 6.2.2.1 Strategy 1 - Implement Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord 6-25 6.2.2.2 Strategy 2 – Groundwater Management/Conjunctive Use Strategy 6-25 iv Table of Contents
6.2.2.3 Strategy 3 – Water Conservation Strategy 6-26 6.2.2.4 Strategy 4 – Support Self-Reliance for Rural and Isolated Communities 6-28 6.2.3 Water Supply Reliability Projects 6-28 6.3 Water Recycling and Reuse Strategy 6-29 6.3.1 Water Recycling and Reuse Strategy Approach 6-29 6.3.2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan - (May 2007) 6-30 6.3.2.1 Yuba City 6-33 6.3.2.2 City of Marysville 6-33 6.3.2.3 Linda County Water District 6-34 6.3.2.4 Olivehurst Pubic Utility District 6-36 6.3.3 Yuba County IRWM Plan Water Recycling Strategy Approach 6-36 6.3.3.1 Water Recycling Goals and Objectives 6-36 6.3.3.2 Water Recycling Regulatory Requirements 6-37 6.3.3.3 Ranking and Prioritizing Water Recycling Projects 6-39 6.4 Water Quality Improvement Strategy 6-43 6.4.1 Water Quality Improvement Strategy Approach 6-43 6.4.2 Water Quality Improvement Strategy 6-44 6.4.2.1 Strategy 1 – Improve Surface Water Quality 6-45 6.4.2.2 Strategy 2 – Improve Groundwater Quality 6-46 6.4.2.3 Strategy 3 – Water Quality Monitoring 6-46 6.4.3 Water Quality Improvement Projects 6-47 6.5 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy 6-47 6.5.1 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy and Approach 6-47 6.5.2 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy 6-48 6.5.2.1 Strategy 1 - Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Implementation Fishery Actions 6-48 6.5.2.2 Strategy 2 – Promote multipurpose projects to improve flood management and ecosystem restoration 6-51 6.5.2.3 Strategy 3- Streamline environmental compliance and permitting 6-52 6.5.3 Ecosystems Restoration Projects and Related Actions 6-52 6.6 Recreation and Public Access Strategy 6-53 6.6.1 Yuba County IRWM Plan Recreation and Public Access Approach 6-53 6.6.2 Yuba County Recreation and Public Access Strategy 6-53 6.6.3 Recreation and Public Access Projects 6-54 6.7 Integration of State and Local Management Strategies 6-54 6.8 Other Projects 6-58 6.9 Integration of Water Management Strategies 6-59
v Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
7 Plan Implementation 7-1 7.1 Project Evaluation and Prioritization 7-1 7.1.1 Project Rating System 7-1 7.1.1.1 Step 1 – Determination of Project Readiness 7-4 7.1.1.2 Step 2 - Project Prioritization and Implementation 7-9 7.1.1.3 Project Implementation Approach 7-12 7.2 IRWM Plan Implementation Responsibility 7-13 7.2.1 Obstacles to Implementation 7-14 7.2.2 Periodic Review and Update of the IRWM Plan 7-14 7.3 Yuba County IRWM Plan Project Financing 7-14 7.3.1 State Grant Funding 7-16 7.3.2 Federal Funding 7-17 7.3.3 Local Agency Funding 7-17 7.4 Project Funding Opportunities 7-18 7.4.1 IRWM Plan Project Funding Opportunities 7-19 7.4.2 Non-IRWM Plan Project Funding Opportunities 7-20 7.4.3 Funding Roles and Responsibilities 7-20 7.5 IRWM Plan Impacts and Benefits 7-21 7.5.1 IRWM Plan Benefits 7-21 7.5.2 IRWM Plan Impacts 7-22 7.6 Recommendations 7-22 7.7 Plan Implementation Schedule 7-23 7.7.1 Projects Ready to Proceed 7-23 7.7.2 Projects Not ‘Ready to Proceed’ 7-23 7.7.2.1 High-Priority Projects 7-24 7.7.2.2 Low-Priority Projects 7-24
8 Technical Analysis, Data Management and Monitoring, and Plan Performance 8-1 8.1 Use of Available Information to Develop IRWM Plan 8-1 8.1.1 Existing Information and Reports 8-1 8.1.2 Technical Analysis to Develop IRWM Plan and Projects 8-3 8.2 Data Management and Monitoring 8-3 8.2.1 Existing Monitoring Programs 8-3 8.2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring 8-4 8.2.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring 8-4 8.2.2 Data Gaps/ Additional Monitoring Requirements 8-4 8.2.3 Data Dissemination to Stakeholders and Public 8-5 8.3 Evaluation of Yuba County IRWM Plan Performance 8-5 8.4 Project Performance Evaluation 8-5
9 References 9-1
vi Table of Contents
Appendix A Meeting Announcements A-1
Appendix B Regional Water Management Group Letters B-1
Appendix C Project Descriptions C-1
Appendix D Resolutions of Adoption D-1
List of Tables Table 1-1 YCWA IRWM Plan and State IRWM Plan Standards 1-10 Table 4-1 Yuba County Water Agency Contract Amounts (AF per year) 4-9 Table 4-2 Yuba County Water Agency Water Supply Contract Deficiency Provisions 4-9 Table 4-3 Summary of Major Floods on the Yuba and Feather Rivers 4-12 Table 4-4 Corps of Engineers Flood System Design Flows 4-16 Table 4-5 Land Use Conditions 4-25 Table 4-6 Existing Conditions (2005) Water Use 4-29 Table 4-7 Future Conditions (2015) Water Use 4-30 Table 4-8 Projected Change in Water Use from 2005 to 2015 4-31 Table 4-9 Current and Projected Water Use (2015 less 2005) 4-32 Table 6-1 Flood and Stormwater Management Project Summary Table 6-22 Table 6-2 Water Supply Reliability Project Summary Table 6-29 Table 6-3 Permitted Uses of Recycled Water 6-38 Table 6-4 Alternative Recycled Water Projects 6-40 Table 6-5 Sutter Yuba Regional Recycled Water Sub-Projects for Phase One Implementation 6-42 Table 6-6 Water Recycling Project Summary Table 6-43 Table 6-7 Water Quality Project Summary Table 6-47 Table 6-8 Interim Instream Flow Requirements for the Lower Yuba River Included in Revised Decision 1644 6-50 Table 6-9 Minimum Flow Requirements for the Feather River 6-51 Table 6-10 Ecosystem Management Project Summary Table 6-53 Table 6-11 Recreation and Public Access Project Summary Table 6-54 Table 6-12 Yuba County IRWM Plan Integration of State and Local Program Strategies 6-56 Table 6-13 Other Projects Summary Table 6-58 Table 6-14 Integration of Water Management Strategies 6-60 Table 7-2 Yuba County and California Median Household Incomes 7-18
vii Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 8-1 - Representative List of Monitoring Efforts for Evaluating Project Performance 8-8
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Yuba County IRWM Plan Planning Schematic 1-3 Figure 2-1 Plan Area 2-2 Figure 2-2 Disadvantaged Areas within Yuba County 2-5 Figure 2-3 Water Management Subareas 2-8 Figure 2-4 Plan Area and Water Management Agencies 2-10 Figure 2-5 Land Use by Water District 2-13 Figure 4-1 Principal Drainage Basins 4-2 Figure 4-2 Water Development Facilities 4-4 Figure 4-3 Recent Flooding in Yuba County 4-13 Figure 4-4 Status of Project Levees 4-15 Figure 4-5 Groundwater Resources in Plan Area 4-17 Figure 4-6 Spring 2004 Groundwater Elevations in the Yuba Basin 4-19 Figure 4-7 Current Water Supply Mix in Plan Area 4-26 Figure 6-1 Project Locations 6-12 Figure 7-1 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Process 7-3
viii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AWMP Agricultural Water Management Plan BMO Basin Management Objectives BMP best management practices BO Biological Opinions BVID Browns Valley Irrigation District BWD Brophy Water District CABY Cosumnes, American, Bear, and Yuba CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game cfs cubic feet per second CFWID Camp Far West Irrigation District CID Cordua Irrigation District Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CVHJV Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture CWC California Water Code DCMWC Dry Creek Mutual Water Company DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DPS Distinct Population Segment DWR California Deparmtne of Water Resources DWR California Department of Water Resources ERPP Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan EWA Environmental Water Account EWMP efficient water management practices F-CO Forecast-Coordinated Operations FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
i Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment GMP Groundwater Management Plan GRR General Reevaluation Report HIC Hallwood Irrigation Company IRWM Plan Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LCWD Linda County Water District M&I Municipal & Industrial Management Group Regional Water Management Group MCL maximum contaminant level MGD million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSCS Multi-Species Conservation Strategy NGO non-governmental agencies NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systme NYWD North Yuba Water District OPUD Olivehurst Public Utility District PAEP Performance Assessment and Evaluation Plan PIR Problem Identification Report PMWC Plumas Mutual Water Company PUD Public Utilities District RCD Resource Conservation District RCP reinforced concrete pipe RD Revised Decision RFMP regional flood management plan RWD Ramirez Water District ii Abbreviations and Acronyms
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SFFRP South Fork Feather River Project SFWPA South Feather Water and Power Agency SOI sphere of influence SSID South Sutter Irrigation District SWAMP Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board SYWD South Yuba Water District TRLIA Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority TTU tertiary treatment unit UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WWD Wheatland Water District WWTF wastewater treatment facility YCWA Yuba County Water Agency Y-FRFP Yuba-Feather River Flood Protection Y-FSFCP Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project Y-FWG Yuba-Feather Work Group
iii Executive Summary
For more than a decade, water agencies within Yuba County have worked together to improve water management in the region by addressing local issues such as providing flood protection to protect lives and property, and providing reliable water supplies to meet agricultural and urban water needs while protecting the fisheries and riparian resources of the Yuba River.
In 2005, local agencies and stakeholders in Yuba County met and agreed to develop an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan). The IRWM Plan would address local water management issues for the communities within Yuba County on a regional perspective. The goal of the IRWM Plan is to continue to build upon past efforts to capitalize on present and future water management opportunities, including improving flood protection, water supply reliability, and other water resources needs in an environmentally appropriate approach that maximizes the benefits for the citizens of Yuba County.
Development of a comprehensive and coordinated regional water management plan for Yuba County involved the cooperation of many parties interested in water management in the region. Through the stakeholder outreach efforts included during the development of the IRWM Plan, the eight original water agencies that formed the Regional Water Management Group (Management Group) was expanded to 11. Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) served as the regional lead agency in the coordinated development of the IRWM Plan, including the stakeholder outreach. YCWA also served as the lead agency for the Management Group in the preparation of the Proposition 50 IRWMP Planning Grant Application, which funded the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The members of the Management Group include:
Yuba County Water Agency (Lead Agency)
Reclamation District 784
Linda County Water District
Brown’s Valley Irrigation District
City of Marysville
Olivehurst Public Utility District
ES-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Yuba County
North Yuba Water District (formerly Yuba County Water District)
Yuba City
City of Wheatland
Yuba County Resource Conservation District
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Area The Yuba County IRWM Plan area includes the valley floor area and the foothill/mountain areas of the county, which face a variety of water management challenges resulting from natural and man-made conditions. Much of the Plan Area has been identified as disadvantaged, which presents additional challenges regarding the funding and implementation of projects and programs.
The valley floor portion of the county overlies the alluvial aquifer system of the Sacramento Valley. Good soils and access to surface and groundwater supplies have developed and supported the agricultural economy of the region. Recent increases in urbanization have resulted in changes in water supply requirements and supply sources.
In contrast, the foothill/mountain areas have a much less intensive agricultural and urban development. Water supply availability and reliability is one of the primary issues because of the lack of groundwater and difficulty moving water from the rivers to the areas of use across the rugged terrain.
Households in much of the Plan Area have a low annual income and have been identified as disadvantaged by the State. Historically, the low population base and limited financial resources have presented challenges to the area to fund and implement water management projects and programs.
Much of the region’s present and future population growth is expected to occur on the valley floor area, where many of the low lying areas are at risk of regional flooding from the Yuba, Feather, or Bear rivers or of local flooding from stormwater runoff.
The changes in land use patterns and the associated changes in water use and supply source, changes in regulatory requirements, and hydrologic uncertainty have resulted in the need for improved surface water and groundwater supply reliability for agricultural and urban water users.
ES-2 Executive Summary
The concentration of the urban areas adjacent to the rivers has led to the investigation of recycled water opportunities in the Sutter-Yuba region. These opportunities extend beyond Yuba County to the west across the Feather River to include Yuba City. As a result, the IRWM Plan Area is expanded to include the Yuba City sphere of influence to identify water recycling opportunities.
Developing the IRWM Plan From the beginning, the RWMG encouraged all stakeholders and interested parities to participate in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The Plan will be used by the Management Group and by the individual local agencies to provide guidance on water management planning and support the implementation of projects and programs that improve water management in the Plan Area. Public participation will continue to be encouraged and promoted, and will be an essential part of the implementation of projects and refinement of the IRWM Plan.
Many of the water management issues in the region have been identified and described through the prior work completed by the local agencies. These efforts developed the foundational documents for the region and were relied on by the Management Group during the development of the IRWM Plan to identify the most pressing issues and support the development of solutions. Some of these foundational efforts include:
Preparation and adoption of the Yuba County Groundwater Management Plan.
Preparation of the technical documents in support of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS.
Completion of the Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Protection Project and supporting documentation.
Formation of the Three River Levee Improvement Authority and implementation of levee improvements along the Bear, Feather, and Yuba rivers.
Preparation and adoption of urban water management plans.
Completion of specific plan amendments and general plan updates.
One of the first steps of the IRWM Plan included identifying the most important water management issues in the Plan Area and formulating the water management objectives for the region, which provide the overarching statements that define the desired outcome from implementation of the Plan. The Management Group identified the following as the most important water resources issues to the region:
ES-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Providing local flood protection and regional flood management
Improving water supply reliability for all water uses
Providing groundwater management to protect and utilize the groundwater resources in a sustainable manner
Protecting the fishery and riparian resources of the Yuba River
Protecting and improving water quality
Expanding recreation and public access opportunities along water features in Yuba County
Expanding water recycling and reuse opportunities
Water Management Strategies A wide range of water management strategies are identified in the IRWMP Guidelines. Some of these strategies overlap with the resources management strategies included in the California Department of Water Resources Water Plan Update 2005.
The Management Group used these lists of water management strategies to be responsive to the IRWMP Guidelines, evaluate the comprehensive list of potential strategies, and guide the development of strategies that address the most pressing water management issues in the Plan Area. The Management Group identified the following as the most important strategies:
Flood Management
Water Supply Reliability
Water Quality Protection and Improvement
Ecosystem Restoration
Water Recycling and Reuse
Recreation and Public Access
The complex and integrated nature of water resources in the county is reflected in the relationships between water management issues and requires integration of these strategies to meet the differing needs in a cost-effective manner. In addition, strategies
ES-4 Executive Summary
need to be prioritized to address the most pressing issues such as public safety. During the development of the IRWM Plan, over 65 projects were identified by the individual project proponents that support the implementation of these strategies. These projects were evaluated, screened, and prioritized by the Management Group to guide the order of implementation.
Plan Adoption and Implementation Following a public review of the Draft Plan, the Management Group adopted the Yuba County IRWM Plan in February 2008. This was followed by adoption of the Plan by the individual members of the Management Group.
The Management Group plans to utilize an adaptive management approach to maintain and update the Plan, and project prioritization to keep them current with changing conditions in the Region. This will include periodic review of the water management strategies and preparation of periodic updates of the Plan.
ES-5
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction Yuba County includes portions of the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and the Sacramento Valley floor. The eastern, mountainous portion of the County has elevations in excess of 8,000 feet above mean sea level.
Historically, the valley floor has been dominated by agricultural land uses, which rely on good soils and access to surface water from the Yuba River and groundwater to support an agricultural-based economy. For a portion of the valley floor, the traditional land use patterns are changing, including the conversion of agricultural lands into urbanized areas. In addition, recent reevaluation of the levels of flood protection has identified the need for increased flood protection for the area, including newly urbanizing areas.
Within Yuba County, the foothill and mountain areas extend from the east side of the Sacramento Valley high into the Sierra Nevada. There are a number of small towns in the foothill and mountain areas, and limited agricultural development. The largest agricultural development of the foothills includes the use of grasslands for grazing. The higher elevation mountainous areas of the county are public lands within the Tahoe and Plumas National Forests. The limited economic development in these areas and the few small towns scattered over the rugged terrain are primarily oriented to recreation. These three conditions (limited economic development, few small scattered towns, and rugged terrain) contribute to the challenges of providing water services to this area.
1.2 Purpose and Need of Yuba County IRWM Plan Four significant issues and initiatives that will reshape water management in the region and beyond have emerged.
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord; a proposal to settle water rights issues of the Yuba River.
A renewed effort for greater flood protection along the Yuba and Feather Rivers.
Increasing urbanization of agricultural land.
New wastewater discharge requirements by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
1-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Each presents a new set of challenges and opportunities for the region’s water managers. Dealing with these challenges and capitalizing on opportunities require reassessing the region’s water supplies and demands and reevaluating water management strategies in the region. New sets of water management options and tools will give water managers greater opportunities and flexibility to optimize their resources for all beneficial uses, both now and in the future.
The recent significant water management issues and initiatives listed above extend beyond a single agency’s boundaries and illustrate the need to develop a comprehensive integrated plan to significantly enhance water management in the region. It also illustrates that the issues of the region can be overcome only if all agencies within the region work together. Flood protection improvement, water supply and groundwater management, and regional growth issues are all multi-agency issues. A coordinated and cooperative work environment between all parties will make the most of available resources for program and project implementation.
Water users in Yuba County have worked together for years to develop an integrated regional approach to water and flood plain management. Local, State, and federal agencies have been working together to achieve consensus and resolve potential water supply conflict through the development of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. From a flood control perspective, the local agencies have worked with state and federal agencies to implement integrated approaches to flood control and flood plain management. The Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan) builds upon this local and regional cooperation to resolve issues and integrate water supply, flood control, and ecosystem management activities.
As part of this process, many of the local water management agencies have come together to prepare this IRWM Plan to meet the requirements of the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002. The Yuba County IRWM Plan addresses the water management issues as well as strategies and projects that may be implemented to continue to provide the most effective water management for the citizens of Yuba County. The Yuba County IRWM Plan Planning Schematic shown on Figure 1-1 highlights the relationship between local and regional planning efforts, and shows how the Plan can be used to:
Support local project implementation by providing supporting documentation, providing regional integration, and supporting grant funding pursuits.
Support local planning by serving as a foundational document for future local planning.
1-2 Introduction
Figure 1-1 Yuba County IRWM Plan Planning Schematic
Coordinate with other IRWM Plans in the Sacramento Valley to support the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (described below).
Support other Statewide planning efforts such as Regional Flood Management Planning and the California Water Plan Update.
The preparation of this Plan was funded in part by a grant from the Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), authorized under Proposition 50, Chapter 8. Local funding was provided by the local agencies through in-kind services.
1.3 Participating Agencies There are numerous agencies with land and water management interests and responsibilities participating in the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
1-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
1.3.1 Regional Agency Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) was created primarily to develop and promote the beneficial use and flood control regulation of the water resources of Yuba County. The YCWA has a long history of actively managing these water resources for beneficial use in cooperation with its Member Units; stakeholders; and local, state, and federal agencies. Since its formation in 1959, the YCWA has worked to develop water resources within Yuba County and to provide for flood control and flood plain management for the region. The Yuba River Development Project (Yuba Project) is the major water facility owned and operated by the YCWA. This facility is used to partially regulate flows in the Yuba River for flood control, water supply, fishery enhancement, recreation, and power generation.
With its county-wide jurisdiction, YCWA has worked with its Member Units and with water purveyors, flood management entities, sewage treatment entities, and local stakeholders to pursue a common goal of managing the region’s surface water and groundwater resources. Because of its regional jurisdiction and focus on water resources issues, YCWA served as the lead Regional Agency for the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. In the role of lead agency for the region, YCWA was responsible for submitting the application, obtaining the planning grant, and providing administrative activities associated with the Proposition 50 planning grant contract.
YCWA worked with other water entities to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan, which included the following:
The formation of the Regional Water Management Group (Management Group),
Development and implementation of a stakeholder and public involvement process,
Coordination with boards of directors of the Management Group member agencies,
Coordination with other regional water management planning activities,
Preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, and
Adoption of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
1.3.2 Regional Water Management Group The Yuba County IRWM Plan Management Group consists of representatives from public agencies and water purveyors in the region. The Management Group was formed
1-4 Introduction
early in the planning process to define the scope of work and prepare an application for Proposition 50, Chapter 8 planning grant funding. One of the roles of the Management Group was to develop and implement a public involvement process to ensure proper coordination and consultation with local water agencies and government entities, and to provide project information to the general public and citizens of the County.
The Management Group meetings were open to the public and were scheduled throughout the planning process. The first Management Group meeting to prepare this Plan was held on November 17, 2005, and the meetings continued monthly during development of the Plan. The Management Group meetings were held at the Agency office in Marysville, California, and focused on discussions of regional water management issues and providing guidance to the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Agendas and minutes for the Management Group meetings were posted on the Agency’s webpage in advance of the meetings. Meeting notices were also published in the Appeal-Democrat Community Calendar. In addition, extensive coordination, program briefings, and meetings were conducted with YCWA Member Units, other water interests, and the general public in the County.
As listed below, the members of the Management Group provide a wide range of land use planning and water distribution and management services to citizens of Yuba County. Additional information about each of the Management Group agencies and other agencies participating in the Yuba County IRWM Plan is included in Section 2.3 of this Plan.
Yuba County Water Agency (Lead Agency)
RD 784
Linda County Water District (LCWD)
Brown’s Valley Irrigation District
City of Marysville
Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD)
Yuba County
North Yuba Water District (NYWD) (formerly Yuba County Water District)
Yuba City
1-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
City of Wheatland
Yuba County Resource Conservation District (Yuba County RCD)
The Management Group, or some variation of it, may be valuable in the long-term as a forum for detailed project proposals and project implementation.
1.4 Related Regional Water Management Activities Over the last few years, there has been an increased focus on integrated regional water management planning in Yuba County and the Sacramento Valley. Because of the nature and focus of regional planning efforts in the Sacramento Valley, the Yuba County IRWM Plan area overlaps with two other IRWM Plans:
Sacramento Valley IRWMP (Sac Valley IRWMP); and
Cosumnes, American, Bear, and Yuba (CABY) IRWMP.
The coordination and relationship between these planning efforts is briefly described below.
1.4.1 Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Development of the Sacramento Valley IRWMP moved along a path similar to that of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The two are complementary planning processes for the broader Sacramento Region. The Sacramento Valley IRWMP is a grassroots, “bottom- top” planning process that relies on subbasin-level water management strategies and integrates these strategies into a coherent larger-scale regional water management plan.
The Sacramento Valley IRWMP assessed strategies and their impacts and benefits in a larger “macro” scale, while subbasin regional plans, such as the Yuba County IRWM Plan, are more focused, locally driven, small-scale, more detailed-oriented plans. While the Sacramento Valley IRWMP is looking at issues for the Sacramento Valley, the Yuba County IRWM Plan is looking at the impacts of changing land and water management conditions at a higher level of detail for the smaller area where the local agencies have land and/or water management responsibilities. The detailed information developed for this IRWM Plan was shared with the Sacramento Valley IRWMP. Likewise, regional information developed for the Sacramento Valley IRWMP was incorporated where appropriate into the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
These two planning processes were closely coordinated since some key players participated in the development of both plans. The coordinated approach extends to
1-6 Introduction
identifying and pursuing various funding opportunities that may be available to projects identified within the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
1.4.2 Cosumnes, American, Bear, Yuba IRWMP The CABY IRWMP was prepared to identify potentially feasible opportunities, initiatives, programs, or projects to improve water supply, water quality, habitat, recreation, and land use in the four watersheds of the CABY region, and to provide a framework for implementation efforts.
Sierra Nevada has water issues and conflicts unique to its geography and elevation. As a result, there may be a significant contrast between issues in the upper watershed compared to the lower watershed or valley floor areas within the same watershed. The CABY Plan Area reflects this contrast between the upper and lower watersheds by limiting the western boundary of the Plan Area to the transition zone between the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley floor. The north, south, and eastern boundaries are defined by the limits of the watersheds of the four rivers with the western boundary at an approximate elevation of 400 feet along the foothills for these watersheds, including portions of Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Sacramento, and Yuba Counties. The CABY IRWM Plan Area overlaps with the Yuba County IRWM Plan Area in the foothill and mountain areas of Yuba County.
As mentioned above, there is limited development and different water management issues in this area compared to the valley floor areas of Yuba County. Several rural developments located above CABY’s 400-foot elevation level lower boundary, and within the political jurisdiction of Yuba County, include the community of Dobbins, facilities owned and operated by the NYWD, and portions of Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID). The NYWD, a rural and agricultural water purveyor, and BVID, an agricultural water purveyor and Member Unit of the YCWA, have actively participated in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Both districts are members of the Yuba County IRWM Plan’s Management Group. Additional information on the NYWD and BVID is provided in Section 2 of this IRWM Plan.
Projects in the groundwater basin area of the Yuba County IRWM Plan are currently considered to be nested within Northern California Water Association’s (NCWA’s) Sacramento Valley Integrated Water Resources Plan. Both NCWA and YCWA are participants with CABY in meetings regarding coordination between adjoining plans. YCWA and the Management Group recognize the need for proper coordination with CABY. It is also recognized that the upper watershed environment is distinct in many ways from that of the lower watershed, and that there are a number of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species that are unique to each area. Additionally,
1-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
groundwater is conveyed through a fractured rock system in the CABY area as opposed to the extensive aquifers in the lower watershed. For these reasons, among others, the CABY regional boundaries encompass the foothill and upper watershed areas. In addition, CABY pursued a very distinct stakeholder process to represent the interests in the upper watershed and to develop appropriate goals, objectives, and strategies for addressing its water resource issues.
YCWA and the Management Group recognize CABY as the appropriate entity to organize planning efforts, at this time, in the upper South and Middle Yuba watershed because of its distinctly different stakeholder community and watershed issues. YCWA is interested in taking the lead on the upper North Yuba watershed since it flows into YCWA’s New Bullards Bar Reservoir. This should not be an issue since there is little activity in this watershed and it is remote from the watershed interests of CABY. In the area of overlap, coordination on projects that have a relationship to either integrated plan is imperative. To ensure proper coordination, however, watershed projects would have to include YCWA, other appropriate Yuba County entities, and any appropriate special district to ensure consistency with the General Plan and other local, state, and federal plans applying within the borders of Yuba County. For example, the Yuba County RCD can be responsible for watershed activities under Division 9 of the California Resources Code.
The four lead agencies in the CABY planning group include El Dorado Irrigation District, Placer County Water Agency, El Dorado County Water Agency, and Nevada Irrigation District. These agencies plan to continue the implementation phase of the CABY IRWM Plan by preparing a Memorandum of Understanding to unite the group by early 2008 as a more formal organization develops. CABY envisions a three-year phased approach that will require financial support by regional entities.
1.5 Planning Horizon The planning horizon for the Yuba County IRWM Plan extends from existing conditions (represented by 2005) to projected future conditions representing year 2030. For purposes of estimating changes in land and water use conditions, the 25-year planning horizon was further divided into near-term conditions representing year 2015 conditions and long-term conditions representing projected 2030 conditions. This horizon allows for consistency with other statewide planning efforts such as updates of the State Water Plan, and local planning efforts Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs).
1-8 Introduction
1.6 Organization of the Report Section 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the local water management issues and existing water management planning activities within the Plan Area and summarizes the approach used to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Section 2, Description of the Region, defines the Plan Area and briefly describes the local agencies covered by the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Section 3, Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption, describes how stakeholder involvement and public outreach were implemented during preparation and adoption of the Plan.
Section 4, Water Resources Setting and Water Budget, identifies the need for water resources management in the Plan area by describing the water resources setting and showing how these resources are used to meet current and future agricultural and urban water demands.
Section 5, IRWM Plan Issues, Goals, Objectives, and Priorities, provides an explanation of the regional planning process, including the identification of the local issues used to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan along with a description of the goals and objectives.
Section 6, Assessment of Water Management Strategies, presents each of the water management strategies that were considered in the Plan, and presents the projects that have been identified to support the implementation of those strategies.
Section 7, Plan Implementation, describes the process used to evaluate, rank, and prioritize the projects needed to implement the water management strategies; identifies the roles and responsibilities for project implementation; and summarizes the funding opportunities.
Section 8, Technical Analysis, Data Management, and Monitoring and Plan Performance, describes how existing information, including reports and monitoring programs, were utilized in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, and how the data developed from the plan will be disseminated to the public and appropriate agencies and be available for use in future planning efforts.
1-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
1.7 Guide to How the Yuba County IRWM Plan Meets the State Standards The State of California Water Code (CWC) 79562.5(b) specifies standards for IRWM Plans. The compliance of the Yuba County IRWM Plan with those standards is presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 YCWA IRWM Plan and State IRWM Plan Standards Reference (Chapter, Section, Item from Minimum IRWM Plan Standards Figure, Table #s of the IRWM Plan) Demonstrates Consistency with IRWM Plan Standards Table 1-1, Section 1.7
Documents Adopted IRWM Plan and Provides Proof of Formal Adoption Section 2.4, Appendix D Provides Regional Description, Study Period, and Documents Appropriateness of Area Sections 2, 1.5, 2.1.3 for IRWM Plan Describes Water Management Objectives and How They Were Developed Section 5
Describes Water Management Strategies and How They Were Developed Section 6
Describes Integration of Water Management Strategies Section 6.7
Describes Regional Priorities and How They Were Developed Section 5.4
Describes Implementation Plan including Schedules and Responsible Agencies Section 7.7 Describes Impacts and Benefits of Regional Effects including impacts to Disadvantaged Section 7.5 Communities and other resources. Describes Technical Analysis used to develop IRWMP and monitoring systems to Sections 4, 8.1, 8.3 measure Plan Performance Describes Data Management, Data Dissemination, and integration into SWAMP and Section 8.2 GAMA Describes Financing for Project Implementation and O&M Section 7.3
Describes Relationship between Local Planning and IRWM Plan Section 1.2, Figure 1-1 Describes Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination among participating agencies and Section 3.1 with State and Federal Agencies Did the IRWM Plan document public outreach activities specific to individual Sections 3.2, 3.4, 3.1 stakeholder groups? Does the IRWM Plan include a discussion of mechanisms and processes that have been or will be used to facilitate stakeholder involvement and communication during plan Sections 3.2, 3.3 implementation? Are partnerships developed during the planning process discussed? Section 3.1.1 Describes how Disadvantaged Communities were identified and how Environmental Table 7-1 Justice concerns addressed.
1-10
2 Description of the Region
Yuba County covers a diverse geographic setting, which extends from the Sacramento Valley floor high into the Sierra Nevada and includes over 20 different agencies with land or water use management responsibilities. This section defines the Plan Area and briefly describes the local agencies covered by the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
2.1 Plan Area The geographic extent of the Yuba County IRWM Plan encompasses all of Yuba County, which extends from the Sacramento Valley floor to the foothill and mountainous areas of the Sierra Nevada. The water management issues of the valley floor are common to other areas in the Sacramento Valley, and, to a large degree, differ from the foothill and mountain area issues within Yuba County. While these areas have some differing water management issues, they are linked by their shared use of resources, including access to the surface water resources of the Yuba, Feather, and Bear Rivers and their tributaries.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan Area is shown in Figure 2-1. The Plan Area is divided into the valley floor area of the County (which coincides with the boundaries of the County’s two groundwater basins described above) and the foothill and mountain area, which is located east of the valley floor area. To address water management strategies associated with urban wastewater treatment and wastewater recycling, the Plan Area has been expanded west of the Feather River to include Yuba City (which is located in Sutter County).
2.1.1 Valley Floor Area The valley floor portion of Yuba County is bordered on three sides by watercourses (Honcut Creek, Feather River, and the Bear River) and bisected by the Yuba River. The common water management issues of this area include frequent flooding, wastewater discharge, urban growth, agricultural water supply reliability, minimum instream flow requirements, and the resulting conversion of agricultural lands to residential areas. The valley floor area also covers the Yuba County alluvial groundwater basins.
The water purveyors on the valley floor currently use both surface water and groundwater to meet demand. YCWA delivers surface water to its Member Units from the Yuba River. In addition, the Member Units use their own water rights or pump groundwater to meet part of their water demands. Rural and domestic water users depend upon the
2-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 2-1 Plan Area
2-2 Description of the Region
groundwater basin for water supply. Protection of groundwater resources and supplies is an important issue.
The municipal water purveyors located in the valley floor rely exclusively on groundwater to meet their needs. The municipal purveyors are California Water Service for the City of Marysville, LCWD, the City of Wheatland, OPUD, and Beale Air Force Base (AFB).
2.1.2 Foothill and Mountain Areas The foothill and mountain areas of Yuba County include the North Yuba, Middle Yuba, and South Yuba Rivers, and a portion of the Feather River. Portions of the Yuba River watershed extend east beyond the boundaries of Yuba County. The foothill and mountain area is underlain by the granite bedrock of the Sierra Nevada and has little access to dependable groundwater supplies. As a result, much of the developed urban and agricultural areas rely on surface water. Some of the rural and domestic water users depend upon groundwater from the joint and fracture system in the granitic bedrock for water supply. Water supply reliability is the primary water management issue for these areas because of the limited groundwater availability and limited access to surface water resources.
2.1.3 Appropriateness for Yuba County IRWM Plan The Yuba County IRWM Plan’s Management Group believes that there are many unique circumstances supporting the proposed region. Some of the unique characteristics of the Plan Area are as follows:
A groundwater basin that has some physical and institutional separations from the adjacent groundwater basins;
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, which is highly dependent on local surface water and groundwater conjunctive use operations;
Local flood control issues like those associated with the Plumas Lake area are within the jurisdictions of local agencies in Yuba County;
An agricultural-based economy that is experiencing urban development; and
Foothill and mountain areas with limited access to groundwater that share surface water resources with the valley floor area of the County.
2-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Cities within Yuba County include the City of Marysville and the City of Wheatland. Urban populations are also located in the unincorporated communities of Linda and Olivehurst. Numerous other communities on the valley floor and foothill/mountain areas can benefit from a county-wide IRWM Plan and implementation of water resources management improvements.
The solutions to these challenges will come from coordination between Yuba County land and water management agencies and stakeholders, and from an integrated approach within the county. The wastewater discharge water quality issue brings Yuba City of Sutter County into the planning process and provides the opportunity to reduce the potable water demand in the Yuba-Sutter region and reduce wastewater discharges to the Feather River or the groundwater basins.
2.1.4 Economic Conditions and Trends, Disadvantaged Communities, and Cultural Makeup Agriculture and agriculture-related industries, military operations (i.e., Beale AFB), governmental institutions, industry, and recreation contribute to Yuba County’s economy. Historically, the valley floor and foothill areas of Yuba County have had an agricultural- based economy. The gross value of crop production in 2003 was $154.6 million, with rice, peaches, prunes, and walnuts the more prolific crops.
This is changing in some areas because the region is facing rapid urban growth with new and planned developments along the Highway 70 and Highway 65 corridors and in the foothill areas. The growth issues facing the region include the conversion of agricultural land to residential use; changes in groundwater use and water quality, and an increased dependence on groundwater to meet urban water demands; and additional needs for flood protection for existing and developing areas on the valley floor. The primary urban growth areas include the Olivehurst-Linda-Plumas Lake Area, the City of Wheatland.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population of Yuba County increased by about 3.4 percent to just over 60,000 persons. Based on the 2000 census, the two largest ethnic groups include White (70.6 percent) and Hispanic/Latino origin (17.4 percent). There are about 20,500 households, with an average of 2.87 people per household. The Yuba County Year 2000 median household income was about $30,000, and about 20 percent of the population is living below the poverty level.
Disadvantaged communities exist throughout the county. The disadvantaged communities are widely disbursed on the valley floor among the agricultural lands as shown on Figure 2-2. The primary water management concerns are related to groundwater quality. In the foothill and mountain areas, the disadvantaged communities
2-4 Description of the Region
Figure 2-2 Disadvantaged Areas within Yuba County
2-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
are small communities dotted along the transportation corridors. Because of the rugged terrain and low population density, these few populated areas define the economic conditions of the area. The primary water management concerns in the foothills and mountains are water supply reliability and water quality from primarily surface water sources, and adequate infrastructure to store and deliver water.
2.1.5 Ecological and Environmental Considerations One of the primary environmental considerations in the region includes the instream flows of the lower Yuba River, which is home to threaten Spring-run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead that require protections. The lower Yuba River instream flow requirements have been a source of conflict between agricultural groups, environmental groups, and fishery interests for over 15 years. On December 5, 2007, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) held a hearing on the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, that recommends new instream flows requirements for the Lower Yuba River to protect Chinook salmon, steelhead, and other fish species at levels that are equal to or greater than current protections. Part of YCWA’s testimony included submitting singed agreements to support the Accord. A decision is expected by March 31, 2008.
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord will improve instream habitat conditions by establishing a new set of flow requirements for the Lower Yuba River that were developed through a scientifically based, collaborative effort with state and federal resource agencies and environmental groups. The suite of habitat improvements include reduced water temperatures during the summer and fall, a period critical to Chinook salmon adult immigration, holding, and spawning, and steelhead juvenile rearing, and will provide greater amounts of suitable Chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Fall in most years. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord is described in more detail in Section 6.2.
Additional efforts are underway to improve recreational and public access to the Yuba River and other water features within the county, and at the same time improve the riparian habitat.
2.2 Planning Subareas The Plan Area for the Yuba County IRWM Plan covers the entire county. The Yuba County IRWM Plan further divides the Plan Area into smaller Water Management Subareas (Subareas) to focus on the specific water needs of the communities within the Plan Area. This is necessary to reflect the variations of local conditions and address unique water management issues at an appropriate level within the Plan Area. The local conditions used to delineate the Subareas included the following:
2-6 Description of the Region
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting: The boundary between the Sacramento Valley floor and the Sierra Nevada is delineated as the contact between the alluvial deposits of the valley floor and the hard rock units of the Sierra Nevada. The geologic boundary is used to divide the Plan Area into the valley floor and foothill and mountain areas. The Yuba River further divides the valley floor portion of Yuba County into the North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin and the South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin. This criterion was used to identify the Foothill and Mountain Subarea, the North Yuba Subarea, and the South Yuba Subarea.
Land Use Planning Authority: There are three agencies with land use planning authority within Yuba County—Yuba County, City of Marysville, and the City of Wheatland. The projected buildout of each of these areas was used to delineate planning subareas. Yuba County has land use planning responsibilities for the portions of the county beyond the city limits of the City of Marysville and the City of Wheatland. This criterion was used to identify the Marysville Subarea and the Wheatland Subarea. Land use planning at Beale AFB is the responsibility of the federal Department of Defense and is outside the control of local agencies.
Regional Wastewater Treatment and Recycling: Yuba City is the lead agency planning a regional wastewater treatment plant and water recycling opportunities. While Yuba City is not located within Yuba County, it is included in the Plan Area because other participants in the wastewater-recycling project include the City of Marysville and LCWD, which are located within Yuba County. The proposed combined service areas of these agencies are used to define the Regional Water Recycling Subarea.
The following six planning subareas listed below and shown on Figure 2-3 were developed through the direction of the Management Group based on the criteria described above.
1. North Yuba Subarea
2. City of Marysville Subarea
3. South Yuba Subarea
4. City of Wheatland Subarea
5. Foothill/Mountain Subarea
6. Regional Water Recycling Subarea
2-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 2-3 Water Management Subareas
2-8 Description of the Region
2.3 Water and Land Management Agencies The agencies with land and water resources management responsibilities within the Plan Area are described below and the jurisdictional boundaries are shown on Figure 2-4.
2.3.1 Yuba County Water Agency YCWA, as the lead agency and grant contract liaison with DWR, is responsible for the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. It has led the efforts to organize meetings, facilitate data exchanges among members, provide for technical studies required for the Yuba County IRWM Plan, coordinate drafting the IRWM Plan, prepare and file the grant application, execute the grant contract, and prepare and submit quarterly reports to DWR as required by the grant contract.
YCWA was primarily created to develop and manage the beneficial use and flood control regulation of the water resources of Yuba County. YCWA has a long history of actively managing these water resources for beneficial use in cooperation with its Member Units; stakeholders; and local, state, and federal agencies. Since its formation in 1959, YCWA has worked to develop water resources within Yuba County and to provide additional flood control for the region. The Yuba River Development Project is the major water resource management facility owned and operated by YCWA. This facility is used to partially regulate flows in the Yuba River for flood control, water supply, fishery enhancement, recreation, and power generation.
YCWA began operation of the Yuba River Development Project in 1970. As part of that project, YCWA owns and operates New Bullards Bar Dam, which was built on the North Yuba River. YCWA owns and operates the Colgate and Narrows II Powerhouses below New Bullards Bar and Englebright Dams. The release capacity of the Narrows II Powerhouse is approximately 3,400 cubic feet per second (cfs). This, combined with the release of 700 cfs of water from PG&E’s Narrows 1 Powerhouse, defines the greatest controlled release capability from Englebright Reservoir into the lower Yuba River. New Bullards Bar Reservoir, located upstream of Englebright Dam, is the primary storage reservoir within the Yuba River basin, with a storage capacity of about 966,000 acre-feet.
