Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2007-11-26 Packet - Special (2)
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 26, 2007 4:30 p.m. 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 fndings 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 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 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 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 ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specifc 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 Stale 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 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. § 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 A1" 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 61 or 62 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 62 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. 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. 7 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: 9 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 anager 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. ATTACHMENT ~'~ ~® I~ c~P~ MARK 8 NORTON, A7D, MSPH Oirec;o~ State of California-Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Public Health DRINKING WATEP. FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH 50 D STREET, SUITE 200, SAfJTA ROSA, CA954O4 PHONE, (707J 576-2145 /FAX' (707) 576-2722 INTERNETADDRESS~. vrcrw.cdoh caaov Ms. Anne Burck City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Burck, `.s.-~'~`'+~ weeJ ~' ARNOLO SCHWARZENEGGER Governor November 9, 2007 / ~__ f _ Cos ?,~;?!. ~~~ ~ ~uG) ,U Y - --- _~~5 In 2001 this office issued a report entitled, 'Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment Report'. We have revised this report and a draft copy is enclosed for your review. Please review the sections of the report that pertain to your water system for errors. Because water supply is a critical issue for the Ukiah Valley we would like it to be as accurate as possible. 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 will 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 F Drinking `Water Adequacy Assessment Ukiah Valley Mendocino County llepartment of Public health Drinl:iug ~i'afer Field Operations Branch Mendocino llish-ict November 2007 Ukiah Vullzy Drinking' 1Yaler Adequacy :Assesslnanl Nov-ember ]007 I able of Contents I. Introduction .........................................................................._.......................,...._.............. ... i a. Purpose ____.. _......._._ ................... ...... . _..3 b. Scope . .............. ........... ................................ IL Sununan~ and Conelusions ....................._.................__..........._........_..._.......................... __ 6 a. \Valer liiehts and Supply Adcquacy ....................................................................._.-__._..._._ ....6 b. \1~atzrSuppliers ................_..._...,..........................................................................-.. _. _........... ...9 c Potcmial Soppy Dc\~clopnrenl ........................_.........................._.._....................._..___.....__ . I1 III. Russian fiver Watershed .......... ........... ................. ...._.. ..._........ ............__.... . I i a. Description oI 1VatcrshzcL,.... ..._..._...... ._........._. _........... _._..... .__..._. _.__. . I> h. hledrnlncv_. ._._.. .___....__.__ .I~ c. fish 1'rotec(ion__ .. ............................... ........_................._.... .___.._ _...__._ _.__ . 17 d. N'aizrltlghts__ ..... ...........__. ........... ......... IS c. \4'aicr Availabilip' .............__... ......................... ......_......... ......_............._._...__._.... . 19 IVr_ A9endocinn County Russian River Flood Control ~`i AV'atzr Consen'ation Improvement Dislricl . ?3 a. background ................................... ...... .............. ...:........... ____ ...........__.__..... .]~ h \vaier.Supply_ _. _._ _ ___. ._ _ _. __.. _ _ _ 1(i \~. I\~CnOUC InU C'Ullllll' l\'81~I' ~\L'2nCV ......_ ............._......._.............._..................... _.._... _........ . ~n a. CurrenlSeslem............_ ......................... .......... ............. ........... ....__...__......_. _11 b Fuhuc Dcnrlnds_ . _......._... __ ........... ....... .. _....__. ............ _ 3ti r ~\cgeccmrnt of ('nmpliance _..._. ...__....... ..... _.. _. ._....... ......__ _.._ ;S '.'II G~,h ,.,..I all ~, \',',~~I - Di;,r.i. _....._.. ._._......... ___ ~~ I a. C'unzruS\stem .... ........... ................... _. ....__............ .._ _-.. ......._....._. .... .dl b. Futurz Demands ._ ............... .. _........... ......,_.... ....._.............___....... _. .,. .. .di c. AsscssmcntofCompliance .............................._................................_._........................_._...... .d6 VIII. ~lilh'iewCowu~'1VatcrDistriut_ ......................................................................................... 45 a. Cun-eat Svslem _.__ ..................................................................... ....................._........... _-1S b. Future Dem:mds_..._...._ .............................._....... -, c. AsszssmentofCompliance .............._.__...........::................_..............._................................... .54 I\. Calpclla County \Vater Uistricl ............:......:._...............................,......_.............................. 56 a. CurremSvsicm....._._ ................................................................................................................ ~6 b. future Demands......_ .............,._...........................................,...._...................................__... .58 c. AssessmentoFConipliance...........~ ..:.............................................._........................................... 58 X. Rogina Vr'ater Company ................................................._............................................._..... 60 a. CurrehiSvstem ....................................................................................._.................................. 60 b. Future Unmands .............. ........................................................................_................._.......... 62 c. Assessmento(Compliancc ..................................................._................................................_ 6; I. W iI low Counq' Vt''mer:District ............................................................................................... 65 a. Current SVSIem ........................._...............................,................................................._._........_ 6J L. Puhnc Demands __. __.. _. __._.__......_ 6R ~. .;;sc~sc~at, ,~~.; r,; c... r.n XII. liopland ................................................_......................................... ._............................ 71 a. CurrentSystcm......_ ...................................................................................._._.......................... 71 b. Future Demands ..............__............................._..................._......._............ 7J c. AsscssmcnlofCompliance ..........................................__......__ _.__.._... __..........__... 7a Ukiah V'allcy Drinkinc lVatcr Adcyuact~ .Assessment No~cmber?UU7 I. Introduction a. Purpose Section 6~1i62 of the C;ililbrnia \1 aterworks Standards. contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Reeulations (CCR), requires all public water systems to hate sufficient water available Irom their water sources and distribution reservoirs to supply adequately. dependably aril safely the total requirements of all users under ma~innun demand conditions before agreement is made to permit additional service connections Iconn) to a system. l~he public water systems located in the Ilkitdt Valley of ~'Icndocino County as well as those located just to the north and south of the taller arc dependent, either directly or indirectly, on the Russian_Riter AVatershed as their primary source of supply. Fhe Division of Dritil:ing \\'ater and Cm'ironmenlal ~-lanagement of the California Department of Public I-lealth (Department) conducted a drinking water adequacy assessment. as a prcliminart analysis of current and projected future supply, for each of the regulated water systems in this area in ~OU1. this report gives the results of an update of the original analysis. h. Scope The geographical scope of the study corers the area adjacent to the Russian River from the town of Flopland north to the end of Redwood Valley in Mendocino County. There are seven public water systems in this area that were included in the Department's source supply ^dequac} assessment. The public water systems included in the aSSI'SSllteltl. alti: • Redwood Valley Cowlty Water District (Redwood Valley CWD), • Calpella County Water District (Calpella CWD), • Nlillvi'ew County Water District (Millvicw CWD), • City o€-Ukiah (Ukiah), • Rogina`A~~ater Company (Rogina WC), • Wiiluw Count}' 14~ater District (Willow CWD), and • Hopland Public Utilities District (I-Iopland PUD). In addition, the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Consen'ation Improvement District (t`4CFC District) are included in the assessment. These agencies are not public wafer systems and hate no physical facilities. I~lowever, the ~~IC11'A is the only agency that has authority across jurisdictional lines within the count}' to plan and implement water resource related projects, and the ~1CFC District is the holder of the County of Ukiah \'allcy Drinking 1\'atcr A.dcquaev Asrssman \bcemhcr ~Oli7 ~'+1cndocino's 8,000 acre-foot (.AF) right to water stored in Lake Rlendocino (Project R'ater). Depending nn the Irenl dclinition oC Russian Ricer undcrflow, all of the public water systems included in this assessment are rn could be dependznl on the IvIC'FC Disu~ict's 3,000 AF +vater right as a s~nirce of suppl}~ during part of such }car. This review documents: • the ++~atcr availability in the Russian Rivenvalershcd. • the potential impact of the rzcent Fedzral Energy Regulatory Commission jPFRC) Potter Vullcy Projccl decision on +~°ater users in the Ul:inh Valle}', • the current capacity of each system's groundwater and surface water supply. water riehts as determined by the California State \Vater Resources Control Board (S\1%RCf3), • the impact on the public water systems in the Ul:iah \rallcv of the IxICPC District's control over t\4endocino Count}''s 3.000 acre legit of water in Lake ~4cndocino. • water use for the last tcu years (1997=?006). and • treaunent and storage capacilizs. :\n estimate of luturc demand in the year ?025 is made for each water system usinc n~~i,iil;iii~,n I',,r,~cn~le Ih~nt the drab .Alendocino Counn Irl;iah Vallee Area Plan Icir the live systems it is applicable to. For the [ted}+'nod Valle}' C\VD the growth projection is based on the historical growth that has occurred over the, fast ten years while the District has been wider a connection ntot'atorium. For the Hopland PUD, the approach was to assume thz same rate of growth in.comtectioris that has occurred in the last 10 rears. A comparison was then made of current and projected future demands +vith water riehts, supply, treatment and storage capacity. The assessment also examines the reliability of the system sources and efforts toward conservation. The California VvTterworks Standards requires public water systems to have sufficient water Gam water sources and distribution reservoirs to supply adequatel}', dependably and safely the total requirements of all users under maximum demand conditions. The Depar°,tutcnt interprets (iris regulation to mean each water s}'stem must have a legal right to its water sources to classify [bent as dependable. For the purposes of this analysis, the highest maximum day of production that occurred in the period 1997 through ?006 .vas used as maximum demand conditions. The basis for assessment oC the adequacy of source and distribution storage capacity ~~ ~~ ihP ('nli fnrnin AA%n rrn!~nrks .Clandarr(c_ C erlinn 6a5(iq, (n 1. which cl;Vec Ihal \4'herever possible, needed source and storage volume shall be determined from existing wafer use records of the +valer system." This analysis used existing water production records for the period 1997 - ?006 from each of the seven water systems and assessed the required storage capacity based on the equation: Storege Volume =Average Dap Production ~~ 25". i. o(Nnximum Day Production ~ Pirc f low Demand Ukiah Vallcy Driul:ing W'atcr Adequacy Assessment November SOU? "fhe basis for assessment of system reliability is C:tlifomia I lealih and Safety Code (CI-ISC), Section 116>j~ (a)(3) which states, in part, "Any person who owns a public water system shall ensure that the s} stem provides a reliable and adcquale supply of pure, wholesome, healthful, and potable water." "fhe analysis conducted based its assessment of reliability of each system on n number of factors, including water rights, physical source capacitc, standby power and,~or a backup source of supply, and storage capacity. To assess the need for conservation and the potential for water savings, the report examines average water use during the month of maximum demand by each system un a per connection basis and compares that with other users in the Ukiah Vallcy. Conclusions arc drawn as to the ailcquacv ofcach public water system to comply with the source and storage capacit}' and reliability provisions of Section 64562, California Waterworks Standards. I lowewer, projecting water demands even 1 U }'ears into the future is an inexact science AChile c~ crv effrn~t has been made to obtain the most accurate information available, the projections nwdc and conclusions drawn about future needs and compliance are likely outcomes tinder current conditions. The Department's intended use for this information is for planning par}?oses and to guide its workload priorities. Ukiah \'allcy Drinking \l'aicr ,ldcquac+ Assessment Noventbcr?G07 II. Sununary and Conclusions n. I!'ater Rights mrd Srcppld' ,adequacy The mission of the 5\A`RCB. as discussed in this document, is to allocate +vaters of the State to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. W'atcrs of the State include both surface water sources and underfloor that recharge surface +eater sow~ces, but do not include erouncheater that is Gont percolated rainfall. `I he DeparlmenCs mission is to ensure that drinking water is safe, potable and in sufficient supply to maintain health, prevent illness, and assure the piolection of the public. These differine missions result in t+vo separate definitions of surface water; one as defined by the SbVRCB for the purpose of water rights and one as defined by the Department based on water quality characteristics that require additional treauncnt in order to be deemed potable and safe to drink. The S\1T.CB recognizes riparian and appro~~riative ++ater ri~hls in the Russian Ri+cr ++~atershed. Riparian rights belong to lands a~jitcenl to the river. Al%ater may be taken loom the river for beneficial use on the land that is adjacent to the river. It ma}' not be exported off site. Appropriative rights are Ihose granted by the $\1'RCB to persons and entities that submit application withdraw water for beneficial usa Appropnanve rights h~i+c limit. ~~n the I,~lal „,li~mc Ili:~t can lie talon ir, .~~ .,,I. II~..~,.~ .~,~,.~~~~ ~,~,,.~~~tan".a:, rate at +vhieh it can be taken, and the length uFtime during the year+vhcn it can be taken. 'fhe entire Russian River and its tributaries, including those in the Ukiah Valle}, hate been declared fully appropriated for [he period ~f July through October of each year and the only ne++' water rights being granted by the SV/RCB arc for diversion of +vinterispring flood (lows fin off stream storage. It is estimated shat the total available wafer rights Gom the Russian River in the Ul:iah Valley~(ex~~ludipg an unknown amottnf~"of riparian right) arc approximately 35,OS0 acre-feet per year (AFY) including an estimated 5,100 AP1' oC Pre-d9 +vater, 5,000 :'tPl' of wafer stored in the water supply pool of Lake t`4endocino (Project Water), and 15.950 r1Fl' of Post-49 water. With exception of Ul:ialt (l~l,4S0 APl'j and the Willow C\1~D 1728 AFY), the only appropriative water right for summer time water use b}' water utilities is 5,000 A1:1' oCProjecl Water that is held by (he t`9CPC District. The seven politic water system included in this report are all to varying degrees dependent on [he Iv1CFC District's 5,000 AI= of Project 14rater to supply their system demands in the summer/fall dry season. lierutse of dtscrepanctes m reported amount of use, a lease and Uestst ~n der was issued to the MCFC District by the SWRCB in 2005. As a result of this order and its elTbrt to perfect its +vater right, the MCPC District has instiWlcd a requirement that all users of its water enter into a Uniform 1','ater Supply Agreement (UWSA) for a specific annual vnluntc o(++'atcr and that each +valer user accurately ntctcr and report all water used to the ~4CPC District. In addition, the t\ICFC District applied for an extension to December i I, 2007 to perfect its 5,000 AP water right. Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vater Adequaq~ Assessment Noccmber "'007 7~he MCPC District's Uniform Water Agreements have a provision requiring htll use of the conuacted amount each year. If a +vater system' full contracted volume is not used in one year, the U\V'SA requires the tv4CFC District to reduce the amount of water in that system's UWSA for the follo+ving }'car. This' is a concern since +vater use by public +cater systems varies from }'car to )car. Ilo+acver, ~4CFC District has implemented this by declaring unused water surplus for that year and selling it to other customers. In 2006, tha tvdCPC District had U\V'SAs for the sale of 7,400 AF of+vater. The (i00 AF of additional water not commiucd by an agreement plus +v:uer that was under contract but not used was considered by the tv~tCFC District surplus water and used by the Redwood Valley C\\'D. In this way the ~9CFC District did not penalize public water systems for not using their full allotted amount. tycre able to use the full allotment under its water rights permit. and +vas able to supply the Redwood Valley CWD +vith surplus water. The 6~ICFC District has U\V'SAs for 7,-1(~10.4P oCwatcr in 2007 also. It is probable that the tvICFC District will again use its full water rights allocation in 2007 as it did in 2006. This will allow the t+ICFC District to make application to perlect is +aater rights permit allocation and receive a license (ur the 5,000 iUl' of Project \Vater it now has a permit for. l~he total annual demand Crom water utilities for domestic use was reported to be 5,499 AF in 2006. This is protected to increase to 12,274 AP U}' the }'ear 2025. In 2006, the (GLII am ULlnl OI '.v;IIC i' ~1"Om the Se+L'^ +Yalfl U111i LICS that CUllld be aCCOLIme(I ae I~n~~rCl bVater in the ~1CPC Disuict report ryas 4,14} AP. 1-lowe+eer, this included the water Redwoud Valley CWD used for its inigalion distribtdi~n systotn. When that is removed, the seven +valcr systems used 3.226 AP to supply domestic customers. The total amount of water currently covered by cuntracts with llte MCPC District by the six water utilities than have contracts with N1C~C District is 3,371 AP. The contracted amount exceeds the 2006 demand for domestic water by approximately fow percent. However, tltc total amuimt of MCPC tvute~ used, including Redwood Valley's irrigation water; exceeded the contracted amount by 23 percent. this was only possible Because all the water Redwuiid Valle}' CWD purchased was considered "surplus water'. ]n tle.year 2025, the total demand for Project \Vatcr for domestic use Crom the seven water utilities is projected to increase to 4,52> AP, significant)}' exceeding the current contracted @mount. Removing the Redwood Valley's projected domestic demand of S96 AF still gives,a projected 2025 demand of 3,629 AP. Since the MCFC District currently has UVi'SAs Cor 7,400 .API', it will not be able to supply the total projected increase to 5,503 ^,1'Y. ! lowever, antler These demands, the Redwood Valley CWD would have to access its conuauted supply frum tilt SC'1~',=+ tiiun icd~cing dw d"n.,,,~ from the remaining 6 +vater utilities to 3,629 AP. phis ++ould still exceed the currently contracted supply of 3,371 AP but MCFC District currently has the capaciq~ to supply this increased amount if the 600 .4F of current surplus water arc preserved for this purpose. 7 Ukiah Vailey Drinking 1Vafcr Adequac} Assessment November _007 Fcl RArr Dircrcion Since the Potter Valley Project (PVP) began diverting +aater to the Cast Porl: of the Russian River. users in the Ukiah Valley have established +vater rights to this water and have become dependent upon the supply. [t represents the only reliable source of summer time (low in the river. On.lanuan•'_8. 