United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
March 2021
Prepared for: Reclamation District No. 1500 United States Department of Agriculture / Natural Resources Conservation Service
Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 286 W. Cromwell Avenue Fresno, California 937611 COPYRIGHT 2021 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
Report Prepared for: Reclamation District No. 1500 PO Box 96 Robbins, California 95676 Contact: Brad Mattson, General Manager (530) 738-4423
Report Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Contact: Kevin Johansen, PE ~ Project Manager (559) 449-2700 Table of Contents Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1-1 Watershed Planning Area ...... 1-1 Project Setting ...... 1-2 Current Infrastructure ...... 1-2 Consultation, Coordination and Public Participation ...... 2-1 Sponsors, Local Partners, Agencies and Tribal Participation ...... 2-1 Permits and Compliance ...... 2-3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 3-1 Purpose and Need ...... 3-1 Watershed Problems and Resource Concerns ...... 3-2 Operations Inefficiencies and Flood Management Reliability ...... 3-2 Instream Flow for Fish and Aquatic Habitat ...... 3-3 Risks to Human Health and Safety ...... 3-3 Water Quality ...... 3-4 District Financial Security ...... 3-4 Watershed and Resource Opportunities ...... 3-5 Scope of the EA/EIS ...... 4-1 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions ...... 5-1 Regional Summary...... 5-1 Topography ...... 5-2 Clean Air Act...... 5-3 Climate ...... 5-6 Coastal Zone ...... 5-6 Coral Reefs ...... 5-7 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties ...... 5-7 Environmental Justice ...... 5-7 Fish and Aquatic Species ...... 5-8 Flood Zones ...... 5-8 Geology and Soils ...... 5-9 Invasive Species ...... 5-9 Land Use and Zoning ...... 5-10 Prime Farmland ...... 5-11
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 i Table of Contents Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Public Safety ...... 5-12 Emergency Preparedness ...... 5-12 Evacuation Routes and Emergency Access ...... 5-12 Recreation ...... 5-13 Socioeconomics ...... 5-13 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 5-15 Vegetation ...... 5-16 Visual Resources ...... 5-16 Wetlands and Riparian Areas...... 5-17 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 5-17 Wildlife ...... 5-18 Technical Evaluations ...... 6-1 Project Alternatives...... 7-1 Formulation Process ...... 7-1 Alternatives to be Considered ...... 7-1 No-Action Alternative ...... 7-1 Alternative A – Modernize the existing Karnak Drainage Facilities ...... 7-2 Alternatives to be Considered Containing Concerns ...... 7-2 Alternative B – Capture and Store Drainage Water ...... 7-2 Alternative C – Capture and Store Drainage Water on Farmland ...... 7-3 Alternative D – Construct a Retention Basin with a Smaller Pumping Facility ...... 7-3 Alternative E – Construct a New Pumping Facility at a New Location ...... 7-4 References ...... 8-1
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 ii Table of Contents Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
List of Figures Figure 1-1. Watershed Map ...... 1-4 Figure 1-2. Mutual Water Company Service Areas ...... 1-5 Figure 1-3. Existing Karnak Drainage Facility ...... 1-6 Figure 3-1. 100-Year Storm Event Inundation Map ...... 3-6 Figure 5-1. Regional Vicinity Map...... 5-19 Figure 5-2. Topographic Map ...... 5-20 Figure 5-3. Disadvantaged Communities - Places ...... 5-21 Figure 5-4. Disadvantaged Communities - Tracts ...... 5-22 Figure 5-5. Interim Base Flood Elevation Map ...... 5-23 Figure 5-6. Generalized Soils Map of Watershed ...... 5-24 Figure 5-7. Watershed Crop Map - 2016 ...... 5-25 Figure 5-8. Farmland Designation Map ...... 5-26 Figure 7-1. Inundation Map from 100-year Storm in Sutter Basin without Drainag ...... 7-5 Figure 7-2. Karnak Area of Potential Effect ...... 7-6
List of Tables Table 5-1. FRAQMD Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation...... 5-5 Table 5-2. Sutter County Demographics...... 5-14 Table 5-3. Employment by Industries ...... 5-15
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 iii Acronyms and Abbreviations Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Acronyms and Abbreviations AF ...... acre-feet APE ...... Area of Potential Effect CAAQS ...... California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEMA ...... California Emergency Management Agency Cal-OES...... California Office of Emergency Services Caltrans ...... California Department of Transportation CARB ...... California Air Resources Board CEQA ...... California Environmental Quality Act County ...... Sutter County CDFW ...... California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEMA ...... California Emergency Management Agency CNPS ...... California Native Plant Society CVFPB...... Central Valley Flood Protection Control Board CWA ...... Clean Water Act District ...... Reclamation District - RD 1500 DSOD ...... Division of Safety of Dams DWR ...... Department of Water Resources EA ...... Environmental Assessment EIS ...... Environmental Impact Statement FEMA ...... Federal Emergency Management Agency FIP ...... Federal Implementation Plan FMMP ...... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FRAQMD ...... Feather River Air Quality Management District GIS ...... Geographic Information System GP ...... General Plan hp ...... Horsepower HUC ...... Hydrologic Unit Code MSL ...... Mean Sea Level NAAQS ...... National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA ...... National Environmental Policy Act NHPA ...... National Historic Preservation Act
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 iv Acronyms and Abbreviations Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
NO2 ...... Nitrogen Dioxide NRCS ...... Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP ...... National Register of Historic Places NSVAB ...... Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin NSVPA ...... Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area NOAA ...... National Marine Fisheries Service O3 ...... Ozone OEM ...... Office of Emergency Management Pb ...... Lead PIR ...... Preliminary Ivestigative Report
PM10 ...... particulate matter 10 microns in size
PM2.5 ...... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size PMWC ...... Pelger Mutual Water Company pop ...... population PP1 ...... Pumping Plant 1 PP2 ...... Pumping Plant 2 PP3 ...... Pumping Plant 3 ppb ...... parts per billion ppm ...... parts per million Project ...... RD 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project RD 1500 ...... Reclamation District 1500 RWQCB ...... Regional Water Quality Control Board SHPO ...... (CA) State Historic Preservation Officer SIP ...... State Implementation Plan SLO ...... Sponsoring Local Organization SMWC...... Sutter Mutual Water Company
SO2 ...... Sulfur Dioxide SR ...... State Route SRFCP ...... Sacramento River Flood Control Project SWRCB ...... State Water Resources Control Board USACE ...... United States Army Corps of Engineers USBR ...... United States Bureau of Reclamation USDA ...... United States Department of Agriculture USEPA ...... United States Environmental Protection Agency
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 v Acronyms and Abbreviations Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
USFWS ...... United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ...... United States Geological Survey μg/m3 ...... micrograms per cubic meter VFD ...... Variable Frequency Drive Watershed...... McGriff Lakes-Sutter Basin Watershed Watershed Plan EA/EIS ...... Watershed Plan Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 vi Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Introduction Reclamation District 1500 (RD 1500 or District) has been awarded a Watershed Planning grant by the US Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) to complete initial (Phase I) planning needed to support identification and development of an effective flood management solution within the RD 1500 service area. NRCS funding requirements stipulate that RD 1500 must complete a PL 83-566 Watershed Plan - Environmental Assessment (EA) / Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The project Watershed Plan – EA/EIS will identify and evaluate project alternatives for providing critical flood protection benefits to the RD 1500 service area, identify the preferred alternative, and provide a determination regarding preferred next steps. The identification and evaluation of alternatives, resulting in the selection of the preferred alternative, will be conducted pursuant to NRCS guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service- California (NRCS-CA) will be the Lead Federal Agency for NEPA and RD 1500 will be the lead agency for CEQA.
The NRCS Watershed Planning grant received by RD 1500 will support the development of a Watershed Plan, environmental compliant documents, initiate permitting, develop 30% plans of the preferred alternative, and complete the economic analysis to support the preferred alternative. The Watershed Plan developed during Phase I will serve to support identification and development of an effective flood management solution, and Phase II will serve to complete final design and project construction/implementation once the planning elements of Phase I have been completed and approved by NRCS. Watershed Planning Area
RD 1500 is located in Northern California in Sutter County, within the McGriff Lakes-Sutter Basin sub watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 180201041102), which is part of the Sacramento-Stone Corral watershed (HUC 18020104). The area of interest, the RD 1500 service area, comprises nearly 90% of the McGriff Lakes-Sutter Basin sub watershed. The remaining portion of the watershed includes a portion of the Sutter Bypass and the Sacramento Slough as shown in Figure 1-1. The McGriff Lakes-Sutter Basin sub watershed comprises an area of approximately 75,630 acres, making the District eligible for Watershed Program funding as defined by the Watershed Planning Manual (NRCS 2014).
The watershed is largely an agricultural area, with the largest irrigation water provider being the Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC), which has appropriative water rights and a United States Bureau of Reclamation Settlement Contract on the Sacramento River. SMWC has three diversions on the Sacramento River to deliver irrigation water to approximately 48,000 acres within the District. Another Sacramento River Settlement Contractor located within the District is the Pelger Mutual Water Company (PMWC), which has one diversion from the Sacramento River to serve approximately 2,800 acres. Another approximately 14,000 acres of agricultural land within the District that is located between the Sacramento River and SMWC/PMWC, referred to locally as “Rim Landers”, have individual landowner Sacramento River Settlement Contracts with individual diversions from the Sacramento River. The remaining agricultural lands within the watershed located in the Sutter Bypass
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I have water licenses to provide irrigation water to the land. No surface water is provided for municipal or industrial use within the watershed. The SMWC and PMWC service areas within the watershed are shown in Figure 1-2.