YCWA is authorized by the State through the Yuba County Water Agency Act to wholesale water to entities authorized to purvey water in Yuba County and that have water service agreements with YCWA. YCWA’s primary water wholesaling activities are the delivery of surface water to its eight Member Units.
YCWA will continue to manage its surface water supply and will coordinate groundwater pumping activities of its eight Member Units for enhanced in-County water supply
2-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 2-4 Plan Area and Water Management Agencies
2-10 Description of the Region
reliability and to improve water supply availability for all beneficial uses within and outside Yuba County. This coordinated operation of surface water and groundwater resources is intended to increase the overall yield of Yuba County’s water resources. For the diversion and use of waters within the Yuba River watershed, YCWA holds various water right permits and licenses for storage, power generation, irrigation, and domestic, recreation, and industrial uses in conjunction with its Yuba River Development Project. YCWA’s consumptive use water rights permits are sufficient to meet the current and planned demands of its eight Member Units. The place of use of these rights is YCWA’s service area, which covers the areas of its member districts and includes most of the agricultural land in Yuba County.
YCWA is actively managing the groundwater resources associated with the portion of the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin that is within Yuba County. The YCWA Board of Directors approved and adopted the YCWA Groundwater Management Plan compliant with SB 1938 on March 1, 2005. The YCWA Groundwater Management Plan may be viewed at www.ycwa.com (select “Current Projects” and then follow the link to “Final GMP”).
In addition to supplying water to its Member Units, YCWA has transferred surface water from reservoir storage and through groundwater substitution operations to other parts of California when there was both a need for additional supply in other areas and when water could be available through conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater from the Yuba River that exceeded the local need. YCWA can transfer water outside its territory only when it determines that the available water supply is surplus to local needs.
Groundwater substitution transfers (the short-term substitution of groundwater supplies for surface water deliveries to free up surface water for transfer), were developed through cooperation between YCWA and its Member Units. YCWA administers and provides funding for groundwater monitoring activities annually, and coordinates the extensive monitoring and reporting activities associated with groundwater substitution transfers.
The historical success of the YCWA’s transfer program and the requisite monitoring program, and its cooperation with its Member Units, local stakeholders, and local, state, and federal agencies exemplify YCWA’s commitment to resource management.
The YCWA member units are briefly described below.
2-11 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
2.3.2 Browns Valley Irrigation District BVID is an agricultural water purveyor that was formed in 1888. The District covers about 55,000 acres along the Sierra Nevada foothills and the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley floor, and currently serves water to over 1,300 agricultural water users in the Browns Valley/Loma Rica area. Land use by water districts is shown on Figure 2-5; annual crops, primarily rice and pasture, are the primary crops within BVID.
BVID has pre-1914 appropriative water rights to divert up to 47.2 cfs of water year-round from the North Yuba River for agricultural use. BVID also has a contract with YCWA authorizing diversions of 9,500 acre-feet per year at its Pumpline diversion facility on the lower Yuba River to supplement its water rights diversions. BVID has received deliveries from YCWA since October 1971. BVID has also constructed fish screens and pump stations to divert water from the Yuba River.
In addition, BVID holds post-1914 appropriative water rights on Dry Creek. These appropriative rights allow direct diversion and storage of water in Merle Collins Reservoir. In 1963, BVID built Collins Lake on Dry Creek. Merle Collins Reservoir has a storage capacity of 57,000 acre-feet.
BVID has previously participated in water transfers, the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement, and the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The District has also worked closely with YCWA and participated with other agencies in the Water Advisory Committee to prepare the YCWA’s AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan. BVID is interested in forecasted water demand analyses, future water supply, and long- term water reliability.
2.3.3 Ramirez Water District Ramirez Water District (RWD) is located east of the Western Pacific Railroad near Honcut Creek in the North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin. A small portion of the district extends north of Honcut Creek and is located in Butte County. RWD covers approximately 5,100 acres and primarily grows annual crops (rice) as shown in Figure 2-5. Irrigation demands are met primarily with surface water from YCWA delivered from the North Canal at Daguerre Point Dam beginning in 1978. RWD has a Yuba River Project Base Contract with YCWA of 14,790 acre-feet, and a Supplemental Contract totaling 10,311 acre-feet. The northern portion of RWD can experience flooding from Honcut Creek.
2-12 Description of the Region
Figure 2-5 Land Use by Water District
2-13 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
2.3.4 Cordua Irrigation District CID is located in the central part of the North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin. The district is located in the low-lying areas covering approximately 11,400 acres. Rice is the primary crop (see Figure 2-5), which is irrigated for the most part by surface water from a combination of water rights (totaling 60,000 acre-feet) and a Yuba Project Base Contract amount of 12,000 acre-feet delivered by YCWA, for an annual surface water supply of up to 72,000 acre-feet. CIDs first surface water delivers started in the late 1890s from the Yuba River. CID began receiving deliveries from YCWA in October 1971. A small portion of the district west of the Western Pacific Railroad is located in RD 10.
2.3.5 Hallwood Irrigation Company Hallwood Irrigation Company (HIC) is located east of the Western Pacific Railroad, along the Yuba River in the North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin. HIC covers approximately 12,000 acres and primarily grows rice in the northern portion of the district and orchards along the Yuba River (Figure 2-5). Most of the orchards are grown south of Highway 20, along the Yuba River. HIC has a pre-1914 appropriative right to divert 150 cfs from the Yuba River and a 1940 appropriative right to divert 100 cfs from the Yuba River. In a settlement agreement with YCWA regarding its water rights, HIC agreed to receive 78,000 acre-feet per year from YCWA from the North Canal at Daguerre Point Dam beginning in October 1971. Levees are located just south of Highway 20, separating the rice-growing areas in the north from the orchards in the south part of HIC.
2.3.6 Brophy Water District Brophy Water District (BWD) is located near the central part of the South Yuba Groundwater Basin. LCWD and Olivehurst Public Utilities District bound it on the west and Beale AFB bounds it on the east (Figure 2-5). BWD includes approximately 17,200 acres. Rice is the dominant irrigated crop, distantly followed by pasture and field crops.
BWD began receiving surface water jointly with South Yuba Water District (SYWD) in 1983. Deliveries began to be documented separately from SYWD beginning in 1992. Since 1985, all water from the lower Yuba River used by BWD has been delivered through the South Canal under contract with YCWA. BWD has a Base Contract for 43,470 acre-feet per year and a Supplemental Contract for 32,177 acre-feet per year of Yuba River water, totaling 75,647 acre-feet.
Only a small portion of the northern part of the district is located within the service area of RD 784.
2-14 Description of the Region
2.3.7 South Yuba Water District SYWD is generally located between RD 784 and Highway 65/Dry Creek Mutual Water District in the South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin (Figure 2-5). The district totals about 9,800 acres, with the primary crops consisting of rice and pasture.
SYWD began receiving surface water jointly with BWD in 1983. Deliveries began being documented separately from BWD beginning in May 1992. SYWD had an original contract amount of 33,900 acre-feet per year. SYWD has received all of its surface water deliveries from the South Canal under contract with YCWA. Since 1996, SYWD’s contract with YCWA provides for a Base Contract amount of 25,487 acre-feet and a Supplemental Contract of 18,843 acre-feet, totaling 44,300 acre-feet per year.
2.3.8 Dry Creek Mutual Water Company Dry Creek Mutual Water Company (DCMWC) is located along the Bear River west of Highway 65 within the South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin. Dry Creek flows through the center of DCMWC. The district totals approximately 2,800 acres and includes pasture and rice north of Dry Creek and orchards between Dry Creek and the Bear River (Figure 2-5).
DCMWC receives all surface water deliveries from the South Canal under contract with YCWA. DCMWC began receiving water from YCWA in June 1998; prior to 1998, the only water available to DCMWC was groundwater. DCMWC’s contract with YCWA provides for a Base Contract allocation of 13,682 acre-feet and a Supplemental Contract allocation of 3,061 acre-feet per year.
The portion of DCMWC south of Dry Creek is located within the RD 817 service area.
2.3.9 Wheatland Water District Wheatland Water District (WWD) is located in the southeastern portion of the South Yuba Basin, with much of the district located between Best Slough and Dry Creek, east of Highway 65 (Figure 2-5). WWD totals about 10,400 acres, which are dominated by orchards, pasture, and rice.
Historically, agricultural water demands were met with groundwater. The intense groundwater use in this area has resulted in declining groundwater levels and deteriorating groundwater quality forcing the abandonment of several wells. A canal is currently being designed to deliver up to 42,000 acre-feet of water from the Yuba River Development Project by YCWA. Providing surface water in-lieu of groundwater pumping should improve local groundwater conditions within the district and the
2-15 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
surrounding areas, including the City of Wheatland, which is currently entirely dependent on groundwater. This project will provide an opportunity for conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources in the lower part of South Yuba Basin.
The southern half of the district is subject to flooding from Dry Creek and the Bear River. As a result, the portion of WWD located south of Dry Creek is also part of RD 2103.
2.3.10 Yuba County Yuba County is located in the northern Sacramento Valley, approximately 40 miles north of Sacramento. Its boundaries stretch from the farms and orchards of the valley to the timberlands of the Sierras. Yuba County was established in 1850 and is governed by an elected five-member board. The board’s functions are to implement the operation of Yuba County’s 19 departments, which include the agricultural commissioner, community development and planning, social services, library, treasurer, assessor’s office, public health, public works, law enforcement, and emergency services.
The Yuba County General Plan was completed in 1996. The Land Use Element is currently being updated, and is expected to be completed in 2008.
With a current population of nearly 63,000, Yuba County experienced approximately a 4.3 percent growth from 2000 to 2003. The projected population growth for Yuba County is 97,600 residents by 2020. Note that the recent mortgage crisis may slow this project growth rate. Two incorporated cities, Marysville and Wheatland, are located within Yuba County and participate as stakeholders in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
2.3.11 Yuba County Resource Conservation District The Yuba County RCD has been involved in resource conservation projects in Yuba County since 1957. The mission of the Yuba County RCD is to protect soil and water throughout the district by implementing conservation projects in cooperation with local landowners and land managers, and educating stakeholders and policy makers about the County’s natural resource base. The goal of the district is to provide a safe and healthy rural environment, biologically diverse landscape, and a healthy economy for the community. The Yuba County RCD covers all of Yuba County except for the City of Marysville and the City of Wheatland.
The Yuba County RCD is a political subdivision of the State of California and is responsible for collaborating on projects throughout the 407,608-acre district. The Yuba County RCD receives no direct tax revenue and receives most of its funding through grants. The District’s Board of Directors consists of local landowners who volunteer
2-16 Description of the Region
their time to represent land users in the district and ensure a local voice on natural resource issues. The Board has five directors and one associate director.
In addition, the district works with the various government agencies that manage land within the county, including the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Air Force, and other federal agencies. The Yuba County RCD was actively engaged in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
2.3.12 City of Marysville Marysville was established in 1851 and is governed by a five-member City Council. As the county seat, it is home to the Yuba County governmental offices. Flood protection from the Yuba and Feather Rivers is a primary concern of both the city and the Marysville Levee Commission. Additional concerns include the management of storm water runoff and runoff water quality.
The city’s municipal water supply is groundwater acquired from the California Water Service Company, whose UWMP was adopted on November 10, 2005. In addition to flood-related issues, Marysville is a member of the regional wastewater recycling group.
With a population of approximately 12,500 residents, the City of Marysville is the largest incorporated jurisdiction within Yuba County. It experienced a 1.9 percent population increase from 2000 to 2003, and its projected population by 2020 is approximately 13,450 residents.
2.3.13 City of Wheatland The City of Wheatland is located between Bear River and Dry Creek along Highway 65 (Figure 2-5). The current incorporated area of the city is approximately 1,000 acres and has a January 2007 population of about 4,218 people (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). The city is experiencing a considerable amount of population growth and anticipates this trend continuing for the foreseeable future. The City of Wheatland certified a General Plan Update in July 2006. Some of the factors affecting the development process for the future include: limited infrastructure availability, environmental constraints, and the conversion of Class I agricultural lands to urban uses. The City of Wheatland General Plan includes 10,400 acres in the area of interest, with 8,636 acres in the sphere of influence (SOI). According to the Wheatland General Plan, the number of dwelling units will increase to about 12,780 dwelling units by 2020, which are needed to support a population of about 36,500.
2-17 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
2.3.14 Linda County Water District Formed in 1955, LCWD provides treated potable water and distribution and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal to the unincorporated community of Linda. The district serves approximately 12,500 people through about 3,117 service connections. Its general role in water planning is in the capacity of a water purveyor and waste treatment agency. It is a member of the regional wastewater program and has provided input to the Yuba County IRWM Plan regarding wastewater recycling and disposal. In this role, the district forecasted water demand, urban growth, and water supply analyses in its service area (Figure 2-5). A five-member elected Board of Directors governs the district. Until recently, the LCWD did not have enough connections to require the development of an UWMP.
2.3.15 Olivehurst Public Utility District The OPUD was formed in 1948 to provide water and fire services for the unincorporated community of Olivehurst, California (Figure 2-5). Since that time, the district’s responsibilities have been expanded to include sewer service, parks, recreation, and street lighting services. The Plumas Lake Development, a large-scale new development south of Olivehurst, is within the district’s boundaries and SOI. A growing community, Olivehurst has a population of approximately 8,700 residents. Until recently, the OPUD did not have enough connections to require the preparation of an UWMP. Residential construction and community building and development have been accelerating in this region, and 30,000 additional residents are projected for the community by 2015. The district delivers groundwater to its rate payers and shares the groundwater basin with other agencies participating in this planning process.
2.3.16 North Yuba Water District Yuba County Water District was formed in 1952 under C.W.C. Section 30321. Its mission is to provide water for rural, domestic, and irrigation uses. The district encompasses the northeastern portion of Yuba County and a small portion of Butte County. The district has recently changed its name to NYWD. The District is comprised of foothill and mountainous areas on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. NYWD’s gross area is approximately 188 square miles, which is 29 percent of the land area of Yuba County.
NYWD provides domestic water to approximately 2,500 users through 800 service connections located in the District’s Service Area (shown on figure 2-5). The population is dispersed throughout NYWD and is characterized by small family ranches. Large- scale agribusiness, which is predominant in the lowlands of the Sacramento Valley, is limited in NYWD by terrain, soils, and availability of water. However, a significant wine
2-18 Description of the Region
grape vineyard has been in operation since the early 1980s. This area is currently served by NYWD’s irrigation distribution system, but water supply is limited due to the need to develop infrastructure to improve irrigation water delivery.
NYWD obtains all of its treated and most of its raw water supply from the South Fork Feather River Project (SFFRP) ,which was developed by South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). These water supplies were developed pursuant to joint water right permits held by NYWD and the SFWPA, formerly Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, and a 1959 agreement that provides for water from the SFFRP at several locations. NYWD irrigation water requirements not met from the SFFRP supply, which is delivered through the Forbestown Ditch, are partially met using a separate NYWD surface water right on Dry Creek. This permit allows diversion of up to 6,060 acre-feet annually. NYWD also has the right to expand the capacity of the diversion from the Woodleaf Penstock and the Forbestown Ditch to 110 cfs. NYWD water rights permits 11515 and 11518 allow diversion and use of 23,700 acre-feet for consumptive uses within NYWD’s service area. In addition, NYWD has the right to use 4,500 acre-feet diverted at Miner’s Ranch reservoir from the Feather River. This water can also be diverted at SF14. In addition, effective January 1, 2011, NYWD will acquire all of SFWPA’s pre-1914 water rights to Oreleve Creek.
The existing SFFRP agreements provide for a firm supply of 3,700 acre-feet per year and surplus water when available. NYWD also has the right to expand the capacity of the diversion from the Woodleaf Penstock and the Forbestown Ditch to 110 cfs. The existing water rights held jointly by NYWD and SFWPA (Permits 11516 and 11518) encompass enough water to meet the water supplies contemplated for conveyance in the Project.
Though located within an overlapping boundary of the CABY IRWMP, NYWD has routinely participated in the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. From a county-wide planning perspective, NYWD is represented by Yuba County Supervisorial District No. 5, which includes Dobbins and other foothills communities. NYWD adopted Resolution No. 2007-656 on April 19, 2007, authorizing its formal participation in the Management Group and the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. NYWD prefers to be part of the YCWA IRWMP because of its geographical location in Yuba County and because Yuba County government entities better understand the water planning needs of NYWD.
2.3.17 Camp Far West Irrigation District Camp Far West Irrigation District (CFWID) was organized in 1924 to improve water conditions in the area. CFWID is located along the Bear River in Yuba and Sutter Counties east of Highway 65. The district area within the Plan Area totals about 1,400
2-19 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
acres with orchards as the primary crop (Figure 2-5). Irrigation water demands are met with supplies from the Bear River. The district has access to about 8,580 acre-feet per year from the Bear River. Most of CFWID is also located within RD 2103.
2.3.18 Plumas Mutual Water Company Plumas Mutual Water Company (PMWC), which was organized in about 1918, is located in the southwest portion of the Plan Area, west of Highway 70. The PMWC area totals about 6,000 acres. Orchards are the primary crop type with smaller amounts of rice (Figure 2-5). Historically, lands were irrigated with water pumped from the Feather River. PMWC now has an agreement with the State Water Project (SWP) for regulated deliveries of its local water supply from the Feather River totaling about 13,000 acre-feet per year, which is used for irrigation. This area is rapidly urbanizing, and the urban demands are met by groundwater. The entire district is located within RD 784.
2.3.19 Beale Air Force Base Beale AFB is located on the southeast portion of Yuba County (Figure 2-5). The base covers about 23,000 acres and is home to about 4,000 military personnel, who live on and off base. Water supplies are met with groundwater. There are some concerns about groundwater quality in the southeastern parts of the Beale AFB. There is anticipated growth on the base. Beale AFB is exploring opportunities to develop regional wastewater treatment systems with the City of Wheatland.
2.3.20 RD 784 RD 784 is a drainage and flood control district that was formed under the general reclamation district laws on May 6, 1908. It was formed for human habitation and economic development of the area by the construction of the federal Sacramento River Flood Control Project. Currently, RD 784 encompasses 16,500 acres of mixed agricultural, residential, and commercial development (Figure 2-5). With 240 businesses and over 3,400 residences, more than 40,000 people work and reside in the protected area, and continued growth is anticipated. The urbanized portion of RD 784 includes the communities of Olivehurst and Linda and the Plumas Lake Development area.
The federal project in RD 784 includes levees along the south bank of the Yuba River, the east bank of the Feather River, and the north bank of the Bear River, and an interceptor canal that collects water flowing toward RD 784 from the east and diverts the flows to the Bear River. The canal parallels the Western Pacific Railroad embankment and is referred to as the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC).
2-20 Description of the Region
2.3.21 RD 10 RD 10 was created by a special act of the State Legislature on August 10, 1913. RD 10 is located east of the Feather River extending north from just north of Marysville to near Honcut Creek. The eastern boundary of RD 10 is the Western Pacific Railroad. Highway 70 runs through the center of the district. The land use within RD 10 is dominated by almond orchards (Figure 2-5). Most of the lands are not part of an organized water district and the water demands are met with groundwater pumped from private wells.
2.3.22 RD 2103 RD 2103 encompasses approximately 4,000 acres of agricultural land and the City of Wheatland between Bear River and Dry Creek (Figure 2-5). RD 2103 is responsible for maintenance and operation of the Dry Creek levees and the Bear River levee east of Oakley Lane.
2.3.23 RD 817 RD 817 was formed under the general reclamation laws on November 4, 1910. RD 817 is responsible for flood protection of approximately 2,600 acres of primarily agricultural lands west of the City of Wheatland and the boundary of RD 2103 (Figure 2-5).
2.3.24 Marysville Levee Commission The City of Marysville includes the 1,500-acre urban area that is ringed by 7.5 miles of levee along the Feather River, Yuba River, and Simmerly /Jack Slough. The Marysville Levee Commission is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Marysville Ring Levee. The Marysville Levee Commission was established on March 6, 1876, and consists of a three-member citizen Board elected by Marysville residents. Commission members serve four-year terms. The Commission operates independently of the City.
2.3.25 Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority The Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA) was formed in May 2004 by a joint powers agreement between RD 784 and the County of Yuba. TRLIA was created to finance and construct levee improvements surrounding the south Yuba County area. A total of four phases of levee improvements have been identified that will be completed during the 2004 to 2008 period.
2-21 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
2.3.26 Yuba City As the county seat for Sutter County, the City of Yuba City was established in 1908 and has approximately 58,000 residents. It is governed by a five-member City Council and provides municipal services including police, fire, recreation, public works, planning, and utilities.
The Yuba City General Plan was adopted on April 8, 2004. The Yuba City General Plan includes 7,200 acres in the SOI. The extent of the SOI is shown in Figure 2-5. According to the Yuba City General Plan, the number of dwelling units will increase to about 40,500 dwelling units, which are needed to support a population of about 108,340.
The City borders the Feather River on the east and shares common flood concerns with Marysville. Its water supply is provided by a municipal system owned and operated by the City. An UWMP, which lays out future water supply reliability issues, was adopted by the city council on March 7, 2006. In addition to flood control and urban water demand issues, Yuba City shares a common interest with Marysville and the LCWD regarding wastewater disposal and recycling.
Yuba City is participating in the Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan with the City of Marysville and LCWD to identify and evaluate regional opportunities to use recycled water to meet non-potable water demands in the Yuba-Sutter region.
2.3.27 River Highlands Community Services District At the request of the County in 1980, the developers of a proposed project near Smartsville (River Highlands Planned Unit Development) formed a community services district (CSD) as a means to facilitate the construction of infrastructure for their project. This CSD is an independent entity that can levy user charges and assessments within a given area to provide services to that area. The River Highlands Community Plan area corresponds roughly with the SOI for the CSD. The River Highlands Community Services District (RHCSD) will ultimately assume responsibilities for the construction, operation, and maintenance of major infrastructural components for the Community Plan. These services include the distribution of treated potable water and the collection and disposal of wastewater. Currently, the RHCSD provides retail water services and wastewater treatment and disposal services to 84 residences in Gold Village. It is planned that the RHCSD provide these services for 15,740 people in 5,895 dwelling units. Its general role in water planning is in the capacity of a water purveyor and waste treatment agency. A five-member elected Board of Directors governs the district; however, there are only three members for the RHCSD.
2-22
3 Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption
To successfully implement a bottom-up approach to regional planning, there must be an open and public process that allows the opportunity for participation in the development of the planning activities. The Management Group made a concentrated effort to identify and invite interested parties and stakeholders to participate in all phases of the development and adoption of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The purpose of this section is to describe the stakeholder involvement and public outreach process used during the preparation and adoption of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
3.1 Stakeholder Involvement As described in Section 2, there are over 20 agencies with land or water management responsibilities within Yuba County. In addition, there is an active environmental community. In order to identify, contact, and invite the different interested parties to participate, YCWA initiated an aggressive program to encourage all agencies, stakeholders, water interests, and citizen groups to participate in the planning process to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
The stakeholder involvement and public outreach process included:
An initial public meeting to announce to interested parties and the public the Yuba County IRWM Plan planning process and to receive public comments about the planning process.
During the initial public meetings, the Management Group discussed the stakeholder involvement process, provided input for developing a list of stakeholders, and developed the methodology for stakeholder participation in the planning process. Informational letters were sent to the various stakeholders inviting them to participate in the development of the Plan.
Yuba County IRWM Plan project staff regularly briefed the board of supervisors, city councils, and boards of the participating agencies within the Plan Area to keep them informed about the document and to address questions. These briefings were held at public meetings and included the discussion of the Yuba County IRWM Plan as an agenda item.
3-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
When the public draft of the Yuba County IRWM Plan was prepared, a public notice was issued to give notice of its availability, and the public was provided access to the document for review and comment.
A public meeting was conducted to receive public comments on the draft Yuba County IRWM Plan.
When the final Yuba County IRWM Plan was prepared, each participating agency held a public meeting to receive comments from the public about whether to adopt the IRWM Plan.
Environmental groups, including the South Yuba River Citizens League, were invited and encouraged to join the planning process. Regional Stakeholders include: There will be a continuing effort to 1. Brophy Water District ensure that all stakeholders are aware of 2. Cordua Irrigation District the proposals submitted and projects 3. Dry Creek MWD implemented under this IRWM Plan. 4. Hallwood Irrigation Company 5. Ramirez Water District 3.1.1 Regional Water Management
Group 6. South Yuba Water District 7. Wheatland Water District In March 2005, YCWA and other water interests 8. City of Wheatland in the county formed the Management Group to 9. Yuba County Resource develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Conservation District The Agency submitted an application on behalf 10. Reclamation District 10 of the Management Group and received 11. Reclamation District 817 Proposition 50, Chapter 8 funding for 12. Reclamation District 2103 preparation of this plan. Upon initiation of the 13. California Water Service plan, the Management Group held monthly Company meetings throughout the planning process on the 14. South Yuba River Citizens first Thursday of the month at the Agency office League in Marysville, California. These meetings were Statewide Stakeholders include: open to the public. The meeting times and dates 1. Northern California Water were noticed on the YCWA website and in the Association local newspaper Current Events Section. 2. California Department of Water Resources The purpose of the Management Group was to 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide guidance for development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Agendas for the
3-2 Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption
Management Group meetings were posted on the Agency’s webpage in advance of the meetings.
In the early Management Group meetings, a list of stakeholders was developed, with the potential stakeholders for this planning process organized into three categories:
1. Members of the Management Group (listed in Section 1.3.2);
2. Regional stakeholders located in Yuba County; and
3. Statewide stakeholders, including local, state, and federal agencies.
3.1.2 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies Members of the Management Group have a history of working with state and federal agencies on complex and potentially controversial projects, and have communicated and coordinated with appropriate representatives of the agencies.
The YCWA, in particular, has a long-lasting partnership and coordination relationship with many state and federal agencies. The following list provides examples of coordination with both state and federal agencies.
Levee Improvement Projects - Yuba County and RD 784 work together as the TRLIA to address levee improvement projects on the Feather and Bear Rivers. TRLIA has worked closely for several years with the California Reclamation Board (part of DWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to address the flood protection needs of RD 784. This work resulted in projects that include the planning, design, and construction of setback levees on the Bear and Feather Rivers.
Forecast-Coordinated Operations of Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir (F-CO) - The F-CO is a multi-agency regional flood management program to improve flood operations along the Yuba and Feather Rivers and downstream. The F-CO is a partnership program that includes the following:
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
o Yuba County Water Agency
o Department of Water Resources
o National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Weather Service-River Forecast Center
3-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The F-CO is a multi-year project that includes F-CO Design (Phase 1) and Implementation (Phase 2). Half of Phase 1 is funded with in-kind services from DWR, NOAA, and the Corps, with the remaining half funded by the Costa- Machado Water Act of 2000. Phase 2 (estimated cost of about $1.6 million) is funded with 30 percent provided by YCWA and 70 percent by grant funds. In addition, in-kind services from DWR, NOAA, the Corps, and the SWP will supplement program implementation.
Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord – The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, described in more detail in Section 6, was formulated by a broad coalition of 17 agricultural, environmental, and fisheries interests including state and federal agencies and YCWA. YCWA is working with state, local, and federal agencies to complete the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and the three inseparable Agreements that, bonded together, make the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The Agreements will be finalized and implemented in cooperation and coordination with the listed agencies and water interests.
o Fisheries Agreement – The Fisheries Agreement was developed by state and federal fisheries advocates and policy representatives, including:
• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
• Friends of the River
• South Yuba River Citizens League
• The Bay Institute
• Trout Unlimited
• Yuba County Water Agency
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
o Conjunctive Use Agreements – The Conjunctive Use Agreements were developed between YCWA and its Member Units to enhance conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources and to make additional water supply available for instream use and Environmental Water Account (EWA).
o Water Purchase Agreement – The Water Purchase Agreement was developed through negotiations between the following:
3-4 Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption
• California Department of Water Resources
• Yuba County Water Agency
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Groundwater Management and Monitoring – YCWA has prepared and adopted an SB 1938-compliant Groundwater Management Plan (GMP). This GMP was prepared by YCWA in cooperation with the local groundwater users and DWR. The agency is now working with DWR staff and with Member Units to implement an enhanced groundwater monitoring program.
Data Collection and Management – YCWA has a cooperative relationship with DWR and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to collect and share data. In addition, the agency has worked with DWR and the USGS to identify the locations where additional gages should be installed, such as numerous weather gages in the upper watershed and the recently installed Dry Creek and Bear River (near Wheatland) stream gages.
3.2 Public Outreach The Management Group developed and implemented the public outreach process to ensure that the public and interested parties not already participating as stakeholders were informed about the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Following is a summary of the additional opportunities that the public was given to participate in the planning process.
In March 2006, YCWA notified regional and local stakeholders of the effort to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan and invited their participation in the process (Appendix A). Several stakeholders began to attend monthly planning meetings and later formally joined the Regional Water Management Group (i.e., NYWD, Yuba County RCD, and City of Wheatland).
Each agency that participated in the Management Group published a notice informing the public of its intention to participate in the planning process and held a public meeting to determine whether to adopt a resolution to engage in preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, as documented in Appendix A.
The Management Group meetings were designed and conducted as public meetings, and included posting the agenda for the meetings on the YCWA website in advance of the meetings. Interested parties and the public were invited to
3-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
participate in the meetings, which focused on discussion of regional water management issues. The Management Group participating agencies also used these meetings to provide comments on development of the plan.
The Management Group Meetings were effectively used as a tool for the resolution of water management issues in the Plan Area. Discussion of issues in the Management Group meetings, in an open and transparent process, resulted in a cooperative relationship between water users of the region. The Management Group meetings continue to provide a forum for discussion and early resolution of water issues in the region.
Throughout the development of the IRWM Plan, members of the Management Group presented quarterly status updates to their governing boards at regularly scheduled board meetings. The board meetings included a posted agenda item for the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The public was encouraged to participate in these meetings.
The governing bodies of the participating agencies scheduled a discussion of the draft plan in their regular meetings, provided information to the public regarding the content of the draft plan, and received comments. The contact person’s name and address of the lead agency were provided to the public for the submission of any written comments on the draft plan.
Copies of the draft plan were available for public review and comment.
The final Yuba County IRWM Plan will be submitted to DWR and the SWRCB, pursuant to the guidelines.
3.3 Plan Preparation The Yuba County IRWM Plan was being prepared from January 2006 to October 2007 by the Project Team. The Project Team was responsible for the following activities:
Collecting and reviewing existing available information,
Completing technical analyses,
Preparing report sections,
Providing draft report sections to the Management Group for review and comment,
3-6 Stakeholder Involvement/Public Outreach and Plan Adoption
Preparing information for the workshops,
Coordinating report preparation with other IRWM Plans as needed,
Preparing the Draft Yuba County IRWM Plan Report, and
Incorporating comments on the draft and preparing the final report.
During this time there were numerous coordination and stakeholder involvement activities, including:
18 Management Meetings (monthly),
Six quarterly briefings to boards and councils of participating agencies, and
Two Project workshops.
3.4 Public Hearings, Meetings, and Process for Adoption The Management Group held public hearings during the planning process. Notice of these meetings was posted on the agency websites and published in the local newspaper prior to the scheduled meeting time. Each meeting notice included an agenda, time, and place. Each Proof of Publication for Meeting Notice is located in Appendix A. Meeting minutes and board resolutions relating to the Yuba County IRWM Plan development and adoption process are included in Appendix A and D, respectively.
On February 7, 2006, the Management Group held a public hearing to brief the community on IRWM Plan requirements, the proposed planning process, opportunities for public involvement, and to discuss the intention to prepare the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The purpose of the meeting was to receive comments from the public on whether to prepare an IRWM Plan for Yuba County. Interested parties and the general public were invited and encouraged to attend and provide comments to YCWA. Members of the Management Group participated in the meeting. At the end of the meeting, staff was directed to prepare a draft Yuba County IRWM Plan. A copy of the public meeting presentation as well as the meeting notes are in Appendix A.
Prior to release of the public draft, the governing bodies of the participating agencies were briefed on the status of the Yuba County IRWM Plan at their regularly scheduled August or September 2007 board meeting. When the public draft of the IRWM Plan became available in January 2008, notice was provided in the (Appeal Democrat newspaper) and on the YCWA website to inform the public about its availability. Copies of the draft plan were made available to the public upon request, and were posted on the
3-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
YCWA website. A public meeting on the Draft Yuba County IRWM Plan was held on February 12, 2008, at the YCWA Board Meeting in Marysville.
Representatives of the Yuba County IRWM Plan Project Team made presentations to each governing board meeting and were available to address questions from the Board or the public. Each agency considered protests to adopting the plan. If the agency determined that “a majority protest” had not been filed, the agency could then adopt the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Written comments on the draft plan were collected at the public hearing and accepted directly by the Agency until February 12, 2008.
After the close of the comment period, the Yuba County IRWM Plan Project Team reviewed all the comments and the draft Yuba County IRWM Plan was updated to address the comments as needed.
A public hearing was held on February 26, 2008, for YCWA to receive further public comment on the final draft of the plan and, acting as the lead agency, to adopt the Yuba County IRWM Plan. A notice was published regarding the hearing date, time, and agenda; summary of the plan; and the means for obtaining copies. Once adopted by YCWA, the plan will be adopted by the Boards of the other members of the Management Group. Final resolutions and meeting minutes will be included in an Appendix to the final published document to be provided to DWR to show proof of final adoption, along with any funding requests.
3-8
4 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Yuba County’s unique water resources facilities and programs have been developed through time in response to the significant challenges and opportunities in the area. These challenges and opportunities include managing the water resources of the Yuba- Feather River system and the extensive groundwater resources of the Yuba Subbasins to meet current and future water needs, and managing winter flood flows to protect the community. This section describes the water resources setting and water management issues in the Plan Area. The information was used by the Management Group to understand the historical and current conditions, identify issues, and support development of goals and objectives.
4.1 Surface Water Resources The Yuba River is the primary surface water source within Yuba County. The Yuba River presents the greatest surface water management opportunities because of its location within the central part of the county. Other large rivers that affect water management, primarily on the valley floor of the region, include the Feather River, Honcut Creek, and the Bear River. The locations of these rivers and their watersheds are shown on Figure 4-1.
Like other areas of California, the Management Group is working to plan for both flood conditions and drought conditions, and the existing or proposed facilities must provide multiple benefits. The same facilities that are developed to store and distribute winter runoff to provide for irrigation and municipal demands throughout the year must also be operated to manage flood flows. The multiple use facilities and operations are discussed below.
4-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 4-1 Principal Drainage Basins
4-2 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
4.1.1 Yuba River The Yuba River basin drains approximately 1,339 square miles of the western Sierra Nevada slope, including portions of Sierra, Placer, Yuba, and Nevada Counties. The Yuba River is a tributary of the Feather River, which, in turn, is a tributary of the Sacramento River. The average annual unimpaired flow of the Yuba River at Smartville is 2.45 million acre-feet; however, a portion of this water is diverted from the watershed and is not available to the lower Yuba River. The annual unimpaired flow has ranged from a high of 4,925,000 acre-feet in 1986 to a low of 370,000 acre-feet in 1977. The average surface water supply use in the region is about 304,000 acre-feet, with plans for expansion to 345,000 acre-feet. The region enjoys good surface water quality. Yuba River water management facilities were developed for the purposes of capturing mining debris, water supply, flood control, and hydroelectric power generation. The facilities, operations, hydrology, and flood characteristics are discussed below.
4.1.1.1 Yuba River Surface Water Facilities Since the mid-1800s, the Yuba River basin has been significantly developed for gold mining, debris control, water supply, power generation, flood control, fisheries enhancement, and recreation. This development includes the upstream hydroelectric diversions by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); hydroelectric and water supply diversions by Nevada Irrigation District and SFWPA; the construction of Daguerre Point Dam and Englebright Dam by the California Debris Commission, now operated and maintained by the Corps for debris control; and the construction of New Bullards Bar Dam and associated facilities by YCWA for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of these facilities.
The New Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir, Our House and Log Cabin diversion dams, Colgate Powerhouse, Narrows II Powerhouse, and other conveyance facilities make up the principal components of the Yuba River Development Project, which YCWA constructed in the late 1960s.
Fifteen other reservoirs have been constructed in the upper portion of the basin on the Middle and South Yuba Rivers, with a combined storage capacity of approximately 400,000 acre-feet. Except for New Bullards Bar Reservoir, there is only minimal storage to regulate flood runoff within the basin. The smaller storage facilities on the headwaters of the South Yuba and Middle Yuba Rivers usually fill with early runoff. Hence, in wetter years, much of the spring and early summer flow to the lower Yuba River results from uncontrolled snowmelt within the basin. In the summer and early fall, most of the flow in the Lower Yuba River is provided by releases from New Bullards Bar Reservoir.
4-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 4-2 Water Development Facilities
4-4 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
New Bullards Bar Reservoir on the North Yuba River and Lake Oroville on the Feather River are multi-purpose facilities that have dedicated flood storage pools that are operated in accordance with regulations of the Corps. There are several other, mostly small, reservoirs in the Yuba and Feather River Basins. Lake Almanor on the North Fork of the Feather River, owned by PG&E, can provide incidental flood regulation if there is storage space at the time of a flood inflow, thereby saving storage space in Lake Oroville. PG&E hydro facilities (i.e., Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe powerhouses) located along the North Fork Feather River upstream of Lake Oroville have negligible flood storage capacity in the Feather River Canyon between Lake Almanor and Lake Oroville. Camp Far West Reservoir on the Bear River, owned and operated by South Sutter Water District, can also provide incidental regulation of floods when there is storage space.
4.1.1.1.1 New Bullards Bar Reservoir YCWA completed construction of New Bullards Bar Reservoir in 1969 and began operation in 1970. It is located on the North Yuba River and receives runoff from 489 square miles or about 37 percent of the Yuba River drainage area (see Figure 4-2). It has a total capacity of 966,000 acre-feet of which 170,000 acre-feet is seasonally dedicated to flood control. The maximum objective release from New Bullards Bar Reservoir is 50,000 cfs. Greater releases up to the maximum rate of inflow to the reservoir may be made provided downstream flow limitations are observed. These limits are 120,000 cfs at Marysville when the flow in the Feather River is high and 180,000 cfs when the flow in the Feather River is low. The design flow in the Feather River between the Yuba River and the Bear River is 300,000 cfs.
4.1.1.1.2 Marysville Dam and Lake The Marysville Dam and Lake project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of November 7, 1966 (P.L. 89-789, 89th Congress, 2nd Session), but this facility has never been constructed. The project proposed by the Corps was located at the Browns Valley site downstream of French Dry Creek (see Figure 4-2). The lake would cover 10,800 acres at full storage of 970,000 acre-feet. The gross pool would extend to the Narrows II Powerhouse and would inundate the town of Browns Valley. Local opposition was strong and the project was not implemented.
The authorization was modified in the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, to move the dam to the Parks Bar site immediately upstream of the Yuba River Bridge on State Route 20. Hydroelectric pumped storage was included in the authorization.
In March 1977, the Corps issued a general design memorandum for a project at the Parks Bar site. The project would also include a dam on French Dry Creek and an afterbay dam
4-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
on the Yuba River to develop pumped storage power. The project would store 950,000 acre-feet and provide flood control for 240,000 acre-feet of dedicated storage, water supply, recreation, and anadromous fisheries enhancement. The project in 1976 dollars was estimated to be about $1.14 billion. About 78 percent of the estimated total benefits would be from power, nine percent from irrigation water supply, five percent from flood control, and the balance from recreation, fisheries, and area development.
As discussed later in this report, flood operation rules for Lake Oroville are based on the assumption that the Marysville Lake Project would be constructed. Lake Oroville is now operated for flood control under interim rules that provide for surcharging. (Flood surcharge is the volume or space in a reservoir between the controlled water retention level and the maximum water level. Flood surcharge cannot be retained in the reservoir but will flow out of the reservoir until the controlled retention water level is reached.) The Water Development Act of 1986 provided that projects that do not receive funding through Fiscal Year 1992 are deauthorized. Funding for the Marysville Lake Project has not been provided.
4.1.1.1.3 Daguerre Point Dam Daguerre Point Dam is the first dam constructed on the lower Yuba River and is located about 12.5 miles downstream of Englebright Dam. Construction was completed in 1906. Today, Daguerre Point Dam is the location of the main water diversions from the lower Yuba River. Because of its head benefit and impoundment of water, it provides gravity- fed surface water diversions and enhanced recharge from the Yuba River to both the North and South Yuba River groundwater subbasins.
4.1.1.1.4 Englebright Dam Englebright Dam, the second dam constructed on the lower river, was built in 1941 by the California Debris Commission. Operated and maintained by the Corps, it collects placer-mining debris that has been moving down the Yuba River into the Sacramento River. This facility provides for the beneficial use of water, recreation, and downstream navigation through debris control. The North, Middle, and South branches of the Yuba River flow into Englebright Reservoir. The approximately 24-mile-long reach of the Yuba River between Englebright Dam and its confluence with the Feather River has been defined as the Lower Yuba River.
The average regulated inflow into Englebright Reservoir is about 1.6 million acre-feet per year. On average, 1.1 million acre-feet per year pass through New Bullards Bar Reservoir; the remaining 500,000 acre-feet is local inflow and flow from the South Yuba and Middle Yuba Rivers directly into Englebright Reservoir. Below Englebright
4-6 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Reservoir, local inflow and runoff from Deer Creek contribute, on average, an additional 170,000 acre-feet per year below the Smartville gage, just below Englebright Dam.