2004, the Federal Cnergy Regulatory Commission (PCRCj issued Order 10C amending the hydroelectric license for Poucr Valley Project No. 77 requiring operational and physical modifications to the project Cnr the benefit of federally threatened salmonids. The decision allows the Pacific Gas CIccU~ic Company (PGSE) to continue operating the Potter Valley Project until 2037 but requires it to develop and implement a Flow managemcnbplan in accord wish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOA.41Nalional ~4arine Fisheries Scn-icc MMPS) Reasonable and Prudent :1lternalive (.RPAI for Ilow management. On the average, the RPA is projected to result in a 33 percent average reduction during normal ycros and greater reduction in dry years. The linal environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by 1=CRC fur the Project ad+~i,es that the implcmentaiion oC the PvI'.A would risk dc~aatering of Lake N(cndocino under worst case droueht conditions, both currently and in the future. Additionally, under these critical conditions, su'eam flow models predict that there would be significant shortfalls (average nu~nthly (lows Icss than minimum in-stream flow requircmcnkl for 2 months of the year currently and incroasin~ in 5 m~nlhs under linure :U'U condiuutts. Under these; eortditions, the only available supply (ur ~+tncr purveyors would be Gom the Ukiah Valley g~oiindwater basin. The critical time period for filline Lake Mendocino very year is April through June. Under normal ciiitditioiis the water supply,pool catutot encroach into the flood control pool until April J of each year. Because of the required reduction in the fio+a through the Power Valley Project there will be significantly less (low in the East Pork of the Russian River dwing this Lime period attd'hence significantly less water to tilt Lakc Mendocino. 'fltis year;~?007, cumulative inflows into Lake tv-tendocino were such that [he +vater year was classi(izd as a normal year requiring higher releases Gom the Lake. Hmvever, because of the cut back in the PVP water, the storaee in Lake Mendocino in early April .vas apprn>;imatcl}• 67,000 AP and it was projected to drop to 8,000 AP under iiie normal year release requirements. The SC\\'A petitioned the S\VRC[3 to allow fora reduction'of in stream flow to 75 cfs from the 185 cfs required from April tlvough August of a normal water yeas Although there have peen 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 .lone limeG'ame. This scenario also demonstrates the critical importance oCeach utility having un effective mandatory conservation and emergency operation plan. Crnuurlnvrcr l-he California Department of Water Resources (D\l'R) estimated in 1983 shat die Ukiah Valley grounchvater basin contained as much as 35,000 AP of water that was Ukiah Valley llrinking N'ater Adequacy Assessment November 2007 normally replenished each }ear frmn rain Call and that the basin had a safe atunial yield of approximately I O,G00 AP. I listorically, the S}~'RCB has defined surface water as any flowing water +vithin the confined geologic strcambed of any surface water stream. regardless of the ph} sicul +listance from the main river channel. In this conte.~t. all of the eroundwater in the Ukiah Valley could fall under (his definition. I lo+vever, it +vould appear that a determination by the SWRCB to consider all the groundwater to be under(low oC the Russian River +vhile also determining that the Russian River is Rill}' appropriated, unduly restricts the utilization oC this water resource for users in the Ukiah VaNev. Given the severe water availabilit} shortage in the Ukiah Valley under critical drought condiliens. coupled +vith the potentially significant water resource available to users in the Valley From groundwater; it appeals highly desirable to conduct a comprehensive groundwater basin evaluation to dctennine the safe yield of the basin independent of the Russian River b. I mater Suppliers Nerulociun Cnunr~~ Rio Ginn Ri rrr Flund C~~nlrnl and fi'nMr Con,@envuinn /mprnvamcirt Because of discrepancies in reported points of diversion by users of the N1C'PC District's 5.000 AC~ allocation oC Project Water, the accounting of natural flow, and inability to dctcnninc its bcncficial use of+valer, the MCCC District was ordered by the SWRCB to modify its accounting dad reporting pmceduies before a decision ++•ill be inadc L~ c,~n~., r; I:;: ;:, r;~~;i; ;; a. Cccnse. ht :tic summer oC2004, the ~{CPC District began implementation oC its Ordinance No. OO,I and Resolution 04-03 which required all customers who wish to purchase a specific amount.i~f water under Permit 12947B to enter into a Unifonit ~'v'ater Supply Agreement and to provide a method to accurately measure the amount of water used. The NICPC District's Uniform Water Supply Agreement has several provisions that could bane a significant impact on thepu~lic water systems that are the subject of this report. 'Specifically, the way the UWSAs are structured penalize public +vnter systems for not using their'fiill contract allounent cacti }'ear and have a termination clause over whicli the public waie~ systems have no control. In addition, the MLFC District is not reserving any of its water right for the firture growth of the publ'ic'water systems„4t,has UWSAs with. l=aihtre to do so could have the likely outcomaUf some of these water systems being restricted from adding new customers because clack of adequate source capacity. At this time, [he told amount of water contracted for is 7,400 APY oCwhich approsimmely '16`'~ or 3,371 :~P is with public water systems ++ithin the District. The remainder oC the Ivit_.i~L i~isuiu's cuunaacd wutcr is ueiug used (ui agticulttual purposes. 1 he t\1C(C District has adopted in its Ordinance 00-I, a requirement for all its customers to implement amscn~:lion requirements in the event of a +vatcr shortage. The consen~ution prugram establishes a prohibition on ++•asting water and a Live-stage water allocation schedule Irom normal use to a water emergency. ~4thile ibis program 9 l~ki;ih \',illep fhinkinc \1'aier :1~lequacv Assessment i~'ovcmber ^_007 appears to meet the minimum requirements of the S\V~RCI3. it falls far short of cmtservation programs to reduce water usage during normal periods of time, such as that reconunended b} the California Urban 1Vater Consen~ation Council ('CL)1',~CC). hhe t\1CLC Dislric( has also applied to the S~T.CB under its original permit Cor an additional 6.000 AF of Project water it believes exists in the Lake ~4endocino Storage Pool but teas never allocated. The MCFC District had a water analysis done of Lake tvQendocino and submitted this as part of its application to the S\VRC[3. As o1 the date of thls report, the ~dCFC District is still actively pursuine ibis application. Public {i'un~r.Sp.vleu+s Suamtari~ed in the four tables be4ot+~ arc the current capttcih~ and required capacity to suppl}~ current demand levels and projected system demands in 2025 for water rights. source capacity. lreaunent capacity, and storage capacity. 'I hest tables arc provided allow far easy reference Cor all seven systems in one location. hlowet~er, because oC the complex nature of the water supply situation in the Ukiah Valley the numbers in each tabletccuirc °~"""'art",rte l ~gu~~i~~~~~ qualification. A brief esplanatinn of some of the limitations nl each table is given below each table. I-[otvever, tw a hill explanation of a particular tvatcr system's cun'ent and projected capacities. the section cn that water system in this report must he revietaed. Table II- I on the na~t pugs provides t3 summer} of v„uor rigor : I;ci~i i~ r race ^,atcr system and their current required capacity, based on their maximum day dcntand front 1997 (brooch 2006 and their 2006 nuiiitter of connections. 1'he projected 2025 required capacity is based on the maximum day'd'emand reported from 1997 through 2006 multiplied by the projected uumher of connections in 3025. The water rights iitlbnnati~n,provided in Table [I-l should not be used without reviewing the section-Fnr`e$ch wate[~svstem because several of the water rights arc restricted in'certain periods of use or may not be fully perfected, which can .significantly iiii~tact the potential for providing sufficient water. All the water systems fisted in Table [I-1 with the eaeeUiion of Redwood Valley CWD have entered into contracts with the MG:PC District to purchase a specified volume of water each year. Thevclume each system has contracted to purchase with the MCFC is included in its current water rights, with the exception of the City of Ukiah whose contract for 800 ,4F is in addition to the 1~3, 488 AF in tooter rights listed below. The MCFC water has no restriction on tvlten it may be used and in many cases is the sole water available to water st stems during the peak summer months. 10 Ukiah Valley Drinkim, \l atcr :\dcyuacy :\sscssmcnl November 2007 l~ablc II-I R'atcr Ri<shts Summan'. Afl' 1Va(er Scslem Current hater Ri ~hls tic aired Ca achy Current ?U?s Ukiah I j,d43"~ 4,?24 4,740/7,400` ~ Redwood VulluY CR'U ),683''' ~"' S 19"' 596' ' M ilh•ic+r C11'D _ '_,77T'""' 177j 3,'j3 Gd clla C1VD 14I ""' I2%! 205 Ro •ina AVatcr Cnm our 4001100° 716 840 1Villuw C1VD 3,068°~ LU7401 1.890" lia land PUU ?UO"' 274 - 4jl (s) Ukiah, Redwood Valley CA4'D, p1illvie+v CN'U, and N'illu+r GW'D all have water rights pcrmiu Thai hace expired. flov:ever, each has submited an application for a time extension to perfect its water rights. U'hdc these ex«nsions are being considered by the SN'RCD their wrier rights permits are still valid IU) The Ciry of Ukiah is given nvo projected w'aier rights « yuireinena far the }'ea[ 2U'_j. The lower number is the Deparunem projection and the higher number is that derived train the Cit}'s draft Urban At'uici ni ana~~ectcnt flan (cl The +rater rights granted io the I<cdwood 1'alluy CR'D by the S\1'kCD me restricted to the prnud o(Novcmber I through April 30 of the following year. During the period of May I through October 30 the Red o~ood Valley C\VD must depend on surplus water is purchases from the t`1CfC District and the SCR'.4. (d) Redwood Valley CND's required dtin'ent capacity and projected ?02j capacity excludes demand from ugi ieuiuual usa.~,e (e) The water rights grunted to the i\lillview C14'D Uy the SWI:CD ale restricted to the pcnod November I IG June 3U of the followtng year Uuringthe period of July I through October 30 the t`iillview C11'D must depend on its conlraclnvith the MCPC. District for 9 i0 AF. (f) Capella's oatcr rights assume that their 4U AFY +vell is nm determined m be surface wafer by the swacD. (gl The Roginu \VC has submitted an application for water rights based on Ute water used +vhen the Company began to operate ~in 1947. This mble assumes that all of Rogina N'C wells are deemed to be surface waidr as detinedhv the SN'RCD. (h) At the current time thi• ~Calpella C:NiD3tI1C Rogina WC, and the Hopland PUD have no independent water rightsgramed by the S\4'RCD. All depend on their contracts with the MCFC District. (i) 14'illoe' CND's required current capacity and projected 2025 capacity includes demand from agriculhtral usage. "fable 11-? provides the physical capacity of the hater system to extract hater from its source, either via well pumps, surface hater intake pumps or surface water collectors. phis table lakes inlo,accounl 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 3:006 and 3025. Source capacities presented in Table II-2 do not include standby sources sin:c :here sources arc only allowed to be used IS days a }'car, per DeparUnent requirements. Ukiah \'allcs Drini;im, \\'alcr Adcyuaey Asessment November 20117 Table II-2 Source Capacity Summary, n9GD ~ \Vatcr S~~stcm Currcnf Gr acitc l2c uired Ca acity~"' Currcnl(n) 2025 Ukiah Z? 7.7 5.6/13.5" ' Redwood Valley C11'D I I.5"' I.d9 L63 nun+;~„ clvn _' 90 ~?8 ti20 Cnl clla C1VD 0.18 0.?? 0.3G Rn ina R'alcr Cmn any 2.06 IA9 1.74 V1'illow C1VD i76 2.J5 3.57 `Ha I:utd PUD 0.65 O.6d 0.5'_ fat 'I he Required Curren Source C'tgric it}' was deiennfined by using the maxinuun sgsiem doily production ihw has occurred over the last 10 years usingihu assumpuon that this level of demand could occur again. (b) The City o(Ukiah is given two projected source capacity requirement, for the year 2025. l-hc lower number is the Department projection and the higher number a that derived from the City's draft Urban 11'aicr A4anagcmem Plan. (cl The Redwood \'allcy C1l'D source capacity is a combined domestic and irrigation capacity. Table II-3 below pro~~ides a summary of the system'sabilify to physically treat surface wafer from its sources. This table reFlects the Department's definition of surface water based on Iht: roquiremcnts for additional treatment based on the potential for pathogens I,, ha present in the water: and is not elated ;o the S".'^CB dcOnhion of surface Dealer that is used for water rights purposes. Table II-3 l7emmeN Ca ~aciw Summar. ~, MGD 1Vuler SJsCfi"- Curredt Ca ncitV• Re uired Ca acih•'t _ Current 21125 _ Ukiah - 9.0 5.4" G.3/II.'_"' Redwood Vallcv CSl'D 2.6 ~ ' 1.49 1.63 nlillvicw C~1'D 3.70~~ 3.38 - 6.20" Cal clla GWD10 °N/A NIA N/.4 Ro ina 1Vatcr Cmn any` N/A N/A N/A Willow C1VD"!;! ~ - ~ _ N/A N/A N/A -lio land PUD"~ - N/A N!A N/A (a) 1'he Required Current Treatment Capaciq• was determined b}' using the maximmn system daily prodtictlon that has occurred over the last 10 years using the assuinjjtion that this'ievel of demand could oceur again. (b) Ukiah'~srcurrenfrequired capacity assumes that the potential maximum day demand o(7J n1GD minus production from wells 3, 4 and S which do not require surface water treatment. (c) l~he Cih• of Ukiah is given hvo projected treatmem capacity requirements for the year 2025. The lo,yer nuniber is dte Department projection and the hither number is Thal derived from the Cil~~'s ,,,.~~ .,.,,,.n .. ..., ..,,,~ - - ~~.~,~ .'Ian. - (d) The 2025 required capacity Ibr Millvie,v CAYD assumes tlmt the nlasonite wells are under the influence of surface water and therefore required surface water veatrnent. (c) Calpella, Rogina, \Vilow, and 1-loplai,d currently only have grow,d,vater sources and have no surface ,eater treatmem Facilities. ~2 Ukiah Vullcy Drinkine \1~arer Adequacy :Assessment 14ovember ?U07 '!'able II-d summarizes the existine storage capacity, the 2006 required storage capacit} and the 30?5 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 1'or disinfection purposes. "Cable II-d Storage Cupacily Sununan. N1G 15'ater ticsrem Current Cir acily Re wired Cn acitv~'1 Currcut 2(1?5 Ukiah 59 6.0 6.6/102'°' Redwood Valley C'R'D 1.85 I.?6 1.37 151illricw CR'D ~.96 ?.60 ~ -0.63 Cal )Cna C1VU 0.30 ~:}q O.dS I Ro ina R'atcr Cum :wry I.IJ 1.19 1.76 \5'illuw C\5'U 1313 - 1.89 ?.ti7 Huplond PUU O.SO .,0.65 _ _.. .0.78. (a) The Rcquirad Curam Siorigc Capacity wns dctcnnined by using the ma.eimum system daily production chat has occurred ores the last 10 years using the as~wnpiion Thal this Ic~.cl ct dem;md could cc:ur again. (bj l~he City of Ukiah is given nvo projected storage capacityrequiremenls for the year ?0?5. The lower nwnbcr is the Deparunent projcaion and the hihher number is tlmt derireJ from the City's draf~ Urban \Vatcr ~lanugcincnt Phul. c. Pnlentinl Srrpp(r Dereloprrrenl Carole Dnm Prcyccr At this time, the onl} definitive plan to increase the supply of++'ater available to users in the Ukiah \ralley is the l IS Arn)y Coips of Cngineers (Army Corps) preliminan assessment of the feasibility of raising Coyale Dam and increasing the water storage pool in Lake 159endocino. The Anny Cor7)s has completed its initial Reconnaissance Study and is prepared to piuceed with the next phase, which will include California 8nvironme,ntal Quality Act (C1=QA) aii~i National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. 'fhc ciu-rent cilsf`for the complete Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study is .-estimated to be appTOximateh ;1;6,000,000 and will take live or more }'ears to complete. fifty percent or $7,000,000 of that cost +vill consist of local matching ftmds. In fiscal year '-0OS-2006, the Federal govenunent has appropriated $100,000 to the Am)y Corps for the next phase of the Co}'ore Valley Dam Feasibility Study. This was matched as required ~}i4h local funds. I lowever, little was accomplished and no funds were allocated Porthis project in the Army Corps curzent or future }'ear budgets. Fundine for development and construction costs fur the potential project coming would consist of 7~`Su Irom the Federal eovenunent and 2~95~ local monies. Total cosy are estimated to be in excess of $150 million. based on the fact that funding Cor the f casibility Study has ceased and the yen' large local cost Cor construction of this pr~jecl, it does not •appear to be a viable for solution additional ++ater supply of This time. 13 Ukiuh \%alle}' Drinking \C~ter Adoqunq :1ssessment November 007 !f'rt(er Resource Police Cnunci( In h~lay ?006 the Mendocino Grand .fury recommended that the county establish a Water Resource folic}' Council, crnnpriscd of all water agencies/special districts and oflicia venter-related entities within the Count}' and the Ukiah and Potter Valley areas. The Council would explore interests and concerns in order to develop common long- ranee plans and strategics to address the issues of adequate guaranteed evater availahilify, usage, conservation and storage within the County. Given the potential resources available in the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. it would appear reasonable Cor the County to implement the Grand Jury's recommendation and charge them with conducting a comprehensive groundwater study that would detuonsu'ate independence Ilom the Russian Ricer under-llow. Cnnsenvtlian I listuiical4y. there has been very little done by any of these water systems in the area of ongoing conservation programs. 'h'ater use on-a per connection basis by all of the public wafer systems in the Ukiah Valley is vcn' high, The weighted average day's use durine the month of maximum production in 2006 was 4;l!~~ gallons per da}' per comtection (gpdc). The weighted annual averagr day's use for the seven public water systems covered by this report in 2006 was 697 gpde. A 10 °/~ reduction in current average day use could save approximately 330 A~1' 11tis `'saved water" could be used in lieu of developin¢ new source capacity. Cunently. the (\dCPC District requires all users of its ~+'atcr to have water conservation programs but these are limited to steps that tlic ulilitti would take in the event of a water shortage emergency.- ~>7en tti~ith this limned requirement, at this time, only llu'ec oC the water utilities ira,the Uki:il3,Valley (Ukiah. Redwood Valley CR/D & Millview CR+D) have programs,tliat comply ',ith this requirement. la Ukiah Vallee Grinkine N'ater Adequacy ,Assessnunt November °_007 III. Russian Rig-er Watershed n. Description of {!'nterslred t`luch ohthc folluwin~~ Discussion is taken from a Slate \1%ater Resources Control L3oard Staff Report on the Russian Kicer A~'alershed prepared in .August 1997 to describe actions to be token liy the State \Vater Resources Control Board on a laree number of pending water riehts applications- "I he Russian Ricer is Icd by its Gast and \\'est Forks that converge approximately two miles north of the City of Ukiah. The cast fork of the Pwss:tit River is also fed by the Gel Ricer lluough a Pacific Gas and Electric Compariy,hydroul~etric tunnel that empties into the east fork in Potter Valley. The Riissidh River IiruJides the water supply Ibr approximately )00,000 people in Mendocino, Sonoma, andt`9arin Counties and the watershed encompasses an area of approximately 1,4$5 square nines. l he Russian River meanders in a southerly direction for 5'distm+ce of 110 miles, tluough the Ukiah Valley, Flopland Valley, Alexander Valley, Pitch t\~lountains, 1 Icaldsburg Valley and through the gorge of the Coastal Range Mountains to the Pacific Ocean at .leaner The river valley areas have mostly been converted to .~giieuliwe ai~J giai.in~ i.iu~~~I:uiJ. I;rh~u de.~I~I~:net~i in (he calf, in ",1c;~J,~,, ir~:~ Count} is concentrated around the communities of Potter Valley, Ukiah, and llopland. h. Hvdroloe ~; - Surjncc II'nrer The hydrology of the Russian River is typical of most northern California coastal streams and is characterizcd'by high Ilows,in the winter and low flows in the sttmmer, with subst-antial vuriation ~on an annual"6~'sis. There is ver+~ little snow in the watershed with virtually all runoff a direct result of rainfall. Figure II]-1 shows the long-term average monthly flo+as (taken directly from USES gage station data) fromlhe Eel River Diversion, the Russian River as measured near I-lopland, the bast Porknear Calpella, dte East Fork near Ukiah, and the West Port near Ukiah. These data show{list during the summer months (July through October), the (low in the G. Pork of the Russian River near Calpella averages about 1S0 cubic feet second (cfs) :inCl ai Ukiah :i+215~en BbOai 235 cfs. 0(these ac~crages, approximately 14> cfs is attributed to the diversion from the Gel River. Stream Ilow records for the months of July-0ctober Ibr the years 1997-200(1 were also examined Ibr the total inllocv to Lakc Mendocino as measured by the US Army Corps ul In!!ineers. These dtua shucv that the accrage total inflow (o Lake hendocino for this period was 140 cfs. The average of the Eel River Diversion during this same period was 136 c(s. Gssentiall} all the water llocving into Lake Mendocino dttring this four 15 Ukiah Vallz+ Dnnl:ing Nralcr Adzquacv :lssessmcnl Not'cmbcr'_U117 month dr}r period for the last 10 }cars has been equal to the divcrlcd Ilew fiom the Eel River. Figure 1161 Average Mon Oll~ Flows, cls >mu - ~Rusan Rwer near MOplantl I F00! - 1157&20Gv! y-\5'¢sl Po6 Rus slap Rnel ncdr Utialr Ir95~.; PYij r Ean ;-_ _ --Eel River Dwers~cn l!o;62GG,1 +na I _ - --Ease Fcr. Russian Rwer n<a~ Cap=pa 611n0 ~ _. _ (t9Jr 4a0ol -~-Ear, Forw P,vssan P.IVer near Ukian ^ row ~- 1~957~]Otril c _aa __ ____ ___-_____ - ___, mJ 1---_. -_ -__.