The Sutter County Waterworks District No. 1 provides water and wastewater services to the community of Robbins, the only community located within the District. The water system for Robbins currently operates one active groundwater well, one backup groundwater well and one storage tank that provides the Community’s residents with potable water. The wastewater system currently serving the community is a Septic Tank Effluent Pumping system, treating on average 10 million gallons of wastewater per year using primary and secondary treatment technology. Other residents within the District area rely on privately owned wells for potable water. Project Setting
The RD 1500 Flood Control & Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project (referred to hereafter as “Project”) is located approximately 30 miles northwest of Sacramento in an area of low-lying land protected by levees between the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, commonly known as the Sutter Basin. RD 1500 - one of the largest reclamation districts in California - was created by special act of the State Legislature in 1913 and provides drainage and flood control to an area of approximately 67,850 acres within its service area, including protecting the community of Robbins from flood damage. The area was reclaimed for farming as part of the Sutter Basin Reclamation Project in the early part of the 20th century and is located between the Sacramento River on the west and south and the Sutter Bypass and Feather River on the east. The entire District boundary is leveed to prevent flooding from the nearby river systems, however, during large rainfall events the area acts as a bathtub filling up from precipitation that falls within its boundaries. In addition, seepage from the nearby river systems is captured by the District drainage system and must be removed. The Sutter Basin is a closed basin with no natural outlet because of the extensive levee system, so drainage and flood control must be provided to keep the area de-watered.
The Project is required to prevent damage from floodwater to homes and other property by providing flood protection to the community of Robbins and surrounding rural residential property, protect over 60,000 acres of rural farmland from flooding, and provide flood protection of SR 113 and other local emergency response roadways. SR 113, which bisects the watershed, is a designated emergency evacuation route for over 160,000 residents in the Yuba City-Marysville metropolitan area. Current Infrastructure
Drainage of the District service area is currently provided by the existing Karnak Holding and Drainage Facility located in the southeast corner of the Sutter Basin. The existing Karnak facility consists of three separate pumping plants which discharge collected drainage water to the Sacramento Slough (State Waterbody ID: CAR5192200019980814113208) for ultimate discharge to the Sacramento River, which flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Pumping Plant 1 (PP1) was constructed in 1914 during the development of the Sutter Basin Reclamation Project and consists of six large centrifugal pumps capable of pumping approximately 1,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) out of the Sutter Basin. A second pumping plant, known as Pumping Plant 2 (PP2) and consisting of
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-2 Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
three vertical pumps, was constructed in 1929 but was poorly designed and has never been operated. A third pumping plant, known as Pumping Plant 3 (PP3) and consisting of four vertical pumps capable of pumping approximately 700 cfs, was constructed in 1952 to expand the capacity of the drainage facility and provide the possibility of gravity drainage. All three pumping plants have existing discharge pipes that are installed through the Sutter Bypass levee for discharge to the Sacramento Slough. An aerial view of the existing Karnak Drainage Facility is shown in Figure 1-3.
The existing Karnak facilities have been well maintained but are antiquated and subject to frequent and potentially extended breakdowns due to lack of available parts resulting in increasingly frequent equipment outages and repairs, which greatly impair the existing Karnak Facility from providing its intended purpose of drainage control and flood management in the Sutter Basin.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-3 Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 1-1. Watershed Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-4 Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 1-2. Mutual Water Company Service Areas
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-5 Chapter 1 Introduction Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 1-3. Existing Karnak Drainage Facility
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 1-6 Chapter 2 Consultation and Participation Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Consultation, Coordination and Public Participation
This Preliminary Investigative Report (PIR) was prepared to provide sponsors, agencies and interested parties with information to evaluate further planning, implement the goals and objectives, and aid in securing funding for the Project. This Project development process is designed to work collaboratively with partners, agencies, tribes, and stakeholders so that there is transparency and cooperation towards a solution that fits within the framework of the purpose and need for action (Section 3). During the development of the PIR, Project sponsors conducted public outreach to a diverse list of interested parties. To provide a broad opportunity for stakeholder input into the environmental assessment and flood control plan, RD 1500, with assistance from NRCS, will host several meetings open to the general public to receive input on its plans and designs for the Project. Notices informing the public about the Project will be sent to the stakeholders and interested parties identified in Section 2.1 below. RD 1500 will conduct further comprehensive public scoping at an appropriate and convenient meeting venue for public attendance as part of the preparation of the Watershed Plan-Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement (Watershed Plan-EA/EIS) as described in the Scope of the EA/EIS (Section 4). Sponsors, Local Partners, Agencies and Tribal Participation
Coordination among stakeholders and interested parties, and consultation with potentially affected agencies, is key to developing an appropriate Watershed Plan-EA/EIS and informing the proposed action. The following agencies and individuals will be contacted as part of the Project's public outreach.
For the purpose of the Project, sponsors are the agencies involved in scheduling, facilitating communication, Project design and development, and document writing. The primary sponsor and Sponsoring Local Organization (SLO) for the Project is: · Reclamation District No. 1500 Supporting sponsors for the Project are: · Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Local partners are area entities that have land ownership or a shared resource within the District. Local partners for the Project include: · Community of Robbins Agencies that are, or may be, involved with the Project include State and Federal resource agencies: · United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) · United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) · National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) · United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 2-1 Chapter 2 Consultation and Participation Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I · United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency · United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) · Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) · California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) · California Department of Water Resources (DWR) · Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) - Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District · State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) · Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - Region 5 · California Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) · California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) - District 3 · California Highway Patrol - Woodland office · California Highway Patrol – Yuba-Sutter office · Office of Historic Preservation - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Tribes that will be consulted regarding the Project include: · Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria – Oroville · Mechoopda Indian Tribe – Chico · Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians – Oroville · Pakan'yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley Rancheria – Marysville · United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria · Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation - Brooks Other stakeholders for this Project are any interested parties and the public. These include: · RD 1500 landowners and local residents · California Rice Commission Water Quality Coalition · Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition · Sutter Mutual Water Company · Pelger Mutual Water Company · Sutter County NRCS office · Sutter County Resource Conservation District · Sutter County Historical Society - Museum · Sutter County Supervisor Matt Conant · Sutter County Public Works Department · Sutter County Emergency Operations Management · Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 2-2 Chapter 2 Consultation and Participation Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I · Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) · Winship-Robbins School District · California Assemblyman James Gallagher · California Senator Jim Nielsen · Congressman John Garamendi Permits and Compliance
It is anticipated that this Project would utilize NRCS federal dollars for funding. Therefore, a Watershed Plan-EA/EIS that complies with NEPA is required. The environmental evaluation will be consistent with the guidance provided in the USDA National Watershed Program Handbook and Manual, NRCS Watershed CPA-52. This process will include compliance with all relevant state and federal permits and regulations, which may include any or all of the following: § Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification (managed by CDFW) § Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (managed by SHPO) § Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (managed by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS) § Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (managed by USACE) § Section 401 of the CWA (managed by RWQCB) § CVFPB encroachment permit and a USACE Section 408 permit.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 2-3 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Purpose and Need for Action Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for action of this Project are to prevent damage from floodwater to homes and other property and infrastructure by providing flood protection to the community of Robbins and surrounding rural residential property, flood protection of SR 113 and other local roadways, and flood protection of over 60,000 acres of rural farmland by rehabilitating the existing Karnak Drainage Facility or installing a suitable alternative that provides the same level of protection.
The authorized purposes of this Project are flood prevention and flood damage reduction caused by above average precipitation within the Sutter Basin through facility improvements to control and direct collected drainage water out of the basin and reduce runoff frequency, depth, and velocity of flood waters.
Floods can be catastrophic to an area while burdening a large recovery cost. Additionally, California has more flood years and more drought years on average than any other part of the country and this variability would most likely increase with anticipated climate change (Lund 2019). Flood control maintenance must be reliable and consistent. Replacement of current infrastructure at the Karnak Facility, preliminarily identified as the Project’s Preferred Alternative, would provide reliability and safety to the watershed by reducing the risk of catastrophic flooding and associated damage, now and in the future.
The overall purpose and need of the Project are to alleviate flooding danger and improve reliability of the infrastructure to manage waters within the Sutter Basin Watershed with the overall proposed action to: · Provide reliable and long-term flood management infrastructure; · Prevent future flooding of homes and other infrastructure in the community of Robbins and surrounding rural areas; · Reduce the loss of over 60,000 acres of crops and farmland revenue; · Protect emergency response and evacuation routes, specifically SR 113 that bisects the District, a designated emergency evacuation route for over 160,000 residents in the Yuba City- Marysville metropolitan area; · Avoid potential direct and indirect revenue losses to the regional Sutter Basin economy of up to $300 million annually as a result of: o Loss of crops and/or farm revenue; o Damage to structures and community infrastructure; o Damage to industry and local businesses; o Elimination of evacuation and emergency response routes; o Displacement of people and livestock;
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-1 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
· Maintain beneficial flow for existing fish and wildlife habitat; § Maintain agricultural water drainage on lands that have been drained by gravity and where ponded surface water has been avoided by removal of the water by pumping plants. Watershed Problems and Resource Concerns
Without intervention there is a risk of threats of both drainage and irrigation interruptions to agriculture and other activities in the District and a risk of flood damages to homes and other infrastructure in Robbins and rural areas in the District, as well as a risk of cutting off a primary evacuation route and eliminating emergency access to the community of Robbins and surrounding areas. Failure to deploy the Project could result in up to $300 million in annual direct and indirect revenue losses from the Sutter Basin regional economy in the event of a severe flood event and inability to de-water the basin. Without the Project, there is an elevated and erratic flood hazard that is impacted by both local rainfall and pump function.