4.1.1.2 Yuba River Water Supply and Fisheries Operations YCWA’s base flow management operations for New Bullards Bar and Englebright dams and reservoirs are briefly summarized here, and are more fully described in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Draft EIR/EIS. Base flow water management operations describe normal operations of New Bullards Bar Reservoir when YCWA controls system flows through regulation of reservoir storage and releases. Base flow operations occur outside periods of flood control and storm flow operations. Outside periods of flood control operations, New Bullards Bar Dam release rates are operated for the following:
Instream flow requirements, water temperature, and water quality regulations for fisheries resources;
Carry-over storage targets;
Local irrigation demands and water supply contract deliveries;
Flood control;
Hydropower; and
Water transfers.
The actual operations and flow requirements are dependent in part upon the annual hydrologic conditions. The Yuba River Index was developed in 2000 for the SWRCB Lower Yuba River Hearings to describe the hydrology of the Lower Yuba River. This index is a measure of the unimpaired river flows at Smartville. The Yuba River Index is used to determine water year types and corresponding instream flow requirements under SWRCB Revised Decision 1644 (RD-1644).
4.1.1.3 Yuba River Water Supplies YCWA delivers irrigation water from the Yuba Project to Member Units located north and south of the Lower Yuba River. Member Units receive surface water from the Yuba Project either through their own water rights, or through contracts with YCWA to purchase water, or both. During dry years, water supplies to Member Units may be reduced according to the water supply contract deficiency provisions.
4-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.1.1.4 YCWA Water Rights YCWA is a major water right holder on the Yuba River. YCWA diverts water for consumptive uses under Permits 15026, 15027, and 15030. YCWA’s permits authorize direct diversion up to a total rate of 1,593 cfs from the lower Yuba River from September 1 to June 30 for irrigation and other uses, and up to 1,250,000 acre-feet from October 1 to June 30 to storage in New Bullards Bar Reservoir.
Various water districts, irrigation districts, and mutual water companies have contracts with YCWA for delivery of water. Some of the parties that receive water from YCWA also have their own appropriative rights for diversion of water from the Yuba River including BVID, CID, and HIC. Other agencies and districts providing surface water for irrigation in Yuba County include the NYWD (from the south of the Feather River), Camp Far West Irrigation District (from the Bear River),1 and Plumas Mutual Water Company (from the lower Feather River).2
4.1.1.5 YCWA Member Units Water Contracts YCWA contract allocations are based on the gross acreage served by each Member Unit. The maximum “Base Project Water” allocation is computed by multiplying 90 percent of the gross acreage by 2.87 acre-feet per acre. The maximum “Supplemental Water Supply” is computed by multiplying 90 percent of the gross acreage by 2.13 acre-feet per acre. For Member Units that have water rights senior to YCWA, their contract allocations are based on their water right amounts. Table 4-1 presents the YCWA contract amounts and Table 4-2 presents the water supply contract deficiency provisions.
1 Camp Far West Irrigation District diverts water from the Bear River below Camp Far West Reservoir.
2 Plumas Mutual Water Company diverts water from the Feather River downstream of the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers.
4-8 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Table 4-1 Yuba County Water Agency Contract Amounts (AF per year) Base Total Total Contract Water Diversion Point and Contract Supplemental Contract District Water and Water Member Units (AF) Contract (AF) (AF) Rights (AF) Rights (AF) Brown’s Valley Irrigation District Pump line Diversion Facility Browns Valley Irrigation District 9,500 - 9,500 24,462b 33,962 South Canal Brophy Water District 43,470 32,177 75,647 - 75,647 South Yuba Water District 25,487 18,843 44,330 - 44,330 Dry Creek Mutual Water Company 13,682 3,061 16,743 - 16,743 Wheatland Water District a 23,092 17,138 40,230 - 40,230 North Canal Cordua Irrigation District 12,000 - 12,000 60,000 72,000 Hallwood Irrigation Company - - 78,000 78,000 Ramirez Water District 14,790 10,311 25,101 - 25,101 Other City of Marysville - 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 Total 142,021 84,030 226,051 162,462 388,513 a Includes both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Wheatland Project. b As specified in RD-1664
Table 4-2 Yuba County Water Agency Water Supply Contract Deficiency Provisions Unimpaired Runoff Percentage of Settlement/ Category Forecast (f) a Contract Allocation Available Pre-1914 Rights Settlements Cordua Irrigation District, Hallwood f = 40% 100% Irrigation Company f < 40% 80% Browns Valley Irrigation District All 100% YCWA Supply Contracts 85% < f 100% 50% < f ≤ 85% 85% Base Project Water 40% ≤ f ≤ 50% 70% f < 40% 50% Determined annually by YCWA in its reasonable discretion Supplemental Water All Forecasts considering forecasted runoff and operational conditions. a April 1 DWR forecast of unimpaired Yuba River runoff near Smartville, in percentage of 50-year average.
4.1.2 Other Rivers in Yuba County YCWA and other participating agencies do not have the authority or responsibility to operate facilities on other streams flowing to or adjacent to the region. Some agencies do receive water from these rivers.
4-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.1.2.1 Feather River and Lake Oroville The Feather River watershed is located on the eastern side of the Sacramento Valley, generally north and east from Marysville and Yuba City. The Feather River watershed is located north of the Yuba River watershed in the Sierra Nevada. The drainage of the watershed at Oroville Dam is 3,607 square miles. The Feather River flows for 200 miles from an elevation of nearly 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada to an elevation of less than 100 feet near its confluence with the Sacramento River. As the Feather River flows west onto the Sacramento Valley floor it turns south and is joined by Honcut Creek, the Yuba River, and the Bear River prior to joining the Sacramento River near Verona. Between Honcut Creek and the Bear River, the Feather River is the western boundary of Yuba County.
Oroville Dam and Reservoir, a key feature of the SWP, was completed in 1968. It has capacity for 3,537,000 acre-feet, of which up to 750,000 acre-feet are dedicated to flood control between October 15 and March 31. The Feather River watershed above Oroville Dam totals about 3,600 square miles (Figure 4-1). Precipitation falls in the form of rain and snow. Oroville Dam is owned and operated by the DWR as part of the SWP. Unimpaired flows range from 1,000,000 acre-feet per year to 9,400,000 acre-feet per year and average about 3,800,000 acre-feet per year. The maximum objective flood release is 150,000 cfs. The SWP has inundation rights to flood portions of western Yuba County within RD 10 located north of the city of Marysville upstream of the confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers.
The NYWD has an existing agreement with the SFWPA for a firm supply of 3,700 acre- feet per year and surplus water when available from the SFFRP.
4.1.2.2 Honcut Creek The Honcut Creek watershed above the Town of Honcut totals about 78 square miles, which produces about 60,000 acre-feet per year of runoff primarily from rainfall. There are no major reservoirs on Honcut Creek, but there are a number of riparian diverters.
4.1.2.3 Bear River The Bear River is the second largest tributary to the Feather River (the Yuba River is the largest tributary). The Bear River drainage basin area totals about 550 square miles and joins the Feather River about 15 miles south of the City of Marysville. The watershed above Camp Far West Dam totals about 290 square miles (Figure 4-1). The Bear River watershed is much smaller and at a lower elevation than the Yuba and Feather Rivers, so most of the precipitation falls in the form of rain. Unimpaired flows range from about 20,000 to 740,000 acre-feet per year and average 272,000 acre-feet per year.
4-10 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Camp Far West Dam is owned and operated by South Sutter Water District and has a storage capacity of 104,000 acre-feet. Other smaller reservoirs provide an additional 70,000 acre-feet of storage. An additional eleven power plants (mostly owned by PG&E) and their associated fore and after bays provide additional regulation along the river.
4.1.3 History of Yuba County Floods Approximately 45 percent of the average annual runoff volume from the watersheds occurs in the rain- and flood-producing months of December through March; about 35 percent of the runoff is generated in the snowmelt months of April through June. Snowmelt flows without a rain-flood increment do not present a flood threat to the downstream areas because the river channels have the capacity to safely pass flows far in excess of the maximum historical snowmelt flood. Flood-producing storms are generally of relatively short duration (two to five days) with an occasional longer storm. Long- duration storms or a storm sequence can be controlled by the basin reservoirs in combination with the large channel capacities within the leveed channels. The extreme orographic influence of the Sierra Nevada causes storms to produce prodigious amounts of rainfall as storms enter California from lower latitudes across the Pacific Ocean. These extreme rainfall totals result in rapid increases in flows and extremely high peak flows in the channels. The Yuba and Feather Rivers have a “flashy” hydrograph that quickly responds to storm events—the rivers quickly rise and recede in the upper watersheds and canyons. For example, during the January 1997 flood, inflow to Lake Oroville increased tenfold—from about 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on December 29, 1996, to 300,000 cfs on January 1, 1997.
In the last 100 years, there have been 10 major flood events that impacted the cities of Marysville and Yuba City and low-lying valley areas below the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers, of which five occurred in the last 55 years. These last five events and the damages are shown in Table 4-3, and the locations of the flooded areas are shown on Figure 4-3.
4-11 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 4-3 Summary of Major Floods on the Yuba and Feather Rivers Total Number Flood Affected Acres Lives Damage Cause/Location of Homes Event Area Inundated Lost ($ for Flooded Period)
Nov. 1950 Training levee failure/ Hammonton, 43,000 Undeter- Undeter- $4 M south bank of Yuba River Linda, and mined mined near Hammonton Olivehurst
Dec. 1955 Levee failure/west bank of Yuba City 100,000 3,300 38 $50.5 M Feather River 3 miles south of Yuba City
Levee failure/east bank of Nicolaus 35,000 Undeter- None Feather River near mined- Nicolaus
Dec. 1964 Highflows/Yuba and Floodway 25,000 Undeter- None $5 M Feather River floodways areas within (within mined levees floodways)
Feb. 1986 Levee failure/south bank Linda and 7,000 3,000 None $450 M1 of Yuba River at Linda Oliverhurst
Jan. 1997 Levee failure/east bank of Arboga, 16,000 840 3 $150 M1 Feather River 6 miles Linda, and south of Olivehurst Olivehurst 1 Settlement amounts.
4-12 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Figure 4-3 Recent Flooding in Yuba County
4-13 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.1.3.1 Yuba and Feather Levees Much of the floodplain area of Yuba County is protected by levees. In the north, this includes levees along Honcut Creek and the Feather River. Both banks of the Yuba River have levees from its mouth to high ground along the goldfields. The City of Marysville is protected by a ring levee around the entire city. Levees are present along the entire left bank of the Feather River between the Yuba and Bear Rivers. This levee continues along the right bank of the Bear River upstream to the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC), which drains to the Bear River and along Dry Creek. The locations of these levees are shown in Figure 4-4.
Within Yuba County, levee maintenance is the responsibility of the reclamation districts (RD) shown on Figure 4-4. RD No. 10, located along the eastern bank of the Feather River between Honcut Creek and the City of Marysville was created by a special act of the State Legislature on August 10, 1913. RD No. 784 was formed under general RD laws on May 6, 1908, and is located east of the Feather River south of the City of Marysville. RD No. 817, along the right (north) bank of the Bear River east of the WPIC was formed under general reclamation laws on November 4, 1910. RD No. 2103, generally between the right bank of the Bear River and Dry Creek, is east of RD 817. Both RD 817 and RD 2103 are either located within or portions at least border the City of Wheatland SOI.
Levees along the Feather, Yuba, and Bear Rivers were authorized for federal construction as part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Project) in 1911. The alignment of the existing Feather River levee in RD 10 generally follows the authorized alignment. In RD 784, however, the existing Feather River levee alignment beginning upstream of Ella Road (extended) down to the eastern loop of Star Bend is up to about 3,000 feet west of the authorized alignment.
4-14 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Figure 4-4 Status of Project Levees
4-15 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.1.3.2 Flood Channel Capacities Levees are designed to provide specific channel capacities. The design flows for various locations are shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Corps of Engineers Flood System Design Flows Location Design Flow, cfs
Feather River at Yuba City 210,000 cfs
Yuba River at Marysville 120,000 to 180,000 cfs1
Feather River below the Yuba River 300,000 cfs
Feather River below the Bear River 320,000 cfs
Bear River below WPIC 40,000 cfs 1Combined Feather River and Yuba River flows should not exceed 300,000 cfs.
The combined capacity of the channels of the Feather and Yuba Rivers upstream of the mouth of the Yuba River can safely carry more water than the Feather River channel downstream of the Yuba River. The flood system is constrained by the limited channel capacity of the Feather River downstream of the Yuba River. Similarly, the combined design capacity of the Feather River and Bear River could exceed the capacity of the Feather River below the Bear River. However, the peak flows in the Bear River normally occur earlier than the peak flows in the Feather River. Exceeding the Yuba channel capacity can be an issue because the Middle Yuba and South Yuba are uncontrolled rivers from a flood control perspective.
4.2 Groundwater Resources There is a large range of availability and accessibility to groundwater within Yuba County. The valley floor is underlain by an alluvial aquifer system that contains significant quantities of groundwater, while the foothill and mountain areas are underlain by a fractured rock aquifer, which, at best, may yield small quantities of water to a well. The extent of the groundwater resources in the county are presented on Figure 4-5.
4-16 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Figure 4-5 Groundwater Resources in Plan Area
4-17 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.2.1 Alluvial Groundwater Basins The groundwater aquifer underlying Yuba County is divided by the Yuba River into two subbasins—North Yuba and South Yuba. DWR defines the subbasins as follows:
North Yuba subbasin (groundwater basin number 5-21.60) is bounded on the north by Honcut Creek, the Feather River on the west, on the south by the Yuba River, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada.
South Yuba subbasin (groundwater basin number 5-21.61) is bounded on the north by the Yuba River, the Feather River on the west, on the south by the Bear River, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada.
These two subbasins are considered subbasins to the larger Sacramento Valley groundwater basin and are somewhat hydraulically isolated from the rest of the Sacramento basin by the surface streams that surround them. The Yuba County groundwater subbasins encompass an area of approximately 270 square miles.
4.2.1.1 2004 Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction Historically, groundwater flows from the eastern boundary of Yuba County toward the western boundary of the county. The hydraulic gradient dips steeply from the Sierra Nevada Mountain front, which abuts the eastern boundary of the county and gradually flattens out toward the west, eventually discharging into the Feather River. Spring 2004 groundwater conditions presented on Figure 4-6 show that groundwater is approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the east and drops to approximately 30 feet above msl toward the western border of Yuba County. This pattern of higher groundwater elevations on the east declining to the west is consistent for both the North Yuba Subbasin and the South Yuba Subbasin, with a few deviations in the South Yuba Subbasin due to the moderate cone of depression that exists in the center of the basin.
In the North Yuba Subbasin, groundwater levels range from about 130 feet above msl at the eastern edge of the basin near the Yuba River to about 50 feet msl near the City of Marysville. Groundwater elevations near the center of the subbasin are at about 70 feet above msl.
In the South Yuba Subbasin, groundwater levels range from about 140 feet at the eastern edge of the subbasin near the Yuba River and Beale AFB to about 25 feet above msl at selected locations west of Highway 70. Groundwater elevations near the center of the subbasin are at about 45 feet above msl. Groundwater elevations near the City of Wheatland are at about 50 to 60 feet above msl, and decline to about 35 feet above msl to the northwest along Highway 65.
4-18 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Figure 4-6 Spring 2004 Groundwater Elevations in the Yuba Basin
4-19 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.2.1.2 Groundwater Level Trends The North Yuba Subbasin has several wells within its basin that have been consistently monitored since the 1960s. In general, the drought of 1977 is the record low for groundwater levels in the basin. The groundwater levels did not fully recover from this drought until 1982. From 1982 to 1991, groundwater levels throughout the basin rose 10 feet on average and up to 20 feet in some areas. This rise in groundwater elevation was likely due to delivery of surface water from the Yuba Project. Seasonal variations in groundwater elevation typically range 10 feet from spring to fall.
Historically, groundwater levels have exhibited a well-developed regional cone of depression beneath the South Yuba Subbasin since as early as the 1940s. The cone of depression starts on the western side of Beale AFB and continues into the central region (west of Beale AFB) of the South Yuba Subbasin. Water levels in the center of the cone of depression were just below sea level during the 1960s. Nearly all groundwater levels were well below adjacent river levels on the Bear, Feather, and Yuba Rivers at that time. Groundwater conditions in 1984 reflect a continued reliance on groundwater pumping in the South Yuba Basin. Water levels in the center of the South Yuba cone of depression had fallen to 30 feet below sea level. The water level contours adjacent to the Bear and Yuba Rivers indicated a large gradient and seepage from the rivers. By 1990, water levels in the South Yuba Basin cone of depression rose to 10 feet above sea level. The rise in water levels was due to increasing surface water irrigation supplies and reduced groundwater pumping. Groundwater levels have largely recovered from historical overdraft, except in the Wheatland area, because of YCWA’s surface water project (i.e., Brophy Canal). Source: YCWA GMP Update to Board, 9/12/06.
4.2.1.3 Groundwater Storage The groundwater storage capacity for both subbasins was estimated by evaluating the storage characteristics of aquifer material occurring above the base of freshwater and top of the groundwater level.
The freshwater in storage in Yuba County’s groundwater basin is estimated to be 7.5 million acre-feet. It is not feasible, however, to use the entire volume of freshwater. This would have numerous negative environmental impacts as well as potentially dewatering shallow wells in the basin. A recent analysis of the volume of fresh groundwater within 200 feet of the spring 2003 groundwater levels is estimated at about 2.8 million acre-feet. Not all of this is usable because of impacts on shallow wells in the basin.
4-20 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
4.2.1.4 Groundwater Quality DWR, Central District, maintains a groundwater quality monitoring program in the Yuba Basin. This program has been in operation since the 1940s and currently monitors 13 wells regularly. Eight of these wells are located in the South Yuba Subbasin and the remaining wells are located in the North Yuba Subbasin. These wells were regularly sampled between 1965 and 1989. The temporal pattern of data collection indicates that a group of six wells was sampled one year and the remaining seven wells were sample the following year so that an individual well was sampled every two years. In general, measurements of the data collection year typically tested for major cations and anions, TDS, nitrates, pH, and conductance, and were recorded between June and September.
Since 1989, 11 of the 13 wells identified above continue to be monitored. As part of the 2002 Transfer Program, an additional 84 wells were monitored for water quality. All wells were located in the Valley Floor Area.
The groundwater in the subbasins has similar water quality characteristics, and, for the most part, is of good quality for both domestic and agricultural uses. Groundwater quality is generally characterized by major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and anions (carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride). Groundwater is given a name based on the percentage of each of these major cations and anions.
The groundwater in the Yuba subbasins is mostly calcium-magnesium or magnesium- calcium bicarbonate water. Exceptions to this consistent water quality type occur near the town of Wheatland, where sodium-calcium chloride water has been encountered. Scattered occurrences of calcium-sodium bicarbonate water have been reported in various wells. Sodium is of particular concern for irrigation of salt-sensitive crops. Based on methods developed by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory, water in the subbasins was classified by its suitability for irrigation use. Most of the Yuba subbasins contain water that has low total dissolved solids and low sodium concentrations (irrigation water classification code C1-S1), making the water ideal for irrigation. The exception to this is in portions of the WWD. YCWA completed the installation in 2006 of eight new dedicated monitoring wells located throughout the north and south Yuba Groundwater Basin. The groundwater quality at all wells ranges from good to excellent quality and meets all federal and State primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
In recent times, poorer water quality forced farmers in the Wheatland area to abandon some wells and pump longer on wells that still provide good-quality water. Within the WWD, at least two wells have been capped because of poor water quality and more well closures are being considered.
4-21 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.2.2 Foothill and Mountain Area Groundwater Resources Whereas the alluvial groundwater basins of California have been delineated by the DWR, the fractured granite formations that constitute much of the Sierra Nevada foothills and western slopes of the mountains are poorly understood. The crystal nature of the hardrock systems prevents water from penetrating the rocks except in the joints and fractures. Where fractures are present, small amounts of water may be stored and recovered by wells that intersect the fractures.
In the foothill and mountain areas, limited amounts of groundwater may also be available in the small alluvial deposits immediately adjacent to local streams. The alluvium consists of thin deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that have a low storage capacity.
Neither the hardrock nor thin alluvial aquifers of the foothill and mountain areas provide a dependable groundwater supply of significance. It is estimated that less than ten percent of water supply in these areas is from groundwater, and typical use is for single family homes. Because the rural residences are not connected to municipal water systems and are completely dependent on groundwater for domestic use, these supplies can be unreliable during times of drought. The groundwater resources of the area are limited and poorly understood at this time.
Groundwater supplies are highly variable due to quantity and quality (heavy metals and contamination from septic systems) (CABY IRWMP, 2006). Specific groundwater quality data are not available for the Foothill/Mountain Area. DWR is collecting data and conducting monitoring to better understand and manage the groundwater resources of this area.
4.3 Water Demands, Supplies, and Budget The purpose of this section is to present the results of the analysis completed to estimate the change in water use conditions as they relate to changing land use conditions during the planning horizon of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The planning horizon for the Yuba County IRWM Plan extends from current conditions (2005) to the year 2030 (about a 25-year planning horizon). Detailed information is available to estimate the existing and near-term projected (year 2015) land use conditions and their associated water demands. Yuba County is currently updating the Land Use Planning Element of the General Plan, and when completed, will provide a more quantitative evaluation of the land use and water projections for Yuba County than are currently available.
The following five water management subareas within Yuba County (described in Section 2 and presented in Figure 2-3) were used to estimate the changing land use and water use conditions in the Plan Area.
4-22 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin 1. North Yuba Agricultural Subarea
2. City of Marysville Subarea
South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin 3. South Yuba Agricultural Subarea
4. City of Wheatland Subarea
Foothill/Mountain Area 5. Foothill/Mountain Subarea
The Regional Water Recycling Subarea is intended to identify water recycling opportunities in the Sutter-Yuba Region, and overlies portions of western Yuba County. The water demands for most of these areas within Yuba County are included in the other subareas, and the remaining demands are located outside of Yuba County and not included in this analysis, so the Regional Water Recycling Subarea is not included in the water demand, supply, and budget analysis.
4.3.1 Land Use Analysis Methodology Land and water use data for the year 2005 (Current) and year 2015 (Near-Term Future) have been developed based upon the geographic distribution of land uses and approved land use changes within Yuba County as defined in the adopted city or county general plan. This information is available from land use maps, specific plans, and general plans.
The base information for the existing land use conditions are represented based on the DWR 1995 land use survey of Yuba County, which identifies over 20 specific land uses and crop types. For purposes of this analysis, the specific land uses were summarized into the following general land use categories:
Agricultural Lands - includes citrus and subtropical; deciduous fruits and nuts; field crops; grain and hay crops; pasture; rice; and truck, nursery, and berry crops. Urban Lands - includes urban, semi-agricultural, municipal, domestic, industrial, and commercial land uses. Undeveloped Lands - includes water, barren and waste land (mines and goldfields), riparian vegetation, and native vegetation. The 1995 GIS data were updated to reflect the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses based on data provided by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2004)
4-23 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
from the California Department of Conservation. Changes in cropping patterns were not available.
The average annual water use is estimated using the calculated land use acreages and local water duty estimates for each land use category. These values are summed to determine the total water use (agricultural and urban) for each area. The surface water supply availability for each area is subject to district or agency access to surface water. The estimates of water supply availability are based on average hydrologic conditions. For the average hydrologic conditions, it is assumed that any agricultural demands not met by surface water are met with groundwater and that all urban demands are met with groundwater unless otherwise stated.
4.3.2 Land Use Conditions Land use conditions and associated water use conditions were developed for the following levels of development:
Existing conditions representing 2005 level of development;
Near-term future conditions, which represent the estimated 2015 level of development; and
Buildout conditions, which represent the estimated 2030 level of development.
4.3.2.1 Existing Land Use Conditions (2005) Table 4-5 presents, by subarea, the existing general land use within the Plan Area for existing conditions. The Plan Area totals approximately 410,000 acres, which consist of about 23 percent agricultural lands (about 92,000 acres), 6 percent urban lands (about 25,200 acres), and 70 percent undeveloped lands (about 289,000 acres). As shown in Figure 2-5, most of the urban lands are located in the City of Marysville Subarea, City of Wheatland Subarea, and along the Highway 70 and Highway 65 corridors, including the communities of Linda, Olivehurst, and Arboga.
4-24 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Table 4-5 Land Use Conditions 2005 Level of Development 2015 Level of Development Difference
Area Agriculture Urban Total Agriculture Urban Total Agriculture Urban
North Yuba Groundwater Basin North Yuba 39,670 1,730 41,400 39,590 2,540 42,130 -80 810 730 Subarea City of Marysville 50 1,650 1,700 50 1,650 1,700 0 0 0 Subarea Subtotal 39,720 3,380 43,100 39,640 4,190 43,830 -80 810 l
South Yuba Groundwater Basin South Yuba 45,210 10,000 55,210 39,150 22,510 61,670 -6,050 12,510 6,460 Subarea City of Wheatland 2,420 550 2,970 0 4,280 4,280 -2,420 3,730 1,310 Subarea Subtotal 47,630 10,550 58,180 39,160 26,790 65,950 -8,470 16,240 7,770
Foothill/Mountains Foothills/Mountains 4,720 11,280 16,000 4,720 14,180(1) 18,900 0 2,900 2,900
TOTAL PLAN AREA 92,070 25,210 117,280 83,520 45,160 128,680 -8,550 19,950 11,400
All values in acres (1) Includes 2,900 acres from Yuba Highlands Specific Plan expansion.
4.3.2.2 Near-Term Future Land Use Conditions (2015) Future land use conditions representing a potential 2015 level of development include the anticipated changes based upon the County-approved specific plans and general plans within the Plan Area are shown on Figure 4-7. Table 4-5 presents the future land use conditions and the changes from the current conditions. The estimated 19,950-acre increased urban areas occur due to an approximately 8,550-acre reduction in agricultural acreage and the development of about 11,400 acres of lands currently identified as undeveloped.
There is little or no change in land use conditions in the North Yuba Subarea or the City of Marysville Subarea. The City of Wheatland Subarea is assumed to fully buildout to the City of Wheatland General Plan Update by 2015.
Most of the anticipated urban development (about 12,000 acres) is expected to occur in the Olivehurst-Linda-Plumas Lake area of the South Yuba Subarea. This area is under
4-25 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 4-7 Current Water Supply Mix in Plan Area
4-26 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
considerable development pressure based on the existing approved specific plans, and plans for additional urban development. As additional plans for new urban areas are developed, they should be included in future updates of this plan.
4.3.2.3 Buildout 2030 Land Use Conditions Land use regulations are the responsibility of the Yuba County Planning Department and the cities of Marysville and Wheatland. A significant zoning consideration with respect to land use is the flight patterns for Beale AFB. These patterns limit the opportunities for urban-type development in much of the low foothills in the eastern part of the south county outside of the irrigated farmland. Historically, development has focused on conversion of farmland to urban uses, much of which is now occurring in the historic floodplain of the Yuba-Feather-Bear Rivers area. YCWA has provided assistance to Yuba County for development of an emergency action plan, which is administered by the Yuba County Emergency Services Department. This program includes actions in the event of a flood. Recent developments located outside the historic floodplain include River Highlands north of Beale AFB and Spring Valley northeast of Marysville.
Future land use planning in Yuba County is currently being evaluated as part of the Land Use Element of the County General Plan Update. The Update is expected to be available in late 2007/early 2008. The General Plan Update will provide direction for future land use planning in Yuba County. Within Yuba County, future land use planning may be affected by:
The outcome of the Yuba County Flood Insurance Study and other flood mapping activities.
The preservation of agricultural lands on the floodplains and the upland areas.
The changes in local economic conditions in response to urbanization.
Local environmental considerations to protect and preserve areas such as the Yuba River corridor.
The impact of hydrologic uncertainty on water supply availability and flood risk in Yuba County.
The future of Beale AFB, including the status of the Beale Noise Zone Sound Corridor.
4-27 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.3.3 Water Use Conditions The water needs of the agricultural and urban lands are currently met with a combination of surface water and groundwater supplies. The actual water supply mix varies based on land use type (agricultural vs. urban) and accessibility to surface water as shown on Figure 4-7. Those areas that do not have access to surface water rely entirely on groundwater to meet their water demands. It is recognized that future water use conditions will differ from the current water use conditions due to changes in land use patterns and their water supply sources.
For this analysis, the surface water supply availability for YCWA Member Units is based on the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. Surface water supply availability for other agricultural areas is based on a previous report, titled Present and Projected Water Requirements of Districts in Yuba County (Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1990).
4.3.3.1 Existing Water Use Conditions
4.3.3.1.1 Agricultural Water Uses Existing agricultural water needs are met through a combination of surface water and groundwater supplies. Prior to 1983, most of the agricultural water demands on the valley floor south of the Yuba River were met with groundwater. In 1983, surface water from the Yuba Project was delivered by YCWA to its Member Units. This is the primary source of surface water in the County, with YCWA delivering about 304,000 acre-feet per year. Actual deliveries vary based on hydrologic conditions and the water demands of the member units.
The YCWA Groundwater Management Plan (2005) estimates that groundwater meets about 30 percent of the irrigation water supplies in the County. For example, RD 10, located in the northwest portion of the Plan Area, and WWD, located in the southern portion of the Plan Area, are two organized agricultural areas currently largely dependent upon groundwater. YCWA is in the process of designing and constructing a canal to deliver up to 41,000 acre-feet per year of surface water from the Yuba Project to WWD. This project would greatly reduce groundwater pumping in this portion of the groundwater basin.
The Foothill/Mountain areas of the County have a much lower level of agricultural development as shown in Figure 2-5. There is very little reliable groundwater in the Foothill/Mountain Areas, so much of the agricultural demands in these areas are met with surface water supplies.
4-28 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
The current agricultural water use for normal years, presented in Table 4-6, shows that the existing agricultural water demand totals about 514,100 acre-feet per year, with the largest agricultural water demands in the North Yuba Subarea and the South Yuba Subarea. Surface water is used to meet about 75 percent of the total agricultural demand, with groundwater used to meet the remaining demand.
Table 4-6 Existing Conditions (2005) Water Use Agriculture Uses Urban Uses Total Area Surface Ground- Total Surface Ground- Total Water water Water water North Yuba Groundwater Basin
North Yuba Subarea 188,500 39,000 227,500 0 3,800 3,800 231,300
City of Marysville Subarea 0 300 300 0 3,600 3,600 3,900
Subtotal 188,500 39,300 227,800 0 7,400 7,400 235,200
South Yuba Groundwater Basin
South Yuba Subarea 170,100 82,700 252,800 0 22,000 22,000 274,800
City of Wheatland Subarea 6,300 4,100 10,400 0 1,200 1,200 11,600
Subtotal 176,400 86,800 263,200 0 23,200 23,200 286,400
Foothill/Mountains
Foothills/Mountains 23,100 0 23,100 7,300 11,200 18,500 41,600
TOTAL PLAN AREA 388,000 126,100 514,100 7,300 41,800 49,100 563,200
All values in acre-feet
4.3.3.1.2 Urban Water Uses All urban areas on the valley floor, including Marysville, Olivehurst, Linda, Wheatland, and Beale AFB, are dependent upon the groundwater basin for their municipal and industrial water supply. In addition, most rural domestic water needs are met with groundwater. Estimates of urban water use are based on an evaluation of current specific plans. These values are intended to include all water uses associated with the urban land use categories, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Based on the existing urban acreage, the total urban water use totals about 49,100 acre-feet per year as shown in Table 4-6. The South Yuba Subarea in the Olivehurst-Linda-Plumas Lake area has the greatest current urban water use within the Plan Area.
4-29 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Due to the rugged terrain and reduced access to water supplies, the Foothill/Mountain areas do not have the same level of urban development as the valley floor portions of the County. Urban areas are relatively isolated and are typically dependent upon either local surface water or groundwater supply. The NYWD is one of the larger urban water purveyors in the Foothill/Mountain portions of the County that delivers surface water to its customers.
In addition, many rural areas are dispersed throughout the Plan Area. While the total water demand for these areas is small compared to the agricultural and urban demands, they must be considered in water management planning studies for the region. These are often Disadvantaged Communities that have limited resources for water supply infrastructure improvements due to their small rate base.
4.3.4 Future Water Use Conditions (2015) Future use conditions for the projected year 2015 level of development are presented in Table 4-7. Year 2015 water use conditions reflect an increase in urban water use due to additional urbanization, and a decrease in agricultural water use due to loss of irrigated agricultural acreage. The total water use is estimated to be 572,700 acre-feet per year.
Table 4-7 Future Conditions (2015) Water Use Agriculture Uses Urban Uses
Area Surface Ground- Total Surface Ground- Total Total Water water Water water North Yuba Groundwater Basin
North Yuba Subarea 188,500 39,000 227,100 0 5,600 5,600 232,700
City of Marysville Subarea 0 300 300 0 3,600 3,600 3,900
Subtotal 188,500 39,300 227,400 0 7,400 7,400 235,200
South Yuba Groundwater Basin
South Yuba Subarea 210,900 21,200 232,100 0 49,500 49,500 281,600
City of Wheatland Subarea 0 0 0 0 9,400 9,400 9,400
Subtotal 210,900 21,200 232,100 0 58k900 48,900 291,000
Foothill/Mountains
Foothills/Mountains 23,100 0 23,100 7,300 14,700 (2) 22,000 41,500
TOTAL PLAN AREA 422,100 60,500 482,600 7,300 82,800 90,100 572,700
All values in acre-feet. (2) Includes 3,500 acre-feet imported to Yuba Highlands Specific Plan.
4-30 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
4.3.4.1 Agricultural Water Uses With the expected changes in agricultural and urban land uses shown in Table 4-5, future agricultural water use is expected to decrease by about six percent to approximately 482,600 acre-feet per year. Surface water deliveries to agriculture are expected to increase by about 40,800 acre-feet per year due to the WWD Canal. As a result, surface water is expected to meet about 87 percent of the agricultural water demands.
4.3.4.2 Urban Water Uses Urban water use is expected to increase by about 80 percent to about 90,100 acre-feet per year as shown in Table 4-7, mostly supplied by groundwater.
4.3.5 Change in Water Use Conditions (2015 less 2005) The difference in water use and the sources of water supply between existing conditions (year 2005) and year 2015 conditions are presented in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9, respectively. The tables show that the overall change in water use is small, on the order of 9,500 acre-feet per year. This is about one percent of the total water demand (572,000 acre-feet per year). It should be noted that while the overall water demand does not significantly change for the entire Yuba County IRWM Plan Area, there are local changes in water demand and available water supply that do have water supply reliability implications.
Table 4-8 Projected Change in Water Use from 2005 to 2015 Agriculture Uses Urban Uses
Area Surface Ground- Total Surface Ground- Total Total Water water Water water North Yuba Groundwater Basin North Yuba Subarea -400 0 -400 0 1,800 1,800 1,400
City of Marysville Subarea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal -400 0 -400 0 1,800 1,800 1,400
South Yuba Groundwater Basin South Yuba Subarea 40,800 -61,500 -20,700 0 27,500 27,500 6,800
City of Wheatland Subarea -6,300 -4,100 -10,400 0 8200 8,200 -2,200
Subtotal 34,500 -65,600 -31,100 0 35,700 35,700 4,600
Foothill/Mountains
Foothills/Mountains 0 0 0 0 3,500 3,500 3,500
TOTAL PLAN AREA 34,100 -65,600 -31,500 0 41,000 41,000 9,500
All values in acre-feet
4-31 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 4-9 Current and Projected Water Use (2015 less 2005) Groundwater Surface Water
Area 2005 2015 Difference 2005 2015 Difference Total North Yuba Groundwater Basin
North Yuba Subarea 42,800 44,600 1,800 188,500 188,100 -400 1,400
City of Marysville Subarea 3,900 3,900 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 46,700 48,500 1,800 188,500 188,100 -400 1,400
South Yuba Groundwater Basin
South Yuba Subarea 104,700 70,700 -34,000 170,100 210,900 40,800 6,800
City of Wheatland Subarea 5,300 9,400 4,100 6,300 0 -6,300 -2,200
Subtotal 110,000 80,100 -29,900 176,400 210,900 34,500 4,600
Foothill/Mountains
Foothills/Mountains 11,165 14,665 3,500 30,338 30,338 0 3,500
TOTAL PLAN AREA 167,865 143,265 -24,600 395,238 429,338 34,100 9,500
All values in acre-feet
The change in land use (from agriculture to urban) may result in an increase in local groundwater pumping near the new and existing urban areas in the South Yuba Subarea and the City of Wheatland Subarea. This may result in increased pressure on the local groundwater system unless strategies to deliver treated surface water to these areas are implemented. In addition, the urbanization may reduce local groundwater recharge, causing further strain on the local groundwater system. The changes in groundwater use and the sources of supply that are summarized in Tables 4-8 and 4-9 are briefly described below.
• The North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin is expected to have a relatively small increase in groundwater pumping for urban uses.
• The South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin is expected to have a net reduction in groundwater production. In the WWD, groundwater pumping is expected to be reduced by about 40,800 acre-feet due to the delivery of surface water.
• Urban groundwater pumping is expected to increase in the Olivehurst-Linda- Plumas Lake area by about 27,500 acre-feet. Local groundwater levels in the area are expected to decline as a result of the increased groundwater pumping. In addition, there may be an additional reduction in groundwater levels in this area
4-32 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
resulting from a loss of deep percolation from the previously irrigated agriculture and increased runoff of rainfall on paved surfaces associated with urban land uses.
• The buildout of the 2006 General Plan Update for the City of Wheatland is dependent upon groundwater as the municipal water supply. The buildout areas are currently relying on a combination of surface water and groundwater for agricultural uses. Overall groundwater pumping in this area will increase by about 3,900 acre-feet. There is existing concern about the available groundwater supply for this area (including WWD) to meet the needs of buildout associated with the adopted General Plan. Increased localized pumping near the City of Wheatland may further impact the available useable groundwater supplies.
Local groundwater management strategies must address these changing conditions. In addition, the Regional Water Recycling Project may develop a recycled water source that could be used to offset urban irrigation water demands or some agricultural demands. These potential recycled water supplies are not included in the 2005 or 2015 water use estimates.
4.3.6 Buildout 2030 Water Use Conditions
4.3.6.1 Agricultural Water Use The agricultural water use within Yuba County is expected to decline slightly from 2015 levels as a result of urbanization of agricultural lands. From 2005 to 2015 conditions, agricultural water demands are estimated to decrease by about six percent. If a similar decrease occurs over the 2015 to 2030 period, agricultural water demands may decrease by about 31,000 acre-feet per year to 451,600 acre-feet per year.
4.3.6.2 Urban Water Use Based on the California Department of Finance 2004 Study (Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail 2000-2050), the population of Yuba County is expected to grow by about 45 percent from about 94,400 in 2015 to about 137,300 in 2030. If the increase in urban water demand reflects the population growth, urban water demands over the 2015 to 2030 period could increase by about 45,000 acre-feet per year to approximately 131,000 acre-feet per year.
4.4 Regional Water Management Issues The Management Group has identified the most important regional water management issues within the Plan Area, which include:
4-33 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Local Flood Protection and Regional Flood Management
Water Supply Reliability
Ecosystem Preservation and Enhancement
Recreation and Public Access
Much work has been completed over the last 15 years by members of the Management Group to address these issues. The following sections identify these initial management efforts and briefly summarize the existing reports and represent some of the foundational documents.
4.4.1 Flood Management Issues This section presents a recent history of the flood management activities and demonstrates how local entities have coordinated with state and federal agencies in developing a multi-jurisdictional, integrated program. These prior studies are briefly described to document the technical merit and feasibility of the projects that are integrated into the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
For centuries, land along the Yuba and Feather Rivers has been subject to flooding. Early efforts to protect the land and communities were limited to constructing levees along the rivers. Numerous levees failed during floods that were greater than anticipated when the levees were designed, or they failed because of poor construction or poor levee material. Flooding problems worsened with the accumulation of hydraulic mining debris, which raised the river channel bottoms and created higher flood water stages. To control this mining debris, the Corps, through the California Debris Commission, constructed Englebright Dam in 1940 and reconstructed the locally constructed Daguerre Point Dam in 1941.
In 1959, the California Legislature enacted legislation to form YCWA and declared flood control to be one of its principal purposes. Following state approval of water rights and feasibility studies, the citizens of Yuba County approved a $185 million bond issue by an 11-to-1 margin. The program funded by these bonds included construction of New Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir for flood control, water supply, power development, and recreation; canal systems to deliver irrigation water; diversions from the Middle Yuba River at Our House and Log Cabin Dams through tunnels and the New Colgate Tunnel and Powerhouse; and construction of the Narrows II Powerhouse at Englebright Dam. New Bullards Bar Dam was completed in 1969.
4-34 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Although ongoing efforts are improving the stability of some of the levees protecting Yuba County, the five major floods in the last 50 years demonstrate the great risk that exists with the current flood management works. Future floods may be significantly greater than past events, and the current capacities of levied channels would be exceeded, with resultant overtopping and/or levee failures. Levee breaks on the Yuba River in 1986 and the Feather River in 1997 flooded the southern county area. In 1997, YCWA initiated a phased approach to planning and implementing additional flood control measures.
