Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-26 Packet - SpecialCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 26, 2007 4:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Adoption of the Ordinance Amending the Portions of Division 3, Chapters 1 and 2 of the Ukiah City Code, Pertaining to the Adoption of the Building Codes and the Amendments Thereof 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM) a. Continue Public Hearing on Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update and Possible Adoption of Plan 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion and Possible Input to the County in Response to the Revised Ukiah Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Request for Authorization for the Installation of Video Cameras at the Corporation Yard and Purchase of a Recording Device from AT&T b. Discussion and Action Regarding Request from Mendocino Transit Authority for Committee Member 7. CLOSED SESSION -Closed Session may be held at any time during or before the meeting a. Labor Negotiations Miscellaneous Unit (§ 54856.6) Negotiator: Candace Horsley, City Manager 8. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 20th day of November, 2007. Linda C. Brown, City Clerk v ITEM N0: 2a DATE: November 26, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PORTIONS OF DIVISION 3, CHAPTERS 1 AND 2 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BUILDING CODES AND THE AMENDMENTS THEREOF. SUMMARY: On October 17, 2007, the City Council unanimously introduced an ordinance amending the City Code provisions related to Building and Fire regulations. On November 7, 2007 the City Council adopted the Fire Code provisions with amendments and reintroduced the ordinance amending the adoption of the remainder of the California Codes with amendments which excluded section 3013 relating to adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code. This was done to provide more time for reviewing the International Property Maintenance Code and allow adoption at a later time without holding up the adoption of the remainder of the Codes. The purpose of this agenda item is for the Council to formally adopt the ordinance excluding the International Property Maintenance Code. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the ordinances amending the City code relating to the triennial code adoption process for Building. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not adopt the ordinance and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: David Willoughby, Building Inspector Prepared by: David Willoughby, Building Inspector Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney; Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Attachments: 1. Ordinance for adoption for Building Codes APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Man er Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING PORTIONS OF DIVISION 3, CHAPTERS 1 AND 2 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BUILDING CODES AND AMENDMENTS THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE. Ukiah City Code Sections 3000 - 3013, 3015 - 3016, 3030, 3040, 3051, 3071, 3074 - 3076 and 3079 being part of Division 3, Chapters 1 and 2, of the Ukiah City Code, are hereby amended or repealed as follows. § 3000: ADOPTION OF MODEL CODES: Except as amended or modified by other provisions of this Division, the City Council hereby adopts by reference and makes effective within the City, the following: the versions of the Model codes and specific appendices, as listed and defined in Sections 3001 through 3010 of this Chapter, which have been adopted by the State of California within title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as they are adopted, amended, or repealed from time to time pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with section 17910) including the California Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Elevator Safety Construction Code, California Historical Building Code, California Existing Building Code, and the California Referenced Standards Code. § 3001: CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: The term "California Administrative Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Administrative Code" with the year of the edition designated. § 3002: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE: The term "California Building Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Building Code" including the following appendices: Chapter 1 (Administration), H (Signs) and J (Grading) with the year of the edition designated. § 3003: CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE: The term "California Electrical Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Electrical Code" with the year of the edition designated. § 3004: CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE: The term "California Mechanical Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Mechanical Code" including the following appendices: Chapter 1 (administration), A (Uniform Mechanical Codes Standards) and B (Procedures to be followed to place Gas Equipment in Operation) with the year of the edition designated. § 3005: CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE: The term "California Plumbing Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Plumbing Code" including the following appendices: Chapter 1 (Administration), A (Recommended Rules for Sizing the Water Supply System), B (Explanatory Notes on Combination Waste and Vent Systems), D (Sizing Storm water Drainage Systems), E (Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks and Recreational Vehicle Parks), I (Installation Standards), K (Private Sewage Disposal Systems) with the year of the edition designated. § 3006: CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE: The term "California Energy Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Energy Code" including Appendix 1-A with the year of the edition designated. § 3007: CALIFORNIA ELEVATOR SAFETY CONSTRUCTION CODE: The term "California Elevator Safety Construction Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Elevator Safety Construction Code" with the year of the edition designated. § 3008: CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE: The term "California Historical Building Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Historical Building Code" including Appendix A with the year of the edition designated. 2 § 3009: CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE APPENDIX CHAPTER A1: The term "California Existing Building Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Existing Building Code Appendix Chapter Al"with the year of the edition designated. § 3010: CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE: The term "California Referenced Standards Code" as used in this Chapter shall mean the publication published by the California Building Standards Commission entitled "California Referenced Standards Code" with the year of the edition designated. § 3011: JURISDICTION: The term "Jurisdiction" or "This Jurisdiction" as used in any of the model codes herein adopted shall mean the City of Ukiah. § 3012: ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY: The term "Administrative Authority" as used in any of the model codes herein adopted shall mean the Building Official of the City. § 3015: EXCLUSION: The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any project under the control and jurisdiction of the City of Ukiah, the County of Mendocino, the State of California or the United States unless, and to the extent, the contract or specifications for a particular project specifies compliance with this Chapter or any of the model codes adopted herein. § 3016: MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE: A. The section of the California Building Code, relating to applications for building permits is modified to require in an application to demolish a building, the date when the building was first constructed, if known. The terms "demolish" or "demolition," as used in this section, shall mean (1) the tearing down of all or part of a building or (2) the cumulative alteration of a building pursuant to one or more building permits issued over a five year period, where 50% or more of the structural or exterior components of the building are removed or replaced. The review required by this section shall occur with the application for the permit that (1) results in the tearing down of all or part of the building or (2) authorizes the cumulative alteration of the building that equals or exceeds the specified percentage. B. The section of the California Building Code, relating to the issuance of a building permit, is modified to require that, as to buildings constructed fifty (50) years or more prior to the date of application, the Director of Planning or his/her designee shall determine whether: 1. The building is an accessory building such as, but not limited to, a garage, storage shed, or carport, whether attached or detached to a main building; except that certain accessory buildings, such as carriage houses, which are presumed to have historic or architectural significance shall be subject to further review as provided in subsection D of this Section, unless the building is subject to demolition under subsection 62 of this Section. 2. Immediate demolition of the building is necessary to protect the public health or safety and the failure to immediately demolish the building would constitute a serious threat to the public health or safety. C. If subsection B1 or B2 of this Section applies to the building, no further review shall be required under this Section and the permit shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code. D. If the Planning Director finds that neither of the exceptions in subsection B1 or B2 of this Section applies to the building, a building permit to demolish a building shall be subject to further review in accordance with this Section. The Planning Director shall transmit the proposal to the Demolition Review Committee, or other official reviewing body established by the City Council, for review, comment, and a recommendation to the City Council. Once the Demolition Review Committee formulates a recommendation concerning the disposition of the proposed permit, the Planning Director shall schedule and duly notice the matter for a public hearing and decision by the City Council. The public noticing shall indicate the day, time, place, and purpose of the public hearing, and how additional information about the subject matter can be obtained. The public noticing shall be accomplished in the following manner: 1. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 2. Mailing or delivery at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the owner(s) of the subject property, or his/her agent, and to the project applicant, if the applicant is not the owner. 4 3. First class mail notice to all owners (as shown on the latest available Mendocino County Tax Assessor's equalized assessment roll) of property within three hundred feet (300') of the subject property. E. In reviewing proposed permits, and formulating recommendations to the City Council, the Demolition Review Committee shall consider any information provided during the meeting, and shall use the following criteria. The structure: 1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or 2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or 3. Is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history. F. If the Demolition Review Committee finds that any of the criteria listed in subsection E of this Section apply to the building proposed for demolition, it shall recommend denial of the permit to the City. G. 1. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to subsection D of this Section to consider the recommendation of the Demolition Review Committee, and to determine if any of the criteria listed in subsection E of this Section applies to the building proposed for demolition. If the City Council determines that any one of the criteria applies, it shall make a corresponding finding to that effect. 2. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present evidence that a viable market does not exist for the building, taking into account the condition of the building, the probable cost to put the building into marketable condition, and the uses of the property allowed under existing or probable future zoning regulations. The City Council shall consider such evidence offered by the applicant and any other information presented at the meeting by any interested party or by staff, to determine whether or not a viable market exists. "Viable market" means that it is reasonably likely that the building could be sold within a commercially reasonable period of time for more than the seller would be required to invest in the purchase of the property and preparing the property for sale, or that the property could produce a reasonable return on the amount of money it would take to purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes. "Reasonable return" means the average rate of return on real estate investments in the Ukiah Valley. 3. If the City Council determines that a viable market exists: a. It shall so notify the Building Official who shall not issue the permit. The City Council shall determine whether a viable market exists based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or, it may assume that a viable market exists, if the applicant fails to present substantial evidence that a viable market does not exist; b. Not more than once within any twelve (12) month period, the applicant may submit a new application for a permit and the City Council may reconsider whether a viable market exists: (1) Upon a showing by the applicant that market conditions have changed; or (2) Based upon new information that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the applicant could not have produced at the first hearing. 4. If the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, that a viable market does not exist, the issuance of the permit shall be stayed for a period of ninety (90) days. a. During that ninety (90) day period, the City shall do the following: (1) Determine whether other alternatives to demolition exist, which are acceptable to the applicant, that would preserve the historic, architectural or cultural significance of the building; (2) Determine whether funds are available from any private source for the acquisition and preservation of the building through a negotiated purchase on terms acceptable to the applicant; or (3) If sufficient funds are available from any private source and a negotiated purchase is not possible, determine whether to acquire the building through eminent domain. b. If within the ninety (90) days, the City does not reach agreement with the applicant or commence acquisition of the building, the Building Official may issue the permit in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code. 6 c. If within the ninety (90) day period, the City either: 1) reaches agreement with the applicant or 2) commences acquisition of the building, the Building Official shall not issue the permit. d. However, the Building Official shall continue to process the application for the permit in accordance with the California Building Code, if the City and the applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or abandons acquisition of the building. e. The City Manager or his/her designee shall inform the Building Official whenever the City and the applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or abandons acquisition of the building. f. If the Building Official has issued a permit under this subsection and the permittee applies to extend the permit an additional one hundred eighty (180) days in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Building Code then in effect, the Building Official shall refer the application to the City Manager for an initial determination as to whether market conditions have changed. The City Manager shall make the determination within ten (10) days after the application is referred by the Building Official. If the City Manager determines that market conditions may have changed and that a viable market may exist for the property, he or she shall schedule the matter for a hearing before the City Council to be noticed and conducted in accordance with subsections D and G of this Section. However, at the hearing the City shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that market conditions have changed and a viable market exists. If the City Manager determines that market conditions have not changed, he or she shall so notify the Building Official and the applicant. Upon such notification, the Building Official shall further process the application to extend the term of the permit in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code then in effect. If the City Council conducts a hearing upon referral by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall provide written notification to the Building Official and the applicant of the City Council decision. If the City Council decides that a viable market exists, the Building Official shall not issue the permit, but the provisions of subsection Gab of this Section shall apply. If the City Council decides that a viable market does not exist, the Building Official immediately shall proceed to further process the application in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Building Code then in effect. 5. "Diligently pursue acquisition" means taking all steps within the time required by law to acquire the building by eminent domain. 6. References to "applicant" herein shall include the building owner. H. The Planning Director shall provide a written notice of the City Council determination to the applicant. The written notification shall be mailed or hand delivered within five (5) days from the date of the City Council's decision. The notice shall include the finding(s) and decision made by the City Council and a copy of this Section. I. The applicant for a permit for a building determined to have historic, architectural or cultural significance shall salvage the building materials for reuse to the maximum extent feasible, and shall ensure that upon completion of the demolition, the site is left in a safe, presentable, and clutter free condition. J. Reconsideration of Decisions: 1. Grounds For Reconsideration: The City Council may reconsider a decision under this Section within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the decision was made, if information that may have materially affected the decision was: a) misrepresented by the applicant, or b) not disclosed by the applicant, if the applicant knew or should have known that the information may have affected the City Council decision. "Information" as used herein means matters of fact or law. A decision may not be reconsidered, if all three (3) of the following have occurred. The permit: a) has been issued, b) did not at the time it was issued violate any provision of the California Building Code, as adopted by the City, or any other City ordinance or State or Federal law, and c) the permittee has commenced demolition in good faith reliance on the permit. 2. Procedure on Reconsideration: Reconsideration of a decision under this Section may be placed on the agenda for a regular City Council meeting by any member of the City Council who voted in favor of the original decision. Notice of any meeting where reconsideration is on the agenda shall be provided in accordance with subsection D of this Section. If already issued, the permit shall be suspended from the date that an eligible City Council member requests that the matter be placed on the agenda and until the City Council makes a final decision upon reconsideration. The Building Official shall notify the applicant in writing of the permit suspension. At the meeting, the City Council shall determine, based on evidence provided to the City prior to or during the meeting, whether reconsideration is permitted under subsection J1 of this Section. Any motion to reconsider the decision shall contain findings supported by substantial evidence. If upon reconsideration the City Council makes a different decision, the City Clerk shall provide notice of that decision to the Building Official and the applicant/permittee within five (5) working days after the decision is made. If, upon reconsideration, the City Council determines that a building has historic, architectural, or cultural significance, and the Building Official has issued a permit based on the previous decision, the Building Official shall revoke the permit. If 8 the previously issued permit has expired, the Building Official shall deny an application for a new permit, unless the permit is issued in accordance with subsection G4 of this Section. § 3030: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE APPENDIX CHAPTER 1 SECTION 105.5 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void unless a required inspection is received and signed off within 180 days after its issuance or within 180 days of the last received and signed off inspection. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing by the permittee prior to the permit expiration and justifiable cause demonstrated. If a permit expires, the permittee may apply to reinstate the permit, subject to a fee established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. § 3040: REPEALED § 3051: REPEALED § 3071: PROVISIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 8875-8875.5: The provisions of this Chapter are intended to establish minimum standards for structural seismic resistance as provided in the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code While compliance with these standards is intended to improve the performance of potentially hazardous buildings in an earthquake, such compliance will not necessarily prevent the loss of life or injury or prevent earthquake-related damage to rehabilitated buildings. This Chapter does not address buildings that contain only non-bearing masonry walls or buildings constructed of non-masonry materials. § 3074: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply: A. "Potentially hazardous building" -shall mean any building constructed prior to the adoption by the city of Ukiah of the California Building Code provisions requiring earthquake-resistant design of buildings and constructed of unreinforced masonry bearing walls. B. "Unreinforced masonry bearing wall" -shall mean a masonry wall having all of the following characteristics: 1. Provides the vertical support for a floor or roof. 2. The total superimposed load is over 100 pounds per linear foot. 3. The area of reinforcing steel is less than fifty percent (50%) of that required by the California Building Code for reinforced masonry. C. "Owner" -shall mean the owner of real property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll maintained by the Mendocino County Assessor. § 3075: ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE AND THE CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE: The structural provisions of the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code, as they read on the effective date of this ordinance and as they are amended from time to time, together with any exclusions and modifications set forth in this Chapter, are hereby adopted by reference and shall apply to all potentially hazardous buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls. All such buildings must comply with the structural provisions of said code and the recommendations contained in the Earthquake Safety Reports required by §3077 of this Code in accordance with a Compliance Schedule that shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon adoption of said resolution, the City shall notify by regular first class mail the owners of all potentially hazardous buildings. § 3076: ESTABLISHMENT OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS LIST: The City Building Official or his designate shall systematically compile and maintain a list of all potentially hazardous buildings constructed with unreinforced masonry bearing walls ("Potentially Hazardous Buildings List"). The owners of all buildings placed on the list shall be notified by regular first class mail that their buildings have been included on the list. Once a building is designated as potentially hazardous and is included on the Potentially Hazardous Buildings List, the building owner or agent thereof shall: A. File with the City Building Official a written engineering survey and evaluation ("Earthquake Safety Report") subject to the approval of the Building Official within a time period not to exceed two (2) years from the date of notification pursuant to this Section. The Earthquake Safety Report shall be obtained by the property owner and conducted by a civil or structural engineer or 10 architect licensed by the State of California who is knowledgeable in earthquake resistant design. The Earthquake Safety Report shall determine the feasibility of rehabilitating the building to meet, at a minimum, the structural standards of the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code, including a description of the buildings ability to resist seismic activity and a reasonably detailed description of the changes recommended by the engineer or architect to improve the ability of the building to resist damage in an earthquake and, at a minimum, to meet the structural standards of the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code. The report must contain sufficient factual detail and engineering analysis to allow independent review and evaluation by a competent professional. B. Until made to comply with the provisions of the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code adopted in this Chapter, post an 8" x 10" minimum sign in a conspicuous location in or on the building which is in public view at all times. The sign shall have the first two words of the following statement printed in 50-point bold type and the remaining words in at least 30- point type. The text shall read as follows: "EARTHQUAKE WARNING this is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake." If the Earthquake Safety Report concludes that a building is so hazardous that it cannot be feasibly rehabilitated to meet the standards of the California Existing Building Code and the California Historical Building Code, abatement proceedings shall be initiated to require demolition of the building as provided in §§3300-3310 of this Code, and thereafter the building shall be removed from the Potentially Hazardous Buildings List. § 3079: APPEAL: Any owner dissatisfied with a determination under this Chapter, including the Compliance Schedule affecting his or her property or the inclusion of the owner's building on the Potentially Hazardous Buildings List shall have the right to appeal that decision to the City Council or, in the City Council's discretion, to the Board of Appeals established under the California Building Code. A. The owner must file a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days of the date when the notice of decision appealed from is deposited in the U.S. Mail or personally delivered to the owner. B. The City Council or Board of Appeals must render its decision within sixty (60) days of the date when the written notice of appeal is filed with the city clerk. 11 C. The appellant shall have the right to appear personally and be represented at a hearing on the appeal of which the appellant must be given ten (10) days' prior written notice. After conducting the hearing, the City Council or Board shall render a decision in writing which shall be based on the evidence and argument received during the hearing. The decision shall be final for the City and there shall be no right to request reconsideration. SECTION TWO. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2008. Within fifteen days after its adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. In lieu of publishing the full text of the Ordinance, the City may publish a summary of the Ordinance once 5 days prior to its adoption and again within 15 days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on , 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Adopted on , 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mari Rodin, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Brown, City Clerk 12 ITEM NO: 4a MEETING DATE: November 26. 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) UPDATE AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF PLAN SUMMARY: The public hearing on the draft Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was commenced on October 17, 2007, and continued to November 7, 2007. At that meeting, the City Council formed a subcommittee composed of Mayor Rodin and Council member McCowen to work with staff on additional revisions to the draft plan, and continued the hearing to this meeting. The subcommittee has reviewed the draft plan and met to review proposed changes with staff. The revised draft was posted to the City's website on November 20, 2007, and tracks the changes from the previous version dated November 7, 2007. (A copy is attached as Attachment 1.) The revisions proposed by the subcommittee were intended to correct typographical or Continued page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conclude the public hearing and adopt the resolution (Attachment 4) adopting the revised update to the City's Urban Water Management Plan. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Continue the public hearing, receive additional public comment, and continue the hearing to provide additional information or revisions prior to acting on the plan. Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: City Attorney Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Mayor Mari Rodin and Councilmember John McCowen, Candace Horsley, City Manager, Tim Banyai, Brown and Caldwell, Robert C. Wagner, Wagner and Bonsignore, Gary Weatherford, Ann Burck, Charley Stump Attachments: Attachment 1-Revised draft UWMP Attachment 2- Draft Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment Attachment 3- Letter from Bob Wagner re: draft Assessment Attachment 4- Resolution Approving UWMP Update Approved: Candace Horsley, City Qanager Agenda Summary Report Page 2 November 26, 2007, City Council meeting The revisions proposed by the subcommittee were intended to correct typographical or grammatical errors and to further clarify the plan, particularly with reference to surface and groundwater. The subcommittee observed that the plan's references to surface water, groundwater, underflow, and percolating groundwater were still confusing, because none of the City's water sources divert directly from surface water and the City's water rights permit allows the City to divert from underflow of the Russian River. The plan is revised at pages ES- 1 and 5, 2-6 (§2.3.1), 2-7 (§2.3.2), and 3-3 to 3-5 (§3.2.1) to explain that the Ranney Collector and Well Nos. 3 and 5 have been determined by the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") to pump from groundwater that is under the direct influence of surface water pursuant to 22 CCR §64651.10 of the California Water Works Standards, primarily because the turbidity in these sources fluctuates with the turbidity in the Russian River. Accordingly, they are classified as surface water sources in the UWMP, even though they divert water from Russian River underflow and may also be considered groundwater sources. These sections also explain that Well No. 4 has been accepted as a groundwater well (not directly influenced by the Russian River) which pumps from percolating groundwater. Percolating groundwater is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the State Water Board. The distinction between percolating groundwater and water flowing in a definite channel (either above or below ground) determines whether or not the State Water Board has jurisdiction. Because the Ranney Collector and Well Nos. 3 and 5 pump groundwater that flows in a definite channel, the City requires a water rights permit to extract water from those sources. It would still require the permit, even if the CDPH had not determined for water quality regulation purposes that they are under the direct influence of the Russian River. Finally, the revisions explain that the future groundwater wells which the City intends to develop may be subject to the Water Board's permitting jurisdiction, if it is determined that they are pumping from groundwater which flows in a definite channel ("underflow'"), in which case they will have to be added as additional points of diversion under the City's water rights permit and water pumped from them will be reported as diversions under the City's permit. If they are determined to be percolating groundwater, they will not have to be added to the City's permit. On November 13, 2007, the City received a draft Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment from the California Department of Health, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch. (A copy of the draft Assessment is attached as Attachment 2.) The cover letter accompanying the draft requests comments/corrections from the City by December 14, 2007. If the City Council approves the UWMP, the City can submit the adopted report to the Department to assist it in finalizing the Assessment. A number of the statements in the draft Assessment are based on information in the draft UWMP update. As a result of revisions in the draft UWMP, leading to an adopted UWMP, those statements will have to be revised. In addition, the City Attorney asked Bob Wagner to respond to several Agenda Summary Report Page 3 November 26, 2007, City Council meeting statements in the draft Assessment about Eel River Diversions and Ukiah Valley groundwater, which statements rely on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS) prepared for the proposed changes to the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project FERC license. Mr. Wagner's letter is Attachment 3. The letter points out statements in the Assessment that should be clarified. For example, the Assessment says that the FEIS predicts that the reduced Eel River diversions will result in "...significant shortfalls (average monthly flows less than minimum in-stream flow requirements) for 2 months of the year currently and increasing to 5 months under future 2020 conditions." Mr. Wagner points out that this statement in the FEIS refers to 2 or 5 months out of the 21 years (or 252 months) modeled; not 2 or 5 months of every year. This is made clear in the text of the FEIS describing the other alternatives (see FEIS, p. 4-16, 4-22, 4-39). The Assessment should be revised to make clear that the shortfall predicted occurs only in severe drought conditions which have occurred once in the years modeled. Mr. Wagner also points out that the modeling of the water levels in Lake Mendocino reported in the FEIS and the modeling reported in Section 3.10 of the UWMP (now contained in Appendix H) are very similar. Mr. Wagner attaches to his letter a graph that traces out the lake content modeling as contained in Section 3.10 and as modeled in the FEIS to illustrate how close the two models are. Mr. Wagner also responds to the statement in the Assessment that the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin has a usable capacity of 35,000 AF, which is recharged annually, and a safe yield of 10,000 AF. These figures come out of the DEIS which references a 1983 DWR study also cited by Mr. Wagner in the UWMP along with a 2004 update of that study and an earlier 1965 study. Mr. Wagner points out that the 1983 study concludes that the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin will store 35,000 AF within the first 50 feet, but it has a capacity of 90,000 AF within a depth of 100 feet, as stated in the City's UWMP. He also points out that the DWR study does not describe a safe yield of the aquifer. The DEIS does not provide a reference for the 10,000 AF safe yield figure. None of the sources known to Mr. Wagner -DWR (2004), Farrar (1986), or Cardwell (1965) -provide an estimate of safe yield from the Ukiah aquifer. All agree, based on groundwater measurements in wells, that the aquifer has been fully recharged in all but dry years and that one year of normal precipitation and runoff has fully recharged any deficit, which substantiates Mr. Wagner's conclusion in the UWMP that the groundwater basin is healthy. The draft Assessment should be revised to more accurately report the existing information about the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. With the revisions proposed by the subcommittee, staff recommends adoption of the UWMP. Ukiah Valley Drinl:ing \Vater Adequacy Assessment November'?00? t`4G to 41 MG, with an average of 29 A4G. [n 2006, the amount was 28.2 MG. N]illview has also supplied relatively small quantities of water to the City of Ukiah in the past. 11'n(cr Rig6[r "fhe District's water rghls permit 13936 (application 17587), issued on February 21, 1963 allows the District to directly divert up to 1,440 AF al a rate oC3.0 cfs (1.938 N1GD) from November 1 of each year to July 1 of the succeeding year, so long as there is at lea,t 150 cfs in the Russian River at the point of diversion. This permit expired on December 31, 2001. The District filled an application to extenil`tl>e date of the permit but this has nut been acted on yet by the SWRCD. Until such lime as the S~172C13 makes a decision on the District's application the permr..~is sr~ll valid. Additionally, under license 493 (application 3601): the=District ma}' pump through direct diversion from the Russian River at a r~GC>of 0:18 efs (0.12 MGD) from June I to August 1 each year. The total annual volurn~ pumped is not to exceed'27 acre-feet per yeas. '1-he District has tiled an amended,pcht~}gy for thts.License to abandon the existing point of diversion, and add the system<wr;ll fie,Ld ri}+er intake pumps and the _F. Nlasonite wells 3 and 5 as new points of diversion,,;- ' s".. "fhe District also has a riparian ngl4trfor direct diverstortio$the Russian River from January I to Dacember 31 at a rate ~t O,l)~(,c~s (U.U2ti MG11,laor use at tts treatment plant facility. This was not conside~gd as am~tiljalicable water right for the purpose of distribution customers in this analysis.,, - _ ;.,' r~' The District is ~uiTentl} pa~~~tioning the SWRCII to: 1) add the existing well field and Russian River pumps as poiits of diversidn.under its Permit and License, all of which ,.....F are located on the g'~~t stde#oi:}~he Russian );2i~ier near its treatment facility; 2) add to the District's,place oC ti`se gddfhit(~il"`l~rtd~ ogtstde the current bowtdaries of the existing n -.,: Dtslrtt:GW.btch a{e bemg's~rved incl`uiling Ukiah, since it has an emergency intertie a~Feement wi)h'~,li~Ctty and'.Fahe Calpella CWD; and 3) seek additional time in which to riakc full use un~'ei its Pertnl: "~:i 1t, Dunrj~~;he period Cro~r~July to November, the peak summer months, the District, which lies wi)litnsthe boundafes oC the MCFC District, has contracted for 970 AF per year; under the' NJCTC District's 8,000 AFl' right, to make up Tor uny deficiencies in supply under its otvift ~'" ~Ls~. In addition, the District has been assigned an additiona140 AP that was origiti),lly resen~ed by the Rural Commututies Housing Development Corooration for its Lakewood I-tomes subdivision. The Lakewood Homes subdivision has 65 single Camily homes and is served by the Nlillview CWD. "Chis total of I,O10 AF is equivalent to 2.74 MGD for ]20 days. ht 2006, the District produced 935 AF of water during the period July I through October 30. This is equivalent to 0.62 AP/connection. Since the Department imposed the connection moratorium on the District it has approved 215 additional comteclions. One hundred ten o[ these new cotmections had been made at the end of 2006. The 10' 49 CITY OF UKIAH 2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for City of Ukiah, California Navember~26 2007 Timothy R. Banyai, PE EIC: California PE C60715 201 N. Civic Drive Walnut Creek, California 94596 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 2005 Urban Water Manaoement Plan LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................ V LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................. VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ............................................... ES-1 Water System ............................................................................................. ............................................... ES-1 Recycled Water .......................................................................................... ...............................................ES-4 Historical and Projected Water Use ............................................................ ............................................... ES-5 Water Supply Versus Demand Comparison ............................................... ............................................... ES-6 Demand Management Practices ................................................................. ............................................... ES-6 2. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ......................................................... .........................................2-1 2.1 Description of Service Area ................................................................................. .........................................2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................... .........................................2-1 2.2.1 Geography ............................................................................................... .........................................2-1 2.2.2 Climate ..................................................................................................... .........................................2-5 2.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................. .........................................2-5 2.3 Water Supply Facilities and Sources ................................................................... .........................................2-6 2.3.1 Surface Water (Ranney collector and Wells 3 and 5) .............................. .........................................2-6 2.3.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................ .........................................2-7 2.3.3 Water Rights ............................................................................................ ................................... 2_82-;z 2.3.4 Transfers and Exchanges ........................................................................ .............................. 2-92-92-8 2.4 Distribution System .............................................................................................. .........................................2-9 3. WATER SUPPLY QUANTITY AND QUALITY ................................................. .......................................................3-1 3.1 Surface Water ........................................................................................ .......................................................3-1 3.1.1 Description ................................................................................. .......................................................3-1 3.1.2 Physical Constraints .................................................................. .......................................................3-1 3.1.3 Regulatory and Legal Constraints .............................................. .......................................................3-2 3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................... .......................................................3-3 3.2.1 Description ................................................................................. .......................................................3-3 3.2.2 Physical Constraints .................................................................. ............................................ 3-53-53-4 3.2.3 Regulatory and Legal Constraints ............................................. ........................................................3-5 .r DRAFT for review purposes only. P_\128000\728fi18 Ukiah UWMP\Drafl Re ort November 200TUWMP71 73 TRB-tlo ~ _ Table of Contents 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 3.3 Desalination ................................................................................................................ ............................3-63-5 3.4 Transfer and Exchange Opportunities ........................................................................ .............................. 3-6 3.5 Water Rights ................................................................................................................ .................................3-6 3.6 Current and Projected Water Supplies ........................................................................ ........................... 3-73-6 3.7 Water Supply Reliability and Vulnerability ................................................................... .............................. 3-8 3.7.1 Reliability Comparison ..................................................................................... .................................3-8 3.7.2 Wholesaler (Agency) Water Supply Projections .............................................. ...............................3-10 3.8 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... .......................3-113-T9 3.8.1 Water Quality of Existing Water Supply Sources ............................................ ................................3-11 3.8.2 Water Quality Effects on Water Management Strategies ................................. ....................... 3-123-1T 3.9 Water Shortage Contingency Plan ............................................................................... ...............................3-12 3.9.1 Estimate of Minimum Water Supply for Next Three Years ............................... ....................... 3-133-12 3.9.2 Stages of Actions ............................................................................................. .......................... 3-13 3.9.3 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods ........................ ...............................3-14 3.9.4 Mechanisms for Determining Actual Reductions ............................................. ....................... 3-163-15 3.9.5 Revenue and Expenditure Impacts during Shortages ...................................... .......................... 3-16 3.9.6 Catastrophic Supply Interruption Plan ............................................................. ....................... 3-173-1& 3.10 Attachment -Effect of Reduced Eel River Imports on Future Water Supply for City o f Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan -Prepared by Wagner and Bonsignore ......................................... ...............................3-17 4. RECYCLED WATER ...............................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Agency Coordination ....................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Wastewater Quantity, Quality, and Existing Uses .........................................................................................4-1 4.3 Current and Projected Recycled Water Use .................................................................................................4-5 4.4 Recycled Water for Agricultural Irrigation .....................................................................................................4-6 4.5 Optimization Plan with Incentives .................................................................................................................4-7 5. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER USE ................................................................ .....................................5-1 5.1 Employment, Land Use, and Population .................................................................. .....................................5-1 5.2 Historical Water Use ................................................................................................ .....................................5-2 5.2.1 Water Use By Connections .......................................................................... .....................................5-2 5.2.2 Water Sales to Other Agencies .................................................................... .....................................5-4 5.2.3 Unaccounted-for Water and Additional Water Use ...................................... .....................................5-4 5.2.4 Total Water Use ........................................................................................... .....................................5-5 5.3 Water Demand Summary ........................................................................................ .....................................5-5 6. WATER SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND COMPARISON ..........................................................................................6-1 6.1 Current and Projected Water Supplies vs. Demand .....................................................................................6-1 6.2 Water Shortage Expectations .......................................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Water Shortage Summary ............................................................................................................................6-4 7. DEMAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 California Urban Water Conservation Council ..............................................................................................7-1 7.2 Methodology and Assumptions .....................................................................................................................7-2 7.2.1 Value of Conserved Water ................................................................................................................7-3 ~~~ GRAFT for reNew purposes only. P.1728000\128619 ~ Uklah UWMP\Draft Report-November 200TUWMPI I-13 (TReI da Table of Contents 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 7.3 Current Water Conservation Program .......................... ................................................................................7-4 7.4 Economic Analysis Results ........................................... ................................................................................7-8 7.5 Non-Quantifiable DMMs ................................................ ................................................................................7-8 7.6 Additional lssues ........................................................... ................................................................................7-9 APPENDIX A .............................................................................. .................................................................................. A California Department of Water Resources Review Sheets .. .................................................................................. A APPENDIX B .............................................................................. .................................................................................. B Public Hearing Notices .......................................................... .................................................................................. B APPENDIX C .............................................................................. .................................................................................. C Emergency Interconnection Agreement (July 1, 2002) ......... .................................................................................. C APPENDIX D .............................................................................. .................................................................................. D California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 ....... .................................................................................. D APPENDIX E .............................................................................. .................................................................................. E Water Shortage Emergency Plan .......................................... .................................................................................. E APPENDIX F ................................................................................ ..................................................................................F Demand Management Measure Economic Analysis ............. ...................................................................................F APPENDIX G .............................................................................. ................................................................................. G Resolution to Adopt the Urban Water Management Plan ...... .................................................................................. G APPENDIX H ............................................................................... ................................................................................. H Effect of Reduced Eel River Imoorts on Future Water Suool v for the Citv of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan -Prepared by Wagner and Bonsigore .......................... . H APPENDIX I ................................................................................. .................................................................... I Response to Comments ....................................................... ...................................................................................I REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... REF-1 ~~ DRAFT tar review purposes only. P.V 28000A128619-Ukiah UWMPIDrafIR tl-NOVemb r200TUWMP1713 TRa. Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 2-1. City of Ukiah Map ...............................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2. City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence Map (Map provided by Wagner and Bosignore) ...........................2-4 Figure 2-3. Ranney Collector Site ........................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 4-1. Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Service Area ..............................................................................4-2 Figure 4-2. City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................................................4-4 LIST OF TABLES ES-1. Summary of Economic Analysis Results (DWR Table 16) ............................................... .............................6 Table 1-1. Coordination with Appropriate Agencies (DWR Table 1) .......................................... .................... 1=44-3 Table 2-1a . Climate (DWR Table 3)* .......................................................................................... ..........................2-5 Table 2-1 b . Climate Continued (DWR Table 3)* ........................................................................ ..........................2-5 Table 3-1. Groundwater Pumping Rights -AFY (DWR Table 5) ............................................... ..........................3-4 Table 3-2. Amount of Groundwater Pumped -AFY (DWR Table 6) .......................................... ..........................3-4 Table 3-3. Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped -AFY (DWR Table 7) .................. ..........................3-4 Table 3-4. Opportunities for Desalinated Water (DWR Table 18) .............................................. ............... 3-63-63-5 Table 3-5. Transfer and Exchange Opportunities -AFY (DWR Table 11) .................................. .................... 3-6 Table 3-6. Future Water Supply Projects (DWR Table 17) ......................................................... ..........................3-7 Table 3-7. Current and Planned Water Supplies -AFY (DWR Table 4) ..................................... ..........................3-7 Table3-8. Projected Normal Water Supply-AFY(DWRTable40) .......................................... ...............3-83-33-;t Table 3-9. Basis of Water Year Data (DWR Table 9) ................................................................. ..........................3-8 Table 3-10 . Supply Reliability -AFY (DWR Table 8) .................................................................. ..........................3-9 Table 3-11 . Description of the Factors in Inconsistency of Supply (DWR Table 10) .................. ..........................3-9 Table 3-12 . Wholesaler Identified & Quantified the Existing and Planned Sources of Water-AFY (DWR Table 20)3-10 Table 3-13 . Wholesale Supply Reliability -Percent of Normal AFY (DWR Table 21) ................ ........................3-10 Table 3-14 . Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Wholesaler's Supply (DWR Table 22) .......... ................ 3-113-19 Table 3-15. Current & Projected Water Supply Changes due to Water Quality -Percentage (DWR Table 39) 3-11 Table 3-16. Three-Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply - AF Year (DWR Table 24) ............ ................ 3-133-1~ Table 3-17. Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions (DWR Table 23) ........................... ........................3-13 Table 3-18. Consumption Reduction Methods (DWR Table 27) ................................................ ......... 3-143-143-13 Table 3-19. Mandatory Prohibitions (DWR Table 26) ................................................................. ................ 3-153-14 Table 3-20. Penalties and Charges (DWR Table 28) ................................................................. ................... 3-15 Table 3-21. Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms (DWR Table 31) .............................................. ................ 3-163-15 Table 3-22. Proposed Measures to Overcome Revenue Impacts (DWR Table 29) ................... ........................3-16 Table 3-23. Proposed Measures to Overcome Expenditure Impacts (DWR Table 30) .............. ........................3-16 Table 3-24. Preparation Actions for a Catastrophe (DWR Table 25) ........................................ ................ 3-173-16 Table 4-1. Participating Agencies (DWR Table 32) .................................................................... ..........................4-1 Table 4-2. Wastewater Collection and Treatment -AFY (DWR Table 33) ................................ ..........................4-4 Table 4-3. Disposal of Wastewater (non-recycled) -AFY (DWR Table 34) ............................... ..........................4-4 DRAFT for review pu~posas only. P'128000\728679 Uk'ah UWMP\D ftReoon Noe b 200T WMP1173 fTRBltl 99ercINW BTWamddWlNPiB 2799E Table of Contents 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-4. Recycled Water Uses -Actual and Potential (AFY) (DWR Table 35) ............................................ .....4-5 Table 4-5. Projected Future Use of Recycled Water in Service Area - AF Year (DWR Table 36) .................. .....4-6 Table 4-6. Recycled Water Use - 2000 Projection Compared with 2005 Actual -AFY (DWR Table 37)...... .....4-6 Table 4-7. Methods to Encourage Recycled Water Use (DWR Table 38) ....................................................... .....4-7 Table 5-1. Population -Current and Projected (DWR Table 2) ...................................................................... .....5-2 Table 5-2. Average People Per Connection .................................................................................................... .....5-2 Table 5-3. Average Demand Per Connection (AFY/connection) ..................................................................... .....5-3 Table 5-4. Past, Current and Projected Water Deliveries (DWR Table 12) ..................................................... .....5-3 Table 5-5. Sales to Other Agencies - AF Year (DWR Table 13) ..................................................................... .....5-4 Table 5-6. Agency demand provided to wholesaler suppliers (DWR Table 19) .............................................. .....5-4 Table 5-7. Additional Water Uses and Losses -AFY (DWR Table 14) ........................................................... .....5-4 Table 5-8. Total Water Use -AFY (DWR Table 15) ............................................................................................ .5-5 Table 6-1. Projected Normal Water Supply - AF Year (DWR Table 40) ............................................................. .6-1 Table 6-2. Projected Normal Water Demand -AF Year (DWR Table 41) .......................................................... .6-1 Table 6-3. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison -AF Year (DWR Table 42) .......................................... .6-1 Table 6-4. Projected Single Dry Year Water Demand -AF Year (DWR Table 45) ............................................. .6-2 Table 6-5. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry Year Period Ending in 2010 - AF Year (DWR Table 48) ................................................................................................................... ..6-2 Table 6-6. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry Year Period Ending in 2015 - AF Year (DWR Table 51) ................................................................................................................... ..6-3 Table 6-7. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry Year Period Ending in 2020 - AF Year (DWR Table 54) ................................................................................................................... ..6-3 Table 6-8. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry Year Period Ending in 2025 - AF Year (DWR Table 57) ................................................................................................................... ..6-3 Table 6-9. Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry Year Period Ending in 2030 - AF Year (DWR Table 60) ................................................................................................................... ..6-3 Table 7-1. Water Conservation Demand Management Measures ..................................................................... ..7-1 Table 7-2. Definition of Terms Used in the Economic Analysis .......................................................................... ..7-2 Table 7-3. City of Ukiah Water Utility -Proposed Water Rates 2004/05 - 2008109 ........................................... ..7-4 Table 7-4. Summary of Economic Analysis Results (DWR Table 16) ................................................................ ..7-8 vi DRAFT for revlaw purposes only. PP.128000\128619-Ukiah UWMP\Draft ReooR-November 200TUWMPI7-13 (TRBI.do Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Act Urban Water Management Planning Act ADWF average dry weather flow AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year AWT advanced wastewater treatment AWWA American Water Works Association Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for North Coast Region cts cubic feet per second CII commercial, industrial, and institutional CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Ukiah, California County Mendocino County CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CWD County Water District DHS California Department of Health Services CDPH California Department of Public Health EBRR East Branch Russian River FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Flood Control District or District Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District FWR Filtered Water Reservoir DMM Demand Management Measure Dr Drive DWR California Department of Water Resources e.g. for example EIR Environmental Impact Report Etc. ecetera ETo evapotranspiration Forks West and Easl Forks of the Russian River gpm gallons per minute HSP High Service Pumps k thousand Lake Lake Mendocino Ib/day pounds per day MCL maximum contaminant levels mg million gallons mgd million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSL mean sea level NIA Not Applicable Notification Plan Water Quality Emergency Notifcation Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No, Number PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric ponds evaporation I percolation ponds Proj. Project ~- ------ vii DRAFT for review purposes only. P''128000'728679-Uk'ah UWMP~D ftR r N be 200TUWMP"113 fTRBltl 9ee.5 IHSFa B71Wak ~dWMR1B 31E Table of Contents Regional Water Board North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board river Russian River Sta. Station SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Aquisition State State of California State Water Board or SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board ULFT Ultra Low flush Toilets UVSD Ukiah Valley Sanitation District UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WTP water treatment plant WWiP wastewater treatment plant 2005 Urban Water Management Plan viii DRAFT for review purposes only. P"1280001728619-Uk' hUWMP\D ft Reoon-NO b 200TUWMP71131TRBItl B BAW N3ANWMR11199B6S IH1ne W1WakAdWINP1097996 CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER h~IANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Ukiah (City), California is an update to the U~Y'MP adopted by the City Council in 2002. The Ulx'IvIP is prepared in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Division 6, Paxt 2.6, Sections 10610 through 10657). This act requires that all urban water suppliers providing water Eor municipal purposes to more than 3000 customers or supplying more than 3000 acre-feet annually prepare an iJ~X/MP update every Eive years. The goal of the UWMP is to assure that every effort is made to provide the appropriate level of reliability in water service to meet the needs of the vacious customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The U WMP documents the City's planning activities Eor the nest 25-years to ensure that this goal is met. The UWMP is submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) fox general compliance with the Urban ~X'atex bfanagement Planning Act. The following sections provide a summary of this U~K/MP. Water System Chapters 2 and 3 of the U WMP present a description of the City's existing water supply and treatment facilities, water rights, and distribution system. Water supply is defined as the amount of water available from a source ox combination of sources (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, gxoundwatex, etc.) for use by a water purveyor. Water supplies Erom the Russian Rivet and its underfloor are subject to the State Water Resources Control Boazd (SWRCB ox State Water Board) requirements outlined in [he City's wa[et right permit A water right permit ox license provides the legal entitlement to divert water Erom a defined channel by a user Ecom a specified source (water supply) fox a beneficial, non-wasteful, use. The permit oc license spells out the point of diversion, place of use, purpose of use, the amount or rate of water that can be diverted, and the time allowed Eor putting water diverted under the permit to beneficial nse. Sources, such as percolating groundwater, that axe not from the Russian River or its underfloor, do not requite a permit or license issued by the State ~Y'ater Board. In this plan references to "gxoundwatex" will include both percolating groundwater which dots not require an appropriative water rights permit from the Water Board and gxoundwatex flowing in a defmite channel, which does require a permit References to "percolating groundwater" will only refer to groundwater not requiring a permit References to "underfloor" will refer to gxoundwatex flowing in a definite channel that does require a permit. Just as a water right permit ox license restricts the amount of water available for use, pumping and rieatment capacity can also ]imi[ the amount of water that can be diverted from a water supply. Pumping capacity is the amount of water the City can physically divert using its diversion works (wells, pumps, storage tanks, etc.) under its water right permit or from non-permitted sources such as percolating gxoundwatex ox water subject to pre-1914 water rights. The pumping capacity is dependent on the pump flow rating and aquifer yield. The water treatment and its capaciri~ are regulated by the strict requirements of the California Department of f Iealth Services (DHS). Water Supply. The City obtains its water supply from~roundsvarer sources under die direct in flucnce of die Ruaian River. which in dtis report arc treated as surface water sources~hr: °~'°-"~°-- --c a.. n . -_ __ o ..__ ,,:~at~_and one ~-groundwater well which is recortunized as perntladng~xoundwatec. The pumping sources fox the distribution system consist of a Ranney collector and two wells (Wells 3 and 5), ES-'I DRAFT for review purposes only. P:11280001128679-Ukiah UWMP\Draft Reoorl-November 200PUWMP71-131TRBldo Executive Summary _`_ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan which axe considered '~,.-,' ~ ,,,,. .~,~,z,-surface water dicersious~d subject to the requirements of the Cih's water right permi[, and one percolating gxoundwatex well (Well 4). Wells 1, 2, and 6 axe no longer used by the City. Well 1 has been out of sen~ice since the 1970'x. Wells 2 and 6 (Water from Well 6 was pumped into Well 2) were removed from the City's latest domestic water supply permit and may no longer be used as a source of supply. Wells 2 and 6 had to be taken out of service during constmcdon of the new ].5 million gallon clcanvell Eor the Water Treatment Plant If a water supply well is removed from service for more than a year, it must comply with current DHS standards. The cost to rehabilitate the wells to meet DHS standards, which would xegttixe installation of an annular seal and electrical upgrades make it economically infeasible to return these wells to service. The pumping capacity of Wells 2/6 is only 50 gallons per minute (gpm). Even though it is not cost effective to rehabilitate Wells 2/6 for the City's water supply, Well 6 could be used in its present condition to irrigate the adjacent softball complex fields, which would reduce the potable water used for irrigation. 'fhe Ranney collector, which provides the source oEwatex for the water treatment plant (W IP), has an existing pumping capacity of 3,400 gpm or 4.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The available capacity of the Rannev collector is signi&candy less [han the designed capacity of 13 mgd, which is equal to the City's water right. "I'he maximum capacity obtained from the Ranney collector was 9 mgd, well below its design capacity. The Ranney collector has steadily declined from 9 mgd to its current capacity of 4.8 mgd. The sigrvficant loss in capacity of the Ranney collector may be a result of changes in [he Russian River channel moving away from Rannev collector and the compaction of clays and slits in the riverbed over the Rannev collector. Another concern is the Ranney can only be used approximately sip months a year during the drier weather months. During the rainy months, the turbidity in the Russian Rivei increases, which increases the turbidity of the water in the Ranney collector. The MicroEloc contact clarification-filtration units located at the W IP cannot be operated efficiently under high turbidity conditions. It is not possible to rely on the Ranney collector as a water supply source during the winter when the turbidity of the Russian River is high. Weil 3 has a pumping capacity of G50 gpm. It is available fox use throughout the year. Well 4 has a pumping capacity of 800 gpm. It is available fox use throughout the year. Well 5 has a pumping capacity of 300 gpm. Well 5 is located near the Ranney collector. \Rslten the Ranney collector and Well 5 are used at the same time, the pumping capacity of Well 5 is reduced because it is within the cone of water draw down depression of the Ranney collector. Also, Well 5, like the Ranney collector, can be affected by high turbidity in the Russian River. 'I'hemfoxe, Well 5 is used during the winter when the Rannev collector is not used. The total pumping capacity of the City's water system during the dry months is approvmately 4,850 gpm ox 6.98 mgd. Most of this water (3,400 gpm) is provided by the Ranney collector. The typical peak day water demand during the drn months is approximately 6 mgd and the peak water demand has- been as high as 7.677 mgd (Summer 2000). If the Rannev collector was lost, Well 5 would be operated, but it only has a pumping capacity of 300 gpm. 'fhe City does not have the redundant pumping capacity to meet peak demands without the Ranney collector in service. During the rainy months, when the Ranney collector can not be used because of the high turbidity, the pumping capacity is approximately ],750 gpm or 2.52 mgd. The typical peak day water demand during the rainy months is 2 mgd. "I'he loss of any pumping capacity during the winter months puts the City in a difficult position to meet peak water demands. Drought conditions also affect the pumping capacity of the water supply system, especially the surface water supplies. 'I'hc City is evaluating the addition of two gxoundwatex wells to increase the water supply and provide reliability and redundancy to the water supply system. The Potter Valle}' Project diversion from the Eel River watershed to the Russian River watershed by Pacific Gas and Electrical (PG&E) has recently been reduced by an estimated 26 percent to 33 percent This ES-2 DRAF7 for review purposes only. P9128001)1128678-Ukiah UWMP1Dra4 Report-November 20071UWMP71-73 fTRBl tlo - Executive 2005 Urban Water Management Plan diversion has been ongoing fox almost 100 years with agricultural, municipal, and commercial economies relying on this diversion. A preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the effect reductions in flow would have on bake Mendocino, the Russian River, and the City's water supply. The results- of the preliminary analysis show that sufficient water supply is available to meet the City's current and projected water demand over the next twenn~ years and that increased diversions by the City will only have minor effects' on Lake Mendocino. The City is exploring opportunities with other agencies to develop a more accurate computer model to predict the impact of reduced Eel River diversions on water users. As new information becomes avaIlablc, [he UWMP should be revised as necessary. The entice analysis fox the Eel River diversions is located at the end of Chapter 3. The analysis is based on a continuation of diversions from the F,e] River at the reduced rate and continuing releases Exom Lake Mendocino that, at least, comply wi[h [he minimum flow acquirements in Water Board Decision 1610. If the Eel River diversion is Euxthex curtailed in the future or if Decision 1610 and the operation of Lake Mendocino is significantly changed in the future, additional analysis of those changes would be required. The City's water supply- could be significantly affected by such changes. Water Treatment Facilities. In 1992, the City constructed a water treatment facility fox water from the Ranncy collector. The water treatment plant is regulated by the DHS. DHS promulgates regulations for public water supply systems, including primary drinking water standards. The water treatment facility has a capacity to treat up to 6 mgd. Ilowevex, because the Ranney collector system capacity is only 4.8 mgd, the water treatment plant capacity is limited to 4.8 mgd. As mentioned earlier, the water treatment plant is only operated during the dry months when the turbidity is low. It is not feasible to operate the water [rcatment plant during periods of rainy weather when the turbidity of water in the Russian River is high. Modifications to the water treatment facility were completed in 2006. "I'he improvements included a 3 mgd Microfloc contact clarification-filtration unit The purpose of the improvements was to increase ccliabiliry and provide redundancy at the water treatment plant. The water treatment plant is designed to expand to treat another 3 mgd with the addition of a fourth Micxofloc unit. Water Rights. Under its permit (Water Right Permit 12952), the City has the right to divert 20 cubic feet per second (efs), which produces a theoretical maximum of approximately 14,480 AF of water annually, but see X3.1 Q page 3-18, where it is estimated that at die City's permitted diversion rate of 20 cfs and a peak water use in the month of July, the City would actually use approximately 8,400 ~1E annually, when it first puts i[s full permitted entitlement to beneficial use. dppxoximately 2,027 ~F of water diverted b}' the City is xecogxvzed by the State Water Board as a Pre-1949 Appxopriative Right 1'hc water rights in the Russian River below Lake Mendocino axe divided between pre- and post-1949 because that is the year that the California State Department of Finance filed an application [o appropriate water from the Fast Fork of [be Russian River fox the Coyote Dam, Lake Mendocino Project' When the State Water Board approved die permits fox Lake Mendocino Project Water, it declared that those rights would be junior to water being used by other appropriators on and prior to 1949. "1'he date when an application to appropriate water is filed with the State Water Board is important, because in a year when there is not enough water to satisfy the full amount of water authorized fox appropriation, an earlier filing date has priorih- over a later filing date. There is also a preference fox municipal uses over other uses. The City's Watcx Right Permit has been assigned number 12952 and has a priori[}' date of 1954. Eadt water rights permit issued by the State Water Board gives the permittee a set amount of time to actually use the water authorized for diversion under the permit. The City was originally issued the permit in 1961 and the The Citv or its predecessor in interest has been supplying water [o its residents since the later 1500'x. "1'he City has pre- 1914 water rights, the full extent of which has not been conclusively de[ermined. E53 DRAFT for review purposes Doty. Pd12B000A128619 -Ukiah UWMP~nratt Retort- November 2007NWMP7 L73 (TRB).d Executive Summary 2005 Urban Water Management Plan City had 10 years to put the full amount of water to beneficial use. That time has been extended several times. The latest extension gave the Ciry until December 31, 2000. Pxiox to that date, the City filed another Petition for Extension of Time to put the water to beneficial use. The most recent request asks to extend the time to 2015. That petition is pending before the State Watcx Board. The City has also petitioned the State Water Board to include Well S in the permit. The City is legally entitled to continue putting water available under the permit to beneficial usq pending State Water Board's action on the City's petition fox a time extension. The City also has a contractual agreement with the Mendocino County Russian River P'lood Control and \Xtatex Conservation Improvement District (Flood Control District) [o purchase up to 800 AF of water annually. The Flood Control District can only terminate the contract with five years prior notice to the City. Water Distribution System. 1'he water distribution system consists of surface water well pumping, percolating gxoundwatex well pumping, water treatment plant high service pumping station, storage reservoirs, and piping to and within the water distribution system. After chlorination, surface water Wells 3 and 5 axe pumped directly into the disvibution system. Well 4, following chlorination, also pumps directly into the water distribution system. The high service pumps axe located at the water treatment plant and take stored treated water and pump it into the water distribution system. The Citv has eight reservoirs. The combined storage capacifi of the reservoirs is 6.1 million gallons (18.7 ~\F). The storage provides short term treated water storage to be used on a daily basis and for emergency situations such as fire fighting. It is not recognized as a water supply source. Water Use. Based on [he average water use from 2000 through 2006, the Ciry uses approximately 4,000 :\F of water annually. Reliability. To evaluate the reliability of the system, afour-year drought that would yield 8,400 AFY of water supply on an annual basis or approximately 51% of normal was analyzed as the worst case scenario. This value is based on the analysis in Section 3.10, Depending on Russian River conditions, reduction from the Potter Valley Project diversions, and water releases from Lake Mendocino, and future gxoundwatex pumping capacity added to the system, short term water pumping capacity is a concern. Bared on the analy.rzy dhe City bar ,ru~cient water rights and water sapp~~ but, at Eimer, may not have ru~cient j7umpang capaczty to meet peak day demand. Recycled Water Chapter 4 discusses recycled water opportunities for the City's Wastewater'1'xeatxnent Plant (W\XrFP). The WW"I'P serves the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District 'phe City has set a goal to develop a Water Recycling Master Plan to investigate the economic feasibility of recycled water in the City and Ukiah Valley. The potential quantity of recycled water fcom the WVF'TP could be 5,101 AF annually in 2030. Using all the recycled water Erom the WW1P would xequuc both publicly and privately-owned facilities. However, barriers could limit the feasibility of a recycled water program fox privately-owned facilities. Based on discussion with local farmers and the agxiculmral industry, the perception is that the following barriers exist in the Ukiah area: I. Seasonal needs Eor water does not necessaz$y correspond with times when recycled water is most available, thus requiring additional storage facilities. 2. Fox organic farmers, the thought is that use of xecyded water would remove the organic certification from their products. 3. Private watec users who may believe they potentially could lose their existing water rights if they use receded water. 4. F.xisdng water supplies appcaz to be sufficient to meet then needs. 5. It is not cost effective to use recycled water without subsidizing the recycle water program. ES-4 DRAFT for review purposes only. P\126000f128619 Uk'ah UWMPD flR OOh Noe be 200T iWMP171317RB1d 99erc1He3 e~A71 NaWAdWINR1B 912ns Executive Summary 2005 Urban Water Management Plan '1'o fully implement a wares recycle program, these barriers will need to be addressed through public education programs. Historical and Projected Water Use Chapter 5 discusses the historical and projected water use fox the City. Water demand projections provide the basis for future water facilities. Historically, the City has experienced slow population growth and this treed is expected eo continue. An annual population growth rate of 1 percent was assumed fox the Ciry. Based on a 1 percent population growth rate, the City will reach abuild-out population of 17,992 in 2015. This corresponds to a water use of 4,592 AF annually. Based on estimates provided by the City, a rough estimate of unaccounted fox water (e.g., water in the system that is un-metered water use such as fire protection and [raining, system and street flushing, sewer cleaning, construction, system leaks, unauthorized connections, and meter inaccuracies) is 138 AF (three percent unaccounted for water loss). Therefore, the total projected water demand within dte present City limits is 4,730 AF. The City's curmntiy approved sphere of influence includes the entire Ukiah Valley Erom Burke Hill Road ~n the south to Highway 20 icon the north a-„' ,:Tt-rand ridge top to ridge top on the east and west In ] 995, the City General Plan included a section which designated a much smaller sphere of influence as depicted in purple on Figure 2.2. The Ciry has not applied to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve this smaller sphere of influence, but it is the proposed sphere officially adopted in the 1995 General Plan~prooosed 1995 SOP'). The environmental impacts of including this area within the City's sphere of influence were considered in the environmental revieweE} completed and certified, when the 1995 General Plan was adopted. The City ~~ annex land within its sphere of influence within the next 20 years. Fox these reasons, the planning area Eor this plan includes the sphere oEinfluence described in the City's General Plan, adopted in 1995. For purposes of this Plan, population estimates do not include current waeex users x+xFbut evaluate future demand based on projected population increases within the 1995 pronos_~d SOI.. The population within the sphere of influence is expected to increase by 2,503, based on the assumption that the land uses in the 1995 Gcncxal Plan will Ike applied [o the areas served by the Citv's water system. This assumption arises- from the far[ [hat dtc City will not serve those areas unless thcv annex into the Citv. At tha[ time, the City rather than the County land use designations will apply. Under the 1995 General Plan, Eox example, the land use designation for the Masonite property is industrial. The Lovers' Lane property is designated fox mixed use, but fox purposes of this plan, the assumption was made that the mixed use would apply to agricultural uses only_ tit 2.86 people per connection, which is the average number of people per connection fox the City, the total number of connections fox a population of 2503 is 875. The City's average water use per connection is 0.73 AFY. Using this same average water use fox the additional connections within the 1995 pxouos~d SOI~Aaence, the total additional water use is 639 ~1FP. Including the 3 percent unaccounted for water loss, this value increases to 658 AF'Y. The total water use for the City, including the City's 7995 SOI°~_`_--- -_`>~.:_..~..-..rfi_-_-__, is expected to be 5,388 acre-feet per year (dFl')~ the year 2030. Thine-C-itr-s projected demand falls below 8,400 AFY which the City expects to use when it puts its 20 cfs water right to beneficial use (See Water Right n ES-3 )t-lxengln on~n. however, at times, the City has a difficult time meeting demands, especially peak demands during extended periods of hot weather ox drought conditions-. The reason the City's water system cannot meet the peak water demands during these periods is because the pumping capacity of the existing Ranney collector, surface water wells, and groundwater well is limited. The City has increased storage capacity in the water distribution system that helps with short term emergency capacity. Ilowever, DHS does not classify the City's water storage capacity as a water supply. To increase the pumping capacity to provide a more reliable ES-5 DRAFT for review purposes only. P'12806N128619 Uk'ah UWMP1~ flR rt N b 2007~UWMP17131TRBltl ° ^'^;,bl., lABBeaBZW42t ANWA7R7B~i 9aa Executive Summary 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and redundant water supply, the City is conducting a groundwater well siting study to increase groundwater well production by 1,500 gym. These improvements will help the Ciry meet its peak demands. The City's water right includes Pxe-1949 and Post-1949 water rights. The Pre-1949 Appropxiative water right of 2,027 AF annually is senior to Project Water (water stored in Lake Mendocino, see X2.3.3.3). This water right is recognized by the State Water Board.'- The Post-1949 Appropriative Water Right has a 1954 puoriry date and is senior to subsequent appropriators. Water Supply Versus Demand Comparison Chapter 6 provides a comparison of projected water supplies versus demand. It also discusses water shortage expectations. The water use, including the City's sphere of influence, will be approximately 5,38864 AhY compared to 8,400 ANY of water supple expected during a mtilti-year drought. 1'hc 8,400 AhP of water supply is based on the City's water right 'this analysis shows that during severe drought conditions, the City has sufficient water supple based on its water right. Although not likely, if the State Watcx Board denies the City's petition to extend the time to put wa[ex authorized by its permit to benefiual use, the City would have to find other methods to meet water demands. These methods could include use of recycled water, greater water conseroadon, and use of groundwater wells. Demand Management Practices Chapter 7 discusses water conservation and demand management practices. 'T'his chapter presents a description of the City's water conservation program. Included in the discussion is an economic analysis of water conservation Demand Management Measures (DMMs) fox DMM 1, 2, 6, and 14. It is likely that previous and ongoing conservation measures have resulted in water saving in the range of approximately 2 to 5 percent of total water production. The water savings already achieved by existing conservation measures will have some impact on the City's ability to further reduce demand. Nevexdtcless, the City anticipates acMeving additional water savings by Euxther implementation of DMMs in the future. OE the Eour llMMs analyzed, only rhxee appear to be cost effective for the Citv. DMMs 1, 2, and 14 should be evalua[cd in [he future to assess if the City has the capital to implement them. Table liS-1 summarizes the results from the economic analysis. Simple Dismounted Net Presets Total Total Benefd I Payback Cost I Water Value 1 Water BMP Discounted Water Saved Cost Analysis Saved Saved No. BMP Name Cost (;) (acre-feet) Ratio (years) (;lacre-feet) (;lane-feet) Water Survey Programs for 1 Single-family Residential and 27 924 104 1.3 10 268 88 Multi-family Residential Customers 2 Residential Plumbing Retrofit 47,887 229 3.4 4 209 455 6 High-efficiency Washing 32,557 24 0.4 47 1,356 -778 Machine Rebale Programs ~~s previously noted, the City also has pre-1914 water rights that pee-dated the Water Commission Act. The full extent of these rights has not been conclusively determined. ES-6 DRAFT far review purposes onlg P\728000'128619~Ukiah UWMPfDraft Report-November 200tfUWMP11~13 (TRBI.do Executive 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 14 I Residential ULFT I 409,099 1,932 2.9 7 I 212 407 Replacement Programs ES-7 DRAFT for review pwposes only. Pd128000V 28619 -Ukiah UWMPADrait Report- November 200T UWMP71-73 fTRBI tl CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. INTRODUCTION 'Phis chapter provides an overview of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), discussion of previous reports, the City's polics~ on public participation, and coordination efforts with other agencies. Table 1-1 summaztzes the coordination with other agencies. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this UWMP is to ensure efficient use and promote conservation of urban water supplies within the Ciry of Ukiah (City), Cahfotnia. The UWMP describes the availability of water and discusses water use, reclamation, and watci conservation activities. 1.2 Urban Water Management Planning Act Brown and Caldwell prepared this plan fox submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on behalf of the City as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) (California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610 through 10657). Water Code Section 10620 requites any water supplier that provides water to 3,000 ox more customers, of that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan that complies wi[h Water Code Sections 10630 and following. Urban water suppliers ate requited to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available water supplies to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Act describes the contents of the UWMP as well as how urban water suppliers should adopt and implement the UWMP. It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied. For ease of review, the DWR Review Shee[s- are located in Appendix A. 1.3 Previous Reports Two reports and the City and Mendouno County (County) general plans were used in preparing this UWMP. Also, Bartle Wells and Wagner and Bons'ignoxe were contacted. Bartle Wells is a consulting firm that specializes in financing and ~~'agner and Bonsignore specialize in water right issues. Included in this U~~'MP is a preliminazv analysis completed by Wagner and Bonsignore on the reduction of Flow in the F"el River. 1'Ms analysis is located at the end of Chapter 3. "fhe reports and information obtained Erom the consulting firms address the water supply and demand Eot the City. An understanding of the results of these previous documents provides a broader wntex[ Eot preparing an updated water management plan. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the documents. Water Rate Study and Preliminary Financing Plan, 2005. This financing plan reviews the existing rate suvctute and evaluates financing ahexnafives available to the City for water system capital improvements. This financing plan recommends updates to the water utility rate stmcture and connection Eee. Urban Water Management Plan 2002. "1'hc 2002 UWMP was prepared by Kennedy Jenks, an engineering consulting firm hired by the City to fulfill 2000 L.'~X/MP requirements. The main purpose of tMs plan is to analyze the City's water supply and demand Eor the following 25 nears during normal and drought years. The Plan also summarizes the City's water shortage contingency plan and water conservation program. 1-7 UF2AFT far 2view pu~pases only- P'\128000112669-Ukiah UWMPIUraft Report-November 20W\UWMP11~13 (TRBI.do 1: Introduction 2005 Urban Water Management Plan City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995. The City's General Plan provides the long-term and comprehensive policy program Eox all aspects of development, growth, and land use in the Ciry and Ukiah Valley. The General Plan addresses seven broad topics called elements that are required by law. The City's General Plan provides guidance to the Planning Commission and Ciry Staff and is the foundation for development and building regulations. Completion of specific projects that have emanated from the goals, policies, and implementation measures contained in the City's General Plan, include the following items: • Ukiah Airport Master Plan and Comprehrnsive Land Use Plan • Landscaping and Streetscape Design Guidelines • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Commercial Development Design Guidelines • Riverside Park Master Plan and Phase 1 Development • Stream and Creek Enhancement Plans for Gibson, Oxx, and Dooli~n Creeks County of Mendocino General Plan, 1981. 1'he Count's General Plan identifies current and future needs for Mendocino County in areas such as land use, housing, transportation, public services, environmental quahty, and economic viability. The County's General Plan also is a policy document that embodies the community's goals and guides decisions about physical development over the long term, with a strong focus on sustainability. The County is currently updating its General Plan. The updated County of Mendocino General Plan is anticipated to be adopted in 2008. 1.4 Public Participation The City encourages public participation in the development of its L'WMP. Copies of the draft UWMP were made available for public review at the Ciry offices, on the City's official web site, and the Public Library. Copies of the draft UWMP were sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission, Redwood Valle}' County Water District, Calpella County Water District, MIllvicw County Water District, Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement Distract, Willow County Water District, Rogina Water Company, Ckiah Chamber of Commerce, Mendocino Environmental Centex, the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Mendocino County Planning Department, and Mendocino County Water Agency. The City held a-pubhe meetings on August 15 and September 19 and, -a workshop on October 3, 2007 to receive comments to the draft CWMP. 1n response to comments from the public, agencies and the City Council a revised CWMP was prepared. A Public Hcaxing was commenced October 17, 2007 to provide fox additional review of and comments on the revised draft UWMP prior to completion of the UWMP and adoption by the City Council. Following additional publiq agency and Council comment on October 17, the City Council directed staff to prepare an additional revised draft U\X~MP and continued the Public I leaxing to November 7, 2007 fox final review and adoption of the U\R~NIP. At the November y continued public hearing the City Council meeting on November 26 2007 Eox adoption of the plan Notification for the October 17, 2007. Public Hcaxting was given as xeyuired by law, including publication in the Llkiah Daily iouxnal.~ach 1.5 Agency Coordination Table 1-1 summarizes [he efforts the City has taken to include additional agencies and citizens in its planning and preparation process of the UWMP. Copies of the draft UWMP were available fox public review and comment at the City's offices, web site, and the Public Library. Copies of the draft UWMP were also sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission, surrounding water districts, Ukiah Chamber of Commerce, 7.2 DRAFT lur review purposes only. P\728000'128619 Uk hUWMP\D aflR rt N e b 200TUWMP1113lTR81d S~s5BAlWater\UW~MR#1&A ~1yW A71W t r1UWINR7A~31d 1: Introduction 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Mendocino Environmental Centex, Mendocino Couni<- ~!C'ater Agency, and Sonoma County ~~'ater Agency. Legal public notices for City Council adoption hearings were published in the Ukiah Duly Journal newspaper and posted at related agencies and Ciry facilities.:1 c6op~;ies of the public hearing notice is included in Appendit B. 13 DRAFT far review purposes only- P'.172 V12 6 9 U leh UW nr8n a Nave er 200 UWM 1 3 8 tlo 1: Introduction 2005 Urban Water Manaoement Plan .. - .. ~ • ~ ~ .. r . ~ - PaNcipated Was sent Was sent a in Attended Was a copy of notice of Check at least one box developing Commented public contacted for the Brett intention to Not Involved I on each row the plan on the draft meetings assistance plan adopt No Infomration DWR x x Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Planl(WWTP) x x General Public Civic Center Lobby Utilities Building Lobby x x x City's Website Public Library Mendocino County Planning Department x x Ukiah Utilities x x x x Bartle Wells x x Wagner and Bonsignore x x x x Local Agency Formation Commission x x x x Redwood Valley County Water District x Willow County Water District x Millview County Water District x Calpella County Water District x Rogina Water Company x Ukiah Chamber of Commerce x Mendocino Environmental Center x Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water x x x x Conservation Improvement Dislrid Mendocino County Water Agency x Sonoma County Water Agency x x x California Water Impact Network x x Smart Growth Coalition x 14 DRAFT for review purposes only. P:`d2800o1128619~Ukiah UWMPIDrafl Report-November 200T,UWMP17-13 (TRel.do 1: Introduction 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ~ .. Participated Was sent Was sent a in AfterMed Was a copy of notice of Check at least ona box developing Commented public contacted for the draft intention to Not Involved 1 on each row the plan on the draft meetings assistance plan adopt No Information A4errdesiae-Employers' Council of Mendocino x Countv 7-5 DNAFi for review purposes only. P 112 42619 Ukiah UWMP1Dra4 Re rt November 200TUWMP1113 TRB d CITY OF UKIAH URBAN UJATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 'Clus chapter describes the City's water system. It contains a description of the service area, its climate, and the water supply facilities including surface water supply system, groundwater wells, reservoirs, and piping system. 2.1 Description of Service Area The City is a general law city incorporated in 1876. The City has been providing reliable, safe drinking water to Ukiah residents since 1880. The City was granted a water supply permit by the Division of Water Resources (a division of the Depaxtmen[ of Public Works) in 1939 to supply domestic water to the City and vicinity. The permit was revised and reissued in 1953, and again in April 1962. In 198', a temporary permit was issued to the Ciry that expired on December 1, 1989. A requirement of the temporary permit was to submit a repox[ demonstrating that the Cit}7s Ranney collector provided cEfecdve and reliable treatment Eor the removal and inactivation of enteric viruses and Giardia Ilrmb/ia organisms. The City decided not to complete the report, and instead, derided to construct a water treatment plant fox use with the Ranney collector. Construction of the water treatment plant was completed in April ] 992. "1'he Ciry currently operates the water treatment plant under DHS Water Supply Pextnit No. 09-93-007. The service area Eor the water system is not conterminous with the Cit}~s boundaries. T'he Ciry serves a small number of customers outside its limits and its place of use. A petition to include these areas, among others, in the City's place of use is pending before the Slate Water Board. A location map of the City is shown in Figure 2-1. 'T'hree other water systems bound the Ciry. Millvicw County Water District (CWll) is located to the north, Willow CWD is located to the south, and Rogina Water Company is located to the east Of these four water svstcros, the Ciry serves the largest populatioq with a population over 15,600. The total number of connections is approximately 5,?00. As previously discussed, for purposes oEwater planning, the Ciry assumes that within the next 20 years, the City will annex and provide water scroices to land within its sphere of influence as described in the 1995 General Plan. The sphere of influence used Eor these planning purposes is shown in Figure 2-2. 2.2 Environmental Setting The majority of the information in this chapter is from the Mendocino County General Plan, which is available online at ht~t ://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/planning/GenPlan/GPContents.htm and the City of Ukiah's website at http://www.cityofukiah.com/. 2.2.1 Geography 1'he City is located on U.S. Highway 101 approximately 100 miles north of San Francisco in the northern coastal region of California. The area is centrally located between San Francisco, F,ureka, and Sacramento. The Ciro is surrounded by coastal ranges in southern Mendocino County and situated in the fertile Yokayo Valle}' with rich vineyards and pear orchards. The valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on [he east b}' the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the mountains axe over 1,800 feet mean sea level 2.1 DRAFT for review purposes only. P~1126000\'128679-Ukiah UWMP\Draft Reoon-November 20071UWMP71-73 f7RBld _ 2: Description of Existing Water System 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (MSL), while elevations in the valley range from about 670 feet MSI, in the north ncax Calpella to about 560 fcc[ MSL in the south near F.1 Robles Ranch. The Russian Rivex Elows Erom north to south through the Ukiah area. 2-2 DRAFT far review purposes only. P'.\128000\728679-Ukiah UWMP\nraR Reootl-NOVambar 200TUWMPI7-131TRBLdo 2: Description of Existing Water System ~___ _,__ __ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan \~ t ., _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t er „ ~ - Fmpmr Fn _ LYn awtn 9 (nA'•V S~ ^ voq t aggien C. ~ z n.,.,. - z N... ~ __ M,~. +~ - ~4~e ~~%n~ 5m9 Y' Tw' :yPe.a. pr. T _ 1 i lin~rP ~ yi k p.x :J L ei u ~'4. ry ~ O U~.I,fl - ~4 J L Z ~ V v e d ~ _ ~ ~.J ~n y yy rY MuAF^ 4 _ u ' ~~ _~ ~ is 4~; - ~ D yn ~ m _ = En- Ukiah • v N Sanfranasa~ %, op Z 9 Los Anyelas FF y'~ AVc _ _ _.y 1 - s y fiuC G G. ..a.e .~ - ~, S ~~% 9v:. .- ..i ~f 4q i I' M. ~ ~-r, ~`.Y dv ~~i /O(, r . r~„ ~ ~ < , e~ < .: _ ~ ~. ,_.~ o~, 1- ~.~~kt _i . i,i~..:~.~ 1~ Figure 2-1. City of Ukiah Map 23 DRAFT for review purposes only. Ptl28000~128678 Uk' hUWMPD RReport-N e be 200TUWMP71-73 fTRBld 2?_Description of Existing Water System _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ~ ~!___ Gig SPRrNGSR ~ . __- - , ~~~~~ . Sao, _~ ~ ''~ i~. µ r s- ~ ~ M C~ ii}} ~O O J y.. - ~: Z ~ N 6e~ ` ' a915 l ~ ' - ENOprrtJO- YE :~ E ...._._ ~GEi4~1.. .._. .. Y ~ ~ m ~ Tk^~uGE ROA- _, ~_. _ ~. I a ~ N O ~ y _< y A ~ ~~ ~? ~ C m ~ - r ~ 8 ~. ~`: i = ~ , G ~ i~t 3 1 /~. ,, A ~ ~~. _ _''r,~~ ' ~ I - !~--- ~ DE£R~G~ ~V'c: WII.OWOOD ~]~ ~' a A o ~ o p w w 0 ~i Z m 0 ]00 tA00 2.800 <.YW 5800 Feet Fiqure 2-2. City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence Map 24 DRAFT for review purposes only. P'1128000\128619-Uk'ah UWMP\U ftR Wrt-NO e b 200TUWMPI I-13 (TReltl &A STU1ParrP7\W.M 1UWIdPiB~19 2: Description of Existing Water System ^ p `_ ~_ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 2.2.2 Climate Unlike many other tides close to the coast, IIkiah is relatively fog-free This fact, coupled with warm days and cool evenings, gives- Ukiah a moderate range of temperatures. Annual rainfall in the City is about 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls from December through April, and only at higher elevation is there substantial snowfall. Rainfall is often Exom intense rains caused by large storms that move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months. The average growing season is about 260 days on the coast, 210 days in the interior valleys including the Ckiah area, and 180 days in Round Valley (Mendocino County General Plan). Table 2-la and 2-Ib summarizes monthly averages taken from 1989 to 2005. Data were obtained from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website for the Hopland Station in Mendocino County (Station Numbers 85 and ]O6). Information Exom CIMIS can be located at the following website: (http:/hvwwcimis water ca gov/cimis/frontMonthlyReporr do). The table provides information on evapotranspiration (G'I'o), rainfall, and average temperature. HTo is the loss of water to the atmosphere by the combined processes of evaporation (from soil and plant surfaces) and tcanspuadon (from plant tissues). It is an indicator of how much water is used by crops, lawns, gardens, and trees need for healthy growth and productivity. January - ~ - February March April May June Standard Average ETO (in.)a 1.1 1.7 3.3 4.6 6.2 7.2 Average Rainfall (in.) 6.7 6.8 4.7 2.3 1.7 0.8 Average Temperature (F) 45.6 47.2 50.8 52.9 59.4 65.2 Source CIMIS 1989 to 2005 The CIMIS ETO values are calculated using the modified Penman (also known as the CIMIS Penman) and the Penman-Monteith equations, Most CIMIS weather stations are located on actively growing grass. Hence, reference evapotranspiration is commonly rekned to as ETo on the CIMIS web site. Juty August September October November December Standard Average ETo (in.)a 8.0 7.1 5.3 3.5 1.5 1.0 Average Rainfall (in.) 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 3,8 7.3 Average Temperature (F) 70.6 69.8 68.0 59.3 50.0 45.7 'Source: CIMIS . The CIMIS ETO values are calculated using the modified Penman (also known as the CIMIS Penman) and the Penman-Montedh equations. Most CIMIS weather stations are located on actively growing grass. Hence, reference evapotranspirah'on is commonly referred fo as ETO on the CIMIS web site. 2.2.3 Hydrology Surface runoff in the City's basin is derived almost entirely from rainfall, although snow does fall in the mountains of the eastern part of the Eel watershed, which is a watershed located north of the Russian River. Stream flow responds dixectiy to the rainfall pattern; high flows will drop quickly without sustaining rainfall. During the dry summer months, stream flow consists of groundwater seepage, channel storage, ox reservoir storage. In the Russian River Basin, 93 percent of the average seasonal runoff occurs in a five-month period beginning in December and ending in Apxi] (Mendocino County General Plan). --~ - 2-5 l]RAFT for review purposes only. P'1728006tl 28619 Uk'ah UWMP1D ha rt-Noe be 2007AUWMP1113lTRBld Bf51NiPe WVNaI nHWINR7B St Aae 2: Description of Existing Water System _~ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 2.3 Water Supply Facilities and Sources Water supply is defined as the amount of water available from a source ox combination of sources (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, groundwater, etc.) for use by a water purve}'ox. The City currentl}' obtains all of its water supply from the underfloor of the Russian River and one percolating groundwater well. The City is not a wholesaler. Pursuant to a Water Supply Contract, the City can purchase up to 800 acre feet annually of project water from the Mendocino County Russian Rivcx Plood Control and Water Conservation Improvement llistrict. Additional details regarding sources of water are included in Chapter 3. 2.3.1 Surface Water (Ranney collector and Wells 3 and 5) The City's surface water supply is obtained from a Ranney collector and Wells 3 and ~, which draw water Exom an alluvial zone (undexflow From the Russian River) along the Russian River. F.ven though the Ciry is not taking water directly Exom the Russian River, these water supplies have been determined by the California D~artment of Public Health ("CDPH"1 as-`- -----~'°-°a '--'--° ° ' - , eeraidesed : ~-`~" ~ ----'. - : ' --': '-- exoundwater under the direct influence of surface water mirsuanr rn 32 fluctuates with the nixbiditc in the Russian Ricer. rleaudingh-. thec arc classified as surface carer sources in this plan- even d~ou}_h the~~ di~ett water from Russi<w Kiver underflrnv and imp 21so be considered eroundw-ater sources- The following paragraphs describe each of these surface water sources. Ranney collector. The City collect undexflow kom the Russian River through its Ranney collector located along the river's banks. The Ranney collector was constructed in 1966 with a design capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd), which is equal to the City's water right. The maximum capacity obtained from the Ranney collector was 9 mgd, well below its design capacity. The Rannev cotlecrox has steadily declined from 9 mgd to its current capacity of 4.8 mgd. The significant loss in capacity of the Rannev collector may be a result of changes in the Russian Rivcx channel moving away from the Rannev collector and the compaction of clays and sIlts in the riverbed over the Ronne}' collector. Another concern is the Ranney can only be used approximately six months a year during the drier weather months. During [hc rainy months, the turbidity in the Russian River increases, which increases the mcbidity of the water in the Rannev collec[ox. The Microfloc contact clarification-filtration units located at the WTP cannot be operated efficiently under high turbidity conditions. Therefore, ilt is not possible to rely on the Ranney collector as a water supply source during the winter when the mrbidity of the Russian River is high. Well 3: This well has an estimated pumping capacity of 650 gpm. It is used throughout the year. Well 5: The capacity of Well S is 300 gpm. Tlus well can only be used when the Rannev collector is not in service. Tins- well is equipped with a standby engine-driven pump. Well 1, 2 and-6: Wells 1, 2, and 6 axe no longer used by the City. Well t has been out of service since the 1970'x. Wells 2 and 6 (Water from Well 6 was pumped into Well 2) were removed from the City's latest domestic water supply permit and may no longer be used as a source of supply. Wells 2 and 6 had to be taken out of service during construction of the new 1.5 million gallon dearwell fox the Water Treatment Plant because the-power source fox that well had to be disconnected during constmction The tank site was located in the path of the power line sen-ing the pump house and it was not feasible to provide an alternate source of electrical power during construction. if a water supply well is removed from service for more than a year, it must comply with current llI IS standards. "l'he cost to rehabilitate the wells to meet DHS standards, which would require installation of an annular seal and electrical upgrades, wag-made it economically infeasible to return these wells to sen~ice. The pumping capacity of Wells 2/6 is only 50 gallons per minute (gpm). F.ven though it is not cost effective to rehabilitate Wells 2/6 Eor the City's water supply, 2-6 OR4FT for review purposes only. P.A1280001128619 ~ Ukiah UWMP1Dra4 Report-November 200TUWMPI I-13lTRel do 2: Description of Existing Water System _ __^ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Well 6 could be used in i[s present condition to irrigate the adjacent softball complex fields, which would reduce the potable water used fox irrigation. Since 2003, the Ciry has undertaken an aggressive rehabilitation program of the existing surface water wells. The capacity of the wells has increased as a result of the work but increased demands are pushing the water production capabilities beyond their pumping capacity. ^ ~ ^O°-°°'°•°-' Groundwater 2.3.2 ~, The Cite currentl;` diverts percolated groundwater at ~r'ell 4 and may add other groundwater sources in the future. 1. ntil those future wells are developed the Cih- does not know ~a"hether Thee will be considered pexeolatin~ ~toundwater oc amund«atex flowin{^ in a definite channel ("tuTderflo~d'1- 1 f it is determined that the fuurrc wells are pumpin~percolatiug_gxoundwater diet' will nor be subiect to the permittin~v 3udiorin- of the State ~C'ater 13oaxd. I Iowever_ it is possible that future wells in the are2s bcinp considered be the C'in- will be considered undcxflow in whidT case Thee ~~roedd be subiect ro the permitting authoiin- of the State AC'amr 2-7 DRAFT for review puryases only. P\128000\728679-Uk'hUWMP'D HR OOh-N e b 200TUWMPI7-131TRB1 do°""^--'^""'-^^ N'""a:-4°a--° ^-EeadkVARi037~ Figure 2.3. Ranney Collector Site 2: Description of Existing Water System _ ~ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Board. in that e~-ent, those wells would have to be added ~s points of diver ion a ulcr the C'in'~ ~tppropriltivc water ri l;Y its permit and the water pumped from tlt xe wells would bete to be repotted ~ - ~r~ter di -c rred under the Cin-'s pcsnnt- Oncc the hmlec wells 2rc developed die ('in• will detemnne ~chcthtr nc~e try pumpuig percolated groundwater or underfloor 2.3.3 Water Rights Prior to 1914, a right to use surface water could be established without filing fox a permit from the State Water Board under the Water Commission Act. Afrex 1914, a right to divert water from a surface water source ox underground water flowing in a definite channel, requires a permit Ecom the State ~~'ater Board. Water can be pumped from percolating groundwater without a state issued permit. A water right is the legal entitlement that authorizes water to be diverted by a user Erom a specified source (water supply) Eor a beneficial, non-wasteful, use. The water right undcx a state issued permit spells out the point of diversion, amount or rate of water that can be dh~exted, place of use, and the purpose of use. Wagner and Bonsignore, an engineering firm specializing in water rights, was consulted to determine the details of the City's watec rights. The following additional sources were consulted: • State Water Resources Control Board files fox City of Ukiah's Water Right Application 15704 (Appxopriatlve Pcxmit) • City of Ukiah's water supply agreement with Mendocino County Russian Rives Flood Conttol and Water Conservation Improvement District (Contract ox Project Water) • Ann Buxck, Public Utilities Project Engineer, City of Ukiah (Groundwater). 2.3.3.1 Appropriative Water Rights Pre-1949 Appropriative Right. The Cin' has Pre-1949 Appropriative Right fox 2.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) for diversion from the Russian Rives fox a maximum of 2,027 acre-feet (AF) annually. This water tight is recognized in State Water Rights Board (predecessor to State Water Kesoumes Control Board) Decision 1030. Water Right Permit 12952 -Post-1949 Appropriative Right. ~`C'atcx Right Permit 12952 (.~lpplicanon ] 5704) provides Eox the diversion of Russian Rives underfloor for municipal purposes-. Under this Permit, water can be diverted at a rate not to exceed 20.0 cfs (9,000 gpm) from January 1 through December 31 (with no anneal limit). The face value of [hc City's Pre-1949 and Post-1949 appxopriative rights is approximately 14,480 AF annually (but see discussion in Section 3.10 which assumes that die City will use approximately 8400 acre-feet annually, when it first pumps 20 cfs at its peak usage time). The Permit is cons'idexed a Post- 1949 water sight, which is a right [hat was initiated subsequent to the authorization to construct Coyote Valley 2-8 DRAFT far review purposes only- P'.11280001128619 - Uklah UWMP\Draft Report- November 200710 WMPo 7-131TRB1 a 2: Description of Existing Water System 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Dam in 1949. The Permit expired on December 31, 2000 and the City filed a Petition for Extension of Time with the SWRCB. The Permit is valid while the Petition for Extension of Time is processed. Currently, the Permit covers Wells 2 (no longer in use) and 3 and the Ranney collector. The City has filed a Petition with the SWRCB to add Well 5 and expand its place of use under Perrnit 12952. Section 3.21 provides a descupdon of the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. Z.3.4.SGroundwater 2.3.3.2 See Section 2.3.2 for a description of the Citv's present and future groundwater sources and the rights to use water from these groundwater sources.Greundwater .. <_ _._ .r ... _.~ f , 2.3.3.3 Project Water Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District) holds Water Right Permit 12947B for storage and use of up to 8,000 AF annually oEwatex stored in Lake Mendocino and/ox directly diverted from the East Fork of the Russian River. The City has a water supply agreement with [he District that allows the City [o purchase up to 800 AF of water annually under the D15tr1CC~5 peITrllT. 2.3.4 Transfers and Exchanges 'Three water districts bound the City. The City uses the greatest amount of water and serves the largest population in the Ukiah Valley. While the City's water svstem is physically interconnected with Willow County Water District to the south and Millview County Water District to the north, and Millview is physically interconnected to Calpella County Water District, the interconnections between the City and the adjacent districts axe used esclusivcly fox emergencies. See Appendix C fox Emergency Interconnection Agreement dated July 1, 2002. Moreover, the Millview and Willow County Water Districts do not have excess water to deliver to dxe City's distribution system, except in emergencies. 2.4 Distribution System Fight distribution reservoirs, with a combined capacity of 6.1 million gallons (mg), provide short [erm treated water storage to be used on a daily basis and fox emergency situations such as fire fighting. These include a 25 mg conaete tank, a 100,000 gallon steel tank, a 13,000 gallon redwood tank, a 30,000 gallon steel tank constructed in 1996, a 135,000 gallon concrete dearwell with transfer pump station, three new storage tanks completed in 2005 (two at 1.5 mg and one aC 315,000 gallons), and high service pump station. The distribution system is divided into four pressure zones. "fhe main zone, Zone 1, (approximately 97 percent of the system) is served by gravity from the 25 mg and ].5 mg storage tanks. These tanks arc supplied by all svstem resources via the main distribution system. There is also a LS mg cleaxwell and high service pump station in Zone 1. 2-9 nanFT for review purposes only. P'V128000A128619 ~ Ukiah UWMPA@eft ReoarL November 20071UWMP11-13 (TRBI.do 2: Description of Existing Water System _y'_ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan The remaining three smaller zones are supplied by booster pump stations via die main distribution zone. "Lone 2 is served by gravity from the 100,000 gallon and a 315,000 gallon storage tanks. This zone is supplied ba the Golf Course Booster Pump Station at a rate of 350 gpm. Gone 3, which has four service connections, is served by a 30,000 gallon bolted steel storage tank. This zone is supplied by a 100 gpm booster pump. Zone 4 with three service connections is served by the 13,000 gallon redwood storage tank. 't'his zone is supplied by the 40 gpm Lookout Drive Booster Pump Station. 2-10 DRAFT far review purposes only. P11280001128fi19-Uk'ah UWMPIDrftR rt-NOe be 2W71UWMP71-73fTRBItlafiBhN~-;.~1VJlR Wl'Nat dHWINRiB27 Ape 2: Description of Existing Water System _ ~ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 5 i. III ioso 1025 875 875 850 625 800 775 750 7?5 875 650 mpe. Lookout or. Zone ~ 625 i 600 Well p4 575 59T amsl 800 GPM --- Zone ] BOMer pump '--- ~ 150 GVM ~~ yN?OO GPM I 87MG^ IBMGD s1I~iMGs N~MGD used ~ On line 6/OG Figure 2.3. System Hydraulic Prole ~~ -- 2.17 DRAFT for review purposes only. P9728000'120619-0k' hUWMP1D RR rt-NO be 200T WMP7113 CFRB)doc~~ S1V11P9 EA7 PNat ANW4ARiB 919BG CITY OF UKIAN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3. WATER SUPPLY QUANTITY AND QUALITY As noted in Chapter 2, the City uses both surface water and percolated groundwater as its supply sources. This chapter describes the surface water and percolated groundwater sources, quantities, supply constraints and the water quality of the water supply sources. In addition, this chapter describes current and projected water supplies, water supply reliability and vulnerability, water shortage expectations, and water shortage revenue and expendimce impacts. 3.1 Surface Water Section 3.1 provides a description of the City's surface water supply as well as the physical and legal constraints of this supply. Currently, the City uses surface water sources diverted from the underfloor of the Russian River. The surface water sources consist of the Ranney collec[or and Wells 3 and 5. These surface water sources axe located along the Russian River on the eas[ side of the service area. 3.1.1 Description Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) provides for the diversion of Russian River underfloor fox municipal purposes. lindec this Pexxni[, water can be diverted at a rate not to exceed 20.0 cfs from January 1 through December 31. 'Phe City collects undexflow from the Russian River through its Ranney collector and Wells 3 and 5, which are located along the river's banks, pursuant to its Permit 12952. 1'he Ranney collector has- an existing capacity of 3,400 gallons per minute (gpm) ox approximately 4.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The avaIlable capacity of the Ranney collector is significantly less than the designed capacity of 13 mgd, which is equal to the City's water right. The maximum capacity obtained from the Ranney collector was 9 mgd, well below its design capacity. The Ranney collector has steadily declined Ecom 9 mgd to its current capacity of 4.8 mgd. The significant loss in capacity of the Ranney collector may be a result of changes in the Russian River channel moving away from the Ranney collector and the compaction of clays and sIlts in the uvexbed over the Ranney collector. (See Appendix H, pp. 9-10.) Another concern is the Ranney can onl}' be used approximately six months a year during the drier weather months. During the rainy months, the mrbidiry in the Russian River increases-, which increases the turbidity of the water in the Ranney collector. The Microfloc contact clarification-filtration units located at the WTP cannot be operated efficiently under high turbidity conditions. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on the Ranney collector as a wares supply source during the winter when the mxbidiry of the Russian River is high. The water treatment plant (W'1'P) was placed into service in April 1992. The source of water fox the WTP is the Ranney collector. Water is pumped from the Ranney collector to the WTP. The ~X~TP has a name plate capacity of 6.0 mgd and was designed to be expanded to 9 mgd. In 2006, a third filtration unit was added to provide reliability and redundancy as required by DI IS. The third unit does not increase treatment capacity. 3.1.2 Physical Constraints The Ranney collector was wnstructed in 1966 with nine laterals tha[ extended beneath and along side the Russian River. One of the laterals, believed to be increasing water turbidity, was plugged and abandoned in April 1981. The Ranne}' collector currently produces about 4.8 mgd (approximately 3,400 gpm). The laterals 3-1 DRAF7 for review purposes only. P.1126000\128619-Ukiah UWMPIDrafi Reoon-November 20071UWMP77-13 fTRBl tlo 3: Water Supply Quantity and C!uality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan were cleaned in 2002 and four new laterals were constructed in 2003. Ranney capacity improved, but not nearly as much as expected. The reduction in Ranney collector capacity is believed to be due [o two factors: 1. 'I'he river channel moving away from the Ranney collector impacting the Elow of water to the laterals. 2. Compaction of clays and silts in the riverbed over the laterals reducing the permeability of the Boll around the laterals and permanently lowering the pumping capacity in this area of the civexbed. To address the impact of turbidity on the Ci[y'c_ ability to use the Ranney collector in the winter the City is exploring the possibility of using pre-filtration units with the existine Microfioc Filtration units at the Ct~'s wares treatment plant. The Cifi is exploring this option versus adclitional eroundwaeex wells 3.1.3 Regulatory and Legal Constraints The Cit}~'s Watec Right Permit 12952 expired on llecember 31, 2000 and the Citv filed a Petition Eor Extension of Time with the State Watec Board. The Permit is still valid while nc~ Petition for Extension of Time is processed. The City has begun the process of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in support of its application fox an extension of tune and the City's pending Petitions to change its points of diversion and place of use. It has completed an initial study, conducted a scoping session and is currently evaluating its response to comments on the proposed scope of the F,IR. T'he City has steadily increased its use and has been diligent about maintaining its water right The State Water Board is empowered to giant an extension of time to put water to beneficial use upon a showing to the Boards satisfaction that due diligence has been exercised, that failure to comply with previous time requirements- has been occasioned by obstacles which could not reasonably be avoided, and that satisfactory progress will be made if an extension of time is granted. (See 23 CCR §844.) According to City's Water Right Engineer, Robert C. Wagner, the City should be able to make the required showing of due diligence, since through no fault of the City, the demand Eor water has not developed as quickly as was antiupated when the City's permit was issued. The State Water Board wrote in WRO 2000-13, In the Matter of the Petition Eor Extension of Time of the City of San Luis Obispo, Permit 5882 (A10216)... "a municipality such as San Luis Obispo is to be afforded some latitude in putting water to beneficial use, because the municipality must be able to plan Eox, and meet, the needs of its existing and future citizens (~X~ater Code section 106.5, 1203.)" In Mr. Wagnex's opinion, it is reasonable to expect that similar latih~de would be granted to the Cii}~ of Ukiah to develop full beneficial use of its water rights. Water Board approvals of successive extensions of time for municipalities to allow Eor gradual development has been the norm. As a matter of statutory policy (Water Code, sec. 106.5), municipal water rights axe to be "protected to the fullest extent necessary fox existing and future uses..." "Phe greater deference shown a municipality is counter balanced by the allowance of temporary pex[nits for the use of excess municipal water by other parties pending the expansion of the municipality's use (Water Code, sec. 1203). There does not appear to be tine obstacles to approval of the changes in points of diversion and place of use, subject to California Environmental Quality Act ceview. 'Phe City's request for an extension of time to make full beneficial use of water under its permit does not require a showing of wa[cr availability since such a finding was made by the pxedecessox to the State Water Board in Decision 1030. However, the City conducted and has included herein an analysis showing there is water available to meet its projected ultimate demands. The Water Board's declaration that this segment of the Russian River is fully appropriated takes account of the City's 20 cfs permit amount as well as other pre-existing rights (Water Right Oxdex 98-08). In order to giant the City's Petition to change points of diversion and place of use the Water Board will need to make a finding that "the change will not operate [o the injury of any legal user of water involved" (Water Code, sec. 1702). Tn relation [o junior appropriators, the City has a priority right to the beneficial use of water up to the full volume or rate authorized in its appxopxiative permit. Beneficial use within that volume and rate does not in itself equate [o injury to juniors under the "non-injury" rule. "I'hc Water Board has discretion 3-2 DRAFT for review purposes only. P.11280001~28619 Ukiah UWMP1DraRR rt Novem r2 T WMP1173 TRB d 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan under appropriate circumstances to condition change orders fox the protection of other users. The City knows of no reasonable basis for negative action by the Water Board concerning the change Petition. 3.2 Groundwater TMs section provides a description of the City's groundwater supply, including percolating gxoundwatex, as well as the physical and legal constraints of tlus supply. 3.2.1 Description The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin (Number 1-52 as described in California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118) is located in southeastern Mendocino County and is the largest basin along the Russian River. It is appxosimately 22 miles long and 5 miles wide The basin enwmpasses- part of the Ukiah and Redwood Valleys to the north and their tributary valleys. TMs basin is not adjudicated. :\ groundwater management plan has not been prepared for the Ukiah Valley or Mendocino Counh~. Based on information currently available to the City, the groundwater supplies axe adequate to meet existing and furore demands. There is published data available providing information on the storage capacit}' and gxoundwatex levels within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basins. United Slates Geological Survey (USGS) published Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4258, "Groundwater Resources in Mendocino County, California" states the following: • Gxoundwatcx wells in the Ukiah Valley Gxoundwatcx Basin monitored over a 30 year period show no prominent long-term declines. • FIydxogxaph analysis indicates the Basin is recharged fully each year except when precipitation falls below 60 percent of normal • During the drought of 1976/77 when rainfall was less than 60 percent of normal, the gxoundwatex wells recovered to normal levels by the end of the 1978 rainfall s-eas-on. Further, California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 "California's Groundwater" e =~='_=a __ states the following: • Gxoundwatcx in storage in the upper 100 feet of the most productive area of the Ukiah Valley is estimated at 90,000 acre-feet. • Gxoundwatcx storage located within the margins of the Ukiah Valley is estimated at an additional 45,000 acre-feet..- • Groundwa[er levels in the Ukiah Valley Gxoundwatcx Basin for the past 30 years have remained relatively stable. • During drought conditions there is increased dxawdown of gxoundwatex levels, but the levels recover in post-drought conditions. In general, the Ukiah Valley gxoundwatex basin will experience seasonal and year to year variation in watu levels due to climate and pumping stresses. However, these variations tend to be small Water levels decline in the dry months and some wells may experience declines during successive dry years. But water levels in general have always recovered. There does not appear to be a long term decline that would suggest shortage ox overdraft in the L'kiah Valley. "Phe basin is not considered ovexdxafted and is not cuxxendy projected to be overdrafted. "1'he preparation of a groundwater management plan is not merited at tins time because of the modest increases in demand. ~t this time the City's access to these eroundwatex sunnhes and the ability to 33 DRAFT for review purposes only. P.\1280001128619 Ukieh UWMPIDraft Re ort November 200TUWMP1713 TRB do '. 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan use those supplies axe subject to physical and legal constraints. Until scadrnew wells are developed. it is not known whether the City will have physical access to lughla nxoductive portions of the groundwater aguifex. If gxoundwatex which is accessed is determined to flow in a de&nite ehanel underfloor the wells will have to be added as points of diversion under die Cin%s permit and the water pumped tram those wells will be reported as dicersioos under the Cites pcnnit. The City will explore the development with other affected agencies of a gxoundwatex monitoring pro ram to develop more information about the Ukiah groundwater basin and as a ftrs-t step decclo~e a eroundwatex study. I ~:xdudin i~tts Banner Collector and Cell Nos. 3 and ~ rtrcated in this plan as surface water sources. sec F2.3.1, p. 2-Gl, ~=the City's ~g-groundwater supply consists of Well 4 with a capacity of 1,290 AFY. Table 3-1 lists fereAlatirxg-groundwater pumping fox the Ciry. Since the Ukiah Vallee has not been adjudicated, the table is not applicable as is indicated in the table. Table 3-2 states the amount of pe~ltrtec# groundwater pumped by the City from -2000 through 2006. 'fable 3-3 states the amount of total amount of groundwater to be pumped ina'~e-~`-~a~~~ ~Euture, excludine the ]tanner Collector and VV~ell Nos. 3 and ~. Ill ~ . ~ - BasinNarrre Pumping Right-AFY Ukiah Valley nol adjudicated Total N/A Basin Name (s) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Water Use 4,108 4,070 4,165 3,674 4,131 3,755 3,831 Percolating Groundwater(Well4) 340 810 906 1,030 976 1,048 1,075 of Total Water Usea 8.3 19.9 21.8 26.6 23.6 27.9 28.1 This represents the percentage otthe City's total water use that has been derived 6om The City began a well siting study in May 2006 to add two gxoundwatex wells with a total projected capacity of 1,500 gym. It is not known at this time if the ncaew wells will be pumping percolated groundwater, exoundwatex subiect to the State Board iurisdiction ox underfloor which is under the direct influence of the Russian River within the meamne of 22 CCR 664651.1Qr -----'----~-~ --~---'°-- ~'~° a~-°-~ ~-n._____ _c.~_ Fr46~& Table 3-3 lists the total amount of gxoundwatex projected to be pumped from 2010 to 2030 and its relative percentage of total water supply based on the assumption of an additiona1750 gym pumped Exom groundwater wells of all types 180 days of the year (605 AhY) above the maximum amount of groundwater that can be pumped (1,290 AFP). If the City annexes land within its sphere of influence, additional groundwater wells will mos[ likely be needed to meet the increased demands. 3-4 DRAFT for review purposes only. PA1280001128619 Ukiah UWMP~Draft Ra rt November 20071UWMP1113 TRB tl 3: Water Supply C!uantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Basin Name(s) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Water Supply° 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 Groundwater (Well4 and two new wells) 1,895 1,895 1,895 1,895 1,895 of Total Water Supply 11 11 11 11 11 Total Water Supply is equal to the Cdys theoretical maximum water rights and future groundwaterpumping projections. The water availability analysis in Secfion 3.70 is based on 8400 ary rather than this theoretical maximum. Well No. 4 pumps percolating groundwater at the rates shown in Table 3-2. Future groundwater wells may pump percolating groundwater or underflow. The groundwater figures in this Table do not distinguish between percolating groundwater and groundwater which is underflow subject to State Water Boardjurisdiction. It should also be noted that the City does not have the pumping capacity to provide this total 3.2.2 Physical Constraints The physical constraint on the groundwater supply available under the City's permit is the pumping capacitt~. The physical constraint on the percolated gcoundwa[er supply is that onl}' Well No. 4 has been identified as a source of percolating grounded. "I'he combined pumping capacity of the City's snxface water and percolated groundwater well is not suffcent to supply the City's current peak demand. 3.2.3 Regulatory and Legal Constraints Based on the available evidence, it is believed that Well 4 pumps percolating groundwater, which is not subject to t~-tet~e-permitting authority of the SWRCB and, therefore, is not included in the Cifi's Water Rights Pectnit. Future diversions by the City axe likely to be from gxoundwatex sources, either `percolating groundwater' or groundwater confined to a subterranean stream within a known and defmite channel. Absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, groundwater is presumed to be percolating gxoundwatex. The 1999 State Water Resources Control Board Decision No. 1639 In the Mailer oJGamq~aCa Water Company in Monterey County set forth criteria regarding the legal classification of gxoundwatex. According to the Garrapata decision, fox gxoundwatex to be classified as surface water subject to appropriation, the following conditions must exist: 1. A subsurface channel must be present; 2. The channel must have relatively impermeable bed and banks; 3. The course of the channel must be known or capable of being determined b}' reasonable inference; and 4. Groundwater must be flowing in the channel. The Gaxxapata decision, interpreting section 1200 of the Water Code, was followed and applied in the 2006 opinion of the First District Court of Appeals in the case, Nortb GualaJa Water Company v. State Water Re.roarrce,r Board (139 Cal. App. 4'~' 15TH. That deusion was left standing by the California Supreme Court. In the Ukiah Valley, increased interest in the issue of legal classification has arisen since the llivision of Water Rights took the position tha[ the groundwater pumped at the wells- of the f lopland Public Ctilities District (PUD) and the Willow County Water District is subject to SWRCB permitting authority. However, no formal decision has been rendered by the Board itself. As to the City of Ukiah, there has been no legal classification by the Sta[c of California on the ground water that might be pumped by the City in the future. 1'he burden is on the part}r asserting that groundwater is flowing in a definite channel. The legal presumption is that well water is percolating groundwater. Using the 3-5 GRAFT for review purposes only. P\1 2800011 2 861 9 -Ukiah UWMP\Dreft Report-November 200PUWMPI I-13 (7Rel.do 3: Water Supply Quantity and Duality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan applicable legal standards and the avaIlable data, the Ciry will make a determination regarding whether future wells require an appropriadve rights permits from the SWRCB. There has been general acceptance by the Di~zsion of Water Rights staff that existing Well 4 pumps percolating groundwater. 3.3 Desalination There are no reasonable opportunities fox the development of desalinated water within the City's service area as a future water supply source because of the City's location relative to a source fox desalination. "fable 3-4 lists opportunities fox desalinated water and reflects the fact that there axe no opportunities for desalinated water. Sources of Water Yfeld AFY Start Date Type of Use Other Water purchased from: Ocean Water 0 0 0 0 Brackish Ocean Water 0 0 0 0 Brackish Groundwater 0 0 0 0 Other (such as impaired groundwater) 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 3.4 Transfer and Exchange Opportunities Currently, the City does not transfer ox exchange water with any of the surrounding water suppliers. While there are connections between the City and MIllvicw CWD and the Ciry and Willow CWD, these connections are used only for emergencies and are not included in the City's supply to[als. Transfer Agency Transferor F_xchange Shorttertn Proposed QuaMkies Longterm Proposed Quantities Millview County Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Willow County Water District 0 0 0 0 0 RoginaWaterCompany 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 The Cin~ may purchase water, when adequate water supply is available, from the Mendocino County- Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement Dis[rict (District). The City has a water supply agreement with the Disaict that allows the City to purchase up to 800 AA' of water annually under the District's pexxnit. Tlus water purchase is considered project water. 3.5 Water Rights A detaIled discussion on the water rights fox the City is presented in Section 233. 3-6 DRAFT for review purposes only. P 28000 r28fi19 U a UW Da Reno ove bar 200 U P 13 (TRW.d 3: Water Supply Quantity and C!uality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 3.6 Current and Projected Water Supplies Even though the City has water rights and ample water supply to meet the water needs fox its customers, the City does not have sufficient pumping capacity from its Ranney collector, surface water wells, and percolating groundwater well during peak Elow demands and drought periods. The Ciry has completed ox will complete in the near future several projects to help offset the lack of pumping capacity. "1'he Ciry began a well siting study in Mac 2006 to add two groundwater wells with a total capau[v of 1,500 gpm. Those new groundwater wells will increase pumping capacity to xehabl}' meet present peak demands and water demands during drought conditions. However, additional water supply will be needed to meet water demands within the Citv's sphere of influence. 't'he City recently constructed three new storage tanks to meet DHS regulations. Improvements to the City's VU PI' were completed in September 2006. The WTP improvements comply with new California DHS regulations to ensure adequate reliability and redundancy. Table 3-6 lists water projects as they relate to the overall supply of the City. ~~ . ~ r Projected Single- Mutiple- Mukiple- Projected Completion Normal-Year AF Dry-Year Dry-Yeart Multiple-Dry- Dry•Year3 Project Name Start Date Date to City yield AF AF Year 2 AF AF Two New Wells 5/06 2008 605a 605' 605n 605a 605' WTP 9/06 Treatment NIA° N/A° NIA° NIA° Improvements improvements High Service Pump 3106 Increased NIA° NIA° NIA° NIA° Station reliability TOTAL 605 605 605 605 605 a Assumes 7,500 gpm pumped Bom Avo percolated groundwater wells at 50 percent capacity /or 50 percent o/the fime. ° These projects do not offer additional supply Table 3-7 fists the current and planned water supplies fox the City for the years 2005 through 2030. Note that tlus table lists the water avaIlable to the City from its water rights and percolated groundwater. The City's pumping capacity from its Ranncy collector, surface water wells, and percolated groundwater well is limited. ~ .~ Water Suppy Sources 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supplier surface diversions (Water Right 12952) 14,480 14,480 14,480 14,460 14,480 14,480 Project Water (Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation 800 800 800 800 800 800 Improvement District) Supplier produced groundwater (current & future 1 290 1,895 1 895 1 895 1 895 1'895 wells) , , , 3-7 DRAFT for review punwses only. P'.\7280001128fi19-Ukiah UWMFIDratt Report-November 29W1UWMP11-13 (TRBI.do 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Water Supply Sources 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Transfers in or out 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exchanges in or out 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled water (projected use)a 0 0 tbd° tbd^ tbd^ tbd° Desalination 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 16,570 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 ° Projected recycled water usage is calculated in Section 4.0 ° tbd - to be determined aBer City completes its Recycled Water Master Plan. "fable 3-8 lists the projected normal water supply in acre-feet per year. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2025 2030 Supply 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 ofyear2005a 104 104 104 104 104 104 . /rom Table 3-9 base year (or normal water year 3.7 Water Supply Reliability and Vulnerability The Ciry has completed various projects to increase xeliabihry and reduce wlnexability to meet anticipated water demands. These projects have included the following: 1) cleaned existing Rannee collector laterals, 2) added four laterals in the Rannev collector to replace lost capacity, 3) improved water distribution system Eor reliability and redundancy, 4) added a High Service Pump Station to increase reliability, and 5) increased water storage for emergencies and fire fighting capabiliro. The City continues to explore various altexnadves to improve reliability and seduce vulnerability. The City is cuxxendy investigating additional groundwater well sites. That investigation will include a determination as to whether the groundwater is percolating groundwater ox groundwater flowing in a definite underground channel 'I'o the extent the City is able to develop additional percolating groundwater wells, this would enable the Ciry to rely more on percolated groundwater than it dots at present. 3.7.1 Reliability Comparison California has experienced two droughts over the past 30 years, one severe drought in 1976/] 977 and a prolonged drought from 1987 to 1993. During both drought periods, the Citjr did not experience any shortages in its water supply. Customers voluntarIly cut back their water usage during this time to help the City meet demands and demonstrate their concern fox the statewide drought conditions. In 1992, Ciry water demands were less than the previous year even though the number of connections and poptilation increased. Table 3-9 lists ehe basis of water year data fox the following section. .~- ~. s Water Year Type Base Year(s) Average Water Year 1962 Single Dry Water Year 197611977 3-8 DRAFT for review purposes only. PG128000\12a81 Ukl tIUWMP10raft Re rt November 2007WWMP1113 TRa d 3_Water Supply Cluantity and Quality i~ ~ `_ ~_ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ~~ r.. ~ Water Year Type Base Year(s) Multiple Dry Water Years 1990 through 1992 its noted above, the City did not experience any shortages in water supply during the two most recent drought periods. The City has developed a hypothetical four-veax worst-case scenario to prepare Eox any conditions that may cause water supply shortages. From this scenario, a four-veax drought has been analyzed. It was assumed that the severity of this hypothetical period would yield 8,400 AFY of water supply on an annual basis~apnroximate c 51 percent of normal. Phis value is based on the analysis in Section 3.10. The estimated water supply and resulting water supply deficiencies caused by this extreme case axe shown in 1-able 3-10. It can be seen Erom this example that deficiencies in overall water supplies would not create a shortage Eox City customers based on approximately 4,000 AF normal demand as might be expected to occur in 2005 - 2006. However, the City's pumping capacity Exom its Ranney collector, surface water wells, and percolated groundwater well may be affected. lluxing peak Elow ox dcough[ periods, when the water table is lower, the pumping capacity may be limited even more than normal water years. The City has water rights to meet its demand, however, only the Pxe-1949 2,027 AFY axe considered senior rights. The City also has, on a contractual basis, 800 ~FY from the Flood Control District The remaining water right is Post 1949 and is not senior to project water for the East Poxk of the Russian River and Russian River underftow. llemands are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. Mutiple Dry Water Years Single Average I Normal Dry Water Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Water Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 16,490 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 of Normal 51 51 51 51 51 Conditions resulting in inconsistenq~ of water supply ace summarized in Table 3-11. Water qualifi issues axe not anticipated to have significant impact on water supply reliability. If applicable in the future, chemical contamination and the lowering of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for naturally occurring constituents can be mitigated by constmcting new treatment facilities Eox treatment prior to water delivery into the water distribution system. Environmental ~ Water Quality ~ Climatic 3-9 DRAFT for resew purposes only. P112B000U 28678 Ukieh UWMP1DraR Re rt Novem er 20071UWMP11 73 TRB.do '. 3: Water Supply Quantity and Duality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Name of supply RegulatorylLegal Environmental Water~uality Climatic Surface Water Change in rights to Russian None None Drought that reduces the flow in River water diversion the Russian and Eel River signifcantly Groundwater Change in pumping rights None None Multiple dry years that lower groundwater table Recycled water None None None None "the Potter Valle}' Project diversion from the Eel River watershed to the Russian River watershed by Pacific Gas and Elcctxical (PG&E) has recently been reduced by estimates ranging from 26 percent to 33 percent. (1'he Cit}''s preliminary analysis estimates 26 percent. See 83.10 for the preliminary analysis.) This diversion has been ongoing fox almost 100 years with agricultural, municipal, and commercial economies- relying on dais diversion. r1 preliminary analysis was completed to determine the effect reductions in flow would have on Lake Mendocino and the Russian River. '1'hc results of the preliminary analysis show that sufficient water supply is available fox the Ciry and that increased diversions by the City will only have minor effects- on Lake Mendocino. The analvsis is based on a continuation of diversions from the F.e] River at the reduced rate and continuing releases from Lake Mendocino that, at least, comply with the minimum flow requirements in Water Board Decision 1610. If the Eel River diversion is further curtailed in the fuhire ox if Decision 1610 and the operation of Lake Mendocino is significantly changed in the future, additional analysis of those changes would be required. The City's wares supply -could be significantlti affected by such changes. The entire analvsis Eox the Eel River diversions is located at the end of this chapter. 3.7.2 Wholesaler (Agency) Water Supply Projections The Ciry does no[ receive any of its supply from a wholesaler. For this reason, Tables 3-12 through 3-14 have been filled in with zeros and "N/A" for no[ applicable. Tabfe 3.13. Wholesale Supply Reliability - Percent of Normal AFY (DWR Table 21 ~ ' ' Wholesale Single Dry Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Surface Water 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater wells 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled water 0 0 0 0 0 %of Normal 0 0 0 0 0 3.10 DRAFT for review purposes only. P'.112800N128619-Ukiah UWMP\Uratt Report-November 200TUWMPI1-13 (TRBI.do 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality __ _ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Name dsupply Legal EmironmeM Water Cualky Climatic N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 1'hc City map purchase, on a contractual basis, water Erom the Mendocino Counp~ Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District). The Cit}' has a water supply agreement with the District that allows the City to purchase up to 800 ~1F of water annually under the District's permit. 'I'bis water purchase is considered project water. 3.8 Water Quality The WTP was placed into sercrice in April 1992. The W1P was cons[cucted to trea[ water collected in the Ranney collector. Water is pumped from the Ranney collector to the WTP, which is located approximately 300 feet west of the Ranne}' collector. The VG'TP uses the Miccotloc contact clarification-filtration technology. This technology is classified as an alternative filtration technology under the State Surface Water Treatment Regulations. Treatment processes include pxechlorinadon, adsorption, clarification, mixed-media gravity filtration, and disinfection Filter backwash water generated from the water treatment plant processes is discharged to hvo 216,000-gallon clarification reservoirs Eox recycling. Treated water is pumped to a new 1.5 mg dearwel] /xescrvoix for post chlorination. From the cleaxsvell, the water is pumped into the distribution system b}'vertical turbine high service pumps. Operation of the treatment plant is controlled through the use of a pressure transducer in the City's new 1.5 mg reservoir. Surface water Wells 3 and ~, along with percolated groundwater Well 4, axe equipped with gas chlorination facdides. In additioq Well 4 is equipped with a continuous reading tuxbidime[ex. diter chlorination, wares from the surface water and percolated groundwater well is pumped dixectiy into the distribution system. Improvements to the WTP were completed in September 2006. "1'he improvements include an additional Microtloc contact clarification-filtration unit for xchabilih~ and redundancy, new chlorine scrubber, new sodium hydroxide tank and dispensing system, new water distribution SCADA system, and high service pumps. 3.8.1 Water Quality of Existing Water Supply Sources The quality of the City's water system is regulated by DHS, which requires regular collection and testing of water samples to ensure that the water quality meets regulatory standards and does not exceed MCLs. The City performs water quality testing, which has consistently met or exceeded regrilatory standards. The quality of existing surface water and percolated groundwater supply sources over the next 25 years is expected to be adequate. Surface wares will continue to be treated to drinking water standards, and no surface water ox groundwater quality deficiencies ace foreseen to occur in the nex[ 25 years. This plan will be subject to Etve year updates chat can include new information concerning surface or groundwater contamination, if it becomes available. If new information becomes available in less than five years, the plan can be updated at that time to include that information and any revised water plans to address that information. Table 3-15 summarizes the current and projected water supply changes due to water quality. 3-17 DRAFT for review purposes only. P'.17280001120619-Ukiah DwMPlDfaft Report-November 200TUWMPI I-131TRa7 do 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Water Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Russian River 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled water 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8.2 Water Quality Effects on Water Management Strategies The Ciry has a Water Quality 1~.mexgency Nodflcadon Plan (Notification Plan) fox use when it is determined that an imminent danger to the health of the water users exists, Within the Notification Plan, Ciry staff is- dixected to contact local authorities, radio stations, television stations, and newspapers. If necessary, City personnel are available to make doorto-door notifications during the hours that other media sources axe not available to broadcast a warning. The City also has developed a water treatment plant disinfection failure emergency plan, which describes the automatic shutdown of the chlorination system in the case of equipment malfunction. If the chlorination system cannot be rapidly repaired, the City has the following options: 1. Start a manual auxiliary chlorinator, 2. Prechlorinate at the Ranney collector and manually chlorinate at the clcaxwell if xequixed'- 3. Start percolating groundwater ~X'ell 4 with an alternative dedicated chlorination system, and/or 4. Purchase water from the Millview CWD or the Willow C\X/ll through the emergency intertie agreements. Although the Ciry does not have a formal emergency plan in place in the event that water cannot be pumped from the Ranney collector, surface water wells-, or its- percolated groundwater well, the Ciry would initiate either Option 3 ox Option 4 as described above, to provide water to its customers. 3.9 Water Shortage Contingency Plan In 1977, the Ciry of Ukiah adopted a Water Shortage l;mergency Plan (see Appendix E), which recognized the possibilitc of long or short-term water shortages. The ordinance is intended to prohibit all nonessential watec uses, and to allocate the available water supply during any water shortage emergency. The Cit}~ has not needed to declare anp water shortage emergencies due to lack of water supply. Rmergency situations that have been declared have been the result of problems with water treatment ox distribution facilities. The City has been able to manage these emergency situations by restricting the watering of Ciry parks and landscaped areas. Notification of any water shortage emergency condition in the Ciry will follow the guidelines set forth in the City's Water Quality I;mcxgenc}' Plan. The City wffi first notify IocaL authorities, radio, newspaper, and television media to inform them of the current status of the emergency. If needed, the City will contact neighboring water districts for mutual aid. If no other means is avaIlable, the Ciry will notify customers on a house-to-house basis of the emergency and what voluntary ox mandatory measures need to be implemented. 3-12 DRAB for review purposes only. P.\128000'~,728619-Ukiah UwMP\nrafl Reood-NUVember 20071UwMP17-131TRBLdo 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 3.9.1 Estimate of Minimum Water Supply for Next Three Years This section outlines the estimated three-year minimum water supply, the actions and stages described in the Ordinance that will be implemented in the event of a water supply shortage, and the emergent}' preparedness and plans Eor catastrophic events. ~s was demonstrated by the hypothetical four-year minimum water supply scenario in Section 3.7.1, a reduction in the City's overall water supply does not require the City to declare voluntary or mandatory rationing of water because of a shortage of water supply. It should be noted that conditions that may product reduction in water supply may lower the pumping capacity of the Ranney collector, surface water wells, and percolated groundwater wells. Demands fox the multiple dry water year scenarios were held constant because of the history of customers voluntarily reducing water use. "fable 3-16 outlines the City's minimum supply for the next three tears. -. source Normal coos Year1 2006 a Year2 2007 Year3 2ooa Surface Water 14,480 7,355 7,355 7,355 Project Water 800 400 400 400 Groundwater 1,290 645 645 645 Recycled 0 0 0 0 Total 16,570 8,400 8,400 8,400 3.9.2 Stages of Actions Per California Water Code Section 10632 (a), the Water Shortage Emergency Plan adopted by [he Citv is divided into three stages. "I'he three stages include both voluntary and mandatory rationing depending on the severity of the water supply shortage emergency. Table 3-17 shows the three stages and their representative shortages. Stage No. Water Supply Conditions ",6-SpassageTvoe of Program I Initiated when 15 percent water conservation needs to be met 45Voluntarv II For further conservation andlor stage I is not being met 2565Mandatorv III Implemented if stage II is not achieving sufficient reduction 23-65Mandatorv The City is responsible for supplying water Eor the health and safety needs of the comtnunity. If it appears the Cih~ maybe unable to supply the normal demands and requirements of the water customers, the City Council may, by resolution, declare a water emergency. Based on the severity of the predicted shortage, the Ciry will take the following actions: Stage I: Voluntary Restrictions. ~K/hen the City Council declares that a Stage I water shortage exists, the City will issue a proclamation urging citizens to institute water conservation measures on a voluntary basis. 3-'13 DFiAF I for review purpose; only. P:V28000\128619 Ukiah UWMP\~rafl Re rt November 200T WMP1113 TRB do : 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality ^_ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Stage II: Nonessential Water Use. ~x'hen the Ciry Council declares that a Stage II water shortage exists, the City will institute mandatory water conservation measures. The City's Municipal Code includes prohibition on use such as fire hydrant use restrictions; exterior irrigation restrictions; requirements Eox correction of leaks, breaks ox malfunctions within a user's plumbing system; restrictions on washing cars, boats, buildings, and mobile homes; restrictions on washing of sidewalks, driveways, and other hard surfaced areas, restriction on filling swimming pools; and restrictions of potable water use for dust control purposes. Stage III: Further Nonessential Water Use. All of the mandatory Stage Ii water use restrictions will continue to be enforced when the City Coundl declares a Stage III water shortage exists. In addition to the Stage II restrictions, the Ciry will implement the following measures: daily usage allotment of 50 gallons per permanent resident for single family ox duplex and 45 gallons per permanent resident for multi-residential units, all other uses will be limited to fifty percent of prior water use fox a similar period, restriction on urigadon water, and restrictions for hand-watering. California Water Code Section 70632 (e) requires the water supplier to provide consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages of a water shortage. Table 3-18 summarizes the consumption reduction methods and their projected reductions. Stage When Projected Method Takes Reduction Consumption Reduction Methods Effect (%I• Voluntary Reductions I 10 Prohibition of non-essential uses II 15 Mandatory Allotments III 25 As the City has never been in a cnfical situation, these values have been assumed based on reductions observed in other cities. 3.9.3 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods California Water Code Section 10632 (d) requires mandatory prohibitions against specific water us'e practices that may be considered excessive during water shortages. The City's Municipal Code includes prohibition on carious wasteful water uses during a declared water shortage emexgencv. These mandaton' prohibitions arc implemented during a Stage II ox Stage III water shortage emexgencv and axe listed yr Table 3-] 9. ~-- --- 3-'14 DRAFT for review purposes only. P^128000'728670-Uk'hUWMP\D ftR n-NUe be 2007\UWMP71-13 f7RBltl eeOAWZMAUWNIR10~79a 3_Water Supply Quantity and Quality _ vv ~' ~ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan .. ~ Stage When Examples of Prohibitions Prohibkion Becomes Mandatory Use of water from public hydrants for any other purpose than fire II III protedionlprevention , Use of water through any meter when the consumer has been given 2 days notice II I II to repair any leaks and has failed to complete repairs , Use of water by golf course to irrigate any grounds except those designated as II III tees and greens , Use of water to irrigate grass, lawns, ground cover, shrubbery, vegetable II III gardens, trees, or other outdoor vegetation , Use of water for the construction of any structure including such use in dust I I III control , Use of water to wash sidewalk, driveway, street, parking lot, tennis court, or other hard surfaced area by hosing or by otherwise direct use of water from faucets or I I, I I I other outlets Use of water to fill or ref ll any swimming pool II, I II Use of water to add to any swimming pool not equipped with and using a pool II III cover , Use of water in excess of the daily usage allotment set forth as: Single family orduplex - 50 gallons per permanent resident III Multi-residential units - 45 gallons per permanent resident All other uses not expressed above shall be limited to 50 percent of prior use fora III similar period as determined by the City from its records Water to irrigate III Use of water for hand-watering III :~np customer violating the regulations and restrictions on watec use receives a written warning from the City for the fast violation. If the violation continues and the Director determines there has been a "willful failure to comply° wi[h [he regulations, the City map shut off a customer's water scroice. Table 3-20 lists the speufics of these charges and in what stages they mac occur. Penahies or Charges ( Stage When Penalty Takes Effect Penalty for use beyond restrictions as described in Stages II and Ills II, III 3-15 DRAFT for review purposes onry. P:1128000\128618-Ukiah UWMP\Drag Reoorf-November 200TUWMPf 1-131TRBltlo . 3: Water Supply Quantity and Quality 2005 Urban Water Management Plan PenaRies a Charges ~ Stage When Penahy Takes Effect Penalty for use of water for prohibited uses described in Table 3-18a II, III Both first and second violations o(fhis ordinance within any one year period shall be inhacfions. Any violations that conh'nue aRer notice shall 6e a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder, further, each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense (Ord 691, §7, adopted 7977). 3.9.4 Mechanisms for Determining Actual Reductions California Water Code Section 10632 (i) cequixes the water suppGex to develop a mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use in the course of carrying out the water supply shortage contingency analysis. Water meter monitoring will be used to determine the amount of water reductions achieved during droughts. 3.9.5 Revenue and Expenditure Impacts during Shortages Section 10632 (g) of the California Water Code requires an analysis of the impacts of each of the actions taken for conservation and water restriction on the revenues and expenditures of the water supplier. To date, the Cite has not experienced shortages where it has implemented restrictions ox pxolribitions. In the Association of Bay Axea CGovexnments 2005 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series A (2005), a rate stabilization fund was establish to allow the City to use money within this fund during a period of decreased revenue ox increased expenditures until the City can implement a rate increase. The City would increase its rates as a measure to overcome cevenue impacts. - r .~. -~ • ., .. r Names of measures Check if Discussed Rate adjustment / Development of reserves / .~- I a ~~ ~ .~ ~ r Names of measures Check if Discussed Reserve Fund / 3-16 DRAB for review purposes only. P91280001128619 Ukiah UWMP\DrattR n N vem er 2007\UWMP7113 TRB .do ' 3: Water Supply Quantity and C!ualily _ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 3.9.6 Catastrophic Supply Interruption Plan California Water Code Section 10632 (c) requires actions to be undertaken by the water supplier [o prepaxc for and implcmcnt adopted procedures during a catastrophic intexruprion of water supplies. The Citv has described its emergency response plan in Division 6, Chapter 2 - 13mexgency Services of the City o~U,Oiab City A4uniciJ~a1 Code. .. - .~ ~ •~ Possible Catastrophe Check H Discussed Air pollution / Fire / Flood / Storm / Epidemic / Earthquake / Power Outages War / Hazardous materials / Environmental disaster / 3.10 Attachment (See Appendix H) -Effect of Reduced Eel River Imports on Future Water Supply for City of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan -Prepared by Wagner and Bonsignore 3-17 DRAFT for review pu~posas only. P.\128000\728619 ~ Ukiah UWMP\Dralt Report -November 200T~UWMP71-131TRBLdo CITY OF UKIAFI URBAN WATER ~.~IANAvEMENT PLAN 4. RECYCLED WATER This chapter discusses recycled water. Included in this chapter are discussions on agency coordination, existing wastewater facilities, current and projected recycled water use, agricultural irrigation, and rec}cled wa[cx optimization plan. 4.1 Agency Coordination The City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (~X/WTP) treats residential and commercial wastewater Exom two entities, the City and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD). The UVSD serves Mendocino College, 1;1 Dorado Estates, Vichy Springs, 18 percent of the accounts within the City limits, and other areas contiguous to the City. Figure 41 shows the service area boundaries fox the Citv and UVSD. 'fhc Ciry has set a goal to develop a Water Recycling Master Plan to investigate the economic feasibility of reryded water in the City and Ukiah Valley and to identify potential uses for recycled water to reduce the demand on its drinking water supplies. In 2005 and 2006, the Citv and UVSD subrttitted applications for state and federal giants to conduct a feasibility study and a Water Recycling Master Plan study. Although the specific roles in [he study's development have not been determined, the agencies listed in'L'able 4-1 are assumed to play important roles. .. - .. is Participating Agencies Role in Development City of Ukiah to be determined Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to be determined 4.2 Wastewater Quantity, Quality, and Existing Uses The Ciry collects wastewater from approximately 82 percent of the area within the current City limits, while the UVSD collects wastewater from the remaining portion of the City and from most of the urbanized areas surrounding the City. The populations of the City and UVSD are approximately 15,600 and 5000, respectively. Collected wastewater is transported by gravity through a main trunk sewer that is located along the wes[ bank of the Russian River Erom the narth end of the valley to the City's WW IP located on the south end of the City. The VVIXrIT' discharges advanced, tertiary treated water to the Russian River Exom October 1 through May 14 at a rate that does not exceed one percent of the Russian River flow. From Ma}' 15 through September 3Q dischazge is only to three evaporation/percolation ponds (ponds). "I'hc Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) prohibits wastewater discharge to the Russian River between Mav 15 and September 30. 4-1 DRAFT for review purposes only. P~U26000"28619-Uk hUWMPID sit Re rt-N b 2o0TUWMPII-13 fTRBltl ess:IN83 0.71WakAG31NINR1B 31 ASs 4'. Recycled Water _ ~ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan _ v' ~,.~} x r ::. !'f•~. • x ~. e y .4. , i a M ~ +~1 ~•~'~ -.J ~.~. x ~ r - A n ~ 1 f . \ ' ' '~'.. •~ .. l MiHldoctno - ~ •, ~. .. Collage `' .. ~r'J ' ~ ~ .. \ . ._ _. .. ~ ~+ L ~ } `` 1 _.• . ~ ~ ' ~ . ` r >< w f "» ri~ ~*~ YkhY Spdq{~ ~ I .. ... ` Plant- ~•, .., . . ~., -. t t`riq'~'"'. .~''_. r a y _~ .` .. , - i LI s ~~ r..w ~' - -» `f _ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 . ~ o• ..• - r yw . 1 , 7 . t~"" ~. ~~ Wastewater i ~ Treatment Plant ~i ' _4~« ~ t,,M1 Legend ~~ ~!'~ ~ t ~ ! ~ ~ City of Ukiah { Service Area Boundary N ~ ~ - Ukiah Valley Sanitation District d ~~ ~" ~ • ary Service Area Boun . b Figure Q-1 . Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Service Area 42 DRAFT far review purposes only. P 12800072861 Uk hUWMPO ft Report Noe be 200T UWMP1119 (TRel doc 4: Recycled Water 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Wastewater Collection System. The collection system for the City and UVSll consists of gravity pipes that range from 6 inches to 42 inches in diameter. The total length oEgravity pipe is approximately 67 miles. Most of the collection system is served by gravity; however, two areas on the east side of the City require pumping stations to convey the flow to the gravity sewers. "I'he age and condition of the City's sewer collection system varies be location. A portion of the collection system in the downtown area was installed in the 1890x. Approximately one-half of the City's collection system was installed before 1957 and 90 percent was installed before 1977. Wastewater Treatment System. Construction of the original WWfP was completed in 1958. The original plant consis[ed of a headworks facility (one barminutox and Eour influent pumps), pre-aeration grit tanks, one primary clarifier, one trickling Eater, one secondary clarifier, a chlorine contactor pipe, two anaerobic digesters, two oxidation ponds or evaporation/percolation ponds, and two sludge lagoons. The original plant capacity was 2.5 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF~ with a peak wet weather flow of 105 mgd. Discharge was to the Russian River. The design organic and solids loadings were 5,400 pounds per day (16/day) and 5,400 Ib/day, respectively. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Contro] Board (Regional Water Board) of California modified discharge requirements in 1974 to allow only seasonal (October 1 through May 14) discharge to the Russian River at a discharge rate of one percent of the river flow. Flow above one percent of the Russian River Elow behvicen these dates and all flow from May 15 through September 30 is disposed oEby a combination of evaporation and pemolation from the ponds and by reuse of treated effluent onsite. In 1983, the plant capacity was increased to 2.8 mgd ADWF with a maximum wet weather flow discharge to the Russian River of 7.0 mgd. The improvements included conversion of the secondary clarifier into a second primary clarifier, construction of a biological tower in addition to the trickling filter, three new secondary clarifiers, a new chlorine contactor pipe, new dechloxination facilities, addition of emergency generator Eacdities, and a new direct outfall. Tn additiou, an earthen levee was constructed around the VC~IXkTP site and sludge lagoons at an elevation of 580 feet MSL to protect against the 100-year flood level. In 1986, a third evaporation/percolation pond was constructed to the north of the two existing ponds, and in 1989, an effluent pumping station was constmcted to transfer secondary effluent to the thud pond. Also in 1989, the Regional Water Board revised the Basin Plan to require advanced wastewater treatment (AW1) of the effluent discharged to the Russian River. Secondary treatment was also required for discharge to the ponds. In 1995, the barminutors in the headworks were replaced with channel screen comminutors, and a fourth secondary darifiex, a new AVG'T system, and a new solids handling facility, including a belt filter pmss Eor processing solids, were constructed. Currendy, the City's WVG'TP discharges treated effluent under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys[em (NPDES) Permit No. CA0022888 issued by the Regional Wa[er Board. Two discharge points arc permitted as described above, one to [he Russian Rivcx and the other to the three ponds. Figure ~2 is an aerial view of the W~y/'I'P. Tables ~2 and 4-3 summarize historical and projected wastewater flow from the collection, treatment, and disposal systems. 43 DRAFT for review purposes only. P.\128000\128619~Ukiah UwMF~Dratt Report-November 200TUWMPI I-13lTRel do Water 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Type of Wastewater 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Wastewater collected & treated in the service area 3,710a 4,483' 4,762° 5,295° 5,829^ 8,362° 6,895 ° Volume that meets recycled water standards 876° 441° 1,016° 1 129° 1 244° 1 357° 1 471° a Actual plant data. Interpolation of data between 2000 and 2030. = 2025 Design Criteria 6om TM 29, Technical Memoranda for the Wastewater Treatment Improvement Project, Volume 2. June 2003. d Based on average recycled water produced far the pehod between 1997 and 2002. 1'hc City is constmcdng improvements to the W WTP facilities that will improve the effluent discharged. Completion of the improvements is expected in June 2009. The improvements to the W\~''1P will allow the AW'1' facilities to meet recycled water standards. 'Phe volume of recycled water fox dris UWMP was estimated based on plant data from the A~~"1' facility discharge to the Russian River from 199', through 2002. The ~x'tx"11' discharged approximately 21.3 percent of its Flow to the Russian River during that dme period. Therefore, it was assumed that the WIXrTP would discharge 273 percent [hhough 2030. Method of disposal ~ .. ~ CurteM treatment level 2005 ~~ 2010 ~ 2015 2020 2025 2030 Discharge to Russian River Tertiary 441 1,016° 1,129° 1,244° 1,357° 1 471° EvaporationlPercolationfrom Ponds Secondary 4034 3,423° 3,843' 4,262° 4,682° 5,101° Reuse within Plant Secondary 8° 323° 323° 323° 323° 323= Total 4,484 4,762 5,295 5,629 6,362 6,695 a Based on average recycled water produced far the penod beM1Veen 1997 and 2002 Value of recycled water with no percolation from ponds. Assumes evaporation 6om ponds would be minimal =Estimated use o/plant water within the WWTP property boundaries. .. DRAFT for review purposes only. P.\12800011 2 861 9 -Ukiah UWMP1Dreft Reoon-November 200TUWMRI1-13ITRa1 d Figure4.2. City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Water 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 4.3 Current and Projected Recycled Water Use Only a small portion of the treated effluent is cuxrentiv reused onsite at [he W WTP. It is used fox landscape irrigation, process washdown, and spray water. Because the flow that is reused is relatively small, it is not measured. Potential publicly owned recycled water sites within and near the City include the Ukiah Municipal Airport, Highway 10] median, Ckiah GoIE Course, city parks, schools, dnton Stadium, City's softball complex, City Civic Center, City and County Naixgrounds, and Mendocino College Potential privately owned recycle water sites include vineyards and oxchaxds. The estimated acreage of land that could be irrigated from publicly owned sites is approximately 236 acres. There axe not sufEcent publicly owned facilities for use of all the recycle water and any recycled water program would regiure the participation of privately owned facilities. The Ukiah Municipal rlixport and Highway 101 median axe located close to the WW1P site and are the most feasible sites Eor recycled water. Most of the o[hex sites are Located in the northern par[ of the City, while the AX/VUTp is located in the southern part of the Ciry. 'this makes the cost to use recycled water significantly higher. Privately owned facilities such as vineyards and oxchaxds axe the most likely users of recycled water. However, significant barnexs were identified when local farmers and agriculture( industry representatives were consulted. These barriers could limit the feasibility of a recycled water program fox privately owned facilities. These barriers include the following: 1) seasonal need fox water does not necessarily correspond with times when recycled wa[ex is most available, thus requiring additional storage facilities, 2) Eox organic farmers, the thought is that the use of rerycled water would remove the oganic certification from theie products, 3) privately owned facilities fear the possibility of losing their existing water rights iE xecvded water is used, 4) existing water supplies appear to be sufficient to meet their needs, and 5) it is not cost effective to use recycled water wiehout subsidizing the recycle water program. To fully implement a water recycle program, these barriers will need to be addressed through public education programs. Tables 4-4, 4S, and 4-6 list the actual, potential, and predicted recycled water use within the Ciry. User type ~~ Treatment Level 2005 •. - 2010 ~ .