Water resource concerns include the potential for ponding and flooding. With no action there is a short-term elevated risk of flood damage and crop damage from drainage and irrigation interruptions because of the antiquated Karnak facility, and a long-term risk of pumps eventually failing resulting in the continued inhabitance and agricultural activity of the area being problematic.
The largest drainage flows discharged at the existing Karnak Facility occur in the winter months of wet years and the majority of pumped water in these winter months is rainwater. Water seeping into the low-lying area from the adjacent river systems also contributes to the drainage flows all year long. Precipitation and drainage discharge data from water year 2017, the second wettest year on record since 1906, indicates a daily base flow even when there is no precipitation and a clear pattern of drainage discharge ramping up during a storm event and dropping down after each storm event. A total of nearly 97,800 acre-feet of water was discharged out of the Sutter Basin by the existing Karnak Facility during the three-month period of January through March 2017.
Operations Inefficiencies and Flood Management Reliability
The existing Karnak Facility is antiquated and subject to frequent and potentially extended breakdowns due to age and lack of available parts resulting in increasingly frequent equipment outages and costly repairs that impair the facility’s ability to provide needed flood management to residents and agricultural lands within the District. The equipment at Karnak PP1 is over 100 years old and even the “modern” PP3 equipment is nearly 70 years old. The existing electrical equipment is totally obsolete and modern electrical and pumping equipment and controls are needed to improve efficiency and reliability of the drainage facility. Operations inefficiencies include: · The facility has been well maintained but no major upgrades have occurred at either pumping plant since they were constructed; · The facilities’ pumps and motors, while still functioning, are subject to increasingly frequent and costly maintenance ($200,000 to $300,000 annually) and increasing downtime for repairs impact the pumping capacity of the facility;
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-2 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
· Pumps and motors are antiquated – replacement parts for the existing equipment are no longer available and must be custom machined, leading to costly repairs and excessive lead times; · Staffing is required 24 hours/day to operate the facility; there are no automatic controls; · There is no backup power system, leaving the system vulnerable to utility outages.
Instream Flow for Fish and Aquatic Habitat
For over 100 years, the Karnak Facility has drained precipitation and seepage water from the low-lying Sutter Basin into the Sacramento River where this water has contributed to the present beneficial use conditions of instream flow for fish and aquatic habitat. Ensuring continued proper drainage of the District would maintain the same type and volume of drainage flows from the Sutter Basin to the Sacramento River as have occurred for over 100 years without disrupting the instream flow for fish and aquatic habitat.
Proper drainage of precipitation and seepage water into the Sacramento River would continue to support instream flows for fish habitat and spawning, including the Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) which is federal- and state-listed as threatened and the Longfin smelt (Spirinshus thaleichthys) which is federally listed as candidate and state-listed as threatened.
Proper drainage would also protect terrestrial habitat from inundated flooding damage thereby protecting: · American Badger (Taxidea taxus), Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), and Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata), which are State species of concern (CDFW). · Brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), which is listed as 1B.2 plants that are rare, threatened or endangered in California. · Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas), which is a federal- and state-listed threatened species. · Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), which is federally listed as threatened.
Risks to Human Health and Safety
Without updating the existing Karnak infrastructure, or developing a suitable alternative, there is a risk of elevated and erratic flood hazards. Antiquated equipment and lack of available parts causing frequent and potentially extended outages greatly impair the Karnak Facility from providing its intended purpose of reliable drainage control and flood management in the Sutter Basin. The Karnak Facility provides flood protection for over 60,000 acres of rural farmland, the entire rural, low-income, and historically underserved community of Robbins, California, and SR 113 which serves as an emergency response route and the primary emergency evacuation route serving 160,000 residents in the Yuba City / Marysville metropolitan area. Modeling has indicated that without drainage provided from the closed basin, a 100-year storm in the Sutter Basin would completely inundate an area of over 20,000 acres around the Robbins area with a volume of approximately 26,500 acre-feet (AF) of stormwater (see Figure 3-1).
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-3 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I The small community of Robbins, a rural historically underserved low-income community, is located along Highway 113 in the center of the District. The Sutter County General Plan (GP) identifies Robbins as a Rural Planned Community with an established boundary and existing public services. The population within this boundary is approximately 323 based on 2010 census data. Robbins includes extensive public and commercial services for a community of its size, along with encompassing a wide variety of land use types including agriculture, industrial, commercial, residential, and public parcels. The community plays a vital role in supporting and sustaining the surrounding agricultural industry. Critical infrastructure in the unincorporated community includes the major State Highway 113, Robbins Elementary School, a post office, Robbins-Sutter Basin Fire Department, several producing natural gas wells, water and wastewater treatment facilities, major agricultural processing, agriculture storage, and agriculture distribution facilities, a farm equipment dealership, major gas and electrical transmission lines, fiber optic communications lines, equipment manufacturing and repair businesses, agricultural aviation services, and a central general store.
The majority of RD 1500’s service area is located in a census tract (49700-06-101-0509.00) that is classified as having a substantially elevated poverty rate (18.9%) in comparison to the national average (11.8%). The local population also includes socially disadvantaged groups including migrant farm workers and laborers. By alleviating a significant flood risk from the area, the Project would greatly reduce potential for disruption to the livelihood of these rural residents. Moreover, the Project would greatly reduce the risk of flooding along SR 113, a designated evacuation route serving the residents of the Yuba City/Marysville area, including low income and disadvantaged communities with a poverty rate of up to 33.4% (i.e., census tract 49700-06-115-0401.00).
Water Quality
A number of water quality monitoring programs are currently in place in the Watershed that include 51 water quality monitoring locations that monitor nutrients, metals, pesticides, and other constituents, along with physical characteristics (https://mywaterway.epa.gov/community/Robbins, California). DWR and the SWRCB monitor discharges into the Sacramento Slough from the existing Karnak Drainage Facility. Water quality in the Sacramento Slough, which also receives drainage water from Butte Creek and the Sutter Bypass, is monitored by DWR, SWRCB and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) California Water Science Center. In addition, landowners within the District enrolled in the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program are members of either the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition or the California Rice Commission Water Quality Coalition, depending on the crop that is grown. These Coalitions assist landowners with management practices and conduct an extensive water quality monitoring program. The Project’s Preferred Alternative, replacement of current infrastructure at the Karnak Facility, would not change discharges out of the Basin and no changes to existing water quality monitoring programs are proposed.
District Financial Security
The RD 1500 Board of Directors has made the decision that providing adequate drainage to the Sutter Basin, most likely through modernization and continued operation of the existing Karnak Drainage Facility, is the number one priority for funding. District operations are currently financed through landowner assessments. In addition to pursuing NRCS Watershed Program funding for a portion of the Project capital cost, the District is evaluating other grant and loan opportunities. The District has
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-4 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I several options to fund matching requirements of future grants, including District assessments, low- interest loans, and bond financing. While the District does have the authority to raise assessments to cover matching fund requirements and any loan payments, the District would need to obtain landowner approval through a Proposition 218 election process before additional assessments can be implemented. Watershed and Resource Opportunities
The following is a list of watershed and resource opportunities that would be realized through the implementation of the Project. Quantification of these resource opportunities is provided in other sections of this PIR, or in the Watershed Plan-EA/EIS or its supporting documents, as appropriate. § Provide reliable and efficient drainage control and flood management. § Minimize the potential for injury and loss of property associated with flooding. § Reduce the maintenance involved in operating the drainage system. § Reduce District operating costs. § Reduce energy costs by using modern electrical and pumping equipment. § Maintaining steam flow, water quality, and habitat conditions in the Sacramento Slough and the Sacramento River. § Agricultural viability in the area depends on maintaining the current level of flood control and management. Modernizing and improving the reliability of the existing drainage facility will help ensure continued adequate flood control and management into the future. § Enhance environmental justice – residents and workers (including low-income farm- and farm-industry workers and the community of Robbins which is a census district with much below average per capita wealth and income) in RD 1500 are vulnerable to flood hazards and economic disruptions if the Karnak pumps fail at critical periods.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-5 Chapter 3 Purpose and Need for Action Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 3-1. 100-Year Storm Event Inundation Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 3-6 Chapter 4 Scope of the EA/EIS Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Scope of the EA/EIS
NRCS and the RD 1500 will conduct public scoping as the NEPA review process proceeds. Public scoping will seek input on additional issues of economic, environmental, cultural, and social importance in the watershed. NRCS and RD 1500 will organize agency and public scoping meetings, which will provide an opportunity to review and evaluate the Project alternatives, express concerns, and gain further information. Following the scoping process, a Watershed Plan-EA/EIS will be drafted to determine if the proposed Project meets the program criteria found in Title 390, National Watershed Program Manual, Part 500, Subpart A, Sections 500.3 and 500.4.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 4-1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Affected Environment – Existing Conditions
This section of the PIR presents a high-level overview of the existing environmental setting of the area surrounding the Project. Potential environmental impacts of the Project will be evaluated as part of the Watershed Plan-EA/EIS. Following receipt of public scoping comments on this PIR, a Notice of Preparation will be prepared that identifies whether the NEPA compliant environmental document will be an EA or an EIS. Regional Summary
The Project is located in a rural, intensively farmed landscape within Sutter County in the Sacramento Valley, located in the northern part of California’s Central Valley. The Coast Range mountains and foothills are located to the west while the Sierra Nevada mountains lie to the east. RD 1500 is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River (which also forms the boundary with Yolo County) and on the east by the Sutter Bypass and East Canal (which runs parallel and just west of the Sutter Bypass). The drainage canal in the middle of RD 1500 that collects precipitation and river seepage and directs the drainage water to the existing Karnak Drainage Facility was formerly a portion of the Sacramento Slough. The existing Karnak Drainage Facility de-waters the closed Sutter Basin by discharging water from the drainage canal into the Sacramento Slough, which joins the Sacramento River approximately ½-mile upstream of the confluence of the Feather and Sacramento Rivers. The Sacramento River continues through the City of Sacramento and into Suisun Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Regionally, the existing Karnak Facility is located 30-miles northwest of Sacramento and the Sacramento International Airport lies 7 miles straight south southeast. San Francisco is a 100-mile drive southwest and Lake Tahoe is a 140-mile drive east of the existing Karnak Facility. The Karnak Facility is located 27 miles south of Yuba City / Marysville (metro pop. 164,138, home to the second largest annual parade in the United States, and one of the largest Sikh populations outside of India) and 14 miles northeast of Woodland (pop. 60,548, through which Interstate 5 passes when it jogs east to Sacramento). Locally, the Karnak Facility is 7 miles south of the community of Robbins (pop. 323) and 5 miles east of Knights Landing, (pop. 995), both census-designated disadvantaged places at very low elevation. The regional location of the District is shown in Figure 5-1.