In the Feather-Yuba region, major stream and associated flood control facilities cover spatially large areas, which include numerous jurisdictions at various levels of government. Effective flood management over this large and complex area requires the participation and coordination between all local emergency personnel and state and federal agencies. This suggests the need for a regional approach for flood management in which flood management activities are coordinated and implemented through local agencies to benefit the entire region. A regional approach also allows for better coordination with state and federal agencies in the planning and implementation of flood management strategies, which increases the local benefit of program implementation while reducing local cost share.
In the Feather-Yuba region the need for coordination is demonstrated by the combination of local and state owned and operated facilities that provide flood protection to the region, including the operation of upstream facilities such as Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir, the design and construction of levees on the valley floor to contain the flood flows, and the operation of weirs into bypass channels or detention basins.
4.4.1.1 Local Flood Management Activities There is a demonstrated history of multi-jurisdictional, interdisciplinary planning for flood control and flood plain management in Yuba County. The existing plans are discussed to document how prior efforts are being leveraged and integrated into the Yuba County IRWM Plan to provide the greatest return on investment and protect life and property.
After the disastrous flood of January 1997 when the left bank levee on the Feather River broke near Arboga, YCWA began working with stakeholders to investigate supplemental flood control measures that would increase flood protection for Yuba County. Although ongoing efforts are improving the stability of some of the levees protecting Yuba County, the five major floods in the last 50 years demonstrate the great risk that exists with the current flood management works. Future floods may be significantly greater than past
4-35 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
events and the current capacities of levied channels would be exceeded, with resultant overtopping and/or levee failures. The planning efforts and prior technical and engineering studies used to document project feasibility are discussed below. These are the building blocks of the Flood Management Strategy described in Section 6.
4.4.1.1.1 Sacramento River Flood Control Project System Evaluation Program (1986) While the levees protecting Yuba County performed reasonably well for many years, the 1986 flood emphasized the susceptibility of Yuba County levees to potential failure when the Yuba River levee (left bank) failed near Linda. In addition, problems with seepage boils and slope stability were noted in many locations.
Because of these problems, the Corps initiated an extensive evaluation of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees. The results of the levee evaluations in Yuba County performed under the Sacramento River Flood Control Project System Evaluation Program (System Evaluation Program) were reported in design memorandums for Phase II, Marysville/Yuba City Area and Phase III, Mid-Valley Area.
From 1997 through 2004, the Corps implemented remediation measures to address the problems identified in these evaluations. These early evaluations concentrated on through levee seepage, slope stability, and freeboard for the design of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (1957 profile). Reconstructions authorized by the Systems Evaluation Program were to bring the system back to the design condition.
The 1997 flood resulted in additional levee failures within the system. Subsequent evaluations of the failure mechanisms identified the potential for levees to fail due to foundation underseepage, a failure mechanism not previously identified for Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees.
The Corps formed a task force to investigate levee underseepage and issued a report in 2003. In 2004, the Sacramento District of the Corps issued new guidance on analysis of levee foundation underseepage. This reemphasized this potential failure mechanism and established a new constraint for certification of levees for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) base flood.
4.4.1.1.2 Yuba River Basin Project (1989) At the request of the Reclamation Board and YCWA, the Corps initiated flood protection studies for the Yuba Basin in 1989. A reconnaissance report was completed in March 1990, which recommended feasibility studies. The Final Feasibility Report for the Yuba River Basin Project was completed in April 1998. It recommended 5.1 miles of new cutoff wall and berm for the Marysville ring levee and a series of measures for RD 784
4-36 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
that included 3.7 miles of cutoff wall, 3.1 miles of cutoff wall modifications, 0.9 miles of new berm and drain, 8.5 miles of modifications to existing berms and drains, and 1.2 miles of levee raising for RD 784 at a cost of approximately $28 million. At the time of the recommendation, it was thought the proposed plan would provide flood protection for a 1-in-200 annual event for RD 784 and a 1-in-300 year event for Marysville. This recommended project was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
The recent changes in geotechnical criteria and hydraulics led to identification of additional problems along the Bear River and the WPIC as well as along the Feather and Yuba Rivers. As a result, the scope and cost of the Yuba Basin Project increased significantly, which led the Corps to initiate a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) in 2003 to determine if the authorized project should be changed. The GRR is currently scheduled for completion in 2009.
4.4.1.1.3 Yuba River Supplemental Flood Control Program (1997) In response to the 1997 flood, YCWA’s Board of Directors authorized the initiation of Phase I of a multi-phased study of the Yuba River Supplemental Flood Control Program. The Phase I report, Program Definition for Supplemental Flood Control on the Yuba River, was completed in March 1998. It reviewed the history of flood management measures on the Yuba River, proposed a process for developing a flood control program, and presented a scope of work by phases, with specific tasks for Phases II and III. Work on each phase would depend on favorable findings in the previous phase and specific authorization by YCWA’s Board of Directors.
After the Phase II studies and a draft report were completed, the following events significantly changed the program of flood control activities presented in the draft report.
Enactment of Senate Bill 496 (Sher) in 1999, which incorporated the South Yuba River into the California Wild and Scenic River System.
Inclusion of the South Yuba River in the Wild and Scenic River system precluded any flood control storage on South Yuba River, including any projects downstream on the Yuba River that would increase the storage of flood flows in the South Yuba River channel. As a result, three storage projects described in the Phase II report were eliminated from further consideration.
4-37 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Enactment of the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (California Water Code Division 26, Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act).
The Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 authorized $1.97 billion of state general obligation bonds that were approved by the electorate on March 7, 2000, as Proposition 13. Included in that amount is an authorization of $90 million for a Yuba-Feather River Flood Protection (Y-FRFP) Program—$70 million for flood protection projects and $20 million for the mitigation of any impacts on fish, wildlife, or riparian habitat resulting from the implementation of a flood protection project. This legislation enabled the early implementation of some projects described in the Phase II report. Recalculations by the Corps of the flood storm characteristics for the Yuba- Feather River system.
The Corps’ recalculation of the magnitude and frequency of floods revealed that the storm used in the Phase II report is now considered more frequent than originally thought. For example, the recalculation of the magnitude of flood events and their frequency by the Corps revealed that the storm used in the draft Y-FRFP Program Phase II report, a 500-year event, would be a 200-year event. Smaller storms were similarly affected. Development of new levee underseepage guidelines for levee stability.
The Corps recently developed and approved new design criteria for addressing underseepage conditions that led to numerous levee failures in the 1997 flood. The new guidelines have significantly decreased the level of protection provided by some of the existing levees and has drastically increased the cost of levee stability improvements. For example, one stretch of the Feather River levee was reconstructed in the late 1990s for a 200-year level of protection. Now this section of levee does not meet the 100-year level of protection.
4.4.1.1.4 Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project (2000) Upon the passage of the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, YCWA initiated a feasibility study for the Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project (Y-FSFCP). It identified six specific flood control improvement measures. These elements of the Y-FSFCP include:
Controlled Surcharge of Lake Oroville for Additional Flood Control
Thermalito Afterbay Emergency Re-Operation for Flood Control
4-38 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
New Bullards Bar Reservoir Outlet Capacity Increase
New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression
Feather River Setback Levees/Improvements
Forecast-Coordinated Operations (F-CO) of Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir
A program-level DEIR for the Y-FSFCP was completed in October 2003 (YCWA 2003). It evaluated three flood control elements. Most issues related to the levee setback component of the Y-FSFCP were addressed in the EIR at a project level of detail, while some issues were addressed at a general, or “programmatic,” level of detail where project description detail was not sufficient to support a more detailed analysis. The final EIR (FEIR) was completed and certified and the program of elements approved by the YCWA Board in March 2004 (Yuba County Water Agency 2004).
4.4.1.1.5 Lower Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study (2005) In May 2003, DWR informed Yuba County, RD 784, and YCWA that the preliminary results from its draft Lower Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study identified deficient levee sections in the RD 784 levees. The report indicated that sections of the WPIC levee and the Bear River north levee did not meet the minimum freeboard requirements for FEMA’s base flood, and a reach of the Yuba River levees does not meet geotechnical seepage and stability criteria.
In response to these preliminary results, RD 784 and Yuba County initiated a fast-paced program to evaluate potential options and to implement projects to enable RD 784 to achieve or exceed the minimum criteria for a base flood. To that end, RD 784 and Yuba County formed the TRLIA to facilitate sharing their resources to implement measures that would improve the levees in southern Yuba County.
4.4.1.1.6 Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (2004) In response to the recent flood events described above, fast-track feasibility studies and engineering work have been under way since May 2003 to improve the RD 784 levees. TRLIA issued the Draft Report on Feasibility of RD 784 Supplemental Flood Control Improvements of the Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project in October 2004. A major component of the feasibility report was a proposal to set back the Bear River levee and incorporate environmental enhancement as a project objective. TRLIA’s current program focuses on improving the levees around RD 784 on the Feather, Yuba and Bear Rivers and WPIC. Over 50 percent of the project is completed, with the
4-39 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
remaining reaches scheduled for completion by 2008. The status of each of the four project phases is listed below.
Phase 1 – Construction of a 50-foot-deep slurry wall in the Yuba River levee between Highway 70 and the location of the 1986 levee break was completed in November 2004.
Phase 2 – Raising and strengthening the Bear River levee upstream of the setback; a seepage berm on the Yuba River levee between Highway 70 and the UPRR; raising and strengthening WPIC levees; and construction of the Olivehurst Detention basin with the associated pump station and ring levee. Most of the Phase 2 levee strengthening work was completed in November 2006.
Phase 3 – A two-mile setback levee on the Bear River and approximately 600 acres of ecosystem restoration. The foundation of the setback levee was completed in November 2005. The embankment of the setback levee and the ecosystem restoration were completed in October 2006.
Phase 4 – As late as December 2004, the Corps maintained that the RD 784 Feather River levee and Yuba River levee upstream of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) met FEMA certification requirements. In January 2005, the Corps issued a letter repealing this statement of certification. TRLIA completed a problem identification study of these levees in September 2005. This problem identification study identified several reaches of the RD 784 Feather River levee and Yuba River levee upstream of the UPRR that do not meet FEMA certification requirements. TRLIA is in the process of amending the existing design contracts to develop a plan of improvement for these levees. The Yuba River levee from the UPRR to Simpson Lane was strengthened in 2006. A setback levee on the Feather River was studied by YCWA in 2003 as a way to provide regional benefits to Yuba City, Marysville, and RD 784. On February 6, 2007, TRLIA adopted the setback levee as the preferred solution for the middle segment of the Feather River levee. The lower and upper segments will be repaired through strengthening in place. The Yuba River levee upstream of Simpson Lane is scheduled for construction in 2007. Construction on the Feather River levee is scheduled for 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2008.
4.4.1.1.7 External Source Flood Protection Plan for the City of Wheatland General Plan Update (2005) The City of Wheatland is currently experiencing unprecedented growth, which is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The Wheatland City Council made the decision to update the 1980 General Plan to establish the current basis for evaluating future growth on both public and private lands. The City is currently affected by two
4-40 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
types of drainage concerns, those related to internal drainage issues, and those related to flooding from external sources.
As part of the General Plan Update, the External Source Flood Protection Plan was prepared to serve as a planning tool for the City to evaluate flooding from external sources in the City of Wheatland and surrounding areas from the Bear River to the south, Dry Creek to the north, and the San Joaquin Drainage Ditch to the east. The existing levee system does not provide an adequate level of flood protection for development around the City of Wheatland and adjacent areas. As such, much of the area around the study area is located in the FEMA flood zone, and improvements to the levee system are necessary for future development.
The actual development, implementation, and maintenance of flood protection are the responsibility of RD 2103 and RD 817. RD 2103 is responsible for maintenance and operation of the Dry Creek levees, Bear River Levee, and San Joaquin drainage canal that are in the closest proximity to the City and the General Plan Area. RD 817 is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the western portions of the Dry Creek and Bear River Levees.
Three alternative measures were evaluated to mitigate flooding potential from the Bear River, Dry Creek, and the San Joaquin Drainage Ditch. Each alternative was described in the External Source Flood Protection Plan, which included a discussion of the implications for the mitigation of alternatives and provided a conceptual-level cost estimate. The evaluations also considered impacts for construction of the alternatives and a preliminary assessment of the permitting and approval process. The three flood control alternatives for the General Plan Area included:
Alternative 1 – Oakley Lane Cross Levee
Alternative 2 – Pleasant Grove Road Cross Levee
Alternative 3 – No Cross Levee
4.4.1.2 Integration with Regional and State Efforts The Yuba County IRWM Plan Flood Management strategy has been designed to be consistent with federal and state flood management efforts. The Management Group reviewed recommendations and guiding principles of the state and federal efforts discussed below to develop the Flood Management Strategy goals and objectives. The Yuba County IRWM Plan will meet local needs while also providing regional flood management benefits and integrating ecosystem restoration activities and habitat
4-41 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
restoration/enhancement as identified in the Ecosystems Management Strategy of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Coordination with numerous stakeholders through the Yuba-Feather Work Group (Y- FWG) is expected to continue and include support from a diverse array of stakeholders. Coordination with the Corps is also ongoing, both through the Y-FWG and YCWA, and TRLIA. The regional benefits of ongoing flood management activities in Yuba County will continue to be promoted. By incorporating the flood and floodplain management recommendations and guidelines of federal and state agencies and seeking a broad coalition of support for the Yuba County IRWM Plan, the local agencies will continue to develop and implement an integrated Flood Management Strategy that is consistent with and promotes regional flood management efforts in California, particularly in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
In the last several years two major efforts have produced recommendations for regional flood and floodplain management activities in California. In 2002, the California Floodplain Management Task Force released its report on floodplain management in California (California Floodplain Management Task Force 2002). During that same year, the Corps and the State of California Reclamation Board (Reclamation Board) drafted an integrated plan for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins California Comprehensive Study (Comprehensive Study; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of California Reclamation Board 2002).
4.4.1.2.1 California Floodplain Management Task Force In 2000, Governor Davis signed Assembly Bill 1147, which recommended the creation of the California Floodplain Management Task Force. In February 2002, the governor delegated authority to DWR to convene a Floodplain Management Task Force. The newly formed task force sought to recommend floodplain management strategies designed to reduce flood losses and maximize the benefits of floodplains. The task force found that existing programs are inadequate to accomplish these goals and that time is of the essence in implementing improvements. The task force made recommendations to accomplish these goals in a report issued in December 2002 (California Floodplain Management Task Force 2002). The following recommendations are particularly relevant to the Yuba County IRWM Plan:
Multi-Objective Management Approach for Floodplains: A multi-objective management approach to flood management projects should be promoted.
4-42 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Flood Management Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration and Agricultural Conservation: Flood management programs and projects, while providing for public safety, should maximize opportunities for agricultural conservation and ecosystem protection and restoration, where feasible.
Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships: The state should encourage multi- jurisdictional partnerships when floodplain management projects are planned and implemented.
Proactive and Adaptive Management of Floodplains: State and local agencies should manage floodplains proactively and adaptively by periodically adjusting to current physical and biological conditions, new scientific information, and knowledge.
Coordination among Agencies and Groups: The state should encourage and create incentives for additional coordination among stakeholders.
Tools for Protection of Flood-Compatible Land Uses: The state should identify, develop, and support tools to protect flood-compatible land uses.
4.4.1.2.2 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study The Comprehensive Study is a joint effort by the Reclamation Board and the Corps, in coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, and various groups and organizations in California’s Central Valley. Responding to the flooding of 1997, the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress directed the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. This work is being performed in cooperation with the Reclamation Board.
In 2002, a draft interim report was released by the Comprehensive Study team (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of California Reclamation Board 2002). The report identified the comprehensive plan as an approach to developing projects in the future to reduce damage from flooding and restore the ecosystem in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. The Comprehensive Study has proposed a set of guiding principles to govern implementation of projects that propose modifying the Sacramento or San Joaquin River flood control systems.
These principles have been developed to ensure that projects proposed for implementation are consistent with the objectives established by the Corps and Reclamation Board. The following are the Comprehensive Study’s draft guiding principles:
4-43 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Recognize that public safety is the primary purpose of the flood management system.
Promote effective floodplain management. Promote agriculture and open-space protection.
Avoid hydraulic and hydrologic impacts.
Plan system conveyance capacity that is compatible with all intended uses.
Provide for sediment continuity.
Use an ecosystem approach to restore and sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of the floodplain corridors.
Optimize use of existing facilities.
Integrate with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and other programs.
Promote multipurpose projects to improve flood management and ecosystem restoration.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan lies in the Feather and Yuba Rivers area of the Comprehensive Study. The draft interim report notes the following in the discussion of this region:
“levees along the Feather, Yuba, and Bear Rivers that are already set back from the river offer greater flexibility in accommodating flood management and ecosystem restoration. There are opportunities to widen selected reaches of the floodways to reduce constrictions and increase flow capacity. Reducing floodway constrictions along the lower Feather River would improve levee reliability in the Marysville–Yuba City urban area by reducing flood stage and could increase the opportunity for riparian habitat within the floodway.
4.4.2 Water Supply Reliability Issues Water needs in Yuba County have been met by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping by public and private entities and individuals. Some entities divert surface water from rivers and streams under their own water rights and may supplement these surface supplies with surface water from YCWA or groundwater. YCWA constructed the Yuba River Development Project (Yuba Project), which began operation in 1970. The multi-purpose Yuba Project was originally operated for flood control, water supply, and electric power generation. Changing regulatory and 4-44 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
environmental conditions and increasing water demands has placed additional requirements on the Yuba Project.
The Yuba Project has allowed for the coordinated use of groundwater and surface water to meet the water demands of the YCWA Member Units. Prior to the delivery of surface water from the Lower Yuba River as part of the Yuba Project, groundwater pumping resulted in declining groundwater levels across the Yuba Basin. Replacing groundwater pumping with additional surface water deliveries from the Yuba Project has resulted in a significant recovery of groundwater levels across the Yuba Basin, and now surface water is the primary agricultural water supply for most of the YCWA Member Units, with groundwater used to supplement these supplies.
The remaining agricultural areas and urban areas located outside the YCWA Service Area do not receive surface water deliveries from YCWA, and are dependent upon their own surface water supplies or groundwater to meet their water needs. Currently, valley floor urban water users depend exclusively on groundwater to meet water needs. The water use by source for the Plan Area is presented in Figure 4-7.
4.4.2.1 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord The Yuba Project is a multi-purpose project constructed for flood control, water supply, and hydroelectric generation purposes. At the time of construction of the Yuba Project, a suite of rules and agreements governing the operations of the Yuba Project were developed to protect and meet the multiple demands of the local resources.
The Yuba Project continues to serve the purposes for which it was constructed. However, the growth in demand for water for consumptive uses and increasing concern for protection of both the Yuba River fishery and environmental values in the Delta have led to greater challenges in meeting competing interests. The proceedings before the SWRCB were an attempt to strike a new balance between the competing interests; however, parties to the proceedings generally were dissatisfied with the outcome, as evidenced by the subsequent legal challenges to the decisions.
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord represents an effort on the part of the Yuba River stakeholders to find a solution to the challenges of competing interests by providing water for fisheries, developing new tools to ensure reliable local water supply, and crafting a revenue stream to pay for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and provide additional water for out-of-county environmental and consumptive uses. These various objectives would be met through implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, which includes the “Lower Yuba River Fisheries Agreement” (Fisheries Agreement), the “Conjunctive Use Agreements,” and the “Long-term Transfer
4-45 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Agreement” (Water Purchase Agreement). The SWRCB held a hearing on the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord on December 5, 2007, and is expected to make a ruling by April 2008. Executed Fishery Agreement, Conjunctive Use Agreements, and Water Purchase Agreement were submitted as part of the hearing record for the December 5, 2007 hearing.
Fisheries Agreement - The Fisheries Agreement was developed by state, federal, and consulting fisheries biologists, fisheries advocates, and policy representatives. Compared to the interim flow requirements of RD 1644, the Fisheries Agreement would establish higher instream flow requirements in most months of most water years. The term of the agreement is proposed to extend to 2016, when the existing FERC long-term license for the Yuba Project expires.
Conjunctive Use Agreement - To ensure that YCWA’s water supply reliability would not be reduced by the higher instream flow requirements, YCWA and its participating Member Units would implement the Conjunctive Use Agreements. These agreements establish a comprehensive conjunctive use program that would integrate the surface water and groundwater supplies of the local irrigation districts and mutual water companies that YCWA serves in Yuba County. Integration of surface water and groundwater would allow YCWA to increase the efficiency of its water management.
So far, YCWA has entered into individual Conjunctive Use Agreements with each of the following Member Units: BWD, BVID, DCMWC, HIC, RWD, and WWD. The term of the Conjunctive Use Agreements is proposed to extend until 2016, consistent with the term of the Fisheries Agreement.
Water Purchase Agreement - Under the Water Purchase Agreement, DWR agrees to purchase water from YCWA for use in the EWA Program or an equivalent program. Additional water purchased by DWR would be available for the CVP/SWP in drier years. The EWA Program or an equivalent program would take delivery of water in every year when operational and hydrological conditions allow; the CVP/SWP would receive additional water in the drier years.
The term of this agreement is proposed to extend to 2025. The initial term of the Water Purchase Agreement is anticipated to extend until the expiration of YCWA’s FERC license (2016), consistent with the terms of the Fisheries Agreement and Conjunctive Use Agreements.
The Water Purchase Agreement includes provisions for some continued YCWA deliveries of water, and DWR purchase of such water, through December 31, 2025. Revenue generated from implementation of the Water Purchase Agreement would be
4-46 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
used by YCWA to fund a comprehensive conjunctive use program, water supply projects, and Yuba County flood control improvements, and to implement a long-term fisheries monitoring, studies, and enhancement program. Any future flood control or water supply improvement project undertaken by YCWA would be subject to future project-specific environmental review and documentation. Reclamation is expected to join in on the Water Purchase Agreement in the future.
The Fisheries, Conjunctive Use, and Water Purchase agreements would enable YCWA to operate the Yuba Project in a more flexible and comprehensive manner to implement the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Alternative’s instream flow requirements. Additionally, an amendment to the 1966 power purchase contract between YCWA and PG&E would enable YCWA to meet Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Alternative flow requirements while still allowing PG&E to receive the same amount of hydroelectric power benefits from the Yuba Project.
4.4.3 Ecosystem Preservation and Enhancement Within the Plan Area, the primary ecosystem preservation and enhancement opportunities are primarily associated with the fishery and riparian resources of the Yuba River.
4-47 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4.4.3.1 Fishery and Riparian Resources This section briefly describes the environmental setting/affected environment related to fisheries and aquatic ecosystems in water bodies that may be influenced by implementation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. For a more complete description of the fishery and aquatic resource, the reader is referred to the intensive details of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord (Yuba EIR/EIS; June 2007) that was prepared for YCWA, DWR, and Reclamation, which also describes the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord agreements, project, and anticipated benefits. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS provides extensive descriptions of the affected resources and documents the extensive technical analysis and modeling conducted to evaluate the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS and associated studies document the scientific and technical merits of the proposed integrated program and the approach to resolving the conflicts surrounding fishery flow requirements in the Plan Area and in support of DWR and Reclamation to meet their commitments in the Delta. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS is incorporated by reference into this IRWM Plan.
Species of primary management concern evaluated for purposes of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord analysis include those that are:
Recreationally or commercially important (fall-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, American shad, and striped bass),
Federal- and/or State-listed species, and
Species proposed for federal or state listing within the area (Spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt and green sturgeon), and State species of special concern (late fall-run Chinook salmon, green sturgeon, hardhead, longfin smelt, river lamprey, Sacramento perch, Sacramento splittail, and San Joaquin roach).
The Yuba County IRWM Plan places special emphasis on these species of primary management concern to be consistent with the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS and to facilitate compliance with applicable laws, particularly the state and federal ESAs, and to be consistent with state and federal restoration/recovery plans and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinions (BOs).
4-48 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
4.4.3.1.1 Yuba River Fishery Resources CDFG, USFWS, and NMFS identified Central Valley fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead as the primary fish species of concern in the lower Yuba River. Fall-run Chinook salmon are the most abundant anadromous fish in the lower Yuba River and support significant sport and commercial fisheries. Fall-run Chinook salmon are designated as a species of concern under the federal ESA and a state species of special concern under the CESA. Spring-run Chinook salmon are listed as a threatened species under both the federal ESA and CESA. Steelhead trout are listed as threatened under the federal ESA. Additionally, CDFG is concerned with protecting American shad, and USFWS has stated concerns regarding green sturgeon in the lower Yuba River. Effective June 2006, NMFS listed the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the North American green sturgeon as a threatened species. In the project study area, the only known spawning habitat for green sturgeon is on the Sacramento River. Chinook salmon, steelhead, and American shad populations in the lower Yuba River depend on adequate flows downstream of Englebright and Daguerre Point dams to provide habitat for adult attraction and passage, spawning, egg incubation, juvenile rearing, and emigration. Green sturgeon is of concern below Daguerre Point Dam.
Most of the instream flow requirements of the Yuba River are prescribed in SWRCB RD- 1644. YCWA must meet the instream flow requirements as measured at two compliance points, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gages at Smartville and Marysville. Minimum instream flow requirements are measured using a five-day running average of average daily stream flows. Some of the instream flow requirements are prescribed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in license 2246.
Flow fluctuations and reductions in stream flow could cause dewatering of salmonid redds and stranding of fry and juvenile fish. Stream flow fluctuations are considered to be changes in flow that occur associated with routine or daily operations of hydroelectric power generation or deliveries to water diverters. Stream flow reductions are considered to be planned reductions in flow for more than a day, such as those associated with changes in instream flow requirements, reservoir flood reservation requirements, and deliveries to off-stream diverters, water transfers, downstream salinity intrusion control, or other purposes.
FERC issued a License Amendment for the Yuba Project (Project No. 2246) on November 22, 2005, which imposes a more protective set of flow fluctuation and ramping requirements for the Yuba Project. The new criteria govern YCWA’s releases of water from the Narrows II Powerhouse and require YCWA to make reasonable efforts to operate New Bullards Bar and Englebright Reservoir to avoid flow fluctuations in the
4-49 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
lower Yuba River. Details of the flow fluctuation and ramping requirements are described in the Yuba EIR/EIS.
4.4.3.1.2 Feather River Fishery Resources The Feather River watershed has an area of 5,900 square miles, with numerous tributaries, the largest of which is the Yuba River. Downstream of Oroville Dam, the water is diverted in several directions: the Thermalito Complex, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, and the Low Flow Channel. The sources combine below the Thermalito Afterbay, creating the High Flow Channel. The Low Flow Channel is highly regulated, with flows of approximately 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the majority of the year. The Low Flow Channel also contains the majority of the anadromous salmonid spawning habitat.
4.4.3.1.3 Bear River Fishery Resources The watershed of the Bear River is developed on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, the major mountain range of California. The Bear River is a major tributary of the Feather River. The drainage basin covers approximately 240 square miles with elevations ranging from more than 5,800 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the headwaters to 35 feet above NGVD at the mouth of the river. The upper portions of the Bear River watershed are developed in steep to very steep topography of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and foothills.
Flow in the Bear River is regulated by two dams. The dam impounding Camp Far West Reservoir is located approximately 16.5 miles upstream from the Bear River/Feather River confluence. The earthen dam was originally constructed in the 1930s and its height was increased in 1963. South Sutter Irrigation District (SSID), the current owner of the reservoir, operates a hydroelectric power generation station at the dam. The maximum flow rate through the powerhouse is 650 cubic feet per second (cfs). The spillway for the dam is located at elevation 300 feet above NGVD. Uncontrolled flow through the spillway occurs when reservoir levels exceed this elevation during periods of intense or prolonged precipitation. The highest recorded flows (approximately 21,500 cfs) over the spillway occurred on February 18, 1986.
A smaller dam is located approximately 1.2 miles downstream of Camp Far West Dam. This dam operates as a diversion structure for irrigation canals located on the north and south sides of the Bear River. A concrete-lined canal on the north side of the river is operated by the Camp Far West Irrigation District (CFWID). The canal on the south side of the river, located parallel to Camp Far West Road, is operated by SSID.
4-50 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
Chinook salmon are known to be in the Bear River. The lower Bear River was formerly designated as critical habitat by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) for both spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. However, the U.S. District Court of Columbia approved a consent decree withdrawing this designation in 2002. A new critical habitat proposal for fall-run Chinook salmon is currently under development. It is not known whether Chinook salmon spawn in the project area.
Steelhead trout are known to occur in the Bear River. The lower Bear River below Camp Far West Dam provides suitable habitat for this species. It is not known whether steelhead trout spawn in the project area.
4.4.3.2 Habitats, Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife The Yuba County IRWM Plan Area includes a broad mosaic of land and habitat types by protecting and strengthening the water rights and water supplies necessary to meet various regional water needs, both now and into the future. This includes the rural working landscape and the important fish and wildlife resources in the region.
4.4.3.2.1 Habitats and Vegetation Yuba County encompasses 640 square miles, ranging from the Sacramento Valley floor to the lower western edge of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. This change of elevation allows for a wide diversity of habitats, including Riparian Forest, California Prairie, Blue Oak-Digger Pine Forest, Sierran Yellow Pine Forest, Sierran Montane Forest, and Vernal Pools. Many of these natural habitats have been greatly modified, resulting from changes caused by human settlement. Habitats also include non-native grassland, Riparian Woodland, Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Chaparral, Foothill Woodland, Digger Pine-Oak Woodland, Westside Ponderosa Pine Forest, Darlingtonia Seep, and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool.
4.4.3.2.2 Wildlife The above-listed native vegetation associations support a variety of wildlife communities with species and subspecies indigenous to valley communities. Wildlife reported for the Yuba County area are typical of transitional habitats ranging from the Central Valley to mountain habitat types found on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
Over the past 150 years the conversion of native plant communities to intensive agricultural and urban land uses has resulted in significant reduction in native vegetation and the wildlife habitat it provides. As a result of this conversion, several species of both
4-51 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
plants and animals have either been extirpated from the valley, or their populations have declined significantly. The CDFG and/or the USFWS have listed many of these species as rare, threatened, or endangered. In addition, several species are currently considered candidates for state or federal listing, requiring further biological study to make proper designations.
4.4.3.2.3 Wetlands The California Central Valley is the most important waterfowl wintering area in the Pacific Flyway, supporting 60 percent of the Flyway's ducks and geese. There is a limited amount of wetlands and vernal pools remaining in the lowland parts of the Plan Area. As a result of the loss of naturally occurring wetlands, many waterfowl species have become highly dependent on rice fields for nesting during spring and summer and for food during winter. Rice fields provide critical habitat both for migratory and certain resident birds. Yuba County's thousands of acres of rice lands contribute significant habitat to birds and other wildlife. The USFWS is implementing a Central Valley Wildlife Management Area, a component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture (CVHJV), which encompasses Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties. The purpose of the acquisition and management program is to preserve important remaining wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife and plants. Suitable areas that are restored to wetlands also would be preserved for the same purpose.
4.4.3.2.4 Conservation Areas Yuba County has several areas identified for the conservation, preservation, and study of California's plant and wildlife. These areas include the Spenceville Wildlife Management and Recreation Area, Marysville Wildlife Area, Feather River Wildlife Area, Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area, CDFG Fish Access Areas, UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, and District 10 (which has been previously addressed). Bobelaine Audubon Sanctuary, which is in adjoining Sutter County, is also an important resource.
4.4.3.3 Other Foundational Planning Efforts
4.4.3.3.1 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Agreements The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord includes three integrated agreements that would protect and enhance fisheries resources in the lower Yuba River, increase local supply reliability, and provide Reclamation and the DWR with increased operational flexibility for protection of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) fisheries resources through the
4-52 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
EWA Program, and provision of supplemental dry-year water supplies to state and federal water contractors. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord will not only serve to resolve fishery flow issues in the Plan area, but also provide interregional and statewide ecosystems benefits to the Sacramento Valley and the Delta. The fishery flow agreements discussed below will support DWR and the USBR by providing flows to the EWA or equivalent program to be implemented to help protect Delta resources and CALFED goals and objectives.
All three agreements (Fisheries, Conjunctive Use, and Water Purchase) have undergone CEQA review and are nearly ready to be fully approved and executed by the individual parties to each agreement.
The Fisheries Agreement was developed by state, federal, and consulting fisheries biologists, fisheries advocates, and policy representatives. Compared to the interim flow requirements of the SWRCB Revised Water Right Decision 1644 (RD-1644). The Fisheries Agreement would establish higher minimum instream flows during most months of most water years.
YCWA, SYRCL, TU, TBI, FOR, CDFG, USFWS, and NMFS developed the comprehensive proposal contained in the Fisheries Agreement. The Fisheries Agreement is the cornerstone of the implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord contains new instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River that are intended to increase protection for the river’s fisheries resources. In addition to the best available science and data, the interests of the participating state, federal, and local fisheries biologists; fisheries advocates; and policy representatives were incorporated. The instream flow provisions are specified during all periods of the year and these are many times higher than the Interim flow requirements of D-1644.
To ensure that YCWA’s water supply reliability would not be reduced by Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord-specified flows, YCWA and its participating Member Units will implement the Conjunctive Use Agreements. These agreements would establish a comprehensive conjunctive use program that would integrate the surface water and groundwater supplies of the local irrigation districts and mutual water companies that YCWA serves in Yuba County. Integration of surface water and groundwater would allow YCWA to increase the efficiency of its water management. Under the Water Purchase Agreement, Reclamation and DWR would enter into an agreement with YCWA to purchase water from YCWA for use in the EWA Program or an equivalent program as long as operational and hydrological conditions allow. Additional water purchased by Reclamation and DWR would be available for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the
4-53 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
SWP in drier years. The EWA Program would take delivery of water in every year; the CVP/SWP would receive additional water in the drier years.
4.4.3.3.2 Environmental Water Account Program The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord provides water to Reclamation and DWR for use in the EWA or program equivalent. The EWA Program acquires water to replace project water supply reduced by the environmentally beneficial changes in CVP and SWP operations. The EWA Program is seeking to obtain water “assets” from the YCWA via the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The EIS/EIR for the existing EWA Program was completed in January 2004.
The EWA Program is a key component of CALFED’s Water Management Strategy and is a cooperative management program designed to provide protection to the at-risk native fish species primarily in the Bay/Delta Estuary, but also, to some extent, in areas upstream of the Delta, through environmentally beneficial changes in the operations of the CVP and SWP, at no uncompensated water costs to CVP and SWP water users. When taken together with other aspects of the CALFED Bay/Delta Program (e.g., Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP), the EWA Program provides part of the resources required for the protection of critical fish species of the Bay/Delta estuary and provides assurances that the water supplies of the CVP and SWP will not be reduced to provide that protection. The EWA Program also can use CVP and SWP storage and conveyance facilities to the extent that extra capacity is available. Allowing flexibility to acquire and manage EWA assets differently each year increases the EWA agencies’ capability for responding to varying hydrologic conditions.
The existing EWA Program will sunset on December 31, 2007. Currently, DWR and Reclamation plan to temporarily extend the existing EWA Program, and they are in the process of completing supplemental environmental documentation for this extension of the program that is anticipated to be released by the end of 2007. This supplemental documentation is expected to be for a continuation of the existing EWA Program (or some elements of it) for up to another four years. The continuation of the EWA Program as a long-term management tool is also being considered by the EWA Agencies.
4.4.3.3.3 Other State and Federal Fishery Management Plans and Programs The Yuba County IRWM Plan’s focus on the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and the species of concern identified in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS is also consistent with the following:
CALFED’s 2000 ERPP and Multi-Species Conservation Strategy (MSCS);
4-54 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
The programmatic determinations for the CALFED program, which include CDFG’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act approval and the programmatic BOs issued by NMFS and USFWS;
USFWS’s 1997 Draft Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, which identifies specific actions to protect anadromous salmonids;
CDFG’s 1996 Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California, which identifies specific actions to protect steelhead; and
CDFG’s Restoring Central Valley Streams, A Plan for Action (1993), which identifies specific actions to protect salmonids. Improvement of habitat conditions for these species of primary management concern could protect or enhance conditions for other fish resources, including native resident species.
4.4.3.3.4 Yuba County General Plan and Update The current Yuba County General Plan was adopted in 1994. Yuba County, through the General Plan, is responsible for land use planning. The County is currently in the process of updating the plan and it is anticipated that this will include updating the resources inventory and the open space and conservation elements.
4.4.4 Public Access and Recreation The numerous streams, creeks, and reservoirs of Yuba County provide a range of water- based recreational opportunities, including fishing, boating, camping, picnicking, rafting, tubing, and swimming. Many of these opportunities within the Plan Area are associated with the Yuba River because much of the County is located within its watershed, and the river bisects the western half of the county. This section provides a brief summary of the existing recreational opportunities, and identifies additional management strategies to expand water-related recreational and public access opportunities in the Plan Area.
4.4.4.1 Existing Yuba River Recreational Facilities The Yuba River watershed drains over 1,300 square miles of the Sierra Nevada and foothill areas before flowing into the Feather River at Marysville. Implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord (along the 24-mile reach between Englebright Dam and the confluence with the Feather River) will provide increased flows to enhance local fisheries. In addition, the higher flows may provide further recreational opportunities along the river corridor. Some of the existing recreational opportunities along the Yuba River are described below. To fully realize the recreational benefits of the Lower Yuba River requires some facilities as well as safe public access to those facilities and the river.
4-55 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
This strategy addresses both the need to develop and maintain facilities for recreation and to provide safe public access to the river.
4.4.4.1.1 New Bullards Bar Reservoir New Bullards Bar Reservoir is located about 30 miles east of Marysville in the foothills at an elevation of about 1,900 feet above sea level. The reservoir has a surface area of 4,600 acres and approximately 55 miles of shoreline that supports a variety of recreational activities, including boating, water skiing, fishing, swimming, camping, picnicking, hiking, and biking. Biking and fishing occur year-round, while other activities occur primarily from early May to mid-October.
Existing recreational facilities at New Bullards Bar include:
Three boat-in camping areas with 30 to 74 units (depends on lake water level)
Two picnic areas with 44 units
Marina
Drive-in camping area with 72 campsites and five group sites
Three parking areas, including two at boat launches
Bullards Trail System – five trails over 20 miles in length for hiking and biking
Recreational opportunities at New Bullards Bar Reservoir are extended by the surrounding Tahoe and Plumas National Forests, which provide additional recreational opportunities, including camping, fishing, hiking, biking, off-road vehicle use, rafting, sight-seeing, hunting, and horseback riding. Emerald Cove Marina operations are administered by YCWA and campground operations are administered by the US Forest Service. Ranger patrols for law enforcement are operated by the US Forest Service and the Yuba County Sheriff’s Office.
4.4.4.1.2 Englebright Reservoir Englebright Reservoir is at a maximum elevation of 527 feet and located north of State Highway 20 twenty-one miles east of Marysville. The reservoir was completed in 1941 for the primary purpose of trapping sediment derived from mining operations. The reservoir has a surface area of 400 acres with a shoreline of 24 miles that snakes for 9 miles above the dam. Englebright provides only boat access camping. Boats can be launched at the Park Headquarters, or at a private marina where boats, including
4-56 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
houseboats, can be rented. Fishing is allowed throughout the lake, but waterskiing is limited to an area well upstream from the dam. Recreation operations are administered by the Corps. All areas are patrolled by either Corps’ park rangers or deputies of the Yuba and Nevada County Sheriff’s Departments.
4.4.4.1.3 Collins Lake Recreation Area The Collins Lake Recreation Area is located at Merle Collins Reservoir about 20 miles northeast of Marysville. The lake and recreation area are owned and operated by BVID. The recreational area contains about 186 campsites with hookups, campsites without hookups, 40 day-use picnic spaces, and an unimproved open camping area. The recreation area includes some public facilities such as a store, laundry, restrooms, showers, and an RV dump station. There is a single boat ramp for fishing and water skiing boats, but no personal water craft or house boats are allowed. There are plans to expand the camping facilities at the recreation area.
4.4.4.1.4 Lower Yuba River There are few public recreation facilities along the Yuba River below New Bullards Bar Dam. From Englebright Lake to the Feather River at Marysville, the river flows past mostly private lands, restricting public access. There is public access to the Yuba River at the following:
The State Highway 20 crossing five miles downstream of Englebright Lake (limited public access on the south and north banks of the Yuba River).
At Hammon Grove County Park located where Dry Creek enters into the Yuba River
At the end of Hallwood Boulevard, on the north bank of the Yuba River, approximately six miles east of Marysville south of State Highway 20.
Through the Riverfront Park in Marysville.
Although powerboat access is available from launches on the Feather River near the confluence with the Yuba River, boats traveling up the river are constrained by flows and cannot pass Daguerre Point Dam approximately 12 miles upstream of the confluence. There is a Yuba County ordinance prohibiting recreational and commercial power boating above Daguerre Point Dam.
Rafters can access the Yuba River on either bank of the river (Parks Bar) below the State Highway 20 crossing and float downstream through tranquil rapids for approximately
4-57 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
eight to ten miles. This section of the Yuba River is not commonly run by whitewater enthusiasts due to a long portage around Daguerre Point Dam and limited public river access downstream.
Fishing is common along the Yuba River. Anglers can fish from shore at access points available to the public, from boats that travel upstream of the Feather River, and from drift boats launched near the State Highway 20 crossing. Prime fishing season is March through May and August through November, and winter fishing is popular in December through February.