-- - .._.. e_. - >a] I-. ~~ rn~~m Historically, tltc most recent critical condition ocew'red in 1976-77 +ahen the inflow to Lake f+9endocino averaged approximately 6~ cts during the Jul}• -October time period or less than 45°% of the luttg lem~ average. GrnuuAu'nlcr The Ukiah Valley, basicglh' t$1t area from Lake Mendocino south to Burke Hill, contains d eroundwater aquifer thaGlias Veen eslimaled by DWR in 1933 (HIR For the Poiler Valley Yrujectj to*sohtain as much as 35.000 AP with a safe yield of 10,000 APl'. The aquifer is a major source of water supply for domestic and agricultural uses and users are not subject to the.Siate Water Code requiring an appropriative water pcrniL As a result, fe~~• of the users have pemtils for their wells. However, as stated previously, recent acfinn by the SWRCB brings into question the viability of these wells as sources +vithout water rights permits. I6 Ukinh Valle' Drinking \Natcr Adequacq Assessment Norenil~er `QO? c. Fish Protection In order to protect sp.m'nine fsh (salmon and stcelheadj the SWRCT3 has established. in cooperation with Cnlifornia Deportment of Fish and Gnme, minimum stream [low requirements for the main stem of the Russian River at the confluence of the east and west forks. 7 hcse requirements are based on whether runoff to Lake Pillshury and Lake Mendocino is classified as critical dry' or normal. Table 111-1 summarizes these requirements: - Tahle III-I_ Seasonal Minimwn Plow Requirements Itunuff Cuudi(ions Pcriud flow.Req uircmcnt, cfs Critical 1'car Round ___ ' ~5` Dr~~ fear Round ~ 75 - _ _ (Vurmal• Ill-3/JI UO 4/I - 3/J I __ _ I SS 9; l - 12/J I 150 cl~s -cubit feel ia~i ~~~nJ ' Dn~ Snring Cond iiiuns. a_ If combined storage of Lakes Pillsbur}' and Mendncino on 51J I is bet~reen 130,000 .4P or 80'%ofstora,c, whichever is less, and IS0,000 AP or-90°,0 of storage, whichever is less, then from (i/ I - I _' ~J I the Ilow must be 150 cfs and, if lioin 10/I - I?'J I storage in,Lake Mendocino is ~~_ 30,000 AP, dte Ilow must be 75 clc. or b- Ifcombinrd stortac• of Lakes Pillsbun~ ari~~Mendocino on 5131 is < IJ0,000 AF or SO4o of combined storage, whichever is less, then'durine the period G/I - I?/31, the flow must be 75 cfs From these data. it can be seen that in normal years a mininwm of I SS cfs must be maintained during the months of April through August and I ~0 cfs during the months of September and October in the main stenrof the Russian River near the confluence of the Gas't:and West Forks. In October 1996, Cho salmon and stcelhead were listed by the Federal National ~95rine Fisheries Scn'ice INtviFS) as threatened species in the Central California Coast Lfnitunder the Endangered Sliecies Act (ESA). "this required the Slate and other agenciessuch as the Sonoma Cotmty Water Agency and MCFC District to enter into consultahiuu.avith the=AMPS and the Army Corf~s to perfomt a biological assessment for hvo Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations. "the Consultation on the Russian Riverwas to determine effects of the operation and maintenance of the SCWA storage and collection system and the Consultation on the Eel River was to deterrine ;~.. zff.c, ,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,. ; i., r,,.,,, c; ;icl Ri.., ,. ;ter ,., ;L.::...,~,: n Ri..,. ::~. ,. consultations are required to ensure that the flood control and water supply operations on both rivers do not.jcopardize the continued existence of the listed species. As part of this Section 7 Consultation, the Anny Corps, SCWA, and MCFC District prepared a Bioloeical Assessment (D.4). (:1lthough 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 N'ater Adequacy Assessment Novemher'_'007 To provide a Oow that best meets tltc summer needs of sxlmonoids, the B;A recommends reducing sprine and sunumcr flu~as u} the river Irom an average f near Ukiah) of 250 cfs to 140-ISi cfs in order to reduce the need to artificially breach the sandbar al the river's mouth thus maintaining the esnuu~y as a closed system. "ihesc reduced tloras could affect the ability of water providers to divert water from the titer since several water right permits and licenses (such as N(illvicw CWD) require minimum (]osv of I50 cfs below its diversion. ht these cases, the permits or licenses could need to be amended. N~iF.4 issued a Biological Opinion in Not'emhcr 200'_' Ilnding that the proposed operational regime proposed for the Potter Valley Project be the Pacific Gas ~ Electric Company wouldjeapardize the continued exislencc of three listed species. .Along with the B.A, Nh4PS included a reasonable and prudes( allumatice (RP.A) for operating the Potter Valley Project, The FGRC adopted this RPA as port of the re-licensing process for the Potter Valley Project. Operating the Putter Valley Project under the constraints of the RPA has sienificantly reduced the amnunf of del Ricer water that is diverted io the \Vest Fork of the Russian River. Initial esperieuec operating under the RI'.\ and projections indicate the reduction of Lel River water to the West Fork of the Russian River could be a third or more of historic (lows. l~or purposes of regulating the total water av;iilable in the Russian River watershed, the California Water Code requires an appropriativr water right pcnnil for all non-riparian uses of surface waters of the stale. Pecmie'd?947 was one of duce permits (or the Russian River Project originally approved in SWRCB Decision I (13(1, authorizing storage of water behind Coyote Dam (Lake h4endocino) and diversion and rediversion of stored wafer at points of diversion and redil-crsio^ along the Russian River. The SWRCB subsequently diuided'Perntit 129x7 into Permits t2947A and 12947B by S\VRCB order 74-30. ~[he SCR'A operaies Coyote Dam and holds Permit I2447A and the h4CPC District holds Permit 12d97B. Both Permit 12947A and 12947B authorize diversion of water that is stitplus to diversions that bane been continuous since 19x9 when the Coyote Dam Project was built. The State`s water riglifs code recognizes two basic water rights -riparian and appropriative. In theCRussian River watershed, appropriative water rights have been designated as eitherPre-49, Post-49 or Project Water. Cach of these rights is defined below: Ain Aln l•~~ ...~.::.':::.': ...n..... Riparian users have prisrity use for beneficial purposes of natural Mows tin' 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 Cailure to do so have no immediate impact on their use. As a result, very few riparian uses in the Ukiah Valley have Cicen registered. As such, the total riparian use is not quantified but has been estimated by the MCFC District (o be behvicen 10.000 and ?0.000 AFY. 13 Ukiah Valley Drinking 1Vater Adequacy Assessment November '_00? Pre-49 rights. AVhen Coyote Dam was constructed in 1949, the lirnt yield of the pru,ject and water rights from Project 14rater were made subject, by Decision 1030, to an existing estimated S,100 AP oC use in t\lendocino County and 20,000 AF in Sonoma County. Water available for pre-1949 diversions includes natural Mows of the Russian River and imported water from the South Pork Gel River. The SW'RCB has advised that in most years, monthly inflow to Lake Mendocino is sufficient to meet pre-1949 demands in both !+4endocino and Sonoma Counties. 1-lowever, in extremely dry rears, there are insufficient natural (lows to meet these demands and, as result, the pre-1949 users benefit Irom the release of stored project water. Past-49 npproprialivc rights. These are appropriative writer rights granted by the SNRCB to divert natural tlow of the Russian River, one of its tributaries or imported water from the South Pork Gel River after the authorisation to construct Coyote Dam in 1949. ~l:m}• oC the rights granted here such as for agricultural frost-protection or aCl- slreum storage and Redwood Valle}' WD, Milh~iew CWD and Willow C\4rD are only for winledspring diversion. 1-he MCFC District has estimated the total pose-49 rights at approximately 4,WU .-11~ Y. Project \1'ater. Appropriative water rights have born issued for stored project water in Lal:e ~9endocino to the Sonoma County A4~ster Agency and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and .Water Conservation hitPrm ement District. The <v~ICft Uistriei h.iid> rise +cmcr ngln fur ivlendueiuv Cuunt+'s sh~uc ~~; pr~,j, ~: ~+h~.h i, 5,000 AFl`. While it has not been possible at this tithe to determine the total water rights available to all users in the study araa; it has been estimated fur purposes of this study that the right would be at least 30, FQ0 •4P1'. This is based on 10,000 AF of riparian use, 8,100 AF of Pre-49 use, -1,000 AP ofYost-49 rights and 8,000 AP of project water rights. 1lowevec, it should be noted th~ilhis total most likely underestimates the total riparian riehlsin the shidy area because of the lack of voluntary registration by users. e: 6i/ater Ara>laLility ° _ = In accordance with SWRCB Order 91-07 the Russian River watershed is fully appropriated from .Iulyl to October 31 in Mendocino County. This precludes any nc+v post-1949 appropriations of water between July I and October 31 of each year except those made «n'der, and charged to the 1`1CPC District's allotted 8,000 AF. Eel RirerOrrersinu A maim isciie fnr++;ncr users iu rise Ukiah Valley is the reduction of diverted Gel River water from the Potter Valley Project. On .lanuary 2S, 2004, FG-RC issued Order 10C, FL'RC 6!,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 federalh~ Threatened salmonoids. The decision basicalh• allows PGSB to continue operating the Potter Valley Project until 2022 but requires PGSG to develop and implement a (low management plan in accord with the NOA.A Fisheries Reasonable and Pruden( Alternative (RPA) for flow management Table III-2 summarizes the 19 Ukiah Valley Drinking A1'mer :Adequacy Assessment no+emher'_007 minimum flow requirements under the RPA for the Lasl Perk of the Russian E2iver under normal, dry and critical conditirnu. Diversions in excess of the minimum flows specified in Table III-2 can only be made when the bake Pillsbury Storage is above its target storage level. Exceptions to the rule can occur only due to brief emergency prover and water demands. Table Ill-2 Minimum blows io the Eas[ ~rmeh of the liussian River provided Por in the NOAH Fisheries Reasonable and Prudent Alternmive, 106 EERC 61,065- Minimum Glu,c n(Gast nr:utch Russian River, cfs --~-"- rcriud crass;r~c;,uon Nannul Dry Critical .luh~ and .4u ust 75 25' S Se lcmber ~5 30 5 October JS 35 5 In addition to the minimum stream (lows defiitcd above, the RP:\ also provides a block of o,atcr, '_.500 :V' that can be released at the diseretion of the resource aeencies each year. This would provide an additional 8 cfs if released during the Jule to October time period. PG,C(? hoc filed a draft lmplemenndidn-and Cnmplianec Plan far its In~np!,sed (Irnv rcgunc. Under that plan, decisions concerning how much water to release above required minimums would generally he left to the discretion of PGS Gs project operators. guided by the relationship of Lake Pillsbun'storage eolumes to PG&G`s proposed rule curves, short-terns po+ver,demand, and water needs in the Russian River basin. The Plan is very specific about when and Itow these decisions will be made, and includes detiiiled procedw'es'conceming stick{natters as block water releases, daily (low adjustments, entergericy operation, verification, and other matters. On the average, the plan-results in an average reduci~iotrgFapproximately ] 5%. I lowever, under critical conditions. tlte'j~lan would result in a reduction of 43% of the inflow to Lake Mendocino. This tAkes into account a release oC the full allocation of block +vater at S cfs. The final Gl5 prepared b}' PGRC advises that the implementation of the RPA u'ou.kl risk dewatering of Lake Mendocino under +varst case draught conditions, both currently and in the futetre. Additionally, under these critical conditions stream flow models predict that there would be significant shortfalls; i.e., average monthly flows less than thu minimum in-stream Ilow requirements for 2 months oCthe year under current demand and ina~easing to S months under projected ?020 conditions. Grnurtdmn!cr i tistoricatiy, rite ~ w itLij itas detuted surface water ^s any hewing water within rite confined geologic streambed oCan}- surface water stream, regardless oCthe physical distance Crom the main river channel, and, in this context, all of the groundwater in the Ukiah Vafle}~ w'ould Call under this definition. This definition was challenged by the North Gualala A~%ater Company and on November 3, 'OOd, the t`4endocino Superior Cows upheld the State's definition. This decision was sustained by the Stale Appeals Court in 2005 and has since been appealed to the State Supreme Court. In September ~p Ukiah Valley Drinking AVater Adequacy Assessment Novemher ?007 2006 the State Supreme Court refused to hear the North Gualala Water Company's appeal of the t+1endocino Superior and State Appeals Court decisions. The S~~'RCL3 began to take action within the Ukiah Valley and Hopland during the appeals process to cnsw'e that all wells are incluJed +cithin this definition including notilication to the \Villow County AV'ater Disu~ict in February 2001 that its Burke Hill wells +eere considered ricer underllo+v requiring an approprialice water right and in April 2005, notili'ing the I Ioplnnd Pl'll that its wells were considered river under(lo++' requiring an appropriativc +vater right. I Iowever, there is question as to ++'hcther This broad definition is applicable to all +vells in the Ukiah Valle}~ as demonstrated b}' the SWRC[3's 2001 Compliance Inspection Report for the City of Ukiah in +chich the City's +vell ~f +vaS sj~ecifically noted as not drawing from the underllow of the river but rather percolated kruund++'alcr. Additionally, if the assessment b} the D~Tv in 1953 that the basin has a safe yield of 10,000 AFY is valid. it would appear that a determination by the SR'RCfl to consider all the eruuuJ+':iacr w be undcr(lo+c of the Russian River +vhile also detet'mining that the Russian River is fully appropriated, severely restricts the utilization of this water resource for users in the Ukiah Valle}. As such, it would be hi~_hly desirable to conduce a comprehensive eroundwater basin evaluation to determine the safe yield of the basin independent of the Russian River. 71 Uki21; Valley Drinking R'atrr Adcquaec ;assessment N~+~cm6cr 'UD7 IV. Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservatio^ Improvement District n. Bnch~raunrl The ~1cndocino County Russian Rh~er F4ood Control and ~~'atcr Conscn~ation Improvement Disu ict (MCFC District) +vas created by vote of the people as a special district within the Mendocino County \Vater Agency in 1956. Fhe measure that created the h9CPC District also included a property fax assessment to raise X6=0;000 to enable it to participate +vith Sonoma Couniy \Valer ;Agency and the US :1nny Corps of)/ngineers in the construction of Covnie Dam and Lal:e Mendocino, ++'hich was completed in 1959. fhe llam is operated Li} the Arniy Corps but, the Sonoma County Water Agency, +41tich w~2s the local sponsor Cor the project, has the exclusive right to control releases Crom the water suj~ply pool in L2ke Plendocino. fhe project controls winter floods and stores 122.>00 AF oC+vater+vidi 45,000:'+F dcsien2ted for flood conu~ol, 70:000 AF as the conscr+~alion or ~~:ntcr suPPl}' Pool uird -1,50 AF for sediment storage. The broad purpose for creating the MCFC District wss for "the conirnlling. conservation, diversion.. storage and disposition of stone. flood, and other surface rvaicre-' ~+iihin iii ilcf nevi area. li i< an Pnirnu~nt~,~~~ rli~n~,•i ~,iih ih,• ~-im~~ h,,,.~°„r~ :uxi 2uthoriiics as the 1v~tendocino eater Agency and has Live uitstees Ilom •.vithin the district that arc elected Cor four-year terms. l'he trustees elect a chairman Crom among themselves. The ~~ICPC District has tlic power to ley}' Uroperty taxes, fees, incur bonded indebtedness and develop Cbnuacts with outside parties. It should be noted that +chen the assessment disircU +vas,created to pay the District's share oC the Coyote Dam costs, the Redwood Valley C4VD requested_exdusion from the MCFC District. As a result, the majority ui Qte property owners within the Redwood Valle}~ CRrD were not taxed for the MCFC District's $6S000O share of Lake Mendocino construction costs and therefore not included in the MCFC llistrict boundaries. hlowevcr, the Redwood C~k'D is +vi{bin the MCPC'Ilistrict's `place oCuse". Not being within the boundaries of the MCFC District but bring within its place oC use means the Red+vood Valley C~~'D only has a legal bight to that portion oCthe MCRC District's 5.000 AFl' ++~ater right that is consideredstiiPlus water. {f"alerRighrr Thn A,I('Gf flictr.~t ,~Zrler Pates+ii t'70r1~R „_ .. t,~, ~i n. 1i~:.-. .. ~.i ire nnl~ APY in January 1975. Water is to be beneficially used Cor domestic, municipal. irrigation, indusu'ial and recreational purposes +rithin the t\dCPC District from Januan~ I to December 31. The place of use, for pmpuses of the +vater right, however, did include most of the Rechvood Valley C~VD, 2nd the MCFC District can legally sell 'surplus ++~ater' to the Rechvood Valley C~'D. ~~ l!kiah \ alk} Drinkine 1t'atcr AAcquacy .4ssessmcnt Noecmbcr ~OU7 In order to convert its +vater riglu perntit to u full license (lhc last step in the water right process), the t\4CFC District is required to submit information to the S\\'RCB that demonstrates Hill beneficial use of its +vater right. (n 1997-95, the MCFC District filed and the S\1'RCB upproced a petition fix extension of time to December 31, "_'005 in order in develop full hencllcial use of ++~alcr authorized under Permit 129478. I lowever. +vhilc the ~ICfC District has historically submitted progress reports and reports identil~~ing points of diversion mtd rediversion to tabulate annual amounts ilicerted under its permit the 5\l'RCB identified discrepancies in [he reported points of diversion, the accounting of natural flo+a, and the inability of the ~~[CPC District to determine its I?enelicial use of water- :As a result. the S\1'RCB issiud Cease and Uesisl t )rder No. 3ti'_. ± I-15 on lanuwy 7. ?005 that required accwnte identification of all -points of diversion, a monthly accounting of water diverted under the District's permit, and n process to measure or account Cor the muhiplesnurccs of water making up the (love available in the Russian River. In September 2005, the District submitted its compliance and monitoring plan to the S WRGE3 and also a request"frtir an extension of the date to ftilly~ develop bcneGcial use of water authorized under Permit 12947B to December 3l, X007. The i\iCi ~ District has nut been Cnnnall} grtntcd this cxtcitsiun but no protests wire received by the S\4T~CB c~+ncerning the request. Dunne this process the tv4CPC District has also filed for an additional 6,000 AP water right of Project \1'ater it contends was not allocated under the original allocation. The N1CPC Ilisirict h,id a w,vw- analysis dude dune to demonstrate thst the Lakc t`lendocino Storage foul a u,000 AID larecr th:ut originall}~ thuught and submitted this suid~ ~..nii its npplication I-his application was made under its existing pcnnit, 12947B. l~he S\V'RCB has not indicmed whether it will accept this filing or not. [{'rarer Users On June 26; 20HO, the t\{C7-C District adopted Ordinance No. 00-O1 which allows the District to enter into water sale contracts with its users ;md require its users to comply wish Ute teens and cunditionsof pcnnit I?94713. Litigation ensued challenging the validity of the ~rdinancc but on June 30, 2004 the court found in favor of the Disu'ict. In October 2004; Mendocino notified the SWRCB that it had begun implementing its C)rdinance No. 00-O1 tmd Reso7tition No. 04-03 to provide a method to accurately measure the amount:nf water used b~- its customers. Ordinance 00-O1 instituted a contraetsystem for customers who wished to continue to use part of the MCFC DistricCs-$,000 AP a1ltiUnent of Project Water and Resolution No. 04-03 specified the cast of purchasing the water. Customers who wish to purchase a specific amowu of water under Pe`tmit 129478 are now required to enter into a Uniform Water Supply Agreement with the ~4CFC District. ]able V-I summarizes the contracts that are currently in effect with the ~4C1-C Utstnct. At this time, the total amount of water contracted for is 7,400 APY of which approximately 46"ro or 3,371 r\P is with public water systems +rithin the District. "fhe remainder of the 7,400 SPY is under contract for agricultural purposes. ~z l9.iah A~allce f)rinl:ine A4'alcr Adeyuact~ Assessment Nocar;bcr'_00~ 'fable V - V-. Smmm~n~ of t`1CFC Dlstrlct Contracts antler Permit 1'_9x7[3. Srstcm Contract Amount.:\fY N'afcr Srslems . _ ___ ___ _ __ 1Villne C11~D _ 900 Cite of llki;+h 1100 _ (•iiltcicu~ N'p 970 Ro,ina R'C 4(10 Col ella \i~D 101 I _ Ilnlilsnd PUD ~-~ X00 -- jl -~ Subtotal ~~~ ~ }71 ~ ~ ~ Other Users a U' ~ -_- - rotnl x,400 Unijnrnr {PnterSrrpplp,9greeurent The 14CPC District entered into Uniform \l'ater Supply A~recmcnts with sip public realer st~slems in the (all of 300-1. These agr~emenrs uarantce each public tltiter system a specific amount of Project water each year provided no conditions exist which prevent the h4CPC District from doing so. -the I`4CFC District also has Water Supply lgrecments hi provide water tU other customers, primarily for agricultural purposes. 4s has been stated earlier, the U\VS;1s with the public tearer systems hate several Section fl, Condition S The "pnr acre /ont purchase price to be c'Itarged" is' drrc and payable nxmdrh~ vv Cusmnrer m Di.rn~icr nlier this {Parer .Suppl)• Agreentenr is accepted ht~ the Disn~ic( and both parries c.eecure dtis .4'~n'ecment. Cu.