Hydrologically, the District boundary corresponds almost completely with the McGriff Lakes-Sutter Basin sub watershed (HUC 180201041102) and is located in the Sacramento Valley – Sutter Groundwater Basin (DWR Bulletin 118 basin 5-021.62). The District encompasses an area of low- lying reclaimed farmland protected by levees between the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, commonly known as the Sutter Basin. The entire District boundary is leveed to prevent flooding from rain and nearby river systems and has no natural outlet, relying on the need to remove impounded surface and drainage water from the closed basin.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Several important wildlife areas are located near RD 1500. To the north is the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge (2,600 acres), the southern-most of eight units comprising the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex established to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl and help protect and restore riparian habitat. The majority of the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge is located in a portion of the Sutter Bypass located just north of the District, supporting wintering populations of ducks and geese along with other wildlife. To the east of RD 1500 is the Feather River Wildlife Area, an area of approximately 2,800 acres of dense riparian overstory of valley oaks and cottonwoods, with an understory of wild grape, pipevine, and California rose that supports a wide variety of wildlife. To the south of RD 1500 is the Fremont Weir Wildlife Area, a small (1,500 acre) floodway of valley oaks, willows, cottonwoods, brush, and tall weedy vegetation known for fishing and pheasant hunting.
The Knights Landing Historical Landmark is located just outside of the southwest edge of RD 1500 in Yolo County at the site of a mound historically used as a meeting place by Native Americans in the region1. This landmark was a locally important landing and shipping point on the Sacramento River, settled by Dr. William Knight in 1843 and named Knights Landing in 1853.
Roads through RD 1500 include SR 113, which runs generally north-south, Reclamation Road, Cranmore Road, Tisdale Road, and Kirkville Road, as well as a network of smaller county roads. Topography
The watershed area is located in Sutter County just northwest of Sacramento in an area of low-lying land protected by levees between the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, commonly known as the Sutter Basin. According to the United States Census Bureau, Sutter County has a total area of 608 square miles, of which 602 square miles is land and 6.1 square miles (1.0%) is water. It is the fourth-smallest county in California. Some 88 percent of the County is prime farmland and grazing land.
The area is generally flat located in the Sacramento Valley between the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coastal Mountain Range to the west. Sutter County is also the home to the Sutter Buttes, known as the "World's Smallest Mountain Range." This volcanic formation is the only volcano within the valley2 and provides topographic relief to the otherwise seemingly flat Sacramento Valley.
Bordered by the Sacramento River on the west and the Feather River on the east, Sutter County has 240 miles of levees. The Sutter Bypass, which diverts flood waters from the Sacramento River, cuts through the heart of Sutter County. The Feather River is the principal tributary of the Sacramento River. The main stem Feather River begins in Lake Oroville, where the South Fork, Middle Fork, North Fork, and West Branch of the Feather Rivers join together. The main stem of the Feather River is about 73 miles long. Its length to its most distant headwater tributary is just over 210 miles. These and other tributaries flow from part of the northern Sierra Nevada, and the extreme southern Cascades, as well as a small portion of the Sacramento Valley. The total drainage basin is about 6,200 square miles.
1 https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=84133 2 United States Geological Survey. Sutter Buttes – The Lone Volcano in California’s Great Valley https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3024/fs2011-3024.pdf
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-2 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I The Sacramento River is the principal river of Northern California and is the largest river in California. Rising in the Klamath Mountains near Mount Shasta, the river flows south for nearly 400 miles before reaching the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and ultimately flows into the San Francisco Bay. The river runs through 19 California counties and provides 35 percent of the State’s developed water supply. The river helps support the valley’s millions of acres of irrigated agriculture and is home to wildlife and a range of aquatic species. The Sacramento River drains the inland slopes of the Klamath Mountains, the Cascade Range, the Coast Range, and the western slopes of the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The Tisdale Weir, located along the northern boundary of the District, is a critical component of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (SRFCP). The primary purpose of the weir is to release overflow waters of the Sacramento River into the Sutter Bypass via the Tisdale Bypass. It is one of five major overflow weirs in the SRFCP, and during Sacramento River flood events, it is typically the first to overflow and continues to spill for the longest duration. The conveyance capacity of the Sacramento River upstream of the Tisdale Weir is significantly larger than the capacity downstream of the weir. When river flow exceeds the conveyance capacity downstream of the Tisdale Weir, more than half of the floodwaters are diverted from the river over the weir and into the bypass system.
The Sutter Bypass is a leveed channel of the Lower Sacramento Valley Flood-Control System along the southwest portion of the Sutter Basin. The bypass allows channeling of escapement flow from the Tisdale Weir as well as receiving similar Sacramento River escapement flow from the Colusa Weir, and the Snake River, Gilsizer Slough, Wadsworth Canal, and other west side watercourses of the Lower Feather Watershed that also drain to the Feather River via the Sutter Bypass. The bypass includes 3.24 square miles of the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, which is part of California's approximate 5 square miles Sutter Bypass Wildlife Area.
The watershed area is comprised of low-lying lands surrounded by levees with the Sacramento River on the west and south, the Tisdale Bypass on the north and the Sutter Bypass on the east. The water level in the adjacent rivers is higher than much of the land in the District. The general topography of the District is shown in Figure 5-2. The community of Robbins is located at an elevation of 23 feet above sea level and Knights Landing is located at 36 feet above sea level. Clean Air Act
The watershed lies within the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB) and is managed by Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD). The Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA) includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba counties. The NSVAB is synonymous with the NSVPA. These counties comprise the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley and are bounded on the north and west by the Coastal Mountain Range and on the east by the southern portion of the Cascade Mountain Range and the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. These mountain ranges reach heights in excess of 6,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL), with individual peaks rising much higher. The mountains provide a substantial barrier to both locally created pollution and the pollution that has been transported northward on prevailing winds from the Broader Sacramento Area. The NSVAB is shaped like an elongated bowl. Temperature inversion layers can act as a lid on the bowl, allowing air pollution to rise to unhealthy levels Although
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-3 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I a significant area of the NSVPA is at elevations higher than 1,000 feet above MSL, the vast majority of its populace lives and works below that elevation.3.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.
Air quality plans or attainment plans are used to bring the applicable air basin into attainment with all state and federal ambient air quality standards designed to protect the health and safety of residents within that air basin. Areas are classified under the federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment”, “nonattainment”, or “extreme nonattainment” areas for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the State standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). As illustrated in Error! Reference source not found., the southern Sutter County portion of FRAQMD is designated as a State nonattainment area and a federal nonattainment area for O3, a State and federal attainment area for PM2.5, a State nonattainment area and federal attainment area for PM10, a State and federal attainment area for NO2 and SO2, and State attainment area for CO, sulfates, and lead.
Federal Clean Air Act: The CAA required the USEPA to establish NAAQS and set deadlines for attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions.
The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise the SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by the jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.
California Clean Air Act: The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for ozone, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a five-percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.