4.4.4.1.5 Yuba River Recreation and Wildlife Enhancement Area This area, located along the Yuba River between Park’s Bar Road and the City of Marysville, has been identified as protected from encroachments incompatible with recreational and wildlife uses such as camping, fishing, hiking, bike riding, equestrian use, and river rafting. This area will also serve as a connection between wildlife preserves and parklands.
4.4.4.1.6 Riverfront Park (City of Marysville) Riverfront Park consists of a large complex with many of the facilities located in the river floodplain. Facilities include restrooms, athletic fields, and a motocross park. Riverfront Park is also a popular venue for music and other special events. The City of Marysville is looking to encourage the development and use of compatible recreational uses in the floodplains of the Feather and Yuba Rivers.
4.4.4.1.7 Yuba County Parks Hammon Grove Park – This is 43.6-acre park owned by Yuba County that is located near Still Creek on the Yuba River. The park serves as a large group picnic area and as an access point to the Yuba River. The existing facilities include parking, picnic areas, a large BBQ area with picnic tables, and restrooms. The river access is limited due to the eroding bank of the Yuba River.
Shad Pad (also referred to as the E Street Motorpark) – This 16-acre park owned by Yuba County is located on the south bank and is adjacent to the Yuba River across from the City of Marysville, east of the State Highway 70 Bridge. The Shad Pad includes a motocross course. Although the site is located adjacent to the Yuba River, no public access is provided to the riverbank.
4-58 Water Resources Setting and Management Issues
4.4.4.2 Existing Bear River Recreational Facilities Most of the Bear River watershed above Camp Far West Reservoir is located outside of Yuba County in the foothills of Nevada and Placer Counties. Much of the Bear River is either inaccessible or closed to the public, which limits recreational opportunities.
4.4.4.2.1 Camp Far West Reservoir Camp Far West Reservoir is used for fishing, boating, and water skiing and also has 800 acres of open camping and trails for hikers, bikers, and equestrians. At an elevation of 320 feet, Camp Far West Reservoir is located at the junction of Yuba, Nevada, and Placer Counties. At full capacity the reservoir stores 104,500 acre-feet of water and has a surface area of 2,000 acres and 29 miles of shoreline. Camp Far West Reservoir has over 150 campsites for groups and equestrians and the reservoir is within easy driving access to the City of Wheatland, Beale AFB, and the Spenceville Wildlife Area. Law enforcement is provided by the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department and also by private security.
4.4.4.2.2 City of Wheatland The City of Wheatland currently has less than 5 acres of parks. The Wheatland General Plan Update (2006) identifies the need to increase recreational opportunities within the growing community. The City has considered potential uses of local waterways to improve public access to creek and river channels, establish riparian and scenic values, and promote the continued support and maintenance of the creeks and trail systems. Specific designs have been considered as well as the development plans along Grasshopper Slough.
4.4.4.3 Existing Feather River Recreational Facilities Common activities along the Feather River include boat and shore fishing, pleasure boating, hunting, swimming, sightseeing, picnicking, and camping. In Yuba County, boat access to the Feather River is available at Riverfront Park near Marysville. Additional undeveloped access points downstream of Marysville are located along the Garden Highway.
The Feather River State Wildlife Area is located south of Marysville and Yuba City in both Yuba and Sutter Counties. The Wildlife Area is managed by the CDFG. The existing Feather River State Wildlife Area facilities located within Yuba County include:
Star Bend Unit – This is a 50-acre site near Star Bend. The County owns and operates a 9-acre park at this location, which includes a paved parking area and boat ramp.
4-59 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Lake of the Woods Unit – This is 698-acre site along the Feather River extending from south of the Star Bend boat ramp to the Bear River. This area is only accessible by boat.
4.4.4.4 Agencies with Recreation and Public Access Management Responsibilities The County of Yuba and Yuba County RCD are the primary local agencies with the interest and authority to develop and manage recreational facilities in Yuba County. In addition, BVID has recreational opportunities associated with some of their facilities. Their role in recreation and public access issues is briefly presented below, along with BVID.
4.4.4.4.1 Yuba County Yuba County has a role in the development of recreational opportunities within the county through its land use planning responsibilities. There are currently three county parks, and the county is preparing a county-wide Park Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to identify the park needs of Yuba County and identify any gaps in the existing park facilities. The Draft Yuba County Park Master Plan was released in February 2008 and identifies potential parks and recreational facilities in Yuba County.
4.4.4.4.2 Yuba County Resource Conservation District The role of the Yuba County RCD includes assisting local landowners and land managers in providing stewardship of the County’s natural resources and educating stakeholders and policy makers about the County’s natural resource base. As part of this effort, the Yuba County RCD has identified several projects located along the Yuba River that provide the opportunity to protect and preserve the natural resources while also providing additional recreational and public access opportunities to the Yuba River.
4.4.4.4.3 Browns Valley Irrigation District The Collins Lake Recreation Area is located at Merle Collins Reservoir, about 20 miles northeast of Marysville in the Sierra Nevada foothills. The recreation area includes campsites with and without water and sewer hookups, day use picnic spaces, and an unimproved camping area. One boat ramp is available for boating and water skiing, but personal water craft and houseboats are not allowed. Fishing from shore or boat and hiking are allowed at the recreation area.
4-60
5 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
The Yuba County IRWM Plan builds on a history of integrated, multi-jurisdictional water and flood plain planning activities undertaken in Yuba County. Individual member agencies of the Management Group have been successfully working together for over 15 years to coordinate water management and planning activities within Yuba County and address flood control issues. Over this time, YCWA has been actively coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies to integrate the types of water management strategies that are now part of the DWR IRWM Plan guidelines and state requirements. These efforts have also identified sources of conflict and in many cases have identified projects and programs to resolve these issues (i.e., Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Agreements; Y-FSFCP). The results of these efforts now serve as the foundation for the development of the goals and objectives and water management strategies for the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
This section provides an explanation of the regional planning process and the overall integration strategy used to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan along with a description of the goals and objectives.
5.1 Process of Determination of Goals and Objectives The Management Group used much of the information presented in Section 4 to identify the primary regional water management issues facing the Plan Area, establish the local water management priorities, and define the goals and objectives for the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Many of the major planning efforts, including the projects and programs that were the results of these efforts, are documented in important technical and management reports. These reports describe related planning processes and/or provide scientific and technical analysis related to the projects and program feasibility, and also document the interdisciplinary nature of the plans and inter-jurisdictional involvements required for implementation. In addition, the governing water supply plan (Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord) and flood control plan (Y-FSFCP) in the Plan Area have been reviewed at a programmatic level in environmental documents adopted by the lead agencies. The related environmental documents not only identify the range of interdisciplinary issues and mitigation strategies, but also demonstrate a readiness to proceed.
Development of regional objectives and priorities are the result of the following:
5-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Changes in local land and water use conditions;
Changes to regulatory conditions;
Discussions among participating agencies, with considerations for water management and other interdisciplinary issues of the region;
Leveraging the previous water management efforts and relationships between parties and agreements;
Involving local, state, and federal agencies and other non-governmental agencies (NGOs) that were involved in the decision making; and
Responding to the requirements of the IRWMP Guidelines.
5.2 Goals and Objectives The Yuba County IRWM Plan goals provide a broad statement of intent or purpose for the IRWM Plan and the Plan area and are intended to address the primary problems and resource conflicts in the Plan Area. The objectives provide reference points and serve as criteria for evaluating water management strategies and their associated projects, project benefits, impacts, and conflicts. In addition, regional and statewide planning objectives and priorities were evaluated as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
The Management Group developed the planning goals and objectives with input from all participating agencies. Specific objectives were developed to address the highest priority issues in the Plan Area, which include flood management, water supply reliability, groundwater management, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and recreation and public access in the region. These objectives were refined through review and discussions in regular meetings of the Management Group early in the planning process. The goals and objectives for the priority water management issues are described below.
5.2.1 Flood Management Goals and Objectives Yuba County’s flood protection goals and objectives described below have been developed in response to flooding events in 1986 and 1997, recognizing that there has been an increase in urban development in floodplains, and that there is a need to coordinate with other local jurisdictions and the state and federal governments if the program is to be successful.
Considering the long history of flooding along the Yuba and Feather Rivers, resolving flood issues is a primary purpose for the Yuba County IRWM Plan. As described in
5-2 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
Section 4, local and regional control facilities need improvement to better manage flood runoff and protect life and property for the existing and proposed land uses. Urbanization increases the impervious areas, increasing flood runoff. In addition, much of the urbanization is taking place in low-lying areas that are currently protected by the existing levee system.
Fortunately, much work has been completed and the local model for cooperative flood plain management has been established as part of the Yuba-Feather River Supplemental Flood Protection Project (Supplemental FPP). The Supplemental FPP addressed flood control and flood plain management issues, identified and prioritized flood management projects, and resulted in implementation of some, but not all, of the recommended projects and programs. Even with all of the work that has already been completed, there is still much work to be done to improve flood protection in the Plan Area.
5.2.1.1 Flood Management Goals Yuba County’s primary flood management goal is to protect the health, safety, life, and property of the citizens of Yuba County from flood damages using a multi-objective and multi-jurisdictional approach that maximizes opportunities for agricultural conservation and ecosystem protection and restoration, where feasible.
This broad goal recognizes that different land uses require different levels of flood protection within urban areas requiring a higher level of protection than agricultural uses.
5.2.1.2 Flood Management Objectives The following flood management objectives have been developed to meet the mid-term and long-term flood protection goals of Yuba County. The objectives are to:
Protect Yuba County to the highest level achievable in an expeditious and cost- effective manner that meets urban area mid-term flood protection goals (200-year) and contributes to the long-term goal (500-year protection);
Account for uncertainty in predicting the magnitude of hydrological events;
Operate and manage existing and proposed facilities to avoid coincident peak flows that exceed the channel capacities on the Yuba and Feather Rivers and to continue implementing the F-CO Program;
Provide for significantly improved performance of levee systems under a full range of design loading conditions, and avoid increasing downstream flow and stage during peak-flow conditions;
5-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Incorporate environmental enhancements and adopt management measures that minimize environmental impacts and fully comply with environmental laws;
Maximize benefits and reduce facility cost through use of local, state, and federal revenues, and equitably distribute costs with upstream and downstream interests when appropriate and practical;
Streamline environmental permitting and compliance efforts; and
Secure FEMA certification of local levees.
The flood management objectives have been organized into specific target objectives in order to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of individual flood management projects at meeting the County’s flood protection goals.
The effectiveness of an individual project to meet specific flood management objective targets as well as targets from the other objectives identifies the opportunities for integration of water mangement strategies in the Plan while continuing to provide long- term integrated flood management for protection of the communities in Yuba County and areas downstream. To that end, the Management Group identified the following objective targets to address the flood management issues in the Plan Area:
Improve the performance of levee systems under a full range of design loading conditions.
Improve flood protection facilities and operations to avoid coincident peak flows that exceed the channel capacities on the Yuba and Feather Rivers.
Reduce impacts resulting from local/internal flooding.
Implement flood management measures that provide system-wide benefits.
5.2.2 Water Supply Reliability Goals and Objectives Historically, Yuba County has relied on a combination of surface water and groundwater supplies to meet the water demands of agricultural and urban land uses. Agricultural water uses have been met with a combination of surface water and groundwater while urban water demands have been met exclusively by groundwater.
Yuba County’s water supply reliability goals and objectives described below have been developed in response to increasing and changing water demands and the recent surface water management activities described above.
5-4 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
5.2.2.1 Water Supply Reliability Goal The water supply goal for Yuba County is to continue to utilize its surface water supply facilities to regulate waters of the Yuba River in coordination with groundwater pumping activities to enhance water supply reliability while also providing surface water to meet in-stream water needs and to make excess water available outside Yuba County when needed.
5.2.2.2 Water Supply Reliability Objectives The following water supply reliability objectives have been developed to meet the long- term water supply reliability goal of Yuba County.
Provide reliable and good-quality water for urban areas of the County as defined by the Urban Water Management Planning Act to meet current and future water demands in various year types (normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years).
Provide a reliable and good-quality water supply to ensure the long-term sustainable agricultural economy of Yuba County through 2030.
Improve the self-reliance of the rural and isolated communities within the Plan Area to help them meet their local water infrastructure and water management goals through 2030 except in critical dry years. Many of these areas are disadvantaged and low income.
Improve water supply reliability for the region and State by continuing to make surface water available to the EWA with increased operational flexibility for protection of the fisheries resources, and providing dry-year water supplies to state and federal water contractors. This is a secondary objective that is intended to be met only after all the local objectives have been addressed.
5.2.3 Groundwater Management Objective Groundwater is a critical source of water for agricultural and urban areas in the County, and proper groundwater management is necessary to ensure long-term sustainability of the available groundwater resources. Groundwater management in Yuba County is needed to continue the conjunctive management of available surface water and groundwater resources to ensure continued local water supply reliability and maintain the ability to enter into water transfers. The increased competition for groundwater supplies of suitable quality for their intended uses may result in conflicts between different water users.
5-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
5.2.3.1 Groundwater Management Goal The overall goal for groundwater management is to prevent overdraft, protect overlying groundwater rights, and ensure that the combined use of surface and groundwater resources provides for current and future water demands in a sustainable way.
5.2.3.2 Groundwater Management Objectives YCWA actively manages the Yuba groundwater subbasins. In 2005, YCWA adopted a Groundwater Management Plan (YCWA, 2005) that includes provisions to protect the safe yield of the North Yuba and South Yuba groundwater subbasins. Many groundwater management issues in the Plan Area were addressed in the Yuba County Groundwater Management Plan and incorporated into the Basin Management Objectives (BMOs).
Therefore, the Management Group used the following BMOs developed for the Yuba County GMP to address the groundwater management issues in the Plan Area.
Achieve groundwater storage levels that result in a net benefit to basin groundwater users. YCWA intends to manage groundwater through conjunctive use activities to avoid unreasonable impacts that may occur from changes in groundwater elevations due to external water transfers. Groundwater elevation reductions that may occur as a result of groundwater extractions to meet local and out-of-county demands in drier years will be monitored by YCWA.
Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the basin for the benefit of groundwater users. Generally, the groundwater in the basin is of excellent quality. However, occurrences of both groundwater contamination and increases in total dissolved solids have been documented in the basin. In these instances, YCWA will coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to pursue actions that will result in the remediation of the problem.
Protect against potential inelastic land surface subsidence. Land subsidence can cause significant damage to essential infrastructure. Historically, land surface subsidence within the county area has been minimal, with no known significant impacts to existing infrastructure. Given the historical trends, the potential for land surface subsidence from groundwater extraction in the North and South subbasin areas is remote. However, YCWA intends to coordinate with DWR to monitor for potential land surface subsidence. If inelastic subsidence is documented in conjunction with declining groundwater elevations, YCWA will investigate appropriate actions to avoid adverse impacts.
5-6 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
Protect against adverse impacts to surface water flows. Among other important uses, the Yuba River provides habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. YCWA is committed to meeting flow requirements in the Yuba River for protection of habitat. In addition, YCWA plans to coordinate with DWR in monitoring efforts that evaluate the relationship (if any) between groundwater pumping and adjacent river or stream flows.
5.2.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Goals and Objectives The Basin Plan identifies the water quality objectives for specific constituents. Recommended numerical limits to translate water quality objectives have also been developed by the RWQCB. The standards and objectives are to protect the designated beneficial uses and prevent third-party impacts and impacts to the environment. The potential for a project to exceed these limits is the basis for evaluating threats to water quality and the likelihood of impairment to groundwater or surface water.
The Region’s groundwater beneficial uses are identified as municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, industrial service supply, and industrial process supply. At a minimum, water designated for municipal uses cannot contain concentrations of chemical constituents that exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into the water quality objectives for groundwater in the Basin Plan. Agriculture is dependent on an adequate supply of water of satisfactory quality.
Agricultural uses of groundwater and surface water for irrigation are the primary beneficial uses in the IRWM Plan Region. The RWQCB lists requirements intended to protect agricultural use and sustain the agricultural economy in the IRWM Plan area. Water quality requirements vary by crop types and agronomic conditions. Water quality objectives to protect agricultural uses are reflected in the numerical water quality standards of the RWQCB and Basin Plan.
The quality of the available surface water and groundwater supplies within the Plan Area influences the ability to put the water to use. Both surface water and groundwater is of good quality for most of the intended uses. If the quality of the water is degraded beyond the ability to put the water to the intended use, overall supply may become limited or the costs for treatment may increase.
5.2.4.1 Water Quality Goal The water quality goal is to understand the quality of existing surface and groundwater sources and preserve, protect, and improve the quality of regional water supplies to ensure sustainable good-quality water for all beneficial uses.
5-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
5.2.4.2 Water Quality Improvement Objectives The Management Group identified the following objectives to address water quality protection and improvement issues within the Plan Area:
Identify and implement projects and programs that monitor and protect surface water quality,
Identify and implement projects and programs that monitor and protect groundwater quality,
Coordinate water quality monitoring and reporting efforts with existing programs.
5.2.5 Ecosystem Restoration Objective Within the Plan Area, ecosystem protection and restoration is being addressed in the context of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, Supplemental FPP, Sacramento River Water Management Plan, and the other existing planning efforts in the region. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord provides a framework for ecosystem restoration initiatives through a public collaborative process that included many local regional and state and federal stakeholders and interested parties. One of the results of this effort was the completion of the Fisheries Agreement of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, which identified the range of management activities that need to be implemented to improve the fisheries of the lower Yuba River.
5.2.5.1 Ecosystem Restoration Goal The overall goal is to protect fishery and related riparian resources of the Yuba River and at the same time provide a sustainable water supply and protect life and property through appropriate flood control facilities and flood plain management.
5.2.5.2 Ecosystem Restoration Objectives The Management Group identified the following objectives to address ecosystem restoration issues within the Plan Area:
Implement the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and provide local and statewide fishery benefits.
Integrate ecosystems management objectives and environmental features into the Y-FSFCP and related flood management strategies.
5-8 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
5.2.6 Recreation and Public Access Objective The rivers, lakes, and streams of Yuba County provide numerous and varied recreational opportunities for the residents of Yuba County. Some challenges exist with balancing the recreational opportunities with the water management objectives (i.e., flood protection provided by local levees).
5.2.6.1 Recreation and Public Access Goal The goal is to provide for expanded use of existing recreational opportunities and develop new recreational opportunities along the water courses in the Plan Area. The recreation and public access goals within the Plan Area include providing the public access and the facilities needed to support recreational activities along the Yuba River and other waterways in the Plan Area.
5.2.6.2 Recreation and Public Access Objectives The Management Group identified the following objectives to address recreation and public access issues within the Plan Area:
Identify opportunities to provide safe, legal access to the Yuba River and other water bodies in the Plan Area while ensuring that the integrity of levee protection systems is maintained.
Identify opportunities to highlight the natural features and unique historical character of the rivers and surrounding areas.
5.3 Statewide Objectives and Priorities During the planning process, the Management Group reviewed and evaluated the statewide priorities to determine the applicability of these priorities for the region. As the result of this review, the following statewide priorities have been identified to be applicable to the Yuba County IRWM Plan. These priorities are further evaluated and considered in developing water management strategies for the region.
Reduce conflict between water uses or resolve water rights disputes, including water rights issues.
Assist in meeting Delta Water Quality Standards.
Implement Total Maximum Daily Loads that are established or under development.
5-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Implement the SWRCB’s Non-Point Source Pollution Plan.
Implement recommendations of the floodplain management task force.
Assist goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which include:
o Providing good-quality water for all beneficial uses,
o Improving and increasing aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improving ecological function of the Bay-Delta, and
o Reducing mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system.
5.4 Regional Priorities The Management Group reviewed and discussed the DWR statewide priorities and preferences, and the recommended water management strategies, existing local plans, priority issues, and potential conflicts to set priorities and to establish the local goals and objectives. During the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, local priorities were identified as listed below. The Management Group also established the planning framework in terms of how they would combine the various water management strategies into a coherent set of overarching strategies that fit with the local priorities and unique circumstances of the region.
Primary Priorities Improving local flood protection and regional flood management.
Implementing proposed agreements outlined in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord that protect the fisheries of the Yuba River while improving surface water supply reliability.
Secondary Priorities Increasing use of recycled urban wastewater to reduce discharges into the Feather River or the groundwater basin.
Implementing projects that ensure water supply reliability.
Implementing projects and programs that protect and improve water quality.
Exploring opportunities to deliver surface water to urban water users in the region.
5-10 IRWM Plan Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
Improving recreational opportunities and public access to the water features within the Plan Area.
5-11
6 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
The Management Group utilized the existing planning activities to provide the foundation for the integration of the water management strategies within the Yuba County IRWM Plan. As shown in Figure 1-1, the Yuba County IRWM Plan serves as a nexus document between these original planning activities and regional and statewide planning efforts. The Yuba County IRWM Plan in turn becomes one of the foundational documents that support future local planning activities, as well as regional efforts such as the Sacramento Valley IRWMP, and statewide efforts such as the California Water Plan Update, including the integration of the State Plan of Flood Control for the Central Valley into the California Water Plan Update.
The purpose of this section is to describe the water management strategies considered for inclusion in the Yuba County IRWM Plan, and describe in detail the water management strategies identified by the Management Group as the highest priority within the Plan Area. The major, integrated program strategies in the Yuba County IRWM Plan are described below and include:
Flood Management
Water Supply Reliability
Water Recycling and Reuse
Water Quality Improvement
Ecosystem Restoration
Recreation and Public Access
6.1 Flood Management Strategy
6.1.1 Flood Management Strategy Approach This section presents the regional flood management strategy. The flood management strategy developed as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan incorporates flood management activities into an integrated plan that meets the county’s flood protection goals while supporting other local water management objectives such as water supply reliability, ecosystem restoration, public access, and recreation. The flood management
6-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
strategy being prepared as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan is focused on integrating and building upon the existing planning effort and improving the coordination among the local, state, and federal agencies. The formulation of the flood management strategy for Yuba County was developed by:
Identifying current flood protection facilities in Yuba County and the levels of flood protection provided (described in Section 4.4.1)
Developing flood management strategies to meet the flood protection goals and objectives
Integrating flood management strategies with other local, state, and federal water resources management strategies and other resource management strategies, including open space and species habitat management, to meet multiple objectives and provide regional benefits where possible
Identifying options (projects and programs) for achieving additional flood protection
Prioritizing flood management projects
Identifying potential funding opportunities to implement future projects and programs
6.1.2 Yuba County Flood Management Strategies Historically, the flood management strategy for Yuba County is defined in part by the local geomorphic conditions that range from the mountain peaks of the Sierra Nevada to the low-lying basins in the Sacramento Valley and variable hydrologic conditions of the Yuba-Feather River System. To date, flood management has responded to these conditions by using upstream storage reservoirs to capture and regulate rainfall and snowmelt runoff, and levees to increase the water-carrying capacity of the local rivers. In addition to the regional flood threat, local flooding from smaller streams and creeks can cause local damage and exacerbate regional flood issues.
The goal of a regional flood management plan (RFMP) is to improve the level of flood protection for local areas while providing system-wide benefits through a regional approach to flood management than would have been achieved without the RFMP. This may be accomplished by utilizing existing facilities, making improvements where needed, and coordinating flood operations to improve operational flexibility to achieve a greater level of local and system-wide flood protection. Flood facilities are generally organized into upstream facilities, which may include reservoirs with flood storage and downstream facilities such as levees that provide flood protection for areas adjacent to
6-2 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
the rivers. Improvements to upstream and downstream facilities can increase their capacity to store or convey flood waters. The increased capacity provides greater operational flexibility, and the opportunity to increase both the local and system-wide level of flood protection. In order to address the regional and local flood threat to the county, the following flood management strategies have been developed to meet the flood protection goals of the county:
Strategy 1 - Levee Improvement
Strategy 2 - Upstream Flood Control Strategies
Strategy 3 - Non-Structural Flood Management
Strategy 4 - Stormwater Management
6.1.2.1 Strategy 1 – Levee Improvement Reducing the flood risk in Yuba County is largely dependent upon strong levees and a high-quality levee maintenance program. This strategy is designed to improve the levee system within Yuba County to provide the 200-year level of protection to those areas within the floodplain. The 200-year level of protection is an interim goal for urban areas of Yuba County. The area is currently, and will be in the future, very dependent upon the federal/state/local levee system. The TRLIA levee strengthening program and the Corps’ plans in the Yuba River Basin program are essential to the area’s flood protection. A reliable high level of protection for the region cannot be obtained without the successful completion of these projects. Portions of the Yuba-Feather levee system are among the tallest in the state of California, which increases the risk of failures. Once the levees are strengthened, it is absolutely necessary to maintain an aggressive first-class maintenance program that will preserve the integrity of the levees. The maintenance of the levee system is paramount in providing reliable flood reduction benefits because the levee system must work effectively with all proposed elements.
6.1.2.1.1 DWR Levee Geotechnical Investigation (2006) The State of California has long recognized the need to upgrade the aging and deteriorating levees in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River valleys and the Delta. In 2006, through the passage of Assembly Bill 142, the State appropriated $500 million of funding to DWR to begin a comprehensive program of levee evaluation and upgrades. The initial efforts of the geotechnical evaluation focused on the 300 to 350 miles of levees located in the highly populated urban areas of greater Sacramento, Stockton/Lathrop, and Marysville/Yuba City. The purpose of these efforts is to complete a geotechnical evaluation of project levees and develop a levee certification program that
6-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
meets FEMA’s Levee Certification Standards. The goal of the evaluations is to provide the information needed for the eventual upgrade to a 200-year level of protection for levees located in urban areas and up to a 100-year level of protection to levees in the rural areas using the Corps’ standard operation procedures guidelines. Within the Yuba County IRWM Plan Area, the Marysville ring levee was one of the first areas to be included in the evaluation.
6.1.2.1.2 Local Flood Protection Programs The Yuba County levees evaluated under the Systems Evaluation Program were not analyzed or evaluated for underseepage problems and, because some of the areas protected by these levees have begun to experience increased development, there has been additional evaluation of the levees that protect them. Development pressures, concern with levee reliability in already developed areas, and new FEMA policies requiring documentation to support protection from the base flood are resulting in new evaluations of the Yuba County levees and programs to increase levee reliability. The status of local levees shown on Figure 4-4 is summarized below for each of the agencies with levee management responsibilities.
6.1.2.1.3 RD No. 10 RD 10 encompasses approximately 12,000 acres of essentially agricultural land. It is bounded by 23.4 miles of levees along the following watercourses:
North and West Bank of Simmerly Slough, Unit 1, 7.7 miles
East Bank of Feather River, Unit 2, 11.2 miles
South Bank of Honcut Creek, Unit 3, 4.5 miles
This rural reclamation district has a minimal annual budget and no permanent maintenance staff. Maintenance is performed by volunteers. Routine maintenance has been performed on the levees that have resulted in a satisfactory grade in the most recent inspections by DWR in the past year. RD 10 is in the process of forming an assessment district to fund levee maintenance and improvement programs.
The Design Memorandum for Phase II, Marysville/Yuba City Area, identified problems in the Feather River levee and recommended 2.6 miles of 8-foot toe drain (LM 3.0 – 5.6, Unit 2) Site 4, Contract 1, to be constructed. The Corps ultimately constructed 2.65 miles (LM 3.60 – 6.25, Unit 2) of toe drain and berm in 1996. This was assumed to have provided 100-year protection at that time, and current FEMA maps show this area as
6-4 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
protected from the FEMA base flood. The Yuba Basin Project does not include evaluation of the RD 10 levees.
Unless additional analysis is performed to validate the levee stability, this area would most likely be mapped into the 100-year floodplain as part of the Upper Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study.
In order to evaluate the conditions of local levees to ensure their reliability, the levee profile should be compared to the revised 100-year water surface elevations and a geotechnical exploration program and analysis for levee stability and underseepage.
6.1.2.1.4 Marysville Ring Levee The City of Marysville, an urban area of approximately 1,500 acres and 12,600 residents, is surrounded by 7.5 miles of levee along the following waterways:
South Bank of Simmerly/Jack Slough, Unit 1, 3.2 miles
East Bank of Feather River, Unit 2, 1.3 miles
North Bank of Yuba River, Unit 3, 3.0 miles
An additional 3.9 miles along the north bank of the Yuba River extend upstream of Marysville providing some protection to agricultural lands northeast of the city. The Design Memorandum for the Phase II, Marysville/Yuba City Area, identified problems in the Feather River levee and recommended 0.6 miles of cutoff wall (LM 0.3 – 0.9, Unit 1) Site 14, Contract 1, be constructed. The Corps did construct 0.33 miles of 30-foot-deep cutoff wall (LM 0.35 – 0.68, Unit 1) in 1996. Additional work was done by the Corps in 1999 as part of the PL 84-99 authorization. A 35-foot-deep cutoff wall was constructed from LM 0.0 to 0.35, Unit 1 and from LM 0.0 to 0.5 of Unit 2. This work was done to stabilize the levee for the 1957 design event.
The Yuba Basin Project included the Marysville ring levee in its evaluation and 5.1 miles of cutoff wall and berm were authorized for construction. At the time of the authorization, it was thought that the Yuba Basin Project work would provide 300-year protection to Marysville. This evaluation of reliability did not consider the underseepage issues, nor did it have the new hydraulic information. While it appears that freeboard is adequate for the 100-year and 200-year floods along most of the Marysville levees, there are many roadway and railroad crossings of the levees. Several of these crossings infringe into the levee freeboard for the 100-year and 200-year floods. There are stop log closure structures that would appear to provide adequate freeboard at these crossings. The crossings are all equipped with closure devices that provide adequate freeboard when
6-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
closed and braced. An adequate operating procedure must be in place to ensure that the closure structures will function as planned. The operating procedure should detail what gages are monitored to determine when to close the structure, what elevation will trigger closure, where stop logs are stored, which forces will install the closures, and who should be contacted to inform them that closures are being implemented. This operating procedure should be reviewed before each flood season.
An evaluation of the existing geotechnical information on the Marysville levees has determined that insufficient information exists to evaluate the levees for underseepage. The drilling and evaluation of the Marysville ring levee is scheduled to be completed in two phases. Phase I includes the drilling and evaluation of approximately 60 punch-core boring along the levee crest, completed in 2007. Phase 2 includes additional borings along the water and land side of the levee and a seepage analysis. Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed later in 2008 and will provide recommendations for levee improvements.
6.1.2.1.5 RD No. 784 RD 784 is 16,500 acres of mixed agricultural, residential, and commercial development. With 240 businesses and over 3,400 residences, over 40,000 people work and reside in the protected area, and the Plumas Lake Development area is attracting businesses and residents to the area. The more developed portion of RD 784, which includes the communities of Olivehurst, Linda, and the Plumas Lake Development area, is bounded by 32.6 miles of levees along the following watercourses:
South Bank of Yuba River (Simpson Lane to Goldfields), Unit 7, 3.91 miles
South Bank of Yuba River (Mouth to Simpson Lane), Unit 1, 2.22 miles
East Bank of Feather River, Unit 2, 13.64 miles
North Bank of Bear River, Unit 3, 4.73 miles
West Bank of the WPIC, Unit 4, 6.34 miles
A smaller area of mostly agricultural lands is protected by the following 5.71 miles of levees:
o East Bank WPIC, Unit 5, 4.21 miles
o North Bank Dry Creek, Unit 6, 1.50 miles
Extensive work was identified and accomplished by the Corps under Phase 2 of the Sacramento Evaluation Program. This work consisted of 6.25 miles of cutoff walls along
6-6 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
the Feather and Yuba Rivers, 5.42 miles of levee raising along the Feather River, and 5.55 miles of berm and drain along the Feather and Yuba Rivers. All of this work was accomplished in 1997 and 1998. Based on problems experienced during the 1997 event, additional work was accomplished in 2004 that included 0.85 mile of relief wells, 1.83 miles of seepage berm, and 0.94 mile of stability berm. In addition, Pump Station No. 2 was relocated and reconstructed.
All of this work was only to bring the levees back to their original design condition (1957 flood event), which at the time was thought to provide slightly greater than a 100-year level of protection for RD 784. The Yuba Basin Project evaluated the RD 784 levees and authorized 3.7 miles of cutoff wall, 3.1 miles of cutoff wall modifications, 0.9 miles of new berm and drain, 8.5 miles of modifications to existing berms and drains, and 1.2 miles of levee raising for construction. At the time of the authorization, it was thought that the Yuba Basin Project work would provide 200-year protection to the RD 784 area. As new information on levee reliability became known and uncertainty of when the Yuba Basin Project would be implemented by the Corps increased, the risk of flooding to existing development in RD 784 became more apparent.
As discussed in the section on TRLIA, efforts are currently underway to implement a program of levee improvements to provide 200-year protection to RD 784.
6.1.2.1.6 RD No. 817 RD 817 encompasses approximately 2,600 acres of primarily agricultural land directly west of Wheatland, California. It consists of two levee reaches of 7.7 miles along the:
South Bank of Dry Creek, Unit 1, 3.8 miles (Mouth to Oakley Lane), and
North Bank of Bear River, Unit 2, 3.9 miles (Dry Creek to Oakley Lane).
Phase III (Mid-Valley) of the Sacramento Evaluation Program evaluated these levees, but no problems were identified or reconstruction proposed. RD 817 is adjacent to RD 2103, which provides protection to Wheatland. Levee failures that occur in RD 2103 will allow flows to proceed west and will eventually pond on and flood the lands within RD 817. Thus, RD 817 is subject to flooding from levees that are not in its district. Failure of RD 817 levees will pond flood waters high enough to flood the western portion of Wheatland. Additional studies have not been conducted on the RD 817 levees. The area behind the levees is currently mapped in the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
Preliminary information along the Bear River and Dry Creek indicates that reaches of the levees do not have adequate freeboard to meet FEMA certification requirements. A
6-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
problem identification study for RD 817 would include a survey of the levees, an analysis for erosion, and a geotechnical evaluation.
6.1.2.1.7 RD No. 2103 RD 2103 encompasses approximately 4,000 acres of agricultural land and urban development, including the City of Wheatland. It consists of two levee reaches of 9.8 miles along the:
South Bank of Dry Creek, Unit 1, 4.8 miles (Upstream of Oakley Lane), and
North Bank of Bear River, Unit 2, 5.0 miles (Upstream of Oakley Lane).
The City of Wheatland is experiencing tremendous growth pressure in both the city itself and lands surrounding the city. Phase III (Mid-Valley) of the Sacramento Evaluation Program evaluated these levees, but no problems were identified or reconstruction proposed. New studies for FEMA mapping and the desire to provide adequate levee protection for existing and proposed development have resulted in additional evaluations of the RD 2103 levees.
Studies in the 1990s by the City of Wheatland identified seepage problems for the Bear River north levee. This resulted in the construction of a stability berm along the landside toe of the levee from 1997 through 2000. A 2006 Problem Identification Report (PIR) identified underseepage problems along this same levee. Recommendations for remediation are to construct 3.1 miles of 30- to 80-feet-deep cutoff wall and construct a 300-foot section of stability berm to close a gap left during prior construction. Other studies have identified a severe erosion site at River Mile 10.1. DWR completed construction of the repair of this site in 2006. In addition to this critical site, an area of ongoing erosion has been identified along the Bear River. The proposed remediation is to widen the levee along a 1,300-foot section so that future erosion will not threaten levee integrity. A group of landowners is developing a program to accomplish these remediation measures in 2007. Once this work is done, the Bear River north levee in RD 2103 will provide 200-year flood protection.
The Dry Creek south levee is not adequate for 100-year flood protection. As problems are addressed for the Bear River levee, the remediation program may be expanded to include the Dry Creek levee. Initial efforts on the Dry Creek levee should be a problem identification study. Significant portions of RD 2103 are currently mapped in the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
6-8 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.1.2.2 Strategy 2 – Upstream Flood Control Upstream flood control options have been identified as a method to provide additional flood protection above the 200-year level of protection goal provided by the local levee system.
Numerous additional upstream strategies have been identified and evaluated since 1986 in the efforts described above. Some of the upstream strategies included the construction of dams to capture flood flows, re-operation of existing facilities to manage flood flows, and making improvements to existing facilities to enhance flood operations.
DWR has implementation jurisdiction of two of the upstream flood control elements listed above (controlled surcharge of Lake Oroville and the Thermalito Afterbay re- operation). Upon securing implementation funding, YCWA will pursue two additional elements: New Bullards Bar Reservoir Outlet Capacity Increase and New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression.
6.1.2.2.1 New Bullards Bar Reservoir Outlet Capacity Increase Element Effective operation of New Bullards Bar Reservoir for flood control depends heavily on the availability of storage space for the peak flood inflow. Creating and maintaining this space depends on the ability to release water in advance of the time when the reservoir stage is high enough to make all permissible releases.
Flood control operations of New Bullards Bar Dam would have improved efficiency with an outlet capacity increase. The existing flood regulations would not change. The maximum objective flood release to the North Yuba River would remain at 50,000 cfs, and the objective flows for the Feather River would not change. The flood benefit is derived from being able to meet designated target flows when the current outlet capacity would restrict outflows from the dam. When extreme floods are forecast to occur, such as occurred in 1997, flood releases to evacuate space for regulating the peak flow could be initiated more effectively at the onset of the flood.
6.1.2.2.2 New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression Element The New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression element would allow full operation and release of water from New Bullards Bar Reservoir through the powerhouse during flood conditions when high river flows would otherwise create “back-up” conditions in the turbine runner pits and require shutdown of the powerhouse and resulting reductions in the rate of water releases. This project will allow for early release of flood flows through the powerhouse, therefore reducing the peak flood flows downstream. It also provides for power generation during flooding. It would introduce compressed air into
6-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
the turbine runner pit to depress the tailwater to a level that does not interfere with turbine operation, thereby allowing continued turbine operation during high flows. YCWA prepared a separate feasibility report on this project, and the environmental documentation is completed. Final design was completed in December 2004.
6.1.2.3 Strategy 3 – Non-Structural Flood Management Non-structural options primarily involve actions by residents in the floodplain based on criteria established by local government. Types of actions include flood proofing, evacuation following flood warnings, flood insurance, and zoning. Watershed management, i.e., vegetation management in the watershed, is non-structural but ineffective for major floods because the soil mantle is saturated when the peak storm rainfall occurs. Some non-structural options available within Yuba County are described below.
6.1.2.3.1 Forecast-Coordinated Operations (2005) Another flood management program that has recently begun, F-CO (an element of the Yuba-Feather Flood Control Project), provides for the coordinated operation of Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir during major floods.
The specific elements of the F-CO program include:
Coordinated flood control operations of Lake Oroville, a SWP facility, with New Bullards Bar Reservoir, a YCWA facility
Improving flood forecasts by installing new gaging stations and refining forecasting methods
Developing of a Decision Support System with enhanced communication protocols that will improve coordinated operations during major floods
Updating emergency management protocols for both YCWA and the SWP
Coordinated operation of Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir during major floods would provide for early release of flood flows from the reservoirs, hence reducing peak flows downstream. This program can provide significant flood control benefits to residents along the Yuba and Feather Rivers and provide regional flood control benefits for all communities throughout the Delta.
The flood operations manual for Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoir was developed by the Corps with consideration of the Marysville Reservoir Project (970,000 acre-foot capacity). The Marysville Dam Project was not constructed. However, the
6-10 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Lake Oroville-New Bullards Bar flood operations manuals have not been updated to reflect the absence of Marysville Reservoir. Therefore, clarification and/or modification of the Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar flood control diagram may be necessary.
6.1.2.3.2 Land Use Planning Yuba County is in the process of updating its General Plan. This process is expected to take about two to three years. One of the major components of the update is the land use- planning element. The Yuba County planning staff has informed the Board of Supervisors of the current land use patterns and trends and has requested direction for making future land use planning policy decisions. The Plan is anticipated to be used as a foundational document to support future planning efforts by defining the relationship between land use planning policies and water resources management activities.
The City of Wheatland certified a General Plan Update in July 2006. The Wheatland City Council has identified numerous land use policies in the General Plan to determine future growth and development patterns within the City’s area of study and the urban reserve areas located within the SOI. The Land Use and Health and Safety Chapters discuss flooding and flood planning efforts. The City fully supports the efforts of RD 2103 and RD 817 to provide flood protection in the newly developing parts of the City.
The Board of Supervisors is considering the impact of land use planning of flood management within the county, and has identified several items for consideration:
Much of the current lands developed or planned for development over the next 10 years are located near the Feather, Yuba, and Bear Rivers.
Much of the existing infrastructure within the county is located along the major transportation corridors within the floodplains. Refocusing urban development away from the floodplains would require an additional investment in infrastructure required to support the growth.
The future plans for Beale AFB, which may include the reduction of the sound corridor, could provide the opportunity for growth in the areas outside of the floodplain.
6-11 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Figure 6-1 Project Locations
6-12 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.1.2.3.3 Flood Insurance Program Flood insurance does not avoid flood damages but significantly assists in recovery at the individual owner level. It also assists at a community level by reducing the demand on public financing and accelerating economic recovery and restoration of the tax base. While insurance is mandatory for federal insurance of loans in areas designated by FEMA with less than 1:100 years chance of flooding, it should be purchased in all areas subject to flooding. There is no present requirement by local agencies for property owners to buy flood insurance.