-rtomer's ob(igatioa fo pnr the "per acre tot purchase price ro ~. be charged", trhii~li will be doe pursuant to (his.9greemeru trod apart divarsion oju~nter by Gestonrer, shall be rot 'absolute inrconc/ilibnal obligation of C'usramer, not subject ro deduction, sero(J; prior notice, dernmad;'~or inability of Custoner to use, store a~ re.vcli Project N'ater abet dehvera, and dirersion by Cusraner. Customer shall bare no obligation to accept deliveri• of mil' Project (Pater in eccess of Ote nursinnrm mnoouv diverted by Customer a.c specified in Section 1 hcreq~ Purrumu to the provisions of Pmugraph 1, Section 1 herein, dre rna.rimunr amatmr oj+rater that may be delivered to Cd(stoiher' steal! he ncre feet annually. Recmue the demmtds jot District +rnfer resnurcec ,genernlly e;i eed the Dislricf'.c supplies and after the first fir!! calendar sear of this ~lgreem~hr, and arerp pem~ thereaj[cr, dte Disu~ic[ shall review dte rom! mmuol rise of nc~ Disn•icr's'+i'ileF by Customer. Ijthe menun! u.ce nJDistrict'.r tenter hp Cuclnmer, bn.ced upon tnondtlp me(er rentfings mu! utonrhl~~ bit{ings, it (esr that the nnrount of uvrter rasen~ed err Gtsluurcr. nS referred rrr in ParuBrapG ,, Section 1 ujthis Aerean+egl. the Di.clritf ,/roll reduce Gramtner's reserved tenter u!lnnnenr !n reflect ncuml u.re in (he prior ycnn. The unused wafer mil(then he made nvailable !o odter +rnfer users ar dte sale di.ta~eriar and dererminariort of the Dh'lrict Jot dte mncinnun beneficial use of the DLSII'i~t'S water resources. The area of concern in this provision is in bold test. [t mandates that the \iChC District shall reduce a customer's annual allocation based nn the amount of water it actually uses each year. ~fhis provision dots not reflect the year to year variations in ~4 Ukiah Valla}' Drinking Nratcr Adequacy A<sessmcnl T;ovambcr ?007 demand public wafer syslems experience. As the agreetncnf is written a public water system could bare its allocation reduced after a year of lo+v demand and then not haee enough allocation to supply the same water system customers in a }'ear of higher demand. 1-his pro+ ision ++ill bare the opposite eClect of one of the staled purposes of MCPC District Ordinance No. 00-OI stated in paragraph P of the Recital section oC the agrecmeni srhieh is, 'to provide a method b}' which the (RR) District can prirperly promote consen anon and conserve its water resources,..." Public water syslems +vhich arc dependent on the amount allocated to them in the UWSA have an incentive to use the ma.eimum amount of +vater each year to ensure their continued right to the original nnunuv alloc:ued to them. l he State \Vater Resources Control Board, Division of \\'atrr Rights has essentially the same concern about this part of the MCPC District's UWSA.:Lhe ~4CPC District submitted the formal of these water supply contracts to the S WRCB-as part of its effort to comply with S\V%RCB Cease and Desist Ordar'_1i2.31-I ~ After revie++ of the MCfC' District Aereemcnt. the S11%RCI3 commented. " l.+'uggesr thor d~lendocinn consider revising nr mnerufing its Urtijorm II'nrerSupplp ;1,Qreemenrs sn that dre muhori;ed quuntirv o% u•arw~ to_Ge diverted br individual users is no! nuromm~cally reduced a! dre end qj the rear rjfhe jolt r(unntirp available under c•adr ojTlrr :1g~eemenrs' is no( rued During ere( pear c, your users may not need to use rho lidl quantin~ invrilabie in the :Igr-oeuienrs or compm~ud fn dr,v /sears mhcn dre IiJI y u,: ar,:i .. ... 1n J.r ,1 /r•r„iu~rnu min irclter +ur rr n. races ui considering a revisia»-Rt the dgraenrenrs lu irdntc fhe usera'.Inare /le.cibilitt' over use nj (he aurhoriced quarurty ojlrafer'. " - ~9CFC District has addressed this problem by declaring all water not used by seater utilities under their contract each year as surplus water and selling it to the Redwood Valley County District. This has worked wel(but the Unilbrm Water Agreements should be revised to Connuliicfhisproce~ure. Section III, Condition 9 ~.T/re Term ojrhis:Igrec•ment alrl jot (he rlelirer.p ojProjecr Water pursunn(m dris agreemem shr711conrmence ar , 300-0, llre Ejjec(i1~e Dale, noel e'ha(l covr(irtue Through December 31, 3010, flee Termina(iait Dntc, subjcc(ro fhe renerva( provisions provided ja here Dr. Eidrer parn~ io (hi.c Agreement mop provide ro dre other party Notice ro Ternrina(e dris .45n•eemenr subject ro dre.jollotving terms' a- Upon dre 7/" ujDecemher ojeach calendor year aj~er the Ejjecrire Dare of this :Igreeo2•nr, rjneirher parn~ ro (his agrecmen( has submitted to dre adrer parlY a Arorice m Tn ran nova NJr 4,n~ne n,nnl in rhi• rn~inr i7 nvinlirc flit ~' ,I fn'v/nlrn! Ond all nl~i/.c rr~~re shall he aummarrcallr he ec(endad jot nn additional l2 nunrrhs (l rend be/~nnd the Termination Dute in ejee(on the ajorcmenfioned 31" ojDecemher. b :lnl~ Notice to Terminate f/ri,c:lgreenient, e.LCCp/far breach ojifs (evens', shall be (ter :vmallr dclmered br the parn~ n~hich seeks ro terminate dris Agr'eeurenr ro the athm~ pm~rr not l;ucr than ~ P m fP.S17 are dre JO°' u~Deerrnber, frve• (S) pears prior to the Termination Dore in efJi•cl on the njoremeruioned 30°i ojDecemher. '7 j Ukiah Valley Drinking Rater r~dequ:¢v Assessment Nuvzmber ZOU7 This condition of the U\V'SA is a concern because is allo+vs the agreement ro be terminated +vith no recourse for the public ++'ater system. It is true that once a Icnnination notice is given the +vater svstcm has six }'cars before the agreemeN is terminated. I-towevet; since the Russian River is htll}' appropriated during the summer and I:all and the SR'RCD's position on wells in the Ukiah Vafic} is the} are dra+vine li~om Russian River under(low, there are cun'ently no other +'iable sources for these public +vater system to dra+v Crom in the summer and fall months. To ensure a reliable suppl} for these public +cater systems, the t`4CPC District should allocate ++'ater In a public ++~ater s}~stem to meet its customer demand without a termination clause in its LI\A'S ~\ or a tcnninalion clause the requires the agreement of bulhpnrties. One (ina! concern about this slr'ucture for providing the public water systems in its service area with ++'ater is that the MCPC District is making no prm ision for future gro++th of these public water s}'stems. The MCPC District should reserve the 600 AP of+vater right that is not allocated by contract to accohunodatc growth within the public ++a~cr systems ii currentlc has contracts with. It could sell this ~+'ater ccer}~ year as surphts water until public water systems need to acquue additional seater to accommodate gro++4h. f aihue to do so could hove the likelti' outcome of some of these water systems being restricted from adding new custnmers because a lack of adequate source capacity. (_~OI LSCri'(i riUR As a matter of State policy, all communities.and utilities arc required by the S\VRCD to demonstrate that They have or will be developing and implementing effective +vater conservation and recycled water practices us a condition oC recci~ ing ne+v water rights. "fhe MCPC Distt'ict has adofated in its Ordinance 00-01, a requirement for all its customers to implement conservation requtrements in the event of a water shortage. The conservation program estabihshes a prohibition on wasting water and alive-stage +vater allocation schedule..from riormal use to a water emergency. While this program appears to meet the minimurn requirements of the S WRCD, it falls far short of conservation progr<uns to reduce water usage during normal periods of time, such as thtt recommended liy the Calftimia Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Tlie CII\1rCC recommendations include 14 urban water conservation best management practices including residential surveys, residential plumbing retrofit, leak detection and repair, meteted water sales, large landscape practices to minimize ++'ater use, washing machine rebates. public information, school education programs, commercial/industrial uses, conservatjoti pricing and having a staff with assigned responsibilities as a conservation coordinator. However, as stated earlier, the current U\y'SA do not encourage conservation because they penalize public water systems that do not use their Bill allotment each near. b. {f~atee Suppl}~ :Innnnl L/s'c According to the water code, each holder of a wafer right permit is required to submit an annual report of use to the S\\rRCD. As such the MCPC District is required to ?G Ul:iah Valley Drinl:ine ~!'aier Adequac} .Assessmem Novernbcr'_007 submit an annual 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 NiCPC District has submitted a proposed process to accurately account for water use Crom its 5,000 .4F1' water right to the SWRCf3. Once approved by the SN'RCd the NiCPC District will implement this new accounting system. I-lowever, to get an estimate of the total amount of water being utilized in the Ukiah Valle}', the Districts historical reports are oCinterest. 'f'able V-2 summarizes the total estimated amulal water use ~y`afil`users (domestic, agricultural, indusUial) in the Ukiah Valley Cor the period~~l-J9>-2001 as reported by the t`4CFC District to the S}','RCf3. t3ecause of the issues ayiih:'tsaistoricai water accounting procedures na more recent data is available at this tioie. While these data have not been acceptable to the S1VRC13 for reasons noted above ltey are useful in showing the relative uses and general magnitude. Tliey also show'a.L?re-49 use of 9,165 AFY which is hieher than the historicalTestimate,of 8,100 AP esfi~nated.by the SWRC13 and th:u the estimated use of the MCFC Distrit,'s Project water~.ight is near its limit as noted by the use of 5,049 AF in 1999 ~ ~Tho lrfal`estimated water use in thz Ukiah Valley (including riparian, Pre-and Post-49°~51er and Project water) was estimated at over 29,000 AFl' iii 2000. T able V-_'~ f<~I~K Disuin Annwil AVmer Disc 19$5.-?001 (Acre-Pect~ fear I'rc-1'14')" Post-I')49',:.a. .,I'ro'ecl N'aler*" Total 1'195 7,920 4';836„'. ..,:4;816 17,57_' I 1')9G .SS9C`m-„ 537c~`'~ --'' 5,813 20,081 t 997 ~' 9.167°:~`;';,. 4,7A7. "~ 6,045 19,959 1998 .. 9,434 6.84'x:; . 6,626 22,344 'i 1999 ~ ~,'"1;4,514 ~ 7,121 ;"~...-"' 8,049 25,684 ?000 ''krRfiB _:- 12,2R8"!~' 7.894 29.050 ~U01 9'1'f8'- ~ ~ ~ I~r~'P6 6,941 28,405 *Tlu v~lues~~r"epolcd (or I'rC~.~nd Pasl 1949 osc also appear to include riparian uses. -""Project 1i'alcr incluUcs su rlilusivaler sold to Redwood Valle}' C~VD. In 2001, the amount of ' -~; surplus water sold'-lti7~tedwood~Sii1(ey was reported al 1,970 AF. ~~~::, Table!"-3 shows theamotmt of the annual water use that is catsidered Project Water for the ycai:of 2006 atad a projection for the year 2025, broken down by the seven public wade system""',that are the subject of this report. The projected 2025 use is based on the assumption fiat the percent of total annual use that is Project Water in 2006 would he the same in 2025. This is the case for Calpella CWD, Rogina WC and the Hopiand PUD even those these systems do not have an independent water rigltl perntil. Por the Redwood Valley CWD, 100 percent of the use reported to the MCFC District for the months of Nlay through December was used to calculate the percent attributed to Project Water. 27 Ukiah Valley Drinkin!~ AValer Adequacy Assessment November 2007 'fable VJ: Total Annual Ulilily AA'aler Use Acmuntablc Under MCPC District Permit for fears 2006 and 20."~. Annual N'ater Usc, AP VValcr 2(106 Rc urlcd Usc Pro'ccled ?0?5 Usc. Af System ru uJ Pcrccn la gc Pro'ecf V1'alcr Pru jeer \\'a turd°~ total ProjcctN'atcr Ukiah 3,837 _'I SUO 4,740 800x" Rcd Synod Vallcr~`~ 1962 (7931 SO 1;554 (636) 2,117 (89b) I,(i94 17171 Millvie5+' 1:775 44 739 3,252 1.448 Csl clla 119 74 R8 '_OS IS3 Fta ina 635 63 .700 840 529 VVillorc1°' 1,067 29 31J I,R$,0 550 tin Iand_ 274 71 200 dSJ 329 Tuial ' 9,669 (8,499) 4,144 (3,,26) ~f3,~f9~> _ - (12,274.7, . >,~02 (4.5251 (nJ !'rnjecr IPnlcr amauult mere nG[aiued jrnnr [!rc RICFC D(eGrlcL `- !hJ /Jecaece die Cily lms n.cignificnn! nnlurne ojunused rvnTir righEdm[ may be used(n(an}' time during Ihc)~enr, it is n.ctunud i! roil/ nnl use ndrlili~riaf mnler from the A/CFC Di3lri~R:. (cJ /hrtcd ou AICFC Uis'vic! rcparlr. A'unnc~cr Dr p¢rcnthc•scs art values dear e.tdude liethrgnJ i~ni(c~ CJI'D agriculrura/ deuuurd. -~ ' (d/ IPiflmo Couru3r has a3~cnr rnrurd right for Icjs or 138 dL; l[ is 'assumed r!m[ onlp use during the nrmuhs of fO/P - Ocmber (GO°6J nrus! be co rarer/ by Ihc• J~/C~TC Dislric! permit. These data shot+' that the total demand from n<uer tuililies is projected to increase from 9.6~y A~ in ?006 to 13,49 A1= by ~02~ tincluding the agricultural usage Gom Red,vood Valley)., In ?006; the rotal''amouitt.oJ'vvatcr fromlhe seven water utilities that could be accounted as Project Water itl the-sMC1=C~~District report (assuming all groundwater is Prdject,~'J'ater and Redwood Valley agricultural usage is included) 5vas 4,144 AF I3y the year 203, this is projected to increase to 5,502 AF. Current)}', the water milntes ate;'covered by contracts that total 3,371 ,AP and Redwood Valley purchases from tlie~-ti00 AF_pf surplus water and arty water which is unused by other contracted \yater users Tliis appears ]o;{ze`inadequate to meet the projected demands for tlic year'025..~x'ith o1 without the 1~Edwood Valley agricultural demand included. "Fable V-4 summarized data fsoni~'water utilities in the Ukiah Valley on the average ~t'ater use per connection durii'g the maximum month for the ten-year period, 1997- 200fi:;`'I'he highest uses; are in [he Willow CWD, Millview CWD and Hopland PUD with ara~e of 1,54S~,tu 1,559 gpdc. The lowest uses are in the Redwood Valley CWD and the Calpella CWb with values of 91 I and 965 gpdc, respectively. Table V-4: 1l'ater:~Utiliq• Maximum Month VValer Use 1447-2006 \Va1er System Accrage Day Production it Maximum Month, gpdc (Ten fear Avera a Ratia to Ul:iah Average U:q• in Maximum Month Ukiah I,OSO I.00 Redwood Valley C\M1'D 91 t 0.54 Millcicw CN'D 1,653 1.53 Cal tell, CN'U 965 (1.59 t2o ina 1,195 I.II 11'illow C1VD I,S23 L69 Ho Iand PUD ISIS 1.40 zs Ukiah ~'slley Drinking seater Adcquncy Assessment Novembcr~00i V Mendocino County Water Agency The 1,-lendocino County 14rater Agency (MCWA) was formed in accordance with the Cv~lendocino County \Vater Agency Act over fifty years ago, with the Board of Supervisors acting as the MCWA Board of Directors. 1-listorically the MCWA has provided little leadership and has played a very minor role in water issues. As a result, municipalities, realer districts and individuals have been on their own to provide services to their clients and themselves. The County has recognized the importance of protecting had-managing water resources and the ineffective rote that they have played. (n "_'003'''(he B~~Td of Supervisors passed P~esolution 03-032 which established county policy fu't,a restructured MCWA to be more involved in water resource management. ,Below, is an excerli't'!,from Resolution 03-032. "The A-lendoc ino Courrq~ (4'ater agency is dii•e~Ied to nssinne a /endershi~ i~ole in addressing water relarad tanners in Alrndocino C'ouii'tj~, inchrding the prbtecriat mrd resroratinrr o~irater.rheds, water cauervntion, reuse t?nd reci~cling, tearer grralih', the derelopmenr qJ impoundment ojrreir tenter, die prole~Ylaav, resrm-atiora nnd~ enhancers ear nr hrnlnmr nn,'i ri~vrnr-align n(~sheries. The:(.t;encv i.r (in~ther direch.cll~~ • H'ork in Pm7nership mith odter tblettdoci/ro C'n9urt~~ warertagencies', as well ns local, stare, and federal agencies aursrde of thG,it'ountj ;=~'° • Collaborate wiNr 1'le"ii~acino Counq~ ihxr~er agencies thronglr granting and lechnicnl assistance; ' • Develop re~neata~e for dre ~gencP: • Encourage and nS'sie'r nr M1t~n(er resource ritaragement consolidation ja' efficient, effective, and ecohui,3rcal Heriafirsr ntr~~=~ • Det*elop aid rnnintanf a oomprehursrve dalcrbnse ojcoruuvrvide assess, services, ;conrrectioarr unii''capanhes,%~r a!! water agencies. " :.,., AS~art of its obligation to cc?riduct oversight of Count}' Special Districts, in 2005 the Mendq'cino County Gland Jury performed a review of Water Districts as they impact water resources withivahe County, focusing primarily on those water agencies and special di~stncts in U'l:iah Valley and Potter Valley, their available water supply, their plans, and thcir~atility to respond to emergencies and major water shortfalls. In its deliberations, t7ae' Grand .luny found that the authority and ability of the Board of Supervisors to directly affect v:ater resource policy is limited by statute and the nature of the autonomous organizational character of County ~4cater Districts. I-iowever, n ~+~ent on to make a number of pertinent findings and recommendations to more effectively use the 1`4CWA in dealing with water issues. These include: I) The Board of Supervisors should take a leadership rote in developing long-range comprehensive management plans and strategic policy for dealing wish all aspects of water resources (supply, rights, availability, usage, conservation, storage, 29 Ukiah Valle)' Urirking \1'orer Adequacy Assessment November 2007 distribution and infrastructure) counh-wide and specifically for the Ukiah and Palter Varlet areas. ?) The Board of Supervisors should establish a Water Resource Policy Council, comprised of all water agencies/special districts and official water-related entities within the Counl}~ and the UI<iah and Porter Valle} areas_ The Council should explore interests and concerns in order to develop common long-range plans and strategics to address the issues of adequate guaranteed water availability, usage. conservation and storage within the Counh. 3) "I he Board of Supcn~isors should increase staff and fundiri~-lift the ~(endocino County \V'ater Agency and immediately initiate procedures wish the State necessary to expand its mission, powers and authority to include eimordination and administration of all water resource management grid feasiti~litt studies within the County. Because water development, improvzmeii atmd inf~551nrcture require large Inancial resources, it is reasoned that a unifiedeiitity can better ~rnvide the financial leadership needed to negotiate with financial institutions abnul bond issues, as will as to negotiate with pglitiyal,groups• and electeil ottlcial~:concerning revenues. Outside entities such as several `State and Pe'deral agencies; the Army Corps and SC WA require an effective County tie-~ofiator. A single unified entity would provide a coherent and.l~mowledgeuble ncg©'t;i~ting force. -,., J i The Heard of Supervisors iho~ughdte M~'w,4 shrnild nrTanee necessary finencine for the matching hinds to add to~llme Army,„Corps of Griv~ineers (Corps) ?005-300ti appropriated monies far the continued deyclcipinent ~fthc Coyote Valley Dam FeasibilityStud~.,,.,,,,: "_ ~~~~ ~) The Board ufSupervisrjrs should require all water purveyors; providers, agencies and special districts, as;yvell as ripanan_rights users, to install meters andlor mcasuruig de~rices to lracl< water usage ~Cui local reporting. The Mendocino County \4~ater Agency could receive;and-co~i~pile the water usage data for informational 1ri~`plalmring purposes: l) 1-he Doard of Supetvisors'sJtould require all water aeencies/special districts to inunediatcl)' deVgJ.op and'itriPlement conservation programs, with an education component for resit~ential; agricultural mind industrial use. Devices such as reduced- floty;tyater fixturas?and irrigation equipment and other passive and active appi~oac~es, inclu~j`ng rec]aimed water Qreated wastewater) systems, should be investigated and',considered. 30 Ukiah Valley Drinking ~5'mer Adequacy Assessment Js'orembcr 200' VI. City of Ukiah a. Cta•rent Stlstesr {i'n 2•r Use Table VI-I summarizes data from the Cih''s annual report submitted to the Department nn connections and water use for the I U year period 1997-2006. TahlcVl-I' Ukiah -System Connections/Hismrical \4'ater Use -1997 .006 N'ntcr Production L`:Ir Cnnnccliuns Q't8A111111III UaY n~a.\Im ll trl Month i~\'C'r8 (~Cyn:IV,,, ,.~, IL fl11 tl91 McD/ ,de oleo/• de M_~ug de ~r/(ar/coon) 199i 6,501 b.S/1,007 5.9/373 ,sw3.4§`GSc 3,911/0.55 i 998 6,871 7.3/1,061 5.2/750 ~':i 3.36/48?~';_„ !,761/0.55 1999 G,SdB 7.011,021 G.Ui8 i5, `7.77/551 4,22 6/0.62 2000 7,016 _7.7_/1,09_4 ~ 5.7/84./8 7.66/522 ~.,.-4,099!0.58 2001 7,038 _ 6.44/915 S:Y78G 3.63/516 'a'R69/0,58 1002 7,117 i.48/1,051 .:6-A;$5? ,3..72/523 4;1:Qj10.53 '_UU3 G.3U 6.91/1,014 G.1/9b3~is}. :'~`'~`'*t~6/508 3,$7210.57 10114 7,392 6.61/835 6.01760 }.69/468 4,130,'05' 2005 S,S1G" 6.65/I,?,DS 5.911,070 `~ `~_3.35/G07 3,755/0.68 2000, 5,486 6.90/I,Z~$ . G.0/1,069 `='x_42/624 3,337/0.70 I'Lnuuug' n t,a03 gpdc l.t ll gpdc G97~gpdc 0.?'.