~ 2015 2020 2025 2030 Agriculture Tertiary 0 0 tbda tbd' tbda tbda Landscape Tertiary 0 0 tbda tbd' tbd° lbda Wildlife Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Recharge 0 0 0 0 0 0 Consumptive Reuse within Plant Tertiary 8e 323° 323e 323° 323° 323' GoltCourselrrigation 0 0 tbd tbd tbd tbd Total Potential Recycled Water g 323 3,843 4,262 4,682 5,101 The uses /or recycled water have not been determined. The total amount will be divided amongst these uses. e This quantity oI flow reused at the plant is not measured. It is a relatively small quantity Estimated use ofplant wafer within the WWTP property boundaries. 4-5 DRAFT for review purposes only. P'.\1 2 60001128619-Ukiah UWMP\Dra%Reootl-November 20071UWMP7 L131TRal.tlo Water 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Disposal of wastewater is a vital part of the overall water balance for the City. The fast step to understanding the role that recycled water has in the water balance is to complete a Water Recycling Maser Plan, which the City plans to complete in the future. One component of the Water Recycling Master Plan will evaluate the economic feasibility and financing options Eox a recycled water system. ., Usertype rrr ~. ~ rr, r •.~ 2000 Projection for 2005 . - 2005 Actual use Agriculture 0 0 Landscape 0 0 Wildlife Habitat 0 0 Wetlands 0 0 Industrial 0 0 Groundwater Recharge 0 0 Other (user type) 0 0 Total 0 0 4.4 Recycled Water for Agricultural Irrigation The Ulciah Valley around the City has extensive farming operations and potential candidate customers /end users foe the City's recycled water. Two principal issues axe important for potential reuse -effluent quality and implications fox water rights. Effluent Quality. Once the WWTP improvements axe completed, the AWT effluent from die City's WWTP will meets DHS requirements for unxestxicted reuse (Pitle 22, California Administrative Code), specifically effluent filtration and disinfection to achieve total colifoxm concentrations of less than 2 most probable number per 100 milliliters. Such effluent would generally be acceptable for most agriculmxal applications, eg., irrigation of pasture lands or fields used to forage. However, because of the AWT [seated effluent total nitrogen concentration, vineyard owners may have some reservations xegazding such reuse. Alsq the Ulciah Valley has a high percentage of orgatnc Eaxmers. At this time, organic farmers may fear losing their organic certification if they use xecyded wa[er. Water Rights. Some farmers have expressed concern that use of recycled water in place of their current water supplies could jeopardize surface water rights. However, California Water Code Section 1010 provides that no claim of water sight (riparian, pre-1914 appxopxiative, post-1914 appxopriative) will be reduced ox lost as a result of the use of recycled water, and that the use of recycled water in lieu of surface water is equivalent to maintaining that right and shall constitute beneficial use. Further, Water Code Section 13550 states that 4-6 DRAI'T for review purposes only. P-tl 2800oV 28619-Uk' hUWMPID att ReDOrt~N b 200TUWMP1113 (TRWd The uses /or recycled water have not been determined 4: Recycled Water 2005 Urban Water Management Plan certain conditions must be met before the S~BC13 can require a sight holder to accept recycled water. The source must be of adequate quality, furnished at a reasonable cost, and not be detrimental to public health, prior rights, or the environment The SWRCB is responsible fox making a determination on each of these conditions and cannot require such us-e until after proper notice and a hearing is held. 4.5 Optimization Plan with Incentives The City will develop a Water Recycling Master Plan in the future that will address optimizing the use of recycled water. The City is also investigating the use of dual distribution systems to promote re-use. Methods to encourage recycled watet use will be considered, but have not been determined yet "fable 4-7 cannot be completed until after the completion and adoption of a Water Receding Master Plan. AF of use protected to result from this action Actions 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 To Be Determined tbd' tbda tbd' tbd' lbda Total tbd' tbda tbd' lbda tbda 'These numbers cannot determined until completion and adoption o(a Water Recycling Master Plan ~I~III^1^~^ ___________ ___ 47 DRAFT for review purposes only. P_128000f286f9 Ukiah UwMPlDraft e rt November 200 U MP1 3f 6).tl CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER USE Water demand projections provide the basis for sizing and staging future water facilities. Water use and production records, combined with projections of population, employment, and urban development, provide the basis fox estimating future water requirements. This chapter presents an analysis of available demographic and water use data, customer connections, historical groundwater and surface water production, unit water use, and the resulting projections for future water needs Eox the City. 5.1 Employment, Land Use, and Population The following pazagxaphs discuss the employment characteristics, land use characteristics, and population projects. Employment Characteristics. Employment in Ukiah and the surrounding area is provided largely by the local hospital, °~.' retail, and service businesses. ~gxiculture also is a major employer in Mendocino County, including wineries, vineyards, peat-orchards, and wood products. The number of small non-agricultural it'pes of manufacturers and service industries continue to rise, while timber industry activities are in decline. As with many rural communities, state, county, and local government agencies also constitute a significant part of local employment (Ukiah Chambers of Commerce http~//wwwukiahchamber com/demographic- html). Land Use Characteristics. Land use within the City region is characterized as suburban. ddditional land uses in the region and service area include agriculture, ligF;Eindustrial, commercial, and recreational. Land use within the Russian Rives watershed is pcimaxIly agricultural with the greatest emphasis on vineyards, livestock, and orchard crops. Major orchard crops consist of apples, pears, and prunes, whIle some production of other crops such as olivets and walnuts also occurs. The Russian River watershed contains both dry and irrigated pastures, with both hay and grain production. (Ukiah Chambers of Commerce http: / /www. ukiahchambex.com/demographics.html). Population Projections. Ukiah has experienced slow population growth with a 2.9 percent total increase between 2000 and 2004. In 1995, the General Plan estimated an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. More recent data from the California llepaztment of Finance indicates an average annual growth rate of 0.77 percent Exom 1999 to 2003. For the future water production analysis, an annual growth rate of 1.0 percent was assumed in the population projections in the City. Build-out fox the Ciry is expected in 20] ~ at a population of 17,992. For water planning pu~oses, the Ciry also assumes that it will annex the land within the 1995 sphere of influence depicted in Figuce2-2 within the next 20 years. The population within this sphere of influence is expected to increase by 2,503. "fable 5-1 summarizes the current and projected growth Eor the City assuming the City will gradually annex land within the sphere of influence fora 20 year period starting in 20t 1. Table 5-1 shows the current and proiected population a-ithin the current (~itc Ihnit~ plus onk the~~roiected xi ulation growth within die 1997 proposed SOI. it is acstuned For plannin~~mo.es that the current population within the imposed SOi is alrcadc receiving= molter to meet it' current need ~ ~tt~cl 5-7 DRAFT far review puryosesonly- P'\7 2 800011 2861 9- k'ah WMP 02fl Report N b 200PUWMPI I-13 RRR7 d ' IABePEBZWJ iMl1WIdF-7931 AB 5: Historical and Projected Water Use 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ^ Population estimated /rpm data provided by the City City buildouf expected to be reached in 2015. Projections include population estimates from within the 1995 General Plan sphere ofinfluence depicted in Figure 2-2. 5.2 Historical Water Use Water production is the volume of water measured at the source, which includes all water delivered to residential, commercial, and public authority customers, as well as unaccounted-fox water- Records of historical water production obtained from Bartle Wells Associates serve as the basis fox developing unit water demands for the City. The City recently restrucmxed its water rate schedule and is also updating its accounting system. Current data does not support an accurate basis for developing unit water demands br user type. 5.2.1 Water Use By Connections In 2005, the Cih~ currently serves about 15,600 residents through approximately 5,700 connections. Current City accounting practices do not identify separate account types such as single family residential, multi-family residential, industrial, institutional/commercial, ox landscape. The number of connections was projected based on the average numbcx of people per connection from years 2002 to 2004. It was assumed that the Cin~ would begin annexing land within its s-phexe of influence in 2011 and that this process would span 20 years. "Phis is reflected in Table 5-2 through 5-4. The total number of connection is shown in 't'able 5-2. -~ - Year Total connections PeoplelConnettion 2002 5,511 2.87 2003 5,558 2.87 2004 5,684 2.84 2005' 5,718 2.85 2010' 5,985 2.86 2015" 6,510 2.86 2020' 6,728 2.86 2025" 6,947 2.86 2030" 7,166 2.86 AVERAGE 6,549 2.86 'indicates projected values Based on the projected numbcx of connections, an avuage production per connection was calculated for future water production through 2030. "fable 5-3 shows this data. Because of the limitations of the City's 5.2 [)HAFT for review purposes only. P.tl 28000/1286 7 8 - Ukieh UWMP~Draft Report- November 20W1UWMP11-13 (TRB) do . Data from California Department of Finance 2003 5: Historical and Projected Water Use 2005 Urban Water Management Plan accounting system, the water demands for industrial and commercial accounts can not be accurateh~ determined, and therefore, axe factored in[o the 2.86 people per connection values This is also reflected in the 0.73 AFY per connection. If a large water user enters the City's system, the C~X/MP should be updated to reflect this. Year {I - r - Total production [AFY] Connections AFYIConnection 2000 4,223.87 5,511 0.77 2001 4,068.67 --- --- 2002 4,163,37 5,511 0.76 2003 3,872.56 5,558 0.70 2004 4,129.93 5,685 0.73 2005 3,756 5,718 0.66 2006 3,831 5,771 0.66 2010' 4,369 5,985 073 2015' 4,752 6,510 0.73 2020' 4,912 6,728 0.73 2025" 5,072 6,947 0.73 2030" 5,231 7,166 0.73 AVERAGE 4,781 6,549 0.73 indicates projected values Based on the average number of people per connection and the average water use per connection, the City's per capita usage is about 228 gpd. Because the City does not have data available to divide the water production into categories, only the total water deliveries and accounts aze shown in Table 5-4. Year . Water use sector: .- Single (amity Muki- family ~ r- Commercial Industrial r Instkudonall Gov Landscape Agricukure Total 2000 meter #otaccounts --a --- --- -- --- 5,511 Deliveries AFY --- -- --- -- --- __ _- 4,244 2005 meter # of accounts -- --- --- --- --- __ 5,718 Deliveries AFY -- --- --- --- --- 3,756 2010 meter # of accounts --- --- --- --- --- -- -- 5,985 Deliveries AFY --- -- --- -- --- --- --- 4,369 2015 meter # of accounts --- -- --- --- --- --- -- 6,510 Deliveries AFY --- --- --- --- --- ___ ___ q 754 2020 meter # of accounts --- --- -- --- --- - --- 6,728 DeliveriesAFY --- -- -- --- ___ q,9tP 2025 meter # of accounts -- --- --- -- --- --- 6,947 Deliveries AFY --- --- --- -- --- 5,072 53 URAFT for review purposes Only. P91280001t28679-Ukiah UWMP\UraR Re rf-November 200TUWMPt1737Re .do 5: Historical and Projected Water Use 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Water use Single Multi- Institutional l Year sectors family family Commercial IndustNal Gov Landscape AgricuRure Total meter # of accounts 2030 -- --- -- -- --- -- --- 7,166 Deliveries AFY --- -- -- --- --- --- --- 5,231 Because the Ciys accounting system did not differentiate among connection types, the number o(connecfions have been IeR out of this table. 5.2.2 Water Sales to Other Agencies As stated in Section 3.7.2, the Ciry is not a wholesaler and does not sell water to any of the local county water districts or water companies, except in emergencies under emergency intextie agreements with Millview and Willow County Water Districts..- Because the City is- not a wholesaler, Tables 5-5 and 5-6 are filled in with zeros. .. - Water distributed . • 2000 2005 r 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Millview County Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Willow County Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rogina Water Company 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.2.3 Unaccounted-for Water and Additional Water Use Unaccounted-fox water is un-metered water use such as fuc protection and training, system and street flushing, sewer cleaning, construction, system leaks, and unauthorized connections. Unaccounted-Eor water can also result from meter inaccuracies. Based on esdma[es provided by [he WTP, unaccounted-fox water for [his UWMP is assumed [o be [hree percent of total water producdon- 'fable ~-7 shows- the results of unaccounted-fox water and additional water use. The City does not use water as a saflne barrier, groundwater recharge, ox other conjunctive use. It also does not use its raw water Eox other purposes. Water Use 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Saline barriers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwalerrecharge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-4 L'RAFi for review purposes only. P.172B660\128619 Ukiah UWMPIUraft Re rt N vember 200TUWMm113 TRB do '. 5: Historical and Projected Water Use 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Water Use .. ~ 2000 2005 2010 ~ 2015 2020 2025 2030 Conjunctive use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raw Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycleda 0 0 0 tbd tbd tbd tbd Other(defne) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unaccounted-for system losses (-3%) 127 113 131 143 147 152 157 Total 127 113 131 143 147 152 157 a Recycled water is not considered a loss and is not included in fhe total 5.2.4 Total Water Use Table 5-8 shows the total combined water use Erom "fables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-7 (DWR'1'ables 12, 13, and 14). Data /rom W~P records 5.3 Water Demand Summary The City's demand is lower than its available water rights and water supply as discussed in Chapter 3. Based on the demand projections provided, the City's demand falls below its water supply up through 2030. "fhe per capita demand of 228 gpd is relatively high but not out of line Eor similar cornmunities given the warm summer climate and degree of landscaping. However, at times, the City has a difficul[ time meeting demands, especially peak demands during extended periods of hot weather. The reason the City's water system cannot meet the peak water demands during these periods is because the pumping capacity of the existing Ranney collector, surface water wells, and percolated groundwater well is limited. ~Iso, during drought conditions, the water table is lower, which reduces the yield of the wells. 1'hc City is conducting a groundwater well siting study to increase groundwater well production by 1,500 gpm to help the City meet its peak demands. Howevu, additional pumping capacity will be needed to meet Euture growth within the 1995 General Plan sphere of influence depicted in Figure 2- 2. SS ORAFi for review pu~oses only. P.\128000\128619-Ukiah uwMP\nrda ReoorL November 200TUWMPI I-13lTRel do CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER P~IANAGEMENT PLAN 6. WATER SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND COMPARISON This chapter provides a comparison of projected water supplies and demand and water shortage espectadons. 6.1 Current and Projected Water Supplies vs. Demand This section provides a comparison of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water veax supply and demand for the City. Water demands are addressed in Chapter 5, water supply is addressed in Chapter 3, and recycled water supply is addressed in Chapter 4 of this UWMP. The projected normal water year supplies are compared to the current demand Eox the Ciry in Table 6-1. (from Table 3.7) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply (16,570 AF for 2005) 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 ofyear2005 104 104 104 104 104 The current and projected water demands axe compared to the current demands fox a single dry year for the City in Table 6-2. (from Table SB) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Demand (3,869 AF for 2005) 4,500 4,895 5,059 5,224 5,388 of year 2005 116 127 131 135 139 The projected water supply and demand are compared to the demands for a normal water year fox the Ciry in 'fables 6-3. The projected demand goes up more between 2010 and 2015 than in future time periods. because it is anticipated that the City will begin serving a noxdon of the 1995 proposed SOI in 2010 and the Cih~ will have built out its evsting City limits by 2015. ~~ 2010 . - -~ 2015 •~ 2020 2025 2030 Supply totals 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 17,175 Demand totals 4,500 4,895 5,059 5,224 5,388 Difference 12,675 12,280 12,116 11,951 11,787 Difference as % of Supply 74 71 71 70 69 Difference as % of Demand 282 251 239 229 219 ~- DF2AFT for review purposes only. P'.A72@OOOr128619 NkIah UWMPAClrafl Report-November 2007~UWMP11-13 fTFBl.do 6: Water Supply Versus Demand Comparison 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Based on Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, the City will have adequate water supply during normal years through 2030. Note that this comparison does not account for water saved as llMMs. Increased participation in DMMs could lower demand. 6.2 Water Shortage Expectations The projected water supply and demand fox normal, single dry years, and multiple drp years am shown in 'fables 6-4 through 6-9. 13ven though the water supply totals exceed the water demand totals, it was assumed that water conservations within the City and the sphere of influence depicted in Figure 2-2 would occur with multiple dry pears. This is a practice tha[ the City has operated in the pas[ because of the limited pumping capacity from the City's water supply sources. Also, during multiple dry years, the water levels drop, making it more diEficul[ to pump. Fox Tables 6-5 through 6-9, the analysis assumed that after the fast year of a drought, the City would reduce it-water use byto 87.5 percent of normal use, the second year after a drought, the City would reduce its water use Ito 83.5 pecccn[ of normal use, and the third and fourth years, the City would reduce its water use brto 75 percent of normal use. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply totals 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 4,500 4,895 5,059 5,224 5,388 Difference 3,900 3,505 3,341 3,176 3,012 Difference as % of Supply 46 42 40 38 36 Difference as % of Demand 87 72 66 61 56 2006 rt 2007 ~ 2008 2009 2010 Supply totals 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 3,946 3,822 3,684 3,342 3,375 Difference 4,454 4,578 4,716 5,058 5,025 Difference as % of Supply 53 54 56 60 60 Difference as % of Demand 113 120 128 151 149 6-2 DRAFT for review purposes only. P',1280001128fii9 Ukiah UWMP~,Dr it Re rt N v tuber 200TUWMP71 13 TRB tl 6: Water Supply Versus Demand Comparison 2005 Urban Water Management Plan .. •. 2011 . ~~ r 2012 ~ ~ 2013 ~ ~ 2014 2015 Supply totals 6,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 4,578 4,075 3,954 3,611 3,671 Difference 3,822 4,325 4,446 4,789 4,729 Difference as % of Supply 45 51 53 57 56 Difference as % of Demand 83 103 112 133 129 2016 rr 2017 ~ 2018 2019 2020 Supply totals 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 4,928 4,340 4,169 3,770 3,794 Difference 3,472 4,060 4,231 4,630 4,606 Difference as % of Supply 41 48 50 55 55 Difference as %of Demand 70 94 101 123 121 T021 r 2022 ~ 2023 2024 2025 Supply totals 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 5,092 4,484 4,307 3,893 3,918 Difference 3,308 3,916 4,093 4,507 4,482 Difference as % of Supply 39 47 49 54 53 Difference as % of Demand 65 87 95 116 114 2026 . ~- r r. 2027 ~ ., •.r 2028 ~ - ~ 2029 2030 Supply totals 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Demand totals 5,257 4,628 4,444 4,016 4,041 Difference 3,143 3,772 3,956 4,384 4,359 Difference as%ofSupply 37 45 47 52 52 Difference as % of Demand 60 81 89 109 108 63 DRAFT far review purposes only P'.\128000.128619 Uklah WMP\Dreft Re ad November 2007\UWMP1113 TRe tlo '. 6: Water Supply Versus Demand Comparison 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Based on the information shown in Tables 6-4 through 6-9, the City has adequate supply during multiple drv years. I Iowevex, the City's pumping capacity is litnitcd. The Ciry plans on adding two groundwater wells in the near future and will need to add more wells as needed fox connections within the 1995 General Plan sphere of influence depicted in Figure 2-2. 6.3 Water Shortage Summary The City is not expected to have any water shortages in terms of water rights within the next 25 years. However, the City is currently limited by its pumping capacity, not its water supply. Phis analysis shows that even with a reduction in water supply, the City still has sufficient water supply to meet its forecasted demands without am' water conservation. 6d DRAFT for review purposes only. P:1128000\128619~Ukiah UWMPIDraft Reoort-NOVember200TUWMPI I-13 (TRBI.do CITY OF UKIAFI URBAN 4NATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 7. DEMAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Water conservation is a method available to reduce water demands, thereby reducing water supply needs fox the City. This chapter presents a description of the City's water conservation program, an economic analysis of water conservation Demand Management Measures (DMMs) 1, 2, 6, 14, and a description of [he methods and assumptions used to conduct the analysis. 7.1 California Urban Water Conservation Council The unpredittability oEits water supplies and ever increasing demand on California's complex water resources have resulted in a coordinated effort by DWR, water utilities, environmental organizations, and other interested groups to develop a list of urban water conservation DMMs fox conserving water. This consensus- building effort xesultcd in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, as amended September 16, 1999, among parties, which formalizes an agreement to implement these DMMs and makes a cooperative effort to reduce the consumption of California's water resources. The DMMs as defined by the MOU axe preserved in Table 7-1. The MOU is administered by the California Urban Water Conservation CouncIl (CCWCC). The City is not curxendy a MOU signaton. The MOU requires that a water utility implement only the DMMs that are economically feasible. if a DMM is not economically feasible, the utility may request an economic exemption for that DMM. "I'he DMMs as deEmed in the MOU are generally recognized as standard definitions of water conservation measures. No. ~~ DMM Name 1. Water survey programs for single-family residential and multi-family residential connections. 2. Residential plumbing retrofit. 3. System water audits, leak detection, and repair. 4. Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. 5. Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. 6. High-effciency washing machine rebate programs. 7. Public information programs. 8. School education programs. 9. Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. 10. Wholesale agency assistance programs. 11. Conservation pricing. 12. Conservation coordinator. 13. Water wasteprohibilion. 14. Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilets (ULFT) replacement programs. 7-1 DRAFT for review purposes only. P91 2800011 286 7 9-Ukiah UWMP\Draft Reoon-November 200TUWMP71-13 fTRBLdo 7: Demand Management Practices ^_ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 7.2 Methodology and Assumptions An economic analysis is conducted fox four of the 14 DMMs that axe described in the MOU, DMMs 1, 2, 6, and 14. Economic analyses axe not completed for DMMs 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 because the}' aze non- quantifiable, yet essential to the success of those DMMs that are quantifiable. Non-quantifiable DMMs are those that have no quantifiable amount of dollars that need to be spent to implemem these programs. The amoun[ of water saved Exom these DMMs is also not quantifiable. DMM 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 axe not analyzed because they are cuxrentiy implemented; DMMs 5 and 9 are not analyzed because the City has very limited large landscape, commercial, indnsttial, and institutional customers. DMM 10 is not analyzed because the City is not a wholesaler. Assumptions used in [he economic analysis for each llMM analyzed are described in Appendix F. Directly beneath each assumption is a brief description of the rationale and~or supporting evidence fox that assumption. Common assumptions for all DMMs axe that the value of conserved water is $1,206/AP, the seal discount rate is 6.15 percent, and the overhead rate is 73 percent The real discount rate is calculated Exom the assumed real cost of money (8.67 percent) and the assumed long-term inflation rate (2.52 percent) using the precise conversion method (A&N'1'echnical Services 2000, pg A-2). 1'he economic analysis was performed using MicrosoEt® Exce12003, a spreadsheet program. A separate, customized worksheet fox each DMM is presented in Appendix F. Each DMM economic analysis spreadsheet calculates, on an annual basis, the number of interventions and the dollar values of the benefits and costs that would result from implementing a particular llMM. "Perms and formulas that axe common to all the worksheets axe defined in Table 7-2. Term Definitlon Comments BENEFITS Avoided Capital Costs Capital costs that are avoided by implementing An example is the cost of a well that would not the DMM. have to be installed due to implementation of the DMM. Avoided Variable Costs Variable costs that are avoided by implementing An example is the cost of electricity that would the DMM. be saved if the DMM were implemented. Avoided Purchase Costs Purchase costs that are avoided by implementing An example is the cost of purchasing water that the DMM. would not be needed due to implementation of the DMM. Total Undiscounted Benefits The sum of avoided capital costs, avoided variable costs, and avoided purchase costs. Total Discounted Benefits The present value of the sum of avoided capital An annual percentage rate consisting of the cost costs, avoided variable costs, and avoided of borrowing money minus the inflation rate. purchase costs. COSTS Capital Costs Capital costs incurred by implementing the DMM, For example, the cost to purchase and install meters for DMM 4. Financial Incentives The cost of f nancial incentives paid to Co-pay or distribution for purchasing low-flow connections. plumbing devices or washing machines are examples of (nancial incentives. Operating Expenses Operational expenses incurred during implementation of the DMM. 7-2 DRAFT for review pmposasonly- PN28000\128619~Uk-ah UWMP\Draft Report-November 200PUWMPI I-13 (TRBI.do 7: Demand Management Practices ~ __ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Term Definition Comments Total Undiscounled Costs The sum of capital costs, financial incentives, and operating expenses, Total Discounted Costs The present value of the sum of capital costs, The discount rate is used to calculate financial incentives, and operating expenses. discounted costs from undiscounted costs. Net Present Value Total discounted benefits minus total discounted A value greater than zero indicates an costs. economically justifiable DMM. RESULTS Benefit /Cost Ratio The sum of the total discounted benefits divided A ratio greater than one indicates an by the sum of the total discounted costs. economically justifiable DMM. Simple Pay-Back Period The number of years required for the benefits to A low value is considered economically pay back the costs of the DMM, calculated as the attractive. sum of the total discounted costs divided by the average annual total discounted benefits. Discounted Cost /Water Saved The present-value cost to save one acre-foot of A low value is considered economically water, calculated as the sum of the total attractive because it indicates a low discounted costs divided by the total acre-feet of implementation cost. Value must be less than water saved over the study period. the marginal cost of new water to be cost effective. Net Present Value I The net value of saving one acre-foot of water, A high value is considered economically Water Saved calculated as the sum of the net present value attractive. divided by the total acre-feet of water saved over the study period. 7.2.1 Value of Conserved Water 1'he value of conserved water is based on the rate thae the City charges its customers for water, plus the cost to treat the water at the wastewater treatment plant. The November 2008 rate of $1.29 per 748 gallons (sec 't'able 7-3) was used plus $2,471 per million gallons to treat the water when it becomes wastewater. Because 80 percent of treatment costs axe attributed to flow, only 80 percent of the cost to treat the wastewater was used. "1'he remaining 20 percent of the wastewater treatment costs are associated with organic and solids loading. This- equated to a total value of water of $-1,206 per acre-feet. This calculated value fox conserved water does not include the capital cost fox improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to recycle all of City's wastewater in the future if the Citv is not allowed to discharge into the Russian River. Based on the total annual water savings calculated, it is estimated that the City may be able to reduce the design flow for future wastewater treatment needs by 6 percent 73 ORAPr for review proposes only. PA128000tl 28619 k' h iWMPAn aft Report No a b 200TUWMm113lTRBl doe gaga 7: Demand Management Practices -_ _` _ _ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan .~ ~ rr~ r rr• r' Proposed Monthly Service Charge EBedive Meter SizelClass Description November 2005 November 2006 November 2007 November200S %a" 14.36 14.64 14.94 15.24 1" 21.58 22.97 24.41 25.90 1 %," 37.85 41.85 45.99 50.28 2" 58.10 65.38 72.93 80.75 3" 105.72 120.70 136.25 152.36 4" 173.40 199.43 226.44 254.45 6" 8 Up 341.13 394.53 449.92 507.37 Fire Service 2" & Under 11.62 13.08 14,59 16,15 Fire Service 3" 21.14 24.14 27.25 30.47 fire Service 4" 34.68 39.89 45.29 50.89 Fire Service 6" 68.23 78.91 89.98 101.47 Proposed Consumption Rate ($lunit; 1 unit is 748 gallons) 0.91 1.07 1.20 1.29 7.3 Current Water Conservation Program The City conducts an ongoing water conservation program. i1 description of each llMb4 that is currently being implemen[ed ox scheduled fox implementation, aschedule of implementation, and a method to evaluate effectiveness is provided in this section. The evsting conservation savings is also discussed. DMM 1. Water survekpto2rams for single-family residential and multi-family residential connections. Description: Water survey programs fox single-family residential and multi-fatrilly xes'idential connections consist of annual water audits, water use reviews, and surveys of past program participants. Audits will be conducted by trained auditors and may include low flow device installation Audits will identify water-use problems, recommend repairs, instruction in landscape principles, irrigation timer use and, when appropriate, meter reading. Schedule: The City offers to test customer me[ers upon request. The Ciry does not track the number of tests performed annually. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Effectiveness of this DMM will be eealuatcd by program penetration and by comparison of prior audited customer water use to Euture water use. Table 7-4 summarizes the economic analysis fox this DMM. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.3. See Appendix F for full economic results for this DMM. DRAFT for review purposes only. P'128000\728619-Uk'ah UWMP\Braft Reood-November 200TUWMPI7-13 (TRBI.do 7: Demand Management Practices 2005 Urban Water Management Plan DMM 2. Residential plumbing retrofit. Description: Plumbing retrofit of existing residential accounts consists of providing low Elow showerheads, faucet aerators, and [oiler leak detecton tablets to customers. This includes working with local programs and businesses to offer free water conservation information and materials to residents. Schedule: The City has offered water savings kits in the past. However, due to lack of interest by customers, the City has discontinued this program. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: The City offers retrofit kits if requested by the public, but has not seen significant savings as a result from these kits. "fable 7-4 summarizes the economic analysis fox tMs DMM. The benefit to cost ratio is 3.4. See Appendix F for full economic results Eor [his DMbf. DMM 3. System water audits leak detection and repair. Description A system water audit, leak detection and repair program consists of ongoing leak detection and repair within the system, focused on the high probability leak areas. This also includes an ongoing meter calibration and replacement program for all production and distribution meters. Schedule: The City performs leak detection and repair on an ongoing basis. The City, also, calculates system water losses annually and reports this information to D\X/R. In addition to calculating system losses, the City is currently replacing old meters in the system. The new meters wffi provide a more accurate reading of water use within the City. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: The City's annual report to DWR tracks the unaccounted Eor water losses in the system. Any reductions in water loss due to the replacement of old meters and water leak detection and repairs will be xeElected in the annual report The City does not record the number of miles of dismbution lines surveced, nor the expenditures. This DMM is non-quantifiable and therefore, no results' are provided in the economic analysis. DMM 4. Metering with commodi~ rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. Description: The City water distribution system is Eully metered. The City is currently replacing old meters in the system in an effort to provide more accurate readings of water use within its service area. Schedule: The City will continue to install and read meters on all new services and replace aging matrix. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Effectiveness of this DMM will be evaluated by comparison of prior water use to future water use. However, the City does not record the number of meter retrofits, metered and unmetered accounts, taor the number of accounts without commodity rates. The City recently went through a rate re-structuring that is believed will reduce water uses in the Eumre. DMM 5. Large landscape conservation~rograms and incentives. Description: '1'hc large landscape conservation program will consist of identifying all irrigation accounts and commercial, industrial, and institutional (<.II) accounts with landscape of one acre and larger, and mcording this information into a database. Schedule: The City's Planning llepaxtment reviews all landscape plans proposed Eor new developments. Included in the City's Municipal Code is a xequuement for all landscape planting to be "those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without crtensive irrigation." 7.5 DRAFT for review purposes only. P11 2 600017 28619-Ukiah UWMP~Drafl Reood-November 200TUWMPoI-13 (TRBLdo 7: Demand Management Practices 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: No economic analysis is performed on this DbfM as the Ciry has very Eew CII accounts. The City does not track the water use by large landscape customers, and can not evaluate the effectiveness of this DMM. DMM 6. Huh-efficiency washing machine rebate~trograms. Description: The high-efficiency washing machine rebate program would consist of distributing rebates to those customers who purchase a water conserving washing machine. Schedule: 'I~he City does not currently have a high efficiency washing machine rebate program. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: F.Efectiveness of this llMbl is not evaluated because the Ciri' does not [tack the number of rebates. Table 7-4 summarizes the economic analysis for this DMM. The benefit [o cost ratio is 0.4. See Appendii F Eor full economic results fox this DMM. DMM 7. Public information programs. Description: Public information programs would consist of conservation news articles, fliers, media mvexage, community events, etc. Schedule: The City believes public awareness of water conservation issues is an important factor in ensuring a reliable water supply. The Ciry promotes public awareness of water conservation through occasional bill staffers, distribution of the Consumer Confidence Report, radio broadcasts, and the City web-site. In addition, City staff discuss with customers how they can conserve water. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Savings Erom this program cannot be directly quantified. The activities performed in this program fall under the conservation budget for the City. The conservation budget is $2,000. DMM S. School education programs. Description: "1'he City would prepare water conservation programs to target chHdxen at school. Schedule: The Ciry offers local schools tours of its water treatment plant and also provides educational materials. Four science classes on public water supply at the high school are offered once a year. The cost of this program comes out of the City's conservation budget. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Savings from this program cannot be directly quantified. DMM 9. Conservation programs for commerciah industriah and institutional accounts. Description: The Ciry would develop a conservation program fox CII accounts that includes water audits targeted to the top water users. "Phis program would include surveys of past program participants to determine if audit recommendations were implemented. This program would also include incentives related to the use of efficient water-use technologies. Schedule: "Phe Ciry has only two industrial customers: Maverick Industries and Red Tail Ale Brewery. The City surveys the water usage of these industries. Any new commercial, industrial, or institutional developments will be reviewed by the City Planning llepaxtmcnt and must meet all requirements of the Municipal Code. Due to the lack of CII accounts, this DMM has not been economically analyzed. 7-6 DRAFT tar review purposes only. P.\7280001128619-Ukiah UWMP\Dratt Report-November 20071UWMP11-13 (TRBI.do 7: Demand Management Practices 2005 Urban Water Management Plan DMM 10. Wholesale agency assistance programs. Description: Wholesaler water suppliers would provide financial incentives, or equivalent resources, as appropriate, beneficial, and mutuall}- agreeable to then retail water agency customers to advance water conscrvaton efforts and effectiveness. Schedule: This llMM is not applicable to the City since it is not a wholesale agenc}'~ DMM 11. Conservation pricing Description: Conservationee pcicing requires that water rates encourage conservative water use by all customers. Schedule: "1'he Citv xecendy increased and xe-structured its water tates to encourage more conservation, see Table 7-3. The City has simplified its rate structure by eliminating rate codes and classifiring customers' according to [heir meter size. The new late strucmre incorporates the American Water Works Association (AWlX7A) demand capacity guidelines so dta[ price increases across meter size in proportion to the potential demand a customer can place on the water system. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: l;ffectivcness of this DMM will be evaluated by comparison of City water use prior to and following the implementation of conservation pricing. Because the City has just implemen[ed a new rate schedule, [he effectiveness can not be evaluated. DMM 12. Conservation coordinator. Description: A conservation coordinator is an ongoing component of a City's water conservation program. "1'he wnseroadon coordinator would be responsible fox implementing and monitoring a Ciq~'s water conservation activities. Schedule: In practice, all staff members encourage water conservation implementation. Water conservation coordination for the City is established b}' the policies determined by the City Council and includes answering questions of the public by maintenance and meter readers while in the field. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Water savings from this Db1M cannot be directly quantified. Effectiveness of this DMM will be evaluated by the success of the City's water conservation program. DMM 13. Water waste prohibition. Description: Water waste prohibition will require the City to adopt its own set of water conservation regulations. Schedule: The Cii}~ has adopted regulations that state in part "Where negligent or wasteful use of water exists on a customer's premises...the City may discontinue the service..." (City Municipal Code 1lxtide 7, Section 3571). The City first sends customers a letter calling their attention to the wasteful practice and asking fox coxxectlon. If the condition is not corrected within five days after the written notice, service ma}' be discontinued if necessary. Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: ~Y'ater savings from tMs program cannot be directly quantified. DMM 14. Residential ULFT replacement programs. Description: Since October 1992, the sale of toilets using more than 1.6 gallons per flush has been prohibited by State and Federal regulations. The residential ULFT replacement program will require the City to hand out rebates to those who buy an ULFT toilet. Schedule: '1'hesc regulations arc enforced in the City. 7.7 DRAB for review purposes only. P11 ~0A128679 Uk'ah UWMPAO atl Report Noe b 200TUWMP1113 fTRBld Lqg 7: Demand Management Practices 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Evaluation of DMM Effectiveness: Effectiveness of this DMM has' not been evaluated as the Citv dots not track the number of rebates ox expenditures. Table 7-4 summarizes the economic analysis Eor this DMM. The benefit to cost ratio is 2.9. Sec Appendix F fox full economic results Eox this llMM. 7.4 Economic Analysis Resul4s An estimate of existing conservation savings is not avaIlable. It is likely that previous and ongoing conservation measures have resulted in water savings of approximately 2 to 5 percent of total water production. The water savings already achieved b}' existing conservation measures will have some impact on the City's ability to further reduce demand Nevexthdess, the City anticipates achieving additional water savings by further implementation of DMMs in the future. Of the four DMMs analyzed, three appear to be cost effective fox the City. DMMs 1, 2, and 14 should be evaluated in the fumre to assess if the City has the capital to implement them. Table 7-4 summarizes the economic analysis results. r Simple Discounted Net Presets Total Total Benefd l Payback Cost I Water Value I Water BMP Discounted Water Saved Cost Analysis Saved Saved No. BMPName Cost (E) (acre-feet) Ratio (years) (~Jacre-feet) (§lacre-feet) Water Survey Programs for 1 Single-family Residential and 27 924 104 1.3 10 268 88 Multi-family Residential Customers 2 Residential Plumbing Retrofit 47,887 229 3.4 4 209 455 6 High-efficiency Washing 32,557 24 0.4 47 1,356 -778 Machine Rebate Programs 14 Residential ULFT 409 099 1 932 2.9 7 212 407 Replacement Programs , , \R~ith implementation of DMM 1, 2, and 14, the City could save an average of 130 AP per year at a cost of about $38,000 per year fox the next 20 years. These costs do not account for reryded water pumping, which could add savings of about $5,250 per yeaz on energy iE energy costs $0.14 per kilowatt/hour. 'I1re Citv may also chose to mn these programs on a less' aggressive schedule to reduce the capital costs during the first few teats. "1'he ULFT toile[ replacement program saves the City the most water. Due to natural attritioq many toilets will be replaced in the future even without a rebate program. 1'he xcsul[s of this economic analysis are similar to the results of other economic analyses conducted Eor cities of sitrnlax population. 7.5 Non-quantifiable DMMs Because the water savings from DMMs 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 are not quantifiable, an economic analysis was not completed. "fhe schedules and implementation strategies must be determined by the City based on information provided in the MOU to determine the best water conservation practices. The MOU provides examples of implementation strategies for these DMMs along with implementation schedules, coverage requirements, criteria to determine llMM implementation status, and requirements fox documenting DMM implementation. 7.8 DRAFT for review purposes only. P91280n0A128619 -Ukiah UWMPADraft Report- November 2007~UWMP71-13 fTRBI.d 7: Demand Management Practices _ ~_ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 7.6 Additionallssues Non-economic Eactors, including environmental, social, health, customer impacts, and technological axe not thought to be significant in deciding which DMMs to implement. "1'hc City has the legal authority- to implement the DMMs. 7-9 DRAFT for review purppses only- P1128000\128619 Uk'ah UWMP1D ftR rt N h 2007tUWMP1113 fTRBl dOC eEB~WJ2I AUWINR7B~19 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX A California Department of Water Resources Review Sheets A DRAFT far 2view purposes only- PV128000A128fi19 -Ukiah UWMP1Draf1 Report- August 200TDraf1 UWMP (081020071.tloc E , 0 LL VI N d C d •' d a E 0 U d w N O7 N d :~ •~ a ~, c3 v E~ a+ o ~ LL R L N g d Y R 3 A f 0 0 N h O 0 N 9 N O N 0 0 N m N a x x x x x r 3 d n C ~ m c 3 E .o o c ~ t 6 E U O 3 ~ W e U w ~ c .u T dd w T Eu .E s `o ~ r .u _ °c 9 c C d O C C d ~ 2 '~ L R C a d O S~Q NQ U2 N SU d a E Z d m w a m u c d w d ryN U O N d d N_ E N E n 0 w O O C i W ; w t C O E E w 3 v 3 c L N a E N c E ~~ ~~ a a E E > > Z Z d d m a w w a a at as ~ ~ c c d d `m m v d K K C .. d c E d E a d w W C w w C E w E v ~' 3 3 O1 c v y w ~ j~ w_ S O V_ w U ~ L 0 V N w rn w E U d m a m E r U O n a ~ ~ m N ° 0 N N O O p~ O O ~ O N R N O W ~ _ ~- g O O N O O y n O N 1p V OJ OJ 1{O,Vj Y O O 1n O O p ~ O v m m ~ v n °m °o m O O a ° b ~ a eo 00 ~ ° n O O of Q O O m IA W w O O O O N ~ p N ~ r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1C V N N N IOQV P ~ b a p N N S" ~. ,~ CCC ( y q ~ ~ ~ > T ~S 9 ~ 5 O L 6 s g e `o 3 ~ ! ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ' 6 5 N ~ ~ a. tll ~ W K 0 0 N W N O N N N N N N E E E E E E 2 Z Z Z 2 Z W W W W N N ~ m rv m m m a a a a a a m m m~ ro ro v d~ d v w C C C C C C N~ N N N N d ~ w w w d N N N N N N K ~ d' K K K ICI N n_ N t m ~' V ~ V ~ r d n o E ~ ~ a o ° o m c ~ a m ~p N d n E c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ d ~ a ~ m 30 W F O~ N N ~ E o am ~ a N N 6 n 'p !E E ~ ~ c c N r N N 0~ x ¢ o m . d p LL C3 < 6 y _ cb o ~ m `c r Z d L N 7 N N Y N E E E E Z Z Z Z W d d d rn a m w m m m m a a a a rom pm~m U U U C C C C N N N N d w w N N W W K ~ ~ ~ m a m a, ~ i. a a ~ w m ~ r v` rv v T o c m c U ~ N O O N 6 oa°~ c ~ ~ 'o E °' o E A O a ry ~ o c c o o O v a ~ U U C O O `c E o 0 d d V) N ~ p .y .N ry C T T y5 N F ^ a 0 O O m O m ~ ~I ~ m M d 3 a 0 O 0 N rn ^ m N b N ® IV ~ ~ - n N m m '~ in ~ 6 N - r ~ n ~ m ~ m o '~ ~ r m `° .mod.. rv °n ~ A 3 N n ~ ~ ; G `0 0O it N 2 ~ L :: c ° F R 'q N 3 0 ° X ~ d o r m; a .. P N 0 0 N W N O W a E z m m m a ro U C N N N K r v n m U m r ° L N E U O N C N W O _T n m c 1 c T °¢ N W N 3 v O a O rt m a a ~ ~ °a in 4 ~ 0 ~ > S < ~ ~ ~ ~ y P P N O Y 10 O e r ~n ~ Z ~ Z' `w ° G • o _ > v n ps ~R ~ ~3 O ~~~JJJ m v 6 N N N a a a E E E > > > z z z v v v o, ~ m m rv m a a a m of m u u C C C N N W N N w N N W ~ ~ ~ f7IMl c~ v v m .... 5 m m m U U U i C f0 W C T 2. d N C N a A y^ a V > > ~ w ~ ~ a ~ `v ~ m v °ao ~vo+ Odc W'Ww 9~3oS ~T9 m~ o C O B N C W C N C ~0 3 C C C eC • W ~ c c c O C O C O C N 7 ° ~ - c c ~ c ~ J c ~+ w v n in y ~ L y~ v E L C U'c~~ 3 U n ~ c Q w N ~ > 3 ' a O ~ ~ O ~ ~ (~ v ~ N d n a E E > > z z v v m m m m a a m m u v C C N N N 4 d d ~ K rl 0 UI m `o V N E L 3 N U y d N C C U 6 N c v ~ N n ~ n N ~ O N C d A N 6 'y v c g o V IJ C m o O Z M1 O O N N O D n j Z Z d ~ A ~ a a w ~ ~ ~ d m Y, m c 3 U N N N d C 3 G 6 O IU' O M I C O '~ N gd ~ .~ e~ ~8 C o O N d N G ~ ~ y C ~ ? SE vv°8@ xoa Asa x:x F£4 's goo P ~ a ~ ~ t ~ wPl e i E ~ p $'S 8 2 ~ 3 5 8 ~~ ~! ~~ 5 8 q'p ~~ b ~ ' ~ 3 3 0 0 N N O N N a a Z Z v m m ~ (0 F a a of m U a d w d e~ (7 N h C U N d m c O N d ~ C N y ~ L Q e p O c ~ N Z ~ H C d O a Z oho o~olo W a Z v m N a m v w P N h O U N N P: 3 C 0 a m Q C 9 ~ r p N ~ N N N .n y~ r ~ R ` ` b N M p ~ O . G N N t7 ~ ~ r A N N g F d N m d N G N m W 3 • ^' m t L 8 ~ S y 9 O y C 7 ~$ Y U W . E c C j{ U D c C N f7 V @ ~ N O y 0 LL 3 N _~ C a d 3 a N 0 0 L c m _ t m U O N C E O j N N N W a n a Z Z Z v v m m w m N f0 N aaa M o6 of d m w C C C avv w~v avd ~~~ of I o NI IN~ N L O a V o y C U O ? .~• V h d ~ C nQ ~ `v a = o ~ rn c m s E r ~ S d O W 3 4 W c y E o a v o ~ m °~o"i o a L ~ N O ry a ~ m ~ m m E u a ~ C N p~ W N ' d '` ~ ` N N O~ W C C d N N ~ a n a mwt'nE~ C 'q O 4 IL w 4 N N y C C Y m O a1 W .~ U a v d w N O E 0 0 ~ a w O p o u c ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ m _ d ~? O H O ~ c O U U C N 9 N U ~ O N c o E _ m E c E N Q m C S O O j Z U v X X 0 0 N N O V e N LL~ x N N n E 0 U d ~° 9 ~ ~ W ~ 8 E a 6 ~ N N a ~ O ~ a` E n N ~ m ~ 2 ~ a a u - °' h c t y s N - E = o o ~ v ~ a m ~ N E c ~ ~ 0 3 a ~ ~ ~ u u v - z ., - y ° ' u °- y a -, m _ °' 3 ¢ 2 a' w d d `a `w a a a n a E E E E E J J J J J Z Z Z Z Z N N N N N ~ Of ~ O) m a a a a a NS M 4f 4f W U U ~ U U C C C C C N W W N N w w w w d 0! o ~o ~ ~ co ci M M n vi c c c c c o a o 0 0 a~i a~'i v m v y fn N vl h E m 0 d LL ~ LL a Q u P W v W O ~ y~ 'T 4 LL T ~ >. Q ~ W y 4 y T E ~ v >' Z N y T r a o m a m n ~ E m n w V p C J O p d C y E U d ~ y y U ~ V Fl Lyl o n ° m v °' n x N 'o 'o 'o o O n n n d C~ U U U e d m m y n u `o `0 0 ~ V W C C C N /' O O O ~ ° v ~ u V ~ ~ K !C !~ w = 'd c c c m m m Z o~ 0 0 0 ~4 4 P1 ~(] ~ N C N C N ~ } Z' a 44 O N a N ~ m C N C N ~ J ~ 'y T rLL V s ~ ~n ~ m c m c ~n ro v~ ~ m c m c ~n a ~ ~3 a t !. W ~. 5ro. py N „ ~ lggq OI ~n m E E m a ~ :_ m a m N o m Q LL u ~ ~ c °~ _ < - g e Ti 'Ty 0 m O N O T O t7 . a~ Y$ ~p Y y m „ 6 p C o F. 9 N w a N Y ` l^ , , E a' d ; j a N U ~ n ~ = E y c 3 a r r m ' r 3 x m C O_ N N N 3 C J OI N 3 Y U a d 3 0 E 0 C T c a c 3 a ~ « m ~ c 3 N 9 N d a m o N v m E n o O C > N w E a n a o m o _ ~ 5 C o y D 6 O T j y 2 L N 0. O 9 m n n y E O Y V A 3 O h C a ~ : x a 3 C Y Y v C u m `y t y L O a O o 0 m r O 0 N N O m d 9 d d 9 n E 7 ~ 9 E > 7 Z Z > z Z d ~ R P ~ ~ ~ Ld1 d a m ad ,pas A ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 sn O ` ~ d d w S N N ~ ~ d ~ . ~ v Kri K , C j N ~ O C c E O d_ d .7 Q (6 d ~ d C R ~ i ~ N ^~ b = NZl N C d R ~ v E ~ ~ d N m ~ d E $' m E a 3 E E m c? a B c a a 7 om5 U V ~ L y N q O ~ L aj 6 ~ v ° K a~ ~ ~ ~ O D U c = ay a d U t d m E m u ~i R_'u`, ya ~ ° c 'O c m m E~ is '~ ~ d d N d ~ n m E d m ~ a m V a d o d g ~ ~ v ~ 3 m u ~ d m V m~ 3 ~ } > ~ ~ m O ~ E d ao m d C Q N a E d 3 N ~ ~~ N N C d r ~ E L N d N ~] A 3 R o N +~ d N O CO t ~i U Y 6 `~ E N d 9 b ~ d 4 0 3 N d i 2 d Q d 4 } U C ~ d d P Q E Z N m ~ S d N ~ ~ O m p P R P N A R O d ~p N r . N J ON d N T N i 9 O ~ p W d ° o ~ N u °' >o ~ ~+ N O n 'Y d ~D C O O .~ iN'~ ~5j -O. d ~ O n y O ~ N n 3' p ~? t ~ ; m ~ d O m ~ 3 £ z ~' 3 9 D > N 0 6 N N ~ s~ R ~ r W 9 E z d m a -~ y5 `a c v v o r 3 ~ ~ ~~ v 0 ~m ~~ m V_ O N L N U O 6 T ~ C ~ W X61 rn n m ~p N N N i N ~ 6 .J L N u_ T 4 n ~ 9 N 3 m c ?~ d t v 3 ~ c o p c m n , J d ~ O m E N T N ~ O d ~ ~ O ~ i ~i C ~ N R O1 W 0 0 N N O M1 O O N m N O N d a E i Z U ~ N R i a ds ^n d w d m C 6 L U O N N ~ d ab ~ N ~ _ N C N h O O rv m N O d n E z `v m 3 m N_ N C ro I~ n 0 0 rv m N 0 `m a E z m m a m v V C W w W N N C O U N J N 3 N U a v 0 v 3 n °c y O ~ U J N ~ a a t_ O N N a ~ £ ~ m n E ~ c t 0 3 J y 7 ~ d ~ R C N O ~ E c y o U .~ N ~ S E N N J v ~s.l, Y f 0Qg Y L Zj ~ C d a E z v m a m v C N w N 0 a 0 a a E E z z w v w m m a a at m U C C N N N d d ~ K O W m x of a c C ~ 6 tJ n v h c 0 'u a v m U N U C FC G d W a 0 T 6 O u m L V N Q N 0 0 N N O d d d E E E ' ' ' z z z m m d m m o m m m a a a =a as as U U U C C C O d Qi N w w N N N K d' a' N N V V V C C C O O O_ U U U VJ l/1 f/J L_ O O N E `o `c c 0 `m 6 N n c m n u V W N t_ O 0 m c 0 °= ~~ =~ d~ a _ m w ~ d O m m a c m d d U d 3 d N 3 'o m d s d N m n 02 °~ ~ R ~ N r co ~n N M N ~ rn v N Q pN ~ N O N N h ~ m N N N Vj r N t0 ~ I~ O O e OJ Q V V V o co r n m • ~ c~ Z C a E '8 9 ~a 3 p ~p n 0 0 N m N 0 N N N W E E E E z' z' z' z' d v m m m m o+ m m m m m a a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C C N N N N v ~ ~ W d d d d N f") f7 6 6 6 O_ O O FJ FJ U ~ ~ V) m 3 P? v m U d ~ V ~p O ~ N d O y ~ O a '" C W N ~ ~ ~i N ~ d p C N d 3 d O O n O ~' .Z' N ` C O O V U 7 v d E t ac N ~ m m m n n a y y C N 0 o z° o ~ M n r O N W Q Y ~ Nl t0 ~ N W N r N N fx N W N M (p t7 p; FFII ~ V W Y Q 1 f0 N CJ N r N V fh f9 N p N QI f7 fh 1n N C oo N rn M lV C ~ O1 N p p N N f7 N t'1 N N tD r O v rn r r Cl ~ Y N m lP~all Y O Y Y f O r - ~ Z m m ~ C C Z O O 1- v d N to f A ` O C y N > ~ ~ a o a S o r v °' :- 3 m ~ !0 s » ~ ~ O a ~ ~ d _ O O O O N L ~ ~ ~ Y) e n S) O O O O N L_ W W N N " a pj p N a G a .O O O O O ~n N N a L " ~ N O p d d ~ O O O O N N L •' pJ N ~.j • b ' N ~ a 4i 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M O N f7 1p p {V O O O O O O of O W ~ $ Y ~ Z Z Z m m m ~ F H F d L_ , ~ ~+ C Y N L y N O G U ~ p q ~ ~ ~ ~ u a w m > _ d ~ v R % ` 3 6 u y .: n » ~ > V e ? y 9 o c ~ ° ~ a ~ 3 3 5 c9 c ~a c7 N a E z' m m a C N w N 0 0 N N 0 d a E z m m m a as °~' c m w m m e 0 U N N W O N W N 3 W U T U W O _N U N `u m 0 a dd a a E E > > z z w m rn rn m m a a m of ~ u c c v m v m ~ ~ NI 0 WI N N N Cl (O O N~ N U N N O O N a L 3 N C O U N O O O O $SN N N n E 0 U r 0 0 n `m N O °' n E E ~ Z Iz v ~ m ~^ a a m ~ i 4 m A 3 N Ny T N i 7 ~ O 3 d N U q y O ~ r ro Y o C N m Q o u m ~ m N ~ O rn E m d 9 N '~' C y O .p N d v m n 4 j .N N ~ ~ ry G 3 J Z Z ~ a `O ~ a a ~ ~ g °~ ' m ~ d m d m m ~ e; ~' c c o . ~ N N N O 6 d N N '~ 9 d ~ L N .~ d A O~ d u m N 5 1 ~ O =g+ C N E ~ N ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ C N L ry a.~ E ~ V °: C.V A d 3 J C ^ O ~ O 4 a R O U 6 6 ~ ~ O N t4 N T p N ~ ~ y 'n f! d m 0 8 o n a E 6 ~ c L F C ` y N ~ ~~ ' a 3 ~ 3 da y A g E d 3 E m m m d ~ ~i ~ .~ N I Q q ~ A V ~ d > p) ~ o a ~ 0 0 N N a d a E Z N m m a m v U C N W W N O 'u v 0 N d W L W O N N 3 m O N N 0 d 6 N N 3 E a `o ~ ~~ d~ U ~ y U O C 6 W d T d ~ C N' O ~ U i. r (~ r m ~ ~ 1H ~ N " ~n ' P a ey `~~ .- ~ o r a N r ~ ~ ~ W _ q N n N N f~ M N N Y> ~ qN ~ O t~ N : A ~ N N N N P r N m ~ 1~ O N N p N °c 8 O s q ~ 0 0 N N a a E z v m m a al c d w v K N J N 3 m m T 9 C y d U d n 0 N '~ j~ C 3 E m v T U r` a~ d T m ~ C C a m ~ v m O T ~ O d N d X r C N ~ 4 o~ U o O ~i ¢i RR ro .n ai 8 O N ~ M t0 W N {"! ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ f0 N M • ~, ~n aWp. N u4i a n ~ . ~i w a ai ~'r $Q .X $ ~ m ~ ~ Nl . ~ y C ~ ~ r y $$ q { l ~q yW J Py W 0 { } C ~ ~ a G ~ N G ~ M1 O O N m N O E z v m N •D C O u m N c m d Ic ~ ~ o m r T m y °-' o m £ I~ c c a o d c ~p c ~ v ~ ~ 9 ~ 9 m 4~6 4 N N m e r y 2' Y+ v d d 'o nn d E n ~ E U ~ N 0 C a m d E Z N w m on ~' c m d a~ s cl o~ u d a E Z v m m a ar v u c v m K N tD C O U N N 0 N O N O N C N N2 F N a m c U H U N O N ~ T m d dg m r w .__ da c a c ~ m v_E N y ~°v a ~ 0 T mad n W ~' h ~ ~ N N O n n w E o n E U ~ N ~ L a m 0 0 N N 0 M N 0 a N N a t r m h N R ae vi v P ~ {O ~~[1 N ~ .c ei d 8 f ~ N 0 N O d .d v w QQ 3 g ~ g $ ~ ~ m e e S N r O O Y aC O+ d < M f n !A 0 O ,~ x x v d n E Z v w n a ro v V C W N N N 0 U N N N O N 2C L m c u o w m y °~ o m5 F rn c a ~ ma '^- a C ~ A a E N ~ ~a va C ao m T na n N y N T ~ a y d 'o n n v E c m E v $ o a a` ^x O f C! W N O ~ O w }Nf O l7 f lh f ~ ~ o N ~ ~ OY !+! < Y ~ O O Obi a> v v ~ yy m e 3 a`~ a m ~` R ao O ~i O ~ O l7 M t O ao vi ri a P ~ 0 C! O S ~ i~ i~ Q a $ ~~ $ C ~ @ pp O 0 0 N W N O 8 S Pf h O iD O f S O ~ h O au a a N $ gs 3 !!gg 3; a m eu v di pp O {~{~ tD A f W A N cD V ~ N p N l V p O M W N N N {~ O ~ Of P Of O tp p N y ~G • ~ ~ q S J P p R ~ e € a ~ ~ o ~ m 8 W d E 2 m a m a m p U C N v N U L 3 c L_ 3 N N C O a ~ C p N C y O U M o E a ~ ~a ~~ O ~ C O O p T N ~ T ~ b N C ~ 3 U N 2 a v n ~ y d ~ 33 r 0 0 N W N D E E `ry ~ d 9 z t z z d d w ~ m~° rn a w m w a ~ ~ ~ a m v ~ ~ i y u ~ c y m m w m d ?~ ~ ~~ K c 0 Q 0 4 N f6 Sy C ; N ] L ?~ t 7 w j N N S ~ d C N j t6 9ry y, u a_ V ~ N p~ a m 5 R .~ U o m g' ;~E'3 v m d 6 c E 8 g a m ~i m 4 0 0 K E r d N L 3 O G N C C 6 EoU U N 0 O 2005 Urban Water Management Pian APPENDIX B Public Hearing Notices DRAFr far re~iaw puryoses onlg P9128000f~ 20519 -Ukiah UWMPIDraft Report August 200TUran UWMP (081020Q7)AOc NOTICE OF HEARING ON CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Ukiah will hold a public hearing on a proposed update of its Urban Water Management Plan. The hearing will be held on October 17, 2007, beginning at 6:15 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The hearing will be held at the City Council Chambers, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. Copies of the proposed updated plan are available for public inspection in the Civic Center foyer and in the Civic Center Annex, located at 41 1 W. Clay Street, Ukiah. The plan is also available at the Mendocino County Public Library and on the City's website: http://www.c ityofu kiah.com. Please let anyone you know who may be interested in the update of the City s Urban Water Management Plan know about this hearing. [f you have any comments about or objections to the proposed plan, you must make those comments or objections known to the City Council by submitting them in writing before the hearing or making them orally at the public hearing. Please be advised that if you challenge the plan in court, you may be prevented from raising issues or presenting evidence that was not presented to the City Council by you or someone else at or prior to the hearing. Dated: September 27, 2007 Linda Brown, Acting City Clerk Publish: 10/3/07; 10/9/07 Cily of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX C Emergency Interconnection Agreement (July 1, 2002) ~- DRAFT for review purposes only. C]DOCUmenls and SettlnaslTbanvailLOCaI Se'[nas~Temoorarv Internet F1es~OLKSl1WMr vDR10-&07!21 do EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California, on - cLc- 2002, by and between the City of Ukiah ("Ukiah"l, a general law municipal rpo tion and Millview County Water District ("Millview"), a county water district formed under the provisions of Water Code sections 30000 et seq. RECITALS: 1. Millview and Ukiah operate water systems that serve contiguous territory. Water mains belonging to the two agencies Ile in close proximity to each other. 2. Urgent or emergency conditions can from time to time interrupt the water service Millview and UKiah provide their customers. "Urgent or emergency conditions' in this Agreement means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing the domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessenetl, and does not include inadequate water rights to meet peak demand. 3. It would improve the reliability of water service Millview and Ukiah provide to their customers, if the water mains of both systems were physically connected but separated by valves that could be opened during urgent or emergency conditions. 4. The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which the systems can be physically connected and the water made available to the neighboring system during urgent or emergency conditions; provided, however, char none of the quantity of water provided by Ukiah to Millview under the agreement is to be delivered by Millview to the Calpella County Water District. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in considerat(on of the above~recited facts antl on the terms and conditions as further stated herein the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Interconnection. On and after the effective date of this agreement the Ukiah and Millview water systems interconnections are in operation using lockable valves that can only be operated by Millview antl Ukiah and a water meter of sufficient capacity for the connection size. 2. ukiah's Provision of water servlice to Millview. Upon written or verbal request from Miliview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Ukiah's City ManageY or his tluly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Ukiah's water system to Mlliview's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Millview shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours atlvance notice t0 Open the valve. In its request fOr service Millview shall indicate Che time when it wants the temporary service to begin and the time when it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different termination date, Ukiah shall end service on the date s:w~ag rmt502~m I I Ivi ew June 26, 2002 indicated in the notice from Millview. In any event, Ukiah may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Ukiah shall not be requlred to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days (n any calendar quarter (Jan. 1 to March 31, April 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Ukiah shall only be requlred to furnish water service to Millview for the following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Mlllview's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the Millview service area; (3! To allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Millview equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (41 Contamination of Millview's water source. 3. Payment for service provided by Ukiah. Millview shall pay Ukiah 51.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Ukiah shall bill Millvlew for requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or within 30 days of beginning service, whichever comes first, and each 30 days thereafter until the charges for service have been paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty days from the billing date. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adjustments, tak(ng into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate, Millview understands that Ukiah may charge a higher rate for water service outside city limits than it charges for water service within city limits. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall also release and wave any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, Indemnify and hold Ukiah harmless from and against any claim by any Millview customer against Ukiah or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 4. Provision of water service to ukiaN from Millvlew. Upon written or verbal request from Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Millview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Millview water system to Ukiah's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Ukiah shall give Millvlew at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for serv(ce Ukiah shall Indicate the time when (t wants the 2 s: \u W g rm ts02\m I I I vi ew June 26. 2002 temporary service to beg(n and the time it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different entl date, Millview shall end service on the date indicated in the notice from Ukiah. In any event, Millview may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b nave been reached. b. Millview shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen cont(nuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter Uan. 1 to March 31, Afxil 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 t0 OeCember 31). C. Millview shall only be required to furnish Water Service to Ukiah for the following reasons: (1) An emergency antl/or equipment failure affecting Ukiah's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2> To combat a fire within or without the Ukiah service area; (3) To allow for necessary ma(ntenance or repair of Ukiah equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4) Contamination of Ukiah's water source. 5. Payment for service provided by Millview. Ukiah shall pay Millview S1.O0 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Millview shall b(II Ukiah for each requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or withh 30 days of beginning service whichever occurs first, and each 30 days thereafter until all charges are paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty tlays from the billing date. Tne parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate atljustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate for water service under this Agreement, Ukiah understands that Millview may charge a higher rate for water service outside its district boundaries than it charges for water service within those boundaries. If it agrees to such nigher charges, it shall release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise nave to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, Indemnify and hold Millview harmless from and against any claim by any Ukiah customer against Millview or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 6. Waiver. Failure to enforce any breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or a dfferent provision of the Agreement. 7. Compliance with law. Th(s Agreement shall not obligate either party to furnish water to the other, if the provision of such water would violate any provision of state or federal law or any term or condition of any permit, license or other approval 3 s:\u1a grm t502\mi I Ivi ew June 26,2002 held by either party in connection with its public water system. AS Of the date this Agreement was executed Ukiah and Millview had each been informed by the State Water Resources Control Board that relevant places of usewouid have to have been approved by the Boartl before interconnected water service could be provided under this Agreement. 8. Limits on flow. Ukiah and Millview mutually agree to limit the transfer of water under this Agreement to a rate of flow that will not adversely affect the distribution system or customer service levels of either system. If the City Manager of Ukiah or the General Manager of Millview determines that such an adverse Impact will occur, the manager or authorized representative of the affected system may without prior notice discontinue or reduce flow to the other system. 10. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the part(es concerning its subject matter and supersedes any prior statements, agreements or understandings between the parties concerning the same subject matter Any such prior statements, agreements or understandings are hereby declared null and void and of no further force or effect. The parties may amentl this Agreement or enter new or additional agreements to, among other things, transferor sell water to each other, provided any such amendments or agreements are contained in a writing approved by the legislative bodies and executed by duly authorized officials of bath parties. 11. Notice. Whenever written notice is required or allowed under the terms of this Agreement it shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when received by certified mail, return receipt requested, and atldressed as follows: City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 General Manager Millview Water District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, California 95482 13. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from its effective date. The term may be extended on such terms as the parties shall agree. No such extension shall be binding unless contained in a writing signed by both parties. 14. Third party beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of Ukiah and Millview and confers no rights or benefits on any persons or entities not a signatory to this Agreement. No third party beneficiaries are intended or established by this Agreement. 15. Duplicate originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals and when so executed each duplicate original bearing the original 4 s:\ulagrmrs02\mi Ilvlew June 26, 2002 signatures of the parties shall be admissible in any administrative or legal proceeding as evidence of the terms of this Agreement. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF UKIAN By: ~~ Mayor ATT~E/ST: ~ " , ~/1 ~1~~ ~ ~i G~~{~(tL~_~J City Clerk MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT B . ~, C airman of a Board L ATTEST: secret r~j 5 5:1 U W 9 r mts021 m i l Iv I ew June 26,2002 EMERCENCYINTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California, on ~ ~ 7 2002, by and between the City of Ukiah c^ukiah"), a general law municipal corporation nd willow County Water District ("willow^I, a county water district formed under the provisions of water Code sections 30000 et seq. RECITALS: 1. Willow and Ukiah operate water systems that serve contiguous territory. water mains belonging to the two agencies lie in close proximity to each other. 2. urgent or emergency conditions can from time to time interrupt the water service Willow and Ukiah provide their customers. "Urgent or emergency conditions" in this Agreement means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing the domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened, and does not include Inadequate water rights to meet peak demand. 3. It would improve the reliability of water service willow and Ukiah provide to their customers, if the water mains of both systems were physically connected but separated by valves that could be opened during urgent or emergency condittons. 4. The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which the systems can be physically connected and the water made available to the neighboring system during urgent or emergency conditions. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the aboveieclted facts and on the terms and conditions as further stated herein the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Interconnection. On and after the effective date of this Agreement the Ukiah and willow water systems interconnections are in operation using IocKable valves that can only be operated by Willow and Ukiah and a water meter of suf8clent capacity for the connection size. 2. Uklah's Provision of water service to Willow. Upon written or verbal request from Willow's oeneral Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Ukiah's water system to Willow's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Willow shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Willow shall indicate the time when it wants the temporary service to begin and the time when it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different termination date, Ukiah shall end service on the date Indicated in the notice from willow. In any event, Ukiah may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. 1 s:\u~agrmts021wlllow tune 26, 2002 b. Ukiah shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter Uan. 1 to March 31, April 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Ukiah shall only be required to furnish water service to willow for the following reasons: c1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting willow's capacity to deliver water to Its customers; c2) To combat a fire within or without the Willow service area; c3) To allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Willow equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or i41 Contamination of Willow's water source. 3. Payment for service provided by Ukiah. Willow shall pay Ukiah S1.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Ukiah shall bill Willow for requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or within 30 days of beginning service, whichever comes first, and each 30 days thereafter until the charges for service have been pall in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty daYS from the billing date. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adlustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate, Willow understands that Ukiah may charge a higher rate for water service outside city limits than it charges for water service within city limits. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall also release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold Ukiah harmless from and against any claim by any willow customer against Ukiah or Its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 4. Provision of water service to Ukiah from willow. Upon written or verbal request from Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Wlllow~s General Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Willow water system to Ukiah's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Ukiah shall give Willow at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Ukiah shall indicate the time when it wants the temporary service to begin and the time it wants that service to end. unless earlier notified of a different end date, Willow shall end service on the date indicated in the notice from Ukiah. In any event, Willow may, but need not, end sevice when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. s:\u\agrtntso2\wlllow June 26,2002 b. Willow shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calentlar days in any calendar quarter Uan.1 to March 31, April 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Willow shall only be required to furnish water service to Ukiah for the following reasons: i1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Ukiah~s opacity to deliver water to its customers; c2) To combat a fire within or without the Ukiah service area; i3) To allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Ukiah equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4I Contamination of UKiah~s water source. 5. Payment for Service provided by Willow. Ukiah shall pay Willow $1.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. willow shall bill Ukiah for each requested service within fifteen days after saltl service entls, or within 30 tlays of beginning service whichever occurs first, and each 30 days thereafter until all charges are paltl in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty tlays from the billing tlate. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adJustments, taking into consitleration Changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate for water service under this Agreement, Ukiah understands that Willow may charge a higher rate for water service outside its district boundaries than it charges for water service within those boundaries. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall release and waive any Iegai or other oblections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold W)Ilow harmless from and against any claim by any Ukiah customer against Willow or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 6. Waiver. Failure to enforce any breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or a different provision of the Agreement. 7. Compliance with law. This Agreement shall not obligate either party to furnish water to the other, if the provision of such water would violate any provision of state or federal law or any term or condition of any permit, license or other approval held by either party in connection with its public water system. As of the date this Agreement was executetl Ukiah and Willow had each been informed by the State Water Resources Control Board that relevant places of use would have to have been approved by the Board before interconnected water service could be provided under this Agreement. 3 s:\u\agrmts02\wlllow June 26, 20D2 8. Limits on flow. Ukiah and Willow mutually agree to limit the transfer of water under this Agreement to a rate of flowthatwill not adversely affect the distribution system or customer service levels of either system. If the Clty Manager of Ukiah or the General Manager of Willow determines that such an adverse impact will occur, the manager or authorized representative of the affected system may without prior notice discontinue or reduce flow to the other system. 10. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties concerning Its sublect matter and supersedes any prior statements, ageements or understandings between the parties concerning the same subJect matter. Any such prior statements, agreements or understandings are hereby declared null and void and of no further force or effect. The parties may amend this Agreement or enter new or additional agreements to, among other things, transfer or sell water to each other, provided any such amendments or agreements are contained in a writing approved by the legislative bodies and executetl by duly authorized officials of both parties. 11. Notiee. whenever written notice is required or allowed under the terms of this Agreement it shall be deemed given when personally deliveretl or when received by certified mall, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 General Manager Willow Water District 151 Laws AVenUe Ukiah, California 95482 13. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be flue l5) years from its effective date. The term may be extended on such terms as the parties shall agree. No such extension shall be binding unless contained in a writing signed by both parties. 14. Third party beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of Ukiah and Willow and confers no rights or benefits on any persons or entities not a signatory to this Agreement. No third party beneficiaries are Intended or established by this Agreement. 15. Duplicate originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals and when so executed each duplicate original bearing the original signatures of the parties shall be admissible in any administrative or legal proceeding as evidence of the terms of this Agreement. 4 s:\uUgrmt502\wlllow June 26, 2002 WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Ageement on the tlate first written above. CITY OF UKIAH By~~9~G Mayor ATTEST: CI~e~K ~ ~ j~J WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRI By: Ch rman of the Board ATTEST: t cretary s:lutagr•mts02\wi Ilow June 26, 2002 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX D California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 OF2AFT far review purposes only. P11 2800011 2881 9-0kiah UWMPA~raft Report-August 20WA~ratf UWMP (08102007) tloc North Coast Hydrologic Region Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 1-52 • County: Mendocino • Surface Area: 37,500 acres (59 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin, located in southeastern Mendocino County, is approximately 22 miles long and 5 miles wide at the widest point, and is the largest of several groundwater basins along the Russian River. The basin is part of the Ukiah and the Redwood Valleys to the north, and their tributary valleys. The low-lying regions of the Ukiah and Redwood Valleys as well as those sloping areas along the valley edges that include Quatemary- and Tertiary-age sediments define the azeal extent of this north-south trending basin. The basin surface elevation varies from approximately 1,000 feet in the upper portions of the Redwood Valley, to approximately S00 teet in the lower, southern areas of the Ukiah Valley. The Russian River traverses the entire length of the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin and is met by many tributaries from both the east and west sides of Redwood and Ukiah Valleys. The main tributaries include Forsythe Creek, which joins with the Russian River north of the city of Calpella, and the East Fork of the Russian River, which joins the main branch of the Russian River north of Ukiah. Lake Mendocino, a reservoir created from the East Fork of the Russian River located between Redwood Valley and Ukiah Valley, is also an important feature of the surface hydrology of the region. Precipitation in the basin ranges from approximately 45 inches in the north to about 35 inches in the south. Ukiah is the largest city within the valley and is located on its southwest side. Other cities include Talmage, east of Ukiah, and Calpella on the south end of Redwood Valley. Highway l0l travels the length of the Ukiah Valley from the south and veers west away from Redwood Valley, paralleling Forsythe Creek. Highway 20 enters the valley from the east and intersects with Highway 101 at Calpella. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Groundwater-bearing units of primary importance within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin include Recent alluvium, as well as alluvium of Pliocene and Pleistocene age. The terrace deposits and dissected alluvium of Pleistocene age are of lesser importance with regard to groundwater production. Underlying these deposits is moderately to highly fractured basement rock consisting of the Franciscan and Knoxville Formations. Even when highly fractured these formations have limited permeability, and are considered to yield only small quantities of water locally (Cardwell 1965). Information on water-bearing formations, hydrogeology, and storage capacity is available from Cardwell (1965), DWR, (1965), and Farzar (1986). Recent Alluvium. Alluvium within the basin is considered a principal source of groundwater and consists of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and Calitomia's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Last update 2/27/04 North Coast Hydrologic Region Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin minor amounts of clay deposited in channels and on floodplains of the Russian River and its tributaries, on alluvial fans, and as colluvium on interfan slopes. A subdivision of Recent alluvium includesriver-channel deposits defined by those areas where gravely stream channel deposits are currently being deposited. River-chaanel deposits are generally very high yielding loose gravels and sands; in some cases these deposits contain boulders. Recent alluvium Is thickest in the central portion of the basin and extends from the surface Co depths of 50 to 80 feet (Cardwell 1965). An average specific yield of 20 percent was used for the alluvium in two separate studies (Cardwell 1965, DWR 1965). Groundwater in the alluvium generally occurs under unconfined conditions. Pleistocene Terrace Deposits. Terrace deposits are characterized as alluvial deposits of primarily Pleistocene age, ranging from a thin veneer of red gravelly clay soil, to deposits of sandy or silty gravel up to 200 feet thick. Treace dep~sirc generally overly the Pliocene- and Pleistooene-aee alluvium and occur diseontinuous),y along the flanks of the Ukiah Valley and more continuously within the Redwood Valley on both sides of the Russian River. Groundwater in the terrace deposits is unconfined to locally confined (Cardwell 1965). Production from the terrace deposits is variable based on sediment thickness, depth to water, and percentage of fine grained material; however, these deposits generally yield enough water for domestic purposes if an appreciable thickness of the deposit occurs below the water table (Cardwell 1965). Pliocene/Pleistocene Alluvium. These deposits are described as continental deposits comprised of poorly consolidated and poorly sorted clayey and sandy gravel, clayey sand, and sandy clay. In general, thick lenses of moderately indurated gravel inte~nger with large bodies of blue sandy silt and clay (Cardwell 1965). Overall, this alluvium has low permeability due to the relatively high percentage of fine sediments; however, wells can produce moderate amounts of water from these sediments if long sections of perforated (or screened) intervals are used. Bed thickness is variable, with the maximum thickness considered to be about 2,000 feet. Outcrops of this formation can be seen along the entire east side of the Ukiah Valley, as well as the southeast side of the Redwood Valley (Cardwell 1965). It is possible that current groundwater use relies more heavily on Pleistocene- and Pliocene-age alluvium than reflected in this basin description due to ongoing trends in improved well construction techniques and deeper well seal requirements. Groundwater in the older alluvium deposits is generally confined (Cardwell 1965). Dissected Alluvium. Dissected alluvium is gravelly sediment cemented by carbonate precipitation located along Sulfur Creek below Vichy Springs and along McNab Creek. These sediments yield only very limited quantities of water (Cardwell 1965). California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Last update 2/27/04 North Coast Hydrologic Region Ukiah VaAey Groundwater Basin Groundwater Level Trends Based on hydrographs from DWR monitored wells, groundwater levels in the past 30 years have remained relatively stable. During drought conditions there is increased drawdown during summer months and less recovery in winter months. Post-drought conditions rebound to approximately the same teveis as pre-drought conditions. Groundwater Storage Groundwater Storage Capacity. It is estimated that approximately 324,000 of of storage exists in the older continental deposits; however, it is probably not usable for short-term storage purposes due to the low-permeability nature of these deposits (DWR 1965). Groundwater in Storage. Groundwater in storage within the alluvium and younger rrrrar_e deposits is estimated to be about 75,000 to 100,000 of (Cardwell 1965).. Groundwater in storage within the river-channel deposits between 10 and 50 foot depths is estimated to be 35,000 of based on an average specific yield of 20 percent (Cardwell 1965, DWR 1965). Farrar (1986) estimated that the quantity of groundwater stored in the upper 100 feet of the most productive area of vailey fill (Type I} to be about 90,000 of using an average specific yield of 8 percent and an azea of 20 square miles. Farrar (1986) also estimated the quantity of groundwater stored along the margins of the valley (Type II area) and underlain by terrace deposits or thin alluvium at 45,000 af. This estimate is based on the upper 100 feet of Type II aquifer materials, an area of 19 square miles, and an average specific yield of 5 percent. Groundwater Budget (Type C) There is not enough data available to provide an estimate of the basin's water budget. Groundwater Quality Characterization. Water quality is good in general, especially water derived from Recent alluvium deposits; however, locally the content of chemical constituents varies widely. Overall, water is moderately hard to hard bicarbonate. Based on limited data, calcium-bicarbonate groundwater occurs in the southern portion of the basin and magnesium-bicarbonate water occurs in the east-central portion of the basin (Cardwell 1965). Quality in the Recent formations is similar to Russian River water, with slightly higher TDS and chloride levels. Pliocene- and Pleistocene-age formations yield water with higher TDS and sodium than Recent-age formations. Water from springs ranges from highly mineralized to good in quality (Cardwell 1965). TDS values range from 108 to 401 mglL and average 224 mglL based on four wells (Cardwell 1965). Electrical conductivity ranges from 450 to 759 µmhos/cin and average 605 µmhos/cm based on two wells (Cardwell 1965). Based on analyses of 22 water supply welts in the Ukiah Valley, TDS ranges from 87 to 301 mglL and averages about 166 mg/L. Impairments. Wells with high boron concentrations are located in several areas along the Ukiah Valley edges and in the north end of the Redwood California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Last update 2!27/04 North Coast Hydrologic Region Ukiah Valley Grourrdwafer Basin Valley. Verbal reports indicate that (in general) poor quality water occurs on the west side of the basin. Flammable gas was reported in at least one we1L Pressurized carbon dioxide gas was detected in two wells which probably penevate bedrock (Cazdwell 1965). Most poor quality water is believed to migrate into basin sediments from basement rock through fractures or faults. Water Quality in Public Supply Wells Constituent Group Number of Number of wells with a wells sampled' concentration above an MCL' Inorganics -Primary 23 0 Radiological 21 Nitrates 28 Pesticides 23 'vvCs and ~'vvCa 22 __ 0 Inorganics -Secondary 23 6 ' A description of each member in the constituent groups and a generalized discussion of the relevance of these groups are included in California's Groundwater - Bul/eG'n 118 by DWR (2003). : Represents distinct number of wells sampled as required under DHS Title 22 program from t994 through 2000- Each well reported with a concentration above an MCL was confirmed with a second detection above an MCL. This information is intended as an indicator of the types of activities that cause contamination in a given basin. It represents the water quality at the sample location. It does not indicate the water qualdy delivered to the consumer. More detailed drinking water quality information can be obtainetl from the local water purveyor and its annual Consumer Confitlence Report. Well Characteris#ics Well yields (gal/min) _ Up to 1,200 gaVmin from Recent Alluvium and less than 50 gal/min from undifferentiated older lormations (DWR 1965) Total depths (ft) Domestic Range: 15 -600 Average: 220 (755 Well Completion Reports) MunicipaUirrigation Range: 36-115 Average: lt5 (36 Well Completion Reports) Active Monitoring Data Agency Parameter Number of wells /measurement frequency DWR Grountlwater levels 5wells/semi-annually Mendocino County Groundwater levels 23 wellJannually W ater Agency DWR Mineral, nutrient. & 7 wells/ biennially minor element. Department of Coliform, nitrates, 25 wells as required in Title 22, Health Services mineral, organic Calif. Code of Regulations chemicals, and California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Last uptlate 2/27!04 North Coast Hydrologic Region Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Basin Management Groundwater management: No groundwater management plans were identif ed Wafer agencies Public Mendocino County Water Agency, Hopland PUD, Millview County WD, Redwood County WD, Willow County WD. Private References Cited Califomia Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1965. Water Resources and Future Water Requirements -North Coastal Hydrogmphic Area, Volume L Southern Portion (Preliminary Edition)- Bulletin No. 142-1. Cardwell, G.T. 1965. Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, Califomia. USGS Water Supply Paper 1548. Fartar, C.D. 1986. Ground-Water Resources in Mendocino County, Califomia. USGS Water- Resources Investigations Report 85-0258. Errata Changes made to [he basin description will be noted here. Cal'rfomia's Groundwater Bulletin t 78 Last update 2Y17I04 ~iortn Coast iiyaroiogic ecegon CAL': CR.M1'iAS GP,O fINUVl.4?LR UFDAi: 2003 ~~9 Chapter? ~ Ncrrh Coast Hydrologic Aeg ror 12a Basin Number t2.ot Subbasin Number Basin ,.~^~., Hydrobgic Region Boundaries County Lines o zs w m~~s Figure 25 Narth Coast Hydrologic Region 720 ~ W 8-BULLETIN 1 1 8 Basins and Subbasins of the North Coast Hydrologic Region BasinJsubbasin Basin name Basinlsubbasin Basin name l-I Smith River Plain 1_42 Sherwood Valley I-2 Klamath River Valley I-43 Williams Valley 1-2.01 Tule Lake 1-44 Eden Valley 1-2.02 Lower Klamath 1-45 Big River Valley 1-3 Butte Valley I-46 Navarro River Valley 1-4 Shasta Valley 1-48 Gravelley Valley I-S Scot[ River Valley 7-4q Annapolis Ohlson Ranch Fnrntation 1-6 Hayfork Valley Highlands 1-7 Hoopa Valley 1-50 Knights Valley I-S Mad River Valley 1-51 Potter Valley 1-S.OI Mad River Lowland I-52 Ukiah Valley 1 -S.UZ Uows Trairie School Area 1 53 Sanel Valley 1-9 Eureka Plairi 1-54 Alexander Valley I-10 Eel River Valley 1-54.01 Alexander Area 1-11 Covelo Round Valley 1-54.02 Cloverdale Area I -12 Laytonville Valley 1-SS Santa Rosa Vallev 1-13 Little Lake Valley 1-55.01 Santa Rosa Plain ]-14 Lower Klama[h River Valley 1-55.02 Healdsburg Area 1-15 Happy Camp Town Area 1-55.03 Rincon Valley I-l6 Seiad Valley 1-56 McDowell Valley 1-I7 Bray Town Area 1-57 Bodega Bay Area 1-1 R Rcd Rock Valley 1-59 Wilson Grove Formation Highlands I-19 Anderson Valley 1-60 Lower Russian River Valley I-20 Garcia River Valley 1-61 Fort Ross Terrace Deposits I-21 Fort Bragg Terrace Area 1-62. Wilson Point Area I-22 Fairchild Swamp Valley I-25 Prairie Creek Area 1-26 Redwood Creek Area 1-27 Big Lagwn Area 1-28 Mattole River Valley 1-29 Honeydew Town Area 1-30 Pepperwood Town Area 1-31 Weott Town Area 1-32 Gafierville Town Area 1-33 Larabee Valley 1-34 Dinsmores Town Area 1-35 Hyampom Valley 1-36 Hettenshaw Valley 1-37 Cottoneva Creek Valley 1-38 Lower Laytonville Valley 1-39 Braascomb Town Area 1-40 Ten Mile River Valley 1-41 Little Valley ~AL+FO H?J;H'S GFOUNU N.i TEA U~UA7! 2003 12~ C ha ptar7 North Coot; Hydrologic Fegian Description of the Region The North Coast HR covers approximately 12.46 million acres (19,470 square miles) and includes all or portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino; Lake, and Sonoma counties (Figure 25). Small azeas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Marin counties aze also within the region. Extending from the Oregon border south to Tomales Bay, the region includes portions of four geomorphic provinces. The northern Coast Range forms the portion of the region extending from the southem boundary north to the Mad River drainage and the fault contact with the metamorphic rocks of the Klamath Mountains, which continue north into Oregon. East of the Klamath terrane along the State border aze the volcanic terranes of the Cascades and the btodoc Plateau. in the coastal mountains, most of the basins are along the narrow coastal strip between the Pacific Ocean and [he rugged Coast Range and Klamath Mountains and along inland river valleys; alluviated basin areas are very sparse in the steep Klamath Mountains. In the volcanic terrane to the east, most of the basins are in block Faulted valleys that once held Pleistocene-age lakes. The North Coast HR corresponds to the boundary of RWQCB 1. Significant geographic features include basin areas such as the Klamath River Basin, the Eureka/Arcata azea, Hoopa Valley, Anderson Valley, and the Santa Rosa Plain. Other sguihcant features include wlount Shasta, forming me suuihern border of Shasta Valley, and the Wigged north coastal shoreline: The 1995 population of the entire region was about 606,000, with most being centered along the Pacific Coast and in the inland valleys north of the San Francisco Bay Arca. The northem mountainous portion of the region is rural and sparsely populated, primarily because of the rugged terrain. Most of the area is heavily forested. Some irrigated agriculture occurs in the narrow river valleys, but most occurs in the broader valleys on the Modoc Plateau where pasture, grain and alfalfa predominate. In the southern portion of the region, closer to urban centers, crops like wine grapes, nursery stock, orchards, and truck crops are common. A majority of the surface water in the North Coast HR goes to environmental uses because of the "wild and scenic" designation of most of the region's rivers. Average annual precipitation ranges from 100 inches in the Smith River drainage to 29 inches in the Santa Rosa area and about 10 inches in the Klamath drainage; as a result, drought is likely to affect the Klamath Basin more than other portions of the region. Communities that are not served by the area's surface water projects also tend to experience shortages. Surface water development in the region includes the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Klamath Project, Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District's Ruth Lake, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Russian River Project. An important factor concerning water demand in the Klamath Project azea is water allocation for endangered fish species in the upper and lower basin. Surface water deliveries for agriculture in 2001, a severe drought year, were only about 20 percent of normal. Groundwater Development Groundwater development in the North Coast HR occurs along the coast, neaz the mouths of some of the region's major rivers, on the adjacent narrow marine terraces, or in the inland river valleys and basins. Reliability of these supplies varies significantly from area to area. There are 63 groundwater basins/ subbasins delineated in the region, two of which aze shared with Oregon. These basins underlie approximately 1..022 million acres (1,600 square miles). Along the coast, most groundwater is developed from shallow wells installed in the sand and gravel beds of several of the region's rivers. Under California law, the water produced in these areas is considered surface water underflow. Water from Ranney collectors installed in the Klamath River, Rowdy Creek, the Smith 122 D W R -BULLETIN 11 8 River, and the Mad River supply the towns of Klamath, Smith River and Crescent City in Del Norte County and most of the Humboldt Bay area in Humboldt County. Except on the Mad River, which has continuous supply via releases from Ruth Reservoir, these supplies are dependent on adequate precipitation and flows throughout the season. In drought years when streamflows are low, seawater intrusion can occur causing brackish or saline water to enter these systems. This has been a problem in the town of Klamath, which in 1995 had to obtain community water from a private well source. Toward the southern portion of the region, along the Mendocino coast, the Town of Mendocino typifies the problems related to groundwater development in the shallow marine terrace aquifers. Groundwater supply is limited by the aquifer storage capacity, and surveys done in the Town of Mendocino in the mid-1980s indicate that about 10 percent of wells go dry every yeaz and up to 40 percent go dry during drought years. Groundwater development in the inland coastal valleys north of the divide between the Russian and Eel Rivers is generally of limited extent. Most problems stemming from reliance on groundwater in these areas is a lack of alluvial aquifer storage capacity. Many groundwater wells rely on hydrologic connection to the a c L _ .._n _..., TL_ ra, ,-F 11 r.•an o..».,no» rl nr e 1 , nrn RVerJ ailll Jireani3 V~tue vwicya. • uu ony v P .v^ De.. uu~ .,..t..n.v. vv .a,., °°YY`> r,..ble.. e in rnmmainiTy wells and, as a result, recently developed plans to install a Ranney collector near the EeI River. South of the divide, in the Russian River drainage, a significant amount of groundwater development has occurred on the Santa Rosa Plain and surrounding areas. The groundwater supplies augment surface supplies from the Russian River Project. In the north-central part of the North Coast HR, the major groundwater basins include the Klamath River Valley, Shasta Valley, Scott River Valley, and Butte Valley. The Klamath River Valley is shazed with Oregon. Of these groundwater basins, Butte Valley has the most stable water supply conditions. The historical annual agricultural surface water supply has been about 20,000 acre-feet. As farming in the valley expanded from the early 1950s to the early 1990x, bringing nearly all the arable lead in the valley into production, groundwater was developed to farm the additional acres. It has been estimated that current, fully developed demands are only about 80 percent of the available groundwater supply. By contrast, water supply issues in the other three basins are contingent upon pending management decisions regarding restoration offish populations in the Klamath River and the Upper Klamath Basin system. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) fishery issues include lake level requirements for two sucker £ish species and in-stream flow requirements for coho salmon and steelhead trout. Since about 1905, the Klamath Project has provided surface water to the agricultural community, which in wm has provided water to the wildlife refuges. Since the early 1990x, it has been recognized that surface water in the Klamath Project is over-allocated, but very little groundwater development had occurred. 1n 2001, which was a severe drought year, USBR delivered a iota] of about 75,000 acre-feet of water to agriculture in California, about 20 percent of normal. In the Klamath Rivor Groundwater Basin this translated to a drought disaster, both for agriculture and the wildlife refuges. 1st addition, there were significant impacts for both coho salmon and sucker fisheries in [he Klamath River watershed. As a result of the reduced surface water deliveries, significant groundwater development occurred, and groundwater extraction increased from an estimated 6,000 acre-feet in 1997 to roughly 60,000 acre-feet in 2001. Because of the complexity of the basin's water issues, along-term Klamath Project Operation plan has not yet been finalized. Since 1995, USBR has issued an annual operation plan based on estimates of available supply. The Scott River Valley and Shasta Valley rely to a significant extent on surface water diversions. In most years, surface water supplies the majority of demand, and groundwater extraction supplements supply as needed depending on wet or dry conditions. Discussions are under way to develop strategies to conjunctively use surface water and groundwater to meet environmental, agricultural, and other demands. n s b v m z n x 4 C Ck LiPU 4NIF'ti 64G UPiDWA7rN UF'p Alt ZOd3 723 C hapter7 ii Norrh Coast hydra lnuic Region Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality characteristics and specific local impairments vary with regional setting within the North Coast HR. In general, seawater intrusion and nitrates in shallow aquifers aze problems in the coastal groundwater basins; high total dissolved solids (TDS) content and general alkalinity are problems in the lake sediments of the Modoc Plateau basins; and iron, boron, and manganese can be problems in the inland basins of Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Water Quality in Public Supply Wells From 1994 through 2000, 584 public supply water wells were sampled in 32 of the 63 basins and subbasins in the North Coast HR. Analyzed samples indicate [hat 553 wells, or 95%, met the state primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking water. Thirty-one wells, or 5%, sampled have constituents that exceed one or more MCL. Figure 26 shows [he percentage of each contaminant group that exceeded MCLs in the 31 wells. 5S4 Wells Sampled -- - -- (] MeetpinwyMCLsiaMerds ~ L)electlonolatleastoneconsddtentaboveP~'MCt Figure 26 MCL exceedances in public supply wells in the North Coast Hydrologic Region Table 13 lists the three most frequently occurring individual contaminants in each of the five contaminant groups and shows the number of wells in the HR that exceeded the MCL for those contaminants. t 2~t DW8-BV LLETIN 118 n d 9 Table 13 Most frequently occurring contaminants by contaminant group ^ in The North Coast Hydrologic Region z Contaminant group Contaminant - # of weds Contaminant - # of wells Contaminant - # of ~ weilslnorganics -Primary Aluminum - 4 Arsenic -4 4 tied at 1 ezceedance Inorganics -Secondary Manganese - l50 Iron - 108 Copper- 2 c O Radiological Radium 228 - 3 Combined RA226 + RA228 - 3 Radium 226 - 1 z Nitrates Nitrate(as NOS)-7 Nitrite(as N)-1 ~` c c VOCs/SVOCs TCE- 2 3 tied at 1 ezceedance ~ TCE =Trichloroeehyleae m VOC _ Volatile Organic Compound ~ SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound ~° e Changes from Bulletin 118-80 Since Bulletin 118-80 was published, RWQCB 2 boundary has been modified. This resulted in several basins being reassigned to RWQCB 1. These are listed in Table 14, along with other modifications to North Coast HR. Table 14 Modifications since Bulletin 115-80 of groundwater basins in North Coast Hydrologic Region Basin name New number Old number McDowell Valley i-56 2-12 Knights Valley t-50 2-13 Potter-Valley I-51 2-14 Ukiah Valley 1-52 2-15 Sanel Valley 1-53 2-16 Alexander Valley I-54 2'17 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55 2-18 Lower Russian River Valley 1-60 2-20 Bodega Bay Area 1-57 2-21 Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Area deleted 1-23 Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Area deleted 1-24 Gualala River Valley deleted i-47 Wilson Grove Formation Highlands 1-59 2-25 Fort Aoss Terrace Deposits I-61 Wilson Point Area 1-62 CALiFOkNIA'S GROUVO'NAitR UFDATt eC03 12$ Chap tern , Nol[h Cocst Hyd ro logic Region Fort Ross Teaace Deposits (1-61) and Wilson Point Area (1-62) have been defined since B 118-80 and are included in this update. Mad River Valley Groundwater Basin (I-8) has been subdivided into two subbasins. Sebastopol Merced Formation (2-25) merged into Basin 1-59 and was renamed Wilson Grove Formation Highlands. There are a couple of deletions of groundwater basins from Bulletin 118-80. The Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Area (1-23) and the Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Area (1-24) are volcanic aquifers and were not assigned basin numbers in this bulletin. These are considered to be groundwater source areas as discussed in Chapter 6. Gualala River Valley (1-47) was deleted because the State Water Resources Control Board determined the water being extracted in this area as surface water within a subterranean stream. 726 DWR-aV ILETIN 128 ~ r M R O ~ ~ V F ~ N r V ~ M - .J C r1 a. O _ r C1 :~" a ~ ~ h N V ao ` O - oc t v v c m O a eo v ~ __ nN ~ c - ~ N ~ :.e . co ~ ~- ~- m c m a v o a v~ w ~ > r ~ m - o G'. i. N 5 h ~ O. N .'{ N ~ N N 1+ N ~ r ' ~ - ? N vl ~ (I. G re c O _Q T O ~00 m h O V" .•P r.+, O ~ M t~ ' N ' O O `o b is a ;n ' - G G O ~.Y of ~, N M N O~ ~ jy _ ,. [~ P V _ - N c . ~, ~ OiY C '! ':~0 z' K` 0 O 0 ^~ 0 O 0 ~ 0 O pp' C .: ' O : ' 0 N 0 O ~ 0 - 0 C O O P _ ' ~ ~ ~ " - N - o C r - 3 ~ ^ ~ - ~ ~ _ 3 F c ~ 5 a1 ' gym Cl a p] ¢1 61 ~'= '~¢1 fJ.' 9 6] V < 6 '37 c7 fA Sp 9 U U ti Rf x`7 19 t]] o] o] m W W g g C] ai U V U U U 7 c`^, x ,~ n ~ v .o ° g n ~ °o g ~ h °o ~ ~ °o g o 00 0 0 0 0 Q` ~ v °o °o °o °o °o 0 o s o 00 0 00 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 ' j v, v P. m ~ Co m m rn ~o c v r v o 0 o R N o o rn N - m c o v = M N OD - m in <n m r = m v m O O. N ifl N1 M i Vl ~ [`- N1 ~ rn j r N N W O~ V N V Nl O N ~fl M N ~L` T N N - N _ y y = ~ ~ l~ v - e+l r - N .- G r t F G x J aj v $ O ~ j < > W < C .~ 5 < Y C W < Y w K J > < Y .,~ w 3 Q :.a w s } w ...i a ¢ "" < < s w w'a .w-1 z <6 » G i W ..~ r} ww `~ - >~ a .~l ~ J .a x z r Y j < z > a :~ z < < 4 C z Z 3 < w Z 3 < Z ?" .yl t x ~ Z G ~ u F .. F > .~ ¢ y _ ~ ~,., ~ ~ o N w .~ > G7 < > ..~ G _ - c" 3 C < ~t a .~ m ~ < > + v7 ~ < x w w s > z i = < ~ >' 3 .u '> .- j . '~ « Z 3 O > ~ a , G ~ , 6 } W ~ ~ Y ~ . ¢¢ » m Z -1 z ' w > < s F- y s < ._] < > w v x w w w > 0 F t O Z ~ ¢ O F" .a 3 V F0- > ~- J z w ~ z ~ ~ i ~ z j < > . .7 ~ zm C - G ~ j .~ o ~l a w ~G ~ a g w ~ z > Z > O v Z, L z 0 x 3 g 3 ._: > y j < j } tC ~ x ..~ ` > c' ¢ < .- > < > . » ww > ~ a y z ¢ t x <~ V ~ > 3 O x U ~ Q S O = U 0 O p :7 t `~ w O 3 O t- - x ~ ~it p f O ' z Z < "'1 ~ ; < > c L . ~-' Cx K Y S ~ H z F- z 0 4 5K , V < x d O ' ~ z O - J W ~' O F C J J ~ Ci w C 3 J _ . F " } 7 [~z1 [ - F m . ~ ~ a 1 • + 0 . x, `r ~ _1 ~^ t- ~ <a a C' 4 .F^. >' ~ 0~ . 3 [ i' ..~ ~ ~ iI . > } ~ 3 i < < ~ ^ D Z i s < a s ? < Q Ci ~ . - Z 0 ~ y s ¢ z « ~ < +' -- FF F- m 7~. F O , 3 < S Z .. L o" ~, v, ~a xa a ~ O G - m U v, < x - = ~~ O O m w w O :,> < a _ ..t O ..~ .` v, u? a < c7 O a < ;:. z a w z m F x ;.; a 3 :7 .a - t] x r U O .-t m w r =J __ c c c y N N 7C 00 t V m _ (y M ~ y~ ~ (~ W O ~ - _ N _ m V _ 'n .G ~ n _ m _ L\ ~ O N - N N N N W N [~ N W N P N O Nl - M N e'/~ M e~1 m h M [~ .+) W fh m O C - ~ n 7 b a m V z n 0 Z C a 0 CA Cif OE!d IH3 GECJNUNA?ER UrJri 7E 100. 127 C hapter7 !, .North Coast Hydrologic Region 1 F v e ay .~K.?s M ~ N M .-. ~ p rR:: V ~ G O C '~ s1" N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢ ~. ~ r'l ~ V O ~ N °y ` { x , ~ N _ ti` ~':->ti5 '. LL'' T?" M N N N b V~ M M 7ss °F ~ ~ C C my C O T O ~P; W Y: _ _ I t a .,`' f'. Nq;, ~'n ~ 'tn vM oC N ' R_ - v ~ c `~ ~ i svg Fs _' o ~y . V, N E a ;- ~ £Y ~ ~ < e _ `r °_ ~° ~ o ~ ~;_ m - . o o ~ g N n ~ ~" ~ ~ N _ ? ~ 3 = ~ ' ~ : t _ T ~ v~ v v v V V U U V U:i'~ U ~~ ~U ¢ o u O G C~ c O m 1 5 'o ' :7 y ?' ~ _ o .n 0 c o m c rn o r 0 ~ 0 v, 0 c 0 , v o N = ~ o ~ o go 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 oo e o o `n c o v o rn c 0 o r - . . M~ . `~ . r M m z o 6 N ~~ r' h ~ ~e gc q r ~ n = ~i d e ed ~ ~ ~ " V C z t p '~ Z ~ U ~ z ~ r W N ° t~ z a y _ v o ¢ T` z . '' x o u . r a ~ > y } r x w ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ° ~ < ze < ~ a ~ w i > 2 > » r > < > ~. ~ ' Q ¢ ~ 1 ~ Q Y ¢ '. u w V . . j T G •n t'` Z ~ r< > < aa w w< n v1 ~ ¢ v < C v1 0 » ' a< N < O C ~ .~ ~ L y. Z Zc v~ Q Z, O Z y w ~ Z O Z __ a w ..] ~ Z w K < > > ¢ ¢ ~ " f-~ p.., < W _ z X w X> m 0 k- 'Z ,_ z < z O o w o ~ 3 a ~ v h 3 w ~ m z :~ < x a wv ,« U v 1v~ - c ~ m 3 a c... 3 N O C ~ C N O O C d L h ' n N V C K V O `J K S d '~ ' Y . O -~ Y: M N h O h .`D IN r V T l V 0 I b ~ `D l ~G `= o E ~' ~ ~ S C ~ O = 2 G O G9 ~ ~, ~ yC z E F ~Za DWR-RVItETIN 116 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX E Water Shortage Emergency Plan DRAFT far review purposes only. Pa 28000H 28fi19-Ukiah UWMPlnraft Reporf-August 20WfDraH UWMR (08102007)4oc Ukiah, California City Code This code was last updated by ordinance 1080 passed June 14, 2006. ARTICLE 11. WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY 3600: FINDINGS: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements for water customers of the City may not, from time to time, be satisfied without depleting the water supply to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. This ordinance is intended to prohibit any additional demands on the existing water supply, to prohibit all nonessential uses as defined herein, and to allocate the available water supply during any water shortage emergency to the end that sufficient water will be and remain available for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3601: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Article the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein: The word "shall" is always mandatory and never directory. A. Customer: The person using water supplied by the City. B. Director: The Director of Public Works of the City or his designated representative. C. Department: The Water Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works. D. Hand-Watering: Water supplied to a customer through a hose connected to the customer's piping system while such hose is hand held and such water used for exterior purposes. E. Irrigate: To water land, whether by channels, by flooding, by sprinkling, or any other means whatsoever except hand-watering. F. Water: Only water supplied by the City unless expressly provided otherwise or required by the context. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) E-1 3602: DECLARATION OF WATER EMERGENCY: When it appears that the City may be unable to supply the normal demands and requirements of water customers, the City Council may, by resolution declare a water emergency. The resolution shall specify the degree of emergency existing and shall place into effect the appropriate provisions of this ordinance. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3603: REQUESTS FOR VOLUNTARY RESTRICTIONS OF WATER USE STAGE I: Whenever the City Council, by resolution, declares Stage I water emergency to exist, the Mayor shall issue a proclamation urging citizens to institute such water conservation measures on a voluntary basis as may be required to reduce water demand to coincide with available supply. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3604: PROHIBITION OF NONESSENTIAL WATER USE STAGE II: It is unlawful for any person to use water for any nonessential use as hereinafter defined, whenever the City Council determines by resolution that a Stage II water emergency exists. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3605: NONESSENTIAL USES DEFINED: The following uses of water are nonessential: A. Use of water from public hydrants for any purpose other than fire protection and/or prevention. B. Use of water through any meter when the consumer had been given two (2) days notice to repair one or more leaks and has failed to complete such repairs. C. Use of water by a golf course to irrigate any portion of its grounds except those areas designated as tees and greens; except where the Director shall have determined that any such use is nonessential and written notice of such determination shall have been provided. D. Use of water to irrigate grass, lawns, ground cover, shrubbery, vegetable gardens, trees, or other outdoor vegetation. E. Use of water for the construction of any structure, including such use in dust control. E-2 Use of water to wash any sidewalk, walkways, driveway, street, parking lot, tennis court, or other hard surfaced area by hosing or by otherwise direct use of water from faucets or other outlets. G. Use of water to wash any motor vehicle, trailer, airplane, or boat by hosing or otherwise using water directly from a faucet or other outlet. H. Use of water to fill or refill any swimming pool. I. Use of water to add to any swimming pool not equipped with and using a pool cover. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3606: FURTHER NONESSENTIAL USES DEFINED STAGE III: In addition to the nonessential uses set forth in §3605, the following additional uses are determined to be nonessential when the Council has, by resolution declared a State III emergency. A. Use of water in excess of the daily usage allotment hereinafter set forth: Single family or duplex (100 cu. ft. per 50 gallons -per permanent month) resident Multi-residential units (180 cu. ft. per 45 gallons -per permanent month) resident B. All other uses not expressly set forth in §3605 shall be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the prior water use for a similar period as determined by the Department from its records. Where no such records exist, prior water use shall be deemed to be the average prior water use of similar existing services as shall be determined by the Department from its records. C. Use of water to irrigate, the provisions of §3605 above to the contrary, notwithstanding. D. Use of water for hand-watering. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3607: NUMBER OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS: Each customer in whose name water is supplied to a residence shall upon request of the Director advise him under penalty of perjury the number of permanent residents using water supplied to that residence. If such a residential customer shall fail to so advise the Director, such residence shall be permitted the water allocation herein provided for one permanent resident. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) E-3 3608: TAMPERING WITH WATER METERS PROHIBITED: It is unlawful for any person to remove, replace, alter, damage, or otherwise tamper with any water meter or components thereof, including but not limited to the meter face, dials, or other water usage indicators, and any flow-restricting device installed thereon. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3609: VARIANCES: The Director may: A. Grant temporary variances for uses of water otherwise prohibited; or B. Adjust temporarily any or all consumer's allotment if he finds and determines that due to unusual circumstances to fail to grant such a variance would cause an emergency condition affecting health, sanitation, or fire protection of the applicant or the public; further, he may grant such adjustment in the case of a mixed residential/nonresidential use if he finds that such adjustment is necessary to place an equivalent allotment burden on said applicant. The City Council shall ratify or revoke any such variance or adjustment at its next scheduled meeting. No such variance or adjustment shall be retroactive or otherwise justify any violations of this ordinance occurring prior to issuance of said temporary variance or adjustment. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3610: VIOLATION OF WATER USE RESTRICTIONS; PUNISHMENT: It is a misdemeanor for any person to use or apply water received from the City contrary to or in violation of any restriction or prohibition specified in the Article, except both the first and second violations of this ordinance within any one year period shall be infractions. Said punishment may be in lieu of or in addition to any other penalty or method of enforcement provided by law. Any violation of this ordinance permitted to continue after notice, shall be a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder; further, each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3611: PURPOSE AND INTENT; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to prohibit an increase in the water demand on the City's water supply, to eliminate all nonessential water usage, and to provide for allocation of existing water resources to insure sufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. This ordinance shall be E-4 liberally construed to effectuate such purpose and intent. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3612: REPAIR; REPLACEMENT: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, no restriction or prohibition is imposed upon the repair or replacement of existing water service facilities in a manner which the Director determines will not materially increase the consumption of water. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3613: ORDINANCE CONTROLLING: The provisions of this ordinance shall prevail and control in the event of any inconsistency between this ordinance and any other rule, regulation, ordinance, or code of the City. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3614: WATER SERVICES TO BE DISCONNECTED: Water may be shut off by the Department with appropriate notice whenever the Director determines there has been a willful failure to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, any other provisions of this code to the contrary, notwithstanding. Charges for reconnection or restoration of service which has been terminated pursuant to this Section shall be at the rates and on the conditions set by resolution. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3615: ENFORCEMENT; DESIGNATED PERSONS: A. Each police officer of the City shall in connection with his duties imposed by law diligently enforce the provisions of this ordinance. B. The Director and his designated employees shall have the duty and are hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) 3616: SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more such provisions be declared unconstitutional. (Ord. 691, §1, adopted 1977) E-5 Urgency Ordinance This ordinance is hereby declared to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety and will take effect and be in force upon its adoption by a fourth-fifths (4/5) vote of the members of the Ukiah City Council. Due to severe drought conditions existing in the area from which the City draws its water supply, it is imperative that this ordinance become effective immediately to protect existing water supplies for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. The City Council of the City further declares that if normal water usage were permitted to continue, the available water supply would be depleted below the safe level for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with law within ten days after its adoption. (Ord. 691, §2, adopted 1977) E-6 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX F Demand Management Measure Economic Analysis ORI~FT for review purposes only. P.H 2A000A128619-Ukiah UWMP!Diaft Feport-Augus1200710re/t UWMP (OA10200~AOc DMM 1 -Water Survey Programs for Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential Customers Description: Conduct water surveys that include both indoor and outdoor components. Provide recommendations and install plumbing retrofit devices where needed. Assumptions: 1. The implementation schedule is assumed to be as defined for agencies signing the MOU in the year 2005. 2. Number of surveys necessary to complete is 15% of the baseline number of housing units in 2005. 15% of single-family units and 15% ofmulti-family units will be surveyed within 10 years of the date implementation is to commence. Surveys will be conducted according to the following schedule: 1.5% by end of the first reporting period, 3.6% by end of second reporting period, 6.3% by end of third reporting period, 9.6% by end of fourth reporting period, and 15% by end of the ffth reporting period. MOU, page 16 and page 17 Section E.d California legislation requires that plumbing fixtures manufactured, sold or installed after early 1992 be low-water-use fixtures. Therefore, the greatest water savings can be achieved in pre-1992 homes. 3. Single-family water usage = 391 gpd/unit (60% is outdoor use) Single-family water usage was calculated based on historical water use per connection, and the projected number of/." connections in 2005 (based on Rate Study report that 87% of connections are '/<'J. It was assumed that the '/." connections were primarily single and multi-family units. Based on the General Plan for the City, 64% of the '/." connections were assumed to be single-family and 36% multi-family. The single and multi-family water usages were based on the assumption that the multi-family units use 40% of the water that the single family units use. Outdoor use is based on engineering judgment 4. Multi-family water usage = 156 gpd/unit (40% is outdoor use) See assumptions for single-family water usage. 5. Water savings from indoor leak detection, not including toilet leaks = 0.5 gpd per residence A & N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-20) (12.4 gpd per household repair; 4 percent of households audited have leaks). 6. Water surveys decrease outdoor water use by 10% MOU estimate is 10% (page 1$ Section F). 7. Each water survey costs $55.00 This cost estimate is based on the Southern California Water Company (SCWC) pilot exemption request filed with the CUWCC and dated June 29, 1999. The estimate includes marketing, contract labor, SCWC labor, overhead and materials. It is assumed that the City's cost would be similar to SCWC's. It is assumed that this DMM is done in conjunction with DMM 2. 8. The life span of a water survey is four years. A & N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-20) gives life spans for various components of a water survey. Four years was selected as a reasonable average value based on that information. 9. Water savings from indoor plumbing retrofts are tracked under DMM 2. Only water savings from a decrease in outdoor water use and water savings from indoor leak detection are tracked in DMM 1 to avoid double counting of water savings. i~.A~zaonoVra[tri~-uw°n cwvtr\a~„°n°°iys„\:~pp°°dL i~:-:~°.°m~d„°, iimzoozd~>° DMM 2 -Residential Plumbing Retrofit Description: Install plumbing retrofit devices in single- and multi- family residences. Assumptions: 1. Plumbing retrofit devices will be installed at a minimum of 10% of residences per reporting period until it can be demonstrated that 75% of pre-1992 single-family residences and 75% of pre-1992 multi-family residences have low flow showerheads (LFSHs). Based on the low growth rate, it is assumed that [he current residences were all built prior to 1992. MOU, page 19. 2. 22.5% of residences have low-water-use fixtures. We estimate, based on professional judgement, that 45% of plumbing fixtures in pre-1992 residences have been replaced with low-water-use fixtures due to natural attrition. Assuming that one-half of these plumbing fixtures have replaced all fixtures in some pre-1992 residences and one-half of these plumbing fixtures are spread out, replacing only a portion of the fixtures in some pre-1992 residences, then 22.5 percent ofpre- 1992 residences already have low-water-use fixtures. 3. It will take approximately 15 years to demonstrate that 75% of residences have LFSHs. We are assuming that (wo LFSHs in a residence must be replaced to meet MOU requirements. If 22.5% of the residences have low-water-use fixtures, then 52.5% of the pre-1992 residences must still be replaced. At 5% of the residences replaced per year (10% replaced per reporting period) it would take 15 years to demonstrate that a total of 75% of residences have LFSHS. 4. There are an average of 1.1 showers, 1.6 toilets, and 2.4 faucets (1 kitchen faucet and 1.4 other faucets) per residence. For DMM 14, we determined that there is an average of 1.6 toilets per residence (see DMM 14 for details). Based on professional judgement, we assumed there are two-thirds the number of showers as toilets, and 1.5 times the number of faucets as toilets. This assumption will be modified based upon updated data gathered in the future. 5. Water savings from one low-flow showerhead = 5.5 gpd A 8 N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-16). 6. Water savings from one faucet aerator = 1.5 gpd A & N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-16). 7. Water savings from one toilet flapper = 8 gpd; assume 20 percent of toilets leak. A & N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-16). Percentage of toilets with leaks based on SCWC data. 8. Water savings from kitchen "flip" faucet aerator = 3.0 gpd. Based on SCWC data. Kitchen faucet water savings are due to the intermittent use of the flip feature during the rinse cycle. 9. Indoor water savings = 13.7 gpd/unit. We used [he following equation to calculate indoor water savings, based on assumptions 4 through 8: Ut.t*ss>+(t.o*3.o+l.a* Is) + p.6*s*a.zo)] 10. The DMM will cost an average of $20.00 per residence. We based this cost estimate on information provided by SCWC. It is assumed that this DMM is done in conjunction with DMM 1. 11. The life span of the retrofit devices is four years. A & N Technical Services report (2000, page 2-16) gives life spans for various components of a water survey. We selected four years as a reasonable average value based on that information. P.A12A000V 12NC 19 - Uki:,h G W1IPVliam AnalysisVAppcndix If -Assumptions 11072002doc DMM 6 -High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs Description: Provide rebates to single-family residences for high-efficiency washing machines. Assumptions 1. Each rebate will cost $75. The MOU does not require implementation of this DMM if the maximum cost-effective rebate is less than $50 (MOU, page 31). A $50 rebate plus an additional $25 per rebate for program administration and overhead was assumed. 2. Each high efficiency washing machine will reduce water usage by 1,170 gallons per year. MOU, Section F, page 38. 3. Rebates will be accepted by one percent ofsingle-family residences per year for 20 years. Estimate based on professional judgment. 4. The life span of a high efficiency washing machine is 12 years. Pekelney, D.M., T W Chesnutt, and W.M. Hanemann. 1996. Guidelines for Preoarino Cost Effective Ana/vsis of Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices. Prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council. September 1996. P:A73H000V72RC71 - Ukiah U WMPVI(am :AnalysisVAppendLe 14 - Assump~uns 17072007.duc DMM 14 -Residential ULFT Replacement Programs Description: Implement a program to replace existing high-water-using toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets (ULFT) in single- and multi-family residences. Assumptions: 1. There are an average of 2.5 people per single-family residence and 2.5 people per multi-family residence. Based on information in the General Plan for the City. 2. There are an average of 1.6 toilets per single-family residence and 1.5 toilets per multi-family residence. Based on professional judgment, it was assumed a one bedroom unit has 1 toilet, a (wo bedroom unit has 1.5 toilets, a three bedroom unit has 2 toilets, a four bedroom unit has 2.5 toilets and a five bedroom unit has 3 toilets. Because multi-family units tend to have fewer toilets on average than single-family units, it was assumed 1.5 toilets per multi-family residence and calculated that the single-family units would need to have 1.6 toilets per unit to achieve an overall average of 1.58 toilets per dwelling unit. 3. Water savings from ULFTs are 36.5 gpd/unit for single-family residences and 49.0gpd/unit for multi- family residences. MOU, Exhibit 6, Table 1 and Table 2. 4. Homes constructed after 1991 already have ULFTs. Based on the low growth rate, it is assumed that no residences were built after 1991. As of January 1992, California legislation requires [hat ULFTs be installed in all newly constructed homes. 5. The life span of the new ULFTs is 20 years. MOU, page 70. 6. Natural toilet replacement rate is 4% per year. MOU, page 70. 7. Average resale rate for single-family units in Mendocino County is 2.56% Assumption based on the 1996 single-family average resale rate for Mendocino County. This rate was obtained from the CUWCC Website, www.cuwcc.org, December 2005. 8. Average resale rate for multi-family units in Mendocino County is 1.2% Assumption based on the 1998 multi-family average resale rate for Mendocino County. This rate was obtained from the CUWCC Website, www.cuwcc.org, December 2005. 9. The cost of toilets, advertising, administration, overhead, and toilet recycling is $150 per ULFT. The cost does not include installation, which will be covered by the customer. i~:Arznoou~izHCr~ - uw°n c~ww~Vc~„r, n~aiy,~.Anpp°~d~c r: - n..°mnd,,.,, i io~zoozd<~~ E 5 • ~ ~~ 3~ c y Ev ~ a e 5 p z~ ' I ~- vl _ . I - > . i I . . c r. Q ~ - _ ° g e E M 1 I ~ I o - ~ _ _ ~ ~ a a ~ _ _ _ L _ _ ~ V ~_ - - ~ ~ '~ - - ~ ~i ~ - _ - te s a . a ~ __ - ._ - _- _ _ .. - . ci ~ _ _ _ ~ i t II r ~ e _ - ~ _ - f} _ I _ _ ~ ~ l i ~ ~ - ~ -_g s ~ ~ rr. ~ _ $ ~. __ S z . ~~ ^ ' e E_ a _ E a 8."- xIE g e 8 L ~ ~ ` E ~ E C 2 _ _ _ _ _ ~I e $ _ 3 .E } Y 8 _ ~ .8 E ~ _ E_ ~ _ q t e . ... ` u - i °o ~ v a im .. ~ ~ . a 2 a ~ e _~ .o r x n i CI _ E E _ _ _ R n t _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ - l ~ I I I __ .. ~ ra . y rv r ~ - ,_ < '1 n a _ 'I I ~ ~ ~ F I E , - ~ `I l _ I i _ _ _ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ iFt _ > E __ _ __ _ r Et a ~, a ` < it ' y_ E o I ~ ' io ._}_ _ ~ __ I I f _ _ ' 4 2 _ 4 ~ - vz C I _ _ C I _ z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~ _ _ _ i_ ~. E P ' S 4 C I € € ° I w t o t = E .°. WO =.3 r • [ i ~`_ _ ~ ~ E G ~ y s _ __s:-_ -- ~~e - _ I _ _ _ r i - - - A.= i _ _ _ ___ _ P ._ .I" ,~ ____ ~~I ~ _ __ ____ "-- ~~~ I , _.._ e z - ~ _ n t i °i L ~ 3 z m ~ E 3 ' :. " C w >+ O q . ?' a y G Y 4 E y o ~ G V ~ ~ a 'm ,,~ o < ~., m e ~ ~ m ~. 'a ~ a o, m ~ ' L w ,., q d m ~ o -~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ^ ~ F , J T C ao M. ~ y. t~ n ~ ~ r A A O i O v A rv' i c ' o ~ c m ~ P m i, v j ~ I° rn mrn . rn . tr' V < v ~ v ~ ° 3 w _. '. -. _ - E 0 o > '.. m! d ~ 'O v _ r t. c ~ l ~ o a i d O. ' I i 6 . ~ ' , c ~ d ' ' oo I o ,, i I a .. . ~ __ . c o 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ e a o :J 0'i o 0 c o 00 0 0 c o ~ i ,.., - ~_0 0 - ' O1 ~ a ~n ~o rv • - _ _. i . i ~ . ~ I, . u u o i u o ' `a u= I m _ ' ~ b C ~ , i ~ E o ~, m ~ a c o ` S m _ a 0 n ~ I ~ 0 ~ i V °. O C ,y C C C V w > ti O ~ _ - ~ } F v '" m m .. m m m m ... . m . m n . _ ~ m ~`IO . „' H ~ m I 3 _ - i a' = v F ',, I ~ ~ ~ m 4 a n ~ - o -i ~ ~ ~j ', ! y, ~ ~ +_ M _ e ° h O ~ ~ ~ O . ~ C C C C C C < 4 , p ~ _ S _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,«_ _ _..., o, _ a ~ ~. I I - I o ' ~ ' M ~ < a'l u . . ~ I , - __ _.. .. L ''' - . '~ ~ g < I - - r- -- --= - - - n . 3 y - I I . i ~ E ''~~ I °- ° ° ° ~. ~ - - ~~ N, M ~ i . M . '^ -- G O \ \ \° o o I \ \\ \° o a\ \° e a ~I i v' `tl ~' 1 ~ ~ . O .. -.~-. _ L ' a ° I I~ in o e ~I ~ W Z I 0 a 0 000 rn rn 0 a 0 0 rn c 0 m 0 0 0 a -. 0 ~.o rn a ,o r ~ ' c . i .. _ ~ .. _- _- _ ', 8 '. I _ ~'.. ~ ~ ° ~. i o ~ ~ - - _ I A ' ~ r~ i" v U i ~ ~ Z E E t O r C b yV j. O ~3 r ~' `e e ~ .. U ~ >, e u e ~ w W r ~ o~~ ~ m c. e o n w ~v o rv 0 o '" w e ~ G v ° H _I ~._ _ . ,7 ~ ~., a a m ..~ .., ,., ~ w c + m r- ii I _ . _ _ . __ I~ m rn a w e N ~ I _ < ~ ,° e ~ ~P v.., r. .~. .~ ~ I a _ rn ry ~ i O l ~, ~ I~, __ _.,,, 6 D y Y ~ C ,n I O Q - i..0 O ~. l ,. _ ~ y a D l > F' ~ U ~ N rv rv rv T. I ~. . o 3 '.. ~ I ' I I E _ _ I I I . _ I . o z ° ~ eo ' i . .._i ___. c' a o _. o, ~o w _ ~ 6 o o o I' . M 3 T 7. _ _ _ _ _.. ~ '. 'O 1 ~ > _ C O C C C< O C V . q ~' ~ ~ CA P a g C O O O O O O O C _ _ p ~l ~ Y S O O OO. 0 00 O I O I J v _ ~~ ',. `I d C 1 V ~ _ N I C o e O vi YJ O F' J O C _ [~i [~ m y rW P m qH .~ n n I m N o O fV ~n _ _ OOO n m ~ ~ ~. _ ~p _ ..~ r. m 4 C P . a { ... _ i - N 9 y . II II c N ~ _~ I= d R o ~ o - w - F.e m` _ ~ 'I ' _ N w cs ~ G II ~ c E I ' ~ 3 S o > > .m~ ~- _r _ I ~ _ o~I O o o0 0 0 0 ol0 0 0 0 0 o'0 0 o ~'r~ ~ c a .. 2I ~a.a ° m = o. I ' I _ 3 ° _ ~ ~. . I _ eo m i _ ~ c N o o C br t > ~ _ 9 v ~' ? i r p LI O.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O QJ i ._ ' __... 1. _... __ _ ' ~ R C4 i. ~. ~ 'I .. ~ G ._ - I _. _. I -- ~. -~ _- - -- _ - - I ~ ~ L ~ I i - ~. - E.. : . m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ I _ _ _ _ ,oa'. 3 - ~ o ~,, of II L l I - _ -J . . ~° n n PO Cy d C d o ~ O I I O Z a ~ I ~ I I T E ry ~ ~ Ti a ~ ~~ e I ~ a °.~o r. - ~w i ~ ` o °o 0 o c o 0 o c o 0 0 o -, a I f, 0 z I s s ri o 6 ~ n_ y r y- L u ~ ~ i D ~ ~ V e Q = ya e y ~ m E e ` 3', I - nI I ~ E °e i l n Z ~ a a Q ., ~ m ., ,~ ., ., ti v r N _ r _ _, I C ~ E a y F 9 W I G Z ~ n I 3 i. c ~ ~ - i L: _ , ' ~ _ m ~., ~.. m o M e F ~ _ _ _ _ ~ n. . C ... .. i. _ _ .. _ _ E ~ y L E c .nd _ ~ _ _ - w I r o n a w ..~ w r o~ mv I w n ~o .-. ..~... - m ~ ~ e v e , C ~ ~ ~ I U ^ I i t n 'F i x rv ~ ~ - Irv _ Z ~ - I _ ai'E L _- - m _ - 3 ~ 2 `s ° _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h ~ E ~ ~ 0 i 2 6 ~, t s r - I vi.Z E - Iv - - - _ - E v¢' 3 z ~s_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ F ~ m F Z y°Ir ~ ~ - p ` _ E a ~ - _ %° E v Z - - F fi ~ _ _ _ _ I _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ I m ~ ~ _ _ _ i o _t _ i ~ ~ a _ _ ~ % I F f V y 5 3 m° c4 n i a '~' a c 3 ~ a .~: ~' ~ J U C C e E °c ~ t+1 'm E ~ ' _nmerem - __ - 3 a I - ~_ ~_N ~E ,'.f _- ~ . a E, - ~' ~ E E ~ ~ m ~ 3 S i _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ m - _ ~ E E ~ ca ~ ~ _ T _ E v _ ~ , a - v - 3 ~ v E _ . E n W A b E ~ 3 S . ~ m E I C a ~ ~ LI - - E _ r i E e a' - - _ I r E E E ~ - - __ _ E 3 > Z £_ °, z ~ z ~ c. _ E ~i ¢ ~ E E f E E ~ y t E z F? _ i _ _ _ _ ~ ~ c ~ 3 i 'I ` " _ _ ~ E _ _ s _ F ~ ` _ ~ `sl EI'i _ ~ I m - r h i ~ e i 31 3I I ~ a° ' - x°° -` .. e ~ ~ ~ ~ r v~N N N N _ E ° ~ _:.. . ~ _. _ _. __ I _ - l Y - ~ ~ a ~ E E ~ P __ _ P m w w ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-. 5 f ~ ; i a ~~ ~ _ __ - __ - U _ °c m n m n o m n ea r~ e~ v ea e+ o a _ n' r __ p I v i C n S z z I __. ... i i~ ~ _ _ __ E.- -- r r~~~°, - 3 ~ i I ir~. _ E E E ~ - o ~ i i I S z ~a fi di ° _ 3 s% t ~-- i a ~ = i F 2 ' °.~ a qI , _= Y _ _ _ _ F z s` _ I ~ _ I l _ - E S m _ m ^ i 1 _ I I _ ' - ` a ~ O 1 G ~ a a c s ~ Y ,~~F V L _.= U e Z = 4 E °e ~ W ~ ti m l 4 } - ~ 1 i e I P o 0 = "I F E u 6 o ~I w -'- - - _ ~ ~ _ m" - x I ~ E ~ ~ U C „ ° o e w ~- + o w e 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 r ~ o I I G ". ~._ ~ _ ._. _ .n n _. _ _ _ i __ . N C ~.. F C Q o o 0 0 ~ o c o o e . t _ U ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o c o o.c o ~ ` o_ T O ~ o M a o_ I _ F ~' J: + a I n d .o n n n ~o v ~o t o _ P '. Q . ~ __ .. IF_ . __. . 9 ~ _ .. - F _ I 1~ _ _ _ I _ ` ~ o S. - v h I 3 N a n r _ I ~ ~ - F I o E ' I. w 0 I c t+ u 1 r 8 I I ad '~ 3 _ _ E I a _ _ - ~ ...., ' _ ' ' ' ~~ 1 t ~ " E 3 s 3 . I 2 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ 5 a E E _ ~ h C E :3 ° N .~ - - E E I .~ _ F E' _ I E p ~ E s" ~ E _ 3 ~ ; ~ _ dF ~ z~z ^' __' ', 's o z I I~ s ~ I E _ 3 < ~ ' CIS a ~ d I S ~ - C Y -c ~ E - E 3 _ _ _ _ Z F C Gam' _ o _ nn n - - ~ _ 2 _ ~ n ! . - __ _ _ _ _ I 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX G Resolution to Adopt the Urban Water Management Plan DRAFT for review purposes only. P912000N129519 - Ukiah U WMP~DraR Report -August 200TDraft l1WMP (08102007) doc RESOLUTION NO. 2007- ATTACHMENT2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING UPDATED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, 1. The City last updated its Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP") on October, 2002; and 2. Water Code Section 10621 the City is required to update its plan every five years in years ending in 0 and 5; and 3. The City has circulated the draft among diverse agencies, persons and organizations within and without the City of Ukiah; and 4. The City has considered and responded to all comments received on the draft plan; and 5. The City published in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the hearing and mailed notice of the hearing to Mendocino County all as required by law; and 6. The City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed UWMP update and considered the proposed plan and all comments received prior to and at the hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby adopts the updated Urban Water Management Plan as proposed and revised prior to the adoption of this resolution, which final document is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and 2. The City Clerk is directed to submit to the Department of Water Resources, the California State Library, and Mendocino County a copy of the UWMP attached hereto as Exhibit A within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the , 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mari Rodin, Mayor ATTEST: Linda C. Brown, City Clerk 2005 Urban Water Management Plan APPENDIX H Effect of Reduced Eel River Imports on Future Water Supply for Citv of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan -Prepared by Wagner and Bonsignore DRAFT for review purposes only. P112B000V 28619-Ukiah DWMFfDtaiL Repprt-November 200TUWMPI I-13 fTRW.do Effect of Reduced Eel River Imports on Future Water Supply for City of Ukiah Urban Water Master Plan This report documents analyses conducted to evaluate water supply reliability for the City of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan. The City holds, among other water rights, a 1954 appropriative water right permit for 20 cfs from Russian River Underflow. This amount corresponds to approximately double the current water use. Physical water availability is expected to be affected by significant reductions in Eel River imports to the Russian River basin. Analyses were conducted to assess impacts to Lake Mendocino operations in response to reduced Eel River imports and to determine the effect on future water supply downstream of Lake Mendocino. The results show sufficient water supply available for the City and that increased diversions by the City will have only minor effects on Lake Mendocino operations. The City does not control Lake Mendocino and can not cause changes to the release requirements or the amount of Eel River imports. Those decisions are controlled by other agencies. The following analysis shows that under a given set of assumptions there is sufficient water to mimic past releases during the summer months with the result that the reduced imports from the Eel River that are expected will not substantially affect the flow in the River. Lake Mendocino may experience significant changes in seasonal water surface due to reductions in imports, but since the City does not take water out of the lake directly it does not directly affect water levels or storage. It is important to note that the source of the City's water right is Russian River Underflow which has several components including, Russian River (West Fork), ungaged tributary inflow, groundwater accretion, return flow, percolation of direct precipitation and natural flow from the East Fork Russian River and Eel River imports. [n addition the City pumps percolating groundwater from at least one of its wells. The following analyses treats all water supplies and all water diversions as having an equal effect on the system. This particular assumption as explained in more detail below is a simplifying and conservative assumption; the actual impacts are very likely to be less than the modeled impacts attributable to the City. The first part of the analysis estimates the rate and timing of increased depletions to the Russian River attributable to future City of Ukiah diversions. This is described in Section I. The second part of the analysis establishes a future baseline condition for Lake Mendocino and the Russian River. This was necessary because hydrological conditions in the Russian River basin have changed over time; future water supply and management will not be the same as historical. Two future baseline scenarios were developed because of uncertainty regarding future water resource management. Because the City has no control over the water supply to Lake Mendocino or Lake operations, the City cannot predict how the system will be operated. Section 2 describes the future baseline scenarios. The third part of the analysis applied the estimated increased City of Ukiah river depletions onto the baseline scenarios to see how streamflows and/or reservoir operations may be affected. This is presented in Section 3. SECTION I -Protected Increased Diversions by City of Ukiah City of Ukiah annual treated water production has increased from about 2,200 acre-feet in 1960 to about 4,000 acre-feet in recent years, as shown in Figure 1. Peak water use in the City typically occurs in July. The recent monthly water use pattern by the City was used to project annual water use corresponding to 20 cfs in July. State Water Right's Board (predecessor to the State Water Board) issued a permit pursuant to Application 15704 to the City's to divert up to 20 cfs. Based on 20 cfs use in July and the average monthly water use pattern, the annual use would be 8,394 acre-feet. Though the City has apre-1949 water right for 2.8 cfs and also pumps percolating groundwater, the analysis conducted assumed an ultimate demand of 20 cfs. Historical water use by the City of Ukiah is already reflected in historical Russian River flows. To evaluate future conditions with the City of Ukiah diverting 8,394 acre-feet per year, it was necessary to model an increase in water use corresponding to the difference between the historical use and the projected level of 8,394 acre-feet. A portion of the water diverted by the City for municipal use returns to the groundwater system directly via percolation ponds at the wastewater treatment plant. Essentially all of the water used indoors returns to the groundwater system within the same month as diverted. It was estimated that 15 percent of the outdoor water use returns to the river system (also assumed to be within the same month as diverted). Water use during the winter months was taken to be a good estimate of indoor water use during the rest of the year. For each month, an estimate was made of the fraction of diversion that resulted in depletion to the River system. Figure 2 shows the average monthly water diversion and depletion corresponding to a 20 cfs peak diversion. The annual increase in water use from historical levels up to 8,394 acre-feet per year (corresponding to 20 cfs in the peak month) was distributed by the average monthly pattern of water use and then multiplied by the depletion fraction of diversion for that respective month to estimate the increased draft on the river system corresponding to full use of the City's appropriative right. This increased draft (depletion) was then imposed on the model of Lake Mendocino and the Russian River to evaluate releases or streamflow. SECTION 2 -Future Baseline Scenarios for Russian River In this part of the analysis, models of Potter Valley imports, Lake Mendocino operations and Russian River flows were developed and used to establish a future baseline condition upon which the City's diversions were evaluated. The historical hydrology was used to establish a baseline condition. However, historical events will not be repeated because of two significant resource management changes. In 1986, State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1610 (D-1610) was issued setting forth minimum required streamflows on the Russian River below Lake Mendocino. Operations prior to that time did not need to meet D-1610 requirements. Then in 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) amended the hydroelectric license for the Potter Valley Project. The amended license is expected to significantly reduce imports from the Eel River. to the analysis of future baseline conditions, future Eel River imports were projected by applying the amended FERC license to the hydrology of 1961 through 2006. This resulted in less imports than occurred historically. Lake Mendocino operations were modeled to reflect flood control operations and release of water to meet downstream demands. Downstream demands were projected in two different fashions, creating a Scenario A and Scenario B. In both scenarios, the downstream demand was based on historical irrigation and municipal use and included a projection of the D-1610 requirements to the full 1961 through 2006 study period. Eel River Imports The East Fork of the Russian River receives significant imports from the Eel River via the Potter Valley Project operated by PG&E. The historical imports, excluding the portion delivered to the East and West canals of the Potter Valley Irrigation District, averaged about 141,500 acre- feet per year, as shown in Table 1. This represented about 57 percent of the inflow to Lake Mendocino. Table 2 summarizes the monthly inflow to Lake Mendocino as reported by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and shows that it averaged about 250,100 acre-feet per year. On January 28, 2004, FERC amended the license for the Potter Valley Project (Proj. 77- 110). This license specifies minimum flows for both the Eel River and diversions to the East Fork of the Russian River. The minimum diversion to the East Fork of the Russian River is conditioned on time of year and hydrological classification, as follows. Minimum Diversion to the East Fork Russian River Period Classification From Throu h Normal Dr Critical Se 16 A r 14 35 cfs 35 cfs 5 cfs A r 15 Ma 14 35 cfs 25 cfs 5 cfs Ma 15 Se I S 75 cfs 25 cfs 5 cfs The hydrological classification is determined from unimpaired inflow to Lake Pillsbury (located in the Eel River basin). Table 3 summarizes the classification determined in this analysis. The FERC license also includes a condition (paragraph ES on page 63) that disallows diversions to the East Fork Russian River in excess of the specified minimum flows, whenever the storage in Lake Pillsbury is less than Target Storage Curves included in the license. Figure 3 shows the Target Storage Curves. Figure 3 also shows the maximum storage in Lake Pillsbury corresponding to the Certificate of Approval (attached) issued by Division of Safety of Dams on December 4, 1978. The Certificate states that water may be impounded to elevation 1910.0 but the spillway gates must be open from November 1 to April L The capacity table for Lake Pillsbury (attached), made by PG&E and dated October 2006, shows the top of spillway gates at 1910.0 feet, which corresponds to 74,993 acre-feet of storage. The spill gates are 10 feet tall. The 2006 capacity table shows the spill crest at 1900.0 feet which corresponds to 54,338 acre- feet of storage. These capacities, 54,338 acre-feet from November through March, and 74,993 acre-feet from April through October, are shown as Maximum Storage in Figure 3. Because the Target Storage Curves are above the Maximum Storage levels, Condition ES results in a severe restriction on imports of water through the Potter Valley Project from March 5 to July 17. In an October 16, 2006, letter (attached) from John Keenan, Sr. Vice President, PG&E to Magalie Salas, Secretary, FERC, Mr. Keenan explained that computer modeling conducted in development of the flow proposal incorporated in the FERC license allowed maximum diversions through the Potter Valley Project tunnel during times of spill at Cape Horn Dam (located on the Eel River immediately downstream of the tunnel diversion). Mr. Keenan further explains that the final language of the license did not incorporate that allowance. We do not know why that allowance was not included in the final language. The diversions to the Russian River through the Potter Valley Project during the spring months will be severely restricted by the existing language unless the condition is modified. An estimate was made of future inflows to Lake Mendocino based on Eel River imports being restricted to the specified minimum diversion from March 5 to July 17. While the ES condition would not affect the balance of the year, other requirements of the amended FERC license could affect Potter Valley Project diversions during the balance of the water year. Considerable additional computer modeling would be required to simulate operations in the Eel River basin and even with such a tool, considerable discretion for diversions remains to PG&E.~ Based on the assumption that PG&E would he able and willing to maximize flow through the Potter Valley Project tunnel for power generation, it was decided that using historical imports for the July 18 through March 4 period would be a reasonable assumption in this analysis. Table 4 summarizes the Potter Valley Project import to East Fork Russian River as affected by the ES license condition. Note that (between Table 1 and Table 4) average annual imports drop 37,300 acre-feet or 26 percent. It was assumed for this analysis that an acre-foot less import translated into an acre-foot less inflow to Lake Mendocino on the same day. Downstream Demands on Russian River The historical record of outflow from Lake Mendocino provides an indication of water demand from Lake Mendocino downstream on the Russian River from the East Fork Russian River to Dry Creek. A USACE database provided a daily record of outflow from the lake for water years 1961 through 2006. A monthly summary of Lake Mendocino historical outflow is provided in Table 5. Note that releases from the lake were much higher in the wet season of December through April. These high flows were not intended to meet downstream demand but rather resulted from flood control operations in Lake Mendocino. Downstream demands on the Russian River to Dry Creek during the wet season of December through April were estimated In a June 8, 2007, letter (attached) from Randy Poole (General Manager, SCWA) to David Moller (Manager of Relicensing, PG&E), Mr. Poole states, "The Agency and the County still do not know how PG&E is operating the Project, or whether operating the project using other criterion that is also cousisten[ with the existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license could have resulted in higher Lake Mendocino storage." Mr. Moller responded to Mr. Poole in a June 22, 2007 letter (attached) and acknowledged that "the reduction in diversions from the Eel River into the EBRR [East Branch Russian River] required by the license amendment was considerably greater than what had been anticipated during the amendment proceeding" but did not provide an explanation of how PG&E is operating the Potter Valley Project. based on application of the D-1610 minimum streamflow requirements to the period of record, 1961 through 2006. Downstream demands on the Russian River to Dry Creek for instream flow, recreation, agricultural use and municipal use during the dry season of May through November were estimated in two different ways, leading to two Scenarios. In both scenarios, historical Lake releases during the dry season were used as a guide. Table 5 shows historical lake releases in the period May through November were typically in the range of 12,000 to 18,000 acre-feet per month. That corresponds to a rate of 200 to 250 cfs. Figure 4 shows the distribution of historical daily releases from Lake Mendocino during the months of May through November. This figure shows the percent of days during May through November that the Lake release exceeded the given value. The median flow was 230 cfs. Only 27 percent of the daily releases were greater than 275 cfs. The higher release rates suggest that there were surplus releases and thus were not considered to represent demands on the Russian River. Scenario A estimated downstream demands on the Russian River for release from Lake Mendocino as the historical daily release capped at 275 cfs. In other words, historical daily releases less than 275 cfs during the dry season of May through November were assumed to be the measure of downstream demand for fisheries, recreation, agricultural and municipal uses. On days when the May though November release exceeded 275 cfs, the downstream demand was assumed to be 275 cfs. D-1610 specifies a minimum instream flow from the East Fork Russian River to Dry Creek for all months of the year. If any of the historical Lake releases during May through November were insufficient to meet the D-1610 minimum requirement, the downstream demand in Scenario A was adjusted to satisfy the D-1610 requirement. The D-1610 minimum streamflow requirement was instrumental in estimating downstream demands in Scenario B. Review of historical gage records on the Russian River between Lake Mendocino and Dry Creek show river flow in excess of the D-1610 requirement. Scenario B downstream demand for release from Lake Mendocino was estimated as the historical Lake release minus the amount that the minimum gaged flow in the river exceeded the D-1610 requirement. Both estimates (Scenarios) of downstream demand on the Russian River were based on historical Lake releases rather than a cataloguing of water rights or water diversions on the Russian River. In Scenario A, the assumption was that historical Lake releases (up to 275 cfs) were necessary to meet demands. In Scenario B, the assumption was that if the historical Lake release, afrer providing for all diversions and river channel losses, resulted in river flow in excess of the D-1610 requirement, then the Lake release could be scaled back. Scenario B is an inquiry into whether or not there had been historical releases greater than needed. A further inquiry into the actual historical demand would be necessary to confirm this assumption. Lake Mendocino Operational Analysis A spreadsheet model was constructed to simulate Lake Mendocino operations. A daily time step over the 46-year period of record (water years 1961 through 2006) was modeled. A daily record of historical storage content in Lake Mendocino was provided from a US Army Corps of Engineers database. In the operational analysis during the wet season of December through April, releases were made for flood control and to maintain the D-1610 minimum streamflow. Rather than trying to incorporate in the model all the factors involved in flood routing, including discretionary encroachments into the flood reservation, the modeled reservoir content was required to be no greater than the historical content during the months of December through April. During the May through November dry season, the downstream demand corresponding to the respective Scenario (A or B) was released from the reservoir. Also, to reflect the flood rule curve, releases were made during the dry season as necessary to keep the Lake below 91,000 acre-feet of storage. Future Baseline Operations Figure 5 shows the average monthly outflow from Lake Mendocino under historical and projected future conditions. Outflows during the dry season are greater in Scenario A than in Scenario B. [n Scenario A, outflows replicated historical releases up to 275 cfs. In Scenario B, outflows were reduced to the minimum rate needed to satisfy the D-1610 required flow down to Dry Creek. The lesser Lake release during the dry season in Scenario B supports higher Lake levels, shown in Figure 6. Compared to average historical Lake levels, Scenario A Lake levels in July and August are approximately 1 1 feet lower and Scenario B Lake levels are approximately 6 feet lower. SECTION 3 -Modeling of Increased City of Ukiah Diversions in Russian River Future Baseline The effect of the City of Ukiah's increased diversions was then modeled as a change to Future Baseline Scenarios A and B. In Scenario A, it was assumed that the increased depletion to the river system attributable to Ukiah's diversion would necessitate an increased release from Lake Mendocino. In Scenario B, it was assumed that Ukiah's increased depletion to the river would necessitate an increased release from Lake Mendocino whenever that depletion would cause the river flow to drop below the D-1610 minimum flow requirement. Because the City's depletion would affect the river below the confluence of the West and East Forks, there would be times when the increased depletion would not necessitate increased Lake release. If the minimum historical gage flow was at Hopland, Cloverdale or Healdsburg, the increased depletion by Ukiah would necessitate additional release from Lake Mendocino. If the minimum gauged flow occurred at the confluence of the Forks, no additional release would be required. Note that the minimum flow requirement in D-1610 affects the river from the Forks to Dry Creek and is assumed to apply along this entire reach. It would be possible that the flow could be below the minimum at the Forks, and higher than the minimum at Hopland, Cloverdale and Healdsburg, in which case a release of stored water to maintain the minimum flow would not be required. Figure 7 shows the average outflows modeled for Scenario A, with and without the increased diversion by City of Ukiah. Figure 8 shows the effect on Lake levels due to Ukiah's increased diversion under Scenario A. Slightly greater outflows are required in the dry season, resulting in slightly lower Lake levels. During the wet season, outflows for flood control are reduced, allowing the Lake levels to rebound to baseline conditions. Figure 9 shows the modeled Lake outflows for Scenario B, with and without Ukiah's increased diversion. Figure 10 shows the effect on Lake levels due to Ukiah's increased diversions in Scenario B. Again, slightly greater outflows are required in the dry season, resulting in slightly lower Lake levels, which then rebound to baseline levels during the wet season. Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin (aquifer) underlies Ukiah Valley and Redwood Valley. Geologic and groundwater characteristics underlying Sanel Valley are similar, however, bedrock effectively separates the Sanel aquifer from the Ukiah aquifer. The Ukiah Valley is the largest of several interior valleys in Mendocino County that fall along the north-northwest trending Maacama Fault Zone. The basement rock is of the Franciscan Complex, of variable but minor water yielding capacity. The valley is filled up to 2000 feet deep with unconsolidated or loosely cemented gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited through eons of erosion, transport and sedimentation. The valley fill is categorized as three separate deposits. The oldest and lowest unit is the continental basin deposits. [t is estimated to be up to 2000 feet in depth near the axis of the valley. Wells completed in the continental basin deposits produce water slowly because of consolidated, fine-grained material and low permeability. Well yield ranges from 1 - 50 gallons per minute (gpm). The second unit is the continental terrace deposits, situated mostly on the periphery of the valley. These deposits are relatively thin (up to 25 feet), have a low permeability and are not a significant groundwater source. The third valley fill unit is the Holocene alluvium, consisting of uncemented gravel, sand, silt and clay deposited in the last 10,000 years. The Holocene alluvium covers approximately 30 square miles throughout broad areas of the flood plain and more narrow bands along the Russian River north of the Forks and along tributary streams. It is generally less than 100 feet thick but extends up to 200 feet in depth. Consisting of coarse and uncemented sediments, the alluvium exhibits high porosity and permeability, thereby holding a significant quantity of water and transmitting water rapidly. Well yields range from 100 to 1000 gpm. The volume of water available from pumping from upper 100 feet of the most productive portion of the aquifer is estimated at 90,000 acre-feet. Groundwater in the alluvium is hydraulically connected to and interacts with surface flows. The principal source of groundwater is infiltration of precipitation. Other sources contributing to Ukiah valley groundwater are streamflow leakage, deep percolation from irrigation and treated effluent discharged via the City of Ukiah percolation ponds. Water Level in the Ukiah Valley The groundwater table (the underground water surface) fluctuates seasonally, being at its highest level in March or April at the end of the wet season, and at its lowest in October, at the end of the dry season. Seasonal fluctuations range on the order of 5 to 20 feet. Measurements have been taken and recorded over a long time period at a few wells in the valley. Measurements were generally taken twice a year, at the end of the wet season and at the end of the dry season. The groundwater measurements show the water table rebounds during the wet season to about the same elevation in all but abnormally dry years such as 1977. The water table rebounded completely in one year of normal precipitation. Water surface measurements over the long-term show no trend in groundwater levels. A 1986 USGS investigation of groundwater levels in the Ukiah Valley (Ground-water Resources in Mendocino County, California; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4258; July 1986) found that, "None of the hydrographs show any prominent long-term declines. Water levels measured during the 1980's are remarkably similar to those measured during the 1960's and 1970's." Bulletin 118 of the California Department of Water Resources, updated 2/27/04, in its section on the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (referenced below and attached) states, "Based on hydrographs from DWR monitored wells, groundwater levels in the past 30 years have remained relatively stable. During drought conditions there is increased drawdown during summer months and less recovery in winter months. Post-drought conditions rebound to approximately the same levels as pre-drought conditions." (A third reference regarding Ukiah valley groundwater is: Cardwell, G. T.; Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Kittle Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California; Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1548; 1965.) Wagner & Bonsignore prepared Figures 1 I through 14 which show water table hydrographs through 2007 from the available record of long-term monitoring of wells in Ukiah Valley. Figure 15 shows the location of those wells. The hydrographs show the seasonal fluctuation due to the precipitation, the effect of drought in 1977, and the absence of a long-term trend in water surface elevation. Because the alluvium contains and transmits water easily, there is significant interaction between the Ukiah basin aquifer and the Russian River. Water level measurements show that in most years in spring the aquifer is full and spills to the river. At the southern end of the Ukiah groundwater basin, the bedrock rises toward the surface and groundwater must move to the surface stream (Russian River) to move downstream. The predominant movement of water is from the Ukiah groundwater basin to the Russian River. However, conditions fluctuate and occasionally result in some water moving from the river to the aquifer. When the river stage is high, water moves from the river into bank storage, where it is temporarily held until the river stage falls and water drains back to the river. When the aquifer water table is low, as happens toward the end of the dry season, water moves from the river to the aquifer. This is compounded by the effect of phreatophytes (water-loving plants) drawing water from the aquifer. Finally, pumping of wells may cause a localized drawdown of the water table, which may result in flow moving from the river to the aquifer. CONCLUSIONS The foregoing analysis demonstrated that there is sufficient water supply in the Russian River system for City of Ukiah water diversions to approximately double from current levels up to 20 cfs in July. This water supply was projected to be available despite an estimated 26 percent decline in Eel River imports. Impacts on Lake Mendocino water elevations due to increased City of Ukiah diversions were estimated, on average, to be about one foot in September. (Figures 8 and 10). [t is likely that the simplifying assumptions made have overstated the potential impact of increased City diversions. The model assumes that an increase in diversion by the City, less an allowance for return flow, necessarily results in an effect on the Russian River. This is not the case. The future diversions are likely to be groundwater extractions with a corresponding lag time between extraction and the resulting streamfiow depletion. The timing is important because if the actual depletion takes place in the winter, sufficient water will be available from sources other than lake releases to replace the extracted groundwater. While there will still be a stream depletion it will be less than the already small impact predicted by the model. The foregoing analysis also evaluated how Lake Mendocino and Russian River operations may be affected by the reduced Eel River imports. The analysis showed that demands downstream in the Russian River basin can be satisfied at historical rates (Scenario A), but at the expense of lower levels in Lake Mendocino during the dry season. Alternatively, it may be that historical Lake releases during the dry season were greater than necessary and can be reduced (Scenario B), resulting in less dry season impact to Lake levels. Figures 5 and 6 summarize the change from historical conditions attributable to reduced imports. This impact is the result of regulatory changes and is not the result of any action by the City. This report identified the assumptions necessary to predict the impact of changes in Eel River imports. These are preliminary determinations for planning purposes based on the best information and analysis currently available. As additional, more accurate information becomes available, this report as well as the Urban Water Management plan it supports may be revised. The City has formally requested Sonoma County Water Agency to assist the City in developing computer models that will more accurately predict the impact of reduced Eel River diversions on the City's water supply and the water supply of upstream and downstream water users. It will take time to develop this additional analysis. The UWMP will be revised as additional and more accurate information becomes available. 7I23I2007 TABLE 1 Eel River Imports to East Fork Russian River (acre-feet) Excluding Imports to Potter Valley Irrigation District Canals WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 1961 15,126 17 843 18,471 18,110 16,274 18 402 1962 17,fi46 13,349 18,362 18,801 16,628 18 402 1963 76,168 18,155 18,319 18330 ifi fi93 16,024 1964 12,439 16,051 17,930 18,500 17,034 74,699 1965 15,760 17,985 15,472 18,429 16,811 9,366 196fi 16,590 10,740 13,571 18439 16,746 17,736 19fi7 77902 17,171 18,693 18755 16,841 17,739 19fi8 75,045 10391 17,744 18553 17,351 18410 19fi9 15,907 17 487 17,817 17 683 15,959 17,712 1970 16,976 14,798 12 907 17 780 16,300 17,627 1971 1 fi,084 15,834 18 671 18 618 17 042 18,673 1972 9,356 10,480 15,122 18,411 13,179 77910 1973 15,971 17,633 12,242 16,757 16,731 1 fi,820 1974 6,315 1,580 18,728 15,655 13,558 17,661 1975 16,444 17,015 16,246 15 486 14,201 17,048 1976 18,113 17,627 17604 8,255 5,588 7,242 1977 15,945 15,654 7270 3,285 512 1436 1978 804 2,233 9,402 17,147 16,138 17,717 1979 14,530 17,423 7,i8fi 12,210 16,626 18,240 1980 16,897 16,763 18443 i8,Ofi2 17379 18,286 1981 17,421 13,184 14,273 11,379 76,636 17,653 1982 19, 579 16, 548 19,117 19, 434 18, 052 19, fi 98 1983 9,616 13,016 17,354 19,282 17,649 19,482 1984 4,641 10,940 16,207 19,133 18,115 19,373 1985 17, 854 17, 966 18, 340 16, 791 7 7,158 19, 341 1986 17,596 9,656 15,591 14,258 13,901 19,ifi8 1987 17,933 7,591 5,248 5,383 12,044 17,929 1988 6,064 5,359 15,759 17,500 17,020 8,392 1989 4,877 8,333 17,933 17,867 12,758 17,963 1990 16,144 11,492 9,162 16,390 18,644 16,685 1991 19,123 14,587 4,897 2,202 2,497 16,203 1992 15,743 11681 5,002 8,366 12,879 19,772 1993 8406 8,589 13,734 16,806 16,423 19,835 1994 18,335 12,049 10,885 8,513 11,546 13,990 1995 5,092 5,568 3,721 3,557 5,308 3,160 1996 5,439 7,fi72 12522 ifi,070 18,333 19,Sfi9 1997 17201 11,fi21 16,465 13,113 11429 9969 1998 9,557 17,338 16,263 18084 14,737 20236 1999 17,746 17,058 17,433 11,586 9,894 18,000 2000 10,12] 12,750 11,717 13,002 16,657 17,877 2001 9,527 11,054 2862 3933 3,293 7,094 2002 5486 11,709 18,183 17,128 17,276 18,335 2003 5,159 6,189 7,917 7,914 13,960 16,225 2004 10,292 9,352 16,828 18,250 14,620 16,860 2005 fi,292 6,827 11766 ifi X92 14,420 14419 2006 Q770 5,590 3,464 11,OOfi 12,333 9,156 Average 12,870 12,390 13,757 14,615 14,199 16,966 (ds) 209 208 224 238 256 259 Source: 1976-83 8 1987-2006: per USGS gage #11471099; 1961-75, 1984-86: USGS gage #11471000 retluced to retie Apr May 17,514 16,886 16,376 7,533 17,211 16,657 3,926 3,665 16,997 16,995 17,642 12,918 17,405 17,211 11,005 4,146 16,526 16,826 6,124 5,163 16,290 17,207 15,295 13,541 17817 13,415 17,533 17,187 16,029 15,667 6,555 2,339 253 838 17,752 18,482 17,112 18,538 17,957 16,009 11,703 7,962 19,270 19,593 18,806 18,667 15,041 6,293 12,014 3,377 10,568 6,040 6,952 5,568 4,854 5,9fifi 17,971 11,964 3,193 6,788 18,248 15,069 15,192 11,193 19,055 19,420 5,597 5,978 5,770 6,460 19.295 18,601 6,936 6,357 19,464 18,157 1z,97z 12,054 10,441 10,251 11,582 6,250 6,990 5,371 15,297 17,405 10,401 6,454 12,972 9,555 12.240 13,337 13,167 11,421 221 186 d ponian to PVID. Jun m,oae 8,331 10,689 3,120 m,1zs 6,276 14,729 5,421 12 256 6,490 12,325 4,628 6,897 13,294 10,613 2,991 1.201 16,328 9,418 10,987 7,835 16,456 15,931 3,828 5,964 6,166 4,800 5,891 s a91 13,151 8,382 fi,024 17,322 3,513 5,320 11,929 6,676 18,292 7,496 6,867 4 717 4,199 9 318 5,227 B,fi88 7,045 8,578 144 Jul Aug Sep Tolal 5,998 6,074 15,430 176,176 10,421 10,600 9,333 165,781 9, fie4 10,298 10,233 178,462 6,3fi3 6,928 8,532 129,186 10, 392 10, 746 16, 049 173,133 9, 678 10, 497 14, 440 165, 273 14455 14,702 15,484 201,088 10, 010 10,092 10,470 148,637 10,057 10,249 14,273 182, 751 6, 391 6, 848 13, 7 74 140, 577 4,867 3,095 6,680 165,386 11,640 8,634 14,186 152,382 7,042 6,958 13,401 161,684 4,983 4,253 12,309 143,057 6,758 6,367 14,299 166,172 4,050 4,685 10,919 105,968 1,583 1,450 577 50,005 8,896 8,813 11,859 145,572 8,46fi 8,432 16,415 164,595 6,056 3,348 15,154 175,339 6,700 5,169 11,342 141257 8,281 8,791 15,039 201,859 15,374 14,876 3,420 183,474 5,087 8,992 7,110 134,760 8,417 7309 14,990 161,520 6,004 5,723 8,571 133,245 5,576 4,544 4,017 97,586 5,389 5,009 4,883 102,087 6,030 5,893 6,311 133,301 4,594 6,060 16,788 137,068 8,210 5,667 7,363 122,447 7,075 6,284 5,816 125,026 9,812 6,897 14,658 170,958 3,695 7,168 3,949 105,220 5,336 5,135 5,486 59,913 8, 571 9, 285 17, 036 164, 323 6,308 8,118 9,648 123,842 8,303 7,293 12,012 179,735 6,601 6,631 8,113 144,683 6,657 6,986 7807 131,333 3,106 2,916 3,437 69,770 4,227 4,425 4,292 117622 7,686 7,946 13,331 128,347 5,256 5,540 5,879 124,961 7,337 6,952 6,738 722,058 6,861 6,690 7,097 101590 7,271 7,160 10,138 141,808 118 116 170 195 COULF01 J.xls, Iables1.2,5 7/23/2007 W~' Oct Nov Dec 1961 15,291 19,353 35,969 1962 17,572 14,573 26,744 7963 22,237 19,067 30,506 1964 12,984 26,918 19,950 1965 14,775 25,337 96,216 1966 15,652 15,517 19,055 1967 17,727 20,591 36,072 1968 14,920 10,306 19,006 1969 76,231 17,939 57 030 1970 17,677 15,279 35,955 1971 17,617 23,457 60,891 1972 9,243 11,687 23,838 1973 17,852 21,fi80 26,997 1974 7,525 21,212 51,285 1975 19, 248 18, 391 19, 371 1976 18,938 19,262 19,958 1977 17,312 17,124 8817 1978 1,785 4,659 25,052 1979 15,253 17,885 8,303 1980 19,688 29,925 34,350 1981 18,147 14, 025 16, 782 7982 19,482 47,769 61,721 1983 10,818 25,510 51,563 1984 6,042 36,889 64,059 7985 20,361 35,788 25,143 1986 19,488 13,266 22,340 1987 19,393 9,443 6,684 7988 9,021 7,859 36,699 1989 4,864 13,831 26,738 1990 17,756 12,302 10,148 1991 19,411 15,081 5,377 1992 15,912 13,387 5,937 1993 9,352 8 878 32,045 1994 17483 11,377 12 708 1995 4,933 7,730 10,606 1996 6,672 8,868 27,981 1997 16,671 12,802 40,755 1998 9,560 20,743 27,412 1999 17941 17,504 23,477 2000 13,496 13,922 10, 929 2007 9,695 74,023 5,256 2002 2,231 19,670 53,382 2003 5,917 5,971 45,152 2004 11,084 9,069 44,426 2005 8,737 6,647 28,723 2006 7 736 8 662 76,141 Average 73,733 1fi,980 30,908 TABLE 2 Lake Mendocino Historical Inflows (acre-feet) Jan 21,350 23,752 23,463 37,988 65,525 53,211 57,537 38,010 74,429 110,638 57,085 28,255 64,563 58,690 23,157 10 469 4 697 84,933 25,867 67,522 31,528 52,842 53,134 25,595 20,793 33,747 13,301 51,859 28 626 26,232 3,229 10,407 76,972 13,240 87,312 56,439 68,111 77,942 20,987 22,784 9,225 43,203 37,637 38,623 39,394 63,188 42,119 Feb 47,842 47,408 37,885 20,182 21,509 32,595 25,587 36,419 59,079 33,783 zo,7ca 23,586 46,509 30,369 65,981 14,061 1,654 57,155 54,269 55,677 28 459 50,875 62,724 31,587 28,660 107,186 23,901 20,886 16,102 28,398 3,747 37,181 40,537 24,540 12,325 43,506 19,589 172,566 59,025 56,849 21,251 27,640 23,310 62,514 24,137 35,447 37,591 Mar Apr May 42,435 22,203 20,265 43,770 20,896 7,835 29,104 52,604 21,930 17,477 5,252 3,437 1z,aas 2e s2o 1s,01z 24,258 19,752 12,554 32 930 38,662 22,017 29,417 14,027 4,923 31,016 21,fi2fi 17,897 27,946 9,350 5,778 39,662 21479 20,543 2fi 599 19,936 14,519 3553fi 21,908 13,198 58,7fi7 43,072 22,183 76,351 26,675 19,777 16,023 11,157 3,586 3,104 811 1,819 44,674 36,534 22,035 38,585 19,785 20,375 38,063 24,560 19 200 29,889 15,959 9,207 43,841 67,869 20,926 112,129 44,202 28,049 30,199 20,140 8,583 30,308 16,661 3,913 56,230 15,327 6,968 37,827 10,622 6,691 9,503 7,295 8,426 59,287 24445 14,864 23,824 3,719 8,287 61,665 20,295 15,499 29,397 17,415 73,091 31226 26,325 23,413 15,761 6,891 6,661 68,423 19,018 17,959 36,539 26,529 22,209 17,147 8,432 7313 41,776 38,403 27251 48,780 25,165 13,877 35,179 13,567 12,442 19,240 13,161 7,488 25,024 8,957 6,795 27,872 41,390 31,423 25,807 12,944 8,715 34,108 26,164 23,491 59,848 53,910 20,434 36,119 22,646 14,501 Jun 9,626 7,942 12,282 1 478 1o,zzs 5,106 17,610 3,354 13,859 5,816 14,309 3,677 8,333 1fi,003 12,974 2,fifi0 1,412 16,386 9,247 12,312 7,454 17,913 18,560 8,053 4,126 5,590 4,380 7,260 9,067 13,644 7,565 6,895 22 086 3,382 7,123 13,238 6,496 24,105 8,220 8,575 5,687 5,794 71 318 8,414 14,232 10,261 9,fi57 Jul 4,320 10,217 10,933 4,538 10,374 10,253 15,511 m,e2a 10,568 5,651 3,981 10,780 7,238 5,960 8,608 3,447 547 7 625 7 381 7,684 6,028 8,398 15,787 4,637 7,391 5,375 4,810 6,357 9,285 2 860 7,032 8,301 9,852 3,765 5,363 10,419 5,395 12,803 7,724 7,851 4,364 5,209 9,842 8,210 9,209 6,938 7,601 Aug Sep Tota 4,985 16,132 253,977 10,630 8,803 240,14C 10,949 10,332 281292 5,865 8,172 164,242 10,505 12,881 327,823 11421 15,894 235,267 15,fi28 16,052 315,918 12,266 11,782 205,255 10,459 75,021 339,153 6,651 74,093 286,615 1,587 6,210 287,52fi 9,755 14,694 196,569 7,404 15,172 286,489 4,259 15,079 334,404 9,136 16,429 314,099 5,709 11,171 136,441 1,222 2093 60,612 7,988 11738 320,563 7,097 15,505 239,551 5,417 16,082 330,481 3,612 10,320 191,412 8,797 15,781 416,194 15,144 4,167 441787 9,634 6,643 252262 7,301 17423 217,868 4,871 9,529 299,917 5,970 6,724 149,947 5,808 5,314 176,486 7,849 6,327 221,283 4,314 16,465 167,949 4,267 6,008 149,175 7,099 6,835 171,856 7,404 14,515 302,607 7,170 3,642 126,619 5,709 5,488 251,988 10,084 16,866 281,352 8630 9,689 220,831 13,117 12,921 418,600 8,959 11,272 262931 8,789 7,115 211499 3,939 4,223 117,552 5,635 5,427 208 968 8,723 13,990 262484 6,200 4,899 240,90fi 6,811 7024 228,678 6,343 6,803 355,711 7,628 10,629 250,915 (cfs) 223 285 503 685 677 587 381 236 162 124 124 179 346 Source: USACE. cou~ronas, iaoiesr z s 7123/2007 TABLE 3 Projected Hydrological Classification for Inflows to Lake Pillsbury Potter Valley Project (FERC 77-110) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN-DEC 1961 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1962 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1963 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1964 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1965 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1966 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1967 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1968 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1969 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1970 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1971 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1972 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1973 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1974 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1975 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1976 Dry Critical Dry Dry Dry Dry 1977 Dry Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical 1978 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1979 Normal Dry Normal Normal Normal Normal 1980 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1981 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1982 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1983 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1984 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1985 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1986 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1987 Dry Dry Normal Normal Normal Normal 1988 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1989 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1990 Normal Normal Normal Normal Dry Dry 1991 Dry Critical Critical Dry Dry Dry 1992 Critical Dry Normal Normal Normal Normal 1993 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1994 Normal Normal Normal Dry Dry Dry 1995 Dry Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1996 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1997 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1998 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 1999 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2000 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2001 Dry Critical Dry Dry Dry Dry 2002 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2003 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2004 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2005 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 2006 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal COULF016.x1s, year type 7narzao~ TABLE 4 Estimated Future Imports to East Fork Russian River (ac-ft) VW Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1961 15,12fi 17843 18471 18,110 16,274 4,788 2,083 3,501 4463 5,169 6,074 15,430 127,332 1962 17,646 13,349 18,362 18,801 16,628 4.796 2,083 3,501 4,463 7,462 10,600 9,333 127,024 1963 16,168 18,155 18,319 18,330 16,693 4,768 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,909 10,298 10,233 129,920 1964 12,439 16,051 17,930 18,500 17,034 4,763 2,083 3,501 2,380 4,610 6,928 8,532 114,750 1965 15,760 17,985 15,472 18,429 16,811 4,320 2,083 3,501 4,463 7,528 10,746 14,049 131,149 1966 16,590 10740 13,571 18439 16,746 4,782 2,083 3,501 4463 7,346 10,497 14,440 123,198 1967 17,902 17,171 18,693 18,755 16,841 4,639 2,083 3,501 4463 9,383 14,702 15484 143,616 1968 15,045 10,391 17,744 18,553 17,351 4,788 2,083 3,501 4,463 7,308 10,092 10470 121,788 1969 15,907 17,487 17,817 17,683 15,959 4,702 2,083 3,501 4,463 7,230 10,249 14,273 131,351 1970 16,976 14,798 12,907 17780 ifi,300 4686 2.083 3,501 2,380 4,373 6.848 13,174 115805 1971 16,084 15,834 18,671 18,618 17,042 4,857 2,083 3,501 4463 4,943 3,095 6,fi80 115,871 1972 9,356 10480 15,122 18411 13,179 4,248 2,083 3,501 4463 9721 8.634 14,186 113,383 1973 15.971 17,633 12,242 16757 16,731 4,183 2,083 3,501 4463 5,713 6,958 13401 119,634 1974 6,315 1,580 16,728 15,655 13,558 4,763 2,083 3,501 4,463 4,453 4,253 12,309 91,661 1975 16,444 17,015 16,24fi 1548fi 14201 4,584 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,663 6,367 14,299 120,351 1976 18,113 17627 17,604 8,255 5,588 4,467 1,765 1,537 1488 2,700 4685 10,919 94,748 t 977 15,945 15,654 7,270 3,285 512 321 298 307 298 964 1450 577 46,881 1978 804 2,233 9,402 17,147 16,138 4,616 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,605 8,813 11,859 87663 1979 14,530 17423 7,186 12,210 16,626 4,723 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,478 8432 16,415 114,070 1980 16,897 16,763 18,443 18,062 17,379 4,786 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,151 3348 15,154 126,030 1981 17421 13,184 14,273 11,379 16,636 4,770 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,000 5,169 11,342 109,221 1982 19,579 16,548 19,117 19434 18,052 5,004 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,385 8,791 15,039 137,996 1983 9,616 13.018 17,354 19,282 17,649 4,893 2,083 3,501 4,463 10,905 14,876 3420 121,059 1984 4,641 10,940 16,207 19,133 18,115 4,930 2083 3,501 4,463 5,606 8992 7,110 105,721 1985 17,854 17,966 18,340 18,791 17,158 4,898 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,825 7,309 14,990 134,177 1986 17,596 9,656 15,591 14,258 13,901 4,873 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,284 5723 8,571 105,501 1987 17,933 7,591 5,248 5,383 12,044 4,745 2083 3,501 2,380 4,015 4544 4,017 73,483 1988 6,064 5,359 15,759 17,500 17,020 4,717 2,083 3,501 2,380 4,058 5,009 4,883 88,334 1989 4,877 8,333 17,933 17,867 12,758 4,344 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,328 5,893 Q31t 93,691 1990 16,144 11,492 9,142 16,390 16,644 4879 2083 1,537 1,486 2,452 6060 16,786 105,096 1991 19,123 14,587 4,897 2,202 2497 2,083 1,765 1,537 1468 4,596 5,667 7,363 67,804 1992 15,743 11,681 5,002 8,366 12,879 4,990 2083 3,501 4,463 5,601 6,284 5,816 86,409 1993 8,406 8,589 13,734 16,806 16,423 4,994 2083 3,501 4,463 5,897 6897 14,658 106,450 1994 18,335 12,049 10,885 8,513 11,54fi 4,897 1,765 1,537 1,488 2,761 7,168 3,949 84,895 1995 5,092 5,568 3,721 3,557 5,308 2,765 2,083 3,501 4,463 4,842 5,135 5,486 51,521 1996 5439 7672 12,522 16,070 16,333 5,006 2,083 3,501 4,463 6,712 9,285 17,036 108,122 1997 17,201 11,621 16,465 13,113 11,429 3,491 2083 3,501 4,463 5,369 8,118 9,648 106,502 1998 9,557 17,338 16,263 18,084 14,737 5,056 2,083 3,501 4,4fi3 5,885 7,293 12,012 116,271 1999 17746 17,058 17433 11,586 9,894 3,084 2,083 3,501 4,4fi3 5,627 6,631 8,113 107,219 2000 10,127 12,750 11,711 13,002 16,657 4,875 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,544 6,986 7,807 99,505 2001 9,527 11,054 2,862 3,933 3,293 1,806 1765 1,537 1,488 2,241 2916 3437 45,859 2002 5,486 11,709 18,183 17,128 17,276 4,897 2083 3,501 4,463 4,461 4425 4,292 97,904 2003 5,159 6,189 7,917 7,914 13,960 4,556 2,063 3,501 4,4fi3 6,171 7,946 13,331 83,189 2004 10,292 9,352 16,826 18,250 14,620 4,760 2083 3,501 4,463 4,994 5,540 5,879 100,563 2005 6292 fi827 11,766 16,092 14,420 4,374 2,083 3,501 4,463 5,603 6,952 6,738 89,111 2006 6,770 5,590 3,464 11,006 12,333 4,005 2,083 3,501 4463 5.588 6,690 7,097 72,589 Average 72,870 72,390 13,767 14,616 14,199 4,397 2,016 3,218 3,868 6,697 7,160 10,138 104,226 Avg (ds) 209 208 224 236 256 72 34 52 65 91 116 170 CoULF01 ] xlz, new maniM1ly Impart 7/2312007 WV Oct Nov Dec 1961 15,081 17.844 3,638 1962 17,786 8,773 3,736 1963 9.265 22,900 34,326 1964 13,246 37,859 13,198 7965 12,341 6,d82 61,137 1966 15,850 26,123 14,105 1967 17,171 28,201 28,666 1968 19,895 13,065 13,845 1969 11475 11,217 46,535 1970 13,789 15,134 37.802 1971 10,786 5,355 62,160 1972 12,058 8,626 6,377 1973 16,909 16,592 22,051 1976 18 716 3,045 49,586 1975 23,499 13,097 8,198 1976 79,666 11558 16,507 1977 10,717 9,971 5,687 1978 2,552 865 431 1979 12,070 14,737 10,981 1980 12,125 27,778 32,186 1981 7 4, 2 55 11,445 15, 45 7 1982 9,789 20,947 61,537 1983 9,624 19,553 58,148 1964 13,963 36469 54,448 1985 10,347 32,931 25,120 1966 10,402 9 311 20,716 1967 70,805 9,121 9,270 1988 74,037 9,021 3,370 1969 9,080 5,121 8,599 1990 9,870 9,133 9,501 1991 16,954 15,728 5,149 1992 12,967 7,163 5,649 1993 12,927 8,757 89d5 1994 24413 11,566 9,441 1995 7,952 5,125 4,466 1996 14,006 11,963 7,825 1997 15,588 13,650 33,169 1998 11,435 9,739 5,804 1999 16,105 17,113 23,611 2000 17,515 12,091 10,107 2007 13,087 9,539 10415 2002 11,295 5,351 43,581 2003 14,195 6,633 3,266 2004 14,288 10,579 25,009 2005 10,755 9,921 10,059 2006 14,031 10,828 21,835 Average 73,587 73,648 20,988 TABLE 5 Lake Mendocino Historical Outflows (acre-feet) Jan 19,496 17,824 15,408 42,423 88,416 42,738 32,860 35,661 83,654 111,624 69,020 21,902 67,617 58,850 13,789 9,800 1 330 52 658 22 652 69,538 22,254 54,171 42,189 34,235 20,492 32,093 8 613 47,614 28,746 18,628 5,242 11,032 77,647 11,138 58,684 42,751 7s,7so 74,536 21 063 6,282 7,812 47,783 36,621 45,416 24,638 98,191 39,798 Feb 42,941 46,440 44,944 13,597 18,518 32,460 44,861 37,673 51,839 29,021 11,048 22,725 52,657 17,320 64,999 8,285 994 57,642 52,654 56,064 36,508 52,806 63,799 31,065 33,058 107,801 1,570 17,705 12,732 25,655 2,053 33,322 39,154 23,596 19,770 46,647 1s,zo1 112,459 59,626 43,389 2,199 23,782 22 90fi 56,932 24,36fi 31 273 35,875 Mar Apr May 41,479 21049 15,309 40,140 15,239 fi555 22,667 49,104 21,186 13,115 6,918 5,171 10,275 22,854 15,188 27,561 10,618 12,758 27,844 35,538 14,827 29,193 5,484 4,122 31,861 9,918 16,704 25,924 4,985 4,754 15,075 21,438 17,986 17,453 12,149 13,964 20,896 8 581 10,659 28,061 57924 21,180 6x,751 n,o1a zo,zlo 16,374 3,370 9,939 819 2,884 5,332 37,994 26,333 17,598 28549 11 402 19,901 29,873 15,195 17,043 25,903 9,500 8,720 32,310 61,495 18,700 109,938 40,199 25,603 75,327 18,109 7,123 6,956 15,099 8,949 45,782 10,436 10,817 26,540 8,216 11379 7,976 10,453 11,486 44,692 22,780 13,259 11,314 3,675 6,706 21,232 19,291 14,474 13,338 15,471 13,574 15,773 23,002 22,843 10,259 5,048 4,791 49,103 17,542 19,545 26,548 22,115 22345 11,155 10,520 12,664 26,870 35,156 25,021 28,115 24,507 13,647 26,345 10,724 12$19 2,117 4,454 7,542 7,954 11,761 11,905 12,775 33,117 34,298 16,569 11,395 12,619 18,062 24,272 23,045 49,240 53,165 19,267 25,915 19,120 14,412 Jun 14,269 7,869 10,846 8,706 9,100 9,404 16,039 11,260 14.043 13,166 75,539 12,732 15,388 15,287 1x,261 15,723 9,689 16,806 12 006 13,567 13,386 17,209 15,715 11,321 15,705 13,760 12,005 6,936 15,309 9,824 8 770 14551 20 790 9,fi23 10,322 13,945 11,776 24,274 12,543 15,432 10,683 14,465 14,903 16,218 13,352 13,252 13,343 Jul 79,988 11,560 9,878 14,140 12,228 14,718 13,972 16,699 16,164 17,245 14,993 17,250 19,934 15,602 15,666 18,397 11,845 16,086 16,385 ifi,329 20,869 13,832 15,745 17,571 16,895 17,419 15,759 11,845 16,902 13,417 13,027 15,938 15,721 13,287 13,346 17,927 15,526 15,827 18,685 17,865 11,564 17 089 17,913 17 728 15,664 14,883 15,723 Aug Sep Tota 22,828 22,183 256,70 12494 11,705 200,72( 10,574 13,432 264,525 13,637 12,204 194,21 14,287 13,577 284,40 15,202 14,876 236,411 17725 19,637 297,28( 15,061 11,639 213,597 16,628 12,982 323,01E 17800 13,875 305,11'. 