6.1.2.3.4 Watershed Management Watershed management would involve changing land use patterns and/or actively modifying the condition of the soils and vegetation in order to reduce or slow runoff from precipitation. Where overgrazing or deforestation has diminished the capacity of the land to catch, delay, and infiltrate rainfall, watershed rehabilitation can be effective in reducing the rate of runoff from precipitation events. In the Yuba River Basin, the potential for reducing flood peaks is minimal. The U.S. Forest Service indicates that except for a small percentage of land covered with hydraulic mining debris, the watershed is in relatively good condition without significant areas of overgrazed or deforested land. Even if there was significant potential for improved watershed absorption of precipitation, the multi-day storm events characteristic of the Yuba River Basin would completely fill all vegetative and soil moisture storage before the storm peak occurs.
6.1.2.3.5 Improved Emergency Response As history has demonstrated, there may be times when the flood infrastructure and operations cannot handle flood events and an emergency response is needed to save lives and protect property. An effective response to a flooding emergency involves advance planning and coordination among those agencies that may be involved during the flood event as well as continued communication and coordination during the flood fight. An emergency response plan should utilize the available information to allow decision makers to plan for the flood event and to direct emergency response personnel where needed to make the best use of the available resources and limit property damage and loss of life. Some of the components of the emergency response plan may include:
Local Flood Warning System
F-CO program will assist the emergency response by providing:
6-13 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
o Improved coordination with state-federal flood center, reservoir operators, and local emergency response personnel
o Improved forecasting and flood data
o More efficient exchange of flood data
Commitment of staff and resources to respond to failed conditions
Evacuation plans
Note: YCWA and PG&E also monitor and maintain several snow course sites above New Bullards Bar Reservoir and YCWA recently installed snow pillows at numerous sites. Snow depth and water content help provide an early detection warning system should a warm storm fall on a heavy snowpack.
6.1.2.3.6 Flood Warning A flood warning system involves facilities and procedures to identify and communicate a threat of flood danger. A flood warning system is operated by the Yuba County Emergency Services. Flood warning advisory notices and evacuation notices can be sent out to persons in the threatened areas. YCWA provided a grant to enable purchase of a computerized telephone alert system. Additional efforts to improve flood warning would be useful. Additional stream gages are needed for Honcut Creek, Middle Yuba River, and South Yuba River. An elaborate monitoring and prediction system that includes temperature, precipitation, wind, and stream gages feeding data into a forecasting model would improve flood warning. The F-CO program will greatly assist flood warning efforts.
Knowledge of levee reliability and conditions are important factors in forecasting flooding problems. Plants, animals, and erosion all act to degrade levees and make them more susceptible to failure. Various levels of inadequate maintenance result in levees of differing and uncertain reliability. Periodic rigorous inspections of the levees would improve the knowledge base upon which evaluations of flood hazards are made.
6.1.2.3.7 Flood Proofing Flood proofing involves modifying existing structures and utilities in areas subject to flooding to minimize disruption of service and damage to property. For example, this would include raising residences on extended foundations so that living areas are above the probable flood level. Transportation, water supply, wastewater, communications, and other infrastructures would still be subject to flooding.
6-14 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Previous estimates by the Corps identified that 6,426 residential units in Linda, Olivehurst, and RD No. 784, as well as 121 farmsteads are in need of flood proofing. For commercial, industrial, public, and semi-public facilities, it was assumed that the cost of flood proofing would be proportional to the value of the residences. It was estimated that the total cost would be about $475 million for an area inundated by a 1:400-year event. A 1:500-year event would encompass more facilities.
6.1.2.4 Strategy 4 - Stormwater Management In the Plan Area, stormwater management is the responsibility of Yuba County, the cities of Marysville and Wheatland, and reclamation districts. While localized stormwater management does not provide the same threat of loss of life and property damage as regional flooding from the larger rivers and streams, effective local stormwater management is needed to ensure public safety. The local stormwater flood threat is likely to coincide with the peak flood flows, so an ineffective or failed stormwater management system may require commitment of resources or materials that may otherwise be used in the regional flood fight. In addition, many stormwater management facilities, such as detention basins and pump stations, are located adjacent to regional flood protection facilities. Failure of these systems may indirectly threaten regional flood protection facilities or limit their access by emergency response teams during flood events.
Stormwater drainage conditions change in response to changing land use patterns. For example, as agricultural lands are converted to urban uses, the volume of runoff increases due to the construction of impervious areas (streets, roofs, parking lots), and peak flows increase due to greater channelization of the flow (street gutters and storm drains). As lands are proposed for development, detailed drainage studies are completed to determine the impacts of the development and to propose mitigation for the impacts. In most cases, the development interests usually pay for these mitigation measures through direct construction or impact fees, though not always. Within the Plan Area, there are three types of land use patterns that reflect the availability of drainage plans:
Ongoing/Planned Development - Where development exists or is ongoing, there may be several studies and updates. Where development interest is in the early stages of forming, such as Wheatland, these studies are in the preliminary stages and usually associated with general plan updates.
No Development Plans - In areas where no development interests have been identified, no drainage studies are available, such as in RD 10.
Fully Developed Areas - In Marysville the area is already urbanized and no significant changes have occurred since the late 1980s so there are no recent studies of its drainage system or problems.
6-15 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
6.1.2.4.1 Drainage Studies The stormwater management strategy for the Plan Area focused on known drainage problems in Yuba County that remain to be solved. These known problem areas and their identified solutions to the most critical areas are described below for each drainage area. The Plan Area has seven basic drainage areas: Hallwood, RD 10, Marysville, East Linda, Olivehurst, RD 784, and Wheatland. The order of implementation for the stormwater management solutions was developed based on ease of implementation, extent and severity of the remaining problem, and benefits derived from implementation. Most benefits are either from reducing floodplain areas or improving reliability of the existing drainage system, such as adding standby generators and backup pumps to pump stations.
Hallwood A study in July 1986 addressed zoning of the Hallwood area into five-acre minimum parcels and the potential drainage issue that would result for such development. The report was initiated to develop a plan that could be used by Yuba County to address the issues of drainage and traffic circulation as future subdivision occurs in the area. The study found that soils in the Hallwood area are so pervious, significant drainage problems do not exist now and future problems can be easily avoided if certain precautions are taken and procedures followed. The report identified locations where the main drains cross county roads that should have culverts installed. The main recommendation was to elevate roadways and install culverts under the roadway.
RD 10 Currently there are no development pressures in the RD 10 area. Because of this, no recent drainage studies have been done. The recommendation for this area is to do a detailed drainage study for drainage areas 1 and 2 of RD 10. This would be the first step in determining any existing problems and possible solutions.
Marysville While no recent studies have been done for this already urbanized area, a personal discussion with the Director of Community Development gave insight into Marysville’s drainage system and its problems. With no additional changes from rural to urban land use, the amount of runoff that has to be addressed is not expected to change.
The current system functions well, but the pumps are motor driven and these motors are old. Maintenance and repair is becoming an issue as parts to repair the pumps are becoming harder to obtain. In addition, relying primarily on gravity drainage for the Ellis Lake discharge becomes a problem during high flows outside of the levee.
6-16 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
In the future, Marysville should consider going to a larger pumping capacity and relying more on pumping for removing interior runoff. Other problems include numerous storm drains that are undersized and should be upgraded, and lack of curb and gutter or damaged curb and gutter on some streets to direct runoff to drainage inlets. Recommendations are to replace aging pump motors with more up-to-date equipment, replace undersized storm drains, and construct or repair curbs and gutters.
East Linda The revised South Yuba Drainage Master Plan (SYDMP) was prepared for Yuba County to provide drainage solutions for the communities of Olivehurst and East Linda. The SYDMP developed several key features needed to obtain 100-year flood protection. This included the:
Olivehurst Interceptor Canal
Olivehurst Detention Basin
Eastside Interceptor Canal
County Regional Detention Basin
Most of the key improvements have been constructed or are under construction at this time. These key improvements include the Olivehurst Interceptor Canal, blockage of flow from Olivehurst Drain, County Detention Basin and Levee at the south end of Olivehurst Drain, and Storm Water Pump Station (Olivehurst Detention Basin). Portions of the Eastside Interceptor Canal and the County Regional Detention Basin have been constructed as part of residential development projects, but large portions remain to be done.
Bingham Canal - A July 2006 study of the Upper Lateral 15 and Bingham Canal identified other problems in East Linda. The Avondale Pump Station (Pump Station No. 5) receives water from a series of underground pipes and roadside ditches. The pump station lifts the water into the headworks of the Bingham Canal, which flows west to the Island Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 9). The Bingham Canal has limited capacity and cannot handle peak flows.
The best option to resolve the capacity limitation is to store the peak flows in the Edgewater Detention Pond and construct a new pump station to lift the ponded water back into the Bingham Canal once the peak flows have passed, and/or direct water into the Linda Drain system at historic levels. This would eliminate the Avondale Pump Station and all drainage would flow directly into the Edgewater Detention Pond. This
6-17 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
option would free up capacity within the Bingham Canal system during storm peaks to achieve 100-year flow capacity without enlargement of the system.
The Eastside Interceptor Canal should be improved in order to finalize the goals of the SYDMP. In addition, the County Regional Detention Pond should be increased in size and a new pumping station constructed there to replace the Avondale Pump Station as development is approved in the East Linda area.
Olivehurst Recent studies completed for the Clark Lateral and Clark Slough identified necessary drainage improvements. The purpose of the Clark Lateral and Clark Slough Mitigation Project is to protect the Community of Olivehurst from flooding caused by the undersized channel and general lack of drainage facilities. This project would provide 100-year protection to the area located east of the UPRR embankment, west of State Route 65/70, south of Erle Road, and north of a line about 800 feet north of Plumas Arboga Road. The primary components of the project will include improvements to Clark Lateral and Clark Slough. Another key item is the construction of a pipeline lateral from Clark Lateral to Fourth Avenue and Western Avenue.
In addition, the South Olivehurst Detention Basin and pumping station, which was completed in November 2006, will also remove large areas of Olivehurst from the 100- year floodplain.
The most significant residual flooding in Olivehurst is along Mage Avenue. Alternatives have not been developed to protect these residents.
The recommendation is to complete the required culvert replacements and installation of a new underground conveyance system for the Fourth Avenue/Western Avenue area. Once all of the improvements have been completed, Yuba County should prepare a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and remove the properties no longer located below the 100- year base flood elevation.
RD 784 RD 784 encompasses a drainage area of approximately 17,000 acres within Yuba County and is roughly bound by the Yuba River to the north, the Bear River to the south, the Feather River to the west, and the WPIC to the east. Within its watershed, RD 784 operates a system of drainage laterals that convey storm runoff to a number of pumping plants that discharge the runoff outside of district boundaries.
6-18 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
A Drainage Master Plan for RD 784 was prepared in September 2002. The purpose of the master plan was to develop a comprehensive plan to cover all of RD 784. One of the conditions of this approval of the North Arboga Study Area and the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area was the development of a comprehensive master plan to ensure the proper implementation of drainage facilities.
RD 784 is divided into three major drainage basins based on historical drainage patterns in the area:
Drainage Basin A encompasses about 4,900 acres in the southern portion of RD 784. Runoff from the basin is conveyed within Lateral 5, Lateral 16, and the lower Clark Slough to Pump Station No. 2 where it is pumped into the Feather River.
Drainage Basin B encompasses approximately 6,900 acres in the north-central portion of RD 784. The major conveyance facilities within the basin are Lateral 13, Lateral 14, and the Plumas Lake Canal. The canals deliver water to Pump Station No. 3 where it is pumped into the Feather River.
Drainage Basin C encompasses approximately 5,200 acres in the northeast portion and along the entire eastern portion of RD 784. The basin extends from the Yuba River to the Bear River and consists of all lands east of the Lateral 15/Algodon Canal. The major conveyance facilities in this basin are Lateral 15, Bingham Canal, and Algodon Canal. A small portion of the water is pumped into the Feather River at Pump Station No. 9 (also called Island Road Pump Station), but the remaining runoff continues south to Pump Station No. 6, which pumps into the Bear River.
The Master Plan proposed improvements to the numerous pump stations. RD 784 established a policy to require all new pump stations to have a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, a redundant pump, and backup generator. The policy is based on past experience where both Pump Station No. 9 and Pump Station No. 2 lost power during a major storm event resulting in additional flooding. The SCADA system will allow RD 784 to operate and monitor the pumps and motors from a remote location. It will also immediately alert District personnel of a power outage or operation problem. The Master Plan also recommended some detention basin improvements. Recommendations made in the Master Plan are listed below.
Pump Station No. 1 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 1 (also called the Woody Pump) include the installation of a SCADA system and backup generator.
6-19 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Pump Station No. 2 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 2 include the installation of a SCADA system, redundant pump, and a backup generator.
Pump Station No. 3 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 3 include relocating the pump station set back from the levee and reconstructing it to current standards.
Pump Station No. 4 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 4 include completely reconstructing the pump station to a 40 cfs capacity and including a SCADA system, backup generator, and redundant pump.
Pump Station No. 5 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 5 (sometimes referred to as the Avondale Pump Station) include relocating the pump station to the Edgewater Detention Pond and including a SCADA system, backup generator, and redundant pump.
Pump Station No. 7 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 7 (sometimes referred to as the Chestnut Pump Station) include constructing a new pump station capable of pumping 15 cfs with a redundant pump, a motor control center with a SCADA system, and a backup generator.
North Regional Pump Station at Ella Road – The improvements for this site include constructing a new pump station to direct water into the Feather River near Island Road, decreasing the flow south in Lateral 15 and Algodon Canal.
Pump Station No. 9 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 9 (sometimes referred to as the Island Road Pump Station) include installing a SCADA system and a backup generator.
North Drainage Basin C Regional Detention Pond – A portion of the north regional detention pond has been constructed, which was considered Phase 1 of the Basin C Regional Detention Pond. The remaining portion of the detention pond in conjunction with construction of Pump Station No. 10 will completely remove areas adjacent to Lateral 15 and Algodon Canal from the 100-year floodplain.
Pump Station No. 10 – The improvements for Pump Station No. 10 include construction of a new 60 cfs pump station with a redundant pump and backup generator. The pump station will remove the water from the North Drainage Basin C Regional Detention Pond and pump the water directly to the Feather River in the vicinity of Pump Station No. 9.
In addition to the Master Plan for RD 784, a separate study was done for the Yuba County Airport. This study supplemented the RD 784 Master Drainage Plan to provide additional detail within the Airport boundaries. As of September 2006, RD 784 had not
6-20 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
endorsed the Yuba County Airport Master Drainage Plan but continues to work with the Airport to finalize the report. The drainage report does not provide any recommended alternative, but after review of the report it appears that Design Alternative 4 would be the best plan. This is based on the fact that Design Alternative 4 is a combination of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, plus it considers phasing of the infrastructure. The plan consists of 1,650 feet of new 48-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), 1,650 feet of new 84-inch-diameter RCP, two detention ponds, and about 6,800 feet of channel improvements to an existing ditch.
City of Wheatland The adopted Wheatland General Plan and accompanying Wheatland General Plan EIR have identified development pressure associated with planned growth in Wheatland’s SOI. The General Plan EIR contains a study entitled, Draft Drainage Report for Internal Drainage, dated November 2005, prepared by Civil Solutions, Inc. The drainage report contains a discussion of current drainage conditions from interior runoff and discusses the potential changes that may be necessary to accommodate growth identified in the General Plan.
The current interior flooding is attributed to undersized culverts and inadequate conveyance in existing drainage canals. The report does not make any clear recommendation for improvements under current conditions. Most of the areas that do flood from interior runoff are agricultural and the temporary ponding that occurs may not be causing much damage. This report is essentially a tool to be used to ensure that future development does not worsen conditions and that future development is not flooded by interior runoff. One of four alternatives described should be selected and the infrastructure described by that alternative should be constructed as development occurs.
The General Plan EIR also contains the External Source Flood Protection Plan, dated October 2005, prepared by Mead and Hunt. The flood protection plan contains discussion of current flooding conditions and flood control systems, flood protection options, and cost estimates and environmental considerations.
6.1.3 Flood Management Projects Specific projects and programs have been identified that primarily support the flood management strategy in order to meet the goals and objectives outlined in this section. The projects and programs have been identified by local participating agencies and have been refined to varying levels of detail. The initial list of projects (see Table 6-1 below) was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the
6-21 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
Table 6-1 Flood and Stormwater Management Project Summary Table Project Name Project Sponsor Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression YCWA F1
New Bullards Bar Outlet Capacity Increase YCWA F2
Levee Geotechnical Evaluation for RD 10 RD 10 F3
External Flood Source Flood Protection Projects City of Wheatland F4
Regional Flood Management Agency YCWA F5
Forecast-Coordinated Operations YCWA F6
Yuba County Levee Project YCWA F7
Bear River North Levee Rehabilitation Project City of Wheatland F8
Feather River Levee Strengthening (Segment 1&3) RD 784 F9
Feather River Levee Setback (Segment 2) RD 784 F10
New Bullards Bar Reservoir Reoperation Manual YCWA F11
Complete East Interceptor Canal Yuba County ST1
Pump Station No. 3 Reconstruction RD 784 ST2
Edgewater Detention Pond and Pump Station RD 784 ST3 Project
Clark Slough and Clark Lateral Mitigation Project Yuba County ST4
Pump Station No. 1 Improvements RD 784 ST5
Yuba County Airport Drainage Improvements Yuba County ST6
Pump Station No. 2 Improvements RD 784 ST7
Chestnut Pump Station RD 784 ST8
Hallwood Community Drainage Improvements RD 784 ST9
Pump Maintenance City of Marysville ST10
Stormwater Management for North and South City of Wheatland ST11 Grasshopper Slough
Drainage Study RD 10 ST12
Pump Station No. 10 Construction RD 784 ST13
Expand North Drainage Basin C Regional RD 784 ST14 Detention Pond
6-22 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.2 Water Supply Reliability Strategy
6.2.1 Water Supply Reliability Strategy Approach Water needs in Yuba County have been met by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping by public and private entities and individuals. Some entities divert surface water from rivers and streams under their own water rights, and may supplement these surface supplies with surface water from YCWA or groundwater. YCWA constructed the Yuba River Development Project (Yuba Project), which began operation in 1970. The multi-purpose Yuba Project was originally operated for flood control, water supply, and electric power generation. Changing regulatory and environmental conditions and increasing water demands has placed additional requirements on the Yuba Project.
The Yuba Project has allowed for the coordinated use of groundwater and surface water to meet the water demands of the YCWA Member Units. Prior to the delivery of surface water from the lower Yuba River as part of the Yuba Project, groundwater pumping resulted in declining groundwater levels across the Yuba Basin. Replacing groundwater pumping with additional surface water deliveries from the Yuba Project has resulted in a significant recovery of groundwater levels across the Yuba Basin, and now surface water is the primary agricultural water supply for most of the YCWA Member Units, with groundwater used to supplement these supplies.
The remaining agricultural areas and urban areas located outside the YCWA Service Area do not receive surface water deliveries from YCWA and are dependent upon their own surface water supplies or groundwater to meet their water needs. Currently, valley floor urban water users depend exclusively on groundwater to meet water needs. The water use by source for the Plan Area is presented in Figure 4-7.
The water supply reliability strategy developed as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan incorporates water supply management activities into an integrated plan that meets the county’s water supply reliability goals while supporting other local and regional water management objectives. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord addresses many of the water supply reliability issues, while providing instream flows for the Lower Yuba River. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Draft EIR/EIS addresses these issues and plays a major role in the water supply reliability strategy.
6.2.2 Yuba County IRWM Plan Water Supply Reliability Management Strategy In Yuba County, water supply reliability has generally been the shared responsibility of YCWA and local water agencies. The Yuba Project is the major surface water facility
6-23 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
that provides surface water to the area. As demonstrated by the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, effective management of the Yuba Project requires the participation of and coordination between local, state, and federal agencies to meet local water supply objectives while meeting other water management objectives. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord demonstrates the need for a regional approach to water resources management in which water supply reliability activities are coordinated and implemented through local agencies to benefit the entire region. A regional approach also allows for better coordination with state and federal agencies in the planning and implementation of water supply reliability strategies, which increases the local benefit of program implementation while reducing local cost share.
One of the key points to continuing successful implementation of a water supply reliability strategy for Yuba County is the development of a clear understanding of the participants’ needs and objectives. The water supply reliability strategy being prepared as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan is focused on the coordination among the local agencies in establishing a regional management program to provide a more unified approach to maintaining and improving water supply reliability in the face of increasing demands and changing hydrologic conditions. The formulation of the water supply reliability strategy for Yuba County is organized as follows:
Identifying current-level water supply reliability in Yuba County in different hydrologic year types.
Developing water management strategies to meet the water supply reliability protection goals and objectives.
Integrating water supply reliability strategies with other water resources management strategies to meet multiple objectives and provide regional benefits where possible.
Identifying options (projects and programs) for achieving additional water supply reliability.
Prioritizing water supply projects.
Identifying potential funding opportunities to implement future projects and programs.
Historically, water supply reliability for Yuba County has been defined, in part, by local groundwater availability and/or access to surface water, and by the variable hydrologic conditions of the Yuba River System. To date, water supply reliability has been achieved by using upstream storage reservoirs to capture and regulate rainfall and snowmelt runoff 6-24 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
on an annual basis, while using the groundwater basin to provide water supply to those agricultural and municipal areas that do not have access to surface water and to provide long-term water supply storage for the region. The following water supply reliability strategies have been developed to address the regional and local water supply reliability goals for the Plan Area, which reflect the water management capabilities of individual entities.
6.2.2.1 Strategy 1 - Implement Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord This strategy includes the implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord described in Section 4.4.2.1. Recently, two significant milestones were reached to implement the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord:
(1) The draft EIR/EIS was approved by the YCWA Board in October 2007.
(2) The SWRCB held hearings to consider changes to YCWA’s water rights March permits on December 5 – 6, 2007. A final decision is expected in 2008.
6.2.2.2 Strategy 2 – Groundwater Management/Conjunctive Use Strategy This strategy addresses the water supply reliability objectives by improving the certainty and reliability of the available surface water supply from the Yuba River, and integrating surface water operations with the groundwater basin through a conjunctive use program. In addition, the water conservation strategy and water recycling strategy support the overall water supply reliability objectives by reducing demands and extending the potable water supply.
These operations support the improved use of available surface water supply, to meet existing demands and when additional supplies are available, the ability to store water in the groundwater basin (through in-lieu recharge) to utilize the available long-term storage capacity of the groundwater basin. The stored water can be used in the future years to:
Meet agricultural and urban water demands.
Improve supply reliability in dry and critical dry years.
Support the Water Purchase Agreement of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord.
Conjunctive use operations can be integrated into both urban and agricultural water uses as described below.
6-25 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Urban Conjunctive Use Operations - Increased conjunctive use operations in the Yuba Basin will reduce groundwater overdraft in areas of heavy groundwater pumping by delivering surface water in lieu of groundwater pumping. In urban areas, the reduction in groundwater pumping in some years results in recovery of the groundwater levels in years when surface water supplies are available. In dry years, when surface water supplies are not available for use, groundwater is used to meet urban water demands as has been done in the past. One example of a project to support this strategy includes adding a second point of diversion on the Feather River that would be used to recover the Yuba River releases used to meet the Lower Yuba River instream flow requirements of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord.
Agricultural Conjunctive Use Operations - In agricultural areas, delivering surface water to areas historically dependent on groundwater reduces local overdraft caused by long-term groundwater pumping. One example of agricultural conjunctive use operations is the construction of the Wheatland Canal, which will deliver up to 41,000 acre-feet of Yuba River water annually to WWD, thereby reducing groundwater pumping by a like amount. This affected area will benefit from higher groundwater levels and improved groundwater quality. The water quality benefits occur because the groundwater quality in the vicinity of WWD and the City of Wheatland decreases with increasing depth to water.
6.2.2.3 Strategy 3 – Water Conservation Strategy The water conservation for agricultural and urban water users may include the implementation of efficient water management practices (EWMPs) for agricultural and best management practices (BMPs) for urban water users to ensure that water is put to beneficial use efficiently in a cost-effective manner. Some of the components that may be included in a water conservation strategy for agricultural and urban water users are described below.
Agricultural Water Management - At a regional level, water conservation is the responsibility of water districts that seek to make the best use of available water supplies. Water districts seek to promote and provide services to increase both district-wide and on-farm water efficiency. Implementation of efficient water management rests with the grower at the farm level. Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs) include EWMPs to improve agricultural water use efficiency.
EWMPs included in AWMPs
a. Prepare and adopt a Water Management Plan
6-26 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
b. Designate a water conservation coordinator
c. Support the availability of water management services
d. Improve communication and cooperation among water suppliers
e. Evaluate the need for changes in policies of supplying agencies
f. Evaluate and improve pumping efficiencies
Conditionally Applicable EWMPs (subject to net benefit analysis)
g. Facilitating alternative land use
h. Facilitating financing of capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems
i. Facilitating voluntary water transfers that do not unreasonably affect water users, water suppliers, the environment, or third parties
j. Lining or piping ditches and canals
k. Increasing flexibility in water ordering by and delivery to water users within operational limits
l. Constructing and operating water supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems
m. Optimizing conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
n. Automating canal structures
o. Developing a regional groundwater model
p. Developing a plan for basin-wide groundwater quality monitoring
q. Providing water measurement and water use reports
r. Block pricing, recharge-based price reductions or other incentives
Urban Water Management – Since 1983, the Urban Water Management Planning Act (CWC 10610) has required urban water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or deliver more than 3,000 acre-feet per year to prepare and adopt an UWMP. Section 2, Description of the Region, documented the status of the UWMPs in the Plan Area.
6-27 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The Management Group identifies the benefits of water conservation to improve overall water supply reliability in the region, and promotes water conservation in the water supply reliability strategy. Specific actions may include:
UWMPs and AWMPs should be prepared to identify water conservation opportunities and guide public investments in water conservation efforts to support regional water management.
UWMPs must be developed as required by state law and should be consistent with the guidelines defined by the Urban Water Conservation Council and approved or accepted by DWR.
Plans consistent with the AWMPs should be developed and maintained for each district consistent with the guidelines and requirements of the Agricultural Water Conservation Council.
6.2.2.4 Strategy 4 – Support Self-Reliance for Rural and Isolated Communities There are some rural and isolated communities within the Plan Area that struggle to build, maintain, and operate their water systems. Some to these areas have old infrastructure that needs to be improved or replaced to meet their existing needs. Many of these areas do not have the rate base to support all the planning, design, and construction of new or improved facilities. In addition, some of these areas are disadvantaged communities.
The purpose of this strategy is to provide those rural and isolated communities the support needed to get their water supply reliability issues recognized in a regional planning effort, with the intent that they can pursue funding opportunities to make the needed improvements, thereby becoming more self-reliant.
6.2.3 Water Supply Reliability Projects Specific projects and programs have been identified that primarily support the Yuba County water supply reliability strategy in order to meet the goals and objectives outlined in this section. The projects and programs have been identified by local participating agencies and have been refined to varying levels of detail. The initial list of projects (see Table 6-2 below) was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
6-28 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Table 6-2 Water Supply Reliability Project Summary Table Project Name Project Sponsor Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Yuba Accord Implementation YCWA WS1
Long-Term Water Supply Sustainability Study YCWA WS2
Regional Feather River Diversion Feasibility Study YCWA WS3
Saddleback Lift Station/Return BVID WS4
Peoria Pipeline BVID WS5
Pipeline Installation BVID WS6
Challenge Water Storage Tank Replacement NYWD WS7
Rackerby Water Storage Tank Replacement NYWD WS8
Forbestown Water Storage Tank Replacement NYWD WS9
Distribution Pipeline Replacement NYWD WS10
Water Treatment Plant Replacement River Highlands WS11 CSD
Agricultural Production Wells BVID GW1
Hydrogeologic Investigation of Aquifer System in City of Wheatland GW2 Wheatland Area
Monitoring Well Construction City of Wheatland GW3
Groundwater Monitoring Program YCWA GW4
Production Well No. 17 LCWD GW5
Wheatland Canal Construction YCWA GW6
Subsidence Monitoring YCWA GW7
Agricultural Water Conservation Evaluation YCWA WC1
Implement Urban Water Conservation Measures Urban Purveyors WC2
Surface Water Measurement Program YCWA WC3
6.3 Water Recycling and Reuse Strategy
6.3.1 Water Recycling and Reuse Strategy Approach Current and future urban growth potential within the region is expected to place additional stress on potable water supplies. Four urban agencies in the Yuba-Sutter region—City of Yuba City (Yuba City), LCWD, City of Marysville (Marysville), and OPUD—have begun exploring urban water recycling opportunities that would improve
6-29 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
water quality in the Feather River by reducing treated wastewater discharges while using recycled water to meet regional non-potable water demands, thereby extending the potable water supply.
Currently, LCWD, OPUD, and Marysville satisfy their potable water supplies exclusively from groundwater, while Yuba City derives its potable water both from SWP Contracts for surface water draws from the Feather River and from groundwater wells. Surface water supplies tend to be reduced during dry periods, which results in increased groundwater pumping.
LCWD, OPUD, and Yuba City are experiencing rapid growth in their SOI and there may be a need to develop additional potable water resources to meet their growing requirements. Recycled water provides a means of replacing potable water for non- potable water uses such as landscape irrigation.
Although not facing the same growth demands that Yuba City, LCWD, and OPUD must address, Marysville is currently assessing long-term water infrastructure needs. Marysville’s options for discharging treated wastewater to the Feather River are very limited and all options may require significantly upgrading its wastewater treatment facility to tertiary treatment.
Yuba City, LCWD, and Marysville have recently completed the Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan (Recycled Water Plan), which evaluated wastewater treatment and water recycling opportunities in the region. The information developed in the Recycled Water Plan is being used as the basis of the Water Recycling Strategy for the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
6.3.2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan - (May 2007) Recognizing their common issues and needs, three agencies (Yuba City, Marysville, and LCWD) came together to evaluate alternatives for using recycled water to meet regional non-potable water demands. To support the regional analysis, the three agencies submitted grant applications to the State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Planning Grant Program. All three agencies received grant funding and developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies to conduct the regional study and apportion the study costs. The Recycled Water Plan is the result of this effort.
This Recycled Water Plan develops alternative regional recycled water projects that capitalize on this beneficial opportunity and present the best regional recycled water project that serves the needs of all the agencies.
6-30 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
The approach used to develop alternative recycled water projects and determine the preferred project is shown graphically below and is based on the Recommended Planning Outline for Water Recycling Projects found in Appendix B of the Water Recycling Funding Program Guidelines, California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance, October 2004.
The approach is essentially a two-step process. Step one is the development of alternative recycled water projects, and step two is the economic analysis and selection of the preferred project.
The first step is characterized by the establishment of specific goals and objectives; these serve to focus on alternative recycled water project development that will be taken into consideration when choosing the preferred alternative. In order to develop a set of relevant alternative recycled water projects, background information such as study area characteristics, potable water supply, and wastewater characteristics and supply are developed. Recycled water demand is determined through a study of current and projected land use and a market assessment of potential customers. A thorough understanding of the applicable regulatory requirements establishes the regulatory framework and envelope in which alternative recycled water projects are developed.
6-31 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The economic analysis and selection of the preferred alternative project is developed in step two. The economic analysis takes into consideration the project capital cost, O&M costs for the life of the project, and other agency and societal costs and benefits that could affect the project revenue stream. The overall project net present value is compared to the baseline costs.
The planning horizon for the Recycled Water Plan is 2030. Five-year increments between 2010 and 2030 were used to assess recycled water supply and demand and to develop and evaluate project scenarios.
The Recycled Water Plan goals were to develop a set of alternative regional recycled water projects with their associated capital costs, O&M costs, and the associated net present project values. The benefits of water recycling for the Yuba-Sutter region include the following:
Reducing the need for and cost of developing and treating new water supplies
Reducing withdrawals from the Feather River, Yuba River, and local aquifers
Providing a drought-proof water supply for reuse customers
Reducing pollutant loads to the Feather River and to groundwater
Increasing flows to the Bay-Delta system
Improving water supply reliability by diversifying Yuba County’s and Sutter County’s portfolio of water supply options
Improving water quality for downstream purveyors
The development of alternative recycled water projects takes into account local background information, applicable regulations, local issues, and potential demand for recycled water. Twenty alternative recycled water projects were considered for this study. A total of 13 projects were presented in the Recycled Water Plan, which included six single-agency projects, four dual-agency projects, and three projects that included all three agencies. The preferred alternative project (Project F.3) is called the Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Project.
A brief summary of the wastewater treatment and water recycling information for each of the three agencies participating in the Water Recycling Strategy is described below.
6-32 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.3.2.1 Yuba City Yuba City is located in Sutter County, immediately west of the Feather River at the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers. It is included in the Yuba County IRWM Plan area because of the regional nature of wastewater treatment and water recycling opportunities.
Yuba City is experiencing extraordinary growth within its SOI. By 2030, the city is expected to more than double its current population of 65,000 to approximately 155,000. Yuba City recognizes the importance of identifying and securing reliable water supplies now, to accommodate future growth.
Currently, the Yuba City wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) is permitted to discharge to the Feather River up to 7 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater. The city is currently negotiating with the RWQCB to increase its permitted discharge from 7 MGD to 10.5 MGD to provide sufficient wastewater treatment capacity for additional development. By 2030, the projected annual average flow to the WWTF is estimated to be 18.2 MGD. Currently, the WWTF treats water to meet secondary effluent standards. This water quality is not sufficient to meet most recycled water quality requirements. However, it is anticipated that well before 2030 Yuba City will be required by the RWQCB to upgrade its treatment to meet tertiary or higher effluent quality standards. This high-quality treated effluent will be suitable for non-potable uses and will reduce demands on the potable water supply and treatment systems. The new source of water supply may also represent a marketable commodity that can be used locally for domestic or agricultural irrigation or as a state-wide water resource for trading.
According to the demand and supply projections, Yuba City’s potable water demand will exceed its supply sometime between 2020 and 2025. Including recycled water as a source of landscape irrigation water may defer the period when additional potable water supplies should be developed.
6.3.2.2 City of Marysville The City of Marysville is located within the 100-year flood plain of the Yuba and Feather Rivers, entirely encompassed by levees, so future city growth is essentially limited to only infill. Because of Marysville’s geographic constraints on future development, water demand is not anticipated to substantially increase in the future. However, treated wastewater originating from the city may be used to improve water supply reliability outside the city limits. Marysville’s water system, which is owned and operated by California Water Service, has adequate capacity to meet average and maximum daily demands through 2030; however, future maximum hourly demands cannot be satisfied with current well production. Maximum hourly potable water demand can be attributed
6-33 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
to landscape irrigation. Landscape irrigation includes residential, commercial, and municipal irrigation needs. Storage facilities, new wells, and booster pump stations will be added to meet the average-day, maximum-day, and peak demand requirements. Marysville chose not to retrofit existing infrastructure to provide recycled water to its existing customers or to install new infrastructure, such as pumps, purple pipe, storage, and delivery controls to new areas. Since there are very limited opportunities for the development of new areas within the city, the decision was made to expand the investigation of wastewater treatment and water recycling opportunities to include areas served by LCWD and/or Yuba City.
Marysville installed a 0.8-MGD tertiary treatment unit (TTU) to address limitations in the percolation pond system and to serve irrigation demands in nearby parks. The percolation pond freeboard problem was solved so the city has not had to operate the TTU. The existing recycled water storage, pumping, and conveyance infrastructure could enable use of recycled water for irrigation of local soccer fields and other city-owned recreational areas.
Although not facing the same growth demands that Yuba City and LCWD must address, Marysville is currently assessing long-term water infrastructure needs. The city’s options for discharging treated wastewater to the Feather River are very limited and all options may require upgrading their WWTF to tertiary treatment. Tertiary-treated wastewater may be considered a commodity with real revenue potential that can be used to help alleviate the region’s demands on water resources and help diversify the region’s water supply portfolio.
Marysville is currently operating under a Cease and Desist Order (Order). If Marysville chooses to treat and discharge its own wastewater, it will most likely have to implement costly treatment upgrades to the treatment plant. The treatment process upgrades may be necessary to address future National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for discharge of treated wastewater and may be costly to operate but will produce a high-quality treated wastewater. This treated wastewater could be considered to be a commodity as water feed for recycled water rather than as costly wastewater to be disposed.
6.3.2.3 Linda County Water District The LCWD service area is located directly east of the Feather River, south of the confluence with the Yuba River. Development is anticipated in unincorporated areas of Yuba County adjacent to the LCWD service area, within the area covered by the East Linda Specific Plan and the possible Woodbury Specific Plan. Population in the LCWD
6-34 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
service area and adjacent areas is anticipated to grow from the existing 10,230 residents to 55,000 residents by 2030.
LCWD is responsible for wastewater management for approximately 10,230 residents. This includes operation and maintenance of the sewer collection system (collection system), the operation and maintenance of the WWTF, and disposal of the effluent. The RWQCB oversees and regulates the discharge of treated wastewater through a system of permits.
LCWD currently has extraordinary growth potential and has just negotiated a new wastewater disposal permit with the RWQCB. The NPDES permit allows LCWD to discharge treated effluent to the Feather River under very stringent permit conditions. To accommodate its current NPDES permit conditions, LCWD has under design a $50 million upgrade and expansion project to improve its secondary wastewater treatment facility. This upgrade and expansion will allow LCWD to produce disinfected tertiary effluent and to increase the discharge volume from 1.8 MGD to 5 MGD.
Once the upgrade to the treatment facility is complete, effluent will meet most of the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water suitable for unrestricted use under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Additional filtration will enable this effluent to be used as recycled water. This recycled water may be considered a valuable commodity and could be used for landscape or agricultural irrigation or other allowed non-potable applications. Using recycled water rather than discharging to the Feather River would diversify LCWD’s water portfolio, improve water supply reliability, and reduce potable water demands.
With these improvements to their treatment facilities, LCWD is looking to identify the best water recycling options within its service area and the region. Development in the East Linda and Woodbury Specific Plans and further development within the existing service area is expected to substantially increase water demand in the future. Water supply from existing wells is anticipated to provide sufficient capacity until approximately 2013 if no recycled water project is implemented. LCWD would typically develop new groundwater wells to serve increased water demands. Recycled water could be used to augment the potable water supply and to improve water supply reliability within and adjacent to the LCWD service area, however, allowing LCWD to avoid costs associated with additional groundwater wells and the cost of additional treatment to reach potable quality. LCWD has been communicating with developers who seem amenable to installing dual plumbing to accommodate recycled water for landscape irrigation.
6-35 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
6.3.2.4 Olivehurst Pubic Utility District The OPUD service area is located east of the Feather River, south of the confluence with the Yuba River, adjacent to LCWD. OPUD provides water and sewer, and other municipal services for the unincorporated community of Olivehurst. The Plumas Lake Development, a large-scale new development south of Olivehurst, is within the district’s boundaries and SOI. Residential construction and community building and development have been accelerating in this region, and 30,000 additional residents are projected in the community by 2015.
OPUD plans to provide recycled water from its 3 MGD wastewater treatment and recycling plant for non-potable uses to reduce the demand on the potable water supply, which is now met with groundwater. There is currently no recycled water infrastructure in place to utilize the recycled water. Potential uses of recycled water within OPUD may include irrigating parks and large landscaped areas and streetscapes.
6.3.3 Yuba County IRWM Plan Water Recycling Strategy Approach Yuba City, LCWD, and Marysville have taken the lead to develop a regional approach to water recycling in the Yuba-Sutter Region by initiating and completing the Recycled Water Plan. The regional approach applied in the Recycled Water Plan increases local benefits of program implementation while reducing the local cost share and will be used to develop the water recycling strategy for the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
6.3.3.1 Water Recycling Goals and Objectives The Yuba-Sutter water recycling goals and objectives described below have been developed in the Recycled Water Plan.
6.3.3.1.1 Water Recycling Goals The water recycling goals in the Recycled Water Plan included the development of a set of alternative regional recycled water projects, with their associated capital costs, O&M costs, and the associated net present project values. The net present project value is the present value of the project, taking into account the total project costs (capital and O&M) over the project lifetime (40 years) and other environmental and societal costs and benefits. This economic framework is used to select the most favorable recycled water project alternative.
6.3.3.1.2 Water Recycling Objectives The following water recycling objectives have been developed to meet the water recycling goals for the Yuba-Sutter region:
6-36 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Identify recycled water projects that reduce the regional potable water demand, thereby improving regional water supply reliability. This is specifically true for Yuba City and LCWD, which are expecting continued growth and increased water demand.
Identify projects with a high-supply reliability that may help local agencies avoid the costs associated with the development of additional groundwater wells and the costs of additional treatment to reach potable water quality standards as they continue to become more stringent.
Identify water recycling opportunities that will enable Marysville to meet the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order.
6.3.3.2 Water Recycling Regulatory Requirements In order to identify the suitability, benefits, and costs of using recycled water to meet non-potable demands, regulatory policies and requirements must be addressed, including the following:
Water quality and treatment requirements to meet the intended beneficial reuse(s)
Health-related requirements for recycled water quality and use area
Treatment reliability, certification, and permitting
Wastewater discharge requirements and how they compare with the specific water quality of effluent from the three agency treatment plants
RWQCB requirements as they relate to recycled water in the Feather River Basin
6.3.3.2.1 Permitted Uses of Recycled Water The uses of recycled water permitted under Title 22 of the CCR are listed on Table 6-3.