3 Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2018 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan. Microsoft Word - 2018 Triennial AQAP approved BCC 12-7-18_Final Draft_7_26_18 (airquality.org). Accessed February 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-4 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Table 5-1. FRAQMD Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation FRAQMD Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation California Standards National Standards Averaging Pollutant Attainment Attainment Time Concentration* Primary Status Status
1-hour 0.09 ppm –
South Sutter – Severe-15 Nonattainment Ozone Non- Attainment (1997 & 2008 (O3) NAAQS); Moderate Nonattainment 8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (2015 NAAQS) Sutter Buttes – Marginal Nonattainment (2015 NAAQS) Remainder of FRAQMD – Attainment Respirable AAM 20 μg/m3 – Particulate Matter Non-Attainment Attainment 3 3 (PM10) 24-hour 50 μg/m 150 μg/m AAM 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 Yuba City- Marysville NAA – Fine Particulate Maintenance Attainment Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3 Remainder of Yuba County – Attainment 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Attainment – (CO) 8-hour 6 ppm – (Lake Tahoe) Nitrogen Dioxide AAM 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Attainment Attainment (NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb AAM – 0.03 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Attainment Attainment (SO2) 3-hour – -- 1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-5 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
FRAQMD Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation California Standards National Standards Averaging Pollutant Attainment Attainment Time Concentration* Primary Status Status 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 – Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3 Lead Attainment – Rolling 3-Month – 0.15 μg/m3 Average Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment 0.03 ppm Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour Unclassified (42 μg/m3) 0.01 ppm Vinyl Chloride 24-hour – (26 μg/m3) Extinction coefficient: 0.23/km- No Federal Standards visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07-30 Visibility-Reducing 8-hour miles or more for Unclassified Particle Matter Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70%. Source: ARB 2016; FRAQMD 2016. Available online at https://www.fraqmd.org/air-quality-information Accessed 19 February 2021.
Climate
The watershed area, located in the San Joaquin Valley, experiences a Mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification of Csa). Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.
The watershed is located within Sutter County and typically experiences little to no rainfall for the entire duration of summer. The amount of rain received in the winter, however, can be vary between the valley and foothills of Sutter County. The annual rainfall ranges from 15.9 inches in rainfall to up to 82.1 inches of snowfall. Sutter County receives an average of 22 inches of rain per year. Temperatures are somewhat more consistent throughout the summer than winter. The hottest summers are in the lower end of the foothills, where the average high in July is 96.4° F. Coastal Zone
This watershed area is not located in a designated coastal zone.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-6 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Coral Reefs
The watershed area is not located in or near coral reefs or associated water bodies. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
The Project must meet requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires that every federal agency consider the effects of its undertakings on Historic Properties. In addition to federal requirements, the Project must also meet regulatory requirements regarding cultural resources within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Historical background research and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area resulted in the identification of five potential cultural resources including the Karnak Drainage Facility, a historic bridge, and segments of the East Levee, District canals, and the East Canal. The existing Karnak Drainage Facility consists of three pump houses constructed between 1914 and 1952 and associated structures, infrastructure, and equipment. The facility has been evaluated and appears eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The bridge, two canals, and levee have not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP. Once the final Project design and Project area have been defined, the unevaluated cultural resources would be evaluated for possible inclusion in the NRHP and any unavoidable Project impacts to Historic Properties would be determined. NRCS, as the lead federal agency, will complete consultation with the SHPO for effects to Historic Properties and to determine mitigation measures for effects that cannot be avoided. Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income in respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies4. This includes the access to the same protections from environmental and health hazards for everyone within a community. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment5 the watershed area is located in an area that falls in the 60th-70th percentile for pollution, with a burden rate percentile of 56. This shows that the pollution for the area, as well as the burden that the pollution causes is above the State’s average. In addition, Sutter County has a poverty rate that is at 16%, while the state average is at 14.3%. The Sutter County unemployment rate is also higher at 5.6% pre-COVID-19, while the state average was 4.0%. According to the California Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool6, the communities of Robbins which is 6.5 miles away from the Project area, and Knight’s Landing which is 3.5 miles away, are both disadvantaged communities regarding water quality, planning, and distribution. The Project purpose is to protect the community of Robbins from an extreme flood event that would result in a complete flooding of the entire community. The Project would also protect over 60,000 acres of farmland in the District from being spoiled due to an extreme flood event, directly impacting landowners and workers (including low-income farm-workers and farm-industry workers) and causing
4 Environmental Justice | US EPA. Accessed February 2021. 5 Maps & Data | OEHHA (ca.gov). Accessed February 2021. 6 DAC Mapping Tool (ca.gov). Accessed February 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-7 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I third-party indirect impacts to support industries. As a result, the Project would improve environmental justice in the area by improving the reliability of drainage management and flood control. The Disadvantaged Places in the watershed area is shown in Figure 5-3 and the Disadvantaged Tracts is shown in Figure 5-4, indicating the entire Project area is considered a Disadvantage Community. Fish and Aquatic Species
Fish that are accustomed to warm water may occupy the canal habitat in the area. Species such as white crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), black crappie Pomoxis annularis), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis micrlophus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) may forage within the canal habitat. The foregoing is a representative (but by no means a comprehensive) list of the warm water species that may be present in canal habitat from time to time. Amphibians likely utilizing the canal habitat would include species such as American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), Sierra tree frog, western toad, and others. The presence of various fish and amphibian species would attract reptile species such as Pacific gartersnake, valley gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi), and northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). The aquatic canal habitat would also likely be used by a variety of water birds. Pied-billed grebes (Podilymbus podiceps) and American coots (Fulica americana), to name a couple, may forage within the canal habitat. Some aquatic mammal species would also likely forage within the canal habitat, including muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), North American river otters (Lontra canadensis), and North American beaver (Castor canadensis).
Fish species likely to occur within the slough habitat when the water levels are lower would include similar species found in the canal habitat. Fish accustomed to more temperate waters are less likely to venture into Sacramento Slough. Spring and fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) migrate up the Sacramento River past Sacramento Slough to spawning habitat further upstream. As adults, it is possible that they would stray out of the main river channel into the Slough. Much the same could be said for Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). During outmigration smolts (juvenile salmon and steelhead) might forage in Sacramento Slough on the way to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta during this migratory period, which peaks in spring (March-April), but only as long as water temperatures are sufficiently cool for these species. While water temperatures between 55o and 65o F are optimal for these species, temperatures above 71o Fahrenheit are lethal. Since water temperatures in Sacramento Slough are most likely to be too warm for these species during late summer and early fall, it is unlikely that smolts would be present in the slough at that time. Flood Zones
California State law requires counties to make Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard of flood protection (100-year flood protection) findings prior to approval of a discretionary permit for a project or a ministerial permit for a new residence that is located in a flood hazard area mapped as either a special flood hazard area or an area of moderate hazard (Zone X) on FEMA’s official Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the National Flood Insurance Program. Because the District is protected by levees from a 100-year storm event, the current FEMA-FIRMs show the area of the Robbins (or Sutter) Basin as falling within Zone X for which no Base Flood Elevations (BFE),
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-8 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I or 100-year flood elevations, are established by FEMA. Sutter County has established a BFE for the area in order to make 100-year flood protection findings prior to permit approval in the area. The BFE established by Sutter County for the Robbins (or Sutter) Basin is 41.0’ NGVD 29 (43.0’ NAVD 88). See Figure 5-5 for the Interim Base Flood Elevation Map adopted by Sutter County. The Sacramento Slough and the Sutter Bypass to the east of the District, a portion of which is in the Watershed, is designated by FEMA as Zone AE. Geology and Soils
The Sutter Basin is a 264 square mile area of the Sacramento Valley. Within the Sutter Basin, lies the Sutter Buttes. The Sutter Buttes are a small circular complex of eroded volcanic lava domes which rise as buttes above the flat plains of the Sacramento Valley in Sutter County, Northern California. Eruptions at the Sutter Buttes occurred in the early Pleistocene time, approximately 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. They are situated outside Yuba City in the northern part of the California Central Valley. The highest point is the summit of South Butte, at 2,122 ft, which is also the highest point in Sutter County. The remaining area is used as fertile farm and agricultural lands. The Central Valley is dominated by alluvial deposition due to its development as a tectonically subsiding structure. The Sacramento, San Joaquin and other rivers have had little role in creating the valley but do transport and deposit sediments in the valley. Alluvial sediments are found throughout the valley and are of various ages, with older alluvium found in high terraces and more recent deposits closer to present sea level.