^.f4nn11 (t) c; uy changed way Ihat rt reported connections. ~ - (2j l3ecausc the Cip' changed the way it rcpot3ed:connectibn$=i n'~2U05, the per connection plannine volues were detcrminedby [along the higtie@~ value recorded`in the 10 year period 1997 ?006 (in bold in the table) and divd~dng by the numb~~_of connections the system reported having at the end of 2006. (iol example the'fit~ximum day plartltine value in Tahle Vl-f a'as obtained by dividing 7.7 t`1GD by 3,436-.di5iulections. _~,.. Histonc~tlly-the C1t}~ ofIIklah liastbtUrteij all living units doxwtstream of a master meter (e g ; ~hartments and mobile homes) as connections and billed them at a Pat rate per month. Thesc`ebtvtectlons;,tvere included in the nunber of connections reported to ttg,pepartment annually Ihrorigh 2004. In May 2004, the City changed the way it bil'1'~d',:connecttons Its; new system does not bill any flat rate customers. It only bills for act;tat,meters and~giily cow)ts those meters as connections. As a result, the number of svstern dnnnechons>eported for the year ending December 31, 2005 \vas 2;376 less than reporied==for the=year ending December 31, 2004. For this analysis, deterntining per cotvtectioirdemand for the City of Ukiah was done using the number of colmections rejorted in 2006 and the maximum values reported over the 10 year pCllUd. i iIC Icauiii f1u111 illy appl'JdCii aiC ii:$5 COIiSCi.'ahl'C than 1'uIUC' Lu!C;:!: !e Ll 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 shoe+m in Table VI-2 belota for average day, maximum day, maximum month and annual total as well as the 31 Ukiah Valley Drinking \l~aler Adequate :lssesmtent Noeembcr ]907 maximwn demands determined using these values and the curreN number of system connections. Table VI-_' plaximum CurrcN System Demands Macimum per 2UUG ~ Maximum Current Demand Connection Demand, Connections Dem:urd, MGD 199 i-200(, , de :Aac ra ~c Dar 6A7 5.d 86 3.S It1nximum Date Ip03 7.466 7.7 Maximum A7onth I,I I? x,486 6.1 Annual I 0. i7 ,1f;Connection I 5,466 I ~-0,''~4 AFl' I ti'nrcr Rri,~leGs Fur i[s numicipal use, the Cih~ holds sw'face water rights and fia~'~ne +vell that has historically been considered as pumping percolated~~groundwatcr. ;773ese rights and the ground water well currently provide the Ciq tviih a fine supply of a`l~ast 9.31 cfs (6.0 ~~(GD) and 6.740 AP during the period ianuarv 1 to December 31 with a potential for as much as 21.34 cfs (13.8 MGll) and 15,430 :1P. These rights are descrilicd below: 1)Prc-1914/Pre-1949 Right This is a right to divert 2.8 cfs (2Q~? AFl') with the Cii}'s Ranney collector fiom the Russian Ri+-ci (including 1VcA Pvrl:) wl3ieh is reeugni~ed h} the S1A~PiCB in Deciaion ,- 1030 and subsequently included in the amount r_eRorted as used pursuant to water right Permit 12952 (described below). Il)e pri~rily tbi-tlu~ right is senior to the MCPC District Permit 129(},713. It is also imjieii'tant to note that the SR'RCB has stated that Pre-1949 users;'may ~usc xvater released from storage in Lake Mendocino during extreme dry p~5'-tads. 2) 1'ust-1949 ApprgPrinik4}c Water RiglrtsPermit 1295? (Application ]704) Thrs ~s a right;.to dlveYt up to 00 6 rdu~ic feet per second from January 1 tlu~ough Ddcember 31 Laj~proxuna(ely 14,480 acre-feet arutually) oC Russian River underfloor "(includes West 1;brk) using3tis~,Rdnney Collector, and y'~jell Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. The priority of the right 15-Junior'1o Pre-1914/Pre-1949 water users, riparian users, and to EastTnrk Russian River +vater under the MCPC Dish'ict Permit 12947B but it is Senior to approj~ri,ativc righYSfiled after January 25, 1454. The City has the right to di~'ert water occii.`'rring beloxt%the confluence of the Cast Pork and 1>,test Pork. This includes water to wli-icli'[vlCl='C District has no right. Permit 12952 e~;pired nn December 31, 2000. Prior to Permit 12952's expiration, the City filed a Petition for Extension of Time v:itlt the SR'RCT3 to change its place of use and to extend its water rights permit to allow additional time to perfect its water right. The expanded place of use will include Ivlilhview Cl',%D, the R'illow CWD and the Calpella CWD in accordance with existing emergency intcrtie agreements for water service between these entities. An E1R is tieing prepared on these petitions. Permit 12952 is current and valid while the Petition for Extension of Time is processed. At the time of feline the petition for an extension of tin;e to perfect its 32 Ukiah Valley DrIRICInL \4ater Adzquaq- Assessment No+ember '_007 hermit, the City had perfected a use of approximately S cfs (includes 3.S cfs of Pre- 1914/1949 right j. 'thus, even tf the Sy1rRCD +vere to deny the City's petition, it would still hold a perfected Post -1949 license for 3 cfs (5,791 Ail'). 3) Contract 1'1'ater++ith ~9CI'C Uistricl under Permit 1294B In ''004, the City entered into an agreement with the h4CI=C District to purchase up to 800 AFY of Project R'a[er. This provides about 3? R•IG for 120 days. 4) Gruundn'atcr AI [hc cun~ent time the Cil}~ has one well, A>vrell No. 4, that issr.~'usidered a ground++'atcr source by the S\1rRC6. In the S~\'RCB's 3005 Ukiah s,~trce inspection report \\%ell No. 4 is not identified as a point of surface water di,~~rsr?i~,;, a picture of the tveli is given in the report and it is refetTed to as pumping p~icolatediaround+a'ater. HoH'ever, based on the S\\rRCB's position that other wells iir.the Ukiaji.Valley, such as the 1Villo+r C1~'D's Burkz Fiill wells, are pumping Russian River uridei-t7ow it is uncertain if this designation will remain in the future. The well has a reliablecapacity of 600 gpm ll._a cfs) ur 9uS AI 1'. If this well is ever designated as undcrl7o++ b}~ the SWP,CII, the City's water rights would app(y;to and-=he_sufficicnt fo~the +vatcr it produces. 7-he City's aphroprietive water rights-are given below' ~`,~his information shows that it currently hus n rural nght ~t ? 1.34 ets acad. 13,445 AF] of which 9.31 cts tti,769 of i~i has been pertecled. for the purjoses of`s}o++•ing the.~City's reliable supple, the quantity that can be pumped from Well No.`4 is`riclweled: Summan' oDCih''s Apnru nriativc Rights Cxer~ised It'iehts '` ' ~ f2ate Annual Amount : ;. . - ~~ (cfs) (acre-feet) :o-~, Pre-191 AIP}e-1949 R~gtit. ?.8 x,027 " Post-149 Pel'~rtiit I'95° 5.17 3.743 ,,-•. Total bxerusetl:Appropiiative Riglus 7.97 5,770 GriUndwatec, Well No. 4 I1 J4 969 Total Nsercised Rights 9.31 6,739 Unexercised Rights Post-1949 Permit 12952 I'_.03 6.709 Tidal nt City's Appropriatirc Rights 21.34 11,446 Cit\~'s Water Right Contract MCPC District 39ti 600 33 Ukiah Vallc}~ Drinking 1Vatcr Adcquncy ~ssessmcnt November 2007 Sources The Cit.- currenth~ has a Loral developed physical source capacity of 7.2 MGD I~rom its Ranee} Collector and three active ++~elis. Lach of the sources is described in detail below. Sur~nce This source utilizes underilow of the Russian 12iver Ouough a Ranee}' collector located along the barila of the Russian River. h has a design capacity oC 13 1v4GD but by the late 90's was only producing 2;300-3,900 gpm ('4.^_ tv9GD1 In 1999, the City had the laterals televised and determined that the perforations in all the latzrals had been ai least partially closed by deposits. The City had these laterals presswe-cleaned and added four nc+v laterais. As a result of the cleaning and addition o'1-fear laterals, the Ramsey collector's production increased io 3,300 - 3,400 gpin' (49 ~4clnl and the raw water turbidity decreased from I . I - L2 NTII to 0.4 - Q:6 NTU. I[ is believed the relatively modest increase in production is a result of the decrease in the river bpid elevation due to upstream gavel mining and the river channel having moved awav front ihecolleclor laterals. (irOlll]!ln~alCr There are three active wells in the s}stem +vith a total cstimatal capacity of 1,600 gpm (2.3 ~~IGD). The Cily also has hvo''iiiactive wells. .All ~hc''City's wells are described as below: tf'e//s ? & G' These +veNs were used ta,penodically'supd~ement the surface source and add an estimated 200`~mi. Well ? is asl~llow' dug ,well. l>,~cll 6 is a drilled n-cfl and when operated pumped`intu Well 2. 1-lowever, +vheri the improvements to the Ranney Col lector +verc e~ntpfeted;;tlaese +aells +aere disconnected from the sysizm and have not been used smcz As a res411}; these sourc~s~ivefc removed as approved sources in the domestic water supph petnhi4iss>zsd_LO,the~Cily by the Department in 2006. If'e!! 3 `This sv~ll is cunehtly equipped with a vertical turbine pump capable of 1}~l~oducing 1 000 ~k~ However, the reliable capacity of the well has been estimated at -6010 gpm. it is turned on and oft-'by a preset level in the zone one storage tatila. The well,is kept in an automatic 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 peal:,demand fi,es. !i'e!l 4: This''dcilled' well is used for appro~imatcly eight months of each year. ft is manually operated and once turned on runs 24 hours per day. It is usually turned off for a period oC`time in the Tate fall and late spring. It is equipped with a vertical turbine pur;p .cith a rated capact~ of ; `OQ ep;,, bu, tkc rcliab;c c,..,,.ated capart} s X00 gpm. l he well is equipped +aith a standby diesel engine +vhich can drive the +cell pump. (f ~!/ 5' This dr filled ++~ell is used periodically (2 to 3 months per year) to supplement the surface sow'ce- [t is equipped +vith a 320 gpm submersible pump and has an estimated reliable capacity uC200 gpm. The well is equipped wish a standby generator to po++~er the +aell pump in the event oCa po+ver outage. 34 Ukiah Valley Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment November 2007 Trcrtnuerrr l'he City has an alternative technology surface water lrzatment plant With a rated capacity of 9.(1 hgGD. I~he plant currently consists of three independent treatment trains each consisting of an upflow, solids contact, clarification unit filled +vith buoyant polyprop}•lene media and amulti-media filter. Flawever, only two of the lreatmem trains are being used at any one titnc. The plant aas designed for expansion to four parallel trains for a total capacity of i3.0 MGll. The City has a standby power generator ++~ith sufficien( capacity to operate the Ratmey Collector pumps, the entire Ireatrnznl plant, and the high sen9ce booster punps. _ Srnrnge The City's disu'ibution system has four pressure zonz§-with"sev,en storage [ants and a total volume of 5.396 MG. There is also a 0.135 MG eleanvell`laii); at the water treaunent plant j\rrTP) but it does not add to the,disvibrflion sloragi'snce it is designed to remain fill at sll times. Table VI-3 sununarizes the information un the City's storage tanks and pressure zones. . T,61o \/IA~ I ILia6 P.cvu vn ']nr. nc and Gnram Tan4c ....,.,. .. ~..,........._......_ ............._....,._o.._.....;,. •, s-d .,,- . Zone?ank Ucsi nation .. Tanlc Tv r - z. Tank Volume, MG I/IS ~oncrcf~~;•;?;,- _ '`?.500 2/1N St~GCI 0210 /1s sre~1, o.lao 3/Alcndnci4o;Plnci• Rcd Cvtio`d 0.03? 4/Loolmut Drive - ~ Boltclf$tccl 0.014 (1) Piriisbe8:,}Ua)er Storage rank located at tliLareatment plant. Water is pumped lion this tank;in[n :zone one.,"'~ Invrder to rehablV comp7} with California Waterworks Standards, the recommended distribution sto?age ~-olume'P~r the City, based on its water use is estimated on the basis o1';the equation: Storage Volume =Average Day Production + 25°0 otMaximum Day Production + Aire Plow Demand. The maxihSun• values-reported in the last 10 years (1997- 2(106) were used for determining Ihe,r~quired storage volume because it +vas reasoned that this demand can reoccur. )\sswning a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gpm for t+vo hour or 0?4 MG flypKal ICil Wieilleni lur C6nlniCr~i:il ~OnCS), Q1C I'eC On: n: e:, rlyd rG al rihutinn ctn rgap volume based on the highest per cotvteclion use for the last ten years is 6.0 MG as shown below. Curren) Storage Requirement =3.R 117G +U.15 s 7.7 MG+0.14 MC = 6.0 MG Thus the City has 93 percent of the storage required to serve its current customers as detznninzd by this method. 35 Ukiah Valley Drinl.ing 1t~atcr Adequacy Assessment Norcmber'_007 Rclinhilitp The City has auxiliary power for its \1~clls 4 and > as well as standby power for its Ranney Collector and water treatment plant. In addition, the City has an emergency intertie with the tVillow CWD and the tv4illview C\t'D. These interties are capable of delivering 120 gpm and =100 gpm; respectively by gravity. Cat.rcmariac because the way the City determined the number of cotuteclions it served prior to 2001 was dilferent than the way the rest of the water systems that are 5,subject of this report, historical coiutection data could not be used to detcmtine per connection demands Cor cc+mparison purposes. Using the number of system eonnectiuus reported for _'006 and the highest maximum month production reported ove"rape last-1'.O,years gives an accraee da}~ production per connection during the ntaxiutum mo'i{lh oC use of I,I 13 gpdc. The Cite i; in the process a( completing its 2005 Urban A>,'ater A4anage Plan IUU'iv1P). As part of this plan an economic anah~sis was done on four of the fourtecti Demand ~4anagemcnt Measures recommended by the CaliCoaiiia Urban A',tater Consen~ation Council. This analysis found that three measwes; ttr;itc~ Sun-cy Program on Residential Customers; Residentigl`PlUmbing Retroft,'anii Residential Ultra Low Plaw T~~ilcl Replaodniont were ecvi~~niicall} ~ia~la an.I could polanli,ili) care the Cil~ ^n average of 132 APY over the twenty,year pennd~2006-2025 at a projected cost of $=8,000 per year. The City adopie3'~a At'atei,$hortage Cmereency ordinance into its Ciq~ Code in 20(16. This ordinance sets up ~ three tiered progi'2m to reduce water demands at times when supply is no( sufTie`ient to h~eei normal demands. Stage 1 calls Cor voluntan~ resh~ictious_on water Stage Sand-State 3;iinplement progressively greater mandatory iest4etiuns on=monessenl~'al, water use and contain penalties for excess use. This ~xo~ram must bamplemenied by aresolution from the City Council declaring that a :Stage 1, 2 of 3 tr%ater shortag~~cmcrgency exists. b. Future Derir_rirrds Cnuaecriouk During the }period frptn 2000 to 2025, the drab Ukiah Valley Area Plan projects an increase in the'as'i;try's population from 15,497 in 2000 l0 17,990 by 2025 or an avemge ». increase of aplirbximatcly 0.64% per year over the 2000 population. Phis translates into a gronKh of 12.2 percent ir. connectiens over the 19 year period from 2007 to 2025, or a total of 6,155 cotmections. This is 669 connections greater than the City reported it had at the end of 300(,. The City's draft UWNiP update projection Cor the number of connections in 2035 is based on a total population served of 27,495 and 2.56 persons per connection. This translates into a total of 9,61 S comtections. The population projection assumes that the 36 Ukiah V'allcy Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment November 200? City +cill reach build out by 201 S and annex and sen'e the area in its sphere of influence over the next 20 years. Supple Ucrnnmis :lssuming the same maximum rates of water use per comnection for the future as de(erntined from data reported for the period 1997-2006, [he projected water demands for the year 2025 based on the Department's population/corutection projections are given in Table VI-4 belo++': r_i. i,, vi ,. u.,.:.,,..,..1 ^r~,,,, n,....,,,d~ rn. ~ha +'ner ~Oii _r'f1PN Prn incltii5ns Value Per Connection Demand, do Connections `DemanJ - D1CD Accra e Dar 6B7 6,155 ' ':='4? Max Dar 1,403 6,ISs - ~ -"~'B~.tr:,. I+lax nlou(h I,I I'_ 6,133;,'x, - 6B ." Annual 0.77 AF/Connection 61'55 4,740 AP Assuming the same maximum rates of wafer use, per connecuon for the luuw'e as determined from data reported for the period 1'99'7-20[l'6;'the projected water demands for the near 2035 based on thz population/connection"projections in the City's draft UR<vdP are given in Table VI-S below: r~.i,,: ci. ~, i~~.,,: .,.,1 +:•,ir~, I)~~in.ind: fnr rhe. fear '_U?~ - U4.iah Uratr Ul\~;<I i' -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \'aluc Per Connection ~- Demand, idc ' `= ' ,_ Connections _ ~ -Demand MGD Arcrn~c Dar __ 687 9 61 5 '-~ _ 6.6 Max Dm ,':1;403 9,615 ~ 13.5 i Max Month '~,I`yl'..12 9,615 10.7 .4nuuai - ~ ~ .0.77 .4F~Connenion ~ 9,615 7.400 AP The dtfferencc betn~en lhL Depuiment-p~•ojections and [hose in the City's draft UVL~IyT[' are,Signi,ficant. T.Ite difference'is primarily a function of the assumption that lhe'City will r~aFh.~uild bui;by 2015 and will amtex and serve all the land in its sphere ~uf~influence m theair~t ri+enty'~ge5rs. Dared on the length of time the platuring and e`nyuomuental proci§Ses lake, it seems unlikely that the City will be able to both arurex all tKe land in its sphere of intlucnce and have the infrastructure constructed to serve it compl`el~e0,jn the nexfi3wenty years. ]-towever, for water system plamting purposes this estimate call he considered a "worst case" alternative and +vill be used in addition to the Depardnenrs projection to bracket the possible growKh the City could experience. Trenlurenl nnr!'Sonrcc Cnpnci(y if it is assumed that the wells are used to their maximum capacity of 2.3 iv(GD. the treatment plant would have to deliver 6.3 tv1GD to the distribution system to meet the Department's projected 2025 maximum day demand. The treaunent plant is currently rated at a capacity of 6.0 l+9GD but can produce 9.0 t\'iGD if the three trains were placed into operation. 1-]o+vever, the City's Ranney Collector system has a capacity of 4.9 t+9GD. l bus, the City will need to increase the amount of water it can withdraw (Tom the Russian River to at least 6.3 N1GD to meet the projected 2025 maximum day demand. To meet the average day demand during the maximum month the treatment 37 Ukiah Valley Drinkin_~ \\'ater Adequacy Asessmrr.~ November ?007 plant trill have to deliver l.3 A4GD. The treatment plant and Ranney collector currauly hate this capability. Using the 202 projections in the City's draft U\1T4P, the treaunent plant would have to deliver 11.2 [t1GD to the distribution system to meet the maximum day demand. The treatment plant's cunrnt maximum capacit\~ tt-ith all three trains running is 9.0 ~9GD. fn order for the City to be able to meet this treatment demand, the fourth treaunent train twill have to be added to the plant The Cih~'s Ranney collector has a current capacity of 4.9 MGD. The City trill have to increase its capacity to tvithdrata tt~atcr from the Russian to I I? MGD to meet this demand. fo mee[ the aver5ge`day demand during the maximum month the treaunent plant will have io deliver S.4 ~4GD. The treaunent pranicurrcntly has this capability with all lluzz trains pjierating.. I-fowever, the Ram[cy collector cunenl capacity is less than needed to meet='tfiis demand. The City will have to increase is capacity to withdraw water from the~Russian Rivei~`byo3.5 MGD to meet this demand. Smraga C)~pncrq~ fhz estimated future distribution storage requirzment tising-lhe Department"s projections by the year 2025 is 6.6 MG as shoran hnlaw: 10?5 Slorige Requirement=4.2 A1G+p.?5 x 8. (, (•IG +0.?4 ~1G =G.G ,~1C The projected amount of required storage increases b}' slightly over 600,000 gallons in the year 2025. ~. fi: 'lire estimated f~nture dtst4Lution storage~j~equirzmeit using the projections in the City's drafr U14'~4A-':ltiirrthe vear~(')35 is 6.6 1`~iGl~as shown below: .; 20?5 Storage Requmemen r,=•(,G~141,G.+ 014z 13.i D1G + p..J p1G = 10.? MG _ .. ,' ThepPojecteii,tuii~unt ofzequired storage increases by 4? MG in the year 2025. :: ~- r c Assessmeirt_'ojCaipliance Table °V,I=6 compares,~tlje required source and storage capacities with the estimated current d'einands. ~=" 3S Ukiah \'allcy Drinking Water Adequnoy Assessment November 20(17 Table VI-G: wired 1Yater Ri hts. Source and Storrs ~e Ca acilies +vith eurretu Ca acity. Item Curren) Ca :reih Needed Capaciq' Girrcnl '_0?5 Dc tl _'(125 - U\1'p1P \1'a to Ri ~hts, AF U,d88 ' 4,?24~'r 4,740" 7,400' Snurcc Ca acih', a1GD 7 ' 7.7"' S.G 135 Treatment Grpacity'sl ~1GD 9.0 5.J 6.7 I I? Story ~c Vo:umc, SIG 5.9 G.0 G.G 10.2 (1) phis includes me total exercised and uncxcrcised water right and 9G9 AF\' obtained from R'cll No. 4. - (?) Based on annual production from 1999 eonrerted to 2U0G tonne-cl~ions.' (3) 2025 needed u'atcr rights is based on annual per connecliott,dem;vtd dclennined br dividing 1'199 annual production b}' 20116 eo'ri`uccPign number. (4) Current Rla.xintum Day Capacity need is based on the Iafgesl mazi'nium day production experienced in the 10 year period, 1997.21106.: (5) Needed treatment capacity is based on maaimum~ii iiy'dcmoind minus the ti~cll capacity of 2.3 MGU. The City's +vatcr rights are more than adegiiet~ao meet_`current and projecteiJ needs tlu'ough the year 2025 using either the Departrir'e""otprojectiiins or the City's U\VtgP projections. I loxvever, the City has a total developet7source capacity of 7.2 MGD which is not adequate to meet tlie'_Q25 maximum da}tdynands projected by either method ns rewired by the Calif~rrii'a U+atenvorks Standar"-"Ns. }ti%ilh a storage volume of S.S96 N1Crthe Crt~ es¢entiallytnieets the State's Waters+rorks Standards under maximum demand conditions expeizpced over the last ] 0 years. The current storage \to1Lina pPOVidcs approxiinatel}' 37 hdurs of use under average demand conditions and ?2 hours tinder the average day during the maximum month conditions. hhe analysis'indiuates lhaL-the City will Head an additional 0.7 MG of storage to meet the projected demat5ds m tlte'year 2025. However, the data used to determine this was limited ta;cannecuonglate availably lou_diily 2005 and 2006. As such, it should be reevaWated~yvheJ~,.Gve } alts of data are available using the City's new method for i.S -counting servtce~*unnecttonsz= _ Tate Oily is currently'fpdating'its Urban 16raler Management Program. This draft report describes,the City's wrier rights, water supply and delivery system, conservation programs afd ablLty tip meet a 20 year grow4h projection. The projections for gro++'th and demardson Iltel'City's public water system are signiFcantly higher Ulan the Departments. -11e~'Cily should examine closely the assumptions made concerning groxx'th in its UWNIP. These assumptions depend on development that muss receive e~tatsi+c re. ir.. and approval L-cm ,..,...el}' of gevenunent ~ ' ._._.. s , ^!! ,s be ..fie economical)}' viable. 