This list of permitted uses served as a starting point for identification of potential demands for recycled water in the study area.
6-37 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 6-3 Permitted Uses of Recycled Water Irrigation Other purposes Residential, commercial, and Toilet flushing municipal landscaping Industrial process water Golf courses Structural and non-structural fire Food crops fighting Parks and playgrounds Decorative fountains Schoolyards Commercial laundries Cemeteries Pipeline backfill compaction Freeway landscaping Commercial car washes Vineyards Industrial boiler feed Orchards Concrete batching Crops Soil compaction Impoundments Dust control Recreational impoundments Road cleaning or outside wash- Impoundments at fish hatcheries down Cooling Flushing sanitary sewers Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning
6.3.3.2.2 Regulatory Requirements After construction and initial operation of the water recycling system, the RWQCB will become the lead regulatory agency to monitor compliance with the NPDES permit. The RWQCB regulates discharges of waste to land, groundwater, and surface waters through the Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES permit program. Specific discharge requirements are defined by the surface water and groundwater quality objectives in the RWQCB Basin Plan. In addition, if the existing background quality of the surface water or groundwater is better than the prescribed objective, the RWQCB will enforce the State Board’s Anti-Degradation Policy for all constituents to prevent further degradation due to the use of recycled water.
6-38 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.3.3.2.3 Recycled Water Demand At the commencement of this project, it was apparent that the most likely users of recycled water would be landscape irrigation and/or agricultural customers. With only seasonal irrigation demands, seasonal discharge to the Feather River could continue.
Landscape irrigation customers include residential, commercial, and municipal uses. Section 5 of the Recycled Water Plan assesses the market for the recycled water to be produced by the agencies. The assessment focuses on irrigation-related uses, but it identifies some non-irrigation demand for recycled water as well.
The first step in identifying potential recycled water customers and estimating potential demand was to review data on existing and future water customers and quantify their non-potable water demands. Existing customers were determined using meter data provided by the agencies, aerial photos, Geographic Information System maps, and other information, and by estimating demand by unmetered sites. Future possible customers were identified based on planned developments located around LCWD, which are described in various specific plans, and the Yuba City General Plan. It was assumed that no significant future customers in Marysville exist because of growth constraints, although irrigation of soccer fields and other municipal recreational areas within the Marysville levee system may expand.
The primary recycled water use considered in the assessment is landscape and agricultural irrigation. As there is very little industry other than food processing that generally requires potable water within the project area, opportunities for industrial use of recycled water are limited. The availability of recycled water could be an additional incentive for industry to move into the area. The types of future customers considered for this assessment are parks, residential and commercial developments, schools, and existing agricultural water districts.
6.3.3.3 Ranking and Prioritizing Water Recycling Projects Under the Recycled Water Plan, the participating agencies developed similar project goals. As a result, different alternatives were developed to address the individual and collective goals of the group. This resulted in the range of alternatives described below and listed on Table 6-4.
Single-Agency Alternatives – Single-agency recycled water projects were developed to examine the economic and technical feasibility of the multi-agency regional projects. Single-agency alternatives were developed for each of the participating agencies (listed on Table 6-4).
6-39 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 6-4 Alternative Recycled Water Projects Landscape Irrigation Annual 2030 RW Produced Agricultural Yuba [af/yr] Alternative ID Water Reclamation Facility LCWD Marysville City Customers
LCWD-Only Alternatives ●
A.1 LCWD ● 7,054
A.2 LCWD (agricultural only) ● 7,054
Marysville-Only Alternatives
B.1 Marysville ● ● 2,128
B.2 Marysville (agricultural only) ● 2,128
Yuba City-Only Alternatives
C Yuba City ● ● 19,365
D Yuba City (agricultural only) ● 19,365 Two-Agency Alternatives
E.1 Yuba City to LCWD ● 26,419
E.2 Marysville to LCWD ● ● 9,182
E.3 Marysville to Yuba City ● ● 21,493
E.4 LCWD to Yuba City ● ● 26,419 Three-Agency Alternatives
F.1 Yuba City & Marysville to LCWD ● ● 28,547
F.2 LCWD & Marysville to Yuba City ● ● 28,547
F.3 Marysville to LCWD / Yuba City ● ● ● 28,547
Two-Agency Alternatives – Dual-agency alternatives include improvements to one of the WWTFs in either Yuba City or LCWD, with effluent being delivered to it from one of the other agencies. The dual-agency alternatives are listed as Alternative E.1 to E.4 on Table 6-4.
Three-Agency Alternatives – As the name implies, this set of alternative recycled water projects involves all three agencies: Yuba City, Marysville, and LCWD. Two of these alternatives, labeled F.1 and F.2, technically and economically explore upgrading and expanding either the Yuba City WWTF or the LCWD WWTF to produce Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. Both of these alternatives are technically feasible;
6-40 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
however, they do not provide the operational flexibility, treatment redundancy, and water supply reliability that are provided by alternative F.3.
6.3.3.3.1 Priority Water Recycling Projects All of the projects were evaluated using an economic framework analysis that enabled individual alternative projects to be compared on the time value of capital, O&M, and benefits. Practical operational practices were taken into consideration, such as operational flexibility, available redundant treatment capacity, unit capital cost of recycled water, accessibility to a broad range of recycled water customers, satisfaction of regional and individual agency goals and objectives, and how well the project met the screening criteria. Project F.3 either met or exceeded each of these metrics and is the preferred project alternative, referred to as the Yuba Sutter Regional Recycled Water Project.
To best facilitate implementation of the regional recycled water project, it is recommended that the project be phased. Project phasing partitions the overall project into smaller sequential components that are easier to fund and can accommodate changing design conditions, such as changes in the rate of development.
The regional recycled water project can be broken down into logical sub-projects that can be grouped into phases. Project phases can be completed over time, culminating in the complete regional recycled water project. Near-term sub-projects are those that can be implemented within the next five years with immediate potential benefits. Table 6-5 lists the near-term sub-projects and their capital costs in 2006 dollars. Phase one projects were selected based on their ease of implementation. The sub-projects chosen for this phase are common to other alternative recycled water projects (E.2, E.3, F.1, & F.2) to maintain flexibility in implementation through to later phases.
6-41 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 6-5 Sutter Yuba Regional Recycled Water Sub-Projects for Phase One Implementation Sub-Project Costs Item [$mil] LCWD WWTP Facilities Raw wastewater pumping and conveyance from the City of Marysville to the LCWD WTP; 21.5 Sutter County recycled water distribution pumping and piping Replacement of existing primary & secondary facilities (new 8.1 MGD facility) 157.8 Expansion of existing 4.0 MGD of chlorination/ dechlorination (expand by 4.1 MGD) 3.0 New filtration facilities (new 8.1 MGD facility) 4.7 Yuba City WTF Facilities(1) Yuba County recycled water distribution pumping and piping (2) 69.2 New filtration facilities (new 8.0 MGD facility) 4.6 Phase One Costs 260.8 Notes: (1) Assume that the Yuba City WTF will continue to operate at its existing capacity with an 8.0-MGD filtration upgrade. (2) Does not include the transfer pipeline between LCWD & Yuba City.
6.3.3.3.2 Secondary Water Recycling Projects Secondary water recycling projects include additional projects that are part of the Sutter- Yuba Regional Water Project and potential projects for OPUD.
Sutter-Yuba Projects The remaining Sutter-Yuba Regional Recycled Water projects that would be implemented following the phase one projects are:
Phased expansion and upgrade of the Yuba City WWTP to include tertiary treatment and filtration facilities to produce Title 22-compliant, unrestricted-use, disinfected recycled water.
Interagency recycled water conveyance piping.
Phased expansion of the LCWD WTP to accommodate additional growth within its SOI.
The details regarding these project elements should be developed as part of facilities- level planning.
OPUD Project OPUD is looking to plan, design, and construct the recycled water distribution system to deliver the recycled water to users within the OPUD service area. This project would extend the potable water supply and reduce discharge compliance costs.
6-42 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.3.4 Water Recycling Projects Most of the projects and programs including the water reuse and recycling strategy were identified by local participating agencies and the recycled water plan. This list of projects was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions for the projects included in Table 6-6 are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
Table 6-6 Water Recycling Project Summary Table Project Name Project Sponsor Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Wastewater Reclamation Facility Expansion LCWD R1
Recycled Water Distribution System LCWD R2
Recycled Water Distribution System OPUD R3
Yuba City Wastewater Reclamation Facility Yuba City R4 Upgrade
Yuba City Recycled Water Distribution Yuba City R5
WWTP Upgrade to Tertiary Treatment Marysville R6
Deliver Recycled Water to Identified Agricultural LCWD, Marysville R7 Water Resaler in Yuba County
Deliver Recycled Water to Identified Agricultural Yuba City R8 Water Resaler in Sutter County
6.4 Water Quality Improvement Strategy
6.4.1 Water Quality Improvement Strategy Approach The quality of the available surface water and groundwater supplies within the Yuba IRWM Plan Region influences the ability to put the water to use. If the quality of the water is degraded beyond the ability to put the water to the intended use, overall supply may become limited or the costs for treatment may increase. The existing water quality needs to be maintained or improved to ensure that there is water of acceptable quality to meet current and future agricultural, urban, and environmental requirements. A wide range of local, state, and federal programs, both regulatory and voluntary, need to be better coordinated to avoid additional burdensome regulations and to provide benefits to the region.
6-43 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The water quality improvement strategy being prepared as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan is focused on the coordination between the local agencies to establish a regional management program to provide a more unified approach to maintain and improve water quality in the face of increasing demands for (1) water in Yuba County and the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, and (2) higher quality water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The formulation of the water quality improvement strategy for Yuba County is organized as follows:
Identifying current-level water quality in Yuba County in different hydrologic year types.
Developing water management strategies to meet the water quality protection goals and objectives.
Integrating water quality strategies with other water resources management strategies to meet multiple objectives and provide regional benefits where possible.
Identifying options (projects and programs) for achieving additional water quality improvement.
Prioritizing water quality projects.
Identifying potential funding opportunities to implement future projects and programs.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan will help implement the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and groundwater management plan through conjunctive use. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord will support meeting statewide priorities and CALFED objectives through providing increased stream flows in the Plan Area and through the Delta. In addition, the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord supports protection of water quality and preservation of flow of appropriate quality and temperature to enhance salmon habitat, which provide further motivation to protect surface water quality. For the conjunctive use program in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord to be effective, surface water of appropriate quality must be available for direct use in lieu of a groundwater supply,. This means that the lower basin has a strong interest in activities in the upper basin, which could degrade water quality of the Yuba River.
6.4.2 Water Quality Improvement Strategy Historically, the water supply reliability strategy for Yuba County has been defined in part by local groundwater availability and/or access to surface water and the variable
6-44 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
hydrologic conditions of the Yuba-Feather River System. To date, water supply reliability has been achieved by using upstream storage reservoirs to capture and regulate rainfall and snowmelt runoff on an annual basis, while using the groundwater basin to provide water supply to those agricultural and municipal areas that do not have access to surface water and to provide long-term water supply storage for the region. Protection of groundwater quality is an important part of ensuring that a reliable groundwater supply is available. If groundwater quality is degraded beyond its ability to be put to beneficial use (e.g., if water quality standards and objectives are exceeded), then the supply is essentially reduced or, at minimum, water treatment would be necessary and this implies higher costs.
The water quality strategy includes integrating projects, those structural solutions needed for stakeholders to provide safe drinking water that meets standards or to ensure that wastewater is treated to the level consistent with state laws and regulations, with non- structural management programs intended to protect and preserve the surface water and groundwater quality. In order to address the regional and local water supply reliability goals for the plan area, the following water quality strategies have been developed.
Strategy 1 – Improve surface water quality
Strategy 2 – Improve groundwater quality
Strategy 3 – Water quality monitoring
6.4.2.1 Strategy 1 – Improve Surface Water Quality Surface water quality protection and improvement strategies are being explored and integrated into other water management strategies to improve and protect local water supplies. Some of the water quality protection strategies to be implemented may include the following:
Development of a common wastewater discharge from local wastewater treatment plans or a regional wastewater treatment facility and water recycling program to reduce discharges to the Feather River and improve water quality for downstream water users.
Identification of opportunities for agricultural water reuse within the basin.
Implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord resulting in higher instream flow rates.
6-45 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Participation in the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement (SVWMA) (Phase 8) for the purpose of settling Bay-Delta water quality issues.
6.4.2.2 Strategy 2 – Improve Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality protection and improvement strategies are being explored to improve and protect local groundwater supplies. Improving groundwater levels in the alluvial aquifer system eliminates groundwater overdraft and improves groundwater quality by reducing the amount of groundwater extracted at depth. This is particularly true in the Wheatland area where wells have been taken out of service because they produce poor quality water.
Some of the water quality protection strategies to be implemented may include the following:
Increase monitoring to identify areas of groundwater quality concerns from either natural or anthropogenic sources, and develop treatment options to provide potable water supplies.
Implement conjunctive use projects such as implementation of the Wheatland Canal, which will deliver surface water to areas previously entirely dependent on groundwater thereby reducing local groundwater pumping and eliminating groundwater overdraft.
Implement conjunctive use projects in urban areas currently dependent entirely on groundwater to reduce local groundwater overdraft.
Implement urban water recycling projects to reduce the Municipal & Industrial (M&I) potable water demand, thereby reducing groundwater pumping. Water recycling projects may also reduce discharges to the groundwater system.
Implement wellhead protection measures.
6.4.2.3 Strategy 3 – Water Quality Monitoring The results of the water quality projects and programs will be measured by ongoing and expanded monitoring programs. This is to include expanding the coordination and consultation with DWR and Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
Part of the implementation of YCWA’s GMP includes an examination of the adequacy of current groundwater monitoring. YCWA and DWR currently monitor groundwater elevation and quality. In 1995, YCWA installed 15 dedicated monitoring wells throughout the county. In addition to these dedicated monitoring wells, DWR and 6-46 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
YCWA monitor approximately 50 production wells. Monitoring of these production wells has been ongoing since 1946. YCWA recently installed six new dedicated monitoring wells with grant funds from DWR.
6.4.3 Water Quality Improvement Projects Specific projects and programs have been identified that primarily support the Yuba County water quality improvement strategy in order to meet the water quality goals and objectives. The projects and programs have been identified by local participating agencies and have been refined to varying levels of detail. The initial list of projects (see Table 6-7 below) was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
Table 6-7 Water Quality Project Summary Table Project Name Lead Agency Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Agricultural Return Flow Recapturing BVID WQ1 Project Well Head Treatment OPUD WQ2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement River Highlands CSD WQ3
6.5 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy
6.5.1 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy and Approach The ecosystem restoration strategy being prepared as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan is focused on the coordination among the local agencies to establish a regional management program to provide a more unified approach to ecosystem protection and restoration in context of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, Sacramento River Water Management Plan, and the other planning efforts in the region described above. The formulation of the ecosystem restoration strategy for Yuba County is organized as follows:
Integrating ecosystem restoration strategies with other water resources management strategies to meet multiple objectives and provide regional benefits where possible
Identifying options (projects and programs) for achieving ecosystem restoration
6-47 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Prioritizing ecosystem restoration projects
Identifying potential funding opportunities to implement future projects and programs
6.5.2 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy The Ecosystems Restoration strategy for the IRWM Plan is composed of two primary parts: 1) actions to implement the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Fisheries Agreement, and 2) providing guidelines for implementing ecosystem restoration activities in the flood management strategy.
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord represents an effort on the part of the Yuba River stakeholders to find a solution to the challenges of competing interests. The cornerstone of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord is the Fisheries Agreement. The efforts necessary to implement the Fisheries Agreement provide the basis of the ecosystems strategy of the IRWM Plan. To become effective, all of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord elements need to be implemented. This includes structural features of the integrated program to implement conjunctive use activities (see the Water Management Strategy), non-structural fisheries management activities, and a mitigation monitoring program to ensure all facets of the Accord are integrated and implemented. Revenue generated from implementation of the Water Purchase Agreement would be used by YCWA to fund a comprehensive conjunctive use program and Yuba County flood control improvements, and to implement a long-term fisheries monitoring, studies, and enhancement program. The nature and locations of future local improvement projects are not known at this time.
Strategy 1 –Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Implementation Fishery Actions
Strategy 2 – Promote multipurpose projects to improve flood management and ecosystem restoration and include ecosystems and habitat protection measures in projects
Strategy 3 - Streamline environmental compliance and permitting
6.5.2.1 Strategy 1 - Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Implementation Fishery Actions This strategy includes implementing the revised flow standards for fishery enhancement, but also includes the previously discussed Water Management Strategies and conjunctive use projects.
Two processes have resulted in the establishment of flow requirements upstream of the project area for the enhancement and protection of fish habitat. Both affect conditions for
6-48 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
fish in the lower Feather River and Lower Yuba River. The first is the revised Water Right Decision 1644 of the SWRCB and the second is the Agreement Concerning Operation of the Oroville Facilities.
Water Right Decision 1644 of the SWRCB was first adopted on March 1, 2001, and then revised on July 16, 2003. Revised Decision 1644 amends several water rights permits and licenses and requires other actions to protect fish in the reach of the Yuba River downstream of Englebright Reservoir, and establishes interim and long-term instream flow requirements for fall-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, and American shad. The interim instream flow requirements were developed for the Yuba River in part to protect fisheries resources and YCWA’s existing water rights and water deliveries to Member Units. It also requires the preparation of plans to reduce fish losses at two diversion facilities and requires actions to promote release of water from Englebright Dam at temperatures that benefit anadromous fish. Finally, Revised Decision 1644 includes several requirements to ensure that water diversions from the Lower Yuba River are made pursuant to valid water rights.
The long-term instream flow requirements included in Revised Decision 1644 are higher flows that were scheduled to take effect on April 21, 2006. On November 18, 2005, YCWA petitioned the SWRCB requesting an extension of instream flow requirements under Revised Decision 1644 from April 21, 2006, to March 1, 2007. On April 6, 2006, the SWRCB issued an order (WR 2006–0009) concluding that it was appropriate to change the effective date of the long-term requirements to March 1, 2007, subject to provisions of the order. In 2007 YCWA petitioned the SWRCB to further delay the implementation date of the long-term flow requirements of Revised Decision 1644 until April 2008 so that YCWA and parties to the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord could participate in a Pilot Program. The Pilot Program implemented many aspects of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord proposed agreements for one year.
The interim instream flow requirements of Revised Decision 1644, developed and adopted by the SWRCB in 2003, are the current minimum flow requirements for the Lower Yuba River. These requirements are shown on Table 6-8.
Agreement concerning operation of the Oroville facilities between the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and CDFG titled, Concerning the Operation of the Oroville Division of the State Water Project for Management of Fish & Wildlife, was first established in 1983 and set criteria for flow and temperature for the low-flow section of the Feather River (between Thermalito Diversion Dam and the Thermalito Afterbay river outlet) and the reach of the Feather River below the river outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River. The required minimum flows specified in the agreement for
6-49 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
the Feather River between Thermalito Afterbay and Verona (i.e., the confluence) is listed in Table 6-9.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan strategy is to fund and implement the projects and programmatic activities (e.g., monitoring, data management, reporting, etc.) that perfect the flows and demonstrate the benefits anticipated.
Table 6-8 Interim Instream Flow Requirements for the Lower Yuba River Included in Revised Decision 1644 Wet and Above- Below-Normal Years Dry Years (cfs) Critical Years (cfs) Normal Years (cfs) (cfs) Period Smartville Marysville Smartville Marysville Smartville Marysville Smartville Marysville Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge
September 15– October 700 250 550 250 500 250 400 150 1 October 1– 700 250 550 250 500 250 400 250 14 October 15– 700 500 700 500 600 400 600 400 April 20 April 21 1,000 900 400 280 April 22– 1,000 900 400 270 April 30 May 1–31 1,500 1,500 500 270 June 1 1,050 1,050 400 245* June 2–30 800 800 400 245* July 1 560 560 280 245* July 2 390 390 250 245* July 3 280 280 250 100 July 4– September 250 250 250 100 14 Note: cfs = cubic feet per second * The interim instream flow requirements for June 1–30 of critical years shall be 245 cfs, except if a lower flow is allowed pursuant to the provisions of the 1965 Yuba County Water Agency/California Department of Fish and Game agreement. The minimum flow on July 1 shall be 70% of the flow on June 30, and the minimum flow on July 2 shall be 70% of the flow on July 1. Source: State Water Resources Control Board 2003
6-50 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Table 6-9 Minimum Flow Requirements for the Feather River
Required Flow (cfs) Months Affected Criteria
1,700 October through March Feather River unimpaired runoff for the preceding April 1,000 April through September through July >55% of normal (1,942,000 af) 1,200 October through February Runoff for the preceding April through July <55% of normal or 1,000 March through September Two or more consecutive years of April-through-July runoff <60% of normal
900 October through February Minimum allowable flows; additional deficiencies up to 25% can be imposed in the same proportion as those applied to 750 March through September agriculture if the Oroville storage would fall below 1.5 million af under projected operation 2,500 October 15–November 30 Normal maximum flow for river channel spawning gravels; if this flow is exceeded except for flood control, failure, etc., the minimum flow through March 31 shall not be less than 500 cfs below the average maximum 1-hour flow Variable April through June Release scheduled water in other than constant flows or release water in excess of minimum flows ahead of time
6.5.2.2 Strategy 2 – Promote multipurpose projects to improve flood management and ecosystem restoration This strategy is to promote multipurpose projects to improve flood management and ecosystem restoration and include ecosystems and habitat protection measures in projects consistent with the Y-FSFCP and related management efforts. This includes use of the following policy guidelines and project planning actions:
All projects will avoid disturbance of sensitive habitats to the extent feasible during the design and planning stage of a project and will comply with Corps and CDFG processes to mitigate unavoidable effects. Biological and botanical surveys will be conducted during planning to help define opportunities to avoid, minimize, and plan for mitigation of potential impacts early in the process. Conduct detailed special-status plant surveys and establish construction buffers as necessary to minimize effects on special-status plants. Accept and plan for “no net loss” for wetlands and for other special habitats, and plan for regional mitigation.
6-51 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
6.5.2.3 Strategy 3- Streamline environmental compliance and permitting The Y-FSFCP EIR, which was certified by YCWA in March 2004, was both a programmatic and project-level EIR. This allows subsequent project-level documents to “tier” off of the original document. The CEQA concept of “tiering,” as described in Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines, refers to the analysis of environmental effects at a general level in one broad (i.e., first-tier) EIR, with subsequent (i.e., second- tier) environmental documents prepared for more defined projects. First-tier documents also provide an analysis of cumulative impacts. A second-tier document incorporates by reference the applicable general discussions and analyses from the broader, first-tier EIR and concentrates on the issues specific to the later project that warrant examination at a greater level of detail. Because YCWA has developed a programmatic EIR, subsequent project-specific CEQA compliance work can be expedited and the subsequent EIRs can focus only on those new impacts or project effects not previously covered.
It is anticipated that the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS will be certified and can serve as a programmatic EIR for purposes of CEQA compliance. The IRWM Plan CEQA strategy is evolving, but the availability of EIRs (and EISs in the case of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord) is expected to help reduce cost and timing for subsequent project level analysis.
YCWA and TRLIA will continue to work with responsible and trusted agencies to develop standards and guidelines for project design and species/wetlands surveys, and for an integrated permitting process and approach to expedited project-level review.
6.5.3 Ecosystems Restoration Projects and Related Actions Specific projects and programs have been identified that support the Yuba County ecosystem strategy in order to meet the goals and objectives outlined in this section. The projects and programs have been identified by local participating agencies and have been refined to varying levels of detail. The initial list of projects (see Table 6-10) was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
During the course of developing the Yuba County IRWM Plan, none of the participating stakeholders identified projects or programs that were specifically related to wetlands creation or restoration, and no programs or further projects are being considered to develop and implement this strategy at this time. It should be noted that the Yuba County IRWM Plan recognizes the importance of preserving, protecting, and restoring wetlands
6-52 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
and that proposed projects will avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wetland resources when possible.
Table 6-10 Ecosystem Management Project Summary Table Project Name Project Sponsor Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Yuba South Canal Fish Screen YCWA ECO1
Narrows Fisheries Project YCRCD ECO2
Narrows II Powerhouse Intake Extension YCWA ECO3
Yuba Accord Implementation Fishery Actions YCWA ECO4
Yuba River Acquisition Plan Trust for Public ECO5 Land
6.6 Recreation and Public Access Strategy
6.6.1 Yuba County IRWM Plan Recreation and Public Access Approach The existing water-related recreational facilities with the Yuba County Plan Area are described in Section 4.4.4. The recreation and public access strategy looks to expand the recreational opportunities within the area by integrating recreational and public access opportunities into water management projects as appropriate. Yuba County and Yuba County RCD are the lead agencies in developing the recreation and public access opportunities within the Yuba County Plan Area. The recreation and public access goals and objectives described below were developed and discussed at Management Group meetings.
6.6.2 Yuba County Recreation and Public Access Strategy The Yuba County RCD is looking to improve/expand the recreational opportunities along the Lower Yuba River and other waterways in the Plan Area. The Yuba County RCD is planning to develop sections of the Lower Yuba River near Marysville, which would provide the following benefits for the local community:
Provide pedestrian access to the Yuba River from Marysville neighborhoods and the downtown area.
Highlight the natural features and unique historical character of the river and surrounding areas, which demonstrate the interdependence of the city, river, and surrounding lands from the Gold Rush to the present.
6-53 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Provide improved habitat along the river.
Remove concrete and debris from along the Yuba River corridor to provide a safe place for outdoor recreation including family picnics, biking, walking, and fishing along the river.
6.6.3 Recreation and Public Access Projects Specific projects and programs have been identified that primarily support the Yuba County recreation and public access strategy in order to meet the goals and objectives outlined in this section. The projects and programs have been identified by local participating agencies and have been refined to varying levels of detail. The initial list of projects (see Table 6-11) was screened, ranked, and prioritized based upon the Project Screening and Ranking Process described in Section 7 to evaluate and rank all projects identified during the development of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Project Descriptions are provided in Appendix C – Project Descriptions.
Table 6-11 Recreation and Public Access Project Summary Table Project Name Lead Agency Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Yuba River Acquisition Project YCRCD RPA1
Yuba River Habitat Restoration and Conversion Yuba County RPA2 Project
Yuba County Park Master Plan/CIP Yuba County RPA3
6.7 Integration of Additional Management Strategies The Management Group utilized the existing planning studies and the local goals and objectives to establish the approach for the integration of the water management strategies within the Yuba County IRWM Plan. As shown in Figure 1-1, the Yuba County IRWM Plan serves as a nexus document between these original planning activities and regional and statewide planning efforts. The Yuba County IRWM Plan in turn becomes one of the foundational documents that support future local planning activities, as well as regional efforts such as the Sacramento Valley IRWMP, and statewide efforts such as the California Water Plan Update, including the integration of the State Plan of Flood Control for the Central Valley into the California Water Plan Update.
6-54 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
The State legislature identified 25 Resources Management Strategies for inclusion in the California Water Plan, scheduled to be updated in 2009. The DWR IRWMP Guidelines define the water management strategies that must be considered for inclusion in an IRWMP. These strategies are the building blocks that local interests can use to create their IRWMP. The Management Group reviewed the strategies to define how local project and program elements would be aggregated into the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Table 6-12 shows the relationship between the water management strategies included in DWR Guidelines, the Resource Management Strategies of the California Water Plan, and the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
The Management Group decided that a number of the recommended strategies were not applicable to the Yuba County IRWM Plan and would not support achieving the established goals and objectives at this time. This does not imply that these will not be considered at a future date as part of an adaptive management philosophy or as part of any subsequent updates of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The strategies and reasons for not including them in the Yuba County IRWM Plan are discussed below.
Precipitation Enhancement – Precipitation Enhancement artificially stimulates clouds to produce more rainfall or snowfall than they would naturally. In California, precipitation enhancement projects are intended to increase the water supply or hydroelectric power. The amounts of water produced are difficult to determine, but estimates range from a 2 to 15 percent increase in annual precipitation or runoff. To date there is no complete and rigorous comprehensive study evaluating the effectiveness of precipitation enhancement studies in California. There were 12 rain and snow enhancement projects in California in the 2002-03 season. There were no projects in the Yuba River watershed. Precipitation enhancement is not being evaluated as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Desalination – Desalination is a water treatment process for the removal of salt from the water for beneficial use. Desalination is used on brackish (low salinity) water and seawater. Most desalination in California takes place along the coast or in southern California where it is an economically viable element of a balanced water supply portfolio. The benefits of desalination include:
Increased water supply
Reclamation and beneficial use of impaired quality waters
Increased water supply reliability in drought periods
Diversification of water supply sources
6-55 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 6-12 Yuba County IRWM Plan Integration of State and Local Program Strategies IRWM Plan Standard –Water California Water Plan – Resource Yuba County IRWM Plan Management Strategies Management Strategies Strategy Reduce Water Demand Water Conservation Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Water Supply Reliability Water Conservation Urban Water Use Efficiency Water Supply Reliability Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers Conveyance Water Supply Reliability System Re-operation Water Supply Reliability/ Flood Management Water Transfers Water Transfers Water Supply Reliability Increase Water Supply/Water Supply Reliability Groundwater Management Conjunctive Management and Water Supply Reliability Conjunctive Use Groundwater Storage Desalination Desalination (Brackish/Seawater) Additional Strategies Precipitation Enhancement Additional Strategies Water Recycling Recycled Municipal Water Supply Water Recycling and Reuse Surface Storage Surface Storage (CALFED) Additional Strategies
Surface Storage (Regional/Local) Additional Strategies Imported Water Additional Strategies Improve Water Quality Water and Wastewater Drinking Water Treatment and Water Supply Reliability / Treatment Distribution Water Quality Groundwater Management Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation Water Supply Reliability Matching Quality to Use Water Supply Reliability NPS Pollution Control Pollution Prevention Water Quality Stormwater Management Urban Runoff Management Flood Management Practice Resource Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship Additional Strategies Economic Incentives Water Supply Reliability Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement Wetlands Enhancement and Creation Flood Management Floodplain Management Flood Management Groundwater Management Recharge Area Protection Additional Strategies Land Use Planning Urban Land Use Management Flood Management Recreation and Public Access Water-Dependent Recreation Recreation and Public Access Watershed Planning Watershed Management Ecosystem Restoration
6-56 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Improved water quality
Protection of public health
Because Yuba County has access to other less-expensive high-quality water supply sources, desalination is not considered a component of the local water supply portfolio at this time.
Economic Incentives – Economic incentives provide financial assistance and pricing policies in order to influence water management. Incentives can be used to influence the amount of use, time of use, wastewater volume, and source of supply. Incentives can be in the form of low-interest loans, grants, and water pricing rates. In general, higher costs to water users tend to reduce the water use. Pursuit of grant funds to reduce local costs is part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Variable pricing and other economic incentives have not been identified as a viable strategy at this time.
Agricultural Lands Stewardship – Agricultural lands stewardship broadly means conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment by land managers whose stewardship practices conserve and improve land for food, fiber, watershed functions, soil, air, energy, plants and animals, and other conservation purposes. The goal of this approach is to promote sustainable agricultural practices with an economic return, which is managing these productive lands for multiple benefits, including water management improvements. Agricultural lands stewardship can use practices to protect the health of environmentally sensitive lands, recharge groundwater, improve water quality, provide water for wetland protection and restoration, reduce costs to the State for flood management, and aid riparian reforestation and management projects. Many farmers in the region have been working with the state and federal agencies such as the USDA National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and other NGOs (e.g., Nature Conservancy) to manage private lands for habitat and wildlife. The Yuba County IRWM Plan recognizes the value of these programs and the rights and responsibilities of private property owners to manage their lands. The Management Group supports and promotes environmentally sustainable land use practices, but was not able to identify any specific approaches, projects, and programs that could be included in the plan.
Recharge Area Protection – Recharge area protection includes keeping groundwater recharge areas from being paved over or otherwise developed and guarding the recharge areas so they do not become contaminated. Protecting recharge areas is important, but by itself does not provide a water supply. Protecting existing and potential recharge areas allows them to serve as valuable components of a conjunctive water management and groundwater storage strategy. There are generally three conditions that need to be met for the protection of recharge areas:
6-57 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Sediments must be coarse enough to allow surface water to infiltrate at a higher rate than through finer sediments.
There must be sufficient hydraulic continuity between the recharge areas, the aquifer where the groundwater is stored and transported, and the discharge areas where wells are built to extract groundwater.
A local agency must have access to the land on which the first two conditions are satisfied.
Much of the recharge in the Plan Area is associated with the Yuba River. The Yuba River corridor includes areas of coarse deposits such as the Gold Fields, which serve as the area’s existing recharge. No new strategies or programs have been defined.
Imported Water - The Yuba County area is fortunate to have surface water resources that can be managed for the economic benefit of the region and state. There is currently no need to import water. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord and Yuba County IRWM Plan include strategies to export water to other areas of need in the state.
Regional/Local Surface Storage and Surface Storage (CALFED) - The Management Group generally supports development of multipurpose, multi-benefit reservoirs for water storage, flood control, recreation, and power generation. Additional regional and local surface storage/flood control projects have been proposed in the past within the Plan area, but are not believed to be economically or politically viable at this time, and are given a lower priority in the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Such projects may be revisited in the future if circumstances change.
6.8 Other Projects Additional water management projects have been identified by local project proponents that do not address the water management strategies listed in this Plan at this time. They have been included to accommodate potential integration of in the future. These projects are listed on Table 6-13 below.
Table 6-13 Other Projects Summary Table Project Name Lead Agency Project Location (on Figure 6-1)
Mini-Hydropower Project BVID OTH1
SCADA for Virginia Ranch Dam (Collins Lake) BVID OTH2 Powerhouse
6-58 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
6.9 Integration of Water Management Strategies The complexity of the physical and hydrologic setting in Yuba County presents many water management challenges as well as opportunities for the integration of water management strategies. For years, the water managers in the region recognized the value that integrating water management strategies provides to the region, and the effort needed to get projects and programs implemented. As described earlier, the region has been actively integrating water management activities with the participation and support of local agencies for many years. This cooperation and commitment has lead to improved flood management and water supply reliability for the citizens of Yuba County, and a plan for improved fisheries on the Yuba River.
The successful integration of strategies can only be achieved through the actual implementation of projects and programs. Section 7 Plan Implementation describes the process used to rate, prioritize, and implement projects to meet the most pressing needs within the Plan. It also recognizes the need for flexibility to adjust to changing conditions which is needed to get projects implemented. Part of the implementation strategy includes the integration of water management strategies where appropriate. Table 6-14 identifies the integration opportunities for the projects in the region.
At this time, the highest priority issues facing the Plan Area include:
Improving local flood protection and regional flood management as part of the Flood Management Strategy, and
Implementing proposed agreements outlined in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord that protect the fisheries of the Yuba River while improving surface water supply reliability which support the Water Supply Reliability Strategy and Ecosystem Restoration Strategy.
Some of the integration opportunities for each of these strategies are described below.
6-59 Assessment of Water Management Strategies
Table 6-14 Integration of Water Management Strategies
6-60 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Integration of Flood Management Strategy - It is not feasible to develop a flood protection program based on a single strategy. A strategy may include several different projects that provide local flood protection benefits (such as individual levee reaches) or may provide more regional benefits (such as upstream capture and re-operation of flood flows). No single strategy or project can meet all of the objectives in a technically feasible manner that is economically feasible and politically, institutionally, and environmentally acceptable. The merits and costs of each project need to be evaluated to determine its ability to meet specific flood management objectives and to identify additional opportunities for integration with other management strategies that may further increase their benefits and become more cost-effective.
By using a combination of strategies, we can take advantage of the strengths of each project and integrate them to provide a greater benefit than if implemented individually, while satisfying additional water management objectives such as environmental restoration, recreation, and water supply reliability. In addition, an integrated Yuba County flood management program can provide benefits that extend beyond the boundaries of the Plan Area to the rest of the Sacramento River system.
Integration of Water Supply Reliability Strategy - Water supply reliability has been achieved by using upstream storage reservoirs to capture and regulate rainfall and snowmelt runoff on an annual basis, while using the groundwater basin to provide long- term storage and water supply reliability for those areas with limited or no access to surface water.
The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord is an integrated water management strategy through the implementation of the Fisheries Agreement, Conjunctive Use Agreement, and Water Purchase Agreement. The Water Purchase Agreement generates revenue to fund additional conjunctive use and flood management projects in the County, further demonstrating the integrated nature of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. The Conjunctive Use Agreement allows for the continued delivery of surface water to areas that historically used groundwater improves local groundwater supply reliability and groundwater quality, and allows for greater flexibility in groundwater operations.
Integration of Ecosystem Restoration Strategy - Ecosystem restoration opportunities have been identified that integrate with water supply reliability projects, flood management projects, and recreation and public access projects to provide improved conditions for the fishery resources and riparian habitat of the Yuba and Feather River systems.
6-61
7 Plan Implementation
The implementation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan will build upon the success of ongoing planning and implementation efforts within the County over the last 15 years. This section presents the implementation plan for the Yuba County IRWM Plan, which addresses the following:
Project Evaluation and Prioritization
Project Implementation Responsibilities
Project Financing and Identification of Funding Opportunities
IRWM Plan Impacts and Benefits
IRWM Plan Implementation Schedule
Recommendations
7.1 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Project evaluation and prioritization is necessary to identify the projects being considered in the region, evaluate their effectiveness at addressing the needs of the region, and determine which projects should be implemented first. The prioritization is necessary because the cost to implement the identified projects greatly exceeds the available financial resources.
In order to complete this project evaluation and prioritization, a framework was developed that can be used now and in the future to identify and evaluate potential water management projects in the region and prioritize the implementation of those projects that provide the best opportunities to improve water management within Yuba County. The framework relies on the best available information provided by the local project proponent to describe the project, determine if it is ready to proceed, and identify how well it integrates with other projects in the region.
7.1.1 Project Rating System The Project Rating System (PRS) developed as part of this process supports the development, refinement, and promotion of water management projects by:
7-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Allowing for the evaluation and rating of a wide range of water management projects, and
Providing the capability of the RWMG to quickly update the evaluation and prioritization of projects in response to changing conditions. For example, the initial results of the PRS represent January 2008 conditions, but are expected to be updated later this year in response to such factors as the completion of existing projects and the release of guidelines for additional funding opportunities.
The agencies participating in the Yuba County IRWM Plan were encouraged to identify all water management projects within their jurisdiction to get a complete listing of the types and numbers of projects that may be considered in the Plan. The participating agencies were also asked to provide available supporting information to document project feasibility, technical and scientific merit, and readiness to proceed for each of those projects, recognizing that each project may have a different level of supporting information.
The available information for each project was incorporated into the PRS to determine the readiness of the project to be implemented (Step 1) and determine the project prioritization and implementation approaches for each project within the IRWM Plan Area (Step 2). Figure 7-1 illustrates the approach used to evaluate and prioritize each project. The determination of project readiness and project prioritization is based on the criteria listed below. Criteria 1 and 2 are used to determine project readiness and the overall project prioritization, while Criteria 3 through 7 are used to determine project prioritization.
Step 1: Determination of Project Readiness
Criterion 1: Meets objectives
Criterion 2: Scientific and technical merit
Step 2: Project Prioritization and Implementation
Criterion 3: Provides for public safety and emergencies
Criterion 4: Supports integration of multiple water management strategies
Criterion 5: Serves disadvantaged communities
7-2 Plan Implementation
Criterion 6: Provides statewide benefit
Criterion 7: Funding match
Figure 7-1 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Process
All Projects
Pr o j ect Categories FM WSR WQ ECO WR/RU RPA
Pr o j ect Criterion 1 Reevaluation Criterion 2 Project Rating Criterion 3 Syst em Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6 Criterion 7
Pr o j ect Proponent Pr o j ect NO Develops Readiness Additional
STEP 1 — Determination of Project Readiness of Project — Determination 1 STEP Information
IM PLEM ENTATION IM PLEM EN TATION YES APPROACH 1 APPROACH 2 Projects considered Projects considered for for implementation by IRWMP Project Bundles local project proponent • Led by RWMG • Local project • Supported by IRWMP proponent • Projects initially organized and Implementation leads project, prioritized by PRSresults Approach implementation and • Water managers select project funding acquisition bundles to meet county • Supported by IRWMP needs and align with available funding opportunities.
seitinutroppOgnidnuFlaitnetoP seitinutroppOgnidnuFlaitnetoP
Prop 84 303BA Water Use Non- rehtO Prop 84 Other Ef fi ciency IRWMP IRWMP STEP 2 — Project Prioritization and Implementation and Prioritization 2 — Project STEP
7-3 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
7.1.1.1 Step 1 – Determination of Project Readiness As of January 2008, a total of 67 projects were identified by 16 different local agencies in the Plan Area. These were organized into groups based on the primary water management strategies they address in the Yuba County IRWM Plan, as listed below:
Flood Management Projects
Water Supply Reliability Projects
Water Quality Projects
Water Reuse and Recycling
Ecosystem Restoration Projects
Recreation and Public Access
Two criteria, Meets Objective and Scientific and Technical Merit, were used to identify which projects were ‘ready to proceed,’ thereby providing an initial screening of projects being considered in the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Criterion 1. Meets Objective: The regional water management objectives identified in Section 5 of this IRWM Plan provide one measure of determining project readiness. The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate how well a project meets the water management objectives. The project receives five points for the primary objective it addresses, and one additional point for each additional objective it addresses, up to a maximum of 10 points. Therefore, projects that meet multiple objectives will score higher than projects that meet a single objective.