The NRCS has mapped over 37 individual soil units within the Watershed Plan area. The predominant soil series in the area are the Clear Lake, Shanghai, and Capay which account for over 73 percent of the total land area. The remaining soil units each account for smaller percentages of the total land area and include Bryington, Oswald, Columbia and Holillipah. A general soils map of the Watershed is shown in Figure 5-6. Invasive Species
Noxious weeds are plant species that are non-native to an area and quickly reproduce to displace native vegetation. Noxious weeds located on rivers in the Sacramento area include the barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Italian thistle (Carduus pychnocephalus), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), rush skeleton weed (Chondrilla njuncea), Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius), French broom (Genista monspessulana), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) to name a few. Lands in the watershed area are mostly agricultural and go through processes such as discing that deter the growth of weeds. In addition to plants, animals can be designated as an invasive species. The Sacramento-Yuba-Sutter area has been exposed to the Yellow Fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti), Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), and the Australian backyard mosquito (Aedes notoscriptus). These mosquito species can transmit Yellow Fever, Dengue, Chikungunya, and Zika viruses and can infect both animals and humans. The Sutter-Yuba Mosquito & Vector Control District is implementing an intensive response plan, aimed at eradicating the invasive mosquito population.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-9 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Land Use and Zoning
Sutter County is rural in nature and zoned primarily for agriculture with significant natural and recreational resources, and relatively low population density. Exceptions are land uses within the two incorporated cities of Yuba City and Live Oak that contain the bulk of the urban-type land uses within the county, such as residences, commercial and industrial uses, parks, and public facilities. The unincorporated area of the County includes several rural communities including: Meridian, Sutter, Robbins, Rio Oso, Trowbridge, Nicolaus, Pleasant Grove, and East Nicolaus
The dominant land use in Sutter County is agriculture uses at 86%, followed by open space at 12%, with the remaining land uses made up of urban and residential development at 2%7. The majority of the agricultural land is located in the unincorporated areas of the county outside of the boundaries of the unincorporated rural communities of Meridian, Sutter, Robbins, Nicolaus, East Nicolaus, Trowbridge, and Rio Oso. Although the majority of land use is agriculture, the second-most prominent land use is open space. A key open space area within the region is Sutter Buttes, a privately owned area that includes 40,000 acres of open space which is often referred to as the world’s smallest mountain range and is a symbolic focal point of the county. Other open space areas include the Sutter Bypass, a major flood control canal running through the center of the county from north to south, and Butte Sink, which is a wetland area subject to annual flooding from the Sacramento River.
The area within the watershed is intensively farmed, with the primary crops being rice and other field crops. Some permanent crops are grown along the western edge. See Figure 5-7 for a 2016 crop map of the watershed. Global warming that could cause temperatures to rise in the county is an area of potential concern for crop yield in the future. Warmer temperatures would result in increased demands on irrigation and could have an impact on the areas current land uses.
The small community of Robbins, a rural historically underserved low-income community, is located along Highway 113 in the center of the District. The Sutter County General Plan (GP) identifies Robbins as a Rural Planned Community with an established boundary and existing public services. The population within this boundary is approximately 323 based on 2010 census data. Robbins includes extensive public and commercial services for a community of its size, along with encompassing a wide variety of land use types including agriculture, industrial, commercial, residential, and public parcels. The community plays a vital role in supporting and sustaining the surrounding agricultural industry. Critical infrastructure in the unincorporated community includes the major State Highway 113, Robbins Elementary School, a post office, Robbins-Sutter Basin Fire Department, several producing natural gas wells, water and wastewater treatment facilities, major agricultural processing, agriculture storage, and agriculture distribution facilities, a farm equipment dealership, major gas and electrical transmission lines, fiber optic communications lines, equipment manufacturing and repair businesses, agricultural aviation services, and a central general store.
7 Sutter County General Plan. 2011. https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/ds/ps/gp/gp_home
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-10 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Prime Farmland
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.
The California Department of Conservation 2012 FMMP program is a non-regulatory program that produces "Important Farmland" maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land – rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each of the land use categories is summarized below8: § Prime Farmland: Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. § Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. § Unique Farmland: Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non- irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. § Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. § Grazing Land: Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. § Urban and Built-up Land: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. § Other Land: Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
8 Department of Conservation Map Server (ca.gov). Accessed February 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-11 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
§ Water: Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres. The watershed area is located in a rural, agricultural area. The area is found in California’s Central Valley, one of the largest producers of agricultural products not only in California, but the world. The RD 1500 Karnak facility protects over 60,000 acres of farmland in the watershed from floodwaters. The FMMP mapping tool shows that the watershed area has the majority of land designated as “prime farmland”, along with some land designated as “unique farmland”, “farmland of Statewide importance”, and as “other land”. See Figure 5-8 for a map indicating the farmland designation within the Watershed, which is predominately comprised of Prime Farmland. Public Safety
Emergency Preparedness
The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) of Sutter County provides oversight for emergencies such as floods, wildfires, and severe weather. The OEM is responsible for planning, and response and recovery activities associated with natural and man-made emergencies and disasters throughout the County. They also work and coordinate with other local agencies such as the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) and FEMA.
Sutter County utilizes three emergency activation phases in its flood warning system: Planning and Preparation Phase, Ready for Action Phase and Emergency Phase. In the Planning and Preparation Phase, if the river has poured over the banks of the main channel, then the government assumes a readiness condition. The Ready for Action Phase provides all those in the affected area an Advisory Evacuation Notice or Mandatory Evacuation Order to be given at any time. The Mandatory Evacuation Phase is ordered when conditions exist that seriously endanger lives.
Sutter County has experienced major flooding 15 times during the 20th Century. The Sacramento, Feather, and Bear Rivers, flowing along the boundaries of Sutter County, are subject to heavy runoff from the mountains surrounding the Sacramento Valley and have all flooded in the past. The Sutter bypass was built to be a floodwater relief channel through the center of Sutter County. .9 The existing Karnak Facility was built to keep the area de-watered and provide flood protection to over 60,000 acres of prime farmland, protect the community of Robbins and surrounding areas, and protect vital infrastructure. Without upgrades to the Karnak Facility or a project alternative that provides an equivalent level of protection, flooding would continue to be an ever-present danger for the residents nearby.
Evacuation Routes and Emergency Access
SR 113, which bisects the District, is designated as an emergency evacuation route for the 160,000 residents in the Yuba City-Marysville metropolitan area. As shown in Figure 3-1, in the event of a 100-year storm and drainage was not provided by the Karnak Facility, or a project alternative that provides an equivalent level of protection, portions of SR 113 through the community of Robbins
9 Sutter County Flood Protection Fact Sheet. https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/ds/pw/wr/fp/fpfacts Accessed February 5, 2021
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-12 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I would be under 2-3 feet of water, cutting off the designated evacuation route and other emergency access routes, potentially endangering the lives of residents in the District as well as those located north of the District that would use SR 113 as an evacuation route.
The importance of keeping evacuation routes open and clear was recently demonstrated in February 2017 when Oroville Dam’s main and emergency spillways were damaged, prompting the evacuation of more than 180,000 people living downstream. Heavy rainfall in early 2017 caused water levels in Oroville Lake, located approximately 50 miles north-northeast of the District, to rise to a point that water started flowing over the main spillway, which soon failed. Reducing the flow over the main spillway caused water to soon begin flowing over the emergency spillway, which began to erode and concerns arose that continued erosion of the emergency spillway could undermine and collapse the concrete weir on the dam, which would have released a wall of water into the Feather River below and flooded communities downstream. No collapse occurred, but evacuation was ordered for those in low-lying areas along the Feather River Basin in Butte, Yuba and Sutter counties because of the concern that the emergency spillway may collapse. Many of the evacuees headed south toward Sacramento and Woodland and utilized SR 113 as an escape route.
At the same time, in January and February 2017, the existing Karnak Facility discharged over 40,000 acre-feet of water each month out of the Sutter Basin. If drainage service had not been provided by the Karnak Facility and the water remained in the closed Sutter Basin, this amount of water would have completely flooded the community of Robbins and cut-off vital evacuation and emergency access routes when they were critically needed. Recreation
There are no public recreational amenities within the District. Privately owned properties and agricultural lands also do not lend themselves to public recreational uses.
The nearest city owned park to the Project area can be found in Woodland 10 miles to the southwest. While much of the land surrounding the watershed area is used for agriculture, there are also areas left as open space such as the Fremont Weir State Wildlife Area 1.5 miles south of the existing Karnak Facility. The closest recreational area is the Verona Marina and the nearby Verona Village River Resort located at the confluence of the Feather River and the Sacramento River. These facilities allow visitors to use the river for boating and fishing, while also providing overnight camping. The listed activities include motor boating, kayaking, canoeing, and fishing, with areas for tents, recreational vehicles, and trailers. The site has showers and restroom facilities, picnic areas, trails, boat dock, and a Verona Village market. During periods of rainy weather when the Karnak facility is actively pumping a larger amount of water than normal the river may experience higher flows. However, this would have little impact on the recreational activities downstream of Project facilities. Socioeconomics
Shown on Table 5-3 below, the population of Sutter County is primarily made up of residents who identify as White alone, Hispanic, or Latino, or Asian alone.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-13 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Table 5-2. Sutter County Demographics Race and Hispanic Origin Data Total Population 95,872 Hispanic or Latino of any race 30.6% Hispanic Exclusive Race: - White Alone 46.7% Black or African American alone 1.9% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.7% Asian alone 15.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.4% Some other race alone 0.2% Two or more races 4.3% NOTE:10Information provided by the 2020 Census
The Sutter County population in 2010 was 94,806 and increased to 95,872 in 2020 an increase of 1,066 persons over a span of 10-years. This increase in population results in a growth of 1.12% for the Sutter County in the last decade. The three largest racial groups within Sutter County are White alone11 at 46.7%, Hispanic or Latino alone at 30.6%, and Asian alone at 15.2%. In comparison the three largest racial groups in the State of California are White alone at 36.6%, Hispanic or Latino at 39.3%, and Asian alone at 14.5%. This shows that Sutter County has a less diverse Hispanic or Latino population than the state average by nearly 10%.