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. The City's draft U14rA1P performed an evaluation of conservation measures (he Cily could take to reduce its demands. The report identified tluee measures that were economically viable and which could produce moderate savings. 1-lowever, the City's 39 Ul:i~h \'allzy Drinking N'atzr :\dequacy Assessmznt Noaembcr 2007 2006 per cotmection use during the month of ma~innun demand is high at 1,089 gpdc. hhe City should have an in depth conservation evaluation done la determine it there arc economically viable ~~°ays to reduce system demand not considered in the draft UR'1v-1P. 40 Ukiah Valley Drin6:inc \5%ater Adequacy Assessment 1v'ovember'_007 VII. Redwood Valley Water District u. Current Spstenr The Redwood Valley C\VD's water svstent was originally designed to provide water to large agricultural users as well as domestic services in the District tluough shared intake, transmission line facilities, and a raw water storage pond but separate distribution Tines. In 1949. the Department, under order from the Mendocino Cdunty Superior Court. imposed a drnnestic service connection moratorium on thel2edwood Valley CWD because of a lack of reliable and adequate source of supp1 j Chis connection moratorium was based on the District being committz>f to setv4;1,350 connections. In 1994, the California Legislature passed SB 14~~,tli~t allows the Rhdwood Valley CWD to add up to 135 new connections to relieve hafdsfi'ip` The Distnct'tat]'bpted an ordinance to administer the hardship authorifv'. The Redwood Valley CWD also provides servict~!ao thc'tuyote Valley Indian [.esgn anon (Reservation) via an agreement madeaYNovember 1943 and the Redwood •;r,. Volley Rancheria (Rancheria) via an agreement mad'eiit July 1987. At the time oCthe aereement. the Reservation had 20sliousing units and a~P3n, to construct an additional 3U units. i he 1<eservauon has twu comtey,¢io~s (4-in and =F=iii) that provide ow-~UU epm. ,,t_;,;. ~, The Rancheua at tlii3"tir3Se of agreement ih3d 25 lorries and an office building. The District is committed to`j>,vviding up to ``50,000 gpd of water and to include the total number of services in the R'anchena m thcDistric['s total allowable connections. „ -. In lul},2QQ0: the District begaiti,providrug~service to the Bel Arbres Mutual Water Company (~3-)tgmes) under its hardship ordinance. .fl'gter Use ~-~_- Table,VII-I swnmarl~es data~tdr~the period 1997-2006 from the Districts annual repiiit$'ssubmitted to ~Phe Department (metered domestic use) and total use reported to the MC~CDistnct (t~i`al pumped from Lake Mendocino) for the same period. It is assumed'fllatahe difference in the total amount used by the Redwood Valley CWD and the domestic~~u'se is attributable to agricultural users. 41 Ukiah Valley Drinkinc A4'uter Adequacy Assessment Nox~emher 1007 Table \'ll-4 ~. Fed+•ood \'atle} Cl4'p - S}~stem Conneetionslfiistoricsl \\'ater Use \i'a lcr Production V Domestic \1'a lcr Production Year Cann. It1ax Day MGD/ do P1ax Month MGD/ de Avb Day ~1GD/ do Anmral :1 F'/(AF/Coon) A~ Use A~ 'intal Usc AfY 1997 1,095 1.3411?20 1.031940 0.62.56] 690/6.63 1,503 3,193 1!198 1,095 1.2711,16_0 LOS/96D 061/553 691/0.63 1292 1,973 1999 1,100 _ L44I1,309 0.75'636 0.48/433 5J4•'OA8 _ 2,014 3.543 2000 1,120 ~1.3 G/I ;214 ~ LIO/')97 ~ ~ 0.7016'_5 x`7$0/0.72 _~ ~~ I 1,720 ^-,510 2001 LL'7 I?3/I,U91 ~I-07/953 0.63/603 767; 0.63 2,042 3,509 2002 _ 1,13? 1.30/1,1:78 0.32/725 0.67/193 75210 _G6 ~ I,S55 ?,307 2003 1,134 1.3211,164 1.13/99} Ob3/59-7~ ?53/0.67 1,2?9 1,987 x104 1,134 1.32/1,164 LI'_-1984 ~~ W 0.711G2'b -'79Qt0.70 1,240 '_,070 2005 I,U7 1.40/1,'_31 1.05!922 OitSl/5l3'~ 63~~'(1I60 1,030 1,715 2006 1,137 1.371L205 1-031946 +=0.5614 rJG 631/bi3(r 1,053 1,634 Plannin w 1,3119 997 - 626 0.72 ~. 1 2'I~'~ 2,011 _. OJ The per connacumr plomung ru(ues used are dve nnxcrnnun per connection cmhrc.ti r-cpnrg4d u~ Me I U rear period 199 -1006. - ('1 The planning raLre used for agrfcu/nu~a/ use n•m' the dvcr,~YC ~f dye /ast fire 3~ems sri~ce !hc agriudnrral use ha.r steadily declined over dye /a.rl five )~cur.i. Dorrreaic IPiller L/re ' At the end of 2006: the District had;), 137 tiem'ice connections on its domestic distribution s}'stem. 1-to+vever, the l~JSlrlcl"s agi~cultural distribution system does not provide service to all,potemial agricul~litral'sites Nithin its boundaries. The District has no policy that defiy3zs al7ay'able uses Goy its domestic distribution system. Il is t''= assumed that some exrsLng"domestic sen;icc connections are being used to provide service to nei+%"oi~~~e~pandigg-vineyards and%or Winer}' operations. Tor proposes of assessing conplrarics-wi11i California luatenvorks Standards, the highest per connectionS~alues for avet~`ae day, maximum month and annual use over tliz last ten }ears!w..ue used. These per camlection values are shown in Table VI[-2 bolo++' for a+erage dtiy,, maxirnum~da}', maximum month and total annual use as +vell as tletaximurn demands determined using these values and the cunenl number of lr: Table VII-?: Nlacimuiii Curren) Svstem Demands - - Dem:md Maximum per Connection Demand, Io9z2006, ^Pdv Connections Maximum Current Demand, MCD A+~cra c Day 6?6 1,137 -- 0.71 Maximum Da+~ 1,309 1,137 1.49 Maximum Month 997 1.137 I.I7 Annual 0.72 AP/Connection 1,137 819 AFY 42 Ukiah \rullcy Uriul;ing \1~atzr Adzyuac} Assessment Norzmber 20(17 "fhe average day during the maximum month oCuse per comtedion has averaged 911 epdc over the 10-year period 1997 -2006. Agriculhrrn[ II'nier Us'e Agricultural ++'atcr use increased substantially (over 50%) in the seven-year period from 199-3U01 ++ith a peak use of 2,013 AP in '_001. 1-lo+i'ever, since '001, the irrigation dem;utd on the system has steadily decreased. For the 6 year period, 1996 to 2001, the use averaged l,ti~0 AF. Por the last ~ \•ears from 2003 through 2006. the use has avenged I?21 AP. a decrease of nearly 269~~. Ii'atc•r Rrgdts ':~ The Rcd++ood Valley CWD has n ++'atcr right permit, 1,77i59t3; A~~idt a filing date of December 1975 that allows direct diversion of 17.2 1W1GD fro`nal};Iarch 1 to April 30 of each year Cor Grost protection, direct diversion oC f 22~NiGD (6S3 ~F) Crom November ,,;,. 1 to April 30 of each year for domestic purpose'sand'?,500 AFY fron3Novenilter 1 to April 30 of the succeeding year for storage. The total amount of watei to be taken is limited io 4.900 AFY and subject to the miniiiium tlowYrzquirements for fisli described previously. This permit expired on Deczmber3l`,?00~.•'The District filled an application to extend the dAte of the pemtit but tl5$`!liys not been acted on yet by the S~'r'RCB. Until such time as the SNrRCB makes adecision on the District's application the oermil is still valid. The Redwood \ralle}'CWD has no water rig'~tt;during the period 1\4ay 1 to November 1 of each year and is currently utilizing"surplus +itaiei'"'fto5n the MCFC District's 5,000 AP water right Itliaysfor the water il`uses in accorddiice with Mendocino Superior Court Order 4289, isstietllon T\Iay 29, 1'950. ;, In December 2005: the llisEract reached agt~einent +ciih fire Sonoma \','ater .4eency to contract for,up l0 3.b00 AF1~ofsLtplusf}yater. The contract is administered by the Sonoma i/otittity Water'ASency. The'agfieement authorized Redwood Valley to pump up'to 3,000 AF-o(}vater froiil~,Lake Aendocino during each October 1 through .Szptember 30 ++ateY;yeai whett(a} such pumping is not authoriied by either (i) Permit l'759~ or (ii) Pemuttl?~47B and the 1980 Stipulated Judgment; (b) such pumping is autlib(zed by Pemtif,tl?9d7A, and (c) the Sonoma County Water Agency deterntines that water ~ available i'or pumping. Redwood Valley was informed in June 2007 that +vater was not aeaihble for ptmtping under pemtit 129478 and it has been pwnping water from L,tltc Mendocino under the terms of this agreement since that time in 2007. Sr:r(scc Sc::rccs The sole source of supply lbr the District is from an intake and pump station located on the west shore of Lake Mendocino. lire intake consists of three 500-hp pumps ++•ith a capacity of 4,400 gpm each. 1-Iowever, the actual pumping capacit}' is approximately 8,000 gpm (Iwo pumps operating simultaneously) for a total of I I.5 N[GD. The third pump is a standby unit. AOraler is pumped to a surge lank near the pumping plant and then (lows b}' gravity through several miles of transmission main to a 6S AF (32 h9G) raw water storage pond. 43 Ukiah \rallev Drinking \4'nicr Adequacy Assessment Noccmbcr'_007 Treuam~u( The District has a conventions) surface water treatment plant with a rated capacity of 1 ,SOU gpm (3.6 Tv9GD). The plant consists of two circular up(low clarifiers followed by four, two cell, dual media pressure filters. Storage The distribution system has two presswe zones with xis storage faiths and a total storage volume of LSS IviG. The primary zone is Zone 1, sen~ing 9S percent of the total connections. 7_one 2 has approximately 3~ sen~ice comtections and is served tluough a small pumping station. T,t, n• vn.t arA ua~A Valley Pressure Zones and Storaee Tanks Zone Tan)e Name/Number Tanl: \~olumc, MC ~ Elcvntion, I Last Tank I ~ 0.50 1,002 1 Lnsl Tank 2 0.~0 "' 1,002 ~ ~ t \Vesl Tanl: 0.25 "9S0 " ' ~' I NarthTnnk - O.IP~ 97x` I S1i' Tnnk - O.JO .975 1 Road Q Tnnl: :_(1'.10 933 Total L.85 _ {;[ u;ilc; lu;uLibl} complp ~<iIL Scytiuq 6;~6; ~I ;l,c Cefi(~~:ui^ AA',ile;[[~ul.: Standards, the recommended storag'e.volume,~e?r the District, based on its maximum per connection water use over the last teiiwears;=is estittiated:an the basis of the following equation. S[orage Volume = Avcrage~=Day Production + ?5:4. et Ntaximum Day Production - Pirc Ploy[ Assuming a (ire flow requtrement Lf,I,5OO~gpm for 2 hr or 0. t S T`1G (typical tequtren~ent Ca: conuue>rciaUrestdcnti:~h~ones), the recommended storage vohune; based on the mrnaimum per;cottnection use over last 10 }'ears of records, is 1.26 h9G as shown below Tl'e current ca}~ccity exceeds this requirement. CunCenl Storage Requireinent = 0.71 D7G + 0.25 x IA9 61G +0.15 P1G = 1.36 111G Reliabililj~"~, The District;~ias a,1~0 KV>d standby generator that can run the whole 4eatment plant. It dots not hat~e'St3ndby power for its raw water lake pumps but it does have a 23 MG raw water pond'ihat feeds the treatment plant by gravity. 1;(ith conservation measures, Ltis rsw roster pond shoeid be scie to supply the tre~~.[ttent r!an! fc ° period of ^t !cast hvo weeks even under pcah demand conditions. Flowcver, this raw water pond also supplies the irrigation distribution system. ]n the event of a long term failure of the intake pump system, the volume of water fed to the irrigation system would have to 6e minimized to ensure an adequate supply for the domestic system. The District also has an interconnection with the Calpella C\\(D that allows for water to Ilow bath ways. Prom the Redwood Valley CWD the flow is by gravity to Calpella. 4~ llklah Val lc}' Drinking \\'aler Adcquclc}' Assessment A'ovember 007 hmm Calpella; the flow is pumped with a capaeit}' oC 100 gpm. l-lowever, the Calpella CWD's only sources are a well +vith a capacity of only 25 gpnt and an intercatnection with the ~lillview County Water District. Currently, there is a contractual limit of 100 gpm lluough the ~4illview comtectiott. It is doubtful that the Calpella could provide sufficient x'atcr to meet the demands of the Redwood Valley system. Cnnservnlion Domestic water use in the Redwood Valley C\VD averaged 911 gpdc during the maximum month of use over the ten-year period 19~i7-2006. Given the highly rural nanrre of the Redwood Valley CV',rD service area, Otis water tine is.lower than would be expected without an active, engoin~ consen'ation programattd it is lower than other rural districts in the Ukiah Valley, However, unlike thzutlicrpublic water systems in ~, the m'ea, the Redwood Valley C\4'D has a separate dt'~vtibutiot5ustem for raw agricultural water. This accounts, at Icast in part~r Ile lower l'lan,expccted per coiutec[ion use since all the other public watep~s~'steins serve wafer for irrigation purposes tluoueh their domestic distribution systems. "Ihe District has recenllvjoined California UrbaiiN'ater'C`onsen'ation Council and the Lfllcicnt ;\ericuluiral Use Council and has comtiiitl'd itself to utilizing the maximum conservation measures feasible for the District Because of the cut back m the flow-_{lu normal rainfall in ?006/2007, the stoic 8,000:\P by November 2007 which ~v, f,:,.._ District's intake stguclltrR„_As a result, program. t nis;,progi on water use;'")rich tier is implemented by c~c]} tier restrictron.,of custome~s.to under tic3r si?,."':. l> Futw e Deii~anr Coiuricrinus lie }'otter Valleyl'roject and the below ,,, ~~`e;Mendocjno was predicted to fall to {. -, - ave'[~o~ji~etTQte lake level to below the istrict adopted a water conservation iposed of Six tiers with progressively greater restrictions to a level ofi•Lal:e Mendocino. The measures frorn primarily voluniar}' ones in tier one to mandatory of no tuorr-'ihan 100 gallons per day per connection ... ty \'<ritli flicurren! court~urdered moratorium, the District is limited to only adding physical-~autections,'~or persons who have paid for connections before the moratorium was imposadllaud ha'itdship connections. However, there is no such limitation on the {:,,. District's agrici total s}stem and, if the agricuhural distribution system is expanded, there could beta significant number of new agricultural connections. \4'hen the connection moratorium ~+'as imposed in .lanuary 1989, the District served 99(i actual connections but was committed to sett^ing 1,350. These additional 3~4 connections are (or persons who have paid for these connections before the moratorimn was imposed and this is the number of connections discussed in the Mendocino Countyy_ Superior Court decision ordering the Department to impost a moratorium. These additional 354 connections are nontransferable and can onl}' 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 Adequacy Assessment November '_007 total of 1.4R? sen~ice connections +vhich includes the 13~ hardsfup connections authorised b}' the State Legislature in 1495. For the 10 year period 1997 dtroueh 2006, the District added 42 connections or approximately four percent. For planning purposes a growth rate of O.J percent +aas used. 'This was a conservative rate bused on the gro«1h thnt has happened over the last 10 years and probably overestimates the actual growth rate For planning purposes ho+vever. it a somewha( conservative estimate is desired. Based on OS percent average annual grow4h. by the year 2035 the District is projected to have 1,2a5 service connections. Supph' Demm~dr ;:, Based on the above assumptions the District's projected tyater demands in 2112 were determined Cur a total of 1,245 domestic connections us~7agt~}1e~_mavimum pu connection production experienced in the Last l0 )errs for a+erace day, average day during the month of maximum production, maximum'day, and to}aI annual production. These values are given in Table Vll-4 below. ; T:d,le A'It-4 Pi niccicd Svsrem Dentaads Cor the ~ei~ ?D" Per Connection Demand do Total 6i'stem Demand01 MGD .4vera c Dal' 626 ~ ~~ 0.79 - Mnsimuro Dnv f,3Q9 ~ 1.61 ' Maximum alnnth 997 1.2a __, ~~ Anuual Tuial 0..2 rAFl:000Uecii[m I o9i~ AF i -S-I i~iGl (I) Assumes a total of I,^2a5 connections, Dascd on the lasLlO ve1LS of water useyi~appears thtit agricultural use peaked in 2001 (2,0=12 AF) and~h5s averaQ~d i,321 APY;for the Iasi five years (2002-2006). For purposes of this~eport rt ts5ssumed that`t~lte use will remain the same through the year 202` as the average for the~~gst five years , -,,, _-, . Thereli~ie, the total pro7~eted mtnual d°emand on the District's system, domestic and ag'~icultwal .v'au9d mcreaeaito 2,1 17 AP by the year 2025. This value would have to he reevaluated iFthe D~stnct u%e'>e't~°significantlyexpand its irrigation distribution system and%or add sigmficantby more,,7i•rigation customers. Assuming the same r5te of increase as water demand. the required heatment plant capacity ++tll mcrea'se to 1.63 MGD and the required storage will increase to 1.37 NIG by the year 30?5?''Calculations for t(te required storage capaciq' are given below. _n~s swage cal>a~~ty ;~a~,~.a - ., -~ ,.,~ ~.~, ~ , ,,, ..;c ~ ~„ ..tc - ,.~^ sae c. Assessment of Compliance Table VII-5 shows a comparison of requirements versus capacity of the Redwood Valley District Cor water rights. source, treatment and storage. These data show that the Redwood Valley District continues to lack an adequate and reliable sowce of supply during the critical months of.fune through October and has to as Ukiah Valley Drinl:in~ AV'ater Adequacy Assessment Not'embcr?OOi rely upon an inten'uptible supply (surplus water) front the t\9CPC District or the Sonoma Counh~ ~1/atcr Agency. 1-ahle VII-5- Redscood Volley CUrD Required AVater Rights, source and Storage Capacities frith currem Ca achy. Item Current Ca acit ~ Rec aired Caa ncit~ Cun'enl ?025 water Ri~,hts, AI' 3,G83t' Domestic demand 319 896 :\ rriuill oral Demand 1.'_21 I,'~ I Total Ucmand 2,040!.-`~" ?,117 Source Ca achy, li1GD(3) t I.i''r I_~iJ" 1.G3 Treatment Ca acih', MCD 'r 2.6 : ~>lt'~9 1.63 Story re Voluntc, MG I.Bi I ~6 1.37 (l) brc Lrdes right d+rouglr permit / 7593 to dived /.S9, cfsfrVUr Novenr'lier{l. through April 30 and dre Dr.ctrict's contrac! with SCII' I flit 'single} sealer. SCA--~I Jwalcr rs ante m~ai(abfe f there is no surplus water mwjlable jrmn the A9CFC Dis'dF['ir~.lt does not include the ?,500 AFY permit 1750;? mrthori_es_the Disb~ic! ro take Jur--~ storage because the Drslricr has no storage. _ (_' lnchrdes wpatiry required to meet macinuun z~icrdm~q!^ttemand (i,l 7lre source capacip~ required is based so(elt on d<imesl~c use and does no! include agrinr/rtrro! use which is likely ro occur. (4J Requir ernem jar domestic rrnt%i'~s~rstem onl3~. Does nokinE.brde requirernen! to ju f ll apriculmm~l svmer denronda ~ - In order to assess the maximum wat has been assumed that the agricuhui average for the perrnd^002 tluough demands on the'system s the projected domestic d~ the year 202> Sin"ce the the peri.od.Novemberlal critical%sununer mnntlis; demands. ily decreased id will requii tier currently tts.right is +' fnvz~led for lherDistrict b}~ the year 2025, it taridwoull'~e~7,2'_1 APl'. This is the and was used because the agricultural over this period. This demand, together with ~e,a tyater right of approximately 2, I U ,4T by on9y holds a right to divert 683 AFY' during ~d has a contract for surplus water during the aate to meet its current and projected 202 The:District's soured; treatmei'if and storage capacity are adequate to meet current and projected 2025 demands. The Distrisf`s average maximum month per connection water use over the 10 near period 1997 x(106 i5 91 I gpdc which is approximately l6 percent less than use in the City of Ukiah. Currently, the District has an established conservation program but is only addresses water shorta,c situations and not ongoing conservation efforts. 47 Uhinh Valley Drin4~.ine Ai'ater AdcquucA~ Assessment Nocembcr X007 ~~III Millview County ~'~'ater Dist-•ict n. Cru•renf S~~stenr 11'nlcr Ut'c Tnblc Vll[-I summarizes dam from the District's annual reion submitted to the Deparunent on comtections and waler production for the period 1997-3006. Table VIII-I t.~lillview CN'D - S~siem ConneetinnsiN istorica! 11'ater Use lvatcr Production 1'car Conn. I\tnzinnrm Day Maximum hlnnih .4 vcra {~c Day Annual Plillcicn' Annual Suld to Olhcr 1'\vS hIGDh do MGD/' do p7GU('xrdc At:/(AF/Coon) AP f997 1,343 258/1,921 2.'_/1,667 I?`L5~'J~O, 1,457/1.08 1'298 1,347 3.79/?,071 2?/1,667 _ 1.17/8TL-;: 1,362/1.01 1999 1,379 259/1.878 2.3/I,654 '41 -31/951 `~=_ -'_I .515/I.IO 675 3000 1,372 2.38/1,66_^ 2.4/1,7-5;p_"-° ` 1.35/1,006 '.'L`,503II.10 126 3001 1,3R3 N.A 2.2(1;364 1.38/997 IrS,IZJ1.10 79.8 ''-001 1,447 7.6/1.'91 2.2,'1,5.14 1.38:950 I,SId!1 .0.5 82.9 .003 1,508 2.7/1,790 ?.3/t,j~{0 ,,L;3Q:S87 1,47470198 73.6 3004 1,449 29/2,OOt 2.4/1,G3b: 1'.46/T.008 1,608/1.11 R5.9 20(15 1,J78 2.7/LS'_7 2.4/1,637 I-35/913 1990/1.01 R03 2006 1,489 3.38/2 260 .~I ~ 7/I 852 I s8/1,064 ~ 1,775/1.19 ]33 Pln nnin~°~ _-. .. _ 2 ~6'i ___. - 1851 ~ _.I,Oti4 __ LI9_ ~ ~-133 (l: /Le per conneuron p(nnnmg ru6:e.r utred a:q Ihedurct rnnuu per connec:mn vi:h~e.t reported m the l0 year pm~iod 1977- 2006. ~- ~ -. , 1=or purposes of assessttag.compliance (vita Califorma~ Waterworks Standards, the highest per corm~dtton v~lyes far average.day, maximum month and almual use over the last ten };eat!s~are usedi;:These per coluiection values are shown in Tahle VIII-2 below fo1 avera~~ _~ia} ma~jmum day, marirm"um month and almual use as well as the maximum system demani~sdhat \; ere,deteriitined using these values and the curtest num{tevf~ystem cottn~ctions. ., ~' Table \'lll-2 Maximum Currenl~~Svslem Demands ..~ remand - - Maximum per .:Connection Demand, 1997-2006, do Connections D4 arximum Current Demand, MGD Avcra rUa,. ~ ~ 1,064 ~ 1,489 1.56 Masimum D;i `~~, ..,; 2,?69 1,489 3.38 MaximumMontlii.~`- 1,852 1989 2.70 Annual LI9 AP/Connexion 1,489 1,775 APl' -I-he average day during the maximum month of use per comtcction has averaged 1,653 gpdc over the 10-year period From 1997 through 2006. In 2006, the maximum month production per connection was the maximum experienced over the last 10 years. The Milh-iew District also supplies water to the Calpella County 1L'ater Disu ict via an agreement signed in .luly 1992. 