17,855 14,206 275,46: 18,125 15,854 179,21! 19,101 14,589 284,97< 20$13 24,621 330,70E 19,065 19,397 295,94E 15,640 13,434 158,6'X 10,526 5,758 75,55: 18,197 12,508 259,67( 17,978 15,397 234911 17,993 14,331 322 02: 17,295 13,781 209 371 19,306 14,402 376,50 14,299 14,100 426,91. 12,689 12.291 264,63( 13,764 12,379 211,69E 16,497 74,931 309,76E 15,236 74,503 142,81E 10,237 9,818 160,491 18, 780 11, 881 209 E I B 14,891 71,668 144,28 13,589 12,819 148,32E 17,323 14,371 174,461 15,864 13,224 274,64E 12,807 14,048 150,01E 15,999 13,643 235,49'- 18,190 14,024 258,28e 15,334 13,625 247,801 19,619 19,710 380,451 20,950 19,167 275,13: 19,879 14,221 206,36E 11,504 13,132 104,04E 16,049 15,ifi5 226,181 17,166 15,492 229,30`. 12,909 11,937 25159£ 15,412 13,948 203,492 15,059 12,492 353,51E 16,128 14,282 242,814 (cfs) 221 229 341 647 646 421 321 234 224 256 262 240 336 Source: USACE. COULFOP xls, taElest,2,5 0 0 N tY1 N I^- m M ~ ~ Q+ m ~ L m Y ~ P W n r o~"- ~ ~ ~ea~ gad tiaad-a~°tl psi 0 0 N M N d N Y R d a w v 0 N w R 01 w V d O l a c 0 w m a m C R C O .N d >_ O Ol d 10 d Q s A Y W •+ U N d 3 QI LL N O N O N N ~ ~ (s;o) a;ea mo~~ a6e~any a N N m Q c n Q `m ~ c 0 ~, n. ~! 0 c m c h N ~ K ~ c ~ O N I N 0 U N ,,,,. , - > 0 Z i a L U ~ O ~ 0 n N N O X 0 N 0 U d a, .. c u ~', 0 ~ i7N ',E R (6 `2 I Z r u Q r °- °m o 1x2a}-aa 1 yualuo~ a6g~o{S 0 m r d ~c L d 7 a 3 0 r R e a+ c ~Y Tr 0 n O ~, v ~ (~o~ MOIl~n~ p11~'.~OPuov~ nrz~rzom FIGURE 5 -Lake Mendocino Outflows Average for Water Vears 1961 - 2006 700 600 ^y 500 u c 400 LL d T 300 nl d Q 200 100 0 Histarlcal Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep L ~ Hlstoncal _ ®Future Baseline Scenano A _ ®Future Baseline Scenario B '. Future Baseline Scenano A Future Baseline Scenario B Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual 221 229 341 647 646 421 321 234 224 256 262 240 336 210 186 209 578 624 276 185 216 219 247 249 230 284 161 125 436 637 640 281 185 140 179 224 226 187 284 Fulure Scenarios'. Inflow to Lake retlucetl by FERC license wntlilion E5. Scenario A'. May-Nov tlownstreamtlemantl =historical release cappetl at 275 cfs. Scenario B'. May-Nov downstream tlemantl =historical release minus excess River Clow above D-1610 regmt. coormo xis. sasai~~~ o~mowi n 0 0 N M N Approximate Storage Content (ac-ft) 00 00 °o °o 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO I~ O N ~ M N d 41 J Y d t0 ~ O d O a~ ~ ~ C ~ .U ~ d C Cd ~ C Ln A Y 3 10 J t0 W lt' (7 LL O N O N O N O ~ O N O N V V M M N N O O (isw anoge laa;) uoilenai3 aae~ng ~a3eM d N N m O m N ~ C U I N i C ~ ~ 7 N (0 m N c ~'', ~ ~', T f0 d Q t0 a c m N 0 O Z Q O (0 N U N C N f0 CO N ~' I*~ 1 i mil U O N I U O N N N d C N A X 0 N 0 V vrzorzoor FIGURE 7 -Lake Mendocino Outflows Scenario A 700 600 ~ 500 w v G 400 LL rn 300 A d 200 100 6 Aversge for Water Years 1961 - 2006 r,; . .~,~ ''' + . .. ti^ 7 __ . ?i t ti. :i _- _ ._ +r Y. .' .S '. '.. _ r J .. i d _ ~. • _ •'~ " Y" 1' !,}. J' of .1~ - .Y ~* i'. Ocl Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeF ''~. ~ Future Baseline Scenario A ©Future Baseline Scenario A plus Increased Ukiah Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual Future Baseline Scenario A 210 186 209 578 624 276 185 216 219 247 249 230 284 Future Baseline Scenario A plus Increased Ukiah 214 187 196 563 621 276 185 218 224 254 255 235 284 Future Scenarios. InFlow to Lake reduced by FERC license condition E5. Scenario A. May-Nov downstream demand =historical release cappetl at 275 cfs. Scenario B. May-Nov downstream tlemantl =historical release minus excess River flow above D-1610 regmt. cou~oio.i:,:~e~n o~mo~.: r 0 0 N M N Approximate Storage Content (ac-ft) °o °o 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD I~ O ~ V M N d d J d Y R d ~ O ~ O ~ N Q Q ~ 0 ~ ~ C 'C O ~ m d v V d N ~ :: R Y R J W W ~.' 7 u n ~ ~ ~ M M N N N o O O r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r` ~ ~ ~ ~ (isw anoge;aa;) uoi;enai3 aae~ng ~a;eM d UJ L 'i (6 m Y Q N I d Q O ~ - ~ ~ N U N c li c_ ~ U1 l/1 f0 m N T J l0 j lL d Q ~ a 0 c ~ U ~ N ~ d c' m c m l0 N 5 o ~' 0 Z U O m _N Q C N U N X 0 N 0 0 U ~rzerzuo~ 700 600 500 u, a 400 LL ~ 300 7 Q 200 100 0 FIGURE 9 -Lake Mendocino Outflows Scenario B Average for Water Years 1961 - 2006 i :• __ iT _ :+ ~~r .}- ~i £~ .d l.• ti' h V i ___.___ f - I P l }P ~ J ~ ~•' f •t •~~ •P ry l h .. J ~' ~ V } ~ • ~ " :f. _.. 1. }. ' ...T N .~ 4 __ _ ~ ~ _ ~ .'. . - ~L ~ v e P 'P • ..... _ d { .'.. - M1 - •h Jn ~: 4 J. X Dct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Ser ®Future Base mel Scenario B © Future Basellne Scenario B plus Increased Ukiah Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual Future Baseline Scenario B 161 125 436 637 640 281 185 140 179 224 226 187 284 Future Baseline Scenario B plus Increasetl Ukiah 164 123 416 632 640 281 185 141 183 231 233 192 284 Future Scenarios'. Inflow to Lake reduced by FERC license condition E5. Scenario A. May-Nov downstream demand = historical release capped at 275 c(s. Scenario B: May-Nov downstream demand = historical release minus excess River Flow above D-1610 r egmt. courozo.i..z~ns a~mows r 0 0 N M N Approximate Storage Content (ac-ft) 00 00 00 00 °0 00 °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aD I~ O N 7 M N d d J d 1~'0 d V ~ ~ O ~ N am. ~~ U R ~ O C d m ~ N :: m Y R J O r W L') LL ~ V OV M M N N N O O O (isw anoge;aa;) uoi;enai3 a~e}mg ~a;eM n m J Q c T l0 a Q r m Y Ul J d m O C U' ~ ', ~' c N t0 m N J LL '. ~ Iii m `m c U ~ N li N c N y m ~ m m m U N J - O 2 V N d N m C N U N N x 0 N 0 0 V r 0 0 0 0 .~ ~ --' o W N r~r ~ W y d 3 I S £ ~I ! i I , • I~ i ~ • i I I~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ b ~ <'ISW anogd lea.) aoilena~~ aae~ans aaaeM ~~Z D~Z ~~Z 6661 L661 5661 £66l 1661 6861 L861 5861 £86l 1861 6L61 LL6I SL6l £L6l 1L61 a 6961 ~ 0 L961 3 5961 £96l 3 3 v 1961 ~ 0 6561 ~ 0 LS6[ SS6l £56l 1561 ~ ~ V ~ ~ C C .-i 0 O N ~ ^' o W ~ ~ G4 '~ d ~ ~ o 0 0 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (7SW anogd;aa3) uo~;ena~~ aae;ans ~a;eM SOOZ £oo~ IOOy 6661 L66t 5661 £66l 1661 6861 L861 5861 £861 1861 6L61 LL6l SL6l £L61 LL6l 6961 L961 5961 £96l 1961 6561 LS6l S56I £56I IS61 0 r 0 0 ,-, 0 0 Ma '~ M W ~7 ~ Gi. ^~ SOOZ £~~z 1~~Z 6661 L661 5661 £66l 1661 6861 L861 5861 £86l 1861 6L61 LL6l SL6l £L61 IL6l 6961 L961 5961 £96l I ~ 1961 I 6561 L56I 5561 i £56l IS6l a ~ o ~ o °v 0 ~n ~n ~n vi ~n ~n v~, (~gW anogdaaa,~) uolaenalg aye;ans ~aaeM C C C .~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ M a3 r',. .Nr ~z ~~ w -• 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('ISW anogd;aa~) uol;enal~ aael~nS as;eM SOOZ £OI]Z IOOZ 6661 L661 5661 £661 1661 6861 L861 5861 £861 1861 6L6I LL6l SL61 £L6l IL61 6961 L961 5961 £961 1961 6561 L561 5561 £561 156[ 0 ~a,. ~ ~ i •, ti,~ o - ~ Z M a ~ ... " F ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ it . ~ "~ ~ ~ N ~ ` ~ ~ , , i (( t' ' ' • ~ i '~ ~ i ,vr, F ~ . w . _ ,+ y j ~ }~ I ~., l .. a , Y 1 .. ' . T16N ~' ~ .~....~ o-... , ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ _ ~ _. ,,c i41$N .. . ~ - 0 ~- •. , J ~ 000' 4 8000' ~ ~ a ~ .•y~. ...,i r... _. .. ~~ _ ~.~ 6 - P t o ' , r' ~~~ . ,. _ Y ~ ~~ i. `5~~ I~14f~VV0~L001M' ~ ~. < .:, , i , I I i ~i ~ ~ _ mkt ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ t: r .~ .w ~ ~_ i, i .r .~ . ~ 6~, , _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ f .~n ~ A ~ MYI~v n~ ~ _ _ 3 uy.rw. l ~.~ . I i 1 p _4:. , , I ¢ `~ ~ M f ~ 1 ~ , - e.., i ~ , R ~ } I F _. ? ' - ~ ~. ~ . ~ ~_ ~. 15N`f2W3,5M001M ~ ~' ~ ~'a ~ ~ Tl ' 's -- 15N12 34 1M ~ i~ _ ~ ~/ ~ ~. ~. _.. rr ~~; _ 14N12WOSKOOIM ~ - O ti° ~ ._ ,,,, - „' a ~ ~,~ ~~ ~ . > ...., ~ i ~ ~ ~ „ 3 3 ~ t r ~~ ~; _ ~. FIGURE 15 - ~'~ Map Showing ., - ~ . I,ocatlon of Monitoring We]]s By USGS and DWR e' ~ -° ~. City of IJliah ,•.. . Mmdaaino Cowty, Celi(mnie _~ ~. \'\ ~ 3 Wes' Bmsiernre .• a a a , e,ee r~os.cs. ~.s Mivme Qum ro<o~us ~ uGemms, Caw Mt nuumua eu reux,~wun a:e. ~.~...~.a..~.. oaoea zoor ! 6 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~I O i. d O ~ it ~f. i ,y ~ ~i N U 4.1 ~• j (.'Af ~~ u +.i~ a v Stl t. 01: N ~! N S~~ t ~ d ± - r ~t G C ~.~ 1 ,nt i Z _ , ~ t . c t ~ ~ {V. ~1 G1~ y o c H e .~ w-. ~t 1 ~ W u w ~ iiQ~t ` Q y cn o 7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ v d e 8 ~ ~,y ~I O •~ ^~ o ~ U _ ~ j ~ ~ 1 N y` ~ ~ ,~ C ~ 1 ~4 yj~ ` N ~. V>t~ V ~' d a +.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ IsJ ~ G .d d G~f e ~ n IT ~ ., r. ` ~ ~ te ~ ~ ~ v'4 6 >y np 8 ~ ' ` U 6 ~`~ .. ~1 ~ d~~ N Q tf 4 ~t. :. ~~ = c ~a p 4 ~y7 ~ ° "" i 4 t ~ ~i .. F^ 4 .. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p o o ° ° ~ ~ ~ C u ~ v . ~ y v, Hw ~~ ~ 'p ~ ~h '~ Q 1 d ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ t . i • 4 ~ y O * .{ W" ~ ~; ~+~ .ai ^t ~.., ti Q; ~ ~' i ~i N ' U ty ~/ D. d ~ ^ { a k G '~ { z A z d t-~ w eta{ b ~ ,r ~ "~ ~ ~ ' C . y o L-+ w u-. U N o 0 ~ ~ ~~ w ~ d ~~' N ~ U ~^ . J `J ~ ~ tr. Gl ~.-, 'ct o v y l ~ N ~ q p ~ ~ ~ ci; a N Q G T d X r , z ~ .~ w = a °'' ~. ~= ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ' .. ~ d v . Q d Q q tL ~ ~ u u ry O s O C o Vl y... a ~ ., C ~ •c3 ~ Y o N ~~ ~, .~ d v T ~ ~ } ~ R' } a w T d ~ 1 d d vl N 1 T 4 ~ o .~ ` ~ w ~ .' ~ ~ n ~ N U ~ o H i . ~ Q ~ ~ V1 1 ~M d T ! O A W ~ a m I `} w f j o .v'.. ' I N I u ~ ' l u o .,.. t y ~ ~ u y N . . ,.' 1 'r q H u 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Hydro Generation E-1 Lake Pillsbury Capacity Table 3.01 U.S.G.S. PG&E Gross Elevation Elevation Storage (Ft.) (Ft.) Acre Feet Zero Capacity 1736.00 1817.7 0 Outlet Sill 1740.70 1822.40 22.6 Spill Crest 1818.30 1900.00 54,338 Top of Spfflway Gates 1828.30 1910.00 74,993 Crest of Dam 1838.30 1920.00 PG&E datum = U.S.G.S. datum + 81.70 ft. Note: The original topographic survey of Lake Pillsbury was made by the Snow. Mountain Power Company in 1921. The potential gross capacity of the reservoir was then calculated to be 94,863 acre feet In order to determine the loss of capacity, due to deposition of sediments, the U.S. Geological Survey performed a survey in 1959 using a recording fathometer and careful triangulation controls. Anew gross capacity was found to be 86,785 acre feet In April of 1984 U.S.G.S. performed another survey and found the gross capacity of 80,643 acre feet at PG&E elevation of 1910.00 "This new capacity table was developed by PG&E using Omnistar satellite based position and an Odom Ilydrotrac Survey Echo Sounder with a depth accuracy of 0.1%. The Hypack navigation software and Surfer software where used to produce 96 skeletal rating points at 1.00 foot intervals. Hydstra surface water package was used to extrapolate the points logarithmically to produce the final table to 0.01 feet resolution. Maximum Storage at 1910.00 feet = 74,993 acre feet. This table supersedes all previous tables. Made by: Frank Lynch, October 26, 2006 and applied bark to-nctober 01, 2005 Uno££lclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 in DocketM: P-77-000 ~~ , 77 Bella Stnel, Meilcode 832 Sm Fnnmsco. CA 81105 Miilirp gddre+r Mail Cotle 672, Boom 3235 ~D, ec: 770000 n NenciseQ?CA 84177 7~"'~ 8I7~~::St11 mm: 423:4lOS. O~n: 415.Ihrtl. trr .u ~, o K2 ~ 1n N N Re: Potter Valley Protect, FERC No. T7 Response to Resource Agency letter Re Operating Rule Compliance ORIGINAL John 8. Nunn Senior Via PreNdenl October 16, ~~' Ganeolien 8 Chiel Nucker Ofkar ci ~.~-~ I'r _. r Honorable Magalie R. Sales, Secretary c;' Federal Energy Regulatory Commission =~: - OEP/Dlvision of Hydropower Administration and Compliance y : ^. 888 First Street, NE ~ DC 20428 Washington ` -< , in l ~~~~a~ ElectricCar4psny' Dear Secretary Sales: On August 3,2006 and August 15, 2006, respectively, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Natlohal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) flied lette-s with FERC raising concerns regarding PG&E's Implementation of the new flow regime under the amended license for the Potter Valley Project (Protect). In response to those letters, PG&E notified FERC staff at the Regbnai Off~e of its intent to consuff with both CDFG and NMFS to better understand their concerns. PG&E met with representatives of CDFG, NMFS, and the Round Valley Indian Tribes (RVIT) on September 7 and October 5, 2006 to discuss the new flow regime for the Project. After these meetings, PG&E reviewed all flow records for the Project since the new flow regime was implemented in June of 2004. Based on that review, PG&E discovered that CDFG and NMFS were correct in their assertions, and also that additional errors had occurred in Implementing the flow releases. As the Senior Vk:e Presiderrt of Generation for PG&E, I want to assure you that PG&E takes these implementation errors very seriousy. PGBE already has taken a number of specific actions to ensure its operations are in ful! compliance with the new flow regime, including providing additional operator training and instructions. Within the next 30 days, PG&E will provide FERC with a list of any additional coaective actions that may Ue appropriate. In total, there have been three types of errors: (1) overreleases in 2005 and 2006 that occurred during times when Cape Hom Dam was spilling water, due to the mistaken application of NMFS' Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA); (2) overreleases that occurred in 2004, 2005 and 2006 8s a reautt of PG&E's efforts to comply with the East Branch Russian River (EBRR) minimum flow requirements set forth in RPA Sectlon E.3; and (3) overreleases that occurred in the fall of 2004 as a result of PG&E's failure to make the required seasonal adjustmert<s required by the RPA. Each of these scenarios IS discussed in turn below. A summary of the RPA Flow Requirements is included for reference in Attachment A. UnofFicial FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 Sn DocketN: P-77-000 Honorable AAagalfe R. Salas October 16, 2006 Page 2 A. Overraleaaes'When Cape Hom Dam Was Spilling PGBE has determined that during periods when Cape Hom Dam was spiting in 2005 and 2006, PG&E misapplied the limitations set forth In Section E.5 and instead diverted water to the EBRR up to the maximum available tunnel capacriy. The spec'rfic dates and amounts of the overreleases are set forth in Attachment B to this letter. PG&E's misapplication of the Section E.5 limitations during times of spill was wholly unintentional and stemmed from PG&E's erroneous reliance on the modeling developed by the Department of the Interior (DOq during the license amendment proceeding, Although the DOI modeling was initially developed to support the flow proposal recommended by DOI and NMFS in response to FERC's draft environmental impact statement, NMFS also relied upon this modeling to develop its RPA. Thus, the assumptions of the 001 modeling are reflected in the final environmental Impact statement prepared by FERC as well as the final blolog~al opinion prepared by NMFS. The DOI modeling assumed that diversions to the EBRR during times of spill at Cape Hom Dam would be maximized to the full tunnel capacity. Spec'rf~ally, the instructions for the modeling described the assumptions as follows: If the sum of the accretion [between the Cape Horn and Scott dams] and the lake Pillsbury release is greater than the sum of the Cape Horn Dam release and the tunnel diversion then sufficient flow is reaching Cape Hom Dam to meet the minimum flow requirements both for the Eel River below Cape Hom Dam and in the diversion tunnel. In this case, there is no need for additional flow releases from Lake Pillsbury and the excess accretion is used to N!1 fhe diversion tunnel up to iGs capacfty. The accretion flow above the tunnel capacity is released at Cape Hom bem. See Attachment C, "Generalized Hydrologic/Operational Model of the Upper Eel River Basin/Potter Valley Project," prepared for DOI by tfie National Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc. at p. 13 (emphasis added). Although the modeling assumed that diversions to the EBRR would be maximized when Cape Hom Dam was spilling, the Nnal language in RPA Section E.5 specifying maximum diversions to the EBRR did not incorporate an exception for spill conditions. Unfortunataty, when PG$E began implementing the RPA Aows, personne! who had been involved in the license amendment proceeding and familiar with the DOI modeling erroneously applied the modeling logic during periods o} spill at Cape Hom Dam rather than follow the limitations specifically set forth in Section E.5. The result is that PGBE overreleased to the EBRR during times of spill in both 2005 and 2006. Based on its meetings with the resource agencies and RVIT, PGBE recognizes its error and has taken steps to ensure that operational personnel are fully Informed of the UnofFlclal FERC-Generated pDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 Sn Docket~l: P-77-000 Honorable Magalie R. Sagas October 16, 2006 Page 3 apparent discrepancy between the modeling and the language RPA in Section E.5. PG&E will strictly adhere to the diversion limitations set forth in Section E.5 unless and until FERC and NMFS determine some modification is appropriate. B. Overreleases Resulting From PGBE's Efforts To Ensure Compliance With EBRR Minimum Flow Requirements fn addition to the overreleases that occurred in 2005 and 2006 during times of spill, PG&E's recent review of its flow records has revealed numerous instances where the actual diversions to the EBRR exceeded the maximum diversions set forth in RPA Section E.S, as a result of PG&E's addition of a small buffer to its EBRR releases to ensure that it fully met the minimum flow requirements set forth in RPA Section E.3. The specific dates and amounts of these overreleases are set forth in Attachment D. Whenever a license condition requires a minimum instream slow release, it is standard industry practice to release a small amount above the required minimum to ensure that the .release does not fall below the minimum requirement. Following this standard industry practice, PG&E added a small buffer to the EBRR diversions (typically in the range of 10 cts) in order to ensure compliance with the minimum instream flow requirements set forth in RPA Section E.3. However, because the minimum release requirements in Section E.3 are defined in the same way as the maximum diversion limits set forth in Section E.5 (i.e., the EBRR releases set forth in Section C.1 plus the PVID releases), this practice of including a butter in the EBRR diversions resulted in slight overreleases to the EBRR when the limitations of RPA Section E.5 applied (i.e. when Lake Pillsbury was below the Target Storage Curve). For example, if the maximum release under Section E.5 was 125 cis, PG&E would release approximately 135 cis in order to ensure it met the minimum flow requirement set forth in Section E.3. Had PG&E not applied this buffer, it would have run the risk of falling below the minimum flow requirements. In order to ensure that PG&E's future operations comply with the new flow regime, PG&E is seeking guidance from the Commission regarding which release obligation should take priority when Lake Pillsbury is below the Target Storage Curve -the minimum requirements set forth in RPA Section E.3 or the maximum limitation set forth in RPA Section E.S. PG&E also plans to consult with NMFS regarding the issue and will provide the Commission with any response it receives. C. Overreleases Resulting From PG&E's Failure To Make The Seasonal AdJustments Required By The RPA PG&E's review of its records also revealed that in the first year of implementing the new -flow regime, PG&E failed to take into account the seasonal adjustments to the maximum flows to the EBRR required by Section E.S. The specific dates and amounts of the overreleases are set forth in Atfachment E. Unofficial FERC-Generated FDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 in DocketM: P-77-000 1lonorable Magalie R. Salas October 16, 2006 Page 4 Under RPA Section E.5, the maximum release to the EBRR when Lake Pillsbury is below the Target Storage Curve varies by season. From May 15 through September 15 the maximum release is 125 cfs; from September 16 through October 15 the maximum release decreases to 85 cfs; from October 16 through April 14 the maximum release decreases again to 40 cfs; and from April 15 through May t4 the maximum release increases again to 85 cfs. Based on the slow records, PG&E failed to implement these seasonal adjustments in the fall of 2004. Accordingly, although the maximum release to the EBRR should have decreased from 125 cfs to 85 cis on September 16, 2004, PGBE appears to have continued to release the 125 cfs maximum, while applying the approximately 10 cfs butler described in the preceding section. PG&E did not repeat this error in 2005 or 2006. PG&E has retrained its operators on the seasonal variations and provided them with clear written instructions on how to implement them. Because of the wet winter that occurred in the winter of 2004/2005, PG&E does not believe the error in storage regulation in 2004 resulted in any negative environmental impacts. Lake storage began to exceed the Target Storage Curve on pecember 9, 2004, and remained above Target Storage Curve through March 14, 2005. Conditions aker March 14, 2005 are discussed earlier in this letter and in Attachment B. PGBE acknowledges its compliance failure in relation to the issues described above and is committed to fully and accurately implementing the RPA. PG&E also acknowledges the Important role that CDFG and NMFS played in bringing this issue to our attention. Although the RPA sets forth a technically complex and challenging flow schedule to implement, PG&E takes responsibility and is accountable For these errors. PGBE prides Itself on its hydroelectric compliance record; the performance here simply fails to live up to PG&E standards. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Randy Livingston, Sr. director - Power Generation at (415} 973.6950. Sincerely, S Via,-- r TCandelario:msp Attachments Unofficial FERC-oenerated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 in Docketk: P-77-D00 Honorable Magalie R. Salas October 16, 2006 Page 5 Cc: Mr. Phil Scordelis Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 901 Market Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94103 Mc Rodney R. Mctnnis Regional Administrator, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service 501 West Ocean Bivd., Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 Mr. Richard W. Butler Northern California Supervisor National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Mr. Carl Wilcox California Department of Fish and Game 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 Ms. Linda Hanson Staff Environmental Scientist Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 47 Younlville, CA 94599 Steven V. Quesenberry; Esq. Karshmer & Associates 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 725 Berkeley, CA 94704-1347 Mr. Randy Brown U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Mr, Jeffrey T. Jahn NOAH -National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Mr. Robert Floerke, Manager -Region 3 California Department of Fish and Game 7329 Silverado Trail P.O. Box 47 Yauntville, CA 94599 Mr. Joe Ely Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2266 S. Dobson Aoad, Suite 219 Mesa, AZ 85202 Mr. Ryan Broddr'x:k, Director CA Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Charles Thompson Director Round Valley Indian Tribes P.O. Box 448 Covelo, CA 95428 Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 Sn Docket»: P-77-000 ATTACHMENT A Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 in Dockettt: P-77-000 ATTACHMENT A. Summary of RPA Flow Requirements On January 28, 2004, FERC issued its Order Amending License for the Potter Valtey Project. In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 106 FERC ¶ 61,065. FERC's order adopted NMFS' Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA), which contained several provisions for a new flow regime at Potter Valley. Appendix A of the Order Amending License contained numerous operating rules for Project flows, including prescribed minimum and maximum flows to the EBRR under varying circumstances. Specifically, the RPA provided: C.1. Minimum flows of the East Branch of the Russian River, MF16, measured at the PG&E gauge E-16, but excluding flows released for the Potter Valley Irrigation Distrlct, shall be computed as shown in the following table: Minimum Flow of the East Branch Russian River Period Classificati on From Throu h Normal D Critical Se 16 A r 14 35 cfs 35 cis 5 cfs A r 15 Ma 14 35 cis 25 cfs 5 cfs Ma 15 Se 15 75 cfs 25 cfs 5 cfs ...., E.3. Release to the East Branch Russian River shall be greater than or equal to the minimum flow MF16 specified in Section C plus the release for the Potter Valley Irrigation District. .... E.4. Release for the Potter Valley Irrigation District shall not exceed 5 cfs from October 16-April 14 and 50 cfs from April 15 to October 15. If CLP (April 1) is less than 25,000 ac-ft, this release shall not exceed 25 cfs during the following period from April 15 through October 15. .,.,. E.5. Diversions in excess of the sum of the minimum flow MF16 specified in Section C and the release to the Potter Valley Irrigation District specified in Sectlon E.4 acan [sic] only be made when the Lake Pillsbury Storage is above the Target Storage Curve. Exceptions to the rule can occur only due to rate [sic] and brief emergency power and water demands. Thus, RPA Section E.3 defines the minimum flows to the EBRR that must be met throughout the year as the sum of the minimum flows set forth in RPA Sectlon C.1 plus the releases to PVID. RPA Section E.5 defines the maximum flows to the EBRR when Lake Pillsbury is below the Target Storage Curve in the same way. Thus, based on the Uno£Ficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 in Docked{: P-77-000 flow schedules set forth in sections E.3 and E.4, In normal water years' the maximum diversions to the EBRR when Lake Pillsbury was below the Target Storage Curve should have been as follows: October 18 -April 14 40 cfs A ril 15 - Ma 14 85 cfs Ma 15 - Se tember 15 125 cfs Se tember 16 -October 15 85 cfs I'hc years _'0(14, 2005 and 2(106 were all classified ns normal water ycan. Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 In Docketk: P-77-000 ATTACHMENT B Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF o£ 20061020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC 10/18/2006 Sn Dockett{: P-77-000 stteehment B. Over-releases at Potter Vallev PH During Times of Solll at Cace Horn Dam Lake Piilebu Potter Valle PH Eel River at CMD Date ompar son to Target Storage Curve TSC E-18 RPA E-16 Allowance Over- release eta E-11 RPA E-11 Minimum 3/1512005 <TSC 260 40 220 471 110 3/16/2005 <TSC 254 40 214 215 110 3/17/2005 <TSC 256 40 216 168 110 3/18/2005 <TSC 264 40 224 109 110 3/19/2005 <TSC 263 40 223 227 110 3/20/2005 <TSC 187 40 ta7 1260 110 3/21/2005 <TSC 97 40 57 4420 110 3 /2 312 0 0 5 <TSC 75 40 35 4870 110 3/24/2005 <TSC 160 40 120 3360 110 3/25/2005 <TSC 260 40 220 2170 110 3!26/2005 <TSC 262 40 222 1390 110 3/27/2005 <TSC 262 40 222 1590 110 3/28/2005 <TSC 263 40 223 3290 110 3/29/2005 <TSC 260 40 220 2820 110 3/30/2005 <TSC 259 40 219 2020 110 3/31!2005 <TSC 262 40 222 1720 110 4/1!2005 <TSC 262 40 222 1460 110 4/2!2005 <TSC 263 40 223 1240 110 413!2005 <TSC 282 40 222 1310 110 4/4/2005 <TSC 262 40 222 1340 110 4/5/2005 <TSC 282 40 222 1100 110 4/6/20D5 <TSC 261 40 221 456 i10 4/1.5/2005 <TSC 163 85 78 718 110 4/16!2005 <TSC 163 85 76 699 110 4/17!2005 <TSC 163 85 78 682 110 4/18/2005 <TSC 116 85 31 662 110 4/19/2005 <TSC 105 85 20 6A1 110 4/20/2005 <TSC 114 85 29 520 110 4/21/2005 cTSC 114 85 29 322 110 4/22/2005 <TSC 171 85 88 262 110 4/23/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 107 110 4/24/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 110 110 4/25/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 111 110 4/26/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 109 110 4/27/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 114 110 4!28/2005 <TSC 264 85 179 111 110 4/29/2005 <TSC 264 65 179 152 110 4/30/2005 <TSC 244 85 159 285 110 5/1/2005 <TSC 166 85 81 355 110 5/212005 <TSC 165 85 BO 385 110 5/3/2005 <TSC 164 85 79 380 110 5/4!2005 <TSC 164 85 79 397 110 5/5/2005 <TSC 164 85 79 777 110 5/6/2005 <TSC 164 85 79 764 110 1Df5 Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20063020-0025 Received by FERC OSEC SD/16/2006 in Docketli: 8-77-000 Attachment B. Over-releases at Potter Valle PH Durln Times of S III at Ca Horn Dam lake Pillsbu Potter Valle PH Eel River at CHD. Date ompar son to Target Storage Curve TSC E-16 RPA E-16 Allowance Over- release cfa E•11 RPA E-11 Minimum 5/7/2005 <TSC 164 85 79 754 110 5/8/2005 <TSC 164 85 79 875 110 5/9/2005 <TSC 163 85 78 2560 110 5/10/2005 <TSC 163 BS 78 2120 110 5/11/2005 <TSC 162 85 77 873 110 5!12/2005 <TSC 163 85 78 889 110 5/13/2005 <TSC 162 85 77 948 110 5/14/2005 <TSC 162 85 77 1200 110 5!15!2005 <TSC 162 125 37 1160 110 5/16/2005 <TSC 162 125 37 1040 110 5/17/2005 <TSC 162 125 37 737 110 5/20!2005 <TSC 162 125 37 2170 110 5!21!2005 <TSG 161 125 36 1070 110 5/22/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 1270 110 5/23/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 1220 110 5/24/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 1190 110 5/25/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 992 110 5/26/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 663 110 5/27/2005 <TSC 161 125 36 419 110 5/28/2005 <TSC 181 125 36 412 110 5/29/2005 <TSC 160 125 35 431 110 5/30!2005 <TSC 160 125 35 639 110 5/31!2005 <TSC 160 125 35 629 110 6/1/2005 <TSC 165 125 40 570 110 6/2/2005 <TSC 165 125 40 479 110 6/3!2005 <TSC 165 125 40 337 110 6/4!2005 <TSC 165 125 40 197 110 6/5/2005 <TSC 165 125 40 191 106 6/6/2005 <TSC 165 125 40 188 94 6/7/2005 <TSC 164 125 39 168 83 618!2005 <TSC 164 125 39 238 74 6/9/2005 <TSC 159 125 34 750 66 6 /1 012 0 0 5 <TSC 152 125 27 382 59 6/11/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 147 53 6/12/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 139 48 6!13/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 133 44 6/14/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 130 40 6/15/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 127 37 6/16/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 439 34 6/17/2005 <TSC 152 125 27 823 31 6/18/2005 <TSC 150 125 25 280 29 6/19/2005 <TSC 150 125 25 268 27 6!20/2005 <TSC 150 125 25 234 26 6/21/2005 <TSC 150 125 25 222 24 6!22/2005 <TSC 150 125 25 215 23 2015 ~r June 8, 2007 Mr. David Moller Manager of Relicensing Pacific Gas & Electric Company 245 Market Street -Mail Code Nl I C San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mt•. Moller: 0LL':WC/40-6,1-1 PG&a P01-tER VALLEY PRO]ECr OPERATIeNS Thank you for meeting with Sonoma County Supervisors Mike Reilly and Pau] Kelley and myself on May 17, 2007, to discuss PG&E's recent changes to Potter Valley Project operations.. As we discussed in oui• meeting, the Sonoma Com1ty Water Agency (Agency) and the. County of Sonoma are vary concerned about the changes in flows into the Russian River watershed from the Potter Valley Project instituted by PG&E beginning in the fall of 2006. These flow changes have adversely affected water storage levels in Laka Mendocino, to the point where predicted storage in Laka Mendocino may fall to unprecedented low levels in late summer and eal•ly fall, with potentially catastrophic impacts to threatened Chinook salmon within the Rassiatt River. The Agency is taking actioli to attempt to mitigate the impacts of PG&E's changes in Potter Valley Project operations and preserve fall storage in Lake Mendocino. These actions include requesting and receiving authority from the State Water Resource Control Board to temporarily reduce Russian River minimum instream flow requirements, a,td working with the Agency's customers and other water users to implement additional water conservation measures. As discussed in our meeting, PG&E implemented the changes in Potter Valley Project operations, which critically reduced Lake Mendocino storage, without consulting with or infonniug the Agency or the County. The Agency and the County still do not know how PG&E is operating the Project, or whether operating the project using other ct•iterion that is also consistent with the existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license could have resulted in higher Lake Mendocino storage, Although Potter Valley Project diversions to the Russian River watershed era critical to the Russian River fishery and to the J:egion's water supply, PG&E changed those diversions without analyzing the impact of the changes on these interests, and without notifying or discussing the impact of the changes with those impacted by the changes. We were encouraged to hear at the May 17, 2007 meeting that PG&E is now willing to provide information about Project operations to the Agency, and to include the Agency ht future meetings regarding project operations. At the May 17, 2007 meeting, you requested, and we agreed to provide, specific detail about the types of information and arrangements reguested,by_ the Agency, _Those details are attached._ . _ _ _ _ _ .. . P.O. Box 11628 -Santa Rose, CA 95406 - 404 Aviation Boulevard -Santa Rosa, CA 95403 - (707) 526-5370 -tax (707) 544-6123 i1 y Mr. David Moller Pacific Gas and Electric Company Tuna 8, 2007 Page 2 As you know, PG&E is obligated under its 1965 agreement with the Agency to operate the Project, consistent with its license and its power production needs to maximize the water supply benefit of the Project to the Agency. We believe that agreement requires a full sharing of information with the Agency, and fiill participation by the Agency in ongoing discussions about Project operatiats, Moreover, as noted in our meeting, the Agency has significant expertise in the areas of hydrology, modeling, engineering, vtd fisheries biology, and is willing to nse that expertise to work with PG&E and other stakeholders to maximize the benefit ofthe Project for both Russian River and Eel River interests. Since the impact of the 2004 FERC license amendment om flows into the Rnssiau River watershed is in reality much greater than anticipated, we are looking forward to working with PG&E to explore with National Marine Fishery Service what flexibility exists within the current license to correct these issues and, if needed, what the process would be to gain their support for any necessary modifications to the license. We look forward to a prompt response"to our requests. If you have any questions about the requests, please call Chris Murray at (707) 547-1925. Sincerely, ~ ~~ Randytdy DG' Genera] Manager/Chief Engineer Enc c SupervisarMikeReilly Supervisor Paul Kelley ,~ Chris Murray Steve Sltupe Jb:fllaserver/dntdol/jnblodow/cngr/Scherzinger/draft of letter to pga re pvp Informntlon final 6.8-07.doc 1• Information and Coordination Renttusts to PG&); Operations and Maintenance Documentation ]. Reliability criteria For determining scope of maintenance program for all facilities. I! 2. Maintenance requirements for all facilities and actual maintenance schedules. 3. Actual operating criteria, plans, and' instructions to operations staff, including al] operating manuals or instructions provided to operations staff regarding operations under or implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives contained in the 2004 PERC license. 4. Any alternative or contingency operating criteria, plans, and instructions to operating staff; including description of criterin used to determine when alternative operations would be implemented. 5. Identify azrd prrovide any and all computer programs (including modeling programs), currently used to operate the Project or to evaluate the flow impact of different operational scenm•ios. 6. Identify positions antl personnel associated with each operational task. 7. Identify positions and personnel responsible for operations and operations po]icy decisions ,throughout the entirechain of command. 8. Identify the annual budget ]unit associated with Project facilities maintenance and replacement and the priority of maintenance and replacement iu the avwrt of budget shortage. Agency Coordination Requests 1. Provide notification of operation mods chaz~gas. 2. Provide notification of any operation difficulties or arnergencias. 3, Provide notification of any inspections of facilities. 4. Provide notification of unscheduled shut downs or significant flow reductions do the tunnel, 5, Provide notification and coordination (including providing copies of study reports) on any fishery studies performed. 6. Provide access to all project areas for fisheries studies, operations coordination, and inspection of facilities. 7. Include SCWA in project-related meetings with regulatory agencies azrd stakeholders, including NOAA Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game, Federal Energy Regulatory Canmissior, Round Valley Indian Tribes and others 8. Provide right of first refusal of sale of I'i~ojact. 9. Identify long and shorttann goals and plans for the Project o, Informntion and Coordination Rennests Lo PG&];. Long Term Strategies ]. Worlc with SCWA to develop and communicate PG&E's long term vision/plan fa• operntion of the project. 2, Wmlc with SCWA ko develop and communicate salmonid recovery strategies for the Russian River and Eel River watersheds. 3. Work with SCWA to develop and communicate plans and strategies with respoct to license renewal. 4. Worl< with SCWA to develop and coordinate project operations to facilitate and balance Eel River and Russian River basin water supply needs sod salmonid recovery goals. 5. Amend 1965 Agreement to incorporate notification and comdination activities described above. 2 i --- - Paciflc Gas and Electric Company° June 22, 2007 ___ __ ._ _ Powsr Genoreti°n 245 Matkel Street Sen rrencisco, CA 84106 Maillnp Address Mall Code N11 c P. 0. Box 710000 - ~ .San Franclaco, CA 94117 Mr, Rahdy D. Poole General ManagerlChief Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Re: Potter Valley Project, FERC No. 77 Dear Mr. Poole: Thank you for your June 8, 2007 letter concerning Paciflc Gas and Electric Company's Potter Valley Project, As we discussed in our May 17, 2007 meeting with you, National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS) and representatives of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, PG&E is committed to working with your agency and other East Branch Russian, River (EBRR) water users to try to minimize water supply impacts, while still complying with the mandatory conditions of the Potter Valley Project operating license issued to PG&E by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). We realize how important the water the Potter Valley Project diverts from the Eel- River into the EBRR is to the beneficiaries of this water. That's why, when it was brought to PG&E's attention by the California Department of Fish and Game and the NMFS in 2006 that the water diversions we were making to the EBRR were greater than what Is allowed under the license amendment issued by FERC in 2004, and we realized we would need to modify operations to comply with the conditions of the license, we analyzed the impacts and immediately began communications with your agency, other water users, focal elected officials, and the media to advise of these changes. As we reviewed with you and other EBRR water users in November 2006, the reduction in diversions from the Eel River Into the EBRR required by the license amendment was considerably greater than what had been anticipated during the amendment proceeding and what was initially implemented by PG&E. As discussed with you and presented in detail at a November 2006 meeting with the Potter Valley Irrigation District attended by members of your staff, the average annual reducfion in diverted water resulting from compliance with the license amendment is forecast by PG&E to be approximately 33% rather than the 15% that was anticipated during the amendment proceeding and in the NMFS Biological Opinion used by FERC in its order amending the license. Mr, Randy Q. Poole June 22, 2007 Page 2 Your letter included a list of information and coordination requests related to the Potter ~ Valley Protect. As you know, Protect flow information has been made publicly available on a daily basis via the Internet since March of this year. Additionally, for many years now, PG&E has provided your agency with daily telephone reports regarding key Project operational data such as water elevation and storage In Lake Pillsbury, water releases and II spill from Lake Pillsbury and Van Arsdale Reservoir, and water flow through Potter Valley , Powerhouse. We will continue to provide your agency with this operational information, plus we will review the Ilst of additional information you have requested and wilt respond separately. The list of information and coordination requests also asked that PG&E provide Sonoma County Water Agency with a right of first refusal on the sale of the Potter Valley Project. While we appreciate your interest in the future of the Potter Valley Project, PG&E has no current plans to sell the Project and does not see a right of first refusal as ' feasible. Again, PG&E fully recognizes the importance of Potter Valley Project water diversions to ~ ' EBRR wafer users. We Took forward to continuing to work with your agency and others to try to minimize the impact ofgreater-than-anticipated reductions in these diversions resulting from operating the potter Valley Project in compliance with the Project license. Yours truly, David Moller, Director Hydro Licensing DWM/msp cc: See attached list Mr. Randy D. Poole June 22, 2007 Page 3 cc: Supervisor Mike Reilly Board of Supervisor Sonoma County Water Agency 575 Administration Dr., Room 100-A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Mr. Chris Murray Water Agency Principal Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Mr. Randy Brown U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Mr. Joe Ely Stetson Engineers Inc. 2266 5. Dobson Road, Suite 219 Mesa, AZ 85202 Mr. Dick Butler U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Ms. Donna Cobb California Departmont of Fish and Game Northern Region 601 Locust Avenue Redding, CA 96001 Ms. Janet K.F. Pauli, Chairman Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission 425 Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Supervisor Paul Kelley Board of Supervisor Sonoma County Water Agency 575 Administration Dr., Room 100-A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Steve Shupe, Esq. County Counsel Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviatlon Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Mr. Robert Floerke, Manager- Region 3 California Department of Fish and Game 7329 Siiverado Trail P.O. Box 47 Yountvilie, CA 84599 Mr. Jeffery Jahn U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Stephen Cduesenberry, Esq. Karshmer & Associates 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 725 Berkeley, CA .94704 Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Code: DHAC, PJ-12 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A Washington, D.C. 20426 APPENDIX I Response to Comments The following summarize written comments received and the response to those comments. The actual comment letters are on file with the City Clerk and may be examined during regular City business hours. Response to comments from Sonoma County Water Agency kem Comments Response 1 Page ES•t -Second to last paragraph This will be corrected in the final version "The City obtains it water supply.,. "-Missing the s on it 2 Page ES•t -Last paragraph The statement referring to Well 6 pumping to Well 2 will be Why would water be pumped between wells that are no clarifed in the final version. longer used. 3 Page ES-4 -Five barriers for recycled water The City of Ukiah met with the local farm bureau and farmers to program discuss recycled water opportunities. The barriers mentioned in Barrier 1 -Many farmers have storage facilities now. the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) were expressed by Barrier 2 - Just a perception, or is it a fact. the local farmers and agriculture industry at this meeting. A statement will be provided in the UWMP indicating that these Barrier 3 - Not a barrier, see Water Code Section are barriers perceived by the local farmers and agriculture 1010. industry. A public education program will be needed to Barrier 4 - Bul do they have rights to the water they demonstrate the benefits of a recycled water program. are using? Barrier 5 -More expensive, perhaps, but still very cost effective. 4 Page ES-5 -Second to paragraph Application will be changed to petition in the foal version Change application to petition 5 Page ES-6-General comment Comment noted. The City should become a member of CUWCC and the MOU and implement all 14 BMPs 6 Page 2-t -First paragraph of Section 2.1, second The permit was granted by a predecessor to the Department of sentence Health Services. This will be clarified in the foal version. B WhatAenc was the watersu I ermitin1939 granted. 7 Page 2-1 • First paragraph of Section 2.1, last Yes, it is a DHS number. This will be clarified in the f nal sentence version. Is this a DHS number? It is not a water right number. 8 Page 2.1 -Second paragraph of Section 2.2 The City has filed a Petition for Extension of Time. This petition Are the customers served by the City within its water includes a change to the City's water right place of use, This will right place of use be clarified in the foal version. 9 Page 3-9 -First paragraph of Section 3.7.2 The 800 AF that the City can purchase from MCRRFCWCID is What about MCRRFCWCID? 800 AF listed as project water in this UWMP. No further action vAll be completed on this comment. 10 Page 3.16 -General Comment The Cily agrees with this comment as it pertains to the East The only water available to Ukiah, from the Russian Fork Russian River. The City has no intention of using stored River, is the water Flovnng into Lake Mendocino and water from Lake Mendocino. No further action will be completed any tributary flows arising downstream from Coyote on this comment. Dam. The City has no right to pump water that has been stored in lake Mendocino and later released into the East Fork RR. 11 Page 3.17 -General Comment The future Ukiah extractions under its water right permit will This analysis assumes that shortfalls in available comefrom The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. SCWA's supply from natural Flow and Potter Valley imported permit 12947A is limited to water originating in the East Fork water are made up from Sonoma County Water Russian River. SCWA comment does not make it clear why it Agency supplies stored in Lake Mendocino. Ukiah considers the future extractions by the City to be project water. does not have a contract with SCWA The City's water right permit authorizes diversions from Russian River Underflow, Jan 1 to December 31 without a bypass condition. It is not necessary for Ukiah to enter into a contract with SCWA to extract water from the groundwater basin (or the subterranean stream). During very dry years, some of the City's water use can be made under its contract with the Flood Control District, to the extent that It is necessary. The contract, for 800 acre feet, is roughly 4 ds during the dry season, 12 Page 3.22 -First full paragreph, reference to 37,300 PVID diversions were accounted for in the analysis of historic acre-feet and future inflow to Lake Mendocino This number should be divided by gross tunnel diversions, not tunnel diversions less PVID diversions. 13 Page 3.22 -First full paragraph, reference to 26 The 26% reduction is determined as stated in the text as the percent percent change in annual Potter Valley Project imports to the This 26% is calculated by dividing reductions in gross East Fork Russian River due to the E-8. tunnel diversions by net lake inflows....Apples and oranges. 14 Table 4 in Chapter 3 -General comment Yes, 1977 was a very dry year, which followed a dry year in Available supply for all Pre-49 and Post 49 water rights 1976. Of course, there are other sources of water available in from PVID downstream including the City of Ukiah the Russian River basin in addition to the Potter Valley Project imports to East Fork Russian River. 15 Page 7-1 -First paragraph of Section 7.1, reference Comment noted. toCUCWCC Sign up. 16 Page 7.2 -First paragraph of Section 7.2 A statement clarifying this will be added to final version. DMM 7, 8, and 12 are being implemented too. 3 Responses to Comments from LAFCO Executive Director, contained in a letter dated October 4, 2007 A general description of the Ukiah groundwater basis is provided, followed by specific responses to the Executive Director's comments. References are to items and page numbers in his letter. Ukiah groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin (aquifer) underlies Ukiah Valley and Redwood Valley. Geologic and groundwater characteristics underlying Sanel Valley are similar, however, bedrock effectively separates the Sanel aquifer from the Ukiah aquifer. The Ukiah Valley is the largest of several interior valleys in Mendocino County that fall along the north-northwest trending Mayacama Fault Zone. The basement rock is of the Franciscan Complex, of variable but minor water yielding capacity. The valley is filled up to 2000 feet deep with unconsolidated or loosely cemented gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited through eons of erosion, transport and sedimentation. The valley fill is categorized as three separate deposits. The oldest and lowest unit is the continental basin deposits. It is estimated to be up to 2000 feet in depth near the axis of the valley. Wells completed in the continental basin deposits produce water slowly because of consolidated, fine-grained material and low permeability. Well yield ranges from 1 - 50 gallons per minute (gpm). The second unit is the continental terrace deposits, situated mostly on the periphery of the valley. These deposits are relatively thin (up to 25 feet), have a low permeability and are not a significant groundwater source. The third valley fill unit is the Holocene alluvium, consisting of uncemented gravel, sand, silt and clay deposited in the last 10,000 years. The Holocene alluvium covers approximately 30 square miles throughout broad areas of the flood plain and more narrow bands along the Russian River north of the Forks and along tributary streams. It is generally less than 100 feet thick but extends up to 200 feet in depth. Consisting of coarse and uncemented sediments, the alluvium exhibits high porosity and permeability, thereby holding a significant quantity of water and transmitting water rapidly. Well yields range from 100 to 1000 gpm. The volume of water available from pumping from upper 100 feet of the most productive portion of the aquifer is estimated at 90,000 acre-feet. Groundwater in the alluvium is hydraulically connected to and interacts with surface flows. The principal source of groundwater is infiltration of precipitation. Other sources contributing to Ukiah valley groundwater are streamflow leakage, 4 deep percolation from irrigation and treated effluent discharged via the City of Ukiah percolation ponds. The groundwater table (the underground water surface) fluctuates seasonally, being at its highest level in March or April at the end of the wet season, and at its lowest in October, at the end of the dry season. Seasonal fluctuations range on the order of 5 to 20 feet. Measurements have been taken and recorded over a long time period at a few wells in the valley. Measurements were generally taken twice a year, at the end of the wet season and at the end of the dry season. The groundwater measurements show the water table rebounds during the wet season to about the same elevation in all but abnormally dry years such as 1977. The water table rebounded completely in one year of normal precipitation. Water surface measurements over the long-term show no trend in groundwater levels. A 1986 USGS investigation (referenced below and attached) of groundwater levels in the Ukiah Valley found that, "None of the hydrographs show any prominent long-term declines. Water levels measured during the 1980's are remarkably similar to those measured during the 1960's and 1970's." Bulletin 118 of the California Department of Water Resources, updated 2/27/04, in its section on the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (referenced below and attached) states, "Based on hydrographs from DWR monitored wells, groundwater levels in the past 30 years have remained relatively stable. During drought conditions there is increased drawdown during summer months and less recovery in winter months. Post-drought conditions rebound to approximately the same levels as pre-drought conditions." Water Level in the Ukiah Valley Wagner & Bonsignore prepared Figures 1 through 4 (attached) which show water table hydrographs through 2007 from the available record of long-term monitoring of wells in Ukiah Valley. Figure 5 shows the location of those wells. The hydrographs show the seasonal fluctuation due to the precipitation, the effect of drought in 1977, and the absence of a long-term trend in water surface elevation. Because the alluvium contains and transmits water easily, there is significant interaction between the Ukiah basin aquifer and the Russian River. Water level measurements show that in most years in spring the aquifer is full and spills to the river. At the southern end of the Ukiah groundwater basin, the bedrock rises toward the surface and groundwater must move to the surface stream (Russian River) to move downstream. The predominant movement of water is from the Ukiah groundwater basin to the Russian River. However, conditions fluctuate and occasionally result in some water moving from the river to the aquifer. When the river stage is high, water moves from the river into bank storage, where it is temporarily held until the river stage falls and water drains back to the river. When the aquifer water table is low, as happens toward the end of the dry season, water moves from the river to the aquifer. This is compounded by the effect of phreatophytes (water-loving plants) drawing water from the aquifer. Finally, pumping of wells will cause a localized drawdown of the water table, which can result in flow moving from the river to the aquifer. Specific Responses. Item 10. page 6: City's Water Right Permit Extension, LAFCO writes that the "City Consumed a total of 4131 acre feet of water in 2004." The commenter has confused consumptive use with water production. The consumptive use of the City's diversions in 2004 (and proportionally for any other year) is about 43% of the total amount diverted. As described in detail in the above report, return flows make a significant contribution to the hydrologic system. Items 11, 12, 13 and 14, pp. 7-11: Comments considered together with the following response: The Executive Director suggests that there exists the need for a groundwater basin study, although the comments do not specifically address the areas of concern, offering instead a general concern that there may be a problem with water supply. He also discounts the USGS and DWR Bulletin as outdated and based on inadequate data. The hydrographs that were evaluated by USGS in 1985 and by DWR in its Bulletin 118, updated in 2004, clearly show that groundwater conditions in the valley have changed very little, if at all. The wells with the longest record that are readily available and included herein, which include draw-down data up to 2007, show the same response today as they did in the past. The water level data is likely the most reliable information we have indicating the overall water supply health of the groundwater basin. The City may want to begin developing a plan for implementing a groundwater monitoring system to provide more complete and accurate data. This would be a long term project that would have to be implemented over a number of years. The Executive Director cites a statement by Dr. Sari Sommarstrom, Ph.D. recommending a "specific ground-water study of the Ukiah Valley.., to determine the relative amounts of surface and groundwater currently used, irrigation recharge rates and movement, and the safe yield of the groundwater basin." Such a study as suggested by the Executive Director might prove to be a useful investigation for future planning as part of a comprehensive regional water management program; but it is not necessary at this time in order to conclude that sufficient water supplies exist to continue the development of the City's water rights. Runnoff into surface streams represent potential recharge to the Ukiah groundwater aquifer. Those streams include the East Fork Russian River, West Fork Russian River and ungaged tributaries to Ukiah Valley. The ungaged tributaries include Hensley, Ackerman, Orrs, Doolin, Robinson, Howard, Sulphur, McClure Howell, Morrison and 12 unnamed creeks. The drainage area of the ungaged tributaries is 137 percent of the drainage area of the West Fork. Total flow of the ungaged tributaries can be estimated based on 137 percent of the West Fork flow. To estimate streamflow entering Ukiah Valley from the East Fork in the future, an adjustment was made to account for the effect of the FERC license E5 condition constraint. This adjustment had the effect of reducing future East Fork flows by 37,300 acre-feet per year, on average. Total surface flow entering the Ukiah Valley in the future, on an average annual basis, can be estimated as follows. Thousand Acre- Feet Per Year Historical Inflow to Lake Mendocino 250.1 Historical Im ort to East Fork 141.5 Future Im ort to East Fork 104.2 Subtotal Future East Fork 212.8 West Fork 129.1 Ungaged Stream (137% of West Fork 176.9 Total Surface Inflow to Ukiah Valle 518.8 The City's future estimated water production is about 8400 acre feet of which about 57% returns to the system representing a depletion of 3600 acre feet. The amount of available recharge from streamflow is approximately 140 times greater than the City's future net demand (the City's depletion is 0.67% of the average annual surface stream supply to the valley). The Executive Director suggests that a groundwater management plan is needed to address the questions that it lists as bullet items on pages 9 and 10. The City agrees in principal that a water management program which includes groundwater monitoring, conservation and regional cooperation with other agencies is a good idea. A first step toward comprehensive groundwater management would be the development of a regional groundwater monitoring program that could be implemented over time with cost sharing and cooperation from all of stakeholders in the region. Response to Comments from Barbara Spazek, Executive Director of Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District, dated October 15, 2007. The significant points in the comment letter are paraphrased followed by a response. Amore general response is also provided. a) Assertion: Lake Mendocino was represented by Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Engineers ("WBE") as the source of supply for the City of Ukiah; Response: The WBE analysis in the UWMP acknowledges that the City has no right to store water in Lake Mendocino and does not rely on "Project Water" as the City's source of supply, except under its water supply contract with the District. The analysis explains how current demand is met without encroaching on the District's or the Sonoma County Water Agency's right to Project Water, and how future demand can be met from groundwater wells without using Project Water. b) Assertion: WBE did not evaluate the effects on water users on the Russian River. Response: WBE's fundamental assumption is that future demands were met by mimicking historic releases. Those demands included all uses, lawful and unlawful and in-stream flow requirements. c) Assertion: Increased diversions by Ukiah would impact water users downstream on the Russian River. Response: WBE's analysis shows that downstream demands, including in-stream uses, and lawful and unlawful diversions will be met in the future, if the City fully develops its 20 cfs water right. d) Assertion: Post-1949 water rights have no right to divert imported water. Response: Post 1949 water users can divert imported water to the extent that it is in excess to the demands of all pre-1949 users and excess to other prior right holders. The WBE analysis only relies on imported water to the extent of the City's right. e) Assertion: Return flows from outdoor water use are zero. Response: WBE estimated return flow to the groundwater aquifer from outdoor use, assuming that the use was largely irrigation of lawns, gardens, parks, open space etc. Such return flow to the groundwater system is not related to the City's waste discharge requirements ("WDRs") at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The analysis did include return flows from the City's percolation ponds which obviously return water to the groundwater aquifer. WBE did not evaluate whether, to what extent or by what means those return flows re-enter the Russian River. Such a determination is not necessary for the water availability analysis. Under its WDRs, the City is required to conduct a study to determine whether and by what means the water which percolates out of its WWTP ponds reaches the Russian River. General Response to Comments: The City of Ukiah diverts from groundwater and underflow of the Russian River. The City's right to divert is based on a pre-1914 right, a contract with the District, its water rights permit and apre-1949 right confirmed in Water Board decision D- 1610. The City does not in any way direct the storage to, or release of water from, Lake Mendocino, nor does it regulate diversions on the Russian River downstream of the Lake. The City of Ukiah's diversions may have an indirect effect on Russian River stream flows, and thus Lake Mendocino operations, by virtue of possible induced seepage losses on the Russian River. The manner ofgroundwater-surface water interaction is complex. WBE modeled the largest reasonably probable impact of Ukiah diversions on Russian River flows. Note, however, that Ukiah is not responsible for, nor authorized to, administer Lake Mendocino or the Russian River. Contrary to the statements in the District letter, WBE accounted for and modeled all historical river losses and diversions on the Russian River downstream of the Forks to Healdsburg. In WBE Scenario A, downstream demands on the Russian River were set equal to historical releases from Lake Mendocino up to 275 cfs (dry season releases in excess of 275 cfs were considered unnecessary). In WBE Scenario B, downstream demands on the Russian River were set equal to historical releases from Lake Mendocino reduced by the amount that gauged streamflows were in excess of the D-1610 minimum flow. In the WBE modeling, all water uses on the Russian River were included as demands for release from Lake Mendocino and all demands were satisfied - no shortage occurred. Outdoor water use in Ukiah is not collected and routed to the City's wastewater system. Some portion of the outdoor water use returns to the river system as surface runoff and deep percolation beyond the root zone of lawns and landscaping. This was estimated as 15 percent of the outdoor water use based on water use estimates for pasture and a 70%-efficiency for sprinkler application The resulting 20-30% return flow estimate was reduced to 15% to be conservative. Note that the storage right for Lake Mendocino is limited to water in the East Fork Russian River. As the District Exhibit A shows, substantial tributary inflow accrues to the Russian River downstream of Lake Mendocino, that is, drainage area above Lake Mendocino: 105 square miles, drainage area above Cloverdale: 502 square miles. The District's Exhibit C has some flaws. First, there is conversion error for all "cfs" values. Second, the exhibit ignores contribution from tributaries downstream of the Forks. Third, Exhibit C ignores groundwater storage and flow as source to water users and to Russian River streamflow. Fourth, Exhibit C provides no basis for the 3,000 acre-feet per month riparian use. It is more likely than not that riparian acreage, the uses which were included in the 8100 of of pre-1949 use recognized in Decision D 1030, has not significantly increased. Fifth, Exhibit C implies that post-1949 water rights could not divert imported water. Response to comments, dated October 16, 2007, from Pinky Kushner 1. Comment: Figure 2.2 is confusing, because it depicts two different spheres of influence. Response: The revised plan includes the proposed sphere of influence as described in the City's General Plan adopted in 1995. 2. Comment: What is the future of the Ranney Collector? Response: In 2001 the Ranney Division of Layne Christensen (now a division of Reynolds, Inc.) was hired to evaluate and rehabilitate the City's Ranney collector well. This work began in June 2001. Initially, Ranney cleaned the existing laterals to increase water production. Ranney estimated the yield of the well would be increased from 4 million gallons per day (MGD) to between 5.5 MGD and 8.0 MGD. Ranney completed the rehabilitation work on the existing laterals in March 2002. Cleaning the laterals did not result in any increase in yield. However, the water quality did improve. There was significantly less turbidity, which reduced plant operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Ranney concluded that a significant portion of the loss in capacity of the Ranney well was due to changes in the Russian River water level, flow rate, width, distance from the Ranney and river bottom permeability. These changes resulted in decreased saturated aquifer thickness, decreased aquifer transmissivity and decreased recharge to the aquifer. Without restoration of the river, Ranney concluded that it would not be possible to restore the Ranney well to its previously higher capacity. However, Ranney did believe that by installing several new laterals, it would be possible to increase the yield by 0.43 to 0.86 MGD under summer conditions of low river flow rates. Ranney completed installation of four new laterals in June 2003, at a cost of over $700,000, which increased the yield from the Ranney well by 0.32 MGD. to Based on consultation with Ranney, the City has concluded that there are no further steps that can be taken to increase the yield of the Ranney Collector. For that reason, the City has opted to explore off river wells to increase its source capacity. To address the impact of turbidity on the City's ability to use the Ranney Collector in the winter, the City has received a quote of $300,000 per unit, not including related piping and installation costs, for pre-filtration units designed for use with the City's existing Microfloc filtration units at the City's water treatment plant.' This is an option that the City may wish to explore further, as it would provide redundant capacity during the winter months. However, in addition to the installation costs, on-going expenses for Operations and Maintenance would be higher than from the City's groundwater wells due to the greater level of treatment required for water derived from the Ranney. The City will explore the financial feasibility of this option in the next two years. 3. Comment: The revised plan refers to percolated groundwater rather than groundwater. What is the evidence that there is percolated groundwater? Response: The plan was revised to include definitions of groundwater and percolated groundwater and to use those terms consistently. See Plan, p. ES-1, Water System, second paragraph. The term "percolating groundwater" is used primarily in reference to Well No. 4, which has been consistently treated by the City and accepted by the State Water Board as percolating groundwater. But see, generally, the discussion of groundwater in §3.2.1, beginning on p. 3-2, and in §3.2.3, beginning on p. 3-4, and response to comments for LAFCO Executive Director. above. 4. Comment: Aren't the ponds at the waste water treatment plant evaporation ponds, not percolation ponds? Response: The ponds are labeled "percolation ponds" in the Waste Discharge Order approved by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. That order requires the City to plan and conduct a hydrologic study of the ponds over the next three years. Comment: The discussion of recycled water should acknowledge potential pollutants in recycled wastewater, including bioactive pharmaceuticals. Response: The plan concludes that substantial barriers exist to using recycled water on private property. It proposes developing a plan to determine the feasibility of using recycled water for certain public property applications. Potential pollutants, including pharmaceuticals in treated effluent, would be part of any such feasibility study. Alan Jamison, Water Treatment Plant Manager, personal communication with U.S. Filter. 5. Comment: The plan should describe how the City will help preserve water for agriculture in the Ukiah Valley. Response: Comment noted. The Plan does conclude that all uses of water, including agricultural uses, which have been made historically, can continue to be met, even if the City uses its full entitlement under its water rights permit and taking into account reduced diversions from the Eel River. 6. Comment: The plan should include measures to preserve groundwater recharge, including permeable paving. Response: Comment noted. The plan notes that the groundwater basin sources of recharge exceed the potential increase in demand by the City over the next 20 years by 140 times, but all measures to preserve recharge are worth considering. 7. Comment: The population projections in Table 5.1 appear unrealistic. Response: As a result of reducing the planning area to the proposed sphere of influence as described in the1995 General Plan, the population estimates have been revised and reduced. The projections exclude current water users. The growth projections rely on land use designations for that area in the 1995 General Plan, since those areas will only be served by the City, if they are annexed at which point the City, not the County, land use designations will apply. The mixed use designation for the Lovers' Lane property is assumed to be mixed use agriculture. The Masonite Property is designated for industrial use. Response to comments from Paul Zellman, dated October 16, 2007 1. Comment: The UWMP focuses too much on paper water rights and not enough on deficiencies in the City water system's extraction capacity, particularly the decline in production from the Ranney Collector, and on the use of conservation to address those deficiencies. Response: The discussion in Section 3.10 of the UWMP concerns the amount of water actually available to meet the City's entitlement under its water rights permit and all other historic diversions from the Russian River below Lake Mendocino. As to efforts to improve the production of the Ranney Collector, see response to Comment No. 2 from Pinky Kushner, above, at pp. 9-10. 2. Comment: The City should place more reliance on water conservation to address production shortfalls. In that effort, the City should implement DMMs 11 and 5. 12 a. DMM 11 provides for retail conservation pricing Response: The City recently raised its water rates in connection with financing improvements to its water system, including new storage capacity. Water rates have recently been determined to be "property related fees" within the meaning of Proposition 218, which imposes both substantive and procedural requirements on establishing or changing City water rates. In relation to the Proposition 218 requirement that the charge to any property owner must be based on the proportional cost to serve that customer, conservation pricing raises certain legal issues that require evaluation. For these reasons, the City will evaluate conservation pricing in connection with any future revision to its water rates to the extent such pricing can be lawfully imposed. b. DMM 5 provides for Large Landscaping Conservation Programs and Incentives. Response: See response to Comment Nos. 4 and 5, below, at pp. 11-13. 3. Comment: Section 7.3 of the UWMP, addressing Current Water Conservation Programs, makes mathematical errors and commingled indoor and outdoor use in calculating the effectiveness of DMM 1. Response: The comment points out computational problems in this analysis in the UWMP. On Page 3, the calculation in Appendix F was based on $1.29 per 748 gallons, which is the November 2008 City rate. The value of $1,206 stated in the document is correct. The November 2008 number reflects better the cost of water for BMP 1. The $0.91 per 748 gallons is the November 2005 value. Apparently this did not get updated. This change has been added. On Page 4, 465 gpd/unit was recomputed based on 0.73 acre feet per year per connection. This equates to 237,873 gallons per year per connection. Dividing this by 365, gallons per day per connection is 652. Taking 60 percent of this for outdoor use, the outdoor use is equal to 391 gallons per day for a single family residence. For a multifamily residence, the outdoor use would be 156 gallons per day. Adjustments have been made in Appendix F to reflect this change. As far as the 0.868 afy usage, the UWMP has been revised using 0.73 afy, which is based on the average from 2000 to 2005. Based on the numbers for 2006, the usage was closer to 0.66 afy. The comment correctly points out that the outdoor usage was commingled with the indoor usage in calculating the Benefit/Cost ratio. The UWMP has been changed to correct this. 13 4. Comment: The statements regarding Planning Department review of landscape plans is vague. The Model Landscape Conservation Ordinance is more specific and should be adopted. Response: To elaborate on the shorthand statements in the UWMP regarding landscaping and water conservation, Section 9087(D)(1)(b) of the Ukiah City Code does state that "Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation." That subsection goes on to provide a preference for native species. Item Q) in that same Section requires Landscaping Pans to include automatic irrigation systems. The City has been concerned about water conservation and landscaping for some time now. In August of 1996, the City adopted the Landscaping and Streetscape Design Guidelines. These Guidelines include a number of provisions that strongly encourage water conserving landscaping. If fact, at the bottom of page 1 in the Introduction, it states "The Guidelines emphasize water conservation as it relates to the design of landscaping treatments for new development projects. Guideline directives are included for the application of drip irrigation systems, drought-tolerant plant species, the use of organic mulches, and the reduction of lawn/turf areas in new project design." The Guidelines also include the following: Chapter 1 Item (A)(5): "Indigenous and/ordrought-tolerant water conserving plants and landscapes should be used. Chapter 1 Item (C)(4): "Irrigation systems must be designed for efficient conservation of water; examples include drip systems, bubblers, hose bibs, low flow and low flow angle systems." Chapter 1 Item (C)(8): "Automatic watering systems set to water at night are encouraged." Chapter 1 Item (E)(5): "Exotic plant materials should be avoided -especially if they require intensive care and/or excessive water." In practice, the City planning department provides copies of the above statutes/guidelines to potential applicants so they can design their Landscaping Plans accordingly. The Model Landscape Conversation Ordinance addresses new and existing landscaping. Adopting these requirements in the City will involve significant policy discussion. This summer, the City undertook a number of water conservation measures. City staff reported those efforts to the City Council at its April 18, 2007, meeting (as 14 Agenda Item 11.C and at its July 18, 2007, meeting as Agenda item 10.C. With respect to the California Urban Water Conservation Council's memorandum of understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation and implementation of the 14 best management practices, the staff recommended signing the MOU. The staff will place this item on a City Council agenda for consideration in fiscal year 2007-2008. 5. Comment: The commenter could not find a conservation budget of $12,000, as reported under DMMs 7-8 in the UWMP. Response: In fact, the 2007-2008 budget sets aside $2,000 for Public Education water conservation brochures. The UWMP will be revised to accurately reflect this number. As to the broader comment regarding water conservation, the City has worked extensively to reduce water used for its own landscaping at parks and the golf course. It has also worked with the Ukiah Unified School District and the Russian River Cemetery District to reduce water consumption for landscape irrigation. (See Agenda Summary Report for Item 10c at July 18, 2007, City Council meeting.) As previously stated, the City staff will present the California Urban Water Conservation Council's memorandum of understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation and implementation of the 14 best management practices during the current fiscal year. r 0 0 N O ,-. 0 0 ra ~ ~ Wo ~~ G~Ti ~ ^. SOO^Z/ £OOZ IOOZ 6661 L66i S66i £66i i66i 686[ L86I 5861 £86I I86I 6L6i LL6i SL6I £L6I iL6i 6961 L96I S96I £96I L96I 6561 LS6I SS6I £S6I p IS6i 7 ~ N .~i O ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (ZSy~ anoq~;aa,3) uo~;cna~,~ aoe~rng ~ale~ 0 0 0 0 0 x N ~!J W O U'~ ~z w~ 3 >()~Z ' ()~Z ~()Z 5661 Lb6i 5661 £66i i66I 6861 L86I S86i £86I I86I 6L6i LL6I sL6I £L6i iL6i ~ 6961 0 0 x L96I 3° N z 5961 £96i 3 U L96I x 0 6561 0 v LS6I 0 S56I :a £56I a w I56I ~~ ~ o ~ o oM ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('ISi1i anoq~ laag) uo~lena~~ aaei~ng ~aln~ O O N O 0 0 a M 7 W M U' r. ~z w~ ^. d SOOZ £OOZ IOOZ 6661 L66i 5661 ~ £66i I66i 6861 L86[ S86I £86i ~, I86i 6L6i ~ LL6i SL6i £L6i IL6i r 5 6961 g I I L96I a I S96I £96i 3 i96i x 0 6S6i a a 0 LS6i ~ 0 a SS6I ~° £S6i a 0 iS6i .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o vi ~n vi vi ~n v~ vi (~gy~ anoq~ iaa~ uo~iena~g a~c,{~ns ~a;ems 0 0 N O .. 0 0 ~ ~ W M 3 ~z ~. Gz, -. ,-r i, a ° °o ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ZS~ anoq~;aa~ uo~;ena~ ,~ aae,}~ng aaae~ SOOZ £o o~~(//i I ~~l 6661 L66i S66I £66i i66t 6861 L86i S86I £86i i86I 6L6I LL6I SL6i £L6I iL6i 6961 L96I 5961 £96I I96i 6561 LS6i SS6i £S6i I56i 3 z 3 X e 0 0. 0 ca 0 a w 0 a u '.. ;' ' O , w ~I~ j `_~ l ' . y ~ 11 Mj ~ ..~ ~ ~ 7 ~~ N y ~ ~. t~, i 1 ~ ~~ ~. e e i ~ y . ,..° q .,.x ~ i y, t ` _~ ; , ~, r- ~ G- _ y~,. ;, ~~ i r ~^ ~ S, _ A ~, .. ~ ~ i ~," .~ ~.~ r, ~' e D . ' ~ ' ' S _ i f _. ~ . ~ ~ ~'~1$3 .,{ ~ ~ r I 4 '~ .. a . ... ~ ~ l E i .'}T^ ~ ~.rt~ ~~ ~ 1 . ~k. ,LS, --' ~e i ~ ~ 7 ~'~ t" ~~~08LOOIM ~:, ~+~~ .. ~ ~ ~y~: ~ ~ v.. ~Y ~ .,., x ~ . ~ ~ ~` w° ,, .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ut. .. , _.. . ~a a ~ ~. ry. ~. 1 ~ y,, .~ t ~~ r.• ~ ' ~ .- ~ ' ea„F~ y f. . % ~ ~ ,~ ... ~.?: 3 ~ fix:, . ...~ V ~` ~ ' ~' ~ { . ,,, ,.j .ly . z . j t ~ 4 r _. , ~ ~ 14, I ~~ ~ r +~ ~ Y ~ 6 ' 1 ~ fx ~ ~ ~ i....l ~. 7~ ~1 .I . ~ 1 4 M Y 1 11 _ t~ 1 i ~~ '~ .. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ ~i h~. ~ MOOIMO 15~2~~ . ~ ' ` ~' ~` .~. ~ , ~ a ~ ~~ 15N12~'3At~1M , - -~ ~, ~ b ,~, ~ ~., Tl , `[1 _ ~ ,. 1AN12WOSK001M~ , ~ v ~ ~ `a ~ . , ,,,. .... N ~ +' .. ~ .. '.. y y Y f ~ ~ V ^ ~~ N }x ~~ ` ~ ~ a /~ ~ ~ ~. FLGURS 5 '. ... ' ~ ~, ..\. Map Showing ~ of Monitolin8 Wolls - yoeation USGSandDW1L gy .~. ~3 Ciry ofllYiah ~ . a m , , Me¢da+n°CouulY~Cl~ifan+ia w~ OMB ~ B ~ G M e U.. 5 T. i 2005 Urban Water Management Plan REFERENCES Bartle Wells Associates. "City of Ukiah Water Utility: Water Rate Study and Preliminary Financing Plan" (March 2005). City of Ukiah Official Website. httpalwww.citvofukiah.coml. (2005). County of Mendocino, "Mendocino County General Plan" Department of Water Resources. (1977). California Irrigation Management Information System website at htto:/Iwwwcimis.water.ca.govlcimis/data.isp, Data retrieved September 7, 2005. Department of Water Resources. DWR Bulletin 118 -California's ~roundwafer Update 2003, (2003). Jamison, Alan. Water Treatment Plan Supervisor. (2005). KennedylJenks Consultants. "Urban Water Management Plan 2002 Update." (November 2002). Oleo, Tanana. Bartle Wells Associates. (2005). Wheaten, Paula J, Wagner and Bonsignore. (2005). Robert C. Wagner, Wagner and Bonsignore (2007) REF-7 DRAFT for review purposes only. P:11 2 80001128619-Ukiah UWMPIDrafl Reoon-November 200TUWMP71-13 fTRB)do ATTACHMENT T ~® i~ ~CDPH MARK B HORTON, MD, MSPH D~rectar State of California-Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Public Health DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH 50 D STREET, SUITE 200, SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PHOIJE:1707) 576-2745 /FAX: (707) 516-2722 INTERNET ADDRESS: wenv cdoh ca aov ~~, .