The poverty rate of Sutter County is 16%, while the state average is 14.3% according to 2018 numbers provided by DataUSA.io12. As of 2019, the County had an unemployment rate of 5.6% for individuals over the age of 15, which is 0.6% higher than the natural rate of unemployment. In comparison, the State had a record low unemployment rate in 2019 of 4%. The latest unemployment data available is from November 2020 at a rate of 8.6%. The County experienced a huge spike in unemployment in April 2020, all the way up to a rate of 18.2% as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic and has steadily been recovering in the months that followed. While there has been an increase in the burden on the Sutter County communities as a result of the rapid spike in unemployment during the Pandemic, this is not a typical baseline representation of overall unemployment rates. Therefore, COVID-19 unemployment rates were not analyzed as part of this Preliminary Investigative Report document. The State of California Department of Finance estimates that Sutter county would reach a population of 157,991 people by the year 2060.
Sutter County’s main economic driving force is the agricultural industry. In 2019 the industry produced $698,680,000 worth of agriculture products according to the 2019 Sutter County Crop Report13. This was an incline of 14.7% from the previous year. The top export from the County includes Inshell/Shelled walnuts and various seeds. The County also produces crops such as wheat, rice, corn, beans, and tomatoes. The top industries found within the County in addition to agriculture include: Healthcare and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Manufacturing. Sutter County has a land mass of 600 miles, of which 88% is used as prime farming or grazing lands.
10 US Census Bureau. Accessed January 2021. 11 Alone = identifying with a single race. 12 Sutter County, CA | Data USA. Accessed January 2021. 13 2019_Crop_Report.pdf (suttercounty.org). Accessed January 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-14 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Only 3% of the entire County is considered urbanized. Table 5-3 below provides a summary of the employment percentage that each industry in the county provides to the Sutter County workforce.
Table 5-3. Employment by Industries Industry Data Total Population 40,641 Healthcare and Social Assistance 12.8% Retail Trade 12.3% Agriculture 10.7% Educational Services 8.95% Manufacturing 7.44% Construction 7.42% Accommodation and Food Services 7.22% Public Administration 6.05% Transportation and Warehousing 4.69% Other (Except Public Administration) 3.98% Administrative and Support and Waste Management Services 3.83% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 3.6% Wholesale Trade 3.29% Finance and Insurance 2.31% Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing 1.54% Information 0.89% NOTE: 14 According to DataUSA.io Threatened and Endangered Species
Several species of plants and animals within the State of California have low populations and/or limited distributions. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. State and federal laws have provided the CDFW and USFWS with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as candidates for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2021) was queried for special status species occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and immediately surrounding the Watershed area (Knights Landing, Woodland, Eldorado Bend, Kirkville, Sutter Causeway, Nicolaus, Verona, Taylor Monument, and Grays Bend). The species that have the potential to occur in this area are listed below. Sources of information for this list included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988), The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021), Calflora.org, and eBird.org.
14 Sutter County, CA | Data USA. Accessed January 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-15 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Potential Special Status Species Occurring with the Watershed Plan Area § Wooly rose-mallow (Hibiscus lasiocarpus var. occidentalis) § Green sturgeon (Southern DPS; Acipenser medirotris) § White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) § Chinook salmon (Central Valley spring-run ESU; Oncorhynchus tshawytsha) § Steelhead (Central Valley DPS; Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) § Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) § Longfin smelt (Spirnchus thaleichthys) § Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) § Giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) § Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) § Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) § Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) § Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) § Northern harrier (Circus cyanus) § White-tailed kite (Elanus caueruleus) § American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) § Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) § Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) § Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) § Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) § Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) § Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) Vegetation
Sutter County encompasses approximately 389,000 acres within the Sacramento Valley. Historically, the natural habitats within the County included perennial grasslands, riparian woodlands, oak woodlands, and a variety of wetlands including vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, freshwater marshes, ponds, streams and rivers. Over the last 150 years, development for agriculture, irrigation, flood control and urbanization has resulted in the alteration or loss of much of the historical habitat within the County with an increase in non-native vegetation growth. The Sutter Buttes contains the largest expanses of relatively undisturbed habitat in the County. Plant species found here are diverse, and include some endemic, and/or special status species. Visual Resources
Visual resources within Sutter County include a variety of elements and viewsheds such as the Sutter Buttes; the Feather, Sacramento, and Bear rivers; and the valley’s orchards and agricultural landscape, all of which contribute to the unique character of Sutter County. The California State Scenic Roadways Program, established in 1963 by the State legislature, identifies key roadways in California that contribute to the state’s scenic resources by providing viewsheds with aesthetic value. There are no officially recognized scenic roadways in Sutter County; however, many
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-16 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I of the rural country roads offer unobstructed views of surrounding mountain ranges, expansive agricultural land, and miles of orchards. Besides the visual characteristics of the agricultural lands and natural rivers the main visual resources in Sutter County is the Sutter Buttes. Approximately 75 square miles in size, the Sutter Buttes is a remnant volcano with a peak elevation of 2,000 feet above the surrounding valley floor. Close to the vast open farmland, the Sutter Buttes create a dramatic landmark that is visible throughout the County. Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Sutter County is bordered by the Sacramento River on the west and the Feather River on the east, and is bisected on its north/south axis by the Sutter Bypass. These rivers and connecting tributaries and other waterways cover approximately 5,000 acres within Sutter County. These waters can give way to wetland type habitates that contribute to numerous varieties of plants and animals including some special-status species such as the Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, herons and egrets, steelhead, Chinook salmon, Sacramento perch , and green sturgeon. Riparian woodland and scrub habitats are generally associated with rivers, low gradient streams, floodplains and occasionally ponds and canals. The composition of species in riparian woodland communities is highly variable and dependent on location, elevation, substrate, and amount of flow in the watercourse. Approximately 9,500 acres of riparian habitat occurs in Sutter County. The largest expanses of riparian vegetation occur along the Sacramento, Feather and Bear rivers, the Sutter Bypass, with smaller patches along the numerous tributaries to these waters. The vegetation of the riparian woodland habitat includes valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), willow (Salix spp.) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). Typical understory includes box elder (Acer negundo), button willow (Cephalanthus occidentalis), California buckeye (Aesculus californicus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), California grape (Vitis californicus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). The herbaceous species occurring in the understory includes seashore vervain (Verbena litoralis), bedstraw (Galium spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), umbrella sedges (Cyperus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), and a variety of non-native annual grasses. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The watershed area has two rivers nearby: Feather River and the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River is located on the western and southern sides of the District and the Feather River is located to the northeast and joins the Sacramento River flowing southward. These rivers provide people with the opportunity for many recreational uses. While these two rivers are large and serve a large population of people and are used by wildlife, neither are officially designated as a wild and scenic river15.
15 California (rivers.gov). Accessed February 2021.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-17 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Wildlife
Due to extensive disturbance, ruderal/developed lands provide marginal habitat for amphibians and reptiles, however, Pacific tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla) and California toads (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus) may disperse through these lands during the winter and spring and common reptiles such as the Pacific gartersnake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) may also disperse through these lands in route to aquatic habitats. The presence of various insects may lure lizards such as California alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata), northwestern fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis occidentalis), and western kink (Plestiodon skiltonianus) to forage and possibly reside in this habitat.
With the exception of the ornamental trees around residences, ruderal/developed lands also provide marginal habitat for a number of avian species. Common resident species likely to forage in these lands include the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and mixed flocks of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Summer migrants that would be expected to forage near or within the Watershed Plan area include the western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and expected winter migrants include the savannah sparrow (Passerella sandwichensis) and American pipit (Anthus rubescens).
A few mammal species may also occur within the ruderal /developed lands of the Watershed Plan area such as deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and house mice (Mus musculus), would occur within and around the buildings and farm equipment. Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) may burrow within and adjacent to the lawns adjacent to the residents. Various species of bat would forage over the ruderal/developed lands and may roost within the buildings, bridges, tree, and rock crevasses.
The presence of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals is likely to attract foraging raptors and mammalian predators. Raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) would likely forage over the developed/ruderal lands from time to time. Mammalian predators occurring in this habitat would be limited to disturbance-tolerant species such as the raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and coyote (Canis latrans). The species listed above would likely also occur within the slough habitat.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-18 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-1. Regional Vicinity Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-19 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-2. Topographic Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-20 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-3. Disadvantaged Communities - Places
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-21 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-4. Disadvantaged Communities - Tracts
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-22 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-5. Interim Base Flood Elevation Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-23 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-6. Generalized Soils Map of Watershed
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-24 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-7. Watershed Crop Map - 2016
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-25 Chapter 5 Affected Environment – Existing Conditions Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 5-8. Farmland Designation Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 5-26 Chapter 6 Technical Evaluations Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Technical Evaluations
A number of studies and technical evaluations pertaining the Project are in process and were used to provide technical background for this PIR and will be further utilized as the Watershed Plan-EA/EIS is developed for the District. Relevant documents that will be incorporated into the Watershed Plan- EA/EIS include:
§ Cultural Resources Report § Biological Resources Evaluation § Aquatic Resources Delineation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 6-1 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Project Alternatives Formulation Process In order to determine the most viable alternatives to provide reliable flood prevention and flood damage reduction caused by above average precipitation and river seepage within the Sutter Basin, RD 1500 and those who rely on the existing Karnak site for flood water management protection, along with NRCS, are in the process of evaluating the current state of infrastructure at the facility, and potential environmental impacts that could arise from each proposed solution. Although the Project has identified 6 different flood management alternatives, some are considered to be infeasible or more costly than others, although some alternatives described are still being evaluated. The Project alternatives presented below are being provided to the public during a public review period to receive input on the following alternatives to be considered. Project alternatives with the least concerns and that appear to be the most viable are described in Section 7.2 below. Alternatives that will be considered but are deficient with implementation feasibility or are not consistent with the Project’s purpose and need, are discussed in Section 7.3 below. Each of the Project alternatives will be further described in the Watershed Plan EA/EIS and justification will be provided for selection of the preferred alternative after considering input from the public. Alternatives to be Considered
No-Action Alternative
§ Continue to use the antiquated Karnak pumping facility and repair as needed until total failure occurs. § As replacement parts become harder and harder to get, eventually parts will not be available to repair the facility and pumping capacity will be reduced until pumping facility is no longer able to pump the required volume of water to protect the Basin from flood damages.