Criterion 2. Scientific and Technical Merit: The readiness for a project to proceed is a key factor in prioritizing projects and provides an indication of the level of commitment to a particular project. Given that there are many projects that meet several of the IRWM Plan objectives and span multiple water management strategies, readiness to proceed is considered a significant factor in determining which projects should be completed first within the region. To date, many projects identified have progressed to the point that they are ready to proceed, either as a study or as a project ready to be implemented.
The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate the level of project documentation completed to support an individual project using the 10-point scale described below:
7-4 Plan Implementation
10 points – Ten points were awarded to projects with completed project design documents and environmental documents. For a study or investigation, ten points were awarded to a project that has a detailed scope of work, project schedule, and budget.
8 points – Eight points were awarded to projects with preliminary design documents. For a study or investigation, eight points were awarded to a project with a complete project description and a preliminary scope of work, project schedule, and budget estimate.
6 points – Six points were awarded to projects with a feasibility study or pre- design documents. For a study or investigation, six points were awarded to a project with a general project description and a preliminary scope of work and budget estimate.
4 points – 4 points were awarded to projects, studies, or investigations that have some supporting information identifying the need for the project and project description.
2 points – Two points were awarded to projects that did not meet the scoring criteria listed above.
Projects receiving at least five points in Criterion 1 and six points in Criterion 2 were identified as ‘ready to proceed’ and were forwarded to Step 2. Projects that were not identified as ‘ready to proceed’ require additional information to be developed by the project proponent before it can be considered for Step 2. The results of Step 1 are shown on Table 7-1. A total of 29 of the 67 projects were identified as ‘ready to proceed’ to Step 2.
7-5 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
7-6 Plan Implementation
7-7 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
7-8 Plan Implementation
7.1.1.2 Step 2 - Project Prioritization and Implementation The purpose of Step 2 – Project Prioritization and Implementation was to evaluate and rank the projects to determine which project or collection of projects has the highest priority for the Plan Area at this point in time (January 2008), and identify options for implementation. Part of the challenge of prioritizing projects occurs because individual projects:
Address water management objectives that have differing levels of importance/consequence within the Plan Area;
Impact different areas that may involve or affect multiple water management organizations;
May support more than a single water management strategy;
Are at different levels of project development or refinement and readiness to proceed; and
Have varying levels of project support from the project sponsor and other participants in the region.
The project prioritization criteria described below provide a second level of screening and prioritization of projects being considered in the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Criterion 3. Provides for Public Safety and Emergencies: How well a project addresses public safety issues and emergency needs in the Plan Area was considered a key factor in project prioritization. Projects that contribute to public safety may have more urgent need than other projects and result in refocusing the commitment to completing individual projects to improve public safety and protect lives and property. Within Yuba County this refocusing is exemplified by the completion of the levee improvements along the Bear and Feather Rivers (which were determined to be deficient and to provide a reduced level of flood protection for the areas behind the levees) ahead of improvements to upstream facilities projects that provide a regional flood protection benefit.
The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate how well each project protects life and property or meets the emergency response needs of a community using the 10-point scale described below:
7-9 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
10 points – Ten points were awarded to projects that directly protect lives and property or provide for emergency measures that cannot be served through other means.
6 points – Six points were awarded to projects that primarily protect property, or are one of several sources to support emergency measures.
2 point – Two points were awarded to projects that do not meet either of the criteria described above.
Criterion 4. Supports Integration of Multiple Water Management Strategies: The IRWMP Guidelines identified the water management strategies that should be considered in a Plan. As described in Section 6, the IRWM Plan water management strategies and projects were examined to ensure they are consistent with and support the resources management strategies identified in Bulletin 160-2005. The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate how well a project integrates multiple water management strategies as identified by the IRWM Plan standards. For this criterion, projects were awarded one point for each water management strategy they address, with a maximum of five points. Table 6-14 identifies the water management strategies addressed by each project.
Criterion 5. Serves Disadvantaged Communities: As shown in Figure 2-2 and described in Section 2.1.4, a significant portion of Yuba County is considered disadvantaged based upon the United States Year 2000 Census Data. The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate how well a project serves disadvantaged communities while addressing water-related environmental justice concerns using the 5- point scale described below.
5 points – Five points were awarded to projects that provide a specific, measurable benefit to disadvantaged communities while addressing water-related environmental justice concerns.
3 points – Three points were awarded to projects that provide an indirect benefit that includes disadvantaged communities.
1 point – One point was awarded to projects that provide a regional benefit that includes disadvantaged communities.
Criterion 6. Provides Statewide Benefits: The Management Group established this criterion to identify and support projects that provide a statewide benefit. One point was awarded to a project for each statewide benefit they address from the list below to a maximum of five points. 7-10 Plan Implementation
Reduce conflict between water users or resolve water rights disputes, including water rights issues.
Assist in meeting Delta Water Quality standards.
Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads that are established or under development.
Implementation of the SWRCB’s Non-Point Source Pollution Plan.
Implementation of recommendations of the Floodplain Management Task Force.
Assist goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which include the following:
o Provide good quality water for all beneficial users
o Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve the ecological function of the Bay-Delta, and
o Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and beneficial uses dependant on the Bay-Delta system
Criterion 7. Funding Match: The availability of local funding for the individual projects will be determined for each project on an agency-by-agency basis. Local financial support is often required by grant programs and other sources of outside funding. While local support may be a factor for agencies in establishing budgets and reviewing rates, the willingness of local agencies to contribute to plan implementation is likely to aid agencies in their acquisition of outside funding. Successful pursuits of grant funding will, in turn, enable ratepayers to increase the benefits of their investments. Depending on the status of the agency/organization as a disadvantaged community, the availability of local funding may be a factor in prioritizing projects, as some projects result in multiple benefits beyond the local area.
The Management Group established this criterion to evaluate the availability of funding and commitment of the local project proponent to provide local funding and a cost share. Local project proponents can use this criterion to prioritize their projects. This criterion will be applied similarly to all projects. This criterion uses a 5-point scale described below:
5 points – Five points were awarded to projects that provide an estimated 50 percent or greater local cost share match.
7-11 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
4 points – Four points were awarded to projects that provide an estimated 40 to 49.9 percent local cost share match.
3 points – Three points were awarded to projects that provide an estimated 30 to 39.9 percent local cost share match.
2 points – Two points were awarded to projects that provide an estimated 20 to 29.9 percent local cost share match.
1 point – One point was awarded to projects that provide an estimated 10 to 19.9 percent local cost share match.
0 Points – No points were awarded to projects that have less than 10 percent local cost share. Depending on the funding opportunity, projects with little or no cost share may not be eligible for grant funding opportunities.
Initially, all projects received a score of one point. It is anticipated that the local project proponents will update the scores in response to available funding opportunities.
7.1.1.3 Project Implementation Approach As shown on Figure 7-1, a local project proponent has two approaches for implementing their project, as described below.
Implementation Approach 1 - Projects Considered for Implementation by Local Project Proponents – In this approach:
The local project proponent will be the lead agency for its own projects, including project implementation, project management, and project financing.
Grant funding opportunities are supported by inclusion of a project within the Yuba County IRWM Plan, but pursuit of grant acquisition, administration, and execution is the responsibility of the project proponent.
Some projects originally considered in this approach may be included in IRWM Plan Project Bundles based on changing conditions or priorities or in response to changing funding opportunities.
Implementation Approach 2 - Projects Considered for IRWMP Project Bundles – In this approach:
7-12 Plan Implementation
The Management Group (or other group representing the regional agencies) will lead initial implementation efforts including identification of funding opportunities.
Grant funding opportunities are supported by inclusion of a project within the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Ready projects will be organized by water management strategy (described above) and prioritized by the PRS score.
Water managers will select projects from this list to meet the region’s most pressing needs and align them with available funding opportunities.
Some projects originally considered in Approach 2 may be included in Approach 1 for local implementation based on changing funding opportunities.
7.2 IRWM Plan Implementation Responsibility YCWA, in cooperation with local entities in the County, prepared the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The responsibility for implementation of the IRWM Plan will be shared among the individual agencies, based upon the jurisdiction of each responsible agency. YCWA will work with other agencies to coordinate future planning activities including update of the Plan as needed. Coordination activities that are shared among the individual member agencies include the following:
Continued development and refinement of the Yuba County IRWM Plan with water purveyors, local governments, conservation organizations, and other interested parties in the region.
Project formulation, refinement, and implementation.
Coordination of the Yuba County IRWM Plan with state and federal agencies.
Communication with other planning efforts and entities within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region that are outside the Yuba County IRWM Plan.
Work with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to prepare and complete necessary environmental documents and to pursue opportunities to fund the projects that are under their jurisdiction, consistent with the IRWM Plan.
7-13 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
7.2.1 Obstacles to Implementation No insurmountable obstacles to implementation of the IRWM Plan have been identified. As described earlier, the agencies within the Plan Area have successfully worked together in the past on the development and implementation of projects and programs to improve the water resources management within Yuba County, including:
Preparation and adoption of a regional Groundwater Management Plan that includes the Sacramento Valley floor portion of Yuba County.
Development of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord to improve local and statewide water supply reliability, provide environmental benefits, and fund local projects through water transfers.
Creation of the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority to improve flood protection.
Working together, these groups have developed a successful relationship enabling them to get things done that satisfy the varied interests within the County. Developing these initial relationships, trust, and accountability among the participating groups is often one of the biggest challenges to regional cooperation. The stakeholders and interested parties within the Plan Area have successfully worked together and believe they can continue to successfully work together to implement future projects to improve the water resources management for the citizens of Yuba County.
7.2.2 Periodic Review and Update of the IRWM Plan The review and update of the IRWM Plan and the evaluation of the Plan’s performance (described in Section 8.3) demonstrate the need to keep the Plan current in order to respond changing conditions. The updates will be directed through the Management Group in the following ways:
Continuing to monitor the surface water and groundwater conditions of the Plan Area and communicating the information to the Management Group.
Reevaluating the IRWM Plan objectives, water management strategies, and priorities.
Continuing to inform project participants and stakeholders about changes to the IRWM Plan.
Refining and updating project descriptions with new information as it is developed to support the project readiness of individual projects.
7-14 Plan Implementation
Periodically refining the IRWM Plan process to proactively manage the available resources, including making a significant investment in the planning and implementation of new projects and programs.
These updates will be presented as:
Updates of the Yuba County IRWMP
Updates the Project Prioritization
Each of these is described below:
Updates the Yuba County IRWM Plan - It is anticipated that these updates will be coordinated with the preparation of other scheduled planning activities. For example, UWMPs are required to be completed in years ending in ‘0’ and ‘5.’ The IRWM Plan updates may follow the updates of the UWMPs in order to incorporate newly available data. The IRWM Plan can then be used to support updates of the Sacramento Valley IRWMP and the California Water Plan Update.
Update of the Project Prioritization - The Management Group plans to meet at least twice a year to review and update the project list and prioritization in order to maintain a current list of projects that reflect the changing conditions within the Plan Area. These efforts will be led by the Management Group, with input provided by the local project proponents. The Management Group has proposed beginning the project update process just ahead of the release of funding guidelines in order to identify changing conditions and align potential projects with available funding opportunities. The result of the project update is expected to include an addendum to the project prioritization list (Table 7-1) and necessary supporting information.
It is expected that the project prioritization will be updated more frequently than the IRWM Plan to respond to changing conditions such as the following:
A re-evaluation of the most pressing water management issues in the Plan Area.
Identification of new water management issues in the Plan Area.
Completion of existing projects that may change water management priorities within the Plan Area.
Identification of new projects that affect the Plan Area.
Emergency events such as flood, drought, or facility failure.
7-15 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The release of grant funding guidelines that focus on specific funding opportunities.
7.3 Yuba County IRWM Plan Project Financing Projects and implementation efforts such as the ongoing levee work are funded through local participants or landowners, along with funding from the State. Funding the larger- scale projects with regional and statewide benefits and other future projects is more challenging. Given the primarily agricultural nature of the County, proponents of large- scale, multi-benefit projects and programs often must seek additional funding sources. Thus, availability of grant funding has and will continue to play a major role in project implementation prioritization. In some cases, all or a significant portion of the local funding would likely be in the form of in-kind services during program planning and implementation.
Depending on the characteristics and scope of a particular project, some activities and projects currently identified in this IRWM Plan and future activities will likely be in some part contingent on securing funding from federal, state, and/or local sources. The following summarizes project funding approaches to date, as well as anticipated funding strategies.
7.3.1 State Grant Funding State funding may be a significant source of funding for implementing the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Current key state funding sources include the following:
The passage of Proposition 84 in the November 2006 election allocated an additional $1 billion for continued integrated regional water management planning and projects. An additional $800 million was also made available for flood control projects. The passage of Proposition 1E in the November 2006 election allocated $4.1 billion for flood management projects throughout the state, including $3 billion for levee repair and maintenance. Water Use Efficiency Program, which is currently administered by DWR and is funded through various bond initiatives, provides grant funding for agricultural and urban water conservation programs. DWR’s AB303 Local Groundwater Assistance Program funds groundwater management, data collection, modeling, monitoring, and assessment programs. AB303 is a potential source of funding for a range of groundwater management projects.
7-16 Plan Implementation
The Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program is well suited for funding many of the projects presented in the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program, administered by the SWRCB, supports baseline monitoring, implementation of management measures, and demonstration projects. This program has been identified as a potential source of funding for actions that reduce the volume of agricultural discharges, improve water quality, or control timing of surface water discharges.
7.3.2 Federal Funding Reclamation District’s Challenge Grant Program provides funding for water management programs and projects in the western United States. This grant program might help fund the implementation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, particularly its water conservation projects. In addition, funding can be directed to the Yuba County IRWM Plan, or elements of the IRWM Plan, through the Federal Energy and Water Development Appropriations legislation.
7.3.3 Local Agency Funding Local entities are implementing cost-effective projects and actions at the local level. In the past, local funding has been used in part or in total to fund local water projects. Some of these sources of funding include:
Local water agency funds YCWA funds from water transfers City or County funds Developer funding These funding sources may be used to meet some of the funding requirements of future projects that provide local benefits.
Some of the proposed projects would benefit areas beyond the project boundaries, and they may not be locally cost-effective. Therefore, a major constraint in implementing many of the projects in this IRWM Plan is the lack of financial capacity and funding availability at the local level. Table 7-2 shows the Median Household Income (MHI) for the Plan Area within Yuba County. Much of the County’s income is below the California MHI, and the County in total is also considered economically disadvantaged (i.e., their median income is less than 80 percent of the average).
7-17 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 7-2 Yuba County and California Median Household Incomes Median Household % of Median Number of Income Household Income Households ($) (%) Yuba County 20,552 30,460 64.1 California 11,512,020 47,493 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, census data
California has an average household income of $47,493. As a region, Yuba County has an MHI of $30,460, or 64.1 percent of the California MHI. Therefore, the region is considered economically disadvantaged.
Chapter 8 of Proposition 50 requires local agencies to share the cost of implementing their project, unless the project is in an economically disadvantaged community, in which case, some projects within Yuba County could qualify for exemption from local cost- sharing requirements.
Because implementing portions of the Yuba County IRWM Plan could have significant statewide water quality and water supply reliability benefits, local agencies expect that funding assistance would be required to implement many of the projects under this IRWM Plan. It is anticipated that Yuba County water entities will contribute both direct funding and in-kind services to support project implementation. Typical contributions might include the following:
Project formulation and grant application preparation Contract management Project management Coordination and collaboration Program progress reporting Collection and preparation of basic project data The extent and the costs of these contributions will vary from project to project and from proponent to proponent.
7.4 Project Funding Opportunities The project prioritization process described above identifies the region’s most important projects and investigations that are ready for implementation. In addition to identifying
7-18 Plan Implementation
the highest priority projects in the region, it can be used as an indicator of the “fundability” of the project, whereas projects that score higher in the Project Prioritization Process are more likely to score higher in grant funding pursuits for many of the same reasons that they had higher prioritization scores.
With the recent passage of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E, there are new funding opportunities available for water management projects identified in the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The type of project and the funding source will determine the approach to pursue funding from Proposition 84, Proposition 1E, or other State funding sources.
Figure 7-1 illustrates a funding approach that recognizes the differences between local project proponent-sponsored project implementation efforts and a more regional effort that includes project bundling. Each approach benefits from the inclusion of potential projects included in the Yuba County IRWM Plan. It should be noted that the distinction between implementation approaches reflects the differences in funding opportunities rather than the differences between projects or types of projects.
7.4.1 IRWM Plan Project Funding Opportunities Proposition 84, Chapter 2 funding includes $1 billion for IRWM Plan projects throughout California. Of this amount, the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region (SRHR) has been allocated a total of $73 million.
In 2006, Northern California Water Association (NCWA) served as the lead agency for the Proposition 50 Implementation Grant for projects included in the Sacramento Valley IRWMP. This grant application packaged 10 projects from 10 different local agencies within the Sacramento Valley into a single grant application. In that capacity, NCWA served as the lead agency and single grant administrator for the region. The local agencies will implement the projects and submit the necessary information (such as monthly invoices and quarterly reports) to NCWA who will package them into a single report and submit them to DWR. The local agencies are responsible for successful implementation of the projects.
This approach reflects Implementation Approach 2 described in Section 7.1.1.3, and is expected to be used by DWR to ensure the IRWM Plan Projects address the most pressing needs of the region and reduce their grant administration efforts. DWR has stated that it would like to have a single grant administrator for the IRWM Plans within the SRHR to distribute the $73 million to the projects.
It is anticipated that selected projects considered in the Yuba County IRWM Plan may be recommended for inclusion in the SRHR funding pool of Proposition 84, Chapter 2
7-19 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
funding. Once the final Project Solicitation Proposal (PSP) is released for this opportunity, the Management Group will meet to identify the most effective approach for responding to the requirements of the PSP.
7.4.2 Non-IRWM Plan Project Funding Opportunities In addition to the IRWM Plan project funding opportunities identified above, there are numerous other ‘Non-IRWM Plan’ funding opportunities (listed in section 7.3.1) that are available to a wide range of water resources management projects.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan and Management Group encourage local project proponents to identify and pursue the ‘Non-IRWM Plan’ funding opportunities for their projects identified on Table 7-1 were appropriate. For these ‘Non-IRWM Plan’ funding opportunities, the local agency or project sponsor will be the lead agency and grant administrator, as described in Implementation Approach 1 in Section 7.1.1.3.
7.4.3 Funding Roles and Responsibilities This section summarizes the anticipated roles and responsibilities of the various agencies in the pursuit of project funding opportunities.
Role of the IRWM Plan: The IRWM Plan serves as a regional planning document that can be used by the local project proponents to demonstrate how individual projects fit into the regional water management planning framework. The IRWM Plan is considered a living document that may be updated at certain times to address changing conditions within the Plan Area, such as the implementation of projects or the response to changing regulations.
Role of Local Project Proponent: The local project proponent is typically the local agency with water management responsibilities that include promoting a project to improve water management conditions through the completion of additional studies or investigations, improved water management operations, or addition of new infrastructure. The project proponent is the lead agency for the following:
Developing project description
Completing necessary studies to provide necessary supporting information
Acquiring funding for the project, which may include a combination of lead agency funding and grant funding
7-20 Plan Implementation
Completing any environmental documentation and permitting required to complete the project
Overseeing project implementation
Role of Management Group: The Management Group is the collective body of the project proponents. This group is responsible for developing the IRWM Plan, including the project prioritization criteria, and applying the criteria to the projects in the region to rank and prioritize the projects.
Role of YCWA: As the lead agency in the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, the YCWA led the effort to acquire funding for and administer the grant application for the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan. YCWA looks to continue to support local planning efforts through the IRWM Plan process. While YCWA supports the efforts of local agencies to pursue funding for their individual projects, they do not have the capabilities or desire to administer projects or be responsible for the implementation of the projects funded through grants.
7.5 IRWM Plan Impacts and Benefits
7.5.1 IRWM Plan Benefits The full implementation of the proposed Yuba County IRWM Plan will result in multiple benefits associated with meeting the objectives identified in Section 5 of this IRWM Plan. The key public and overall benefits may include the following:
Improve water supply reliability for local use, the region, and the state, including during drought conditions. Develop water supplies to help meet water quality standards within the county, region, and in the Bay-Delta. Improve and coordinate flood management both locally and regionally. Improve water quality through the continued efforts of regional water recycling efforts and implementation of system improvement projects across the region. Enhance water-dependent environmental assets such as fisheries and terrestrial habitat along the Yuba River, including implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. Improve the understanding of the region’s water resources, including focused regional monitoring to ensure groundwater is used in a sustainable manner.
7-21 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Improve coordination across water districts, counties, and the region through sharing of ideas and mutually beneficial management or project opportunities. Coordinate the development of water management strategies and associated projects.
7.5.2 IRWM Plan Impacts The potential impacts from implementing the Yuba County IRWM Plan are anticipated to be limited to short-term facility construction impacts. It is proposed that conjunctive water management projects include a monitoring and assessment element to evaluate the impacts of project implementation and to limit the potential for pumping interference. Monitoring and assessment elements will provide data and tools to evaluate and modify project operation to mitigate potential impacts.
Permitting and environmental documentation will be required for any new project facilities in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and ordinances. The project- specific environmental compliance will be performed by project proponents on a case-by- case basis prior to project construction. Impacts and benefits of the proposed actions will be further assessed. All actions and investigations will be coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies to share information and ensure compliance with applicable laws and ordinances.
7.6 Recommendations The Yuba County IRWM Plan encourages local entities throughout the region to advance their projects and actions in a manner that will:
Directly support the achievement of the objectives outlined in Section 5, as follows: (1) improve flood protection and floodplain management, (2) improve regional water supply reliability, (3) improve groundwater management, (4) improve and protect water quality, (5) protect and enhance the ecosystem, (6) support water recycling and reuse, and (7) improve recreation and public access to water features in Yuba County. Actions and projects developed through the IRWM Plan should address one or more of these objectives. Support the water management strategies described in Section 6, which provide the framework for implementation of the IRWM Plan. These strategies should be further developed and integrated to achieve the IRWM Plan objectives. Encourage participants in the IRWM Plan to increase coordination of the groundwater monitoring assessment and identification of recharge opportunities to
7-22 Plan Implementation
protect groundwater levels and quality in urbanized areas that rely on groundwater resources. Encourage participating agencies to further evaluate the feasibility and implementation of the “second point of diversion” to provide surface water supply for urban use to minimize the impact of urban development on groundwater basins and to further provide opportunities for conjunctive use in the region. Encourage coordination with land use planning agencies. The IRWM Plan should coordinate with development of future land use planning activities.
7.7 Plan Implementation Schedule An initial implementation schedule is described below; however, the final implementation schedule will depend on the strategies developed; their nature, costs, and beneficiaries; the financial abilities of participating agencies; the availability of outside financial assistance; and many other factors unknown at this time. The Management Group will consider all of the factors that could affect implementation of a final implementation schedule. Initial discussions and a review of potential water management strategies for the region suggest that the implementation schedule(s) may vary depending on the local project proponent’s priority for the project and the project’s readiness to proceed.
7.7.1 Projects Ready to Proceed Projects that have already been identified as ‘ready to proceed’ may be pursued by the local project proponent or bundled into a group of projects that would be pursued by the Management Group or a group representing the regional interests. Because many of the local agencies have limited financial resources, and the high cost of some of the projects being considered, it is anticipated that their implementation may be motivated by the availability of funding to reduce their local cost share. As such, a specific schedule for implementation of most of the projects cannot be determined at this time, but it is anticipated that the highest scoring projects (from the PRS) and projects that scored high on Criterion 3 (Provides Public Safety and Emergency Needs) are expected to be implemented ahead of projects lower scoring projects.
7.7.2 Projects Not ‘Ready to Proceed’ Projects that have been identified as ‘Not Ready to Proceed’ will require additional action by the local project proponent to improve their status. Depending on the urgency of the project or action, these may be considered as high priority or low priority by local project proponents, which may affect their project schedule. Each local project proponent will
7-23 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
make the determination on the project schedule to improve their projects. These may be affected based on the determination of the priority of the project.
7.7.2.1 High-Priority Projects Projects identified as ‘high-priority projects’ by the local project proponent are expected to get the additional work needed to improve their project description quickly (within next year) in an attempt to make them ‘ready to proceed.’ This information will then be provided to the Management Group during the update of the project prioritization process.
7.7.2.2 Low-Priority Projects Projects identified as ‘low-priority projects’ by the local project proponents need additional work to improve their description. These projects are not expected to have additional work completed until projects of higher priority are completed or conditions change, which provides additional urgency to implement the projects. These project descriptions may not be refined/updated until 2009.
7-24
8 Technical Analysis, Data Management and Monitoring, and Plan Performance
This section describes the process to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan and how it will be kept current during future planning efforts. Additionally, this section describes the available monitoring data and data gaps, how data will be shared with various groups, and how the available monitoring data may be used to evaluate the implementation of the Plan and individual projects identified in the Plan.
8.1 Use of Available Information to Develop IRWM Plan The Yuba County IRWM Plan documents the results of a comprehensive two-year effort of over 20 agencies with land and water management responsibilities in Yuba County focused on developing a coordinated approach to water resources management. The IRWM Plan was prepared using the information and guidance from the local agencies involved in water resources management, and can, in-turn, be used by these same agencies to guide and support their future water management planning efforts.
Prior to the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan, the water management agencies in Yuba County worked on an agency-by-agency basis to define their individual needs, and worked collectively to address water management issues that affected regional and statewide issues. During this time, extensive information and data were collected, compiled, and evaluated. This information now serves as the foundation for the development of this Plan as described below.
8.1.1 Existing Information and Reports The IRWM Plan is a planning document that is intended to provide a common vision on water resources management issues within Yuba County that can be used by local agencies as well as the County and State to guide future activities. Much of the supporting information used to develop the IRWM Plan was based on previous reports. Some of the reports used to identify the objectives and develop the strategies are briefly described below. A list of all reports used in the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan is included in Section 9, References.
Yuba County General Plan – The County General Plan (1996) and approved specific plans (various dates) were used to identify changing land use patterns in Yuba County, focusing on the development of urban lands in primarily
8-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
agricultural areas. This information was also used to estimate changes in future water demand patterns associated with the changing land use conditions. Yuba County is in the process of updating its General Plan, which is expected to be completed in 2009.
City of Wheatland General Plan – The City of Wheatland General Plan (2006) and supporting documents were used to identify the land use planning and associated water resources issues for the Wheatland area for inclusion in the regional water management objectives. Many of the supporting documents were used to develop the water management strategies for that area and identify individual projects.
Groundwater Management Plan – The GMP for the Yuba Subbasin was adopted by YCWA in 2005. The GMP was used to identify groundwater management goals and objectives, identify current monitoring, and develop groundwater management BMOs and conjunctive use strategies.
Urban Water Management Plans – UWMPs were available for the City of Marysville and LCWD. These were used to identify existing and future urban water demand and supply requirements for different year types and various conditions.
EIR/EIS for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord – The EIR/EIS for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord was used to guide the development of the water supply reliability strategy, conjunctive use strategy, and ecosystem restoration strategy for the Plan Area. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord also addressed monitoring issues and provided a potential source of revenue for monitoring and water resources projects within Yuba County. The Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord demonstrates the integrated nature of water resources management in the county, and its role in regional and statewide water management.
Yuba-Feather River Supplemental Flood Control Project – The Y-FSFCP and over 35 supporting documents were used to guide the development of the flood management strategy and provide supporting information for specific flood management projects such as F-CO, Feather and Bear River Levee Setback Project, New Bullards Bar Outlet Capacity Increase and Reservoir Surcharge Project, and Tailwater Depression at the New Colgate Powerhouse.
Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan – The Yuba- Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan (2007) was used to
8-2 Technical Analysis, Data Management and Monitoring, and Plan Performance
develop the water recycling and reuse strategy for the region and identify individual projects to support the strategy.
8.1.2 Technical Analysis to Develop IRWM Plan and Projects The initial efforts of the Management Group in preparing the Yuba County IRWM Plan focused on identifying the key water resources goals and objectives of the Plan Area. Once the objectives were identified, agencies began identifying individual projects that may contribute to meeting those objectives. Each project and program included in the Yuba County IRWM Plan was identified by a local lead agency (project sponsor) that was primarily responsible for the project’s description and integration into the IRWM D Plan. As the project sponsor, the lead agency will be responsible for any further project refinement, pursuit of funding, project implementation, and assessment of the project performance.
The project description and available supporting information were used to evaluate and rank the individual projects and programs. There was a large range of available supporting information for the projects, which reflected the maturity of the project and previous efforts to define project details, project impacts and benefits, costs, and the R project’s readiness to proceed. Projects identified as Ready to Proceed typically had considerable supporting information, such as feasibility studies, cost estimates, and design documents. Other Projects (not identified as Ready to Proceed) may be elevated to Ready to Proceed as additional information about the project is developed.
8.2 Data Management and Monitoring The majority of the data to be used in the preparation of the Yuba County IRWM Plan A are available to the public through the local agencies. The existing and new data collected as a result of the preparation of the IRWM Plan are available to the Management Group, stakeholders, interested parties, and DWR or other agencies.
The Yuba County IRWM Plan, along with other regional IRWM Plans, is located within the larger Sacramento Valley IRWMP, which encompasses the larger Sacramento Valley Region. Some of the information developed as part of the Yuba County IRWM Plan was provided for inclusion in the Sacramento Valley IRWMP for consistency between the F two planning efforts.
8.2.1 Existing Monitoring Programs Existing monitoring programs in the Plan Area are described below.
8-3 T Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
8.2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring There are 74 groundwater monitoring wells in Yuba County. As of 2004, 58 of the wells in the monitoring network were monitored by DWR, and of those wells, 22 are monitored semi-annually and 36 are monitored monthly. YCWA monitors 16 of the wells in the monitoring network. Measurements are generally taken in either March and October, or April and November.
In the summer and fall of 2006, YCWA installed eight dedicated monitoring wells to supplement the existing groundwater monitoring network in the county. The purpose of these wells is to support YCWA’s groundwater conjunctive use activities and monitoring of BMOs as described in the YCWA GMP. YCWA’s expanded groundwater monitoring program also supports groundwater resource management activities associated with Phase 8 and the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord.
8.2.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring Currently, DWR regularly collects data for 13 water quality wells in the two subbasins of Yuba County (i.e., data for seven wells are collected in one year and data for the other six wells are collected in the next year).
The Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Health Services require urban water purveyors to provide their customers with an annual report (Annual Consumer Confidence Report) of the quality of the water served. Because all of the urban water purveyors on the valley floor rely entirely on groundwater for their supplies, these reports represent local groundwater conditions within the Yuba Subbasin.
8.2.2 Data Gaps/ Additional Monitoring Requirements YCWA is responsible for water resources management issues throughout Yuba County and provides a level of continuity and coordination among many areas and organizations related to water management. For example, YCWA’s coordination with DWR in groundwater monitoring contributed to the relatively long period of record of groundwater-level data within the county. There is always the opportunity to collect additional data, however. For example, in 2006, YCWA completed the installation of eight new, dedicated monitoring wells in the North and South subbasins, which supplement the existing groundwater monitoring network. Additional monitoring coverage improves the characterization of the groundwater basin and groundwater levels.
Additional monitoring is needed to address the following issues:
8-4 Technical Analysis, Data Management and Monitoring, and Plan Performance
Additional groundwater monitoring is needed along the eastern edge of the Yuba Groundwater Subbasin and in other areas that may be affected by the planned conjunctive use operations as part of the implementation of the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord.
Subsidence monitoring is needed throughout the Yuba Subbasin to identify potential compaction, and thereby land subsidence that may be associated with groundwater pumping. A passive land subsidence monitoring network has been designed by YCWA and will be implemented, in coordination with DWR’s Northern Sacramento Valley Heights Modernization Network, in spring 2008. D Levee condition reports are needed to establish the current condition of all of the levees within the Plan Area.
Additional fisheries monitoring is needed as described in the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord to meet the requirements of the Fisheries Agreement.
8.2.3 Data Dissemination to Stakeholders and Public The Yuba County IRWM Plan was developed by and distributed to the participating R agencies, stakeholders, and interested parities. Electronic versions of the documents are available on the YCWA website (www.ycwa.com). Hard copies of the reports and CDs of the Yuba County IRWM Plan are available for review at the YCWA office. Any periodic updates to the Plan will be available in a similar manner.
Data collected as part of Plan implementation will be provided to the SWRCB’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment (GAMA) Program (the comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program for California) and the Surface Water Ambient A Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data will also be provided to DWR for inclusion in their databases. Providing data to the statewide monitoring programs administered by DWR and the SWRCB will support the statewide data needs for water supply and water quality.
Information was also provided in support of the preparation of the Sacramento Valley IRWMP. F 8.3 Evaluation of Plan Performance The extensive list of water resources management documents in Yuba County demonstrates the long-term commitment and continuous nature of water management planning in the county. The Yuba County IRWM Plan presents the current thinking of planning in the county based upon the available information, and recognizes that water
8-5 T Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
management strategies will continue to evolve in response to changing conditions. The IRWM Plan’s performance can be measured by how well the Plan represents the current water management conditions within the Plan Area and can respond to changing conditions such as changes in local, regional, and statewide water management needs; changing regulatory requirements; and additional funding opportunities.
In recognition of the fluid nature of water management planning, the Yuba County IRWM Plan incorporates an adaptive management approach that is intended to allow the Plan to stay current. Review and evaluation of the IRWM Plan’s performance should include an evaluation of how well the Plan addresses the needs for specific water management actions. These reviews would identify areas where the Plan has been successfully implemented as well as areas where deficiencies are apparent. In areas where implementation has proceeded satisfactorily, the plan update might include increasingly detailed information regarding specifics of implementation. In areas where progress has been less than anticipated, approaches would be discussed to either bring the implementation of specific actions back on track or to change the course or focus of efforts on actions that are believed to have a higher likelihood of success. This adaptive management framework provides for the constant evaluation of the Plan’s performance and provides the basis for updating the Plan and project prioritization by:
Collecting additional information and data regarding the conditions within the Plan Area,
Evaluating the new data to determine changing conditions, and
Formulating a response to these changing conditions.
In that sense, the planning process is continually evolving in response to these changing conditions and the development of additional data that improve our understanding, which may in turn redefine the goals, objectives, and priorities to respond to the changing conditions. This adaptive management approach is further incorporated into the plan in the review and update of the Plan as described in Section 7.2.2.
8.4 Project Performance Evaluation Based upon past experience, it is anticipated that any project involving public funding will need to develop some form of performance evaluation criteria, such as a Performance Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP), prior to initiating the project to measure the effectiveness of the project. The PAEP will be based on project-specific information included in the implementation agreement to:
Describe project characteristics and the project sponsor; 8-6 Technical Analysis, Data Management and Monitoring, and Plan Performance
Demonstrate consistency with local planning documents such as a GMP, General Plan, or other community planning document;
Identify project goals and targets;
Identify expected benefits and impacts;
Determine outcome indicators (site-specific, regional, system-wide);
Identify monitoring efforts needed to evaluate project performance; Describe how information will be collected and analyzed to evaluate a project’s D success; and
Evaluate the collected data to assess project performance.
The implementation of projects identified in the Yuba County IRWM Plan may have several monitoring efforts that can be used to evaluate their performance. Table 8-1 provides a representative list of monitoring activities that may be used to evaluate project performance for different water management strategies. The actual monitoring used to R evaluate a project’s performance will be determined on a project-by-project basis. A F
8-7 T Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table 8-1 - Representative List of Monitoring Efforts for Evaluating Project Performance Recreation Recycling Flood Water Supply Ecosystem Water Monitoring Efforts and Public and Management Reliability Restoration Quality Access Reuse
Groundwater Levels X X
Groundwater Quality X X X
Groundwater-Surface X X Water Interaction
Stream flow X X X X X
Surface water quality X X X X X
Stream flow temperature X
Reservoir Levels (storage) X X X X
Reservoir Releases X X X X
Diversions X X
Flow Monitoring X X X X
Sanitary Sewer Inflow X
Recycled Water Deliveries X
Runoff Discharge X
Levee Assessments X
Habitat Measures X X
Riparian Assessments X X
8-8
9 References
2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Marysville District, Final. California Water Service Company, November 10, 2005.
Bookman-Edmonston A Division of GEI Consultants, Inc., 2006. Land Use Planning Approach for Yuba County. Yuba County Water Agency, September 2006.
Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1990. Present and Projected Water Requirements of Districts in Yuba County. Yuba County Water Agency, February 1990.
Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1991. Phase I of Yuba Goldfields Study of Ground Water Management Investigation. Yuba County Water Agency, June 1991.
California Department of Finance, 2004. Study Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail 2000-2050.
Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., 2005. Wheatland General Plan Update, Draft Drainage Report. Yuba County, August 2005.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Beale Air Force Base, June 1987, Amended December 1992.
Draft Wheatland Development Plan Information. Yuba County.
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, 2004. Yuba City General Plan, Adopted Resolution #04-049. Yuba City, April 8, 2004.
East Linda Specific Plan. County of Yuba, Adopted May 14, 1990.
Flood Control Study Team, 2006. Summary Report on Investigations for the Yuba- Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project. Yuba County Water Agency, June 2006.
General Plan – Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation Elements. Yuba County, December 1996.
General Plan. City of Marysville, August 1985.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Linda County Water District, October 18, 2005.
9-1 Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, May 2007. Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Master Plan. City of Yuba City.
Marysville Housing Element 2003 – 2008. May 23, 2005.
Mead & Hunt, 2005. External Source Flood Protection Plan, Draft. City of Wheatland, October 20, 2005.
Mead & Hunt, 2005. External Source Flood Protection Plan. City of Wheatland, September 2005.
Mintier & Associates, 2006. General Plan Background Report. City of Wheatland, Adopted July 11, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006. Farmland Classification Rating for Yuba County, California, Woodbury, California. Yuba County, California, February 21, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006. Farmland Classification Rating for Yuba County, California, Arboga, California. Yuba County, California, February 21, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006. Farmland Classification Rating for Yuba County, California, Feather Creek, California. Yuba County, California, February 21, 2006.
Olivehurst Public Utility District, 2004. Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report Public Water System Numbers 5810003 and 5805001.
Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2005. Yuba Highlands Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Yuba County, January 2005.
Project Description for the Woodbury Specific Plan. Yuba County, March 2005.
Raney Planning & Management, 2006. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report. City of Wheatland, Certified July 11, 2006
Research Associates, 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Arboga Study Area (NASA), Master Environmental Assessment and Constraints Analysis. County of Yuba, July 29, 1992.
Richard Floch & Associates, et. al., 1992. Plumas Lake Specific Plan. Yuba County Department of Planning and Building Services, October 1992.
9-2 References
Richard Floch and Associates, 1995. Olivehurst Avenue Specific Plan. Yuba County Planning Department, December 1995.
Standard Land Use Legend. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, July 1993.
Strategic Plan 2005. Yuba County, 2005.
Summary of Groundwater Basin Conditions. Yuba County, August 2005.
Terrance E. Lowell & Associates, Inc., 2003. River Highlands Community Services District Water Availability for Yuba Highlands Specific Plan. Yuba County, November 12, 2003.
Terrance E. Lowell & Associates, Inc., 2005. General Plan Update, Master Water Plan Technical Report, Draft. City of Wheatland, September 28, 2005.
Terrance E. Lowell & Associates, Inc., 2005. General Plan Update Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Technical Report, Draft. City of Wheatland, July 22, 2005.
The Benham Group, 1999. Housing Community Plan. Beale Air Force Base, California, and Headquarters Air Combat Command, 1999.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005. Amended Draft Lower Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study. State of California Department of Water Resources, Revised February 17, 2005.
Urban Water Management Plan. City of Yuba City, 2005.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Linda County Water District, February 2, 2007.
Yuba County Community Development Department Internet Files.
Draft Yuba County Parks Master Plan. February 2008.
Yuba County Water Agency Groundwater Management Plan. Yuba County, March 2005.
Yuba Foothills Associates, LLC, 2004. Draft Yuba Highlands Specific Plan. Yuba County Planning Department, June 2004.
Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation Internet Files.
9-3
Appendix A Meeting Announcements
A-1
Appendix B Regional Water Management Group Letters
B-1
Appendix C Project Descriptions
C-1
Appendix D Resolutions of Adoption
Adopted Resolutions
YCWA Resolution No. 2008-10 (adopted 2/26/08) Linda County Water District Resolution No. 625 (adopted 3/10/08) Browns Valley Irrigation District No. 08-03-13-01 (adopted 3/13/08) City of Marysville Resolution No. 2008-16 (adopted 3/18/08) Yuba County RCD Resolution No. 002-2008 (adopted 3/18/08) North Yuba Water District Resolution No. 2008-667 (adopted 3/20/08) Olivehurst Public Utilities District (scheduled for adoption April 2008) City of Wheatland Resolution No. 05-08 (adopted 3/25/08) Yuba County Resolution No. 2008-32 (adopted 3/25/08) Reclamation District 784 Resolution No. 2008-04-01 (adopted 4/1/08) City of Yuba City Resolution No. (Draft Resolution included) (adopted 4/1/08)
D-1