~ r4tC ' ' ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor November 9, 2007 Ms. Anne Burck City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Burck, In 2001 this office issued a report entitled, Assessment Report'. We have revised thi your review.- Please review the sections system for errors. Because water supply i would like it to be as accurate as possible. Cos '1'!;l' o ,. '_`,r!%~ ~Y ,_7~u _., 'Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy s report and a draft copy is enclosed for of the report that pertain to your water s a critical issue for the Ukiah Valley we Despite any errors in this updated assessment, it again clearly indicates that water quantity is a critical issue in the Ukiah Valley and is likely to be for the foreseeable future. As demands on the public water systems serving the Ukiah Valley increase, it appears that it wil! become increasingly more difficult to meet those demands. I would appreciate any comments/corrections you have by December 14, 2007 so a final draft of the report made available. If you have any questions, please contact me at (707) 576-2729. Sincerely, Bruce H. rton, P.E. District Engineer Mendocino District Office Enclosure Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment Ukiah Valley Mendocino Count~~ llepartment of Public Health llrinking Water Field Operations Branch A9endocino llistrict Norembcr?(107 Uki;lh \'alloy Drinking \t'ater Adequacy Asscssntznl Nevcmha~ X00? "I able of Contents I. Introduclion ....................................................................................................................._.. .. i a. Purposc............_ ................_...........................................................................................__........ ..3 b. Scope ........................_............................................................................._............_ ........ ........ ..3 I1 SU1n 1178f\' all (1 Conclnslons ..........................................................................................._...... _. l) a. 1\'alzr Riehts and Supply :\dequacy ..................................................._.................._..............._ ._6 b. \\'atzrSupplicrs .......................................................................................................................... ..9 c. Putemial Supply Dccclopmenl ................................................................................................. . I) III. Russian Ricer \Vurershed..__ ................................................................................................ I i a. Description of Watershzd ........................................................_._............_....................._ .. . I> c. Fish I'rotection ............._......................................................__.......... _............................__..... . 17 d. WalerRights .............._......................,................................_ .... ......._................__............ .IS c. \1'atcr :\vailabilitv ......................_....................................._........................._............_............ . 19 IV. frlendocino County Russian River Flood Control ~~ WatzrConszn•ation Improvement District. 23 h ll':Iler Supply _ __ ___ _ ......_.. ..........__ . ..___ ___ . _ ..._,. _,,.......... __.. _._ '_( l~. DI CiId UCIIIU CUll 111\' \\~alCl :\geI1C 1' ..........................................._.......................................... . ~~ VI. (_~It1' Of Uklah......' ....................................................._.._._........................................._...... . JI b Future Demands ...................._........._..._....... _............... ..._.. _.............................................. .36 r Acsea~ment of Compliance _..._..__.._ . ...................._.._:._.....__........_...................... .3R ` II I:~,'\'.~IIIJ ':III~• \1;,•l"Dl.;r t. II a. C'urrenlSvstem.....__ ............................._............................................................_................... .dl b. Futurz Demands_ ......................__.............................................._.................................._......._ A> c. AsscssmcntofCompliance........._ ...................................................................._............._........ .d6 VI11. ~'IillviewCountvlUatcrDislrict ........................................................................................... .=15 a. Current Svstem ............................................................................................................_......... .45 b. Futurz Demands.....__........_ ...............................:........................................_..............._._....... .~3 c. Assessment of Compliattce .................._............:......................................_............................... .54 f\. Calpclla County R'aler Uislrict ............:..:....._..................................................................... . 56 a. Current Svslem .................._......................................................................................._............. . ~G b. Future Demands :........................................................................................................................ .58 c. Assessment of Conipliance ...........:.:................................................................_........................ . ~8 X. Rogina Water Cornpany :..................................................................................................... . 60 a. Current Svstem .......................................................................................................................... .60 b. Future Demands ........................................................................................................................ .6'_ c. Assessment of Compliancc ........................................................................................................ .63 X1. Willow County WaterDistrict .............................................................................................. .65 a. CurrentSvstem .......................................................................................................................... .65 L. Future Demands... _ ._........ ._._ .. _.. _.,._._.. _ __ .... . _.... _6ft ~. _..... .rte...... i'_., .. ivicn-~u~~ui vi ~..nul~~6u ~.. ................................................................._..____...................... _.... (.O . _. X11. I lopland ............................................................................................._.............................. . 71 .t. Currents}'slcnt .......................................................................................................................... .71 b. Future Demands .........................................................................................._............................. .73 l'. AssessmemOfComplanCC........._ ..................................................._..._........................._...._.. .74 Ukiah Valley Drinkine \1'atcr .\deyuacy Assessment Nuvrmber 31107 L Introduction a. Purpose Suction 64162 of the California \\ aterworks Standards. contained in Title ?? of the California Lodz of Regulations (CCR), requires all public water systems to have sufficient water available Gum their water sources and distribution reszn•oirs to supply adequately. dependably anil safely the total requirements of all users under maximum demvtd conditions before agreement is made to pertnil additional service connections (connj to a system. "the public water systems located in the Ukiah Valley of 1\4zndocino County as well as those located just to the north and south of the valley arc depzndent, either directly or indirectly, on the Russian.Rivcr Watershed as their primary source of supply. 'Che Division of Drinking \\'ater and Cnvironmental t\•litnagement of the California Department of Public Health (DzpartmenQ conducted a drinking walur adequacy assessment, as a preliminar} analysis of current and projected future supply, for each of the regulated water systems in this area in 2001. `this report gig es the results of an update of the original analysis. h. Scope The geographical scope of the study`t ovzrs the area adjacent to the Russian River Gom the town of Hopland north to the end of Redwood \'a'1'ley in Mendocino County. There are seven public wdtez systems in this area that wer~,;included in the Department's source supply adequac} assessment. The public water systems included in the assessment arz: • Rcdwoorl Valley County Water District (Redwood Valle}' C\1'D), • Ctfilpella County \4'ater District (Calpella CWD), • A4illv;iew County Water District (Millvicw CWD), • City of-Ukiah (Ukiah), Rogina Water Company (Rogina WC), • Willow County \Vater District (Willow CWD), and • :Hopland Public Utilities District (Hopland PUD). In addition, the Mendocino Cuunty N'ater Agency (t\4C4VA) and the I\9endocino County Russian River Flood Control and \Vater Conservation Improvement District (N1CpC District) are included in the assessment. These agencies are not public water syslans r.nd have tto physical facilities. However, the MC\\'A is the only agency that has authoriq~ across jurisdictional lines within the county to plan and implement water resource related projects, and the Is4CPC District is the holder of thz Counq~ of Ukiah Valle}' Drinking 1Natcr Adequacy Assessment November '_007 ~lcndocino's 5,000 acre-foot (Af) right to water stored in Lake Alendocino (Project \\'atcr). Depending nn the Icgal definition of Russian River underllow, all of the public water systems included in this assessment are or could be dependent on the MCPC District's 5,000 :1P wmer right as a source of supply during part of each year. phis review documents: • the water availability in the Russian River watershed, • the potential impact of the recent Pederal Energy Regulatory Commission (PLRC) Potter Valle}' Project decision on water usere in the Ukiah Valley, • the current capacity ol'each s1'stem's groundwater and surface water supply, water rights as determined by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SW[.C13), • the impact on the public water systems in-the Ukiah Valdcv of the ~dCPC District's control over Ivfendocino County's 5.000 acre Feet rtf water in Lake t\'Icndocino. • water use for the last ten years (1997 ?006). and • lreatrnenl and storage capacities. :fin estimate of future demand in Qtc year 2025 is made for each water system using n~,nulaii„n f,rericlc From the drab \-lzndocino Cour~n I16iah Vaiiev Area flan I?n the five systems it is applicable to. Forthe Iled}vnnd Valley CWD the growth projection is based on the historical growth that has occurred aver the: fast ten years +a'hilc the District has been under a connection moratorium. 1-br the Hopland PUD, the approach was to assume tltz same rate of growth itt•comtections that has occurred in the last 10 years. A comparison +vas then made of current and projected future demands with water rights, supply; trcaunent and storage ca1acity. The assessment also examines the reliability of the system sounes-and efforts toward conservation. The California WTlenvorks-Siandards requires public water systems to have sufficient water from water sources and distribution reservoirs to supply adequately, dependably and salely the total requirements of all users under maximum demand conditions. The Department interprets this regulation to mean each water system must have a legal right to its +~'ater sources to classify them as dependable. Por the purposes of this analysis, the highest masimunt da}' of production that occun~zd in the period 1997 through 2006 was used as maximum demand conditions. The basis for assessment of the adequacy of source and distribution storage capaciq' ~~--~~ ihP (':,lifr,ntin 1Vntrr,vnrks Stnndardc. Sertinn 645(4, (a 1. +vhich slates that \Vherever possible, needed source and storage volume shall be determined from existing water use records of the water system." This analysis used existing water production records for the period 1997 - 2006 from each of the seven water systems and assessed the required storage capacity based on the equation: Storage Volume =Average Day Production -~- 25".i. of t\taximum Day Production + Fire Flow Demand Ukiah V:dlcy Drinking N;ner.4dequacy Assessment November'_00? l he basis for assessment of system reliabiliq~ is California health and Safety Code (CI-ISC), Section 116>j~ (a)I~) which stales, in part, "Any person who ot~ns a public water system shall ensure that the system provides a reliable and adequate supply of pure, taholesomc, healthful and potable water." l"he analysis conducted based its assessment of pliability of each system on a number of factors, including water rights. physical source capacity, standby power andlor a backup source of supply, and storage capacity. To assess the need for conservation and the potential for watersavings, the report examines average water use during the month of maximum demand by each system on a per connection basis and compares that with other users in the lJkiah Valle}'. Conclusions arc drawn as to the adequacy of each public watersystem to comply with the source and storage capacity and reliability provisions oFSection ti=1562, California Waterworks Standards. F[owever, projecting water demands even I t) }'ears into the future is an inexact science. 11'hile eecry effort has been made to obtain the most accurate inlbrmatiun available, the projections made and conclusions drawn about future needs and compliance are likely outcomes under cwrent conditions. The Department's intended use for this information is for planning purposes and to guide its workload priorities. Ukiah Valley DrinkinE \1'ater Adequacy Assessment Nevcmber 3G(17 II. Summary and Conclusions n. I!'ater Rights and Supple Arlequac~~ The mission of the S\\'RC'B, as discussed in this document, is to allocate waters of the State to achieve the optimum balance of henefcial uses. W'atcrs of the State include both surface water sources and underfloor that recharge surface water som'ces, but do not include eround+vater that is from percolated rainfall. l`he Department's mission is to ensure that drittking water is safe, potable and in sufficient supph~ to maintain health, prevent illness, and assure the protection of the public These diffcrine missions result in nvo separate definitions of surface water; one as defined by the S\\T.CB for the putposc of water rights and one as defined by the Depm~unent based on water qualiq~ characteristics that require additional treatment in order to be deemed potable and safe to drink The S1VP.CB recognizes riparian and appro~riative +vater ri_his in the Russian River watershed. Riparian rights belong to (ands adjaeept to the river. \\%ater n7ay be taken from the river Ior beneficial use on the land that is ~$jacent to the river. It may not be exported off site. Appropriative rights are those granted by the S\\'RCB to persons and entities that submit application withdraw water for beneficial use. Appropriative rights h,n e Iimii; inn Ihr Ir~tal "ilumc that caut tic Laken ht ,. ~..,i~. 1h~ a~.u;~~~nar~ in;L~~;tan"~,a:; rate at which it can be taken, and the length of time during the year when it can be taken. The entire Russian River and its tributaries, including those in the Ukiah Valley, have been declared fully appropriated Cur the period ~f July through October of each year and the onl}' new +vater rights being_granted by the S WRCB are for diversion of winter/spring flood flows for off stream storage. It is estimated that the-total available water rights from the Russian River in the Ukiah Valley (excluding an tinknown antonnb"oCriparian righQ are approximately 35,OS0 acre-feet per year (QI=Y) including an estimated 8,100 AFY of Pre-49 water, 8,000 .1FY of water stored in the water supply pool of Lake Mendocino (Project Water), and I S.9S0 r\FY of Post-49 +vater. With exception of Ukiah (14,=fS0 AFYj and the Willo+v CWD (728 APY), the only appropriative water right for summer time water use by water utilities is S,000:aPI' oCProject Water shat is held by the ~~(CPC District. The seven public-water system included in this report are all to varying degrees dependent on the MCPC District's 5,000 AF of Project Water to supply their system demands in the sunnnerlfall dry season. Ijerutsc of discrepancies in reported amount of use, a l..ease anu Desist Order was issued to the MCPC District by the SWRCB in 200. As a result of this order and its effort to perfect its +vater right, the MCFC District has instituted a requirement that all users of its water enter into a Uniform \\'ater Supply Agreement (UWSA) for a specilic annual volume of+vatcr and that each water user accurately meter and report all water used to the MCFC District. In addition, the R4CPC District applied for an extension to December 31, 2007 to perfect its 8,000 AF water right. Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assessment Noecnilier '007 1~he MCPC District"s Uniform Water Agreements have a provision requiring fill use of the contracted amount each year. ICa water system' Cull contracted volume is not used in nne year, the U\VSA requires the N1CFC District to reduce the amount of water in that system's UWSA for the following year. This is a concern since water use by public water systems varies from year to year. I lowever, MCPC District has implemented this by declaring unused water surplus for that year and selling it to other customers. ht 20116. the MCPC District had UN'SAs for the sale of 7,400 AF of+vater. The 600 AP of additional water not committed by an agreement plus water that was under contract but not used was considered by the \gC1=C District surplus water and used by the Red+vuod Valley C\1'D. In this way the !+9CFC District did not penalize public water systems for not using their lull allotted amouiil, +}sere able to use the full allotment render its water rights permit. and was able lu supply the Redwood V:dley C11'U with surplus water. The MCPC District hasl)WSAs for 7,-}U0.4F of water in 2007 also. It is probable that the ~ICPC District will again use its full water rights allocation in 2007 as it did in 2006. This will allow the t`~ICPC District to make application to pcrl`ect is +eater rights permit allocation and receive a license lur the 8,000 APl' of Project Water it now has a permit for. 1-he total annual demand from +vater utilities for domestic use was reported to be 8,499 AP in 2006. This is projected to increase to 12,274 AP Uy the year 2025. In 2006, the (GlLll amUrln( iil t'CatCi' II'Oin lI1C Sl'1'en l:'&lff 1111114 CS lhaL C'Unld be aCCOLIn!r'CI ac hrn ~rCt Water in the t`iCPC District report +vas =1,14' AF. 1-lowe+~er, this included the water Redwood Valley CWD used for its inigation distribulern system. When that is removed, the sevenlvatcr systems used 3,226 AF to supply domestic customers. The total amount oCwater currently covered by contracts with the MCPC District by the six water utilities that have contracts with MCPC District is 3,371 AP. The contracted amotmt exceeds the 2906 dL'llland fOr domestic \Vatef bV approximately Pour percent. However, the total amount of IvICPC water used, including Redwood Valley's irrigation watca exceeded the contracted amount by 23 percent. This was only possible because all the +vafer Redwu~d Valle}' CWD purchased was considered "surplus water'. In llie.vear 2025, [he total demand for Project Water for domestic use Crom the seven water utilities is projected to increase l0 4,52 AP, significantly exceeding the current contracted-amount. Removing the Redwood Valley's projected domestic demand oC 896 AF still~giveS:a projected 2025 demand of 3,629 AP. Since the MCFC District currently has U.R'SAs Cor 7,400 ,41=Y, it will not be able to supply the total projected increase to 5,02 .AFB'. I-Iowever, under these demands; the Redwood Valley CWD would have to access its cuntrtcted suppiy fruw liic SC'1a".~+ tiiua ]edueil~g die .;un„a.l from the remaining 6 water utilities to 3,629 AF. This world still exceed the currently contracted supply of 3,371 AF but n1CFC District currently has the capacity to supply this increased amount iC the 600 AF of current surplus water arc preserved For this purpose. 7 Ukiah Valley Drinking Hater Adequac} :lssessmenl Nn+'cmbcr ?007 Ecl Rircr Dirersinn Since the Potter Vallcy Project (PVP) began diverting water to the Gast Porlc of the Russi:m River. users in the Ukiah Vallcy have established +vater rights to this water and have become dependent upon the supply. [t represents the only reliable source of summer time flow in the river. On.lanuarv 28. 2004, the Federal Energy Regulators Commission (FGRCj issued Order IOC amending the hydroelectric license for Potter Valley Project No. 77 requiring operational and physical modifications to the project for the benefit of federally threatened salmonids. The decision allows the Pacific Gas Electric Company (PG&G) to continue operating the Polter Valley Project wail 2023 but requires it to develop and implement a Flow management;plan in accord with the National Oceanic and :1tmospheric Administration (NOA.AINational I+4arine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Reasonable and Prudent :1lternative (.[tPA ~ for Ilo+v management. On the average, the RPA is projected to result in a 33 percent average reduction during normal years and greater reduction in dry years. The final environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by PERC fur the Project advises that the implementation of the RI'A +vould risk dcwatering of Lake Mendocino wider worst case drought conditions, both currently and in the future. Additionally, under these critical conditions. stream flow models predict that there would be significant shortfalls (avenge monthly Flows Icss than minimum in-sUeam flow requiremenlsl for 2 months of the year currently and incrrnsinn_ ir, ;months nndcr tuuuc _USU condiuons. Under thesz.conditirnts, the only available supply for water purveyors would he from the Ukialt'Ualley gTOtindwater basin. The critical time period for tilling Lake Mendocino gvery year is April through June. Under normal coitditiotis the water supply,pool camtot encroach into the flood control pool until April L of each year. Because df the required reduction in the flow through the Potter Valley l'rnject there }vill be signifcantly less Flow in the Gast Pork of the Russian River dunng du's` time period-and hence significantly less +vater to fill Lakc Mendocino. 'this }'ear; ?007, cumulative inflows into Lake Mendocino +vere such that the water year +vas classified`as a normal year requiring higher releases from the Lake. Hmvcver, because nfthe cut back in the PVP water, the storage in Lake Mendocino in early April +vas approximately 67,000 AP and i[ was projected to drop to 8,000 nP under the normal year release requirements. The SC\l'A petitioned the SWRCB to allow for a reductionlbf in stream Ilnw to 75 cfs from the 185 cfs required from April through August of atbrmal water year. Although there have been no quantitative predications made to date on how often this situation will occur, it is likely to be a regular occurrence because of the restriction on PVP Flows in the critical April to .lime timeGante. ' This scenario also demonstrates the critical importance of each utility having an effective mandatory conservation and emergency operation plan. Grn un d u vrlcr The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) estimated in 1983 that the Ukiah Valley grounchvater basin contained as much as 35.000 nP of+vater that was Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment Novzmbcr ?007 normally replenished each year lirom rainfall and that the basin had a safe amnlal yield ofapprorimately 10,000 AP. I listorically, the S\\~RC13 has defined surface water as any Mowing water +vithin the confined geologic strcambed of any surface water stream, regardless oC(he physical distance from the main river channel. hl this conte~l, all of the groundwater in the Ukiah Valley could fall under this definition. However, it would appear that a dctennination br the SWRCI3 to cunsider all the groundwater to be underIlow oCthe Russian River while also determining that the Russian River is fully appropriated. unduly restricts the utilization of this water resource for users in the Ukiah Valley. Given the severe wafer availability shortage in the Ukiah Valley under critical drought conditions, coupled with the potentially significant water resource available to users in the Valley from emundtvatec it appears hi~~hly desirable to conduct a comprehensive grounchvater basin evaluation to determine the safe yield of the basin independent of the Russian River. b. {mater Suppliers A/rndociil« C««nry Russin« Rrrer Flood Cnnrrn! a«rl ii'ntcr Cnnccrnnrinn 6uprnvuurciN Because of discrepancies in reported points of di+ersi¢in by users of the MCPC District's 5.000 AF allocation of Project Water, the accounting of natural flow, and inability to determine its beneficial use of++ater, the MCPC District was ordered by the S WRCII to modify its accountine and reporting procedures before a decision will be made to c:,lr., r; ;,:: i,~rr,i; ;.:: li:cns~. In the eummcr of?004, the MCPC Disu~icl began implementation of its Ordinance No. 00-1 and Resolution 04-03 which required all customers +vho wish to purchase a specific amotinl.iif water under Permit 12947B to enter into a Unifonil Rater Supply Agreement and to provide a method to accurately measure the amount of water used. The MCPC District's Uniform Water Supply Agreement has several provisions thal could ha~~e a significant impact un the public water systems that are the subject of this report. `Specifically', the way the UWSAs are structured penalize public water systems for not usipg their'Itill contract allotment each year and have a termination clause over which the public wales systems have no control. In addition, the M(FC District is not reserviug any of its water right for the firture gro++lh of the pubf[c'water systems,;t has UWSAs with. Failure to do so could have the likely oulcome.`ofsome of these wafer systems being restricted from adding new customers'beeause alack of adequate source capacity. At this time, the total amount of water contracted for is 7,400 AFY of which approzimatel}' 46"% or 3,371 AP is with public hater systems ~~•ithin the District, The rCI11:ilIldCr OI LI1C I\91.1'l UISII'ICl 5 CUIIII'allCd i4atC1' 15 l)elllg uaeu fvl ,i~riellitiirai purposes. fhe t+9CFC District has adopted in its Ordinance 00-I, a requirement For all its customers to implement conservation rcquircmeNS in the cvem of a water shortage. The consen-anon program establishes a prohibition on wasting water and alive-stage water allocation schedule from normal use to a water emergency. 1\~hile this program Ukiah Valley Drinking 1Vaier +Jequncy Assessment Novcmber'_n07 appears to meet the minimum requirements of the S1\rRCfi, it falls far short of consen atiou programs to reduce water usage during normal periods of time, such as that recommended by the California Urban 1lrater Conservation Council (CU1\!CC). "1'he ~1CPC District has also applied to the Su'RC[3 under its original permit for an additional 6.000 AP of Project water it believes exists in the Lake Mendocino Storage Pool but +vas never allocated. The ~1CPC District had a water analysis done of Lake Mendocino and submitted this as part of its application to the S1\lRCD. As of the date of this report, the MCPC District is still actively pursuing this application. Public {{"nlcrS~~slenvs Summarized in the Four tables below arc the current capacity and required capacity to supply current demand levels and projected system demands ih 2025 for water rights, source capaciq~, treatment capacity, and storage capacity. "1-here tables arc provided allota Cor easy reference for all seven systems in one location. I-Iowever. because of the complex nature of the water supply situation in the Ukiah Valley the numbers in each table rec wire '~`x'''~ '"° I ~tggn~tcar}t qualification. A brief explanation of some of the limitations nl each table is given below each table. However. for a full explanation of a particular water system's cunent and projected capacities. the section on that water system itt this report must be reviewed. Tsblc ll- I on the nett page provides a summary of w:ucr rigitts~ iiel:i irr each ~.::nrr system and their current required capacity, based nn their maximum day demand from 1997 lhroueh 2006 and their 2006 nuiii~eraf connections. The projected 2025 required capacity is based nn~thc maximum day'demand reported 6om 1997 through 2006 multiplied by the projected number of connections in 2025. The water rights itJOrmatiun,provided in Table II-I should not be used without reviewing the section-for`each watersvstem because several of the water rights arc res[r"cted in'eertain periods of use or may not be fully perfected, which can significantly impact the potential for providing sufticient water. All the water systems listed in Table II-1'with the e>,cepiion of Redwood Valley CWD have entered into contracts with the MCPC Di5(fict to purchase a specified volume of water each year. "Ihe volume each system has contracted to purchase with the MCPC is included in its current avater rights, t~%ith the exception of the City of Ukiah whose contract for 800 AP is in addition to the kS, 488 AP in water rights listed below. The MCPC water has no restriction on when it may be used and in many cases is the sole water available to water systems dtiring the peak summer months. 10 Ukiah Valley Drinking \1'ater Adcyuacy Assessment November'-0(17 l able II-I 1Vmcr Rights Summary, APl' R'aler Scslem Current 1Vatcr Rt hfs Re aired Ca achy Current 2U25 Ukiah 15,448'°' 4,?24 4,740/7,400" Redwood VallcP CR'p 1,683"'~"' 819 ' 896t' Millvicw C\VD 1,477"''"' 1,771 3,23 Cal Ilia C\VD 141 "~'" 124 205 Ro ina 1Vatcr Com anv 400'F'''0 716 840 Willow CAVD 3,068" I.ON10 1,890" lio land PUU '_UO"' 174 451 la) Ukiah, Redwood Valley C\VO, A1illview CN'U, and P'illuw (:\i'D all have water rights permits that have expired. I-lo+vevcr, each has submincd an application for a lime extension to perfect its water rights. l4'hile these extensions are being considereJ by the SR!RCO their water rights permits are still valid. . , Ib) The City o(Ukiah is given uvo projected water rights rcyuiremems for the y,qa[ ?015. The lover number is the Deparunem projection and the higher number is that derived from the Ciq~'s draft Urban AVutct t`iannecmcr.t Yhm. ("cl ~fhe water rights granted io the ItcchvooJ Vallry C\UD by the S\VIiC[i arc restricted to the puiuJ of November I through April 30 of the following year. During the period of May I through October 30 the Redwood Valley Cli'D must depend en surplus water is purchases from the MCPC District and tltc SCN'.A. (d) Redwood \'ailep CR'D's require) euirent capacity and projected 2025 capacity excludes demand Gam agricultural usage (ej The water rights grantcJ to the i\1dlvicw CWD by the 5\4RC[3 ate restricted to the perod November I w June i0 o(thc follo+arig year Uuringthe period o(July I through October 70 the ~lillview C\VD must depend on ils conlrac L~avith the MCI+CDistrict (or 970 AF. (f) Capclla's watcrrigliis asswne that thcira0~AFY well is not determined to be surface water by the sWRCO. (gl The Rogina N'C has submitted an ^ppiitaliun for water rights based on the water used when the Compam' began to npemtc'in 1947. This table assumes that all ol'Rogina N'C wells are deemed to be surface w;dcr-as defined hvlhe SWRCId. (h) At the current time the ~Calpella C-WD;+tlfe. Rogina WC, and (he Flopland PUD have no indepegdeiii water rights~gramed by~ihe SWRC6. All depend on their contracts with the MCFC District. (i) R'illow CWD's required current capacity and projected ?025 capacity includes demand Crom . agricultural usage. Table l[-? provides the physical capacity of the Water system to extract water from its source, either via well pumps, surface water intake pmnps or surface water collectors. This table takes inu),account the capacities of the pumps, the physical yield of the wells or collection systems and compares them to the potential maximum day demand as estimated for "_'{JO6 and 2025. Source capacities presented in Table II-2 do not include standby sources si,rec these sourr<s are only allowed to be used I S days a year, per Department requirements. Ukiah Vallco Drinking \Naler Adequacy :lssessntent November ~OU7 Table II-2 Source Capacity Summary. MGD 1V'a ter Syslern Currenl Ca acitY Re uired Ca achy "t Cttrrcnl(a) 2025 Ukiah 71 7.7 8.(/13.5` t ~ Redwood Nailer CWU I L5~`~ I.J9 1.63 Millvicw CWD 2.90 3.38 G20 Cal clla CWD 0.18 0.?? 0.3G Ro ina 1Vatcr Com any 2.06 I.J9 1.74 \Villow C\VU 3.76 2.~5 357 lia land PUD 0.65 O.Gd 0.82 lal The lequired Current Source Capacity was determined by using the maximum svsiem daily production that has occurred over the last 10 years using tlic assumption that this level of demand could occur again. (b) "fhe City of Ukiah is given two projected source capacity requirements for the year 2025. The lover number is the Department projection and tke higher number is tltat derived (torn the City's draft Urban \Vatcr A1anagcment Plan. - (c) The Redwood Valley C\I'D source capacity is a combined domestic and irrigation capacity Table II-3 below provides a sununary of the system's ability to physically treat surface water from its sources. This table reflects the Department's definition of surface water based on the requirements For additional treatment based on the potential for pathogens to he Ivc;ent in the water, and is not related ;o the S^.'RCI3 do inition of surface ~~'ater that is used for water rights purposes. Table II-3 Treatment CuDacity Summary, MGD 1Valcr SJstcin' " CurreriYCa acitr Rc uired Ca acilr `t Currenl 2025 Ukiah - ~ 9.D S.d' ~ G.3/I I''~`~ Redwood Vallcv CM1l'D - 2.6 _ . ' I A9 1.63 M11ilb~icw CWD ~ 3.7.0 ~ ~ ~ 3.38 ~ 6.20 ' Cnl. cllaBWDt`t - - ~'~~f/A '.~~ - N/A N/A .Ao ~ina Water Com anv~` N/A N/A N/A -Willow CWD"':'~- N/A N/A N/A ~liopland PUDt`~ - N/A N/A N/A (a) The Required Current Treatment Capacity was determined by using the maximum 'system daily production that has occurred over the last 10 years using the assumption that ths~level o(demand could occur again. (b) Ukiahtsciirrentrequired capacity assumes that the potential maximum day demand of 7.7 MGD minus production From wells 3, 4 and 5 which do not require surface water treatment. (c) l'he Ciq• of Ukiah is given hvo projected treatment capacity requirements for the year 2025. The lower number is dte Department projection and the hither number is Thal derived from the City's J ,.f. U ;,.~r, 7: a:c: ;.,~, - :plan. (d) The 2015 required capacity Ibr Millview CN'D assumes that the btasonite wells are under the in Fluence of surface water and therefore required surface water treatment. (e) Calpella, Rogina, Willow, and Hoplaitd currently only have growtd+vater sources and have no surface water treatment facilities. 12 Ukiah Valley Drinking N ater Adcyuacy :lssessment Noaember 20(17 Table I]-=l summarizes the existine storage capaciq', the 2006 required storage capacih and the 2025 projected storage capacity. It does not include any storage facilities that arc currently in the planning or construction phases, nor does it include tanks that must remain lull at all times for disinfection purposes. "fable II-4 Stora4e Capacity Sunnnar>~, MG 1Valer tiYStem Curren) Ca acity Re wired Ca acit ~'°' Curren) 2ll?5 Ukiah 59 6.0 6.6/1021"' I Rcchvood Valle • CR'D I.R6 I.'_6 -- 1.37 Millricw CND '_.RG ?.60 ~ 4.63 Cal clla CwU 0.30 0:~.4~. 0.-16 ~ Ro ina N'ater Corn aut~ 1.13 1-:1?r _ 1.3E I R'illow C1VU 1.3.13 1.89 2.G7 Hupland PUU O.SO _ ._0.65 0.78 (a) The Required Current Sioruge Capacity was determined by using the maximum system daily pmduc,imi that has occurred overthe Iasi 10 years using the assumption that this Iecel el demand could oc yr again. (b) The Ciq• of Ukiah is given two projected storage capacity.requirements for the year 2026. l'he lower number is the Department projection and the hillier number is that derived from the City's draft Urban \Vatcr t`lunagcment Plan. - c. Pntcntlrr! Srrpnll' Det'elopment Cornre Dnm Project At this time, the only definitive plan [o increase the supply of water available to users in the Ukiah Vall"ey isthe`1!S Arniy Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) preliminary assessment of the feasibiliq~ of raising C6Vote Dam and increasing the water storage pool in Lake Mendocino. "hhe Anny Cogis has completed its initial Reconnaissance Study and is prepared to piuceed with the next phase, which will include California Em'ironmental Qualit} Act (CEl1A) attd National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. "Che current citsffor the complete Coyote Valley Dam Feasibilih' Study is estimated to be appioximaiely ~;6,000,OUO and will take five or more years to complete. I::fty percent or $3,000,000 of that cost will consist of local matching funds. In fiscal yeat 2005-2006, the federal govenunent has appropriated $100,000 to the Army Corps for tjie°~iSext phase of the Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study. "This was matched as required t}ith local funds. I-lowever, little was accomplished and no funds were allocated forthis project in the Army Corps current or future year budgets. Funding for development and construction costs for the potential project coming would consist oC7~"~ Crom the Federal government and 2~°.'0 local monies. lbtal costs are estimated to be in excess of9+1~0 million. [3ased on the fact that funding for the Feasibility Study has ceased and the very large local cost for construction of this project, it does not appear to be a viable for solution additional water supple at this time. l3 Ukiah Valle}' Drinking R ater Adequacy Assessment November 007 fi'nrer Resource Police Cuanci! In ~•lay 2006 the Mendocino Grand Juq recommended that the cowtty establish a Water Resource Policy Council, comprised of all water agencies/special districts and oflicia', water-related entities within the Couny' and the Ukiah and Potter Valley areas. The Council would explore interests and concerns in order to develop common long- range plans anti strategies to address the issues of adequate guaranteed +vater availability, usage, conservation and storage within the County. Given the potential resources available in the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin, it would appear reasonable for the County to implement the Grand Jury's reconunendation and charge them with conducting a comprehensive groundwater study that +vould denwnsh~ate independence from the Russian River under-flow. Cnuserruliou Ilisturicalh, there has been very little done by any oCthesc water systems in [he area of ongoing conservation programs. Water use on.a per connection basis by all of the public water systems in the Ukiah Valley is very high. Thz weighted average day's use during the mouth n( maximum production in 2000 was L I!i3 gallons per day per connection (gpdc). The weighted annual average day's use for the sevenrpublic water systems covered by this report in 2006 was 697 gpdc. A 10 % reduction in current average day use could save approximately 330 APl'. 'this "saved water" could be used in lieu of developing new source calaacity. Cunetnly, the ~'ICI'C District requires all users of its water to have water conservation programs but these are limited to steps hat the unlit-y would take in the event oC a water shortage emergency., lvven with this limited requirement, at this time, only tluee of the water utilities in the Ukiah. Valley (Ukiah, Redwood Valley CWD & h9illview C\VD) have programs,tliat comply with this requirement. 14 Ukiah Valley Chinking 1Vater Adequacy Assessment November ?007 III. Russian River Watershed n. Description of 6Pnlershed Much of the followin~~ discussion is taken from a State Water Resources Control Board Staff Report on the Russian River \Vatershed prepared in August 1997 to describe actions to be taken by the Sane Water Resources Control Board on a large number of pending water riehts applications. 7 he Russian River is fed by its Last and \1'est forks that eouverge approximately t++-o miles north of the City of Ukiah. The cast fork of the Russian River is also fed by the Eel Ri+er lluough a Pacific Gas and Electric Comparfyhydrocltctric tunnel that empties into the east fork in Potter Valley. The Ritssiah River provides the water supply for approximately 500,000 people itt Mendocino, Sonoma, and ~9arin Counties and the +vtershcd encompasses an area of approximately 1,435 square miles. hhe Russian River meanders in a southerly direction for adistance oC 1 10 miles, lluough the Ukiah Valle}, flopland Valley, Alexander Valley, filch I+4owttains, 1-lealdsburg Valley and through the gorge of the Coastal Range Mountains to the Pacific Ocean st .lemter. The river v311cy areas have mostly been converted to a~rieulturc and ~iaiinu i.in~~~~IanJ. [irhen dc',cl~pnt~ni in tltc +~alluj in C.lcn.l,~.ii~;~ Cowttc is concentrated around the conununities of Potter Valley, Ukiah, and Hopland. h. Hyrb•ologrd. Surjnce {i'rrrer The hydrologyoFthe Russian River is typical oC most northern California coastal streams and is charaeterizc:d' by high (lows,in the winter and low flows in the summer, +vith substantial variation on ati annual'lia'sis. There is very little snow in the watershed with virtually all, runoff a direct result of rainfall. Figure II]-I shows the long-term average monthly flows (taken directly from USGS gage station data) Crom the Ecl River Diversion, the Russian River as measured near I-lopland, the East Port: near Calpella, [he Easl Fork near Ukiah, and the West Port near Ukiah. 'T'hese data shew4liat during the summer months (July through October), the Ilow in the E. Pork of the Russian River near Calpella averages about ISO cubic feet second (cfs) and at Ukiah aceraees about 335 cfs. Of these averages. approximately 145 cfs is attributed to the diversion from the Gel River. Stream flow records for the months ofJuly-October for the years 1997-3006 +vere also examined for the total inflow to Lal:e Mendocino as measured by the [JS Army Corps ul Engineers. "these data sho+v that the average total inflow to Lake I+9endocino for this period was I40 cfs. The average of the Eel River Diversion during this same period was l36 cfs. Essentiall}' all the ++ater Ilo+ving into Lake Ntendocino during this four 15 Ukiah Valley Drinking! 1Vater Adequacy Assessment Novembcr'_007 month dry period for the last 10 nears has been equal to the diverted Ilow from the Ecl River. Figure 111"1 Average M°nNly Flows, crs ioa~- I +qussian giver near Hop:and lewd - (1979-?0671 ~ ~-West Pod. ftussran Rwer near Ubah ,ea„____ 11956207,1 ~ --Eergrver Orversron 11916"2GLb1 `o i rGa I" ~- - - Easl Pore Russian giver near Capella o lloa (___ 119!1 ?0051 ->'•-East F°rF qussian River near Uhian Iota -- 1195220051 u ' aw - _._-__ ._.___-_____. c - aou ___.___ ___._ _. ___._ rpa ~ , _-~, ~. /" /,. rm I--_ - __ ----~.__-.- - - - ------- ol-~~-a-~-:-~__._._..-T~--- _ ~_ _. _- a~,a,: Serromin oar... a~l, r o~:on.. ., r. -... rr c,.,, .,. ~nr; rmr racmn Historically, the most recent critical condition occurred in 1976-77 when the inflow to Lake ~9endocino averaged approximately 65 cfs during the July -October time period or less than 45°/p of the lung term average. GrneuAwnter The Ukiah Valley, basicalli''ttsaharea from Lake Mendocino south to Burke Hill, contains5~~roundwater,'actpifer tliat~f~'as;b"een estimated by DWR in 1983 (EIR far the Pottier Valley Project] to?ctntain as much as 35,000 AF with a safe yield of 10,000 APY. The aquifer igp major source of water supply for domestic and agricultural uses and users are not subject to the.$ate Water Code requiring an appropriative water permit: As a result, few of the users have permits far their wells. However, as stated previously, recent acfign by the S WRCB brings into question the viability of these wells as sources without water rights permits. 16 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rtater Adequacy Assessment November 300? c. Fislr Prolec7inn In order to protect spawning Gsh (salmon and steelhead) the SWRCT3 has established, in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game, minimum stream [low requirements for the main stem of the Russian River at the contuence of the east and west forks. These requirements are based on whether runoff to Lake Pillsbury and I-ake Mendocino is classified as critical. drv or normal Table 111-t summarizes these requirements: Table III-I: Seasonal Minimum Flow Requirements Runoff Conditions Period Plo+r.Re airemenl, cfs Critical fear Round ~j~ _ Dn Year Routtd _ 75 ` Normal' Ill-3l)I _ UO - an-s/31 Iss -I v/l-rzasl ISO --~ els -rabic feet ; cr ~.ecrnd ' Dr+~ Snrine Conditions: a. If combined storage of lakes Pillsbun~ and Menilncino on 5131 is between 130,000 AF or 80 % of storage. +vhichever is less, and I50 000 AP or9046 of storage, whichever is less, then from 6/I-I?~31 nc~ now mu=t he I50 ds and, it Irom 10/I - I?.'31 storage in Lake Mendocino is ~--30,000 AP, the now must he 75 cfs, ur b. If combined slorace of Lakes Pillsbun~ ailtl~Meitdocino on-5/31 is •, t )0,000 AP or 8046 of combined storage, whichever is less. Iheo`'during the period G/1 -I?/31, the now must be 75 fs. From these daut, it can be seen that in normal years a minimum of 185 cfs must be maintained during the months of.4pri1 through August and 160 cfs during the months of September and October in the main stemof the Russian River near the contluence of the Eas'tiarid 14'est Forks. . -'In October 1996, ~uho salmon and steelhcad were listed by the Federal National Marine Fisheries Sisfvice (NNIFS) as threatened species in the Central California Coast Uni6under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). "this required the State and other agences,isuch as the Sonoma County Water Agency and MCFC District to enter into consultatuii'-with the~[~MFS and the Army Corps to perform a biological assessment for hvo Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations. The Consultation on the Russian Riverwas to deterntine effects of the operation and maintenance of the SCWA storage and collection system and the Consultation on the Gel River was ro determine ;;;; ::''~cc' o! c.,,,.,:,~.~ '.r'ricr cf;;c! t:i~:cr :cater to the Pussian l?i:~cr. These consultations are required to ensure that tltc flood control and water supply operations on both rivers do not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. As parr of this Section 7 Consultation, the Anny Corps, SCWA, and MCFC District prepared a Rioloeical Assessment ([3,4). (.4llhough MCFC District is listed as a participant in this process, the only input it has had is its channel maintenance program.) 17 Ukiah Valley Drinking \\'ater Adequacy Assessment November ?007 l"o provide a flow that best meets the summer needs of sa(monoids, the BA recommends reducing sprine and summer Ilows in the river from an average (near Ukiah) of 250 cfs to 140-1 SS cfs in order to reduce the need to artificially breach the sandbar at the river's mouth thus maintaining the estuary as a closed system. 'these reduced tlows could affect the ability of water providers to divert water Gom the river since several +vater right permits and licenses (such as Millvic+e CWD) require a minimum flow of 150 cfs below its diversion. In these cases, the permits or licenses would need to be amended. Ntt1PS issued a Biological Opinimt in November 3002 linding that the proposed operational regime proposed for the Potter Valley Project {~y the Pacilic Gas & 6lecuic Conipany would jeopardize the continued existence of three listed species. Along with the BA. NN1FS included a reasonable and prudent allernaticc (RP.4) for operating the Porter Vallev Project. The PCRC adopted this RPA as pat1 of the re-licensing process for the Potter Valley Project. Operating the Pittcr Valley Project under the constraints of the RPA has significantly reduced the amount of del River water that is diverted io the West Pork of the Russian River. Initial experience i~perating under thcPJ'A and projections indicate the reduction of Lel River water [n the Wcst Pork of the Russian River could be a third or more oChistoric (lows. rl. Gt'nterRi,;lrts For purposes of regtdating the total water available in the Russian River vvatcrshed, the California Water Code requires an appropriative water right permit for all non-riparian uses of surface waters of the state. Peamit'd 2947 was one of three permits for the Russian River Project originally approved in SWRCB Decision 1030, authorizing storage of water behind Coyote Dam (Lake Mendocino) and diversion and rediversion of stored water at points of diversion and rediversion along the Russian River. The SWRCB subsequently diu~ded Permit 12947 into Permits 12947A and 129478 by S\VRCB t~rder 74-30. -Che SCWA gperaies Coyote Dam and holds Permit 12947A and the I+4CFC District holds Perttit 121978. Both Permit 12947A and 1294713 authorize inversion of water [ha[ is sut}plus [o diversions [hat have been continuous since 1949 when the Coyote Dam Project:}vas built. The State's water rights code recognizes two basic water rights -riparian and appropriative. In the;Russian River watershed, appropriative water rights have been designated as eithersPre-49, Post-49 or Project Water. Fach of these rights is defined below: A; A;n Leo Riparian users have priority use for benellcial purposes of natural (lows Cor use on properties adjacent to the Russian River or its tributaries. They are required by the Water Code to register their use with the SWRCB but failwe to do so have no immediate impact on their use. As a result, very Few riparian uses in the Ukiah Valley have been registered. As such, the total riparian use is not quantified but has been estimated by the A4CFC District to be behveen 10,000 and 20,000 AP1'. l3 Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment November X007 Pre-49 rights. \V hen Coyote Dam was constructed in 1949, the firm yield oCthe project and water rights from Project \Vater were made subject, by Decision 1030, to an existing estimated 3,100 AP of use in Mendocino Counq and 20,000 AP in Sonoma County. Water available for pre-1949 diversions includes natural flows o(the Russian River and imported \vfter from the South f=ork Gel River. The SWRCB has advised that in most years, monthly inflow to Lake Mendocino is sufficient to meet pre-I 949 demands in both Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. I-lowever, in extremely dry years, there are insufficient natural [lows to meet these demands and, as result. the pre-1949 users benefit from the release of stored project water. Post-49 apprnprialive rights. These are approprialive wester rights granted by the SWRCB to divert natural flow oCthe Russian River, one of its tributaries or imported water from the South Pork Gel River after the authorization to cnttstnlct Coyote Dam in 1949. t\4any of the rights granted here such as for: agricultural frost protection or off- stream storage and Redwood Valley \VD, Millview CWD and Willow C\VD are only for winter/spring diversion. l"he MCPC District has estimated the total post-49 rights at approximately =1,000 AFV'. Project 1'1'ater. .4ppropriative water rights have been issued for stored project water in Lake Mendocino to the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Mendocino County Russian Rivet' Flood Control and 1Yater.Consen~ation hitpmvement District. "the II\'Il..l'L_. Utsn~lct hul~ii lI1C Walel Il~ill fUC lVl elldU~lllu ~ VUII L\ J ~hdlC Vf I)ruj C~.: 1\iYKil is 8,000 APl'. While it has not been possible at this time to determine the total water rights available to all users in tlae study aroa; it has been estimated for purposes of this study [hat the right would be at least 30,1'QO .4PP. This is based on 10,000 AF of riparian use, 8,100 AP of Pre-49 use, x;000 AP of Post-49 rights and 8,000 AP of project water rights. I-Iowever, it should b~ noted thallhis total most likely underestimates the total riparian rights in the shidv area because of the lack of voluntary registration by users. ~: Water Ai~trila6ility . In'ac~ordance with SWRCB Order 91-07 tite Russian River watershed is fully appropriated from July l to October 31 in Mendocino County. This precludes any new post-194`9:=appropriations of water beriveen July I and October 31 of each year except those made ttri'der, end charged to the MCPC District's allotted 8,000 AP. Eel Ricer Drversran A nttlinr issnr Gar water users in the lJkiah Valley is the reduction of diverted Gel River water from the Potter Valley Project. On January 28, 2004, FGRC issued Order 106 FERC 61,065 amending the hydroelectric license for Potter Valley Project No. 77. This order requires operational and physical modifications to the project for the benefit of federally threatened salmonoids. The decision basically allo\vs POSE to continue operating the Potter Valley Project until 2032 but requires POSE to develop and implement a Ilo\v management plan in accord \vith the NOAA Fisheries Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Cor flow management. Table lit-2 summarizes the 19 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater :\dequacy Assessment November ?007 minimum flow requirements under the RPA for the East f=ork of the Russian River under normal, dry and critical conditirnts. Diversions in excess of the minimum (lows specitied in Table III-2 can only be made when the Lake Pillsbury Storage is above its target storage level. Exceptions to the rule can occur only due to brief emergency prover and +vater demands. Table III-?: tvtinimum Plows to the East Dranch of the Russian River provided for in the NOAH Fisheries Reasonable and Prudent Ahernative, 106 PERC 61,061. Minimum Flan of Easl Dranch Russian River, cfs Period Classification Nnnnal Dry ~ Critical .lulu and Au ust 71 25'' S Se lember i1 30 5 October 31 35 5 In addition to the minimum stream (lo+vs defined above, the RP:1 also provides a block of+caler, '.~00 :V that can be released al the diserction nfthe rcsowce agencies each year. "this would provide an additional R cfs if released during the July to October time period. PGaCFi has filed a draft Implememalion and Compliance Ylan for its prnrytsed tlrnv regime. Under that plan, decisions concerning how much water to release above required minimums would generally be left to the diserction of PGS:E's project operators, guided by the relationship of Lake Pillsbun• storage volumes to PG&E`s proposed rule curves, short-tens power,tlemand, and water needs in the Russian River basin. The Plan is very specific about when and how these decisions will be made, and includes detiiled-procedurvsconcerning stick;matters as block water releases, daily (low adjustments, en?crgency operation, verification, and other matters. On the average, the plan-results in an average reduction-of`approximately 15%. I-[owever, under critical conditions, the'~lan +votlld result in a reduction of 43% of the inflow to Lake Mendocino. This takes into account a release of the full allocation of block water at S cfs. The final ElS prepared by [^GRC advises that the implementation of the RPA +vuytd risk de+vatering of Lake Mendocino under worst case draught conditions, both currently and in the fulttre. Additionally, under these critical conditions stream (low models predict that there would be significant shortfdls; i.e., average monthly flows Icss than the minimLim in-stream flow requirements for 2 months of the year under current demand ahd increasing to 5 months under projected 2020 conditions. Grnrurdtvrrtcr i tistoricaiiy, rite S W i<Ui itas defined surface water as any flowing water within tiro confined geologic streambed of any surface water stream, regardless of the physical distance from the main river channel, and, in this context, all of the groundwater in the Ukiah Valley would fall under this definition. This definition was challenged by the North Gualala ~',%ater Company and on November S, 2004, the ~4endocino Superior Court upheld the State`s defmilion. This decision was sustained by the State Appeals Court in 2005 and has since been appealed to the State Supreme Court. In September 20 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assessmem November ?007 2006 the State Supreme Court refused to hear the North Gualala Water Company's appeal of the 1,1endocino Superior and State Appeals Courl decisions. The S1~'RCI3 began to take action within the Ukiah Valley and Iiopland during the appeals process to ensure that :dl wells are included within this definition including notification to the \'v'illow County \\41ter District in February 200 that its Burke I-till wells +eere considered river underflow requiring an appropriative water right and in April 100?, notil}~ing the lloplmtd Pl'D shat its wells were considered river underflow requiring an appropriative water right. I-lowever, there is question as to whether this broad dcfinitiotj'is applicable to all wells in the Ukiah Valley as denwnstrated b}• the S\\T~C[3's 2001 Compliance Inspection Report for the City of Ukiah in +vhich the City's well d'NaS=specifically noted as not drawing from the underflow oC the river but rather percolated groundwater. Additionally, if the assessment by the DWR in 1.983 that the basin liar a safe yield of 10,000 AFY is valid. it +vould appear Qtat a detetntination by the SR'RCB to consider all the grouuJv:ater w be unJcrllo+r of the kussian River while also determining that the Russian River is fully appropriated, severely restricts the utilization of this water resource for users in the lJkiah Valley. As such, it would be highly desirable to conduct a comprehensive groundwater basin evaluation to determine the safe yield of the basin independent of the Russian River. 71 Ukiah Valley Urinkine Water Adcquncc :\ssessment Novcmbcr'_007 IV. Mendocino Couuty Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District n. Bnck,:;round The h1endocino County Russian River Flood Control and 1\'atcr Conscn ation Improvement District (MCPC District) +vas created by vote of the people as a special district within the Mendocino Cormty \\(atcr Agency in 1955. The measure that created the MCPC District also included a property tax assessment to raise $60,000 to enable it to particiliate with Sonoma County \Valer Agency and the US 4rmy Corps oFL-ngineers in the construction ofCoyntc Dam and Lake 1`1endocino, which was completed in 1959. "Flte Dam is operated La}' the Army Corps but, the Sonoma County Water Agency, which was the local sponsor for the project, has the exclusive right to control releases from the water sujaply pool in Lake ~-Iendocino. The project controls winter floods and stores 122.400 r~P of seater +vith =!£x,000 AP designated for flood conu~ol, 70,000 AF as the consen anon or water supply pool and -1,500 AF for sediment storage. The broad purpose for creating the t`9CFC District was for "the controlling, conservation, diversion, storage and disposition of storm. flood, and other surface waters" ~+iihin its defined area. II is an anirninm~~na diarii•~ ~~:iih ~h~~ ~~omr L~.,rrrs and authorities as the ~4endocino Water Agency and has live tritstces from ~.vithin the district that are elected for four-year terms. The Irustces elect a chairman from among themselves. The n~iCPC District has thc< power to lev} property taxes, fees, incur bonded indebtedness and develop contracts with outside pm ties. (t should be noted that when the assessment distract wpi;,cteated to pay khe District's share of the Coyote Dam costs, the Red+vood Valley CWD requested.exelusion from the MCPC District. As a result, the majorit}' of the property owners within the Redwood Valley C\VD were not taxed "far the MCPC District's $650f000share of Lake Mendocino construction costs and therefore not included in the NI"CFC llistrict boundaries. 1-lowevcr, the Redwood CWD is +vithin the NfCFCnistrict's `place of use". Not being within the boundaries of the MCFC District but being widtin its place of use means the Redwood Valley CWD only has a legal right to thaT portion of the MCFC District's 5,000 AFl' +valer right that is considered surplus water. Li'nler RigliLs The f\.Af'F'!` rl; ctrirt L.^.der n~ t,,,it I ~q~ ~n ,.... ,. ~~,. ~i .. n.,.;,.,.~ \~i, ~,. ,. i,, ,.v e nnn AI=Y in January 1974. Water is to be beneficially used for domestic, municipalu~ V irrigation, industrial and recreational purposes +vithin the t\-ICFC District from January 1 to December 31. The place of use, for purposes of the water right, however, did include most of the Rechvood Valley CWD, and the ~4CFC District can legally sell `suplus +aater' to the Redwood Valley C WU. ~~ L!kiah Valle} Drinking ~'t'atcr Adequacy Assessment lovcmber'_0117 In order to convert its water right pemtil to a full license (the last step in the water right process), the P4CPC District is required to submit informatiat to the Sy1'RCB that demonstrates full benelicial use of its water right. In 1997-95, the MCFC District tiled and the S\VRCB approved a petition for extension of time to December 31, 3005 in order to develop full benelicial use of water authorized under Permit 12947B. I lo+vevcr, while the IvICPC District has historically submitted progress reports and reports identifying points of diversion and rediversion to tabulate annual amounts diverted under its permit, the SR'RCB identified discrepancies in the reported points of diversion, the accounting of natural flow, and the inability of the 1+4CPC District to determine its beneficial use of water. As a result. the SWIZCB issitcd Cease and Desist t)rder No. 363.31- I> on .lanuaty 7, 3005 that required accw~ate identification of all 'points of diversion; a monthly accounting of water diverted under the District's permit, and a process to measure or account for the multiple sources of+vater making up (he Ilo++ available in the Russian River. In Septemhei 3005, the Districtsubmitted its compliance and monitoring plan to the SWRGB and also a rcquest`'P~r an extension of the date to folk dc+elop benelicial use of water authorized under Perm id 129478 to December 31, 3007. The \{CFC District has not been Crnmally granted this cstensiun but no protests were received by the S\l'RCB concerning the request. During this' process the MCFC Disu ict has also tiled for an additional 6,000 Af water right of Project Water it contends was not allocated tinder the.original allocation. The N1CPC. Tlisirict h:ad a water analysis study dohs to demonstrate t9tiat the Lake Mendocino Storuga I'uol i, u,uUU AID larger than originelh' thought and submitted this suid~ +snii its application. l-his application was made under its existing permit, 12947B. The S1\'IZCB has not indicated whether it +vill accept this filing or not. tYnler Users On June 26; ?ORO;.the NIChC District adopted Ordinance No. 00-O1 which allows the District to enter into water sale contracts with its users and require its users to comply with the terms and conditions of Permit 1~947B. Litigation ensued challenging the validtyof tl}t°brdinance but on June 30, 2004 the court fowtd in favor of the District. lu'October 3004; Mendocino-notified the SWRCB that it had begun implementing its Ordinance No. 00-O1 and Reso7ufion No. 04-03 to provide a method to accurately measure the amounkollvater used by its customers. Ordinance 00-01 instituted a contret system for customers who wished to continue to use part of the MCFC District's:5,000 AFallotment of Project Water and Resolution No. 04-03 specified the cost of pur+;lasing flit water. Customers +vho wish to purchase a specific amount of water underPe`rinlt'12947B are now required to enter into a Uniform Water Supply Agreement with the A4CPC District. "fable V-l swnmarizcs the contracts that are currently in etl'ect with the N1ChC lltstnct. At this time, the total amount of water contracted for is 7,400 APY of which approximately 46°io or 3,371 AP is with public water systems within the District. "fhe remainder of the 7.400 APY is under contract for agricultural purposes. 73 l~l.inh Vallee f)rinl<ing 1Vatcr Adoquac} Assessment Noccmbcr '_007 "Fable V - I: Summary of tsICFC District Contracts under Permil I'_947D. Svslem Contract Amotm 1. aFl' _ \1'ato S~~stems ~ - -~-- _ -- _ 1Villo+s CR'D -~ - 900 City of Ukiah S00 --- Milh~icw N'D 970 ' Rn ina 1VC 400 c:a cu:r 11'n lol liopland PUD _ 200 _ _ _ Subtotal 3.)71 1 -- - Olher Users - 4,0'_9 ' Tutal I ."_~ 7,400 ~ Unijonu {I'nterSapple;Igreenretrr The ~4CPC District entered into Uniform Rrater Supply A~rcements s\'ith sip public seater systems in the tall of'_00-{. These agracmenti uarautac each public writer system a specific amomtt of Project water each year provided no conditions exist which prcrent the (vICPC District fi'om doing so. The MCPC Disirict also has ~lrater Supply Agreements to provide water to other customers, primarily for agricultural purposes. As has been stated earlier; the UWS.As with the public water systems have several ;,:~...;i~na rf c •itcrrn. Section II, Condition S the 'firer acre Jirnl piurlurse price In be charged" is due and parable monddv be Crr.rtonrer (a Ui,rtricr alter this II'ater .Supple ,lgreemGn( is accepted hl' the Uisrrict mrd bosh parries ececu(e dris A'Sn'eement. Cv:ctaner's obligatiiar to pnr dre "per acre (rot purchase price !a be chaged", wl~ioli trill be dun pursuant ro dris .9greemerr( mrd upon diversion oJtrarer by Cu.rtonrec..rhnll be mt'aG.tolvle'iinennditional obligation of C'rrstamer, no( subject m dedircriori, selalj, pr•inr notice, demmrd, or• inabi/iry~ of Custamer m use, store or resell :Project li'arer, a/ier deJiuerv and diversion 6T Custaner. Customer shall bare no abligu(iar to adept delivery aj dny Project Water in eccess of (he maaDrnun ammrn( dia~crted b~' Customer as specified in Section t hcreoj. Pru'sumrt ro the provisions of Parugr'aph 1, Section ! hereir, dre nmrinnun aurawrt of water that ura}, be delivered to Custoliier shall be acre feet annual//'. Bemuse the demm~ds jot District water resmu'cer ,generall}~ exceed the Dish•ict's supplies and offer the fast fir/! calendar year of Phis rlgreenreiu, mrd erer~~ year rhereafier, the District slrnll review dre rata! annual use of the Disn•ic('s'n'iilc7~ by Custaner•. /jtiee nnnunl uce njDistrict(s venter by Cusennrer, bnrerl upan numdd~• meter rending.r mrd month/}~ billings, is less drtrt the amount aj hater reserve) Gtr Gr.ctumrr. n.r rclerred t.r in Pardprnhh r. Section 1 olthis,tereenrenl, the Di.etric! shn!l reduce Customer's' reserved inter nllnhnent ro reflect nc•hml ore in dre priorec•nrs'. The urntsed eater will (hen be nmde available to other muter asers ar the sale di.rcretiorr and delerminatimr of the District for the urarinnun Geneficial use nj the Uisn'ict's wafer resources. 'The area of concern in this provision is in bold lexl. ft mandates that the \IChC District shall reduce a customer's annual allocation based on the amount of water it actually uses each yeas This provision dues nut reflect the year to year variations in ~~ Ukiah Vallzy Drinking \4ratcr Adzquacy Assessment Novzmbcr ?007 demand public water systems experience. As the agreement is written a public water system could have its allocation reduced alter a year of low demand and then not have enough allocation to supply the same water system customers in a year of higher demand. This provision will have the opposite eflect of one of the stated pwposes of h•1CFC District Ordinance No. 00-01 staled in paragraph P of [he Recital section of the agreement which is, "to provide a mctlwd b} which the (fat) District can properly promote conservation and conserve its water resources,..." Public water systems which are dependcN on the amount allocated to them in the UWSA have an incentive to use the maximum amount of water each year to ensure their continued right to the original amount allocated to them. The State 1Vater I:esources Control t3oard, Division of \ktatc•r Rights has essentially the same concern about this part of the N1CPC District's UWSA.:Thc MCPC District submitted the format of these water supply contracts to the S WRCR _as part oC its effort to comply with S WRCf3 Cease and Desist Order 262.31-I ~. After review of the N[C'pC District At;reemcnt. the S11%RC13 commented. "l.ruggesr that A4endomno consider rerising nr mnerrding ds Uniform I!'nterSupplp aRrecmenrs sn that the authorised quantity u/ outer N:be diderted by individual users is not auh~rnaticnl/p reduced at the end ojdre ~'enr j the jd! quantity available corder each nj the : fgreemenrs is not used During n'er.yem,c, poor resets map nut treed to us'e dre iird auanrih mvilahle in the a¢rceurents u.r rornpared m dr7•/ ears +ahen rlre /id! .i r:rwn ... .. ,;j ,~~ 5r y,r~i ,i~9r.n~iurinu rmn 6~(rtr serve u., nears i.rr cmrsidering a revision to the agreements to allute. the us'er•s.lnure J/esihiliti' aver use of the authorised qumuiw oju•ater•. " A4CPC District has addressed this problem by declaring all water not used b} water utilities under their contract each year as surplus water and selling it to the Redwood Valley County District. •ffiis has worked well'~but the Uniform Water Agreements should be revised to lormalizcthis procedure. Section III, Condition 9 ~~ T1le Term ojrhis Agreement mrdjor the delirer~: ojProject It'ater pursunnt to dris agreement sliiill cummcrlce on , ?00-0,'Ilre Ejjecrire Date, anrl.rha/! car(nure du•augh December 3/, ?01O, dre Termination Date, subject ro 1he reneua! provisions provided jm~ herein. Either purh~ (ti rliir ;lgreemeni mm' provide to the other party Notice to Terminate dris : tgr•eemen( subject ro the following terms': a. Upar dre ~/" oJDecenrher ujench calendar hear after the Effective Dare of dris agreenreru, rf rreidrer pmvr ru this .9greement hoc submitted m t/re other party a Notice ro Tm~,n fni,r,~ rhn~ d,.,•..,,„~rnr in rhr nrinr 1J n~nndre rhie ds.rnvnrent and nll ni iec Iernec shall he autmm~ticalh~ be e-wended for ml addiriona! 11 mm~drs (I }•nrr) bevnnd the Termination Uatc in effect on the aJorenrentioncd 3Y' ajDecember. b ; I m~ Notice ru Terminate this agreement, e.mepr ja• breach of irs terms, shot! be per.conalh~ delivered hr the parq~ which seeks ro terminate dris Agreement ro dre odrer porn' not Inter dtmr ~ I'.m (1'.ST) on dre JO°i o~ Decc•nrber, live t~l pears prior ro the Termination Datc in effect ar the aforementioned 30"' ojDecenrber. 25 Ukiah Valley Drinking N'ater eldequacy Assessment November 2007 This condition o(thc LiWSA is a concern because is allows the agreement to be terminated +vith no recourse for the public water system. It is true shat once a tcnnination notice is given the water system has six years before the agreemem is terminated. I-[owever, since the Russian River is hilly appropriated durine the summer and fall and the S}~''RCD's position on wells in the Ukiah Valley is they are drawing frrnn Russian River underfloor, there are currently no other viable sources for these public water system to dra+v from in the summer and fall months. To ensure a reliable supply for these public water systems, the MCFC District should allocate water to a public +eater s} stem to meet its customer demand without a termination clause in its I-IN'SA or a termination clause the requires the aereemcnt of bush.parties. One final concem about this sUUClure for providing the public water systems in its service area wish water is that the MCFC District is making no provision Cor future growth of these public water systems. The NICPC District should reserve dte 600 .AP of+vater right that is not allocated by contract to accommodate gro+vth within the public water systems it currently has contracts with. It could sell this +vater evsv vcar as surplus water until public water systems ncetl to acgwre additional water to acconunodate ~rownh. Failure to do so could have the likeh~ outcome of some of these water systems being restricted from adding new customers because a lack of adequate source capacity. Cunsenvuion As a matter of State policy, all communities:and utilities arc required by the S WRCD [n demonstrate that they have or will be developing and implementing effective water conservation and recycled water practices as a condition of receiving new water rights. The MCFC QislTict has adopted in its Ordipance 00-O1, a requirement for all its customers to implement conservation requirements in the event of a water shortage. The conservation pro6n'am eStaliGshes a prohibition on wasting water and alive-stage water allocation scheditle.from normal. use to a water emergency. While this program appears to meet the minimiiirA requirements of the SWRC[3, it falls far short of conservation progruns to redtiee water usage during normal periods of time, such as tlintrecommended Uy the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). Tlie CUWCC recommendations include 14 urban water conservation best management praclic@s including residential surveys, residential plumbing retrofit, leak detection and repair, metered water sales, large landscape practices to minimize water use, washing machine rebates, public information, school education programs, commercial/industrial uses, conservatigr pricing and having a staff with assigned responsibilities as a conservation coordinator. However, as stated earlier, the current UWSA do not encourage conservation because they penalize public water systems that do not use their full allotment each year. b. {~Vater Srtpply Artenn( Us'e According to the water code, each holder of a water right permit is required to submit an annual report of use to the SWRCE3. As such the MCFC District is required to ?6 Ukiah Valley Drinking N'ater Adequacy Assessment Novernbcr 2007 submit an anmtal report on Project water. As has been discussed previously, the methodology utilized by the MCFC District in preparing these reports was found unacceptable by the SWRCB and is being significantly modified. The MCFC District has submitted a proposed process to accurately account for water use from its 8,000 ,4FY +vater right to the SWRCB. Once approved by the S\VRCB the <.9CPC District will implement this new accounting system. However, to get an estimate of the total amount of wafer being utilized in the Ukiah Valley, the Districts historical reports are of interest. "1-able V-2 summarizes the total estimated aruntal water use Fay~ah`users (domestic, agricultural, industrial) in the Ukiah Valley for the period-,l-y9~ ?001 as reported by the - MCFC District to the SWRCB. Because of the issues wlh:ii;;l;istorical \vater accounting procedures no more recent data is available at this tioie. While these data -~- rr have not been acceptable to the SWRCB for reasons noted abovejYley are useful in ..::..:, showing the relative uses and general magnitude. They also show a.,L'?e-49 use of 9,168 AFY which is hieher than the historical estimate.of 8,100 AF esli~aated.b}'the SWRCB and that the estimated use oCthe MCFC Distri~t~'s Project watertight is near its limit as notzd by the use of 8,049 AF in 1999 -Th¢rft~'tej'eslimated water use in the .,.., Ukiah Valley (including riparian, Pre- and Post-~4'~t~aler and Project water) was estimated at over 29,000 AFl" in 2000. l`~hlr v-?~ nli FC U~sviu Annu;d R%arcr lice 199>.-'_001 (Acre-fecti Year Yrc-I'949* Pbsl-1'949"`-` ~~ ~ .Project Water** ~ Total 1995 7,920 dj836,,: '.;,4;816 17,5T_ t99G :: Si'S9y':.,. 5,5:72°~ :-% 5,813 30,081 1997 "` 9.167:';';,. 4,73 ~~ 6,045 19,959 1998 .. 9,474 ~ 6,285=; 6,626 22,344 1999 ~~-+`~Q,514 -- ' 7,121 `~~:;;~' 8,049 25,684 ?000 ~^',ktR68 ;s~'. -; ,. 12 ARR.:"' 7.894 29.050 2001 9,168'x. -~ -~ r-'I.$i~ ~ 6,941 28,405 *_Tih$alues'repoled for ['re'nd I'osl 1949 use also appear to include riparian uses. -~"Project 5i'ater inclSUes sur(lps'w,ajcr sold to Redwood Valley CWD. In 2001, the amount of ~:;"Surplus water sold`la?ltedwood-Fullcy was reported at 1,970 AF. ,~ ~.~;-'. Tableau=.3 shows lhe;amormt,ofthe annual water use that is considered Project Water for the~yeai:of 2006 and a projection for the year 2025, broken down by the seven public wa~e~system,,~~that are the subject of this report. the projected 2025 use is based on the assumptioi}rigat the percent of total annual use that is Project Water in 2006 would be the same in 2025. This is the case for Calpella CWD, Rogina WC and the Hopiand PUD even those these s}-stems do not have an independent water right pemtil. For the Redwood Valley CWD, 100 percent of the use reported to the MCFC District for the months of May through December was used to calculate the percent attributed to Project Water. 27 Ukiah Valley Drinkin;l \\'ater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 Table \'-3: Total Annual Utility 1Vater Use Accountable lJnder MCPC District Permit for fears 2006 and 20''5. Annual N'atcr Usc, AF 11'ater 2006 Re orted Use Pro'ected 2025 Usc, AF , System Tulal Percentage Pro'cct N'atcr Project 11'atcrtq Total I'roj ect \1'a ter Ukiah 3,537 '_ I S00 3,740 800' Redwood Vallcyt`t 1962 (792) SO 1;554 (636) 2,117 (896) 1,694 (717) 111illview 1;775 34 739 3.252 1,445 Cal ells 11? 73 R8 '_OS IS' Ra ina 635 63 4U0 840 529 \Villott'°' 1,067 29 3 U I,S$.0 550 Hu land_ 274 73 200 d-S9 .~ 329 Total 9,669 (8,499) 4,144 (3,226) 13,~95'-. ==g(12,274)`.~~ 5 50~ (4,5251 (nJ Prnjecl ti4uer amounts were nhtuined jrnm the AfCFC Dis[i•ic[. '~~ (hl Ilecnute the City /mr n.tigniJican( vn/unre ojunrrsed u•nter rig%it•[hat rnnp Ge us'ell'd1 an)~ lime during Ure pear, tr is u.c.nnned i[ wr// not use nddilionol uvrler jrnur the A9CFC Dis[r.•iC¢,. (c) Uaserl an AfCFC Disvrict reports. Nunrbees in pnr~'n/best's' are values rhut occlude Redmond Lidle3~ C(I'D ugriculrurnl denuurrl. -~ ' (d) 11'iNnrv County has u year round rrghtjor /cls' nr 7?8 AT /( is.usauned that only use rbvrng tl~u mm~Urs ajlul)~ - October (GO°fiJ nmst be cui~ererl Gy the BIG'F(' District permit. These data show that the total demand from water ttlililies is pm.jecled to increase from 9.6(i9 AF in 200E to ]3,49 AF by?02~ (including thz agricultural usage from Redwood Valley).. In 2006, the total`amotint•:of tvatcr frorp the seven water utilities that could be accounted as Project Water iu.the°MCFC=Pisirict report (assuming all groundwater is Pyo~eet ~i~ater and Red~~ood Valley agricultural usage is included) was 4,144 AF. Ay~q~Lie~year?l)?~, this is projected to increase to 5,503 AF. Cunently, the ~x'ater uhhttes are!covered by contracts thattotal 3.371 .AF and Redwood Valley purchases from llie 600 AT'+.;of surplus water and any water which is unused by other contracted.}yater users° ?I'IiiS appe~~sao,lJe~'inadequate to meet the projected demands for the year'U2-S,wuhJor avithout the Redwood Valley agricultural demand included. Table V 4 summanae~s data i,'ottYrwaler utilities in the Ukiah Valley on the average water use per conneGfon dunr9'g the maximum month for the lea-year period, 1997- 2000t:fThe highest uses; are in the Willow CWD, Millview CWD and Hopland PUD with a i•arige of 1,545t;~ii 1,859 gpdc. The lowest uses are in the Redwood Valley CWD and the Calpella CWb with values of 9l 1 and 965 gpdc, respectively. Table \'-0: q'ater.'Utiliry Maximum Month Water Use 1997-2006 1Valcr S}'slem Average Day Production ir. Maximum Month, gpdc (Ten Year Avera c Ratio to Uluah .overage D:q• in Maximum Month Ukiah I,OSO 1.00 Redwood Valley C1VD 91 l 0.54 Q7illviesr CWD 1,653 1.53 Cal sotto C11'U 965 O,S9 Ro ina 1,195 I.II 1i'illow C1VD I,S23 1.69 Hu land 1'UD 1,515 1.40 2s Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment November .OG7 ~~. Mendocino Count}~ Water Ageuc~~ The ~-lendocino County 14taler Agency (MCWA) was formed in accordance +vith the ~~lendocino County 1Vater Agency Act over fifty years ago, with the Board of Supen~isors acting as the MCWA Board oCDirectors. I-listorically the A9CWA has provided little leadership and has played a very minor role in water issues. As a result, municipalities, +vater districts and individuals have been on their o+vn to provide services to their clients and themselves. ~- The County has recognized the importance of protectingr?an~~ tanaging wafer resources and the ineffective role that they have played. In 2003' (he Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 03-032.vhich established county policy fo~:a restructured MCWA [o be more im~olved in water resource management. 13cloH% is an excerp'~from Resolution 03-032. "The A-lendocino Cotn:ty t1 titer Ager~cv is dii•ectecf to n.SSiune a leadership tole in addressing aster related nrnuers in A/rndocinn C'owiTj~, iraclarding the prbrectiaa and restoration o/lrater.rheds, anater consen,ntion, reud'e'taud recycling, avater qualitl, the devdlopnreru of inrpouaadment of item water, the protec'fia5a, resta•atiara and enlannezrneni n(hahirni and re<rormioia nj~sheries. The -q.,Kencv i.t' liu rher direcltd io • H'ork in Partnership awith other thfe¢docuao C'~o~in ~ u~arer~agencies, as wall cis local, state, mad federal agencies outside •of rheft•ounty; • Collaborate with :1'terr~~rino Counq~ i{~"rl(er agencies tM~augh grcnating mad technical assistance; ~ ~4.,:. - • Develop cet~t~a~{e_%a die ~$ency; `> • Lncoru•nge grad ai~siv nada~gSet;resma ce dtaTiagement consolidation for efficient, • Dej*eloji aniinninrant aconaprebeias•ii~e darabnse of countywide assets, services, rconnecrionr utfd;capacrtias(or cr!l water agencies. " As _part of its obltgadn to conduct oversight of County Special Districts, in 2005 the Meid?cipo County Gr~1nd Jury performed a review of Water Districts as they impact water r'eSpttrces within the County, focusing primarily on those water agencies and special districts in Ukiah Valley and Potter Valley, their available water supply, their plans, and their`ali'lily to respond to emergencies and major water shortfalls. In its deliberations, tle' Grand .fury found that the authority and ability of the Board of Supervisors to directly affect water resource policy is limited by statute and the nature of the autonomous organizational character oC County Neater Districts. I-lowever, n went on to make a number of pertinent findings and recommendations to more effectively use the tvtCWA in dealing with water issues. These include: I) The Board of Supervisors should take a leadership role in developing long-range comprehensive management plans and strategic policy for dealing +vith all aspects oCwater resowces (supply, rights, availability, usage, conservation, storage, 29 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 distribution and infrasuvcture) countywide and specifically for the Ukiah and Potter Valley areas. 2) The Board of Supervisors should establish a ~~`ater Resource Policy Council, comprised of all water agencies/special districts and official water-related entities within the County and the Ukiah and Potter Valley areas. The Council should explore interests and concerns in order fo develop common long-range plans and strategies to address the issues of adequate guaranteed water availability, usage, conservation and storage within Qte County. 3) l he Board of Supervisors should increase staff and fundin'far the t`-(endocino County ~0'ater Agency and immediately initia[e procedures with the State necessary - to expand its mission, powers and authority to incline cu~~dination and administration of all water resource managementvid feaSbi;lity studies within the County. Because water development, improv~meni and inffastructme require large financial resources, it is reasoned that a unifed entity can better Provide the financial leadership needed to negotiate avitlt financial institutions about bond issues, as well as to negotiate with pglitigaLgroups at~d elected oflicialaconcerning rcvettues. Outside entities such as several"State and:hederal agencies; the Anny Corns and SCWA require an effective County ne-gotiator.:~ single unified entity would provide a coherent anal,knowledgeable ncgiiliating force. ;:<_. . dl The Hoard of Supevisors thongli the MCVJA shooter arrange necessary financing for the matchine Cunds to add to'•lhe ~lrmyCorps of Cire~uteets (Corps) 2005-?OOti appropriated monies for [he continued devalgJanoent aline Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Stud' .~"': ~; 5) The Board ol'Superdisurs should require all water purveyors, providers, agencies and special districts, as,:tvell as riparian';rights users, to install meters and/or measuring de~*lees to tha,ck water usage ~Cor local reporting. The Mendocino County \4Jater Agency urould ricenz and.conj7ile the water usage data for informational a~tdtplatuins, Purposes: F) The Board of S'upervisor's s~tould require all water agencies/special districts to --? immediately dev:~Jop and r~iplement conservation programs, with an education e~mponent for rb~5itiential'agricultural and industrial use. Devices such as reduced- f1R,5yyyater 6xtur~5'and irrigation equipment and other passive and active appr45~-ies, including reclaimed water (treated wastewater) systems, should be investigated and,~considered. 30 Ukiah Valley llrinking \1'ater AJequacy Assessment 1\'ovembcr 700? ~'I. City of Ukiah a. Crn•rerrl Sl'sr'errr rl'nter Use Table VI-I summarizes data from the Citv's annual report submitted to the Department on connections and water use for the 10 year period 1997-2006. TahleVl-I: Ukiah -System ConneaionsA-listorical 14'ater Use -1997-2006 \Valcr Production . 1'car Cnnncclions plaxinnun Dav Macimunt Month Avc ragosi3uW„ Annual - A1GD/ rdc A1GD/ do M,~1D'!, do AP/(AF/Corm) 1991 6.801 6.8/1,007 5.9/873 ,.iz~3AY1=3];A. 3,911/O.SS 1998 6,871 7.3/1,061 5.2/750 ~'t 3.36/48';;:_, 3,761/O.SS 1999 G,S48 7.011,021 6.0/8 i5,, ~.,_ `3.77!551 _ 4,22 G/0.62 1000 7,016 7.7/1,094 5.7/$d±S' 3.66/522 ' •';,'<.4,099/0.58 '_x001 7,035 6.44/915 5:5!786 3.63/516 `4869/Oj8 10U1 7,117 7.48/I,U51 s~6'A~~SQ r~3:72/523 4;1.U,;i-~U.58 1003 6,517 6.91/1,014 G.I/9b~);;-. ..'3r4~6/508 3,6'72/0.57 10U4 7,592 6.61/838 G.0/760`~z:e`; y` 3.69/468 4,130/0.52 2005 S,SI6" 6.65/1?OS 5.911,070 "'i '-~;-3.35/607 3,755/0.68 1006 5,486 6.90/I,2S8.~ . G.0/1 ,089 ""')`_>~~~42/624 3,837/0.70 I'le uuiine ,1 1,!113 gpdc.. L.111 gpdc G.47~gpdC 0.?' AP.'cu mt (I) City changed way tha[ it reposed conneiGons. (2) because the City changed the wa}• it repo)t(ed;connectibhs'in'2:005, the per connection planning values were detcrnined`by taking the higliegt-value recordethin the 10 year period 1997-2006 (in bold in the table) and dividing by the numbis`r;of connectiohs the system reported having at the end of 2006. l?oi,example the~inaximum day plaruiing value in Table VI-I was obtained by dividing 7.7 MGD by 5,486„connections.' • ~ ~;" Hlstonc3Uly the City'of~klali`liasigly~$ed all living units downstream of a master meter (e.g a]>~ar•.~jents~and;,moblle homes) as connections and billed them at a flat rate -per month. These obnnectlons.~were included in the number of connections reported to - the department anriially thro`tgh 2004. In May 2004, the Ci[y changed the way it btl1'e~':connecuons. [t~.new system does not bill any flat rate customers. It only bills for acC(al,meters andoily counts those meters as connections. As a result, the number of syslenioc?nnection`s~reported for the year ending December 31, 2005 was 2,376 less than reportetj~ for the%year ending December 31, 2004. For this analysis, delernlining per connection''demand for the City of Ukiah was done using the number of comtections reported in 2006 and the maximum values reported over the 10 year period. "i he rosuiU Gom thi; approach arc less conser/ative tl;an valves ea!eul. tee' using the adjusted number of service connections for the years in which the maximums occurred but that data is not available. These results should be conservative enough for planning purposes. The number of connections reported for 2006 was used because all other water systems which are a subject of this report count service connections in the way the City does now. These per connection values are shoxxm in Table VI-2 below for average day, maximum day, maximum month and annual total as well as the 31 Ukiah \'allev Drinkine N'ater .4dcquacy Assessment November 2007 maximum demands detemtined using these +alues and the current number of system connections. Table VI-] Maximum Current System Demands 1+laximum per ' Demand Connection llemand, !1106 Maximum Current 1997-?006, do Connections Demand, MGD :+rcra ~c Da ~ 687 5.486 3.S Maximum Day 1,403 5,486 7.7 Maximum llfonlh I,I IZ 5;186 6.1 ~ .Annual 0.77 AP/Connection 1,486 ~ `4,2?4 AFl' Ii'nter Rrghts For its municipal use, the City holds surface watcr,ri~lits and lias`one +aell that has historically been considered as pumping percolateil!groundwater. ;l7tese rights and the eround water well currently provide the City +vilh a firm supply of al`I`r'ast 9.31 cfs (6.0 NICiD) and 6.740 ,4P during the period January 1 (o December 31 with a potential for as much as 21.34 cfs (13.8 MGD) and 15,450 AP. These rights are described below: I)Pre-1914/Pre-1949 Right This is a right to divert 2.8 cfs (2,07 AFI') with the City's Ranney collector from the PiuSSian River (including \\'eat Purk) with.ii recubnited h}- the S\t'RC13 in Deeiaion L, f; 1030 and subsequently included in lle amount Tenoned as used pursuant to water right Pemtit 12952 (described below). Ile priirit}~ fbt~ths right is senior to the MCPC District Permit 1294:7]. It is also impeirtant to note that the S\>,'RCE3 has stated that Pre-(949 usersi'may use water released from storage in Lake Mendocino during extreme dry: p~li"i~ds. 2) Post-1949 Approgrtltiuc 3'~~ter RightcPermil 12952 (Application 15704) Thts,;is a ntg_ht, to dtveft, un to 20iD°~cu~ic feet per second from January 1 tlvough Diceritber 31 ~aj%nroxunajily, 14,480 acre-feet amtually) of Russian Fiver underfloor (i'ncludes West P'drt~), using3t5E~Rdnney Collector, and \4'ell Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. The pCtority of the righi~S'•Juniot-ttS~Pre-1914/Pre-1949 water users, riparian users, and to Eas`LTnrk Russian Riuer water under the MCFC District Permit 12947B but it is Senior to appro(iriativc nght~ifiled after January 25, 1954. The City has the right to divert water occti!ting below the confluence of the East Fork and Brest Pork. This includes +after to wfifi}~MC~F'C District has no right. Permit 12952 e;~pired on December 31; 2000. Prior to Permit 12952's expiration, the City filed a Petition for Extension of Time :•;itl: tL•c S \'.'RCT3 to change its place of use and to extend its +valer rights permit to allow additional time to perfect its water right. The expanded place of use will include Nfilh'iew C1\%D, the Willow CWD and the Calpella CWD in accordance with existing emergency intcrtie agreements for water service behaeen these entities. An EIR is being prepared on these petitions. Permit 12952 is current and valid while the Petition for Extension of Time is processed. At the time of filing the petition for an extension of time to perfect its 32 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Uater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 permit, the City had perfected a use of approximately S cfs (includes 3.S cfs of Pre- 19)3/1949 right). 