Under the No Action alternative, the existing Karnak facility would continue to be used but reliability of the facility will further decrease until complete failure occurs and the facility would not be able to perform it’s intended purpose of providing reliable flood management. While a No Action alternative would result in no impacts to the environment, this option is not a desirable solution as it does not address the long-term flooding and drainage impacts for the area and those residents who would be affected. This option would result in waiting for the facility to fail that may cause catastrophic impacts to the people and farmland within the floodplain. The potential impacts during a 100-year storm event if drainage is not provided are shown in Figure 7-1. Without intervention there is a risk of threats of both drainage and irrigation interruptions to agriculture and other activities within RD 1500 and a risk of flood damage to homes and other infrastructure in Robbins and surrounding rural areas, as well as a risk of cutting off a primary evacuation route and eliminating emergency access to the community of Robbins and surrounding areas. With no action there is a short-term elevated risk of flood damage and crop damage from drainage and irrigation interruptions because of the antiquated Karnak facility, and a long-term risk of pumps eventually failing resulting in the continued inhabitance and agricultural activity of the area being problematic.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-1 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I Alternative A – Modernize the existing Karnak Drainage Facilities
One of the main alternatives that is being evaluated is the overhaul and modernization of the existing Karnak facilities, leveraging, to the extent possible, the existing facilities available at the Karnak site that RD 1500 already owns. To the extent practicable, RD 1500 will seek to re-use existing on-site facilities to minimize cost of the final project. Improvements at Karnak would likely include some combination of the items listed below. Moreover, by completing an upgrade to an existing facility, rather than developing a greenfield site, RD 1500 will substantially reduce the project’s environmental footprint and its permitting burden, saving time, mitigation fees, and implementation costs. Various modernization options would be considered to determine the most feasible and cost-effective option to modernize the existing Karnak Facility, including some combination of the following: § Replacement of some of the existing pumps and motors with new energy efficient pumping equipment. § Increase pumping capacity to provide some redundancy and better reliability to respond to potential increased rainfall events in the future from climate change. § Upgrade or replacement of the existing pump station buildings and structures. § Flood protect pumping facilities. § Rehabilitate the existing discharge facilities in the levee. § Replace the entire electrical service. § Install modernized SCADA and controls. § Install variable frequency drives on some pumping units to provide a wider range of flowrate management. § Provide a backup power supply to provide for resilient operation in the event of utility company power outages. Updating the Karnak facility to current infrastructure standards is the preliminarily identified preferred alternative. This alternative would result in a Project that would include the highest economic benefit while providing assured flood management protection for the areas that rely upon the facility. In addition, this option would result in the lowest environmental impact outside of the no action alternative. As a result, this alternative is the most feasible and addresses all aspects of the purpose and need for the project. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for modernizing the existing Karnak Facility is shown in Figure 7-2. Alternatives to be Considered Containing Concerns
Alternative B – Capture and Store Drainage Water
§ Construct several District owned retention basins. § Store at least 100,000 acre-feet (AF) of water based on recent experience in 2017 o Large basins would be needed to store water for several months due to low percolation rates in the area. o If the basin had a 10-foot basin water depth, this would result in the need for at least 10,000 acres of basins.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-2 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
§ Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) takes jurisdiction over basin levees that exceed 6 feet of height. § Pump stations would be required to lift water and/or remove water from each basin. § Water that did not percolate would need to be pumped out to empty the basins prior to the next winter season. § Would remove a significant amount of farm land out of production, upwards of 10,000 acres, causing a long-term economic impact. § Would require greater equipment use and expense, and additional extensive environmental review than Alternative A.
This alternative does not completely resolve the problem of ridding the area of flood water. While the water would be placed somewhere else and away the Community of Robbins, numerous ponds would be required resulting in a large area of farmland being converted into basins and the water would just be stored and not solve the problem of needing to remove the water from the closed Sutter Basin. This is a costly solution and likely to be determined as infeasible.
Alternative C – Capture and Store Drainage Water on Farmland
§ Construct small levees around farm fields to allow storage of drainage water. § Require numerous pumps to lift the drainage water onto identified farmlands since the water would collect in the main drain in the lowest portion of the District. § Requires large amount of infrastructure such as piping or canals to get the water to the farmlands. § If water was stored to a depth of 3 feet, would require flooding over 30,000 acres to store 100,000 AF, removing over half of the District acreage from agricultural production. This would be a short-term but catastrophic economic impact to the region.
The amount of land required to implement this alternative is greater than Alternative B putting three times as much farmland out of service and significant infrastructure would be required to implement this alternative. All the issue discussed in Alternative B still apply in not solving the problem of de- watering the area, and this alternative would likely have significant socioeconomic impacts. This is a costly solution and likely to be determined as infeasible.
Alternative D – Construct a Retention Basin with a Smaller Pumping Facility
§ Construct a District owned retention basin and construct a new smaller Karnak pumping facility. § The retention basin would be used to shave off the peak flow from a rain event by storing and then releasing water in a more uniform manner for discharge by a smaller pumping facility. § Ideally the basin would be excavated to allow gravity drainage in, but conditions in the area likely do not allow for significant excavation. § Pump station would be required to lift or remove water from the basin. § DSOD takes jurisdiction over basin levees that exceed 6 feet. § The required size of the retention basin would depend on the pumping capacity of the new discharge facility.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-3 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
o If the discharge capacity of the new facility was assumed to be 1,000 cfs or approximately 2,000 AF a day, and the water depth in the basin was assumed to be 10 feet deep, then approximately 300 acres of land would be needed for the basin based on recent experience in 2017. § Construct a new Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) controlled pumping facility at the Karnak site, likely by removing the existing PP3 pumping plant and building a new facility in the same location to utilize the existing PP3 discharge pipes and maintaining gravity drainage option. § Would require significant infrastructure and additional environmental review.
This alternative would construct a basin adjacent to the main drain to collect high flow water that would be released over time for discharge by a smaller facility at the existing Karnak site to remove water from the Sutter Basin. This solution would utilize existing drainage system infrastructure but would result in less regulated flow and more coordination than Alternative A. In addition, constructing a new basin may change the aesthetics of the area, would require additional environmental review, and could be a less viable option economically.
Alternative E – Construct a New Pumping Facility at a New Location
§ Construct a new facility capable of pumping 2,200 cfs. § Require rerouting the drainage flows to send water to a new pumping facility. o Required to be located in an area adjacent to the river or slough for discharge. o Topography may not be favorable at new site (Karnak facility is at the location of the historic slough). § Would remove farmland out of production to re-route the drainage channel and for the pumping facility. § Construction at a new location would bypass recently updated debris screen used to remove debris before reaching the existing Karnak facility. § Would require significant environmental review. § Require extensive levee work for installation of discharge pipes, especially to provide for gravity drainage. Alternative E would reroute the existing main drain south and require construction of a new pumping facility. This option would require additional environmental review and permitting, and is a more costly alternative than Alternative A.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-4 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 7-1. Inundation Map from 100-year Storm in Sutter Basin without Drainag
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-5 Chapter 7 Project Alternatives Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I
Figure 7-2. Karnak Area of Potential Effect
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 7-6 Chapter 8 References Preliminary Investigative Report for the Reclamation District No. 1500 Flood Control and Flood Safety Rehabilitation Project – Phase I References Agriculture, C. D. (2019). Sutter County Crop and Livestock Report 2019. Retrieved from Sutter County Crop and Livestock Report 2019: https://www.suttercounty.org/assets/pdf/ag/CropReports/2019_Crop_Report.pdf Data USA Sutter County, California. (2021). Data USA Sutter County, California. Retrieved from Data USA Sutter County, California: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/sutter-county-ca/#economy Sutter County California. (2021). Sutter County California Emergency Management. Retrieved from Sutter County California Emergency Management: https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/cao/em/cs_es_home Sutter County California. (2021). Sutter County Flood Preparedness Robbins Basin Sacramento River Flood Stages. Retrieved from Sutter County Flood Preparedness Robbins Basin Sacramento River Flood Stages: https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/cao/em/flooding/cs_flooding_robbins_stag es Sutter County, California. (2021). Sutter County California. Retrieved from Emergency Management Menu: https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/cao/em/cs_flooding United States Census Bureau Sutter County, California. (2021). United States Census Bureau Sutter County, California. Retrieved from United States Census Bureau Sutter County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Services. (2021). Web Soil Survey Sutter County. Retrieved from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ United States Fish and Wildlife Services. (2021). Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Retrieved from https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8d bfb77 United States Geological Survey . (2011). Sutter Buttes - The Lone Volcano in California's Great Valley. Retrieved from Sutter Buttes - The Lone Volcano in California's Great Valley: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3024/fs2011-3024.pdf
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · March 2021 8-1