1-his agreement limits Calpella to a quantity not to exceed 100 gpm. Since 1999, the annual amount sold to Calpella has ranged from 32 as Ukiah Valley Drinking AVater Adequacy Assessment November'_007 t`1G to 4I MQ with an average of 29 h1G. In 2006, the amount was 28? I+9G. ~4ilh~iew has also supplied relatively small quantities of water to the City of Ukiah in the past. {Parer Rights The District's water rights permit 13936 (application 1787), issued on February 21, 1963 allows the District to directly divert up to 1,440 AF at a rate of 3.0 cfs (1.93S 1v1GD) from November 1 of each year to July 1 of the succeeding year, so long as there is :u lea,i 1 i0 cIs in the Russian River at the point of diversion. This pet~ttit cspired on December 31.2001. The District filled an application to extend "the date of the pet~nit but this has nut been acted on yet by the SWRCD. Until sd~h time as the S~1'RC13 makes a decision on thz District's application the penntis s"ill valid. :additionally, under license 493 (application 3601); the':Districl may pump through direct diversion from the Russian River at a rate=of 0°'18 cfs (0.12 MUD) from June I to August I exh year. The total annual volunre'pumped,is not to exceed'27 acre-feet per year. The Disuict has tiled an amended,peti~~4y for this;l.icense to abandon the existing point of diversion, and add the system tti~elJ freLd:`riy~cr intake pwitps and the t`lasonite wells 3 and 5 as new points of diversion,;>r-," The District also has a riparian nght;l'or direct diversiotiUf the Russian 12iver from J:utuai v I to December 31 at a rate pf 0.04;cJs (U.02ti NIGI~a for use at its ueaunent plant facility. This was not considered as an'tip}?I,icable water right for the purpose of distribution customers in this analysis._ fhe District is,CUi-rents}%`pcs`tjioning the S;_ Russian River pumps as points of drversi are Incased on the~t;act stdc oI the Russian District's place of u"se•addtttoti~ l~rtds o,u Dtshtcl wljch are beings~rved, mcl'udtin a~Teement wtih;l1e.Cit} and`_.`-117e Calpella aiiake full use un3 its Penti'i: n' WRC13 to: 1) add the existing well field and on.under its Permit and License, all of which Rig%er near its treatment facility: 2) add to the ('side the current bowtdaries of the existing g Ukiah, since it has an emergency interne CWD; and 3) seek additional time in +vhich to ;l Dunne+rthe penod fro~rJuly to'November, the peak summer months, the District, which lies wiflin;thc boundaties of the MCPC District, has contracted for 970 AP per year; under the`N1C.TC District's 8,000 AFY right, to make up for any deficiencies in supply under its otvnnghts. In addition, the District has been assigned an additional 40 AP that was originally reserved by the Rural Commututies 1-]ousing Development Corporation for tis Lakewood 1-tomes subdivision. The Lakewood liemes subdivision has 6~ single family homes and is served by the Millview CWD. l-his total of I,O10 AP is equivalent to 2.74 1\4GD fur 120 days. In 2006, the District produced 935 AP of water during the period .iuly I through October 30 This is equivalent to 0.63 AP/connection. Since the Department imposed the connection moratorium on the District it has approved 215 additional comteclions. One hundred tzn oCthesc new connections had beets made at the end of 2006. The 10° 49 Ukiah Vallev Drinkine 1Vnter Adequacy .4ssessmenl Novembcr'_007 connections remaining to be made represent an increased demand of ti~ AF on the system during the .luly I through October 30 timeframe, or a total of 1,000 .AF hased on the "'006 demands. The District's curent allocation of 1.010 AF from the MCFC District has essentially been lima used b}' its current commitments during the period luh~ I through October 30 0( each vicar. The SWRCI3 decision on applicatirnt 17557. which resulted in Perini( 13936 being issued to die District. contained the condition: 77te arnounl of u~arer nppraprioled pursuarrl In .4pplicalio'rr-1 ~ iR7.ghnl! hr. limited ro dre nmonnt mhich cure be brneficiall3~ used ~hd shot! rtot e.rceed ~.0 cJS, by direct diversian to be dn~erled from aGow A'nireiiiher ] of euch~~ear 1n nborr! Julv / oJdte succeeding i~eac ~. During.lune 2006 the DisU~ict exceeded the 3.0!cfs liniitation 24 of'34iriiays fora (otal of 20 AF. Although these exceedances +vere'ielatively minor in total (tlic maximum was 4.39 cfs), it is a further indication that t11~ District's allocation from the NICFC District is fully used to serve the District's existing catiuniZments. - The District has entered into a litirchase agreement for a water right from Masonite pursuant to License 5763, which is d post-49 right for up l0 4,200 AFY for industrial use, +vith authorized points of diversion-hi~ng.existing P4asnttile wells 3 and ~. The District has also entered into a purchase lgree~Ent for \~rells 3 and 5, along with a ~ acre parcel which would be used as the,sil¢1'for a neri wSYer treatment plant. These purchase agreements arc contingent on'tle District gbtaining approval from the SWRCD for thei~ansfer'gf'these water n~hts to the District Cor municipal use. The District hasrf'I'e~j~a,petitioti~i5~ith the S1~rRCild to Transfer I?00 AF of the Masonite water right to it an'~_lvas eefered into a MenSurandum of Understanding to complete the environrrtetttal wort. necessary for tliis,aran'sfer. The SCWA has advised the District it wotildcfiallettge,~~n} nghY[hat exceedefh750 AFl'. However, the District believes it lias sufficient d`ocuinentautnsto prove a historical use of this right of 1,200 AFY. f,: Iftlie entire 1,200 AF:jj~ere available to the District and used during the 3 month high deniaYid~summer pere7d, July -September, it would add an additional 4.3 MGD of source e.apacity to meet maximum day demands. The District`s also negotiating the purchase of a pre-1914 water right that it has been leasing and putiiping under for the last five years. The District believes the amount of water available under this water rieht is 1.400 ARl'. Hmvever. complaints have hcen filed with the S WRCB 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. Sur(rtce !i}r(er The District currently utilizes I S shallow wells along the Russian River as its source of supply. In mid-May, the water levels in these wells drop and the District installs three pumps with a combined capacity of 1,>00 gpm directly into the River to recharge its 50 Ukiah Valley Drinking \Vaicr Adequacy Assessment Novembu 3007 +vcll Celd. 7-hese pumps can either pump to a recharge pond that se~~es to recharge the shallow well field or directly to the treatment plant. I-Io+vever, the Department of f=ish and Game has restricted use of these River pumps until after A1ay 30'x'. This poses a problem Cor (he District since there is a two to four week period when well levels are low but it is unable to pump directh from the river to recharge the well 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 I~' and this approval has always be granted. The Department determined in its 1999 inspection of the +vater s}~stem that its reliable source capacity was 2.64 MGD. As a result of the Disn~ia,(~°s.maaimum day demand being higher than this number, the Department issued cuirij~lance order 02-02.O1C0- ,.; 002 to the District which required the issuance of a 1iQrjnit arii~ndment before any new connections are added In the system. The DtstncLs;well field canrGe,pumped at a rate of 1,600 up to 2.000 gpm (2.3 to 2.9 MGD) based on'its ability to rCeTtsree its well Held. \Vater pumped from the river is prinririly used to recharge the well field and not more than 20U-300 gpm is pumped directly to uhe treatment plant. ~- Trennnent CapncitV The District currently utilizes a direct f Itration plant>y~~illm four dual media filters'. 'fhe plant has a theoretical capacity oC apjirosimately 3.9 N1'G'h, based on n filtration rate of 3.U gallons per uunute per square lgpt (gpla4/~1~) and a lotal.ltlter area oC /W syu,mr~-icct (fiz). However, the District states that rts trealinenlplant cnjiaciq~ is approximately 3.7 NIGD. r` . ,.t., ,,: ~, Srorngr Cnpncilc The District haslliree pros"sine zones willi:a.total storage volume of 2.863 MG in eight storage tanks In 4ddiuonalaere are lmvo firiisled wafer tanks at the Nr I F with a total volume of 0?7 MG~gi-+m~ ilmc ll[stnc.t a,toial volmne of 3.133 MG. Ho+vever, the uvo fintshec~ iv~tgr-tatmks w~te:not constde'rtsd-to be applicable storage for the distribution system becauss 4h~y musi^raimain full at all times for disinfection inactivation. Table VIII-3 shows the ~'etails for eacbof the zones and (antes. :: _ , i`,, 51 Ukiah Vallev Drinking Rater Adequac}~ Assessment Notembcr 2007 Tahle VIII-1: f`~lillview Slnmae Facilities. MG Zone Tank Namc Tank Volume, MG Glceation N'TP Cleo nrcll I 0.100 679 W"CP Clcarwclll 0.170 639 N'TP Subtotal 0.270 1 Lavers Lane 0.190 g50 1 Erica relli I 0.500 g50 I Drica rclli l 0.650 g50 1 Callc c OS00 350 I fork @stalc OS00 350 I Milani 0.190 ,- g50 ? - - Dccnraad _ 0.053 LOGO 3 `.Voodla l:c 0.250 ~ 1,095 Distribution Subtotal 2.$T3 Total -'~~"3.133 In order to reliably compl}~ with Section 64io4 of the California Waters-6rks Standards as contained in Title 22 of the CCR, the recommended distribution storagevolunc for the District, based on its water production, is csliniated on the basis of the equation, 3lorage Volume =Average Dny Poduction + 25% of bta~iniwn Day Production + Pirc Flow. Assuming a fire llo+v requirement o.l 1,~0;U:gpm Ior 2 bows pr U. (8 <`9G (t}pica( requirement for commercial/residential zones;); the recommended cutTent storage volume, based on the maximum per connection uses met the last 10 years. is 2.60 I+4G as shown below Current Sforagc Requirement = 158 MG + 0.15 s 3.38 P1G +u.18 D]G = 1.C0 ~1G Cnnsematiar [^ espiitis8 to the Department s Co,ithldnce Order issued in 2001, the District adopted a ~ Stage++atu.r~:cctnserval]pnProgram (Resolution 20-16) that does not allow its water to' be used for commercial agricultural irrigation, prohibits wasteful use of water, limits w]ten summer watering can oecii, and requires other conservation practices for landscape irrigation and construction water The resolution requires additional controls wherfil;zce is a more severe water shortage (Stage 2 and Stage 3 requirements). However, tlic;;Distrtct continues to have a very high +vater use (average day during the maximum mo}~~li"j]er connection) that has averaged 1,665 gpdc in the l0 year period 1997-2006. This is 53 percent greater than the City of Ukialt and 72 percent higher than r,cighboring Calpclla C`.YC. 1-lo :•;e•.'cr, it ^..a! Le nosed that !hc Dis!ric! :!ors pro'. ide approximately 70".u of the +vater used by Calpclla which serves 154 connections. If this is taken into account, it +vauld reduce (he per connection use by approximately 7"/". RelinLiliq~ The t\4illview CND has an emergency intertic with the City of Ukiah (hat can provide approximately ;00 gpm. However, flo+v is by gravity and lank levels must drop by at least 1O Ices in the Nlilh~iet+' system for the intertic to be functional. 52 Ukiah Vallzy Drinking \Vatzr Adequacy Assessment November ?0(17 In 2002, :m cmergenc} generator station was built +vhich consists of hvo generators. one generator to power the ++ell pumps and one to power the raw water booster pumps. the high service pumps and the operations building. h. Fuhrre Demands Cnnneniuns The Drtli Ukiah Valley Area Plan, prepared by the t`4endocino County Planning Agency in .Iuly 2005, projects a 1 10'%~ increase in population~fr,~m the pear 2000 to '?(125, or an avcraee erowth rate of ~1.-1% per year asswning sit cgiial number of _. connections is added each year. This assumption is not 1i_~ely to be accurate, but it will serve for planning purposes. In addition, large develofiFiieiit5':f~at will add significantly more connections than the average in one year take riiulliple yeai`s~.lo develop which should give the District time fo plan and prepare forrihe larger increase than normal Iv the st stem. This translates into an 84% increase in connections over ulic 19 year period li~om '007 to 2025, or an increase of 1,245ctinnections for a total oC2.73'4 connections. T+vo large developments that are currently in.lie;plattngg;atages (Lovers'Lanc residential development and the lylasonite cominess~P~develnpment could add the eyuivalenl of 735 single family homes to the systeiiiz; Fs such, the 84% increase in connections over this 19 year perii~d.will be used for Manning purf~oses. however, the District is currently restricted from adding any; rie+v service comteuions because of limited source capacit}. 1J~e Distnelr,~s~i~ the;p'irocess of securing additional source capacity and piamiing for addittot\al treatment capacity. If it is successful in its r., efforts it should hate bulli source and lr'eatment eapaeilV to support this projected growth. 'qt Srrpp[}~ Dcmanrt+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" Assuming nhesame rnaKtmuiii rains oFSgSler use per connection for the future that have occuired iii`the;last ten veers, the projected water demands in 2025 are given in Table .. "ra6ia.vm_~ n. ~ d c:~~ fl randc far the veer 2025 °:zy _, (%3'cr Con ncction Demand do Total Syslent Demand '~ MCD Avers 'e biv~;:., "- 1,06J ~ 2.90 Maximum D"e.~;:-,:;.. 2,269 620 Maximum Monilti' 1,852 S.OG Annual Total .~`~ 1.19 AFD/Connection 3,253 AP}' .~, ~;;...~,.s . ,,.tai o~ , ,-'~ ccm:ectiens Trenuncur Cnpnci0' IC the newly developed capacity Crom the Masonite wells (2.7 MGD) is not under the influence of surface wafer, it would not need to be treated as surface water and the existing treaunenl 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 IJkiuh Valley Drinking \Vater Adequacy Assrssmem Nm enilter ?O(1? u'eatment plant capacity would have to be expanded to at least 6? ~4GD to meet the 2035 demand. Storage Rerpeirernerrts the total distribution storage requirements for the gear 2035 arc estimated as 4.63 ~1G as shown below: '_025 Storage Rcyuircmcnt ='_.9 P1G +11.21 x 61 MG + (1.13 I+1G = 4.63 A1C c. Assessnlen! ojCalvpliance - Table VIII-5 compares the required water rights, source, ucatntent and storage capacities with the estimated demands for the years 205 alil'2025. Table VIILS: Milh•ic~e C11'D Required Po'alcr Rights;Spurce and Stpraee Capacities e•illt current Cnpaciii'. Item _ Current _Ca achy Required Capacity - Citrrcnt 'O25 11'atcr Ri hts, AF 2,477 ~ 'I(;7- ~ 3;'_53 Source Cu achy, MGD 2.9 3.3&~ ~ - G.2 Treatment Capacity, ~7GU 3.7 7.35 6' .S lu ra ~,c \'pluwa, MC ~•~u~ _ ' !!~ 1 ri3 J (IJ !!'ntcr RiglulLnitcA to l,4l0.4F:M1'a vcinGerf(ri`Julr. During nmutlct oj.4 ugu.rt through Ocmher; nc~ rig L! irliiiiiter! [n llie 970 AFcarurnct roi(L AfCFC Drs trier (1J Dncs un[ ittcLrde%s[lungc at nc~ trentiuthr plnn[. The combination olthe District's water right during the period November 1 through the following July ] tb~ether,}yith,its contract }with the MCFC District is cun'enlly adcquateao meet its cxtslirig demands: ;I3owever, during the period of July 1 tluough October30, ~(1Q6; the Distract used 9:i5`AP. In addition, in Jutte of 2006 the District e>ceeded rts water=zlghts pernJ,it limitation of 3.0 efs (5.95AF/day) on 24 days. The fatal volume pumped; that exceeded the 3.0 efs limit was approximately 40 AP. As sucha.the District fulTj}used tli'e-970 AP water is has a contract for by October 30. Since,i's;it at this limit;t does not currently have the water rights to serve addition connections during this time of each year. The District's:e~•i§ting water rights arc inadequate to meet the projected 2025 demand. 1-lowever. if the%District is successful in its purchase of the 1\Qasonite wells and is able to secure a water right of at least 750 .4P, it will have adequate water right to meet projected demands tluough 2025. The District currently has a total reliable source capacity of 3.9 MGD which is not adequate to meet the current 3.35 t+iGD maximum day demand. [f the projected gro++nh actually occurs the District will have to increase its source capacity to 6 2 MGD to meet the 2025 demand. 74 Ukiah Valle)' Drinking ~Valer Adequacy Assessment Novembcr~Dlli Currently, the District has aderµrate storage to mael the California R~atensvrks standards. However, by the year 2025 approximately {.~ MG additiatai storage ss ill be needed if umv4h projections are realized. The District could also make additional water available by adopting a stricter water consenvation program that mandated retrofitting or other water conservation features so that the increase demand from new development cnn be minimized. The District's average maximum month per connection water use over the 10 year period 1447-2006 is I,6S3 gpdc which is approximately S3 ~~r+:etit more than use in tote Cin' of L Ikiah. Cunently, the District has an established conservation prueram but is ~- only designed to address times oCtaater shortages, not ongbm~ conservations efforts. . ~' ~. ~ '~ _' t~ . " Y„ ; •>. ,.;;, 55 Ukiah Volley Drinkine \Vater Adzquaq~ Assessment Nocembzr _'007 i1. C~lpella County «'ater District a. Current Syslenr I14rtcr U.rc Cable I\-I summarizes data from (hc District's annual report submitted to the Department nn cottncctions and water use far the period of 1997-2006. "fable IX-I: Caloclla CP'D - Svstem Cunncaionsli istoric+l 15'ater Use -- \Valcr Production Annual Piac DayfO Max (.tooth Avg Day PGrchascd Tofnl Tnlal Yen- - - Cnnn. NGD/gpdc O'IGU/gpdc AIGD/gprlr -.4 f/% of Af AF/Cnnn .~ U+tal 19'17 103 0.145/1,342 0,11/936 0.071,657 46.G,'SS 800 0,74 199A 109 0.1~17'I,1rSl 0.11/1,016 0~.072!G67 40.5/_0• 30.7 0.75 1999 1,7 0.169/1,076 0.13801 ~ D.033/S29 58brG3 -93 '. U.59 211(1(1 145 0.133/1,270 0.14/94ti 0.092/620 6SA;67 10?.8 0.69 ?001 154 O.ISS/l ,'_21 0.13/544 009?'603 70.9.'68 104 0.63 2UU2 154 U?0/1,299 0.16'1,039 0.098/6}5 ~ ~ 50.1/7} . 109.6 0.71 '_003 15-I 0.204/1.3_` ~ ,,r.,:roa4 n ~q.,s, .~ ~~g „r~8` ! 14? 0 is '_004 154 0_'04!1,325 0`(3/9'4 0.101684 53.6/71 IIS.I I 0. i7 20115 I(,l 0._'Q4/I ,267 0.17/L;OS$ 0.101613 50.5/71 114.1 0.71 2006 164 ~~02_J.'I-365 0.17/1,017 0.111650 86.5/72 I, 119.4 ~ 0.73 1'I:mning~'1 -- 1,3fi5' 1,056 ~--650 73 1U.4 t1.77 (ll ,t1¢<inuun Day irac alcirldred dn:.uuJripl~~iug+hc:h~cragc Da~~b3~?.Od (?) TJrePcr_connecriori plunnmg'r uhr.~ LVeJ.Qre d+e nmrinnnn per cormecrim~ rahres reported in the 10 j%um:l~Erind /997 - ~nq(. h~,purposes of assessing compliance with California ~raterv,'orks Standards; the higheslper comiecli'oh:valuesTor average day, maximum month and annual use over the last~ten years are used. Although the District has reported maximum day production=tn the pas[~~d has not actually taken daily production readings. The values .~. _._ submitted liar=e been estimated based on weekly production readings. The average ratio of maximum day=production to average day production for the four systems which have kept daily production records over the period 1997 tlu'ough 2006 was 2.04. This number `•v'a5 L'Sed LO de[e Cnll:1C 3 !n a`:!rn U.^,1 day 7rnd,,,+i p., (nr Lolho112 fur plannil?~ purposes. These per connection values are shown in Table I\-2 below for average day, maximum day, maximwn month and amiual use as well as the maximum demands determined using these values and the current number of system connections. 56 Ukiah Valley Drinking 1',~aler Adcquac}~ Ass.o~ment Nu+'ember ?UU7 'I-able IX-'_ Nasimum Curran Svstetn Demands Uemand M1lazimum per Connection Demand, 1997-2011(, ,dc Canncctin ns n1azimum Current Demand, n7Gll Aver:, 'c Dnv 6V-0 161 0.11 Mnzimum Dot' 1,165 161 0?'_ nlazimum n7onth _ I.o~G 161 __ 0.17 Anuunl _-- -_- __. _... 0.77 AP/Connection - -- -- 161 I?d AP _ _ I The average clay durine the maximum month of use per connect(ion avcmeed Q65 gpdc o~ er the 10-pear period from 1997 tluough 2006. In 2006, the"value was 1.017 gpdc durine the maximum month. Che amount o1 water purchased from Millview has steadtl} iiicr'eased from approsimatcly 50% of the system's total productidn in'1996 to 7r?°~, in 200ti. Soarces njSupplr . the District's total source of supply is estinitted at ] ZS.gpm (0.176 A~ICD). this comes Crom a single well with a rated capactri o,1~.~5 gpni=9nd an interconnection with the Milh~iew C1brD which is limited to a maximumi'~f 100 gpm by a .luly 1992 contract. The District also has an emergency interne with the~R~,dwood Valley CWD with a capacity ofapproximately 100 gptn. tint This interne iS`gfg; available during uncrvcnnes. fi'nler Rights The District has nn tvatersights but has loran annual quantity of I'(L] AF. Histi well was using percolated groundwater did not require awater ngh€, I-lo++-ever, has notified a numGcroCnUblic water-s. utilrzmg ri~ier:underilo+l~'and this 1~erntitiing audtotity;. *>, .' ~Tr,'~uhnenf "~ ~y~ The Calpella C1'<'D 1>as,no treaun aniered into ff contract with the t`9CIrC District ~ically, the District had assumed that its single 'a'rtier than Russian River undertlow and thus as-tia~been discussed previously, the Sa>,/RCB dents that their wells are considered to be 'the use of these wells subject to the S~4T.CB n( facilities. Storage ~ "- f" „-, The Calpella'C'1j'D'las three storage tanks: a bolted steel tartk with a capacity oC0.25 MG and two btl'!'ed steel tanks cacti with a capacity of 0.025 MG. This provides the system with a total of 0.30 NIG of slaraee. The recommended storage capacity is 0._l4 MG as sho++m in the calculation belo+a, and assumes that 1,500 gpm of fire storage are needed fora 3-hour period: Storage Volume =Average Day Production ~~- ZS°/ of Iztaximum Da}' Production + Pire Plow Current Storage = 0.11 n1C + 0.25 x U.22 n9G + U.18 n1G = 0.3J M17G i7 Ukiah Valley Drinking Vl'ater Adequac}' Assessment November 2007 Calsemrrlinn The Calpella C~4'D dots not have an established +vater consen anon program. The average day use during the maximum month over the ten-year period 1997-2006 has averaged 96~ gpdc. b. Future Denrands Cnnnertiaus The Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan, prepared by the ~lendncino Counq~ Planning Agency in .luly 2005, projects an S3°% increase in population Gqm the year 2000 (o 2025, or an average growrth rate of 3.3°,o per year assuming aii"equal number of c.uuiections arc added each year. "I-his assumption is likclc to be overly conser+anive. but it +vill sense Cor planning purposes. This translateti,iirto a (S2!ya gra++•th in coruiections over the 19 year period from 2007 to 2025, or an ineease of 103 connections Cor a total of 36ti connections. I-lowevzi, Ilie District was placed under connection moratorium by the Department in August 3005 through the issuance of a new domestic public water supply permit. This permit au[horized the Disii:ict to sen-c a total of 1 S I connections. There are no near tet in anospcis of this conne~Con moratorium being lifted since the District depeiids'bti the Nlillview C1',rD for the majority of its supply. Pn:~ planning purposes hn.