'T'hus, even if the SWRCB ++'ere to deny the City's petition, it would still hold a perfected Post -1949 license for S cfs 15,791 AFl'). 3) Contract \Vater with A1CFC District under Permit 1294B In X004; the City entered into an agreement with the t`'ICPC District to purchase up to 800 AFY of Project Water. This provides about ?? A9G for 120 days. 4) Grounth~atcr At the cunent time the Ciq' has one Well, \Vell No. 4, that is_:'Snsidered aground++'atcr source by the S\VRCB. In the Sb\'RCB's 2005 Ukiah source inspection report, t1'ell - No. 4 is not identified as a point of surface water diversion;, a picture of the Will is given in the report and it is refetTed to as pumping p~zcolate~ groundwater. Hoti'ever, ~~., based on the S\VRCB's position that other welts iii ;the Ukia~fi;Valley, such as the Willow C\VD's Bwke Hill Wells, are pumping Russian River urider3lyow it is uncertain if this designation Will remain in the future: The Well has a reliabli~.,'capacity of 600 gpm (I..=! cfs) or 96S AF}'. If this weld-is ever designated as wtderllo+v by the SIVRCB, the City's ++'ater rights Would appLv,to aad-~0e_sufficicnt foi=t'the water it produces. The City's appropriative water rights. are given belo+~`.~',Li~is information shows that it currently ha; ~i t~tat right ut 21.3 cls3rtd_ ]x,445 AFl~ vft+'hich 9.31 cfs (6,739 itF-i~l has been perfected. For the puipt7ses ofi's'lio+\'ing the.~City's reliable supply, the ,~ quantity that can be pumped from Wel] No 4 Is~ticliTtled '~. - _ Summary' otCih''s Annronriative Rights L-xereised`[2ieh_ts t~~ +~'`--fRate Annual Amount - ~., ~" - -;! (cfs) (acre-feet) - i. ~-~„ =i`, Pre 1914rPte-1949 R~gkiC - Z.8 2,027 { .. P s ps Post 1949 P~ripd 195° °~'~ ~ 3.743 -r.°_ Total Exercised~.pprop~iative Rights 7.91 5,770 `~s Gioyndwaterr, Well No. 4 134 969 Total tiscrcised Rights 9.31 6,739 Unexercised Rights Post-1949 Permit 12952 12.03 8.709 Tidal or City's Appropriativc Rights 21.34 11,448 City's Water Right Contract MCFC gistrict 3.3ti 300 33 Ukiah Valley Drinking 1Vater Adequacy Assessment n'o+'ember 2007 Snurcc.r The City currently has a total developed physical source capacity of 7.2 MGD Gom its Ranney Collector and three active wells. Lach of the sources is described in detail belo+v. Surjare This source utilizes underfloor of the Russian River lluough a Ranney collector located along the banla of the Russian River. It has a design capacit}' of 13 1`~IGD but by the late 90's was only producing '.800-2,900 gpm (4? IvIGD). In 1999, the City had the laterals televised and determined that the perforations in all the laterals had been at Icasi partially closed by deposits. The Cit}' had these laterals pressure-cleaned and added four ne+e laterals. As a result of the cleaning and addition o`f'hhur laterals, the Rammem collector's production increased to 3,300 - 3,400 gpn'(4.9 A4GT?l and the raw water atrbidity decreased from I.I - LZ NTU to 0.4 - p6 NT'U. ]t is believed the relativeh' modest increase in production is a result of the decrease in the river bid elevation due to upstream eravel mining and the river channel having moved away from the collector laterals. Croenrtmnter ' There are lluee active +vells in the system +vith a total estimated capacit}' of 1,600 gpm (2.3 P4Gf?). The City also has hvo'iiae[ive +vells. All tlie'City's wells are described as below: ff%!!s ? & G: These +vells were used lti`pe9gdical.ly supP.,lement the surface source and add an estimated 20O"gpm. Well 2 is a--~l5"Ilow dug Gvell. \',~ell 6 is a drilled well and when operated pumped`intu,Well 2. Ho'vever, when the improvements to the Ranney Collector +vejc e4nmpleted;,;tlese +vells wet,e discom~ected front the system and have nat been used since. ~tts a res~~~; these sources ~i~e~e removed as approved sources in the domestic water supp)rj;pcrth~it issued,to.}~ie~City by the Department in 2006. It~~/l3:"Thts well is currently equipped with a venical turbine pump capable of producing 1 000 g~mm Ho+vever; the reliable capacity of the well has been estimated at 6(10 gpm. It is turtt'gd!on and-`oGI'by a preset level in the zone one storage tatmks. The +vell,is kept in an ati~'ginatic mode and can supply water to the system year round. It is - primarily used in the'winter when the surface water treatment plant is off-line and during pctak.demand times. ff'e// 4: Thisr'a~illed' well is used for approximately eight months of each yeas R is manually operated~and once turned on runs 24 Imours per day. IL is usually turned off for a period of"time in the late fall and late spring. it is equipped with a venical turbine ii i:niii '.~ Ith a rated CapaC:ty vi i wv ~.tir-i uL~ t:;C rC~i.: biC C,,.~~aated C1p1C a~ 3 ~~~ gpm. "fhe well is equipped +eith a standby diesel engine mahich can drive the1+vell pump. fVe// S: This drilled +vell is used periodically (2 to 3 months per year) to supplement the surface source. [t is equipped +vith a 320 gpm submersible pump and has an estimated reliable capacity of 200 gpm. The well is equipped with a standby generator to power the +vell pump in the event of a po+ver outage. 34 Ukiah Valle}' Drinking 1Vater Adequacy Assessment November 1.007 Treauvenr 1'he City has an alternative technology surface water treatment plant with a rated capacit~~ of 9.(1(\iGD. The plant currently consists of three independent treatment trains each consisline of an upflow, solids contact, clarification unit filled with buoyant polypropylene media and amulti-media filter. }lowcver, only two of t(]e treatment trains are being used at any one lime. The plant was designed for expansion to four parallel trains for a total capacity oC 12.0 MGD. The City has a standby power generator with sufficient capacity to operate the Ratmey Collector pumps, the entire lrea4nenl plant, and the high service booster punps. - _ Storage sp!- '~~ The City's distribution system has four pressure zones-with"s~u,~g storage tanks and s total volume of 5.896 MG. There is also a 0.135 MG eleanvell'tai}; at the water treatment plant (~',rTP) but it does not add to the,_disirbtition storage "since it is designed to remain Cull at all times. Table VI-3 summarizes the information on the Cih~'s storage tanks and pressure zones. , Table VI-3: Ukiah Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks;;;;..:: Znne/Tank Ucsi nation Tank Tv a v»», Tank Volume, MC 1/FWS~~I . :;;Concrete ~ IS00 - 1,1.1 ~~C`oicrclc ~ -~ 1.`00 1/IS S.oncf"ec~p;;._ '2.500 2/2N Steel 0?50 2125 Steal, -_ - O.I00 3/117endocinu:l?Incc Red~igoii 0.032 4/Lookou6Drivc - BoltettrSlccl 0.014 ToGI - ~'`" 5.846 (I) FiriishediiY.!,ater Storage lank located at tlii5iti'oatmentptant Water ~ ~; is pumped from Ihis tank into;one one;~~ ,~ ::- Inarder to 1'ehablY comply with California Waterworks Standards, the recommended iistribution s(o?age ~'olunie"Fgr th~City, based on its water use is estimated on the basis ~o,+She'equation: Storage Volume =Average Day Production + 25°'0 of Maximum Day Production + Fire Flow Demand. ,. • The maxiriun• value's' reported in the last ] 0 years (1997- 2006) were used for determining lhe,r~quired storage volume because it .vas reasoned that this demand can reoccur. Asswning a fire flow requirement o(2,000 gpm for hvo hour or 0?4 Iy4G f IyplCal 1'C11011 c1]]Cl]i Ivr i:0/7117i CiC ial ioncsj, li]e re COm Te::dCd dlCPrrit,i rtinn cinr'lnp C volume based on the highest per connection use for the last ten years is 6.0 NIG as shown below. Current Sloragc Requirement = 3.ft MC +U15 x 7.7 MC +0.'_4 11TC = 6.0 MG Thus the City has 98 percent of the storage required to serve its current customers as determined by this method. 35 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 Relinhilig~ The City has auxiliary power titr its 1Vells 4 and S as well as standby power for its Ranney Collector and water treatment plant. fn addition, the City has an emergency interne with the Vdillow CWD and the Nlillview CV','D. These interties are capable of delivering 120 gpm and -100 gpm, respectively by graviq~. Catserrn[ion Qecause the way the City determined the number of connections it served prior to 2005 was different than the way the rest of the water systems that are•a.tiubject of this report, historical connection data could not be used to determine tier connection demands for comparison pw'poses. Using the number of system conn'ectiuns reported for 2006 and the highest maximum month production reported uvei'ahe lasi~!D,years gives an aceraee day production per connection during the maximum moiilo of use of I,l 1Z gpdc. -f hr City is in the process of completing its 2005 Urban \\%atzr \danage Plan (UW\dP). As part of this plan an economic analysis was done on four of the fourteen Demand A~lanagemcnt Measures recommended by the Califo'tlia Urban \Vater Conservation Council. "]'his analysis found that,three measures; ~rite~ Sunny Program on Residential Customers; Residential°I'I,umbing Retrofit, 'and Residential Ultra Low Plow Toile Rzplaaenicnl wise economict;lly yia~l~ anJ c~ui.l potenti.ili} sa~z thz Cit} an average of 132 A1=Y over the uventy-.year pencil 2006-2025 at a projected cost of $35,00(1 per yeas The Cit} ldopteil`~a ~4'atnr Shortage lmergency ordinance into its City Code in 20(16. This ordmanoesEts up a tluee tiered progt8m to reduce water demands at times when supply is not suffi'etent to t"i~eet normal demands. Stage 1 calls Cor voluntary restrictigns._on water, Stake'? andrSiQte 3~mplemeut progressively greater mandatory restrictions on nonesseitli`al, water use and contain penalties for excess use. This pze9grattt must beimplemeued by a resolution from the City Council declaring that a stage 1, 3 or 3 tva't6r?shortage~cmergency exists. b. Fltlure De~i3ti[rds Connections During the Plod frofn 3000 to 2025, the draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan projects an increase in t1ieGity s population from 15,497 in 2000 to 17,990 by 2025 or an average ~;_, increase of aplirbximatcly 0.64% per year over the 2000 population. this translates into a grot~nh of 12.2 percent ir. connections over the 19 year period from 3007 to 3035, or a total of 6, I55 cotmections. This is 669 connections greater than the Ciq~ reported it had at the end oC3006. The City's draft UWNiP update projection for the number of connections in 3025 is based on a total population served oC27,495 and 2.56 persons per connection. This translates into a total of 9,615 comtections. The population projection assumes that the 36 Ukiah Valle}' Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assessment Noeember 200? City will reach build out by 2015 and annex and serve the area in its sphere of infuence over the next 20 years. .Supple Uenurruls Assuming the same maximum rates of water use per comiection for the future as determined from data repotted for the period 1997-2006, the projected water demands for the year 2025 based on the Department's population/connection projections are given in Table VI-4 below: Table VI-4: Proiccted l1'atcr Demands for the Ycar 20'_5 -CDPH Pro 19Giitfis Vuluc Pcr Connection Demand, do Connections -,,'I)ema nd ;:'~;.-.MGD - Avcra cDay 687 6,155 v .~._. , '~3{'~,~ Max Dar 1,403 6,155 ~,~ ~ "`~$~:;G';._ Dlaz Month I,I I'_ 6,13i,'_e. 6'.e,:;•: Annual 0.77 AF/Connection 6;"1'35 ~ 4,740 AF' Assuming the same maximum tales of water use per connectio^ for die futw~e as determined from data reported for the period 1'997-20(16;-the projected +vater demands for the year 2025 based on the population/cotutecll~?n'projections in the City's draft U~','IvfP are given in Table VI-S:L?elow: Table ~-1-. I'i~rcaed 15'atei Ucmands for the;Ycar 1025 -Ukiah Ufuli_U\+~I~i i' Value Per Connection - Demand, do Ciinricetions - - ~ ' ~ Demand MGD Avcra c Da • 687 9,615 '-" 6.6 Max Dav , ;3,403 .9,615 i 13.5 I+lax Month ~ `its>L'12 9,615 10.7 Annual -- ~ .0.77 .4F~Connection 9,615 7.400 AP The difference b .,„ UV~+I,2P are,,,S~tu the'City will iea9 of„influence in tf en~,ronmental pi all lYe'land in its compleed;in the estimate call be c Deparunent's pt~ n llie D'e`paMnlent-p,~ojections and those in the City's draii t 7l.he difference~is primarily a functiai of the assumption that ild ~iuj~by 2015 and will amies and serve all the land in its sphere t h+etity`;ye5rs. Dased on the length of time the planning and 9es take,-it seems unlikely that the City will be able to both annex %d of influence and have the infrastructure constructed to serve it tivenly years. However, for water system plamting purposes this lead a "worst case" alternative and will be used in addition to the on to bracket the possible gro+vth the City could experience. Trentmeul and Sonrce Crrpncrty If it is assumed that the wells are used to their maximum capacity of 2.3 ivIGG, the treatment plant would have to deliver 6.3 P4GD to the distribution system to meet the Department's projected 2025 maximum da}' demand. The treatment plant is currently rated at a capacity of 6.0 I+9GD but can produce 9.0 h4GD if the three trains were placed into operation. l-]owever, the City's Ramsey Collector system has a capacity of 4.9 I+'IGD. l has, the City will need to increase the amount of water it can withdraw liom the Russian River to at least 6.3 I+9GD to meet the projected 2025 maximum day demand. To meet the average day demand during the maximum month the treatment 37 Ukiah Valley Drinking l\rater Adequacy ,~sszssmcnt Novzmher ?007 plant will have to deliver =13 MGD. The treatment plant and Ranney collector currently have this capability. Using the 2025 projections in the City`s draft U}',T9P, the treatment plant would have ro deliver I L2 h9GD to the distribution system to meet the maximum day demand. The treatment plant's current maximum capacity with all three trains running is 9.0 MGD. [n order for the City to be able to meet this treatment demand, the fourth treatment train will have to he added to the plant "fhe City's Ranney collector has a current capacity of 4.9 MGD. The City will have to increase its capacity ro withdraw wafer from the Russian to I L2 MGD to meet this demand. 'fo meet the aver5ge`day demand during the maximum month the treatment plant will have to deliver S.4 NIGD. The treatment ptantiurrently has this capability with all tluee trains operating, Flowever, the Ramsey collector cun'ent capacih~ is less than needed to meet"u}iis demand, The City will have to increase is capacity to withdraw wafer from UteLRussian Rivej°'b7;3.5 N1GD to meet this demand. Storage Capnciry "fhe estimated fuhtre distribution storage requirgyitenl tiring-the DzparUneht's projections by the year 2025 is 6.6 t`9G as shown lialow: '_025 Storage Requirement = 4.2 M.G + 0,25 s 9.6p~IG + 0.24 \7C = 6.6 MG The projected amowll of required storage increases by slightly over 600,000 gallons in the year 2025. The estimated future dtstrihution storage,requiremett using the projections in dte City's draft UV1hAA`:1'itthe vear.3b25 is 6.6 A~IGias shown below: =;;. ~.,:., 2025 Stnragc RegUlremenap G,G.M,G.~ 0.25,x 13.5 MG +0,24 MG = 10.2 MG ,, ;; The projected <tfnount ofiec~uired storage increases by 4? MG in the year 2025. 1 ti~ `'a: d_ _ ~.~. _ c ' AssessmentoJ'Corifplim:ce Table~U~i=6 compares~fFie required sottrce and storage capacities with the estimated current d'eiri~nds. ,,` 3S Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater Adeyuaoy Assessment November 2007 'rn6lr vl-r;~ Rr•nidrrd Wprrr R iahts Source and Stnraae Capacities with current Canacily. Item Current Ca acitV Needed Capacit}' Current 2025 De ri ]025 - U\VMP \Vatcr Ri ~hls, AF 15.488 4,224'- 4,740' 7,400' Source Ca achy, MGD 7._' 7.T ' S.G 13S Treatment Cupaeiry•I', M11GD 9.0 5.4 6.J 11.2 Story ~e Volume, M11G 5.9 6.0 6.G 10? (I) This includes the total exercised and nnexercised venter right and 9G9 AFl' obtained from \Vcll No. 4. ~ "r (2) IJ:aed on annum production from 199') converted to '_006 cpnnec(ions.°- (3) 2025 needed water rights is based mt annual per connectionajefnand detcnnincd by dividing 19'J9 annual production by 2006 conncc'"1Un number. 4 Current Maximum Day Ca tcit need is based on the liif"pest maz~~`ium da O P~ )' 6 P~_,., )' production expo ricnced in the IU year period, 1997,3QUG. _, `~~.. ~. (5) Needed treatment ca pacih~ is based on masimum_ •ila~~lmand minusthe hell capacity of 2J MGU. , The City's water rights are more than adegiiaty= o meet current and projected needs tlurough the pear 2025 using either the Departm~t projiict~ons or the City's U\VMP projections. 1 loxvever, the City has a total devehipesource capacity of 7? N1GD which is not adequate to meet the?-025 maximum dati~dunands projected by either melh~d ,is re~uirecl by the Calilnrriia V~+atenvorks Standards. V,%ith a storage volume of S.S96 MG'the Crt~V,es~enGall},nieets the S[atc's \1%atenvorks Standards under maximum demand cdndiwttnns ezpen~tiCed over the last 10 years. The ewTent storage };6luiiib,.J;iT~yides approzi~tately 37 hNiurs of use under average demand conditions and ~2 hours ender the average day during the maximum month conditions. 'fhe analysis utdt~~tes thattlae City will need an additional 0.7 MG of storage to meet the projected dematTds m tJii>}tear_ 2025. However, the data used to determine this was linuted toconrtection' dale availably for;on'ly 2005 and 2006. As such, it should be reo4afuate`d \ylien,.five >}~ars of data are available using the City's new method for ing servicc~~i52utectioti's,'=;- . ......,, The"Cq' is currentlyf~pdating'its Urban \Vater Management Program. This draft report descriLes.the City's xv~ier rights, water supply and delivery system, conservation progratns'and abilityito meet a 20 year growth projection. The projections for growth and demands on tltei'City's public +aater system are significantly higher than the Departments, <;Tlt'e'Cit}'should examine closely the assumptions made concerning gmx+'th in its UWMP. These assumptions depend on development that must receive ea~1i516% I'C:': iC'A' alld ^pprocai frGill a .....^.ty Of gC\'ellllttent '^e:7C:e5 .'-_ .'^II ec by '-o economically viable. While the City has the "legal" ++'ater rights to serve these projected system demands, based on the change in the way the Potter Valley project must be operated, the water may not physically be there. The City's draft U\4%NIP performed an evaluation of conservation measures the City could take to reduce its demands. The report identified three measures that were economically Viable and which could produce moderate savings. However, the Cit}''s 39 Ukiah Valley Drinking \1~ater Adequacy Assessment Noeembcr 200"7 2006 per coimection use during the month of maximum demand is high at 1,089 gpdc. l~hc Cih should have an in depth consern~ation evaluation done to determine it there are economically viable ways to reduce syslcm demand not considered in Ure draft UWi`QP. 1 ,. _ ao Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assessment Novembzr 2007 VII. Redwood Valley Water District u. Current System The Redwood Valley CWD's water system was originally designed to provide water to large agricultural users as well as domestic services in the District through shared intake, transmission line facilities, and a raw water storage pond but separate distribution lines. In 1989. the Department, under order Gom the Mendocino Couury.Superior Court, imposed a domestic service connection moratorium on the~Redwood Valley CWD because of a lack of reliable and adequate source of su}~t19` ahis connection moratorium was based on the District being cammitti;~to set'v~1,350 connections. In r~_, ~. 1995, the California Legislature passed SB 143~xhat allows the'R'~dwood Valley CRrD ~. , , to add up to 135 new connections to relieve ha~ds~iip~~7he Distric)'~adbpted an ordinance to administer the hardship authorifi'v' The Redwood Valley CWD also provides servic>s;.to tlre'tuyote Valley Indian Reservation (Reservation) via an agreement mad'e~hg~7ovember 1983 and the Redwood Valley Rancheria (Rancheria) via an agreement made~tn July 1987. At the time of the agreement. the Reservation had 20-1iousing units and a`~laq to construct an additional ~U units. i he kzservauon has two cpmtertjous IS-i^ and =4-jt>:) clot provide oUU-SUU gpm. ~,~•.=~GS. ~y.- The Ranchvna atalit~ UnSe of agreemen~lhad 25 hornirs and an office building. The District is committed to`j~ipyiding up to°~,Q000 gpd of water and to include the total number of services in the nancheria in the;~is{rict's total allowable connections. ?' -: In July 20,,00, the Disir~c~~liegaipro,`vtdug~"service to the Bel Arbres Mutual Water Compafhy'?(''~`i Jiomes) dn~~r its hardship ordinance. ,, ~tl'gter Use ~,.;:~, 'I;abl'e VII-1 swnmaTd_: s data Y~dr the period 1997-2006 from the District's annual reporlasubmitted 1o tHd Department (metered domestic use) and total use reported to the MC~'C.District (t {al pumped from Lake Mendocino) for the same period. It is ~,. ~'•, assumed'tlSafahe dif~Tence in the local amount used by the Redwood Valley CWD and the domestic~~ise;is~'attributable to agricultural users. 4l Ukiah Valley Drinking N'aler Adequacy .Assessment 1\ovember ?007 Table \'ll-I: Fed+vood Valley CN'D -System Connections/1-listorical Rater Use ii'atcr Prorhrcticrn Domestic iValer Production fear Cnnn. Max Dap BIGD/ do Max Mnnlh MGD/ do Avg Day MGD/ do Anmtal AF/ AF/Coon) Ag Use AF Tnlal Usc AFl' 1997 1,095 !34/1,220 !03/940 0.621563 690/0.63 1,503 2,(93 I'l98 1,095 1.27/1,160 - 1.05/960 O.GI/555 681/0.62 1,292 1,973 1999 1,100 IA4/I,309 0.75/G8G 048/413 134!0.46 2,014 1.548 2000 I,I20 __ 1.36/1,214 ~~-1.10/997 0.701625 ; 790/0.72 1,7'0 2,510 2001 L1'_7 I?3/1,091 1.0719.53 0.68i60S 76710.68 2,042 2,$09 3002 1,132 1.30/1,148 0.82/728 0.671593 75?/0.66 1,555 2,307 1003 1,134 1.3211,164 7.13/993 0.65/59.i~ - 758/0.67 1,'_29 1,967 2004 1,134 1.3211,164 1.12/964 ~: 0.71/G3li '79b~0.70 1,240 '_,030 2005 1,137 1.40/1,231 1.08/922 O;YSIy$3S~- G!<~((1;¢0 1,030 1,715 3006 1,137 1.37/1.205 1.08/946 ~~--'0.56/4$6 63l/6'h~= 1,053 1,684 Plannin "' 1,309 997 62(, 0.72 ~~ 12'1''' 2,011 (!J The per Tonne:non planning values used are rite mnzrnnun p¢r cnnne~min +v/rres repor(ed rn the t 0 rear period l99i -?006. (2J The p/mining value rued for agricu[hval tae was the ao;;4.0~r of the fast five pears since the ugrieulnunl use ha.r steadily declined over dre last fve pedi[ti. Domrslic N'nrer (Lce - - At the end of 2006, the District had distribution system. However, the D' provide service to all. potential agricu no policy that defifiis al'lo~y'able uses F r.? assumed that slime existrn~ domestic -=:,, service to neta~ or eapandir~-vineyards r' winery operations. Por pmposes,of assessfitg coinpttnn~e-y~iti California Waterworks Standards, the higl5est perconryection vilttes for averfige day, maximum month and annual use over Lhz last ten }earsiwere used. These per connection values are shown in Table VI[-3 ~cloty for average day,, maximum day, maximwn month and total annual use as well as tliernaximum demati~.'s, detergtined using these values and the current number of svsf~ur connections.'' .;. Table VII-?-~tvlaximu"in Current Svstem Demands ~~~ - Demand 0lazimum pcr Connection Demand, 1u97-'!006. ~pdc - Connections Maximum Current Demand, MGU --- Avers cDav ~ -----~~~ _.---- ---1,137 - 0.71 - Maximum Dav 1,309 1,137 1.49 Maximum 111nntlr 997 1,137 1.13 Annual 0.72 AF/Connection 1,137 819 AFY ,13~~ sem'ice connections on its domestic istrict's`agncultural distribution system does not ltlraJ=sites tvithin i[s boundaries. The District has froTii its domestic distribution system. It is r, . service connections are being used to provide az Ukiah Valley llrinking Ws,ter Adequacy Assessment November :007 "fhe a+'eraee dal' during the maximum month of use per comtection has averaged 91 1 gpdc over the 10-year period 1947 -2006. Rgricnltarn! )Pater Use agricultural water use increased substantially (over 50°ro) in the seven-year period from 149-2001 with a peak ttse of ?,042 AI= in ?001. However, since 2001, the irrigation demand on the system has steadil}' decreased. For the 6 year period, 1946 to 2001, the use averaged I,ti~O AP. For the last 5 years from 2002 through 2006. the use has averaged I,'_Zl AF, a decrease of nearly 26°.'0. IPaler RigLrs ~ ~-,• .3o-:. The Rcd+vood Valle}• CVY'D has a water right permit, 17€54'J; with a filing date of December 1975 that allows direct diversion of 17.2 N1~'iD fromD~arch 1 to April 30 of each year for frost protection, direct diversion of-f~~22~`MGD (653;~1tF) from November ;,; 1 to April 30 of each year for domestic purpose'sand'?,800 AFY'fr`ofSSrNovember t to April 30 of the succeeding year for storage.:The total amount of water t~ be taken is limited to 4,900 AF1' and subject to the nainitaum t]owr>;zquirements for fish described previously. This permit expired nn December~7,•200'~:^~he District filled an application to extend the dhte of the perniit but thts~~t,~s nat been acted on yet by the SNRCB. Until such time as the S W RCB makes a dettsion on the District's application the oermii is still valid. ~~~. The Redwood Valley CWD has no t4ater ng`~rt";dttring the }~~iod May 1 to November 1 of each year and is currently utiltzmg"~surplU's v5aF~~~-~~,dm the MCFC District's 8,000 AF water right It}?a°~s;for the water n~(es in accortldnee with Mendocino Superior Court Ordet 4~0~9, issuedon n'iay 29, 1'980, F:z In December 2005, the District reached agr`,~einent with the Sonoma \Vater Agenc ~ to contract for up l0 3,b00rtt.Fl~o~esLrpQlug,-yaa[er. The contract is administered by the Sonoma ~utrntY Water Agency. The'agieement authorized Redwood Valley to pump ,up to 3,000 AF:gf:water froJ~,Lake Mendocino during each October 1 through ,September 30 ++~tet'syear w('it;n;(a~ such pumping is not authorized by either (i) Permit 1'7593 or (ii) Penntt:]'a~47B a d the 1480 Stipulated Judgment; (b) such pumping is -. r.a. , autliotized by PermiCy1z947A, and (c) the Sonoma County Water Agency detemtines that water is available For pwnping. Redwood Valley was informed in Jwte 2007 that water was not availaSl'e for pumping under permit 12947B and it has been pumping water from Lake Mendocino under the terms of this agreement since that time in 2007. Sr:rf~cc Sa::rces The sole source of supply for the District is Gom an intake and puntp station located on the west shore of Lake Mendocino. The intake consists of lftree 500-hp pumps with a capacit}' of 4,400 gpm each. However, the actual pumping capacity is approximately 8,000 gpm (I+vo pumps operating simultaneously) for a total of 11.5 MGD. The third pump is a standby unit. Water is pumped to a surge tanl: near the pumping plant and then flows by gravity tlu~ough several miles of transmission main to a 68 AF (22 A9G) raw water storage pond. 43 Ukiah \+allev Drinking Water Adequac} Assessment November '_007 Trcamltrlr The District has a conventional surface water treaunenl plant with a rated capacity of ! ,500 gpm (2.F A4GD). The plan( consists of hvo circular upflow clarifiers followed b}' four, ht'o cell, dual media pressure filters. Stnrnge The distribution system has hvo pressure zones with six storage tattles and a total storage volume of LSS MG. The primary zone is Zone t, sensing 4S percent oCthe total connections. Zone ?has approximately 25 service cotmeciHt?ns and is served through a small pumping station. T,hl.. vn.i- rz,.,n.~„~d vnllev Pressure Znnes and Storage 'tanks Zone Tank Namc/Number Tanl: Vtilume, OiG ~ Elevation, tl I Gast Tanl: 1 ~ Q.50 1,00? I GastTxnk2 030 ~~'_I,00? t tVestTank 0.?5 "'~`'9RD - ( North Tank 0.1(t~ 9~5~ I SW Tank 0.9,0 -975 I RoadBTnnk ~-Oi10 983 Total ~ 1.85 In uidci f~ reliabl} wuytly ;~ilh Seetiutl6~.i6; ui~:!;c CaliC~~tuia 4later~w+'i;y Standards, the recommended storage'_volumc;~e?r-the District, based on its maximum per connection water use over the last teii:,vears;:is tstn)ated:on the basis of the fallowing equation, , Storage Volume = AveragG;~Day Production ~~ 25%4. of Maximum Dap Production * Fire Clow ung a fire flow regtiuetnent of 1500~gpm for 2 hr or O.18 MG (typical Intent Lpr_comma'Ctal/resideriiia~!'zones), the recommended storage volume: on the nlfi~tmum p~~;connechon use over last 10 years of records, is 1.26 MG as below. T(e Currenf'capacty exceeds this requirement. CdRrgnt Storage Requ~cnent = 0.71 MC + 0.25 x IA9 M1iG +0.18 MG = 1?G M11G :, , The District~kas a 1,00 KM standby generator that can run the whole treatment plant. [t does not have'stanijby power for its raw water lake pumps but it does have a ?Z MG raw water pond'that feeds the treatment plant by gravity. PJith conservation measures, this raw water pond shouid be able to suppiy the treaunent plant fer :period or,t !e,,r hvo weeks even under peak demand conditions. 1-Iowcver, this raw wafer pond also supplies the irrigation distribution system. In the event of a long term failure oCthe intake pump syslent, the volume of water fed to the irigation system would have to be minimized to ensure an adequate supply far the domestic system. The District also has an interconnection with the Calpella C\lrD that allows for water to flow both ways. Prom the Redwood Valley CWD the flow is by gravity to Calpella. 44 Ukiah Valley Drinking \4ater Adequacy Assessment November'_007 prom Calpella, the flow is pumped with a capacity of 100 gpm. Flotvever, [he Calpella C1'/D's only sources are a well with a capacity of only 25 gpm and an interconnection with the A4illview County \4rater District. Currently, there is a contractual limit of 100 gpm tluough the ~4ilh~iew connection. It is doubtful that the Calpella could provide sufficient water to meet the demands of the Redwood Valley system. Cnrrservalinrr Domestic water use in the Redwood Valley CWD averaged 911 gpdc during the maximum month of use over the ten-year period 1997-2006. Given the highly rural nature of the Redwood Valley C\\~D service area, this +vater rise is.lower Than would be expected without an active, ongoing conservation program.and it is tower than other rural districts in the Ukiah Valley. However, unlike thz:it}i~?'public water systems in the area, the Redwood Valley C\>.tD has a separate dt~tiibutitin¢svstem for raw agricultural water This accounts, at least in part;:~or t}e tower rian_,expected per cotmection use since all the other public watet,`sssteins serve water fo~,irrigation purposes throueh their domestic distribulions'ystems. r. ~-f1E. 7-he District has recently joined California Ur~at`~}?Jat~rCbnservation Council and the Gfficiem Agricultural Use Council and has commite'~~itself to utilizing the maximum conservation measures feasible fot,the District Because of the cut back m [he tiow~lu normal rainfall in 2006/2007, the stol 8,000 r\p by November 2007 which w District's intake s4iiclt}re~;_As a result, program. 'I-his.program is;i!.pmposed o on water use ='~>/~e.h tier is'@ied to a Level implemented by each,lierange from ~° restnctioq„of custotriers to tisc'ot tio;t7 tinder itii~r~six "°:-., ~ ~"`. s~`-. _~: ' b Fuhn e Deiratrds ~:' Ctiirirctions '.-'-' Potter Valley Project and the below ;Mendocino was predicted to fall to :..:, . S' ?oniieeflhe lake level to belo+v the a water conservation tiers with progressively greater restrictions ~at;e Mendocino. The measures ly voluntary ones in tier one to mandatory tan 100 gallons per day per connection \Vitli't2~current cout~tFvrdered moratorium, the District is limited to only adding physical.~aynnections~'for persons who have paid for connections before the moratorium was imposedapd hardship connections. However, there is no such limitation on the .,-:~• District's agr'iculutal system and, if the agricultural distribution system is expanded, there could beta significant number of new agricultural connections. \4'hen the connection moratorium was imposed in .lanuary 1989, the District served 996 actual connections but was commiried to serving 1,350. These additional 354 connections are for persons who have paid for these connections before the moratorimn was imposed and this is the number of connections discussed in the Mendocino County Superior Court decision ordering the llepartmenl to impose a moratorium. These additional 354 connections are nontransferable and can only be made to the parcels for which they were purchased. Under the current restrictions the District is limited to a 45 Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adeyuacy Assessment Noventher ?007 total oC L45~ sen'ice connections which includes the Ise hardship comtections authorised by the State L,egislalure in 1995. Por the 10 year period 1997 through 2006, the District added 42 connections nr approximately Cour percent. Por planning purposes a growth rate oC 0.1 percent was used. This was a conservative rate based on the gro++th that has happened over the last 10 years and probably overestimates the actual growth rate. For planning purposes however. it a somewhat consen'ative estimate is desired. Based on 0.? percent average annual grox+th, by the year 2025 the District is projectcd to have 1,245 service connections. Snpplr Deu:mrdr Based on the above assumptions the District's projected +,tiater demands in 302 n'cre determined for a total of 1,245 domestic connections usip1g11tie.maximum per connection production experienced in the last 10 yearslor ai'~rt~ge day, average day during the month of maximum production, maxipium"day, and total•annual production. These values are given in Table VII-4 below. , 'I :file VII-4 Pmiected Svstem Demands for the veil 2025 I'cr Connection Demand do Total Cystcm Uemand01 I+1CD ,gvera c Da+• 626 ~ - 0.78 Maximum Day I";309 •. 1.63 Maximum Month 997 l?4 ! :lnnual Tutal 0.. % AFl~: Wunceiiinl I tii, Ai~ i =5~1 isiGl I (I 1 Assumes a total oC 1,245 connections [3ased on the last 10 xczzs,,of water user it~appears tl>~t agricultural use peaked in 2001 (2,042 A1") and•G`~s avera"n,,,~d 1,221 AI"S~yfor the last~five years (2002-2006). Por ~_._ pul7~oses of thtsrepott tt >sasswned that the use will remain the same through the }'ear 2 ~5 <F< 0_ as the average`for th~~~last five }'ears. , _.. Therefore the total pro~e~tted annual r~erttand on the District's system, domestic and agricultual +vau7l mcrease~to 2,1 l7 AP by the }'ear 2025. This value would have to be Teevaluated if the'D'r`slrict weze to<significantly expand its irrigation distribution system artd/or add sigui6cantLy more 7mgation customers. - .,; . Trentiiie(7=nnd StorngctnCapacip~ Assuming Eke same rate of increase as water demand, the required treatment plant capacity ++tll1i'~rea'se to 1.63 MGD and the required storage will increase to 1.37 NIG by the year 26?5~' Calculations for the required storage capacity are given below. .G.. $lJl a~,i Cupa.:i ly i~tgwrtd ° o.. ,. my v..... n ...u i.i~i vl ~ i~i~i '- i..i7 t.tG c. Assessrttent of Compliance Table VII-5 shows a comparison of requirements versus capacity of the Redwood Valley District Cor water rights, source, trcatment and storage. These data show that the Redwood Valley District continues to lack an adequate and reliable source of supply during the critical months of.lune through October and has to 46 Ukiah Valley Drinl:ing tVater Adequacy Assessment Norzmber'?U07 rzly upon an intemrptible supply (surplus water) from the T`4CPC District or the Sonoma County Nlater Agency. Table VII-5: Redevod Valley CtVD Required 1Vater Rights, Source and Storage Capacities with currem Ca acit • Itcrn Current Ca acit ~ Re aired Ca ocif • Current 2025 tVater 12i ~hts, A1• 3,6831 ~ Domestic demand 819 89G A ~ricuhural Dem:md 1,221 I?21 ' Total Demand 2,040x; `"`~- '- 2,117 Source Ca acilt•, M19CD(J) I LS 'r Ir49' 1.63 Treatment Ca aciry, MCD 'r 2.6 .~1'~[~79._.;:- 1.63 Stararc Volume, MC 1.85 :`~i~ I.ZG`'^'is:, 1.37 (IJ lndudes right d+raugh permi( 17593 ra diver/ l.5'9,.~JsJfwpr Narem4nr,;l;. uurougn April 30 and the Disu~ic/'s cwttracl milli SCIVAftir?suphs u•aler. S~s4_tralcr is on/v m~ailabte Jdrere is no surpLes ^•arer m~a(lnhlejram the A/CFC Drsrrnri •,Ir does not inchrde the _.800 AF]' perrnil 175a;7 audrorizes.dre District ra /akeJor-~ storage Lecmrse dre Ursu~icr has nu slor~agc.._ (? /nch+des eapotiry required ro nreer marinnuri agivculua,gl`7aumnd. _- (3/ The source capacip~ required is based solely on Ji7itlhsfic use and does not inchrde agrindnrral ru'e which is Lkely ra occur. (4) Requirement jot domestic u~n(Cr's)SSrem onl/~. Does ndiririnlude requiremerrl to ju jll n~riurlnirn! ma/zr dernnnds . In order to assess the maximum has been assumed that the agric average for the peril-0(12 tluough 200.6`? demands on the"system steadily decrease', the projected dbhestic detfitand will requii'a ~,. „~ the year 2020 S'iitei the District currently the peri.od.NaiembeY;l thfoug`h~lprtl 30 a3 crttioal~suiaun@r months, tts, ngltt Is InaiTegi Ft~~`v`c(~ed for the!District by the year 2025, it :and wuulzl~e'7,221 AFl'. This is the tnd was used because the agrictdtural over this period. This demand, together with a water right of approximately 2,1 17 AP by ~,.~F. nn'ly holds a right to divert 683 AFY during id has a contract for surplus water during the tote to meet its current and projected 2025 demands. _ ,,;.. ThczDistrict s sourc€7reatmen' and storage capacity are adequate to meet current and proj~eted 2025 demands. The Distric~s average maximum month per cotmection water use over the 10 year period 1997=3(706 ~s 911 gpdc which is approximately 16 percent less than use in the City of Ukiah. Currently, the District has an established conservation program but is onl}' addresses water shortage situations and not ongoing cnnscn~alion efforts. 47 Ukiah Valley Drinking \\'ater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 VIII Millview County ~'~7ater District a. Current S~~s[ent I h'nrcr Us'c Table V1161 swnmarizes data from the District's annual report submitted to the Department on connections and water production for the period 1997='006. Rater Production Year Conn. Maximum Da1~ Maximum Month Arcragc-,. Da.Q Annual -. Milh'icw AnnualSuld to Olher P\1'S MGD/ do MCD/' do a1G1)7,'~ do AP/(Af/Coon) AF f997 1,343 2.58/1,921 Z'/1,6G7 la"25/9~0,. 1,457/LOS U98 1,347 2.79/2,071 2.2/1,667 1.17/87:;. - 1,362/1.01 1999 1,379 254!4,878 2.3(1,654 "'.1.311951 "'-~ '~' 1,51571.10 675 20011 1,372 228/1,66? '_A/I,Z5:0"~~" ~"-1.35/1,006 -~-''1';503/1.10 126 ?.001 1,382 N.4 2.21.:1',-``;64 1.38f997 1'r5;liZ11.10 79.8 2002 I,J4i 2.6/1,'97 2.2/I,SJ-1 1.3 S:950 I,SId!T.OS 82.9 2003 1,508 2.711,790 2.3/I,?;40_ ,1;.341887 1,4747(1 ~~98 73.6 2004 1,449 2.9/2,00! 2.4/1,656,.. f"46/1',008 1,608,1.11 65.9 2005 1,478 '_.7/1;827 2.4/1,637 1.75/913 1,490/1.01 80.3 20(16 1,489 3.35/2;269, i 2.7!1,852 '~I':Sg/l,Ur,4 ... 1,77>/1.19 _ 133 Plannin_'" 2,26'1 _ 1,852---- - ---1,064_ 1.19 133 Table Vlil-l: Nlillview C\\'D - Svstem Connectinnsrl-listorical 11'ater Use j l 1 The per mnaectran p(aaung ra(ues tt,ed arx dte-maxunum per connection +~ah~es reported m ilte IO year period l 997 -1006. ~ - - For purposes of a: highest per conn~i the last ten }eal+s~:e below for avera maximum system numk~ecul~ysiem ig compliance w\~ti Californiat Waterworks Standards, the roves for averag+%day, maximum month and atmual use over ed ;;These per catuj-ectign values are shown in Table VIII-? mazJmum day, ma~kttium month and atmual use as well as the ln~s-tfSat'were.;deterinined using these values and the current ~-'r., 61a \+III? Movim»m f urrenl SuStem Demands :Ipemand - Mnzitnum per ~ ~ .Connection Demand, 1997-2006, do Connections plnximum Current Demand, MGD Avcra if~Dd-<. 1,064 1,489 1.58 MaximumD;";~;._ t• 2,269 ~ 1,489 3.38 Maximum Month=~` 1,852 1,489 2.70 Annual 1.19 AP/Conneuion 1,489 1,775 APY The average day during Ute maximum mont(t of use per connection has averaged 1,6>3 gpdc over the 10-year period from 1997 through 2006. 1n 2006, the maximwn month production per connection was the maximum experienced over the last 10 years. The Nlillvievv Dislricl also supplies water to the Calpella County \Valer District via an agreement signed in July 1992. This agreement limits Calpella to a quantity not to exceed 100 gpm. Since 1999, [he animal amount sold fo Calpella has ranged from 22 48 Ukiah Valley Drinking 4Vatzr Adegwtcy Assessment November 300? P-1G to 41 MG, with an average of 29 A1G. In 2006, the amount was 282 1+4G. [+4illvie+v has also supplied relatively small quantifies of water to the City of Ukiah in the past. H'nrer RigHtc The District's water rights permit 13936 (application 17587), issued on February ? I, 1963 allo+vs the District to directly divert up to 1,440 AF at a rate of 3.0 cCs (1.938 IvIGD) from November 1 of each year to July 1 of the succeeding year, so long as there is at lea,t 150 cfs in the Russian River al the point of diversion. This permit expired on December 3 f, 2001. The District filled an application to extend;;"Llae date of the permit but this has not been acted on yet by the SWRCD. Until such time as the Si1'RCl3 makes a decision on the District's application the pemtUis st'd.l valid. Additionally, under license 493 (application 3601): the'°District may pump through direct diversion from the Russian River a[ a ratciof 0:9 8 cfs (0.12 M'CiD) from June I to August I each year. The total annual volun~d"pumped,is not to exceed''_7 acre-feet per year. The District has Iited an amended,pck~gy for thts,License to abandon the existing point oC diversion, and add the systenra"++ell f~e,Id; "ricer intake pumps and the t+dasonite wells 3 and 5 as new points ofdiversioit;;, "fhe District also has a riparian ngltfo> direct diverstonbf the Russian River from January I w llccember 31 ut a rate ol'O.U=1,~J5 (0.02ti NIGI~I fur use at its ueamtcnt plant facility. This was not considered as aii'~applicable water right for the purpose of distribution customers in this analysis.,, - 'the District is cuirentl} paib~ationing the SWRCD to:~l") add the existing well field and Russian River grumps as points of diversion under its Permit and License, all of which are located on the-fast stdc#o[,[he Russian 12iver near its treatment facility; 2) add to the Disirict's,place of use addPhtifstl'lp~d~ outside the current boundaries of the existing Dtsgtc4n~?lteh-are being served mclhdTiig Ukiah, since it has an emergency interne a~rreement wd'h.~1leCtty and'tt~7e Calpella CWD; and 3) seek additional time in which to aiiake full use uncle its Permit. k ~ l,4' Dunngfihe period frost July to November, the peak summer months, the District, which lies wtthfn,the boundaries of the MCFC District, has contracted for 970 AF per year, under the ~'2CPC District's 8,000 AFl' right, to make up for any deficiencies in supply under its o+vii~a,~ht5. In addition, the District has been assigned an additional 40 AF that was origin slly resen~ed by the Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation for ns Lakewood Homes subdivision. The Lakewood Homes subdivision has 65 single family homes and is served by the Millview CWD. "Chis total of I,O10 AP is equivalent to 2.74 I+9GD for 120 days. In 2006, the District produced 935 AF of water during the period July 1 through October 30. This is equivalent to 0.62 AF/connection. Since the' Department imposed the connection moratorium on the District it has approved 215 additional connections. One hundred ten of these new connections had been made at the end of 2006. The 105 49 Ukiah Valley Drinkine Rraler Adequacy .4ssessmenl Noeembcr 1007 connections remaining to be made represent an increased demand of 65 AF on the system during the .Iuly I though October 30 timeframe, or a total of 1,000 AF based on the 2006 demands. The District's current allocation of 1.010 AF from the MCFC District has essentially been filly used b)' its current commitments during the period .luly I through October 30 of each year. The SWRCB decision on application 17587, which resulted in Petmil 139?6 being issued to the District. contained the condition: The mnount a~u~aler appropriated pursrrnnl In ,4pplicalia'rr`!'SS7 shall be limited to the mnouri! which can be beneficiallJ~ used arn~ shnll Trot exceed 3.0 cys, Gy direct diversion ro be diverted from about Nnneiiher l ojeach,year to about Jarly I of the .rarcceeding yeas ~ ~, During June 2000 the District exceeded the 3.0:'cfs liriiitation 24 of _+tf~days for a total of 20 AF. Although these exceedances ++-ere~i'elalively minor in total (tlcmaximum ++•as 4.39 cfs), it is a further indication that tlte'I~istrict's allocation fiom tli+_ MCFC District is fully used to serve the District's exi"sting crnitmitments. The District has entered into a purchase agreement for a water right from Masonite pursuant to License 5763, which isd pest-49 right for up to 4,200 AFY for industrial use, with authorized points of diversion lraly existing f+4asotute +vells 3 and ~. The District has also entered into a purchase agreei~i'nt for Wells 3 and 5, along with a 5 acre parcel which would be used as thesite!for a ne+ti~ water treatment plant. These purchase agreements arc C-ontingent on the District Q.btaining approval Cram the SArRCD for thenT~ansfer gf'these +vater ri''ghts to the District for municipal use. The District hassf'lei3ia,petitiori i~~ith the SWRCT3 to transfer 100 AP of the Masonite water right to it and has ent@red into a Meniurandum of Understanding to complete the environmental wor6 necessary lUt this.. transfer. The SCWA has advised the District it ++otilij'chahlettge•pn} nghfthat exceedet~750 AFl'. However, the District believes it has sufficient c~6cmentatitin;to prove a historical use of this right of 1,200 AFT. Ifthe.entire 1,200 Af'i~ere available to the District and used during the 3 month high demaiid•5ummer period, July -September, it would add an additional 4.3 MGD of source capacity to meet maximum day demands. The District 7salso negotiating the purchase of a pre-1914 water right that it has been leasing and pumping under for the fast fve }ears. The District believes the amount of water available under this water right is 1.400 APY. Flo+vever. complaints have been filed with the SWRCD concerning the validity of this right. It is uncertain at this time if this is a valid water right the District will be able to obtain. Surface ff~irter The District currently utilizes I8 shallow wells along the Russian River as its source of supply. In ntid-May, the water levels in these wells drop and the District installs three pumps with a combined capacity of 1,500 gpm directly into the River to recharge its 50 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vmcr Adequacy Assessment November 2U07 well field. These pumps can either pump to a recharge pond that senses to recharge the shallow well field or directly to the treatment plant. However, the Department of Fish and Game has restricted use of these River pumps until after May 30°'. This poses a problem for the District since there is a I+vo to four week period when well levels are low but it is unable to pump directly from the river to recharge the +aell field. The District has in the past applied to the Department Fish and Game for emergency approval to withdraw water from the Russian River before June l~' and this approval has ahvays be granted. The Department determined in its 1999 inspection of the water system that its reliable source capacity +vas 2.64 MGD. As a result of the District's maximum day demand being higher than this number, the Department issuedreuriplance order 02-02-OICO- 002 to the District which required the issuance of a nii~ntt atiendment before any new connecticns are added to the system. The Dtstnct's.well field cari~lie,pumped at a rate ,-.a - -~a :. , of 1,600 up to ?,000 gpm (2.3 to 2.9 MGD) based on-its ability to raeh'sree its well held. Water pumped from the river is prim.[rily used to recharge the +vell fceld and nut more than 200-300 gpm is pumped directly to {'tae treau,ient plant. <r- Trcnhnettt Cnpncity " The District cw-rently utilizes a direct filtration plarit~+ykixh four dual media filters. "fhe plant has a theoretical capacity of approximately 3.9 t`fi~'iT?, based on a filtration rate of 3.11 gallons per minute per squeu~ loot (gpna~,1, ), and a totaLliher area of `luq square-icct (lip). However, the District states tlr3__i its tre~1•inti<nlplant capacity is approximately 3.7 MGD. = a r,~ >rs,, Starngr Cnpncity ~~ - ,_, The DistricUlas~luee presscre zones withta total storage volume of 2.863 MG in eight u,'. storage links In ~dditton~_there are t+vo fintslied water tanks at the RrTP with a total volume. of 0 ~7 MG ~gt+txi~'ttc,-lltstnc[a;,toial volume of 3.133 MG. Ho+vever, the hvo 4 Y qa fin~she`~-wat~; tattles wcrenot constdei'edito be applicable storage for the distribution systtem becauso~~~~,~ musi"it4inain full at all times for disinfection inactivation. Table \'llI-3 shows lhe'defails for eae~`of the zones and tartls. ~/w. ~• , `r r"r iI'; 51 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 Table VIII-3: Milh~icw Stora c facilities, A1G Zone Tank Name Tank Volume, 151G Glevalion N'TP Clearwelll 0.100 639 15'"(1' Cicanvcll ? 0.170 639 N'TP Submtal 0?70 1 Loeers Lane 0.190 A50 I f3ricarclli I 0,500 A50 l 13ricarclli 2 0.650 A50 1 Collc c OS00 A50 1 fork Gslalc 0.500 A50 I Milani 0.190 _~ 850 2 - Decnrood 0.053 ~ I,O60 3 Woodlal:c Oi_'SO ~ ~ ~ _ 1,095 Distribution Subtotal ?if163 Total -'5~~3.133 ;`"t. t";. In order to reliably comply with Section 64164 of the California Waterd-~rks Standards as contained in Title 22 of the CCR, the recutatinended distribution storage_volurne for the District, based on its water production, is estimated on the basis of the equation, Storage Volume =Average Day Production + 25^/0 0(Manimum Day Production ~~ Pire Plow Assuming a fire )low requirement nl 1,311;0~pm for 2 (tours pr U.IS MU (typical requirement for commercial/residential zones;); the recommended current storage volume, based on the maximum per t;ttnneciion uses m e"r' the last I 0 years, is 2.60 MG as shown below~_ Current S[orngc Requirettient = 1.58 MG + 0.25 x 3.3A p1G +0. f A p1G = 2.60 MG Cnnscn~atron - [n resp~dst:4ryo the Depgriment s~C3ntpl'"tance Order issued in 2001, the District adopted a~~.S~tage Hhtttkepnservatini~rogram (Resolution 20-16) that does not allow its water to'be used for ctiritnerctal agnG~lyural irrigation, prohibits wasteful use of water, limits tuh'en summer watering can occur, and requires other conservation practices Cor landscape irrigation aiJ construction water. The resolution requires additional controls tvheri'tf~re is a more severe water shortage (Stage 2 and Stage 3 requirements). e However, t1SeDisttxct continues to have a very high water use (average day during the maximum mofiil'per connection) that has averaged ],665 gpdc in the l0 year period 1997-2006. Tlis is 53 percent greater than the City of Ukiah and 72 percent higher than r,cighboring Calpclla C1'.'D. I-[o~,ve:~er, it n.as! be no!ed that the Di;!ric! does pre:~ide approximately 70",% of the water used by Calpclla which serves 154 connections. If this is taken into account, it would reduce the per connection use by approximate)}' 7"/0. Reli~abiliq~ The t\4illview CWD has an emergency interne with the Cin' of Ukiah that can provide approximately 300 gpm. However, flow is by gravity and tank levels must drop by at least 10 Icet in the Nlillview system Cor the inlertie to be functional. 52 Ukiah Vallzp Drinking 1Vatzr Adequacy Assessment )\ovzmbcr 2007 In 2003, :m emergency generator station was built ++•hich consists of two generators, unc generator to pu+acr the well pumps and one to power the raw water booster pumps, the high sen-ice pumps and the operations building. h. Future Demands Courrectiort.r The Drab Ukiah Valley Area plan, prepared by the Ntendocino Count}' Planning Agency in .luly 2005, projects a 110°/~ increase in population friatn the year 2000 to 2035, or an average gro++ah me of 4.4% per year assuming an equal number of __ comtections is added each year. This assumption is not li~~lw to be accurate, but it will sense for planning purposes. In addition, large developln~eits,Fhat +vill add significantly more connections than the average in one year take multiple ye5r'syto develop which should give the District time to plan and prepare Cor;the'larger increase than normal to the system. This translates into an 84°/o increase in connections over etic 19 year period from 2007 to 2025: or an increase of 1,245'-connections for a total oC2.734 connections. Two large developments that are can-entl} ut the plattnitgwstages (Lovers`Lanc ~~ ~- . residential development and the i`9asonite comtnentgl development could add the equivalent of 735 single family homes to the systeiit;:Qs such, the 84% increase in connections over this ] 9 year perfhd,}vill be used for Manning purposes. However, the District is currently rastricfe~~~ptn adding an;"riew service comtections because of limited source capacity. l',=he DisCrfi?~,iis~j:p the;pocess of securing additional source capacity and platuting for addi(fo{al treatmenf`eapacity. If it is successful in its efforts it should fiaae bu6f source and treatment capacity to support this projected growth. .- '~. .. SrrppiV Denrrrud+ '~~ '- ,~' Assamtngtthg same fna~Camum fates of~si$ter use per connection for the future that have occurred in the;`last ten yc'~i the projected water demands in 2025 are given in Table 1~III-4 belo++ ' +-`~ ter' t ,x ~,-. Tahle•:Vlll-4 Projected Srastem Demands for the Year 2025 '`- .~-t~` :.i-: ~._ ~'~Per Connection Demand do Total System Demand it MGD Avcra eD~'";., 1,064 2.90 Maximum U's`.";~~,.~ 2,269 6:?0 Maximum Mogilis~' 1,852 S.OG Annual Total :~~ I.I9 AFD/Connection 3,257 AFY ` ",~:::^cs a tc!a! of 2,'34 ccr.nectiens Treatment Capnciq~ If the newly developed capacity from the Masonite wells (2.7 MGD) is not under the influence of surface water, it would not need to be treated as surface water and the existing treatment capacity of 3.7 MGD would be sufficient to meet 2025 maximum day demands. However, if the new sources are influenced by surface water, then, the 53 Ukiah Valley Drinking 1t'ater Adequacy ,4ssessment 1~oventher 2007 h~eatrnenl plant capacity would have to be expanded to at least 6.~ t\9GD to meet the 2025 demand. Storage Requircnrenrs The total distribution storage requirements for the year 2025 are estimated as 4.63 ~1G as shown below: 2025 Storage 12equirement = 2.9 PIC +01i s (.2 MG + O.IR p1G = 4.63 R1C c. Assessme»t of Compliance -- Table VIII-~ compares (hc required water rights, source, lreatmenl and storage capacities with the estimated demands for the years 20.,(_1,5 aii~ 2025. Table Vlll-5: A1illvicw CN'D Required Water RightS,y Source and Storage Capacities wiih current Capacih~. llem Curren) Ca ,achy Required Capacity Gurrcnt 2025 N'atcr Ri hls, AF 2,477{ ~ 'li';7.~:5, 3;253 Source Ca acih~, MGD 29 3.36, -; G? Treatment Capacity, M11CD 3.7 3.38 6.2 Story ~c A'olwnc, D1C , °!'." ~ ,.~!! , ".d3 (/J !i'n(cr Rrgh(linritcd la 1,4/0.4 F'NavcniTietyl6 lulu. During nronOs ajAugus( arrough Ocmher; the rig/u is~li~iiirer/ (n tlic 970 .1 F corrtrnc! rvilh h,/CFC Dis(rict Fi ' (1J Doas nn( incYttHe-s~f(1lmge a( the treatiil'E_ir! p[mu. The combination?of the District's water right during the period November I through the following July 1 ibge[her vyith,,;its contract with the MCFC District; is currently adequate. to meet its extstiig demands, I3owever, during the period of July 1 through October 30, ~~q.6 the Distract used 935'Ah. In addition, in June of 2006 the District exr:eeded its watersiehts perintt limitation of 3.0 cfs (5.95AP/day) on 24 days. The total volume pumped~that eceed`e~d the 3.0 cfs limit was approximately 40 AP. As sur,li';~.the District ful~Iy_used tlie`970 AP water is has a contract for by October 30. Sinca~i~~it at this limi~;~~~ does not currently have the water rights to serve addition connections during ills time of each year. The District's-;existing water rights are inadequate to meet the projected 2025 demand. 1-lonever, if the>District is successful in its purchase of the Masonite wells and is able to secure a wafer right of at least 750 .A~, it will have adequate water rights to meet projected demands through 2025. The District currently has a total reliable source capacity of 2.9 MGD which is not adequate to meet the current 3.33 NiGD maximum day demand. [f the projected growth actual)}' occurs the District will have to increase its sowce capacity to 6.2 MGD to meet the 2025 demand. 54 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Yater Adequacy Assessment November _OU7 Currently. the District has ade~luate storage to meet the California VJatenvorks standards. However. by the year ?025 approximately L3 MG additional storage will be needed iCEro~~nh projections are realized. The District could also make additional water available by adopting a stricter water consen~ation program that mandated retrofitting or other water consen~ation features so that the increase demand from new development can be minimized. The llistrict's average maximum month per connection water use over the 10 year period 1997-2006 is 1,65 i gpdc which is approximately 53 p~reeht more than use in the Ciq~ of Ukiah. Currently, the District has an established c~~nsen~ation program but is ~ ~,;::: -- only designed to address times of water shortages, noL~ng'aitg conscn~ations efforts. :. t,;, ~ ; >" ' ~._ ' <, }, i <r r+ V ._ '. _:=~ ~v ~:.>. SS Ukiah Valley Drinking \1;ner Adequacy Assessment Novzmbzr _'007 IY. Calpella County ~'Vater District a. Current System li'nler Use "Cable I\-I summarizes data from the District's annual report submined to the Department on connections and +vater use for the period of 1997-2006. Table (S-I: Cal ells CP'D - System Cennec!ions'I-Iislorical N'a!er Use Wafer Fr0(IUCIIOII All ll llal Year - Conn. P7ax Dayllr hIGD/gpdc 01ax P1onlh NIGU/gpdc Avg Uay \1GU/gptla _1?urch:ised -AF//o of ., toll Totnl AF Total AF/Coon 1997 IOg O.I4i/1,342 0.11/986 0.071,657 d`6.G,'S8 80.0 0.74 1998 IOR 0.147/1,3tiI 0.11/1,016 0~.072/GG7 40.5%i0• 80.7 0.75 1'199 157 O.IG9/1,076 0.13801 "- ~ O.ORJ/529 58.6/G3 .93 _'. O.S9 2110(1 148 0.188/1,270 0.14/9db 0.092/620 68A1G7 102.8 ~ 0.69 '_001 154 O.ISB/1,221 0.131844 O.D93'603 70.9!68 104 0.68 2002 154 U.?0/1,299 0.16/1,039 0.098/(,35 80.1/73 10').6 0.71 '(IU3 15.1 0.201/1 .3~5 -ll-I-%ova n ~, q~65] 78 '_'ri8 1117 071 2(104 154 0.204/1,3'25 0~'I~5/974 0.10/684 83.(,/71 118.1 I 0.77 20115 IGI 0.'_QA/1,267 0.17/LOSS 0.10/61$ 80.8/71 114.1 0.71 2006 164 02'_411;365 0.17/1,0{7 0.11/GSU 86.5/72 L 1]24 0.73 1'lanningl'r ~ 1,3fi5 I,OSfi 650 73 119.4 0.77 (l) Adarinuun Da}~ I?) T,1te~,pcr.c~oneec la'y,.~ar;~ler'iad {~ Fot.purposes of as'se highesl.per connectii the last`-fan years are productiori~ the oa; submitted la of maximum kept daily prr ~dre dverage Day b}' 2.OJ Ure marinnnn per connection rolaes reported in the ;ing comuliance with California Waterv.'orks Standards, the )a'alues for average day, maximum month and annual use over sed. Although the District has reported maximum day ;it has not actually taken daily production readings. The values stimated based on weekly production readings. The average ratio uction to average day production for the four systems +ahich have records over the period 1997 through 2006 was 2.04. This number ++'as used to detcrnunc a mas!mum day prod,,crio„ Cs [:?Ipefla Cor p!annirg purposes. These per connection values are shown in Table IX-2 belo++- for average day, maximum day, maximum month and annual use as well as the maximum demands determined using these values and the current number oFsystem connections. 56 Ukiah Valle}' Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assc~ement November 3007 l"a61e I\-'_ Maximum Current S stem Demands Ucmand Maximum per Connection Demand, L997-200G, tdc Conneclinns Maximum Current Ucmand, MCU Avers ~e Da ~ 634 161 0.1 I Maximum Day 1,365 161 022 i Maximmn Month I,0% 161 0.17 Annual 0.77 AF/Connection 161 124 AP _' The average day durine the maximum month of use per connection averaged 965 gpdc Deer thz 10-}'ear period from 1997 through 2006. In 2006, thr'v31ue was 1,017 gpdc during the maximum month. ,.: fhe amount of water purchased from Millview has stehdll} ini?Seased from approximately 50% of the system's Iola) producticin in`-1996 to 72°fa in 2006. Sources njSupph' - The District's total source of supply is estitii3ted at 12~.gpm (0.176 l+4GD). phis comes from a single +vell with a rated capacrly~:25 gpni`and an interconnection with the Milh~ieor C\~ltD which is limited to a maxtmuibf100 gpm by a Iu1y 1992 contract. The District also has an emergency interne with the~Redwood Valley C\VD with a capaciq' of approximately 100 gpm, but this interne is rdly available during ancrg~naes. - ~.:` 1;' 3 V ~ N~irter Rightx 'The District has nei>;;3fet rights but ha'seniered intora contract with the NICPC District for an annual quantit}' of"1`(b] AP. Historically, the Disirici had assumed that its single well was using percolated groundwater raper than Russian River underfloor and thus did not require 1 t~dter nght:I-Ioorever, as d~9 been discussed previously, the S WRC13 has nouf ed a numbt;t of puli'lc'+\Tater s,~ystems that their wells are considered to be uuhzm~:iucr ~ulderilo+~'gpd this makds"Ihe use of these wells subject to the SWRCB Iterntitting aull4uty. /"vr s an T~Cf7ttliCltt 'r' w [4, The=:~alpella C WD lia5 4y ~ ~J!, i~ f ` no treatment facilities Srorngc ~ a' The Calpella CRrII lax three storage tanks: a bolted steel tool: with a capaciq' of 0?5 MG and hvo tiijl:d steel tanks each with a capacity of 0.025 MG. This provides the system with a Total of 0.30 NIG of storage The recommended storage capacity is 0.34 MG as shown in the calculation below, and assumes that 1,00 gpm of [ire storage are needed fora 2-hour period: Storage Volume = Averaee Day Production + 25% o(Maximum Day Production + Fire Plow Current Storage = 0.1 I MG + 0,25 x U.23 D1G + 0.18 MG = U.34 MG 57 Ukiah Valley Drinking 1Vater ,4deyuac}' Assessment November 2007 Cansemnlinn The Calpella CR'D does not have an established water conservation program. The average day use during the maximum month over the ten-year period 1997-2006 has averaeed 965 gpdc. b. Fuhu•e Den:mlrls Carurcctinus The Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan, prepared by the Mendocino County Planning ,Agency in.luly 2005, projects an 82",% increase in population fiigm the year 2000 to 20''5, or an average gro++'th rate of 3.3°"o per year assuming. xn equal nwnber of cnrutections are added each year. "I his assumption is like c to be overly conservative, but it will serve for planning purposes. This u'anslates,ihto a (?!;!o growth in corutections over the l9 year period from 2007 to 2025; or an inetegse of 103 connections Cor a total of 266 connections. Howevei-,.the District was placed under connection moratorium by tltc Department ilrAugust 2005 through the issuance oCa new domestic public +vater supply permit, This permit authorized the DistPictlo sen-c a total of 1 S I connections. 'there are no near iei;in;prospeuis of this connect`i'on moratorium being liked since the District depelids bl}.the Nlilh~iew CWD for the majority of its supply. _ 1 or plannine purposes hn~v^~. e~ h ~st^ ,~;n:ed !be ~vsrm ~„ill add t, n,~ more service connections or have a total of 266 connections by the vear 2025. This should be considered to be a "+vorsl case" scenario with respect In ftiture demands on the system. Supp[y Demands i'' Assuming Qie~,s'szne maattttaum rates of wafer use per comtection for the future as has occun'ed in the l~St ten yeaj?s, the projectedisvstem water demands in 2025 are given in Table IX-3 belowi _ ,-r;• ,~: ' ~~Table IX ~.P,Yojected~Sysfem Demands-inn 2025 Value '~ 1?et~:Gonneclion --.•-. • Deoantl, ~~ do Connections Demand MGD elvcra a Day ' ~68d 266 0.18 Nla[imum Day 1,365 266 0.36 MazTmym Month -. 1,056 261 0.28 Annual-~" 0.77 AF1'/Coon 266 205 Aft 3"a:. ,1;. Sorage Regnireuentc The :et.^.I °lCr n rnrn,i~~m n..~ h.. ,1~.. , ~/h~ i octjln •_~~(d aS O d~ I~ICi a5 sbmvn below: 2025 Storage Requirement = 0.18 MG + 0.25 x 0.36 MG + 0.18 MG =OAS MG .^l SSCSS/11 e/11 Of COII t~l ~lRIICe Table [X-~t compares the required water rights, source and storage capacities with the estimated demands for the years 2006 and 2025. 58 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment November ?007 Table IX-4: Calpella CWD Required hater Riahls. Source and Sloraee Capacities +rith current Canacit~~ Item Current Ca acih' Re aired Gt atilt Current 2025 N'aler Ri ~hts, A~ 141' t I?4 20S Suurcc Ca acih', D1CD 0.18 0?2 0.36 Stun c Volume, MG 0.30 U.34 OAS (lJ Cwuracr mirk A/CFC Drsn•icr jot up ru 101 AFY and its urll that has a capoci(v nJ?i gpm. "hhe District currently holds no water rights and is reliant upon contracts for I O I APl' with the t`1CPC District and its well that has a production c~piicity,oC 2~ gpm (d0 APl'l for its supply. The District's water right is not adequate tn'siroe the projected system demands for 202. If the SWRCB were to make the de(etniaiation that its well is drawing from Russian River underfloor, its existing dgptract fgY?s~1;01 APY of N1CPC District water will not be adequate to supply its et~rrenl'<sys[em demands. ...: ~~~ .. The District has a total developed source cajtacny of 1?5 gpm (0 I S MGD); which is currently inadequate to meet the requirertietiYs=of the l:alilurnia N'aler+corl:a Standards for the highest potential current maximum day=i~timartd~of 0,22 MGD. IIy the year 2025, the llis(rict will potentially need to inerease9ifs'source capacity to 0.36 t`4GD. R'ith a current storage volume oC0:30 MG, the Districf•i~s approximately 0.04 MG defictent ut storage necessary to m~r,.t Caliloruta N~atet+wrks:5tandards. liy the }ear 2025, if the projected growth were to'1occur;t}ite storage deficient}' will increase to 0.1 ~ A1G. Because the Calpella CWD getsthe.~[p`alorit>`'~~~ts'sunply from the Millview CWD, this DistricGStorap~e,volume for-c requirements. ,3~1ilh~iew"s'~s'torage catmo the connectidirbehvecn thi l++'o districts ~.:. The Dtstr~ct's average`tn peno`v-1'J97 ~094_is 9~i5~. _CtyoCUkiah `~uu~ently ~pPOgram. (;a t;.; _, e::=a.y ; e used lgv~fulfill the non-fire flow storage credited to Calpella for fire flow because ydraulically limited to 100 gpm. ttl}per connection water use over the 10 year .~;, s'approximately 11 percent less than use in the does not have an established conservation 59 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy .Assessment November 2007 X. Rogina Water Company a. Current System li'ntcr U.re Table }:-I summarizes data Gom the Company's annual report submitted to the Depar4nent on connections and +vauer use for the period 1997-2006. Table X-I: Rogina Water Company - Rater Production, 1997-2006 Water Productio,ri'- fear Connections Maximum D:n~ Maximum Month Ave"rage :, ~~~~ Annual MCD/. do MCD/ do ,rht`C DT-' dg., AF/(AF/Coon) 1997 S96 1.13/1?65 I.IO/1,?24 ''0.53/59?%~?{ ~ ~, 594/0.66 1998 898 1.14/(,265 I.10/1,22~~${-~ . OA9/54G " ~ --,_ 549/0.61 1999 911 LII/1,214 1.07/JI,1'75 ' OS6/618 `;;630/0.69 200(1 936 I.IG/1?42 1.1>Za1,202 .0.57/613 '7~31/0.6Q 2001 953 I?0/1,259 .I.IU~;¢;A58 '~U-G2/(150 ti9;j(,Q[73 20(1? 961 1.28/1,332 1.24%1;x'26 .,.0`:611639 ~ 68+7%0.72 2003 966 1.14/1,180 1.10/I,IJq;,. t, 0.56/584 632/0.61 20(W 9f,2 1.13/1,175 1.09/1,137 ~ 0.60/620 66S/0.69 2001 969 1.12!1~;~56. 1.12/1,156 ~ 11,•50/518 563/0.53 2006 9S1 16,'1 3F~ - ~ 1.32. I.'_a; n~ST57S (3S/0.65 Plunnin rn 1,517t' 12,9G 650 0.73 - (I) The per cnnnecrimr p/arming values used ure ilie mdi'inunn per-connection values reported in dre !0 year period 1997 - 2006. (2) Calculated b}-Jriyhiplyigg the highest average day maxiipum month (L24 MG) by L2 and dis idmg by the eusun~ number of cunnecuons because daily maximum production values repone~ to ~ esscnnally~le same as aver~ge day maximum month. For purposes of assos_sin~'eomlliance with. California Waterworks Standards, the htghestipor c~ltnechoft +alues fdr 5vera'gg~ day, maximum month and annual use over the`last ten y6acsnre used ;The maximum day values reported appear to be cjuestionable since(•t7~ere is lcttlc.ortno difference front the maximum month values. The average ratio of masinum day,.production to average day production for the four systems which have kept daily production records over the period 1997 tluough 2006 was 2?O~z. However, is~ultiplying Rogina's average day data by this number gave values less thari`tlae;correspQnding average day demand during the maximum month. Therefore, io±~de.tem'ine a value for planning purposes, the maximum day values were computed as I?~ times the average day production during each year's maximum month. These per cotlriection values are shown in Table X-2 below for average day, maximum day, maximum month and an;:ual :..,_ .., ;:~cl! as the ma:;i;num dem::rds dc:crmincd using these values and the current number of system connections. 60 Ukiah Valley Drinking ~',rater.Adequacy Assessment November ?Oi)7 Table \-2 D9axirnum Current System Demands Maximum per Maximum Current bemand Connection Demand, Cormections Demand, MGD 1997-?OOG, tdc Avcra ~e Dav 650 9S 1 Q64 Maximum Dar 1,5)7 981 1.49 Maximum 111ontlt 1,29G 981 1.27 Annual 0.73 AP/Connection 981 716 AFl' "I-he average per connection demand during the Inaximwn month +vas 1.195 gpdc over the I0-year period from 1997 through ?006. - - 11'arcr Riglus ~ ~~+: The Company has no water rights. 1-Iistoricall}', it ha~afireswnrd?lhat some of its +vells are drawing from Russian liver under0o+v and drat otl5ers are rfot+::As a result, it has reported only part of its total water use to the MCPC`District for ils~aiinual accountine of water under its Project Water Right peroi"t~. 1-lowever, because of tliei location and the recent SItrRCD ruling, this report assuinisthat all of the Company's yell sources are utilizing under(low of the Russian River ahdalaus +tiuuld be accountable under the MCPC District water right permit - Currently, the Company has a coittr~~t with the MCFC'L)istrict for 400 .4F1' of water. in .iu~ni+m, tits l ompany is iu the process + ~appl}ing fur water riglds bn,cJ un the water it used ++hen it first began proF?ding 3eivice,n 1947.: It has submitted an application to the Sy'.'RCD but is at tli'e beg}ifmng~offilss-inulti-year process. ;f.. Snrjnce Sources".~ '~' .'+ The Company las,no surface water source's. The Cuiripany"has fodr~perating +Ce11i3iwith an effective total capacity of 1,175 gpm. It has'one slandba +~ell (No 1 with a capacity of approximately 80 gpm and one well (No '~~ that is inoperafiuet,+vhose~oa;~acRy is not I:no+vn. Well No. 5 pumps into the discharge line from well No ~.>and Well No. 6 pumps into the discharge line from Well No~'~~';Table X-3 suuauiarizes available information on the six wells. Table X-3 `. ~Ro~ina Well Siurces 15'cll Numticr`.. -;Year Drilled Ca aci ~, m Status Comments I ~ _ Unknown 80 Standb 2 1963 800 Active Prima source 3 _ Unknown ___________ _ Inoperative 4 1967 375 Active- Summer o erasion only Operates 12 hrs er day 5 1972 175 Active Pum s info well 2 '~ G Unknown 80 Active Pum s imo well 4 "fhe maximum production capacity of the well field is estimated from the total production capacity of Wells 2, 4, 5 and 6. For purposes of assessing maximum day capacity, it is assumed that Well 4, which normally only operates 12 hours per day, 61 Uki:dt Valley Drinking \5'aterAdequacy,4sscssment No+°embcr 2007 could operate continuously for 24 lu to meet this demand. This then totals 1,430 gpm or 3.06 MGD. l'he Company has drilled a test well in its existing well field next to Well 06. This test well will be completed as a new production well by the end of "_'007 or in early 2003. Treahnenl There is no treatment other than disinfection and the addition of orthophosphate for corrosion control. S(orngc . l-here arc six pressw'e zones in the Company's sen ice area +vith a total of sis storage tanks with a combined volume oC L l3 C\9Ci. Table Ik-4 sumtritinizes data on each of the tanks. Table X-4~ Roeina Storaee Tanks 7.nnc lank Namc/Number Tank Vulurn c, MC 1,3 Main ~ O.ydSt., , 2 (2) Pressure yanks ~. 01007 4 Zone 4 Q:003 5 Zone3 0:-I 50. ~ 6 Zone G ' 0.30b°• Vichy +ich: u1i? Total ,. L132 r. (l1 ThislmiA u~i!l be replaced wrthti400,000,,:gallorittank~iii. _'it(JB-. -.• Under the maxuriom cfnenl demands,VtUe required storage vohune in the distribution system necesS3rya to meet California Waterworks Standards is 1.19 MG as shown below: a~ Storiise!•{eguired 016rhMG+U'Sx1:d,hhlG+O.ISMG=1.19MG n the ne+v'07vtG taril; is.-,constructed in 2008, the Company will have a total of MG of storage 'The Conipahy currently has 9~ percent of the required storage and eahe new tank is~itompleted will have 1 16 percent of the currently required storage. ,, G. `F'ttf~re De~rltds CO!l11C'CllOllS'~ The Company'11'as advised that it could add an additional 315 connections to bring it to a total of 1,28~hconnections at build-out based on vacant land planned for homes. I, UIT211t } iiic v i~uy ~iiliw r,jiJi~ ii u~.~ig mac, clupeu. ~ IJS SUJdib'IaiO^ +`vi~l add 76 i1C\ti connections and is expected to be complete by 2009. The Drafl Ukiah Valley Area Plan, prepared by the Mendocino County Planning Agency in July 2005 projects a Q9°,% annual increase in population from the year 2000 to 2025. This translates into a grovnh of I7.1% in connections for an additional !63 connections by the year 2025. It is assumed the 76 connections from the Vichy subdivision should be included in this number since this subdivision has been in the 62 Ukiah Valley Drinking Nratcr Adequacy Assessment November 200', planning process for many years. This will give the Company a projected total of approximately 1,150 in the year 2025. Supple Demmnds' Assuming the same maximum rates of orator use per connection for the future as has occurred in the last 10 years, the estimated wafer demands will be as follows by the year 2025: Table \-5 Projected System Demands in 2025 Value Pcr Connection Uemnnd, do Connections ' '~~mand, :'- MCD .Arc Uay, MGp G50 al/day 1,150., "~- 0.75 Maximum Dav, MGD 1,517 al/day I,I$.q'r'- ~` 1.74 ~ Maximum Monlb, MGD 1,296 al/da I,IkSO ~ .1'.:49 Annual, AF 0.73 APY :'~I;J50'~, ~$4U na4'y ' .Smrnge Requirernenrs ''~~" , l'he total storage reyuiremenl by the year 20 S: is estimated as 1.3G MG as shown ~i;~r: 2185 Sturagc Requirement = OJS~MG + 11.?5 x 1.74 MG;B U-18 MC = 1.3G t+1C C'. :9 JSC JS//7N/7! Of CUf7I(J ~l1F1l C'L' Table S-6 compares the required source and~'sntarce capacities with the estimated current demands and Those for 2025. - ~` ,!, ;;; -I"'ible X-6' Rc wired \Vater Ri~hfs Source and S{ora ~e Ca acities with current Ca aci ~. Item "2,irrrent Ca acit'~'?. .. S stem Demands _ -f~ ' -'~ Current 20?5 wafer Ri his AF -~~. 4001 ~~~ 716 840 Maximum~~~q r~rcc ,Cu' acity, IVi6D~,;''~s_ ~ O6 ~'' _ I.d9 1.74 Stora a Volumc'"~G`~.. x~-.;.,t;13 1.19 1.36 '~ t=1~Contracr rnilh A1C!'C`.'D(Srricr jnr 400`:~'F I'. The C~tnpany currently holds no water rights. In the past it has assumed that one or more oI'ils,_~yells were.pumping percolated groundwater that requires no water right permit and''e15e,othet's-tvere pumping water accountable under the MCPC District's permit for 5,00O,f1T. As such, it has contracted with the MCPC District for up to 400 APY of Projcct~Rrater. Ho+vever, the Company has been informed by the SWRCB that it consider all its +vells to be pumping Russian River underfloor. As stated previously the Company has applied Ibr a water right based on the water it pumped when it began operation in 1947. 1=or purposes of this report, it is therefore assumed that all of the Company's well water Russian River underfloor and is accountable against the MCPC District pettttit. In this regard, then; the contract that the Company has with the MCPC District is currently inadequate to meet either the current demand of 716 AP ar projected future demand of 840 AP. 1-lowever, it is likely the Company will be granted some water rights based on it continuous use of water since 1947. The process fix 63 Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment November 2007 obtaining water rights has historically been a long one and at this time no estimate of when then rights may be granted can he made. fhe Company ha. a reliable source capacity of 2.06 <`4GD which is adequate to meet the current requirements and the projected requirements for 2025 of the California R%aterworks Standards. In addition, the new well that will completed in 2007 or early 2008 will increase the reliability of the Company`s source capacity. The Company cunently has a distribdtion storage volume of 1.13 t`4G cr approximately 9~ percent of the volume currently required to comply with tli¢ California \\ratenvorks Standards. \\'ith its current storage volume, the Company;l3rovides 18 hours of use under the maximum day use conditions. 1-Iowever, a ne~i~0~ytr1G taril: is scheduled to be constructed in 2007 to take the place of the exisling;0.l~ NIiCt~nk. When this is completed the Company swill have 1.35 \4G of stciaee`\p~hich is'suCfcient to meet its existing storage needs as well as the projected ieerl ~'or 20'_5. The system averagz maximum month pet connection seater use over the IU year pzriod 1997-2006 is 1,195 gpdc which is approximately 1 I percenlgreater than.use in the City of Ukiah. Currently, the Company does not have an established conservation program but it dots mail letters to its customers at the beginniri'g~ofeach summer reminding them not In waste water. 6a Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy .Assessment November '007 XI. Willow County Water District u. Current S_ystent I f'nter Use Table XI-1 summarizes data from the N/illow CWD's annual report submitted to the Department on connections and water use for the period from 1997tluough 2006. These data also show the portion of the \\'illow CWD's total use that was delivered for agricultural use versus domestic use. 'fable XI-I: 11'illow CN'D System Connections/Historical Water Use~~ 1Vatesl~rui luCliun Domestic Production Annual Production ~ Year Cmm. Klux Day D1CU/ do Max Month MGD/ do .Avgrllny ,MGD/ °dc -bojnssric .4!'/A~'~clm Ag .4F Total AF/(AF/Coon I')J7 I,IIIU 2.36/2,337 1.96/1,940 . ~ ~ °~ I.00%9R7 981/0`.4' _ 132 1,116/1.10 19'IR 1,012 2.20/2,174 1.9R/1,95ti .0.96/952 979/097 100 I,079/I.OR 1999 1,014 2.05/2,022 1.76/1,736-~~:, ;,t;1,06/1,9,~9>,., 1,060/1.04 .~I31 1,191/1.13 2000 I,D29 2.10/2,041 2.01/1,953 i0,6/1`,02R 1,066/1.04 119 I,IRS!I.IS ?001 1,1129 1.9/1,846 1.8/1,749 L~'4hCs0;l1 1,106/1.07 94 1,200/1.17 ' 2002 1,029 2.3!2,235 ~`I~~!1.,765 ,-w- 1.06/I,Ov~i.,, 1,132/1.15 106 1,288/L2i l •U03 ~ I,U3J 1.9i I,R39 L-',9'h l,$SU ,.~ ,_ 0.98/951 1,101/107 N/.4 IJ;\ 20U4 I,U33 2.2/2,130 2.11:4/1,984`: ' ;.1;11:1/973 ' 1,137/1.10 73 1,20D/1.16 2U05 I,U46 . ,~;?1;~.1~,721 17s~~1,~23 0.'9~/$d0 1,013/0.97 GI 1,074/1.03 2U06 10~U s•~' ~~~18/1~~G7 1.63/I'G00 U.93l907 1,067/1.02 0 1.067/1.02 Planningt~l 7 ~1a, 2,33T:> 1,984'.,. 1,049 L15 132 I?i (ll The per connectiohpjrynning~?~[ues iced are dre }irz"tYrnmm per cavrecrion ra(ues reported in the 1 u i~eur period 1997 ?(3116 f • ~a, - -- ' ~~ ~. Dunng Uta teliey~ar,.penod3~1~~97-2006), the highest day of use was 2.36 MGD. The 'Highest annual use'dtumg tlvs period was 1,288 AF in 2002 of which 106 AF was for agricultural users ".;~'~ ~; `' ;;`. - iY;!~ For ptitja~oses of assessytg compliance with California Waterworks Standards, the (.,:. highest domestic pee=>rotmection values for average day, maximum month and annual use over the'•last;tct~years are used. These per connection values are shown in Table Xl-2 below fol-a~erage day, maximum day, maximum month and amtual use as well as the maximum demands determined using these values and the current number of system connections. 65 Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment November '_007 Table XI-? Maximum Current Sys(cm Demands Demand R1 aximum per Connection Demand, 1997-?(111(. ~ do Connections Maximum Current Dcm:utd, MCD Avcra a Dar 1,049 1,050 I.10 Maximum Da ` ?.337 1,050 2,45 Maximum Mnnlh 1,984 1,050 2AR Annual I.IS AF/Connection 1.050 1,208.4FY Annual A 132 AFY Total Annual --_-,_- 1,340 AFY The average day production during the maximum month was 1,823 gpdc Cor the ten- year period from 1997 through 200ti. !hider Rights - Decision D 1110 of the State \',~ater Resources G~oritrol Board; isstizdpn February 21, 1963 allows the W illo\v C W D to directly divert up to 1,440 .AF at a rafe`of 3.0 cfs (1.933 1`~1GD) from ~'ovcmber I of each ~".ear to .luly I of the succeeding y;ezu; ,o long as there is at least 160 cfs in the Russian River ~t~the hoirStof diversion. The District also has a license to withdraw I cfs (0.66 MGD) (I'r''Z28 AP from the underfloor of the Russian River on a year round basis. This water ri~lt,was applied for when the District w`as formed in 1951. Both these t~ata~rights are Post-4~~Tights. To cover its summer ;~ III11C U,+i, lhi ~~'II10\`. (~,)lllli\ '~~~ dial Dl5_tnCh NIIICII hcs l':llhlll the bOtlndal"Ie5 of IhC MCFC District, has contracted witli(he 1+`4~~)3C'Qistrict for;900 AFY. .,,: In February 2006t~th1: 5~1!,RCB notified the"~\4rillo++CWD that its Burke Hill wells were drawing from underflow';gf=the Russian'R, fiver and thus constihrted an unauthorized diversion. Ig2`es~onse, the'District notified,the S~'~'RCB that the diversion by dte Bw'ke ~r, wells way cove;e~ t.nde~ rts_agrcement ,+rthtlic biCFC District for up to 900 AFY and ~. that it would be Glmga peiition to=add lue,Burke Hill well field as an additional point of dtv~i'stp~pyzsuant [o-Permit 13)36 aiid License 6793. While agreeing to the $sWRCB s request to appiy'te, have the Burke Hill diversion incorporated into its water rights perm(( the }~+Tllow CWD reiained its right to contest the SWRCB's decision that the(~water was river ttiiderflo++-;t'ather than percolated groundwater. In March 2006, the S~1~RC_B agreed to amend the District's permit and license and considered the issue Surjnce Saiirces; , The Willow CVi?~D~~ltas no direct diversi~~ns from surface sources and relies entirely upon wells located near the Russian Kiver. Crouudtvater The Dis4'ict has two well fields, one located immediately adjacent to the Russian River (Norgard) and the other located at the southern end of the District (Burke I-Iill). Table ~I-3 summarizes data on each of the District's +vells. 66 Ukiah Valley Drinking \later Adequac}' Assessment November ?007 Table XI-3. \Villow CWD 1i'ells \Pell Ycar Drilled Ca ucily, m S[alus Norvsard Wells GIVUDI, Restricted to summer } 195j (1) o.eration onl GR'UDI, Restricted to summer 5 197? (I) o cmtion onl GWUDI,12estrictedtosummer G 1972 (1) 0 oration only Durkc Hill \\'clls 7 1975 1,000 „~>;7lctive 9 1978 1,000 Aciivc (I l \1~ells 5 and 6 pump into well 3. The total well field produet(in cxpacily is 600 gpnt. ( _r "fhe Norgard well Geld has three w-ells, all of which ltt"ye been classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surfaca.wcater-, as determined by the Department. "this has restricted their use to sttnmer months only after aspecific set of a.• nwnitorine conditions are met. ~:; °;. The Burke I-till well field has bvo wells, Nos. 7'anii~,8i Neither has showii.any influence from surface water Lach of the hvo wells has a capa~,ity of 1,000 gpm. A total of ?,000 gpm can be pumped from'ftese two wells into~tfj;~'d,istribution system. The total reliable source capacity duffing tht stuumer months for the District is currently estimated at 3,600 gpm or 3.7 N1GD.` Trealnrenr The District has;no treatment of its sources, other than disinfection. :;~,.~. . y `}' Storage The Dtstricthas lour' pressure`ionas'~`;ttfli'nine storage tams and a combined storage volfime o'1` L^3~9 MG. T~&le XI-3 stuninarizes data for the tanks and zones. t., "~;~,;r. Based on the maxun~ilm water*;~einands over the last ten years, the required distribution stoza~e to comply tvif~the California Wateworks Standards is ].89 MG as shown below; assuming a fiie-,glow of ],500 gptn for 2-hours. £_1 Currerif~ ~tbrage Ri<quired = 1.10 MG + 0.25 s 2.45 MG + 0.18 MG = 1.89 117C ~_ ~, ,:`„` 67 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rrater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 Table SI-0: \Villow Cl1'D - Stora c'fanks "Lone Tank Name/Number Tank Volume, ~1G t Sti Lane 0.500 1 S apish Can ~on I A 0.200 1 S anishCanyon IB 0.500 t rircrest o.loo '_A S apish Canyon ? 0.010 2B Sta e ? - Pircrest 0.010 2C Crestview 0.003 3 Oak Knnll I 0.010 , 4 Oak 6noll ? 0.010,`.:;_ . Tntul 1.3'i13 1lowever, the District is in the plamting stages to remrsye the=existing 0.1 t`9G Pircresl *; ;. torch and replace it with a new 0.35 t`QG gallon tank. lf,is anticipated that this ne+v card; will be completed in the spring of 2003. This w~'I ilien give the Dis,>xrict 1.593 MG of storage or 84 percent of the required storage as determined by the meflind above. ReliuGi[ity The District does not have standby power at its N~rgar'd well Feld. How%ever, V+'ell S is equipped with a propane powered engine that can be used in the event oPa power outage. In addition, the District has an emergency intei+'cbnnection with the City of Ukiah The cnnnecti~~n .n ihr Cir, , t i7kiah is thmueh a set of cn'-inih Inckin« vah~es In an emergency, a connection can Ne made hehveen these d4vo valves. The capacity of this intercorutection is reported to be 400 gpm. The production from \b'cll No.S combined with the system storage, a moderate amount of conservation; and the eriicreency interiig with the City of Ukiah should enable the water system to meet demands under all but tlic severest conditions. ~1 Cnnscrnfrton "` The"bistrtci de1e5 not haV~£an established consen-anon program. As a result of the rural taiure of a stgni~ie~nt parFt~{its service area and significant agricultural use, the 'VJvihow CWD has a'?3er}' high Upr~connection water use. In 1~99(~ahe Willow CWD performed an analysis and found that of its then 1,006 service cQtiitections, itwas serving approximately 1,650 traits of wluch approximately 850 were single family dwellings. The average water use for these residential units during that year\vas 508 gallons per day (gpd) and the average daily production per residential connection during the month of maximum production was 1,074 gpd which K'8S nearly 59°in 1112 het G9111ia ^52 he i2d OIl ((1181 Cr111Ile CtlllilS. b. Future Demands Careectiorrs The Draft Ukiah Valley Area plan, prepared by the Mendocino County Planning Agency in .Iuly 2005 projects an average population gro~~nh of approximately 3.4°~i, per year in the District's service area for a total increase of 46%. This translates into 479 6S Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater .4dequac}' Assessment November'--007 connections Deer the 19 year period of 2007 through 2025 for a projected total of 1,629 comtections. A large development is currently in the planning stages for the District Which Will add 9-t tov+'nhouses, 107 single family homes and a small number of commercial connections. 'this development was originally planned to he constructed in tlvee phases and he completed in 201 I. ]-lo~aever, despite approvals from the County, this development has not moved forn'ard in the past year. Supp(}' Denmrrds t; Assuming the same maximum rates of ++'ater use per colvtection for the future as have occurred in the last 10 }'ears, the projected domestic Wafer~e~ands in 2025 are given in Table XI-6 below: Assuming the agricultural use.remains~tl~,tsame, 132 APY, the total demand Would be I,S90 AFY in 203>. ~` - Table XI-i Protected System Demands in ?025 I Value Per Connection Demand, do Cmmeclions~ '~-~ Demand ?° MG•h"+. .4ve Day 1,049 1,5_9 MaxDav 2,337 1,529 ``e:<~.57 117as Month 1,984 •'-;; „,. 1,529 ~'3t03,.. Annual I.ISAFYC " ^,'', Y,529 1,758"Ala;, _ :+~ Dcmaud 172:1rY. Total Annual `r.-, :~;J,390 AFY SrorrreeReguvunults:: f, r.. The total storage requu~ment by the +ear,2036 is estimated as 2.67 F4G for the year 3026 as sho++m below ~"t < ~ . ,, 2025 Storage Rigfiremenl~~ ~1.GU MG + 0.25 i7.57 MG + 0.18 MG = 2.67 MG T ' << ` ._., c .9rssas5nent of Gon:plin(it+~ ,Table XI-6 comp~ie~ the reyuzed~water rights; source and storage capacities With the estimated demands;Y'vf the yeijrs 2006 and 2035. ~, Table \I-ti: Willow CWD,12e wired Water Ri hts, Source and Story a Ca acities with current Ca achy. ,_ Item Current Ca act ~ Demands ~'~'i= ~~ Current 2025 Water Ri hl5„AR-~~* 3,068' 1,074 2,043 Source Ca act-`.3N1GD 3.76 2.45 7.57 Story ,e Volume, MC 1.743 1.89 2.G7 ,;:J .':rc:::dc; D: IlO unlcr riohl of 1,440.4E ndricl:is(imitcd to.Norembcr to ,!::1,•, :: ~•car rmc~rt Post 49 riNlu of 7?N ~t E and 900 ~1 F by contrrrcr rnith M11CFC District "fhe District currently has a total reliable source capacity of 2.9 MGD from the Burke Hill wells and 0.86 MGD from the Norgard wells. The Norgard wells are only' approved for use in the dry season. I-lowever, this is when peak system demands occur so these wells can be counted in reliable source capacity. This capacity is adequate to 69 Ukiah Valle}• Drinking Rater Adequacp Assessment tiuvember ?007 meet the requirements of the California R~atenvorks Standards for current system demands and the projected maxinutm day demand for the year 2025. The District's water right, which is more than adequate to meet its total current and future annual demands, is inadequate to meet demands during the high demand summer periods. As a result, the District has contracted with the ~9CFC District for 900 A1=1' to supplement its capacity during the summer periods. This is adequate to meet its current and projected 2025 demands. Thz District does not cw~rently meet the California \~~atenvorks'Standards for storage capacity with a cwrent deficiency of approximately 0.55 [vFZi, f-Iowever, the District plans to add 250,000 gallons of additional storage in 2p08.' :After this is done the District will have approximately S4 percent of the stuT{ige Io rrtcetcurrent requirements. Dy the year 2025 the storage deficiency is prgjectetl to"grow to I~.OS MG, asswning the 250,000 gallons of additional storage is installed: The District dues not have an estatilished conservation ytogrant and does hive a very hieh per connection water use. Excluding lame tgricul$ural use, the aver-age day use during the maximum month on a per comnection ~baSis averaged I,S23 gpdc for the ten- year period 1997 - 2006. This is;fhe highest per connection usz in the Ukiah Valley and approximately 69 percent erecter than that of UkiahjHowever, it should be noted that the use is based on a totat systcnt cotgnecuon basis whiel> may be misleading because of the substantial number ofmultifantily ernmections. The District has stcndb;,power only foe\Uell 6 at ths'time. This well should be able to produce approximately 1.a"ivIGD, whicti'combined with the 400 gpm (O.SR MGD) Interconnection,tu,t,he Ciq' of Ukiah, provides;a capacity of nearly 2 MGD. this will meet the District's"needs except under the must severe demands. However, it should be noted l1~at Well S is'at the very sotithem:e}id of the distribution system and the system lac~s`ttiiiequatc d,iStt tbution storage. i3o(h of these factors could contribute to the pistrict vulnerability to a tyatgr outage during an extended power outage or natural disaster such as an carthqual:c. 70 Ukiah Valley Drinking Vr'ater :ldequacy Assessmem Novcmber'_00 i XII. Hoplavd rr. Crn•rerrt St'sten: 11'nrer Usc Table XI[-I summarizes data from the District's atmual report submitted to thz Deparuncnt on connections and water use for the period of 1997 through 2006. Tahle XII-I: liopland 1Vater District N'ater Use 1997-2006 Water Produclium- 1'car Connections It'taximum Da ~ Maximum Month Average. U.i'~ Annual MCD/ do MCD/ do nl,Gi'' do AF/(AFlCunn) 1997 281 0.63lZ,246 0.45/1,599 _is~0?4/Stz~;-t;,- 272/10 1998 283 0.62/2,194 0.42/1,470 `uy,0?I/734` ~~ 272/0.82 1999 2911 0.58/2,000 OA1/I.gO,`1_. ... 021/734 238/0.82 2000 2911 NA OA4f1~'~',~52 ~~ 0.25/365 ` '~^31/0.97 2001 293 0,86/2,949 O.QS`71,399 ~ 0.24!819 -~~70/0.92 2002 '_93 0.43/1,467 + r0'33iJ;~23 - 0:21/729 239/0:82 20113 294 0.57/1,964 0.46%1,9- ,.r~d9'L$'d963 31`7/1.08 2004 285 D.6I/1,795 OA9/1,73~h;,iy ;~~ 0.25/860 282/0.99 20U5 294 0.4366,4871'1 0.55/1,865 T` ~:. '0.21/729 240/0.82 2006 324 0.49/I`S'4~~?~ 0.4.7/1,435 "'t;92a-/765 27410.84 Plaunin~O1 ~ ~ 1,9(4 ~,~ _ 1.365 I 9ri3-_~_ 1.03 ^~ar Darby 2.Oa hecause daily production mas not recorded r - "' - (2) The per caureruothp(muring /aloes ii~ed/tr a rho matfl{j~rriit per connection values rzparmd in the fire year)~erio$2tt02 - 2006 6ecatr~Ye the enure drs"tri6ution system rear replaced in ?001. Lxaminatiori Dt?,ebpneclioii-%ilata reported the District has grtiavn at ananntwal avers 1 .~; the Ias1S.-years, there Gay be6n~'essen{,ials '!'J its], j' ['~ ~s Ln% ie Department since 1997 indicates that to of 1.5 percent per year. However, for grow4h in the system. QY' .given that the re}tlacemerrls;~Y~most of the distribution system in 2001 has significantly ar,.,.~ reduced the per cotu7ecuon .vatet'use; it would be inappropriate to use the highest per ' ' ,- co'titiection use overitle last ten years. Therefore, for purposes of assessing compliance wttli ~lifornia Wate'rvGorks Standards, the highest per connection values for average day, m a~~51um mont~and annual use over the last five years are used. The maximum day valuese~timatc~ by multiplying the average day usage value for each }'ear by a a * fi°~ factor of 2.Od"-'V~,uch was obtained from the four systems that did record daily production. These per comiection values are shown in Table XII-Z below for average dav, ma:;imum day, maximum month and annual use as well as the maximum demands that could currently occur based on these values: 71 Ukiah Valley Drinking 11'ater Adequacy .45sessment November 2007 Table X11=_' Ix4aximum Curren Svstcm Demands Demand _ Maximum per Connection Dcin:md, 2Uti'_-?o06, gpdc Connections INaximum Current Demand, MGD Avon c Da - 963 32d _ 0.31 Maximum Dav 1,9ti4 324 0.64 Diaximum Month 1.865 324 0.60 :1mma1 1.08 AI'/connection 324 350 AP The average day use during the maximum month for the years 2002 - 200i~ averaged 1,516 gpdc. This is approximately 40 percent higher th:m the,C'iy.of Ukiah. Id'ater Rigltrs In April 2005, the S\~RCD advised the District that it=ltad dctenttined that both oC its then active wells (2 and 3) were dra+ving water front a subterratic;tnsstream flowing in a ir, known and definite channel and that it did not hold a Permit or IiceN$ex:to appropriate +vater from the Russian River watershed. Since the District is located ++-i.thin the boundaries and `place i~f use" of the f+4CPC District, it entered into a cotitracf for'_00 AFI' of Project \\'ater with the t+4CFC District.; .. The District has advised the SWRCI3 that it believe`stlat it has valid pre-1914 and pre- 1949 rights from users within the-;di"strict. I-Iowever, at 6his time, the District has not filed necessary documentation to justit}' these claims and therefore has no rights to the water it is pumping other than through its confrTet with Ihe`•NICPC District. In 2006, the Distriet,supplied atotal of?74 AF of++~ater to its customers. This was 74 AP more than tfs'contract""+~l.ith the MCfG.District. As a result, the Dcpat~tment issued amendmenLnuu~}}~,,er one tojtlte District's domestic water supply permit restricting it from mal.ing an} ~ service connections ~o hs distribution system. In addition, the permtt amendment dttecl'ednhe Dtstric4, Submit a technical report to the Department ~-~•. that gloves tin evaluation of its ++ater'ngli s and reliable source capacity and includes a plan and time sc?~dule for.:o~taining sufficient legal source capacity to serve the ~rs.• ., .. ~. Of the; X74 AP the Dis~iict pumped in ?006, 34 AP or approximately 12 % of the total was sold' lo. the Hoph}p8 Band of Pomo Indians. This water +vas hauled by truck to the Sho Ka Wa1S-Casino;which is located approximately four miles east of Highway 101 on State High+va~y hZS: The casino is located outside of the MCFC District's place of use. Surjnce Smrrcc`s The Disu;u has nc direct di:~crsions ofsurfacc :+-atcr. Crouedmnter The Hopland PUD's saw~ce of supply is from one active well. \\~ell No. 2 is located adjacent to the Russian River. The District also has a standby well, \\/ell No. 3, which is located adjacent to Peliz Creek, a tributary to the Russian River. The total reliable capacity of Well No. 2 is 450 gpm (0.65 MGD). It also has an old dug well, located within 20 feet of \\'ell No. 3, with a capacity of 65 gpm that is not an approved source 72 Ukiah \':dley Drinking ll':uer Adequacy Assessment November ?007 and has been required by the Department to be proper)}' desttroyed. Each of the \vells is described in 'Table !III-3: Table XII-3: I lonland 1Yells well fear Drilled Ca achy, m Sla nu Du N'elI I N.4 ti5 Not an A roved Source Russian River \Vell 2 1969 450 Primary source Pcliz Crcck \\'cll } 1984 135 Standb • source Trcah/lunr - - fhe District has no treatment other than disinfection for it3wells. 11'ell 02 is currently being evaluated to determine if it is under the direct infYueiicc,of surface water. If it is determined that this well is under the direct influence,~f surface_ivater then additional treatment facilities will be required. Srorq{ e The District ttas two relatively new storage tanks withdopaci[ies of 0.30 and OSU \4li for a total storage volume of 0.80 MG. This would pryvidz-approximately 34 hours of storage during the maximum day demand, 0.57 ivl'~~ that has occurred in the last five years. " ' a Liased on the ma.eunum current water demands m the system over the last live years.. the California \',/aterworks Standard~requires'0''6~ T`'1G of-'distribution storage as shown by the following cale_ulation, assumin~;•tlha~=a 1,500 gpvt iire capacity is necessary for a two hour period - ~e ,,~-~ c _s Current SfiBr.;igc-Requirement = 0.31 MG +;0,25:x 0.64 A1G +O.iB D1G = 0.65 MG G Fu.,ittreDe%taryds~'~tx ~'' r. '?1; -ea. 5 . [.'Ol7l1PBrIOl1J .~ -~ f)`ver the 10 }edr~eriod ~'roii>;~1.997 through 2006, the District has experienced an :purage amtual mctypase m corti~ttcttons of 1.5 percent per year. Assuming this same rate~;~~;growth, the titmber of~connections the District serves will grow by 29 percent overtlie:1,9 year peri6t]`of 2007 through 2025. This translates into the District being projected to serve 41 Reconnections in the year 2025. This number will be used for planning purposes despite the District being under a connection moratorium at the current time. 'kI'lie~ivlCFC District has stated it has contracts for 7,400 AF1' of its 8,000 AFl' allocatio.ri of water in Lake Mendocino. MCFC District has indicated it would c~nlract with the District for additional water as long as 1-Icpland ('JD does not supply water to customers outside 1`'ICFC District's place of use. However, a contract for additional source would be required to go through a formal review process render the California Em'ironmental Quality Act (CEQA). 73 Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment November '_Q07 Supply Demm~dc Assuming the same maximum rates of +vater use per cotmection for the future as occurred in 2002 through 200(, the projected water demands by the year 2025 are given in Table Y11-4 belo+v: "fable UI-4 Projected System Demands in 2025 value Per Connection Demand, , de Connections Demand Q7CD Ave Day 963 418 Q40 DlazDar 1,964 41R 0.3'_ Max ~lnnth LB65 416 0.7R Annual I.OS APYC 416 45l AFl' Slornge Requiremen[s - ~:..,,. The total storage requirement by the year 2025 is e_Sliniated as O'78;:1\1G as shown below: 2035 Sla rage Hequirc uu•ut = 0.40 MG + Q?5 s (1,3'_ PiG + 0J8 ivtG = 0.73 i11G- c. Assessn:enl of Coenpliance `fable \[I-5 compares the required water rights, source and storage capacities with the estimated current system demands aricf demands for 2023. Table SII-5: I-Iopland PUD Required 1Vater-Rights, Snueceand Storage Capacities with Current Capacin~. - Item - Current Cn acili' ~fiy'slem Demands -~ Current 3025 ~1'a ter Ri hts, :f~F._ ~. 200' r 274 451 Source Capncrty 1V ~D _ 0.65 __ 0.64 0.82 Storage Valumc MG, `~~ O.SO 0.65 0.78 (!J Haplay,P.UD has auiiri•acijo: 'OQ.=1•I'ThYr~.r)ii dre AfCFC Dis[ric(. The Distract cut7etttly has a~rfltal developed source capaciq' of 0.65 MGD which is adequate to meet'its current sourer: requirements, but is inadequate to meet the pr`ajec,ted 2025 syst'en~gdemands. However, if Well 03 were put on active status it woti'ft7ptovide an addi,:fional 135 gpm (0.19 MG) of source capaciq' which could just meet tj'e>pirOjected 2Q?5 requirements. The District 1L~sjlieen advised by the S WRCB that all of its wells are drawing from the underfloor of tlerRussian River and must be covered by a water right. However, the District's only water right at ibis time is the contract that it has wish the MCFC District for 200 AP per year, whtch is not adequate to cover tts current use of 274 AF'Y. by the year 2025, the arutual system demand is expected to increase to 451 AF1'. With a current storage volume of O.SO MG, the District has adequate storage to meet California 1Vater+vorls Standards to the year 2025. 74 I Ukiah Valley Drinkine Water :ldequac}~ Assessment November'_007 The District has a t en' high per connection water use dw~ing the month of maximum demand (1,~ 1 ~ Gallons per comtectiun per da}'). This use is approsimutely 40 percent hi_her than the Cih' of Ukiah. 75 ATTACHMENT ~~ Wa~ner~.-Bonsignore Con sultinE Civil liu~;inccrs. A Q+rprrution Vidxilar f. fkr;.i~,~wti, P.f'. P:uJa 1. Whcilai '~"d'z" T. R:"nhurir. P.t. November 16, 2007 U.rvi;l V1. Hauvui. P.E. Ryan r. timlfu~ Mr. David J. Rapport Rapport and Mazston 405 W. Perkins Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, CA. 95482 Re: Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment for Ukiah Valley by Department of Public Health, November 2007 Dear Dave, This is in response to your questions about the Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment for Ukiah Valley (Assessment) prepared by Department of Public Health, November 2007. On page 8, the Assessment states: "The final environmental impact statement (EISI prepared for FERC for the Proiect advises that the implementation of the RFA 1Reasonable and Prudent Alternativel would risk dewatering of Lake Mendocino under worst case drought conditions both currently and in the future." This sentence is similar to one in the May 2000 Potter Valley Project FEIS and largely agrees with the modeling conducted by Wagner & Bonsignore Engineers (WBE) and described in the City of Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). To explain further, in paragraph 52 of the January 28, 2004 Order Amending License, FERC explains "...we are amending the license to incorporate the terms of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative included with NOAA Fisheries' Biological Opinion, which closely resembles, but is not identical to, the DOI/NMFS alternative." Turning to the FEIS, in the Hydrology section for the DOI alternative (p. 4-33, attached) it states, "These results indicate that implementation of the DOI alternative would risk effective dewatering of Lake Mendocino under worst-case drought, both currently and in the future." On the next page, Figure 4.1-18B for the DOI alternative shows a trace of Lake Mendocino contents over the 21 years modeled, from 1975 through 1995. It shows the Lake falls to neaz zero once, at the end of the 1977 drought. This result is similar to the result ofthe modeling of future conditions by WBE; that is, Lake Mendocino dropped to near zero during the 1977 drought. We have attached a copy of Figure 4.1- 18B from the FEIS and a printout of the WBE modeling at the same scale to enable comparison. The similarity of results can be seen. 944 MOrfb 7blrM Shcef, Suite 32~ Sacinrneruo, CaltfonxW 95Ft140228 Pb: 91G441G850 Fk~ 91G448-,~ Mr. David Rapport November 16, 2007 Page 2 While the result of the modeling (Lake Mendocino drawdown during critical periods) is similar, it is not known what demands were applied in the FERC modeling. WBE used actual, historical reservoir releases (in Scenario 1) and net river losses (in Scenario 2) to represent demands for Lake Mendocino releases. The Potter Valley Project modeling used estimates ofdemand on the Russian River based on irrigated acreage and unit water use. The demands used are not clearly documented, making comparison difficult. What is explained is that "[t]wo scenarios were examined: 1) current reservoir conditions (year 2000) and 2) future conditions in 2020 with reservoir storage volumes reduced by sedimentation and with increased water demands in the Russian River basin." The best data available for evaluation is the end of period storage in Lake Mendocino and, with respect to that metric, the WBE modeling results are very similar to the FEIS modeling. On page 8, the Assessment states: "Additionally, under these critical conditions, stream flow models nredict that there would be significant shortfalls (average monthly flows less than minimum in-stream flow reauirements) for 2 months of the year currently and increasing to 5 months under future 2020 conditions Under these conditions the only available supply for water purveyors would be from the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin." Again, in the Potter Valley Project FEIS (p.4-33) it states, "Under the DOI alternative, the water balance models of the FEIS predict that the number of months with stream flow shortfalls at Hopland (i.e., average monthly flow less than minimum instream flow requirement) would be 2 under current operating conditions and 5 under future operating conditions." It is important to note that this refers to 2 or 5 months out of the 21 years (or 252 months) modeled. This is made clear in the text describing the other alternatives (see p. 4-16, 4-22, 4-39). Thus, the Assessment misstates the modeling reported in the FEIS since it seems to suggest that the RPA results in an inability to meet the minimum instream flow requirements in 2 or 5 months of every year. In the WBE modeling, the minimum instream flow requirement was met in all months studied. On pages 8-9, the Assessment states: "The California Denartment of Water Resources (DWRI estimated in 1983 that the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin contained as much as 35 000 AF of water that was normally replenished from rainfall and that the basin had a safe annual yield of approximately 10,000 AF." On page 16, the Assessment states: "The Ukiah Valley, basically that area from Lake Mendocino south to Burke Hill contains a groundwater aquifer that has been estimated by DWR in 1983 (EIR for the Potter Valley Projectl to contain as much as 35 000 AF with a safe yield of 10,000 AFY." While it's true that the Potter Valley Project DEIS, in Table 3.2-4, shows 35,000 AF usable capacity and "+10,000" AF/yr safe yield for Ukiah Valley, the source cited (DWR, 1983, Bulletin 118-4, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sonoma County), does not say anything about the ~d~.rllfrllV'$01151~11O1'e Mr. David Rapport November 16, 2007 Page 3 Ukiah Valley. Rather, the last update of DWR Bulletin 118, California's Groundwater, dated 2/27/04 (available at http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin 118/basins/pdfs_desc/1-52.pdf) and included in our 10/31/07 submission for the UWMP, states "Groundwater in storage within the river-channel deposits between 10 and 50 foot depths is estimated to be 35,000 of based on an average specific yield of 20 percent (Cardwell 1965, DWR 1965). Farrar (1986) estimated that the quantity of groundwater stored in the upper 100 feet of the most productive area of the valley fill (Type I) to be about 90,000 of using an average specific yield of 8 percent and an area of 20 square miles." Thus, it is seen that these estimates of water in storage depend on assumptions about extraction of water for use and range from 35,000 to 90,000 acre-feet. None of the sources -DWR (2004), Farrar (1986), or Cardwell (1965) -provide an estimate of safe yield from the Ukiah aquifer. All agree, based on groundwater measurements in wells, that the aquifer has been fully recharged in all but dry years and that one year of normal precipitation and rnnoffhas fully rechazged any deficit. As we have previously reported based on the foregoing, the groundwater basin is healthy. On page 39, the Assessment states: "The City's water rights are more than adequate to meet current and oroiected needs throu hg the year 2025 using either the Department's projections or the City's UWMP proiections " "While the City has the `legal' water rights to serve these projected system demands, based on the change in the way the Potter Valley project must be operated the water may not physically be there." It is not clear what the basis is for the statement that water may not be physically available. Water available for extraction from the groundwater aquifer is estimated to range up to 35,000 or 90,000 acre-feet. Also, based on both the Potter Valley Project FEIS modeling and the WBE modeling for the UWMP, water remains available in Lake Mendocino until the end of the worst drought of record. While lower lake levels in the future are predicted by both modeling efforts, the City's diversions in the future are not a direct cause of the lower lake levels On page 8, the Assessment states: "On the average, the RPA is proiected to result in a 33 percent average reduction during normal years and greater reduction in drv years." We assume this statement refers to reduction in Potter Valley imports to the East Fork Russian River but no citation is given by the Assessment's author. We were told informally by Sonoma County Water Agency that the estimated reduction ranges from 15% to 33% but we have not seen any substantiation for those estimates. Our estimate of the annual reduction is an average of 26%, occurring in the spring and early summer. On page 32, the Assessment states: "It is also important to note that the SWRCB has stated that Pre-1949 users may use water released from storage in Lake Mendocino during extreme dry periods." V(Fa~,n~er~~3onsi~,Tnc nee Mr. David Rapport November 16, 2007 Page 4 This statement is consistent with our understanding of the SWRCB's position as indicated in correspondence previously provided to the City. Please contact me if you have any questions or additional concerns regarding the foregoing. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING''C111VIL ENGINEERS ~~WGS~~ Robert C. Wagner, P.E. Encl. ~ COULF037.pdf V(Fa~ner~~Bonsi more Office of Energy ~ Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission May 2000 FERC/EIS-o119F FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME 1 v. ~, PI~pPE~ t1ilINGES IN MINIMUM FLOW REQUIREMENTS AT THE POTTER VALLEY PR07ECT FERC Project No. 77-110, California 't rBae noa~ran 8$8:fit8t~treet, N.1;., Washington, DC 20426 MAY j 02000 c~~ os =ot~g. 3 ~," ~. Forfar Valley Prolact FtcIS 41ti are predicted to fall below the 25 cf§ minimum requirement at Hopland in two months of the 21-year simulation period (i.e., September and October at the ettd of the drought of record). 4.1.3 Proposed Action The proposed action alternative for modifying current PVP operations would result in higher stream flows in the Eel River system most of the year and in reservoir conditions that are very similar to those experienced now, especially. in Lake Pillsbury. Eet River streamJYows ender the proposed action. The proposed action would significantly increase daily stream flows below Cape Horn Dam compared to the no action alternative in all seasons except the summer low flow period of July through September (Figure 4.1-8). Flow. frequencies in the fall months of October and November (Figure 4.1-8A and B) are predicted to be similar to, and sometimes even higher than, unimpaired conditions, especially in the flow range of 0 to 140 ct's. In the winter and spring months, (December through March; Figure 4.1-8C and D), flows below 140 cfs would also increase significantly relative to no action, but flows higher than 140 cfs would occur with about the same frequency as under current conditions. In the spring C months of April, May, and June (Figure 4.1-8E, F and G), flows up to 200 cfs would increase in frequency to levels intermediate between unimpaired conditions and no action, but the occurrence of flows above 200 cfs would remain about the same as current conditions. Stream flows below Cape Horn Dam during the summer months of July, August, and September remain low under the proposed action; the frequency of stream flows greater than 5 cfs in this period is only 6 percent. Overall, these increases in stream flows in the upper Eel River under the proposed action would lead to improvements in the physical habitat available to support anadromous salmon and steelhead (Sectiop 4.2), but they might decrease diversions to the Russian River basin and increase. the frequency of reservoir drawdown in some seasons and in the drier water years. Reservoir conditions under the proposed octfon. Figure 4.1-9 shows the simulated average monthly reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino for the 21-year simulation period. In Lake Pillsbury, average monthly storage volumes are predicted to remain above 20,000 ac-ft in all years except the drought of record, and even then the reservoir maintains a minimum pool that is significantly higher than the no action alternative The maximum annual dtawdown of Lake Pillsbury is never predicted to be less than 15,000 ac-ft under the proposed action, and it drops below 20,000 ac-ft in only 3 of 21 years, or with an annual frequency of about 14 percent. In the no action alternative, the comparable frequency of minimum annual storage less than 20,000 ac-ft is 43 percent, so tiro proposed action would be better in conserving water stored in Lake C Pillsbury. As with all of the alternatives, there is little difference between the predictions l Po[tar Ve!!~y Prolect FEIS 4'~S stream flows at Hopland are predicted to fall bclow the 25 cfs minimum requirement at Hopland in 4 months of the 21-year simulation period at the end of the drought of record, an increase over the no action shortfall of 2 months. 4.1.4 Sonoma Alternative The Sonoma alternative generally would allocate more water for diversion into the Russian River basin than any of the other four action alternatives considered in the FEIS, especially in the driest years (Figure 2.3-1). However, it also would produce stream flows in the Eel River that are substantially higher than the no action alternative. The Sonoma alternative achieves these results by manipulating reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury to a greater degree than the proposed action or the no action alternatives. Ee! River stream,Jlows under the Soxoxm olerxative. The seasonal. flow duration curves below Cape Hom Dam are shown in Figure 4.1-11. Compared to the no action alternative, the Sonoma alternative would substantially increase the frequency of daily stream flows below Cape Horn Dam, especially those between 0 and 90 efs. Flow frequencies in the fall and early winter months of October through January (Figure 4.1-11A, B, and C) are predicted to be similar to, and sometimes even higher C than, unimpaired conditions, especially in the range of 0 to 90 cfs. From February through May, flows below 90 cfs would also increase significantly relative to no action, but flows higher than 200 cfs would occur with about the same frequency asunder current conditions (Figure 4.1-i ID, E, and F). Stream flows below Cape Horn Dam during the summer months of July, August, and September would remain low under the Sonoma alternative, similar to the proposed action; the frequency of stream flows greater than 5 cfs in this period is predicted to be zero. These increases in stream flows in the upper Eel River under the Somona alternative would lead to improvements in the physical habitat available to support anadromous salmon and steelhead, as described in Section 4.2. Reservoir conditions under the Sonoxur alternative. Figure 4.1-12 shows the average monthly reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino based on the 21-year simulations with IVRCE22 and RR2, respectively. In Lake Pillsbury, average monthly storage volumes are predicted to fall below 20,000 ac-ft more frequently than either the no action or proposed action alternatives (Figure 4.1-1 lA). Under current conditions (year 2000), the Somona alternative would produce mean monthly storage less than 20,000 ao-ft in four of 2l years. The maximum annual drawdown of Lake Pillsbury is predicted to be 6,934 ac-ft at the end of the worst-case drought,. and it would be less than 15,000 ao-ft under the Sonoma alternative in 5 of 21 years (a frequency of 24 percent). In the no action and proposed alternatives, the comparable frequency of maximum drawdown less than 15,000 ac-ft would be 10 peroent and zero, respectively. C Therefore, the Sonoma alternative would put substantially more pressure on water stored Po[t~r Valhr Prolact FE1S r.~ for the Tribes alternative. These increases in upper Ee] River flows throughout the year would lead to improvements in the physical habitat available.to support anadromous salmon and steelhead, as described in Section 4.2. Reservoir conditions under the DOI alternative. Figure 4.1-18 shows the average monthly reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino under the DOI alternative. In Lake Pillsbury, average monthly storage volumes are predicted to fall below or close to 20,000 ac-ft in five different years (Figure 4.1-18A), which is more frequent than any of the alternatives except the Sonoma alternative. The maximum annual drawdown of Lake Pillsbury would be less than 15,000 ac-R in three of 21 years (a frequency of 14 percent) under the DOI alternative. The predicted minimum storage volume in Lake Pillsbury during the worst-case drought is 652 ac-R, which is a much more severe drawdown than the Sonoma alternative.. Therefore, the DOI alternative creates the greatest risk to dewatering Lake Pillsbury of all the FEIS alternatives. The drawdown pattern for Lake Mendocino under the DOI alternative {Figure 4.1-18B) is not as severe as the Tribes alternative, but in terms of more frequent low reservoir levels, it is worse than any alternative except the Tribes. Under current conditions, the water balance modeling predicts that Lske Mendocino would drop below the 35,000 ac-R threshold in 28 months under the Tribes alternative versus 23 months under the Sonoma alternative. Under future conditions (year 2020), the number of months below 35,000 ac-ft would increase to 58 versus 56 months for the Sonoma alternative. The lowest mean monthly volume that would occur during aworst-case drought under the Tribes alternative is predicted to be 2,899 ac-R for current conditions and l 15 ac-ft under the year 2020 conditions. These results indicate that implementation of the DOI alternative would risk effective dewatering of Lake Mendocino under worst- casedrought, both cuaently and in the futures Russlax River srreamJlaws under the DOI alternat/va The stream flows predicted in the upper Russian River below the PVP powerhouse and at the Hopland gauging station downstream of Lake Mendocino are shown in Figure 4.1-19. Frequency of exceedance values for releases from the PVP powerhouse are shown in Table 4.1-2. There are no shortages in stream flows predicted under the DOI alternative and year 2000 conditions below the PVP powerhouse, due primarily to this alternative's elimination of the emergency operating conditions that conserve water in Lake Pillsbury when it reaches exceptionally low levels. However, in the year 2020 conditions, water shortages in the PVP diversions to Potter Valley could occur if Lake Pillsbury were drained, as predicted by the NRCE22 model (a minimum volume of 115 ac-R can be considered to be equivalent to a dewatered reservoir). Stream flows predicted at Hopland under the DOI altemadve are very similar to those under the Sonoma alternative in all years except the drought of record. Under the DOI alternative, the water balance models of the FEIS predict that the number of months C' Potbr vNror~ohcrr,~s ,~ - DOI altarnatlva ^T -- DOI albrnatlvs In 2D20 SD Q~ S ~ 10 0 ~_ YO -. 0 C ••~~-•~1,"~+~++•M ,1- k~«. 7~ k ~} mmm~n(m~.kmmamnww7m~.my~m}n~minimnwunm~n}wnknniw}n~w 6R IZ[t6{ OE~}6j iC(~6 ~~~~~~Z~~d ~~~~~~~b i6 ~6 Z6 ~~~d7~7 lime (Months over 21-year period) 120 .~ ~ 100 80 .. d ~ 80 .~ 40 °~ 20 a: --I __i ' Time (Months over 21-year period) t?igare 4.1-18. Mean aront6ly atora8o volumes predicted to Lske PWabury and Lake Mendocino under the DOI alternative and the 21-year simulation ~. period (Source: staffanalysis). C potbr traa~Y ProJ~M FE/3 4.3ti with stream flow shortfalls at Hopland (i.e, average monthly flow less than minimum instream flow requirement) would be 2 under current operating conditions and 5 under future operating conditions. Such shortfalls would produce significant adverse impacts to fisheries and water uses in the Russian basin, as explained in Sections 4.2 and 4.4. 4.1.7 PVID Alternative The PVID alternative produces flow and reservoir patterns that are very similar to the proposed action. The differences between the PVID and proposed action alternatives ate: 1) removal of the emergency reservoir operating rules that conserve water in Lake Pillsbury during very dry periods, and 2) slightly lower EBRR minimum flow requirements between the PVP powerhouse and Lake Mendocino. These differences eliminate any water shortages in the EBRR and result in slightly lov/or reservoir levels in Lake Pillsbury. Eel River slrewx flows under the PVID alterxaiive. Stream flows produced by the PVID alternative below Cape Hom Dam would be essentially the samo as under the proposed action, because the minimum flow requirements are not different (Figure 4.1-20). There would be significant improvements inmost months relative to no action, but the summer flows (July-September) would remain low and similar to the no action, proposed action, and Sonoma alternatives. Associated habitat improvements are discussed in Section 4.2. Reservoir conditions under the Pl?D alternative. The PV1D alternative is most readily distinguished from the proposed action by the effects that the PViD alternative would have on Lake Pillsbury.. The average monthly reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino are shown in Figure 4.1-21 for the PVID alternative. Mean monthly storage in Lake Pillsbury would remain above 20,000 ac-ft in all years except the drought of record. Because diversions into the Russian River basin could continue under the PVID alternative even if Lake Pillsbury falls to low storage levels, the maximum annual drawdown would be greater under the PVID attemative than under the proposed action. The maximum annual drawdown of Lake Pillsbury that is predicted during the worst-case drought is 11,394 aaft, which is comparable to no action and better than the Sonoma, Tribes, and DOI alternatives. The drawdown pattern for Lake Mendocino under the PVID alternative (Figure 4.1-21B) is very similar to both~the proposed action and the Sonoma alternatives. Under current conditions, the water balance modeling predicts that Lake Mendocino would drop below the 35,000 ac-ft threshold in 27 months under the PVID alternative versus 23 months under the Sonoma alternative. Under future conditions (year 2020), the number of months below 35,000 ac-ft would increase to 57 months versus 56 months for the Sonoma alternative. The lowest mean monthly volume that would occur during a worst-case drought under the PVID alternative is predicted to be 15,512 ac-ft for current \ PotNr Va!!oY Pro/~ct FENS ~g conditions, which is greater than any of the other action alternatives, but it is predicted to be only 280 ac-ft under the year 2020 conditions. Therefore, Lake Mendocino could be operated to meet current demands as well or better during drought conditions under the PVID alternative than it could be operated under any of the other altematives. Future operating conditions would be severely stressed under the PVID alternative if a worst- case drought occurred, but this future outcome is essentially the same for all of the alternatives considered, including no action. Russian River stream Jlows under the PVID alternates The stream flow patterns in the Russian River basin are equivalent to the proposed action, except in very dry water years {Figure 4.1-21A). There would be no shortages in monthly average stream flows predicted below the PVP powerhouse under the PVID alternative or under either present or future conditions (year 2020), due to this alternative's elimination of the emergency operating conditions thatconsetve water in Lake Pillsbury when it reaches exceptionally low levels. This lack of shortages is in contrast to the proposed action, which was predicted to have between 15 and 18 months of shortages in the 21-year simulation period, depending on the sediment and demand scenario, During the irrigation season, the PVID alternative would produce flows above 75 cfs at a higher reliability than the proposed action (Table 4.1-2). Stream flow pattems in the Russian River at Hopland (Figure 4.1-22B) are similar C to those under the Sonoma alternative, with no shortfalls predicted under current operating conditions. Four months of shortfalls are predicted under the future, year 2020 operating conditions, but these problems are common to all the other action altematives. 4.2 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES The impacts on the fisheries resources and aquatic ecosystems of the Eel and Russian Rivers are dependent on the flows provided to each river throughout the year under each of the altematives. Although all of the action altematives provide enhancements in the Eel River aquatic environment relative to no action, there are important differences among the types and degree of enhancements that would be achieved by each alternative, as described in this section. 4.2.1 Asaeasmeot Methods The assessment of impacts on fisheries-and aquatic resources involved evaluation of data provided by consultants to the various parties in support of the different alternatives. These data were supplemented by information from N1vIFS, CDFG, and other organizations. The data were analyzed partially through the use of the water balance model (NRCE22) described in Section 4.1 and Appendix C. The flow regimes Offce of `P~t Hydropower Red Licensing, C~1 February }~9~ ORIG~~Ni4L .,.. DRAFT ENVI~iON~kAE1VTAL~~C`f 8T1~"~N°f PROTECTIOh1~ AN~b 11ihA! , ~I~~b~~ ~~'1~~~tY RESQU:RCE8 AT TH~'PC3"~'~~''1~.;~~~~`~E'T 888 First Street, N.E., Wa~irigton I~t~ 2Q4~6 r r'oteer Valley Drag FJS g.py Table 3.2-4. Groundwater Basins in the Ruaeian River Watershed. (Source: DWR 1983) Average Usa e Well Yield Capacity Safe Yield Basin (9pm) (acre-feet) (acre-ft/year) Sonoma County 0 to + ,0 0, Un nown Napa County 200 +300,000 Unknown McDowell 250 21,000 10,000 Valley Potter Valley 30 9,000 Limited capacity for irrigation Ukiah Valley 900 35,000 +10,000 Sane) Valley 500 20,000 Moderate for Irrication smaller basins in the counties located to the north (e.g. Mendocino, Lake, and Humboldt counties}, It was estimated in the DWR Bulletin 118-9 (1983) that the available storage in 1980 in C. the Alexander Valley and Healdsburq area was 330,000 acre-feet with a total storage of 1,332,000 acre-feet. Severe over-draft has existed in the past in some basins, but local water agencies have imported additional water, recharged some of the basins, and are utilizing groundwater storage and recovery within an overall groundwater management Table 3.2-5. Total Groundwater and Surface Water Withdrawals (Source: USGS 1990) Waters Q roan ra er Sur ace a er To a a (Myal/d) (Mgal/d) Russian 1 1.1 1 , Upper Eel 13.70 19.71 28.91 Middle 13.70 28.92 42.62 Eel Lower Eel 10.75 6.05 16.80 S. Fork 5.37 2.17 7,5q Eel Total 169.66 68.53 233.19 (130.39 (198.92 Freshwater) Freshwater) j' Potter Valfey prat E1S -LITERATURE CITEp 8-4 DWR (Department of Water Resources). 1983. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma County, Volume 5, Alexander Valley and Healdsburg Area. In Cooperation with the Sonoma County Water Agency. Bulletin 118-4. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 1998. Monthly Power Plant Data, EIA-759 Data File, November 1998. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1999. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register. 1996. Endangered And Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Central California Coast Coho Salmon as Threatened in California. Federal Register: November 20, 1996. 61(225):59028-59029. Federal Register. 1997. Endangered And Threatened Wi1dliEe and Plants; Threatened Status of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit of Coho Salmon. Federal Register: June 18, 1997. 62(117):33036- 33039. Federal Register 1998. Endangered And Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of Several Evolutionary Significant Units of West Coast Steelhead. Federal Register: June 17, 1998. 63(116):32996-32998. FERC (Federal Energy Requlatory.Commission). 1978. Final Impact Statement Potter Valley Project No. 77-California. FERC/EIS- 0007. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation, December-1976. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1963. Opinion No. 187: Opinion & Order Denying Appeal, Approving SeCtlement & Issuing New License (Major) Re: Pacific Gas & Electric. Commission OrderjOpinion Issued October 4, 1983. Fisher, J• P. and W. G. Pearcy. 1999. Interannual Trends in Steelhead Abundance and in Ocean Conditions. Prepared Under Subcontract to S. P. Cramer and Associates, Gresham Oregon. Flugum, J. 1998. Russian River System Model: A Water Balance Computer Model of the Russian River System, Sonoma County Water Agency, Santa Rosa, CA, October, 1998. Goodson, L. F. 1969. Factors Affecting Fish Flows. Unpublished Draft Report. Calif. Dept Fish and Game. lil I ~ ~ Lake Mendocino Content WBE Scenario A 120 LL Q S 100 ., 80 0 V 2 60 v N d ~. T YQ t V C 0 ~ 20 A d C VI/1 N lD 1D I~nCOWmm00'1 ~-IN NMM aV1 N10lDn nO]Mmm00"I v9N Nf~1MVOV1 nnnnn nnnnno?W wop op op a~ay ygimmeom ohm ap oP oQ ap opmmmmmmmmmmm oaoaoa°oaoaoaoao¢oaoaoa°oao¢°oao$oaoaoa°°oaoaoa ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO.2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING UPDATED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, 1. The City last updated its Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP") on October 13, 2002; and 2. Water Code Section 10621 the City is required to update its plan every five years in years ending in 0 and 5; and 3. The City has circulated the draft among diverse agencies, persons and organizations within and without the City of Ukiah; and 4. The City has considered and responded to all comments received on the draft plan; and 5. The City published in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the hearing and mailed notice of the hearing to Mendocino County all as required by law; and 6. The City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed UWMP update and considered the proposed plan and all comments received prior to and at the hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby adopts the updated Urban Water Management Plan as proposed and revised prior to the adoption of this resolution, which final document is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and 2. The City Clerk is directed to submit to the Department of Water Resources, the California State Library, and Mendocino County a copy of the UWMP attached hereto as Exhibit A within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the November 26, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mari Rodin, Mayor ITEM NO: sa DATE: November 26, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SU87ECT: Discussion and Possible Input To The County In Response To The Revised Ukiah Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation SUMMARY: Mendocino County has issued a revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Attachment No. 1). The revised NOP was issued to clarify the "proposed project" as defined by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on August 21, 2007 (preferred alternative). The NOP states "....the original comments will be considered as official responses to the NOP, and new comments to this Revised NOP are not required unless the commenter believes that there are additional impacts or issues that should be addressed that were not described in their original comments." The Proposed Project selected by the BOS includes amixed-use land use designation for the Masonite plant site and residential, commercial and mixed use designations for the Lovers Lane site. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and possibly provide input to the County regarding the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Revised Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City Council Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Revised UVAP EIR Notice of Preparation 2. Previous NOP comment letters, dated July 24, 2007, August 2, 2007, and September 4, 2007. APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Man er Various issues that the Council may want to emphasize include: 1. Analysis of consistency between the proposed land use designations and the Vision Statement, Goals and Policies that are contained in the 2007 Plan. 2. Impacts associated with the preferred project which supports 2.07 to 4.6 million square feet of retail development on the existing retail development including land conservation, blight and sustainability. 3. Growth inducing, land consumption and service efficiency impacts associated with locating high density development on multiple sites away from the central city rather than emphasizing infill. 4. Impacts associated with locating and intensifying residential and mixed use development in the floodplain, the dam inundation areas, on prime agricultural land and adjacent to heavy industrial lands. 2 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO ATTACHMENT ~ Telephone 707-467-2569 FAX 707-467-6424 PLANNING TEAM vrvvw.co.mendocino.ca.us/planningteam 501 LOW GAP ROAD • ROOM 1204, UKIAH • CALIFORNIA • 95482 planningteam@co.mendocino.ca.us MEMORANDUM DATE: November 2, 2007 TO: Bureau of Land Management CalFire-California Dept. of Forestry California Dept. of Fish 8 Game California Dept. of Health Services California Dept. of Highway Patrol CA Dept of Housing & Community Development CA Regional Water Quality Control Board Calpella County Water District CalTrans City of Ukiah Dept. of Conservation-Div. of Mines & Geology Local Agency Formation Commission Mendocino Council of Governments Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Mendocino County Dept. of Transp. & Public Works Mendocino County Emergency Services Mendocino County Environmental Health Services Mendocino County Office of Education Mendocino County Sheriffs Department Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority Mendocino Transit Authority Millview County Water District No. California Trails Council NOAH -National Marine Fisheries Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District Rogina Water Russian River Flood Control District State Clearinghouse State Dept. of Water Resources State Parks &Recreation-Mendocino Headquarters Ukiah Unified School District Ukiah Valley Fire District Ukiah Valley Sanitation District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Willow County Water District RE: Notice of Preparation of Program Environmental Impact Report for 2007 Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan State Clearinghouse #2003072038 Pursuant to state and local guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, please be advised that the Mendocino County Planning Team will be the lead agency and will prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the Program EIR prepared by this agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached material. Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than December 3, 2007. Comments by FAX will not be accepted. Please send your response to Phil Gorny at Mendocino County Planning Team, 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1204, Ukiah, CA 95482. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. PROJECT TITLE: 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ?~ f ~ ~~ F;n PREPARED BY: ~.. ~~ - il Gorny TITLE: tanning Team Direct r i,4 (p J ~ t e"~,~' TELEPHONE: (707) 467-2569 d;°RAa_r ;losure: tJOP e ~,. ; ~ ~, Mendocino County Planning Team REVISED NOTICE OF PREPARATION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2007 DRAFT UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN SC[I No. 2003072038 Project Background to 2002 and 2003, Mendocino County prepared a Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP), and in 2004 and 2005 a Dra@ Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for that project [n 2005, the Draft Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003072038) was circulated for public [eview. Subsequent [o [he close of the public review period, the County determined that the Draft WAP required revision to respond to many of [he issues raised by agencies and individuals cornmen[ing on the Draft EIR. No formal action was taken to adopt the 2003 llraft UVAP or certify the 2005 Draft EIR Although the 2003 Drafr WAY and 2005 Draft EIR have been used as sources for new drafts, neither document includes official County policy because [he documents were never adopted or certified by the Board of Supervisors. Current Project Fmm August of 2006 to August 2007, Mendocino County prepared a 2007 Draft WAP. The County will be preparing a Draft and Final Program EIR for the 2007 Draft UVAP proposed by the County of Mendocino. The area (the "plan area") encompassed by the project includes approximately 60 square miles of land (about 38,000 acres) encompassing the Ukiah Valley in southeastern Mendocino County (see attached map). In July 2007, the County circulated an original Notice of Preparation for the 2007 Draft WAP. The July Notice of Preparation included four alternatives that were being considered for inclusion in the UVAP and E[R documents. Ou August 2l, 2007, the Mendocino Couuty Board of Supervisors reviewed the altemalives identified in the original NOP and seluled an alternative that is the cumenl UVAP Project The County received written responses [e that NOP as well as verbal responses at EIR ecoping meetings held on September 5, 2007. This revised NOI' is being circulated to clarify the proposed project and to offer agencies and the public an additional opportuuily [o provide comments about what impacts and issues should he addressed in the Program EIR. The 2007 Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan, if adopted, will serve as part of the Couny's General Plan. It will provide long-term policy direction for growth and development in the plan area over the planning period. -I'he Area Plan reEnes and supplements the County General Plan [o focus on issues of importance in the Ukiah Valley. The land use classifications, policies, and implementation measures of [he UVAP provide more detailed guidance for the plan area than N contained in the existing County Ceneral Plan. In addition, the 2007 Draft UVAP will update policies and programs of the County General Plan, which was originally adopted in 198E The proposed goals, policies, and implementation measures included in the 2007 Draft UVAP can be reviewed online at 6ttp://tinyurfcoml2ntoed. Proposed land use classifications for [he Project and two land use alternatives, identified as A and B, are shown on the attached maps. The [able below surtunarizes buildout potential under the Project and [he land use alternatives included Cor study. The Project and each of the alternatives would include the same goals, policies, and implementation measures of the 2007 Draft UVAP. Land Use Alternative Allowable Uevelopment Potential Single-Family Onifs Multi-Family Unifs Retail Development (sg.ft.) Industrin[ Developmenr s .t. Pro ~ect 2,678 2,752 2.07 to 4.60 million 2.40 million AlternativeA 1,888 2,060 1_83 to 3.90 million 2.56 million Alternative 6 _ 1,667 1,115 1.35 to 2.18 million 3.20 million "Nn Projec!" ~flternative 1,430 296 0.87 to L80 million 3.73 million _ Comment and Preparation Process J'ha County and the County's EIR consultant have reviewed the comments on the original NOP in beginning the preparation of the EIK. Agencies and members of the public are welcome to submit additional comments; howeveq the original comments will be wnsidered as official rosponses to the NO$ and new comments to this Revised NOP are no[ required unless [he commenter believes that there aze additional impacts or issues that should be addressed that were not described in their original comments. Comments previously submitted on the 2005 Draft EIR, to the degree that they are relevant to the 2007 Draft UVAP, are also being used to develop the F;IR. Pursuant to state and local guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Ac[ (CF,QA), please be advised that the Mendooino County Planning Tearo will be the Icad agency for [he project. Based upon preliminary em~ironmental studies for [his proposed project' the original Draft Program EIR, comments received on that Draft Program EIR, and comments received on [he July 2007 NOP, the Mendocino Counry Planning ~feam has determined that a full scope Program EIR focusing on the following issues is required for the project: 1) Geolo and Soils 6) AestheticsNisual Resources 11 Public Health 2) H drolo & Water ^alit 7 Noise 12 A riculNral Reeources 3) Biological Resources 8) Air Quality 13) Hazards & Hazardous ', Materials ~~ 4 Cultural Resources 9 Public Services 14 Po ulation & Housin ~~ 5 Traffic & Circulation 10 Land Use 15 Recreation 'fo ensure that [he F,IR for this project is thorough and adequate, and meets [he needs of all agencies reviewing it, we are soliciting comments on specific issues to be included in [he environmental review. Public comments on [he scope of issues [o be evaluated in [he EIR are encouraged. Details of [he County's proposed project, [he 2007 Draft UVAP, and the 2003 Draft Program EIR are on Ste with the office of the Mendocino County Planning Team, Room 1204, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, CA 95482, and are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. A seoping meeting will beheld on December 5, 2007 at 1 p.m. in Conference Room "C", County Offices, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, CaliComia, 95482. Members of the public are invited to attend [his meeting and provide oral comments regarding [he scope of the Program EIR. Please submit written comments pertaining to this Revised Notice of Preparation [o the Planning Team by December 3, 2007. Comments by FAX will not be accepted. Please direct questions about the project itself [o Phil Gomy, Plawing Team Manager, at (707) 467-2569. Phil Corny November ], 2007 Planning Team Manager Date Page #2 Freeway -~- Co unry Bountl ary Nav onal Fnrn~i HigA way Riau Sta ie PaA Local RUad Iz ke Ca vv+v ao~oe~ry u:e,~.,,, Regional Context Map Community Planning Process 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ~oo :.~~~ Source: ESRIaM MenEOCino County Planning Team Ma00~eparM by MlG. lnc. rvovameen. zow Ukiah Valley Area Plan Project Community Planning Process 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan o~-o~¢~ i~~, Sou e: M¢ntl¢u~O LOUnIy Planning Team Md00ttparetl6y MIG, In[. n'ovdmeen, zow .,.~,.:.m.v uvne ao„w,rv e v~ee s ammeagm,~nn m..-au,~agmenn,i voa: ma~dmi ~_~ rnmi r.~a nn.aei a~ai aeaee~~~di ~ m~..e.u.e e~~e,a n¢sww,. erve,.~e me~n,e. wvieme s~a~m.~aa,aemni ~ m~.m u.e m..o~~a~ a:~~L~a, --. iwnear Fwm r~~ a:nmm mwlw:mnv aes~em~~a mi..aa:e.uonn sare r~na«.m, ~ a~„i eomn,eeev ~ ee~e,a eamm.2e: .. r.m,~~a ae<,n:me Existing Genera{ Plan ("No Project" Alternative) Communiry Planning Piwess 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ~J W T spr,rce: Manbecirw cou~rvpiannmg r am Map Oreperetlby MlG. loc. rvo.emb.r ~, 2om a..,o,rar..rr,.rrr..a..~.r'a v~»m "~.ryd . m.~>nee.r.m..><n ...,r~..,,,~,ro r,.r~,~.w„m,.,,rre<.,.,r~r, SIV Ai POUnOary a freeway Rrrnorn RefiJenliil Genual COmmeroal L._ 'i lnbal lantl AAemel Rural ResltlmGOl InEUSnaI RiveeanE irfiuaoer tool ROaJ Suhukan Refrlenlinl Aynallu+e ^= IWYev FIOW PIaIn ~~ Railrvad MrbKarnilYRerWmlial Ranpe lanEs _ Rural COmmumly PubFC Lantls VVAP BOUn&ry ~ imtway Rem me Rerrtl erl lal MiaNUSC 0.etWmral FOeut Ind ugri al 'L _r lRbal Lnnd Anmel RumlRnldenlial Mlmiusn Gen.ni Aglrulrure R aver and Fnbmanat Ioal Amd Su bu ban RmiJen bal MIrM~IYC Mawni@ an ge'ands .~-~. IaavarPleea rem Radrn>d Mwrw.mlly enrdrnlbl ~ eerreral eommemal ~ Pemm l.nd. Ru nl COmmunrry .. Pads antl 0.e[realron Ukiah Valley Area Plan Land Use Alternative A ~~ rj~ d dP Community Planning Process source: menmcino C^unry viannin9 seam 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ""annrenare°0r"'c~'^° rr^~am°e, t, mm ,~r,M,., cr,rr„mro, Ukiah Valley Area Plan Land Use Alternative B Community Planning Process 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan w..r.r.w. erwmva.rr ra.i~.r.r..eneaemre<r Orm.A.n.mmn eA~aaa.r«u..ru miw nromuesr A.r:.erm.~:.,..r. Z oo cT, Source: Mentlcciw CaunryPlenningT m Ma04/e0area by MlG. lnc. Novem be/I, 200J wnP ao,r~earv Pra.ar gemare Resmeanl MiapJ-uaea~m.,,oal ma: meearrrm L _ ~~ in bal land ~ Anen al 0.a nl Rntltl en lial Mina4Lx'GUOraI AgdcWWre River and iribula nez local RwJ Sububan Resitlenlial Gmual CC mm¢rti al Range lantls ~~ Ip0.Year Flootl P2n ~~ Aallmatl Mulrl. Famlly ReAdrvn lial Pubb[lands R.a nlfommunin ._.; ji~ Parka and Rec rea4on Comparison of Land Use Differences Between the UVAP Alternatives Lantl Use Change from the existing General Plan t- m~ d d _ a< g` a =m `g a 1 Creates a 19 acre mixeb use area (MU-3) in cernrcl Calpella # YES YES VES 2 ReGassttles 2 acre area of exlsting OpaOmenfs from C fo muttlfamlN ISR wlth Rte) ®' VES YES YES 3 Chan s a 41-acre area of AG-401o RR-1 on the west sine of East Side Calpella Roao, south of Calpell0. 0 YES YES NO 4 Reoesi notes the Calpella Sewage irepirnent ponds as PS from AG-40 A VES VES YES 5 Chan es several parcels south of Central Avenue from AG~401o RR-7 O VES VES NO 6 Cha es a stn le .Sa parcel on the west side of North State from R-1 to SR B VES VES NO 7 Creates O 114 acre RR-1 OPD designation from an area west of US-101 already designafeo RR~10, ApproximOteN 22 of those acres were orl Inally desl nateo RMR-20. O yES VES NO o 8 Connects two olswntinuous RMR-20 areas by reoesignatlng the Intervening 30 acres of RL-160 parcels between them O VES YES VES 9 Chan es 60 acres Of active a riculturol production from RL-160 to AG-40 0 VES VE$ YE$ 10 Chan es 14 acres of AG60 parcels on Anfoni Lane to RR-10 O VES VES NO 77 Redesignates 5 acres of Developed AG-40 parcels to RR~1 at the northwest corner of Eastside Calpella Roan and Lake Mendocino Dnve # YES YES YES 12 Redeslgnafes 8 acres of developeD AG-401and fo mulGfamlly resltlentlal use (SR with an R~3 Zoningl neat Lake Mentlocin0 Dr antl the railroad tracks. # ~ ~g ~$ ' 13 Redeslgnates 11 acres of developetl AG-40 and SR parcels to allow for MheD uses (MUNS In the some area Itlentifietl in #12. # ~$ ~ ~ 14 Changes 10 acres of Industrial Iona (p north of the Infersecflon of Notlh State Straef antl Poroucci Road fo commercial C . # YES VES ~ 15 Changes 62 acres of AG-401and south of Lake Mendocino Or. north of the Mendocino Redwood Company mill site fo mueo uses MUNS # ~$ ~ ~ 16 Converts the vacant 27 acres of industrial p) lanD ease of north Sfafe St antl the NPRR railroad tracks to mixed uses MUNS # VES NO NO 1J Changes 31 acres of vacant antl occupieD wmmercial parcels on both sloes of North State 51. south of Lake Mendocino Drive to mixed uses MUNS # yES NO NO 7 B Chan es 21 acres of RR-1 on both sltles of iolllnl Lane from RR-1 fo SR (12K min lot size ® VES YES NO 19 Rebesi Hates 40 acres of commercial IC) lands on North State St. fo (p # VES YES YES 20 ReOesl notes the lSaae Masonlfe (west)slta to allowa mix of Dewlopmant types (MUMi# YES YES NO P7 Converts the 188 acre Lovefs Lane north aghcultur0l area from AG-40 ro mostly residential uses (Mixed Use Res. Focus # yES NO NO 22 Converts the 15 acre south of lovefs Lane parcel from AG~40 to Mged Use Ras. Focus, # YES YES YES 23 ReOeslgnptes the mostly-vacant Industrial p) 5 acres of the Lovefs Lane area to allow for mlxeo uses (MU-3). # YES YE$ YES 24 GOnVER51he remalfling 20 aere50f fh21nOU51rO O area 10 genefal COmmerCa U6e5 (C West Of NORh State $t, antl north of Em ire Dr. O ~$ ~$ f 25'I Changes the industrial (I) deslgnaflon In the Brush Bt. Mangle to allow for mixed use development (MUB$i through the entire 85 acre area. # ~$ YE$ ~ 26 !~ Changes the Industrial pl DeslgnaBOn in the same area as #25 above to commercial Iq for 20 acres along the raltroao ono MUBSi for theremolnaer.O NO NO YE$ 27 Chan es the industrial (I) Desi nation on file 2-acre parcel fo (MUBSi Ot the intersection of Brush Sf. antl US-101. # YE$ VES NO 28 Chan es the intluslrial pl Designation on the same 2-acre parcel Identified in #D fo Iq. 00 NO NO VES 29 ReOesgnates the 8acre RCHDGowneD propeM south of Brush St from industrial (11 fo allow for mulLfamily uses probabl SR, whh an R-3 zonin # VE$ VES YES 30 Converts me 282-acre Discussior. Area 8 antl the 15-acre noRhern aDloinin property from RL~760 to RR-1 PD. # YES VES NO 31 Redeslgnates the no0hem 15 acres of the Cilyawned ballflelds of the east end of Gobbl SL from AG40 fo PS. ® VES YE$ VE$ 32 Changes the northwestern and southwestern corners (5 acres) of Jeffewn and South Sfafe from General Commercial C fo allow for mbeo uses Ml!-2 # yES YES YES 33 Redesl notes the 1Sacre site occupied by Grace Hudson Elementary Scnool from commercial (C) fo FS. # VE$ VES YES 3a Change the 1 ]acre general commercial (CI antl SR parcels south of Croce Hudson to allow for mlxeD uses Mw 2.# yE9 VEg YE9 35 ReOesl notes a 4 acre Industrial parcel mouth of Plant RoaD elan South State St. from I to C. # YES YES YES 36 ' Change an 8-acre area of SR from single family use (R-11 zoning to multifamiN use (R-3j along South State St across from Plant ROad.#' ~$ YE$ ~S i 37 Redeslgnates the 13 acres on the west side of State SL north of Stipp from SR fo mixed uses (MU-2). # VES YES NO 3B RedesgnOtes the wme 73 acres in #3] on the west sine of Sfafe St, north of Stipp from BR to general wmmerclal C on .O ~ ~ ~ 39 Redesi notes the western poRlon of a large spld-zoneD parcel from RL-160 fo RMR~40 match its eastern portion. O VES VES YE$ 40 Chan e 73 acres of RR-5 designated land along SR-253 back to AG-40. ® YES YE$ NO 41 ConveR a 29 acre RR-10 parcel along US-101 north of Burke Hill Rd fo RL-1600 VES VES NO Notes Numbers 12 and 13. 25 antl 26, 2] antl 28 and 37 and 38 refer to two different options for the same physical lomtions All area calculations approximate. Originated from the 200] UVAP process Origlnofeo tram the 2003 UVAP process Other origin Please refer to aBached map for approximate locations ' Razonirg antler ez¢ting General Plan Designatlon Lantl Use AltemaAVe'8' keeps the RR-10 tlesignation where it alreatly exists. 'Lantl Use AI[emative'e' onty retlesgnates 10 acres 1o create a contiguous RMR-20 area. 1~ 2 ~3 5~y 4 8 6~ 8 7` ~.10 18~ ~1d X11 17`2 8 13 15 18 r 21 20 z2 ~i3 2a ,, Y 6 25 30 28 27 8 28 Q31 32 33 34 36 35 ` 37 & 38 'F} 39 40 41\,~ gmlrnM 4nawry penu irvflnWminl nuLn ru. iAryal laM PriPrld Pu/al pesNPnliel .~ri[ullurc pim aM lrLbnWn Loul pctl SuOUrNnPesWential (a~nmal COmrrertbl Multi-Lamlly pesb<n4al y(TMe%n O Rpn~ n purel(ommumiy n n r Areas with Land Use Designation Changes pe nge lergf III. Puhlx la Ms Pa r45 aru1 M[rengn I n ~,~ .~ rfeP Cmnmuniry %anning %aess 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan xnrcr Meneoemn <wmr wanmrg team MaP PnVaraV by MenEOCaw COUnry Nanning seam NwemOer 13, ]00] Attuciiment # ~_ ~~~1, f ~'U~ ~k~~/~1 July 24, 2007 Honorable Board of Supervisors Mendocino County 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA. 95482 Phil Gorny, Planning Team Director Mendocino County Planning Department 501 Low Gap Road, Rm. 1204 Ukiah, CA. 95482 Re: Ukiah Valley Area Plan, Notice of Preparation and Joint Meeting on Preferred Alternative Dear Honorable Chairperson Smith, Members of the Board, and Mr. Gorny: I am writing at the direction of the Ukiah City Council to make two requests. The first request is for an extension of time to respond to the Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the revised Ukiah Valley Area Plan. The second request is for the scheduling of another joint meeting between the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to discuss project alternatives before the Board selects a preferred alternative. The NOP was issued on July 2, 2007, and requires the submission of written responses by August 6, 2007. The NOP describes the revised UVAP in general terms. From that general description, it appears that the three alternatives to the existing general plan from which the Board is being asked to select a preferred alternative are quite different from the alternatives as presented at the April 24, 2007, joint meeting with the City Council. Apparently, up-to-date maps describing the alternatives and study areas are not currently available through the County Planning Team. Finally, the City is being asked to comment on the scope of an EIR for a project which has not been determined, because the Board has not selected the preferred alternative. Since the Board isn't scheduled to make a decision about the preferred alternative until August 21 s`, the City requests that the County extend its time to file comments responding to the NOP to a date that is 10 days after the Board selects a preferred alternative. Without this extension the City does not have sufficient information describing the project and its potential environmental effects to enable the City to make a meaningful response to the NOP. An additional joint meeting before the Board will provide an opportunity for a further exchange among the Board and City Council members concerning the specific project 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 County of Mendocino UVAP NOP July 24, 2007 Page 2 alternatives as they have been revised before the Board makes a decision that will have profound and long-term impacts on the City of Ukiah. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely; Mari Rodin, Mayor City of Ukiah cc: City Council City Manager ~f August 2, 2007 Honorable Board of Supervisors Mendocino County 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Ukiah Ciry Council Comments Concerning the Notice of Preparation for the Program Environmental Impact Report For the Revised Ukiah Valley Area Plan Honorable Chair Smith and Members of the Board: The Ukiah Ciry Council welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR} for the Revised Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP). RELEVANCE OF THE 2002 DRAFT UVAP AND 2005 DRAFT PROGRAM EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003072038) TO THE REVISED UVAP: The NOP states "Subsequent to the close of the public review period, the County determined that the Draft UVAP required revision to respond to many of the issues raised by agencies and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR." We concur that the direction to revise the UVAP came in response to agency and public comment. Specifically, the great preponderance of comments expressed concern that the increased levels of development associated with proposed land use map changes exceeded projections of future need and/or that the impacts of the increased levels of growth and development were not adequately evaluated or mitigated. The NOP further states "The Revised UVAP will build on the policy base and land use classifications included in the original UVAP, revising only those policies and implementation measures that the County deems necessary." A fair reading of this statement and the one cited previously is that the "original UVAP" provides the framework for the Revised UVAP and the County will make those changes needed to respond to issues raised by agency and public comment. Therefore, the EIR should describe in what respect the Revised UVAP addresses the significant environmental concerns that were raised with regard to the previous Draft UVAP. RELEVANCE OF COMMENTS TO THE 2005 DRAFT UVAP PROGRAM EIR: The Revised UVAP is a response to the 2005 Draft UVAP Program EIR which provides the framework for the Revised UVAP. The NOP states that the UVAP is being revised in response to agency and public comment. Therefore, comments to the 2005 Draft UVAP Program EIR are an integral part of the Revised UVAP and must be responded to in the current EIR. Specifically, we hereby incorporate by reference "Ukiah City Council Comments Concerning the UVAP and UVAP Draft Program EIR" dated October 21, 2005. UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN TALKING POINTS: We reiterate that the UVAP and Draft Program EIR must adequately account for and analyze the points raised in the "UVAP Talking Points" (as presented in advance of the January 10, 2007 Joint Policy Boards Study Session) which are hereby incorporated by reference. 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 PFn~oH >l19Id R0 Cnnn C...,u vn~in Gn Conn .n i_i ~. _ . ALTERNATIVES PROVIDE FOR INCREASED DEVELOPMENT: Alternatives A, B and C all provide for significant increases in development of residential units and/or commercial square footage, beyond that allowed by the previous draft UVAP. The EIR should describe in what ways these increased levels of development accomplish the stated objective of a Revised UVAP to respond to agency and public concerns about the level of development provided for in the previous Draft UVAP. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES REQUIRE STUDY: For reasons described in the 2005 Draft UVAP Program EIR, we believe it is appropriate to study a Growth Management Alternative, a Sustainable Development/Smart Growth Alternative and a hybrid that would combine Growth Management and Sustainable Development/Smart Growth concepts. The concepts embodied by these alternatives were not widely utilized when the UVAP was originally developed. Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Growth Management and other strategies are essential to reducing negative impacts, preserving quality of life, preventing sprawl, protecting agricultural and open space lands and promoting public health. DEFICIENCIES OF THE NOP; As stated in a previous letter, the NOP fails to identify the project in specific terms. We understand that in addition to the four alternatives described in the NOP the Board of Supervisors wil{ have the option to modify or combine individual elements of the various alternatives to create a preferred alternative that is not described in any document. Further, we understand that property owners within the plan area have been invited to submit requests for individual zoning changes with a deadline of August 10. Since the deadline for comments to the NOP is August 6 it is not possible to comment on alternatives that may result from individual requests that have not yet been received or made public. Additionally, the NOP references a "plan area" and "attached map" but neither the text of the NOP or the map describe or define the boundaries of the plan area. ECONOMIC STUDIES FAIL TO SUPPORT INCREASED ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE RETAIL/COMMERCIAL: Several recent studies confirm that current and future needs for retail development within the plan area can be met from the existing inventory of appropriately zoned land within the plan area. In fact, the need for additional retail countywide and within the regional trade area can all be met several times over from existing inventory within the plan area. The Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) Final Report on Ukiah Valley Growth Prospects identifies a need for approximately 200,000 square feet of .retail development countywide by 2025. Even the Applied Development Economics (ADE) Report dated June 14, 2007, which was commissioned by a party with major development interests in the plan area, suggests that 100% capture of all "leakage" (including Internet sales) would support slightly over 500,000 square feet of retail today, increasing to one million square feet by 2026 in the regiona/ trade area, which includes all of Lake County and parts of Humboldt 2 and Sonoma. The ADE study estimates a current need for 390,000 square feet of retail countywide, increasing to 733,000 square feet countywide by 2026. These figures assume that new retail facilities would result in 100% capture of leakage, including Internet sales, which is not a realistic assumption. The ADE figures are based on questionable assumptions and significant aspects of their calculations and findings are not publicly available. Nevertheless, the ADE report indicates a current and 2026 need for retail that is only a fraction of currently developable inventory. "Potential Development Within the Ukiah Valley Area Plan" plan area, as developed by the County of Mendocino Planning Team Staff in conjunction with the consulting team at Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman, confirms that there is no need to rezone additional land within the plan area in order to accommodate commercial/retail development. In fact, the "UVAP Totals" indicate an existing inventory of between 2.6 and over 5.2 million square feet of land that is currently zoned to accommodate retail/commercial uses and therefore there is no need to rezone additional land to accommodate retail/commercial uses. CREATION OF BLIGHT: Any significant rezoning of land for retail/commercial uses is likely to result in declining sales in existing retail areas which will foreseeably result in physical deterioration and creation of blight in those areas. The magnitude of these impacts must be assessed as part of the EIR. REGIONAL PLANNING: The economic and physical impacts of growth and development in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Ukiah Valley can not be considered in isolation. In keeping with the "Annexation Discussion Principles" (as previously developed by two members of the Board of Supervisors and two members of the City Council) the City Council proposes to accommodate the project objectives for land zoned retail/commercial from existing inventory within the City. Alternately, the EIR should assess the negative impacts to traffic and circulation, air quality, public services (particularly public safety), population and housing patterns, public health, protection of agricultural resources, land use, and economic development that will likely result from a failure to plan cooperatively for the future of the Ukiah Valley. VISION STATEMENT: At the April 24, 2007 Joint Policy Boards Study Session there was unanimous endorsement of the Vision Statement. We believe that it is reasonable to evaluate all proposed land use changes in terms of their conformance to the principles contained in the Vision Statement. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ~.. / 1 /~ ti Doug Crane, Vice Mayor For The Ukiah City Council 3 September 4, 2007 Mr. Phil Gorny Planning Team Director Mendocino County 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 c~~y ~f uk«~ RE: Additional Response to NOP of EIR for Ukiah Valley Area Plan Reassessment Dear Mr. Gorny: The following additional comments supplement the three previous letters submitted by the City of Ukiah in response to the Notice of Preparation for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report. These comments are also submitted for the scoping session planned for September 5, 2007. These additional comments reiterate and provide additional detail concerning the crucial need for environmental information and analysis in regard to water supply, sewer availability, potential adverse impacts to existing commercial development, and potential traffic impacts. 1. Analvsis of water supplies. The EIR must include an analysis of a concrete plan for the near-term and long-term provision of water to areas designated for development, including the Lover's Lane and Masonite planning areas, and must disclose the impacts of providing the necessary supplies in the long term. It must coherently explain, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR, how the long-term demand for water in those planning areas is likely to be met from specifically identified water supply sources, and the environmental impacts of exploiting those sources, and how those impacts are to be mitigated. (See, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsib/e Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412. (EIRs for community and specific plans invalidated for failing to include this information].) 2. Analvsis of sewer availability. The EIR must include an analysis of sewer capacity and availability to justify the proposed land use classifications. In the event that the analysis concludes that an additional waste water treatment plant would be necessary to serve the potential build-out resulting from the proposed land use classifications, it must include a mitigation program detailing its feasibility, including where an additional plant could be located and who would be responsible for providing funding. 3. Analvsis of indirect impacts from commercial development at Masonite site. The EIR must include an analysis of the individual and cumulative potential of large scale commercial development in the Masonite planning area to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long- term vacancies in existing shopping centers, including the downtown business district in the City of Ukiah, the Pear Tree, Orchard Plaza, and Yokayo shopping centers in the City of Ukiah, Redwood Business Park in the City of Ukiah and any other commercial districts or developments in Mendocino County which could be impacted. (See Bakersfie/d Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfie/d (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1204- 1207; see, also, Citizens for Qua/ity Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 433, 445-446 [EIR defective for failing to analyze impact of shopping center on 1 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH, CA 95452-5400 downtown business district].) In this regard, the EIR must survey and quantify the existing vacancies in these shopping areas, and the closures that have already occurred in older shopping centers as a result of the development of newer shopping centers (e.g., vacancies in the Yokayo and Orchard Plaza Shopping areas, the downtown business district, and any other commercial districts or developments in Mendocino County that occurred after the construction of the Pear Tree Shopping Center and the Redwood Business Park). 4. Analysis of traffic, circulation and safety impacts. The EIR must include a comprehensive and detailed analysis of potential traffic, circulation and safety impacts on City streets and intersections that would result from build-out according to the proposed land use designations and any proposed future streets, street extensions or other circulation improvements. The EIR must also include an analysis of the potential impacts on the Highway 101 interchanges and adjacent intersections. The EIR must also include an analysis of the potential impacts and vehicular conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists on City streets and at City intersections. This analysis must consider planned improvements and adopted plans such as the City of Ukiah Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Ukiah NWP Rail Trail Study. The City of Ukiah remains committed to a cooperative and collaborative UVAP planning process and looks forward to a comprehensive and truly adequate Environmental Impact Report. and Commy(Sity Development Cc City Council City Planning Commission Candace Horsely, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney Pam Townsend, Senior Planner 2 ITEM NO. 6a DATE: November 26. 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF VIDEO CAMERAS AT THE CORPORATION YARD AND PURCHASE OF A RECORDING DEVICE FROM AT8~T SUMMARY: The City of Ukiah corporation yard serves the Water/Sewer, Electric, Garage, and Street departments. Recent criminal thefts at the corporation yard area have presented enforcement challenges. The Police department has increased patrols in the area, metal cage- typedoors have been used to reinforce supply storage areas, and locked storage containers have been purchased to secure wire and other expense items. Attempts to secure the facility and quell some of this activity have failed as fence lines are cut and metal doors have literally been pried open. Our experience is this behavior will continue unless we change the way we protect our facilities. The departments met to analyze a variety of security systems that would work in this remote area, but at the same time meet the needs of the other departments that will use security equipment for such purposes as the Police vehicle videos, reduction of vandalism in the parks, and Civic Center security. The goal was to integrate one system to serve all needs. For the corporation yard, it is estimated that approximately five (5) cameras will need to be purchased to get the best visual coverage. The cameras will be networked allowing surveillance by the Public Safety dispatchers. When a movement alarm is triggered, the dispatchers who monitor the cameras will be alerted. If they view a crime in progress, patrol units can be notified to the incident preventing loss to the city. Proper camera placement will ensure all areas inside the RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the installation of video cameras at the corporation yard and purchase of the recording device for city wide use at $32,286.38 plus shipping and sales tax and authorize budget amendment for same. Funding: Electric $7,200; Water/Sewer $7,200; General Government Buildings $9,886; Police measure S $8,000 plus shipping and tax. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City departments Prepared by: Steven Butler, IT Supervisor Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works; Sage Sangiacomo, Director of Community Services; and Chris Dewey, Chief of Police Attachments: AT&T Quotation for Video cameras, recording device and installation APPROVED L Candace Horsley, City anager corporation yard are protected. In addition to these specific cameras, the bid also includes a video recording system that will serve all departments when they have purchased their cameras for specific needs. From the two system quotes received, one system's cameras were inadequate and there was no ability to alert dispatch. AT&T also bid and currently provides our managed Internet service, network links to our remote sites, and all non-internal phone service including 911. AT&T is the best provider to integrate this security system with the dispatch, police and Internet service and has been selected to provide the security system and linkage with current systems. Funds for the project will be supplied from the general fund building account for Parks, Street and Civic Center's portion of the base and also from Police, Water and Electric Utilities. Costs to implement the system, initial camera costs and recording device, are $32,286.38 plus shipping and sales tax. Staff has broken down the costs for the recording device among all the departments that will be using it in the future. Atfuuliment # }} Proposal For ~±~ atBCl City of Ukiah, CA* Corp Yard Rev 1.0 Pridag September 07, 2007 Equipment Part Number ID-CBL-Ol ID-CNTL-Ol ID-NET-Ol ID-RACK-Ol ID-VID-O1 Services Part Number IDS-Install T-100 '•:ID~SO~lit1011S __ _ - Qty Description 1 Cable Package, Including: 5 External Antenna for Wireless LAN Card S Wireless LAN Card 1 Control System, Including: 1 Wireless Access Point 802. 1 Network Communications Equipment Pkg, Including: 1 Network Digital Video Management System I Network Digital Video Management System(Support) 5 Network DVMS(Camera) 5 Network DV MS(Camera-Support} I Network Video Recorder 512MB DDR2,Pen[ 4 2.8 GHz, 800 MHz, ROOGB HD 1 Rack Equipment and Hardware, Including: 5 Power Block 1 l OAC In 24AC Out I Video System Including: I Cable, Conduit and Misc. Hardware 4 Comer Mount Adapter 4 Gooseneck Wall Mount Bracket I Network Camera Color 18X AF POE/24VAC/DC 12 BNC 4 Network Camera PTZ Color 18X (4-73mm) AF 12VDC BNC 4 Normal Wireless 7" Tinted Dome w/ Healer/Blower 1 Outdoor Aluminum Housing 13" 24VAC H[dBlwr (CAM & CAM I8) Total Price $2,550.00 $SOO.OII $9,900.88 $1,500.00 $10,445.50 Unit Price Total Price $6,190.00 $6,190.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $7,390.00 I Installation, Project Management, Engineering, Programming 2 Training Delivered-2 Hour Grand Total w/o Optional Items and w/o Shipping: Shipping: Grand Tota{ w/o OptionaV Items: $32,286 i8 TBD $32,286.38 This proposal contains [he Enterprise ONSSI License that the city can implement as many times as [hey wane I[ can he utilized to bring a consistency ro the city for [he management platforms of [he cameras. Therefore there won't be so many stand alone systems. It is non-proprietary and very scaleable. The quote is for implementation and support with expedited parts for City of llkia. It will he a total of4 PTZ cameras and 1 fixed camera implementation. The NVR would allow the city to add an additional 40 cameras to the system widroul a hazdwaze upgrade or add m+. Proposal#: 1001-090707-2 Friday, September 07, 2007 Page 1 of t ITEM NO: 6b MEETING DATE: November ?.6, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING REQUEST FROM MENDOCINO TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEE MEMBER The Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) has sent a letter to the City requesting Mayor Rodin's participation on a policy steering committee to determine site selection and design for a Ukiah Transit Center. The history and background regarding a Transit Center is included in the letter along with the proposed discussion items for the committee. MTA is asking for Council's approval and appointment of the Mayor for this policy committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and appoint to the MTA policy committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Bruce Richards, MTA Requested by: Mayor Rodin Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Coordinated with: Mayor Rodin Attachments: 1 -Letter from MTA Approved: Candace Horsley, City M ager ATTACHMENT I SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority November 9, 2007 ;Mari Rodin, Mayor, City of Ukiah Jim Wattenburger, County Supervisor, 2"d District Benj Thomas, Ukiah City Councilman Jim Mastin, Chair, Mendocino Transit Authority RE: Ukiah Transit Center Policy Steering Committee As you are all well aware, the MTA has struggled for years in its effort to secure a suitable location for the Ukiah Transit Center. In order to move ahead with this important and valuable project, MTA needs to be in a position. to select a location that is acceptable to or desired by the Ukiah City Council and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. Therefore, in recent discussions, the MTA Board has decided to try to establish a committee with policy level representation from all three agencies. What is a Transit Center? A Transit Center consolidates all ground, mass transportation providers in one safe, convenient and efficient location. For Ukiah, the carriers include: • AMTRAK and the national rail system, • Greyhound and its national bus system, • Airporter service, potentially, with connection to national and international air service, • Lake (County) Transit, a new arrival with service six days a week, • MTA intercity and regional bus service, • MTA local bus service, • Hey Taxi, the current local cab service, • MTA's Ukiah Dial a Ride. Why do we need one in Ukiah? Currently, there is insufficient coordination between these operators, including both the physical locations of pickup and drop off points and schedules. Greyhound's bus stop is 241 Plant Road Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 shared with MTA at the gkiah Airport, but that MTA bus route runs infrequently and the schedule does not mesh well with Greyhound. The AMTRAK Thruway Bus stops at Burger King, east of the freeway where there is no MTA service. Both of these long distance, private operators experience delays enroute, causing unpredictable arrival and departure times. Proper local "feeder" buses should operate more frequent service in order to provide good connections. With a much stronger emphasis these days on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, local public agencies, including the transit operator, should be involved in making travel by bus or rail more attractive to riders. We need to remove barriers and facilitate connections between local and long distance carriers. How can we pay for one? Back in the late 1990s, MTA had applied for and received federal grants (some through CalTrans and some directly from the Federal Transit Administration - FTA) and had budgeted local funds totaling approximately $2 million for a Transit Center at the Ukiah Depot site. When the cost estimate approached $3 million and no progress was forthcoming with the railroad, the MTA Board discontinued work on that scenario. In the mean time, some of the grant funds were taken off the table and $300,000 was transferred to and spent on MTA's Fort Bragg bus yard site acquisition. However, almost $500,000 of federal funds (possibly plus interest) is being held for the Ukiah Transit Center, pending creation of a substitute project. At least two sources of federal money are clearly suited for such a project and future earmarks for it are still possible. Although MTA has probably lost some credibility with CalTrans and FTA around this project, it should return if we can come up with a substitute project with the full support of the City and County. Next steps MTA proposes to create a policy-level steering committee in order to ensure that the site selection work and design will receive the support of the City Council and Board of Supervisors. The group is intended to include the Mayor of Ukiah, the 2nd District County Supervisor, Ukiah's representative to the MTA Board and the MTA Chair. All of you have agreed to participate after discussions with MTA Chair Mastin. The next step is to get together and deal with some organizational and policy issues. Among items to discuss are: ^ Authorization of your representation, ^ Committee organization and member succession, Communication, ^ Staff support/technical advisory committee, ^ Public Participation, Geographic constraints, ^ Other items from you. In the next few days, I will work with you via email to find a day and time when we can meet. Very Truly Yours; Bruce Richard c: Jeffrey Davis, Federal Transit Administration Dan Mundy, CalTrans Division of Mass Transportation Phil Dow, Mendocino Council of Governments