••e•.'er. h~ ~= a_^.~med :I:e . ~irnt mill cdd o2"~ ntor^- service coimeclions or have a total of 266 connections by the vear 2025. This should be considered to be a "+vorst case" scenario with respect In luture demands on the system. Supply Deumads ~' jk Assuming Qze`s3ute ma~.tr~tm rates oC+ciiter use per cormection for the Cutwe as has occuaed in the IOSt<len year's, the projectPd:`svstem ~~~ater demands in 2136 are given in Table [X-3 below: -Table Il 3 1?.co.lected 5~5(em Demands-~in 2025 Value ~ Per;Cannection ^-•- ~ Dctii:i citl, ~~ do Connections Demand MGD :.-.lrera c Dac _ ~ 694 ?66 0.18 b13~ximum Duy 1,365 26b 0.16 Mdzimum Month I,O56 26l 0.28 Annuil- ~ 0.77 AFY/Coon 26G 205 AfY Storage Raquirc7uenLt The total stern^e ; "~•°^,°^~ ~,, !''^ , _..: 'n'c ~ es!ir.~a!ed as' 0.45 !v1G as shown eq_.._..._.. below: ?U25 storage Requirement = O.IB MG +0.25 z 0.3C MG + 0.18 MG =OAS MC c. .Assessment o~Cornpliunce Table [X-a compares the required water rights, source and storage capacities with the estimated demands for the years 2006 and 2025. Ss Ukiah Valley Drinking lYntcr.4dcquacy Assessment ivoventber ?007 t.. ~. i., iv i. r-a.,,.u~ !'\LT RPn uirnri \4alrr Rio6h Cnnrrr and Slaruee l_a0acilles \1'ith current (-aflaClh' Item Current Ca acih' Re wired Ca ucit+' Current 2025 11'ater Ri ~hts, .qp I41" 124 20S Suurcc Ca ucih~, A1GD 0-18 D.?? 0.36 Staru~alumc, MG 030 0.34 OAS j lJ Cauran mith A/CFC ~(Sn'ICl for uP to 101 iI FY and its u~e(! thor has a capaciq~ aJ _'J gpm. l he District currently holds no water riehts and is reliant upon contracts for 101 ,4f-1" with the A1CFC District and its well that has a production clpacit~y,of 2S gpm ~a0 AFY) for its supply. l he District's water right is not adequate )n?'serve the projected system demands for 2025. If the SWRCD were to make the de(erniv~~tion that its well is drawing from Russian River underfloor, its existing cci~tract f42':1;01 AFY of MCPC District +aater will no( be adequate to supply its c,~rrenl-system Cdr=n~nnds. ,~;,' ~,, _` the District has a total developed source ca~iacny of l?5 gpm (0 l S 1`4GD), which is currently inadequate to meet the requirenietitsgu(the California ~4'alenvorh, Standards Cor the highest potential current maximum day ~LtnaRd-oh0,22 MGD. by the year 2025, the District will potentially need to inereasets'source capacity to 0.36 P'IGD. \Vith a current storage volume of 0.x'0 1,1G, the District-is approximately O.Oa MG deficient ut storage necessary to meet G;lilotuia A'v~aterworks;5taudards. by the eai 2035, if 0te projected erowth were td~occui`"fhestorage deficiency will increase to 0.1> 1`9G. because the Calpella CV/D gels;the,,.ma~ori(j?o~mt"s'supply from the Millciew CWD. this District=storm, volmne for ca'ii be used tp'"'1'u1Bll the nomfire Ilow storage requirements hlillvicw'sistorage camtoT=Ue credited to Calpella for fire flow because _r .,_, the connecuombehaeen the two districts it`h}~draulically limited to 100 gpm. The Distrj_ct's average' maxnniuri montll~p8r connection water use over the I 0 year penod-1~997-~0~6_is 965 ~dc whtchs°approximately 11 percent less than use in the cJty of Ukiah C1lizenll} stli>.Dislrict does ^ol have an established conservation ~Pogram. ~~" °~~ 59 Ukiah Valley Drinl:ing \1'ater Adequacy .Asszssment Novembzr ?007 t. Rogina Water Company n. Current S(tstem Id'nter Use -fable X-I summarires data Gom the Company's annual report submitted to the Department on connections and water use Cot the period 1997-2006. Table X-I' Rogina 11'aler Company - 1l'aler Produuion, 1997-2006 - R'aler Production':: \~C'J I' (r On11CC110115 i+taxl nlnnt Dav plaaimum Month ~l'Cf:IgC . Da~• Anllual MCD/, do MGDI~ do M`C D3 do AF/(AF/Coon) 1997 S96 1.13/1,265 1.10/1,224 0.53/59 = 594/0.66 1998 fl98 1.14/1,265 1.10/1,2?~S ?;~ . D 49/546 " 549/0.61 19'19 911 1.1111,714 1.07/71;1'75 0.561618 `-~.G30/0.69 ?0011 936 1.16/1,242 1..13x1,202 .057/613 `r(~?/0.6 9 20111 953 1.'_0/1,259 __. I~10;LI';I;,158 10,62/(i~0 _ _ G9,q~Q;'7J 2002 961 1.28/1,332 1.24%1=~96^ ~,.,0'GI•/639 65+7!0.72 2007 966 LI4l1.130 1.10/1.17.9-, i 0.56/534 672/0.65 20(W 9(,2 t_13l1,175 1.09/1,137 ~ 0.60/620 66S/0.G9 ?005 969 1.12/1,;:1:56 1.12/1,156 ~ 0'50/518 563/0.53 200E 931 =fi;I 2FS I ;;ll _Ji i d'S7/S7S G_;i/(LGS Plannin `~~ 1,517'' 1';296 6511 U.73 (I) Tha per ronneuiml planning values used are ile mdi`inunn perconnection valves reported in the 10 year period 1997 - ?006. (?) Calculated b5~m,41yi~Jh'ing the highest av~ruge day maximum month (124 MG) by I.2 and dividing by,lhe eusung number of connections because daily maximum production values reported ++ere,essennall)ilhe same as avcr~se day maximum month. ., r, ..,- ~, ,.. - 1=or purposes of as`scssing'uompliance +vitft-California Watenvorks Standards, the lughest-jaer cct~utecUOn values for average day, maximum month and amtual use over the'last ten years;: are used ,The maximum day values reported appear to be i~uestionable striee~t7>,ere is li{tlc.or~no difference from the maximum month values. The ratio of ma which have +va5 lil:)?1r. H less (hair[{e Therefore. 'fc computed as These per co ntnt da"};:production to average day production for the fom pt daily production records over the period 1997 tlu'ough ?006 ultiplying Rogina's average day data b}' this number gave values ding average day demand during the maximum month. a value for planning purposes, the maximum day values were the average day produclian during each year's maximum month. lion values are shown in 7-able X-2 below for average day', maximum day, maximum moral: and annual ~....- .., v:cl! as the ma:;i;num dcmards dc;zrmincd using these values and the current number of system connections. 60 Ukiah Valley Drinking \1'ater .Adequacy Assessment November ?Oi)7 Tahlc X-^_ t`9aximum CurreW 5 •stem Demands ~1nximum per Demand Connection Demand, Connections Maximum Current Uemand, MGU 1997-?00G, tdc Accrn ~c Dav 650 9S I 0.64 Pta zimum Dav 1,517 981 1.49 ~7asimum INonth I?4G 981 1.27 ~\nnwd _ _ 0.73 AI:!Connection 981 _ _ _ 716 All' l-he a+•erage per connection demand during the maxitnwn month was 1,195 gpdc over the 10-year period Gom 1997 through 20001. - The Company has no water rights. 1-Iistoricall+, it has~j~resumed_ihat somz of its +vells are drawing from Russian River under low and that otlYers are n~~l:..r\s a result. it has reprn ted only pan of its total water use to the C,9CFC bistrict for itswinual accounting of water under its Project Water Right pernvt~. I-]oe•ever, because of their location and the recent S `.1TiC13 Wiling, This report asstimgs'tha[ all of the Company's yell sources are utilizing underflow of the Russian River aniLthus +suuld be accountable under the t`(CI~C District water right permit. Curremly, the Company has a conuaol +yith the MCFC Listrict Cor 400 AP1' oC wafer. iu .~ddui~n, iiu Company is iu the p~~ucess oL4pplying fur wutcr iighl; bard un the .cater it used when it first began prot?jding §e[vice,n 1947. It has submitted an application to the S\1'RCD but is at the begulningro3'tlts>inulti-year process. ~, . Surjncc So«rccr?' `~~ The Compa!i~~aias„no surface water sources. ,: The Cotn}?any has fourQperahng a~ells•+vith an effective total capacity of 1,17 gpm. It has"one standb\ ykell (No 1~ with a capacity of approximately 30 gpm and one well (No ~3) that is inoperatt~z'+vhose ca;Cactly is not I:nown. Well No. 5 pumps into the ~tligcharge line Gom Well No,`t'and Wel] No. 6 pumps into the discharge line from Wet! No` -l:lr-Table \-3 suuaiiiarizes available infomialion on the six welts. -~ab!e X-3"Rti~ina \Vell Siiurces N'cll Numbce`~---.. ~:Cenr Drilled Ca acih~, m Status Comments I '' Unknown 80 Standb 2 1963 800 Active Primary source 3 __ _ Unknoe:n _____________ Inoperative _ d 1967 375 Active- Summer o erasion only Operates 12 hrs er day 5 1972 175 Active Pum s into well ? G Unknown 80 Active Pum s into well 4 The 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 Ukiah Valle+ Drinkine \4'ater Adequacy Assessment N'ovembcr ?007 could operate continuously Cor ?~! lu to meet Otis demand. This then totals 1,430 gpm or 3.016 tv4GD. l he Company has drilled a test +vcll in its existing well field nest to \\rell 06. This test +vell will be completed as a ne+v production well by the end of 2007 or in early 2008. Treanneru There is no treatment other Ihan disinfection and the addition of orthophosphate Cor corrosion control. Storage l-here arc sis pressure zones in the Company's service area +vith a total of sis storage tanks with a combined volume oC 1.13 t\9Ci. Table Ik-4 sumnitttdzes data on each of the tanks. Table X-4~ Rogina Storage Tanks 7.nnc Tank Namc/Number "rook Vulurn c, P1G 1,3 Main O.~l,(i(1. , ? ('_)Pressure Tanks Q.k007 4 7_one 4 QiU03 5 Zone i U. I50 ' 6 Zone G 0.30b'' Vich+' +i~h'. u.'i_' Total - L132 r, (I) This mnk mill be repluced with u J00, OOO.galladrtm7k-i%?OOF~-~. Under the maxuriirrt ctiirenl demands, fle required storage volume in the distribution system necessarv,,to meet California \4rateE}vorks Standards is L19 MG as shown below: StorigetRcguired U;6AMG+U°Salt:a~~h1G+U,IgMG=L19MG When the new 0 ~r3vIG tank'is,conslructed in 2008, the Company will have a total of 1_33 MG of storage;; The Coiipaiiy currently has 9~ percent of the required storage and wheiSsthe ne+a tank is sbmpleted will have 116 percent of the currently required storage. U. Ft£fure Deli"fonds ,: Connections'- The Company'las advised that it could add an additional 315 connections to bring it to a total of 1,28r1 connections at build-out based on vacant land planned for homes. LUI I'e 111 y iiic ~`.~u ~y Suuw ~uwu ii ui~~ u.. ~ ur ulxu. r IJS sUJdi VISiJ^ Bill and 76 itew connections and is expected to be complete by 2009. The Draft Ukiah Valley Arca Plan, prepared by the Mendocino County Planning 4gency in July 2001 projects a 0.9".% annual increase in population Lom the year 2000 to 2025. This translates into a grov.'th of 17.1 ;o in comteclions fa' an additional 168 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 \A~atcr Adequacy Assessment Novembrr "_'007 planting process for many years. This will give the Company a projected total of approxintatel}' I,I50 in the year 2025. Suppl3~ DeurmrAs Assuming the same maximum rates of water use per connection fur the future as has uccun'cd in the last 1t1 years, the estimated water demands will be as follows by the year ?03~ r,hi~ w'-5 t+m h•c~ed Svsiem Demands in 20?~ \'ulue Pcr Connection Uemnnd, do Cannec(ions -:f3@:mand, " MGD '. :1re Day, PIGD GO al/day 1,150 `-- 0.75 M1laxinn+m U:n•, MGD 1,517 al/day I,IS(Yn ~` 1.74 Macimurn Month, MGD I,?96 al/da I,l{50 ~ .1;;49 ,lunual, Af 0.73 .4PY ,rF?1~;150',: S~i9 ;. Smrnga RequrremmrLS •- l~he total storage requirement by the year 2l)~-5-is estimated as L~6 ;~+lG as shossat below: i,N: '<~,r; ?U25 Stn ra ge Requirement = 0.75-MC + 11.?5 x 1.74 M1~1~G._+ 0,18 MC = 1.3G MC c. .ISSessarenl ujCunrplinnce Table \-6 compares the required source and'source capacities with the estimated j . current demands and those for 202?. 'I'~ih lr Y.(,~ Rrnuiirrl \Unler Ri,+ht'c Snurce and $tUra L'C Caf)aCILICS with cufrtnl Can BCIty. Item ~ ''C'urrent Ca acit`"a, System Demands ~~ - .~ ~~,~ Curren ?OZS 1Valer Ri hts Al' -4T)Or ~ 716 840 MosmrumSgttccc ~ _ "' OV IA9 1.74 Stow c Volumc~~_G-~. ~:.. lal3 1.19 1.36 ~'-(J~Cantracl iritl+AfCFCCD(stricrfnr ~00`r'1T{'. The Company currenfily holds no water rights. Lt the past it has assumed that one or more of~IS;yvells were.pumping percolated growtdwater that requires no water right pcrntit and lhe.otherswere pumping water accountable under the MCFC District's permit for 8,0~(h;AF. As such, it has contracted with the t`4CPC District for up to 400 APY of Projec~~Water. However, the Company has been informed by the SWRCIi that h considers all its wells to be pumping Russian River underfloor. As stated previously the Company has applied for a water right based nn the water it pumped when it began operation in 1947. For purposes of this report, it is therefore asswned that all of the Company's well water Russian River underfloor and is accountable against the MCFC District permit. In this regard, then, the contract that the Company has with the MCFC Uislrict is curently inadequate to meet either the current demand of i 16 r\F or projected future demand of 8-10 AF. I lowever, it is likely the Company will be granted some water rights based on it continuous use of water since 1947. The process for 63 Ukiah Valley Drinking \1'mcr iadcquaiy Assessment November ?fl0 obtaining +aater riehts has historically been a long one and at this time tto estimate of when then rights may be granted can he made. - The Company ha, a reliable source capacity of 2.06 MGll +vhich is adequate to meet the current requirements and the projected requirements for 2025 of the California \1'alenvorks Standards. In addition. the new ++-ell that will completed in 2007 or early '_008 ++'i11 increase the reliability of the Company's souce capacity. The Company cunently has a disuibntion storage volume of 1.13 t+9G cr approximately 9~ percent of tfte aolume currently required to comply with tliz California \Vatetworla Standards. \4'ith its current storage volume, the Company'j5~ovides 18 hours of use under the maximum day use conditions. 1-lo+vever, a ne«%Oi~;;>`SG tank is scheduYed to be consu~ucted in 2007 to take the place of the existiri,~~0.16 fvLG;j4?~. When this is completed the Company will have 1.38 iAdG oCstgage`;yhich is'su1'feient to meet its existing storage needs as ++ell as the projected heed for 2025. The system average maximum month per connection water use over the Il), year period 1997-2006 is L195 gpdc which is approximately 11 percent greater than.use in the City of Ukiah. Currently, the Company does not have an established consen~atirn~ program but it does mail letters to its cust'on+ers at the beghmin'h`~-of eaeh summer reminding Ihem MI In wade a:ater. Gd Ukiah Vallee Drinkine 11'ater Adcyuac} .Assessment November X007 YI. Willow Counter Water District a. Currelt~ Svstenr I Pnrrr Usc . fable XI-1 summarizes data from the \Villow C1t/D's annual report subtniued to the Department on coltnections and water use for the period from 1997tluough 2006. These data also show the portion of the AVillow CWD's total use that was delivered for aericultural use versus domestic use. "fable XI-I. 1Villo~c CN'D System Conneaioni/1-listorical N'ater Use.:: _ 11'atee+P~t~uctiou Domestic Production i :\nnual Production '~ Year Conn. a7ax D:rv It'IGU/ do Max alonUi ~1CU/ do :1v6 Day ,IVIED/ 'dc b,olpcslic .4 f'%AFlcpn Ag .4G Tidal ', :\F/(AF/Coon 1997 I,IIIU ?.36/'_,337 1.96/1,940 :, ~ 1.00%987 981/0.4T 132 1,11611-10 19'JA I,O L' 2.20%2,17J 1.98/1,956 096/952 _ 979/097 100 I,U79/I.OA 1~ 'J9'J 1,014 ?.OSR,022 1.76/1,736 , ilA6/I O~A9-,. ~ 1,060/1.04 ,.-'131 ~ 1,191/I.IA 2000 2001 ' 2U02 1,1129 1;1129 1,029 ? 10/2,041 1.9/1,846 2.3/2,2]5 ?.0111,953 1.8/1,749 I'Bv6t,765 ~~1p06%{~;028 LO%iG1;0;11 1.06/10'5':", 1,066/1.04 1,106/1.07 1,18?/7.15 119 94 106 1,185/1.15 _ 1,200/I_I7~ 1,288/1.21 l~ ~~ ~Ull3 ~ I,U33 L911 ,A39 t94i 1,330; sr 0-98/951 ~I,IOt/1.07 N/.4 ~N:1 ~- 20U4 I,U33 22/2,130 ~.~==5,/1,984 1.0.1/978 ' 1,137/1.10 73 1,'_00/IJ6 2VU5 I,U46 ,,pa~.,h/.1,721 175(1,623 09(17860 1,013/0.97 GI 1,074/1.03 2006 I0~0 f 8JI;~67 168/1;600 0.95/907 1,067/1.02 0 L067!I.02 1'lanningt'I ~ ~337r 1984': 1,049 L15 132 111 (l,l The per connecrioiz`jiltyvnngin`~[ues used are the jif.'f<iwum per caoiectian naGre.r reported in the lti pear period 1997 2U(1'b: ._ - D.unng the sett =year penod (1997-2006), the highest day of use was 2.36 MED. The highest annual u'se daring tlis'=p~cibd was 1,288 AF in 2002 of which 106 AF was for ayleultural users. «4-': ~'' Tor plit~oses of assessutg compliance with California Watenvorhs Standards, the ~,,: highest deilne~tic pec;eoturection values for average day, maximum month and annual use over the~1~st,tcti~years are used. These per connection values are shown in Table {- .,- ~I-2 below for;awerage day, maximum day, maximum month and annual use as well as the maximum'ilemands determined using these values and the current number of sySlClm COMI'ell0^S. 65 Ukiah Vnlle+~ Drinking Rater Adequacy Assessment 1v'ovember X007 Table XI-? Maximum Current S+~sicm Demands Demand Maximum per Connection Demand, 1997-~pll(. g ulc Connections Maximum Current Dem:usd, MGD Avcra c Dar I,Od9 I,O50 I.10 Muzimum Da ~ '_.337 I,O50 ?A$ Maximum h1nulh 1,981 I,O50 ?.UR Annual 1.15.4L'Cannection IA50 1,208.4FY Annual A 13? AFY Total Annual I,ldO AFY The a+~erage day producliou during the maximum month was 1,823 gpde for the ten- ycar period from 1997 through 2006. II'nlcr Rights' Decision D 1 110 of the State 14'ater Resources C7ontrol Board, issber,{pn February 2I, 1963 allows the ~~'illow CWD to directly divert up to 1;4-10 ;~F at a cafe of 3.0 cfs (1938 1`4GDj from ^:ovember I of each year to lul}~ I of the succeeding },~.1r; so long as (here is at least I>U cfs in the Russian River atalte hoiri"Cof diversion. ;Che District also has a license to withdraw I cfs (0.65 MGD) rtr'7?$ AF from the underfloor of the Russian River on a year round basis. This water right was applied for when the District was formed in 1951. Both these +v-ater rights are Post-4;9iTights. 1~o cover its summer IIIIIC UDC. (I1C ~~•I~IJA+ ~ ~dllli+ ~'~~.liil DISnICI, AAIll~~l ICS +' Il~hin the b0rlni~ll'125 of IhC MCFC District, has contracted withithe MCIsC'I7islrict Cor~900 APl'. ., ; Gt February 20061.1hc S:~!RCB notifieel~tlie'~\4'illo++ CRUD that its Burke Hill wells were drawing fiom and"er[low ~f the Russianr~iver and thus constituted an unauthorized diversion. In?espgnse, the~District notitietj;the SN'RCB that the diversion by the Burl+c ',yells was co~c~e3`uade t~ agreement •~t h.li'c P.ICFC District for up to UOC AFY and that it +vould be filing e,p'eiition tmadd„the$urke Hill well field as an additional point of dtver'sioJt pursuant to Permit 13035 aiid License 6793. While agreeing to the $WRCB's request;to apply"to have the Burke Hill diversion incorporated into its water rights permit, the=Willow CN/D retained its right to contest the SWRCB's decision that tl~e~~Yater was river`underflow,lather than percolated ground+vater. In March 2006, the S~'JRCD agreed to amend the District's permit and license and considered the issue resolvzds::. Surjnce So~~~es..,.r-::? The Willow CWD Itas no direct diversi~ats from surface sources and relies entirely upon wells located near the Russian River. Grnmrdtvnfer The District has hvo well Gelds, one located immediately adjacent to the Russian River (Norgard) and the other located at the southent end of the District (Burke 1-[ill). Table \I-3 summarizes data nn each of the Disuict's wells. 66 Ukiah Valley Drinking \l'ater Adequacy Assessment Nun ember '_007 Table \IJ. \Yillow C14D \1'ells N'cll Ycar Drilled Ca ncih•. m Slatus ~~ Noreard 14'clls GIVUDI Resuided to summer t - Iqjj fl) , o eralinn only G\1'1JDI Restricted to summer 5 197? f I) , o oration onh- Restricted to summer GR'UDI G 197? f l) , o oration only Burke Hill Hells 7 1975 1,000 ~s;nctive 9 1975 1.000 Active (tl A4ells 5 :md C pump into well 3- The total well field production capacity is fi00 gpm. ..: '- "hhe Norganl well field has three wells, all of which lit~}•e been~eliissified as groundwater under the direct influence of surfae-enaater, as deterrniiaed by the Department. "this has restricted their use to summer months only after a specific set of nttrnitorine conditions are met. The Burke llill well field has hvo wells, Nos 7 undr,S Neither has show~i ar.y influence from surface water. Loch of the two wells has a capa>-ity of 1,000 gpm. A total of '_,000 gpm can be pumped from l~ltgse, two sti•ells into~~P'fja'distribution system. 1"he total reliable source capacity dining the:§urumer montLis for the Disu ict is currently estimated at 2,600 gpm or 3.7 ts4GD.` Treabnent The District has;no treautteiit of its sources other than disinfection. Storage The Dishtiet.has (bur piessure`ioh8s ~utfh`nine storage cants and a combined storage voliiine o'f I :~4:~ MG. T~UIe Xl-3 summarizes data for the tanks and zones. ,r. ,,;. Based on the ma>`uniim water ri'emands over the last ten years, the required distribution storage to comply tviil~the C3lifomia \~~atenvorks Standards is 1.89 MG as shown below,~essuming a ti>e11ow of 1,500 gpm for 2-hours. -- s CurrcriG,yStpragc [2Equircd = 1.10 ~1G + 0,25 x 2.45 MG + 0.1 S MC = 1.59 MC _„i.." 67 Ukiah \'alla}• Drinking 11'aler Adequacy Assessment Novemher ?007 Tuhle XI-4~ 1Villmc CA1'D -Storage Tanks 'Lune 'rank Name/Number Tank Volume, p~IG 1 Sti p Lane 0.500 1 5 anish Can ~an I.A 0.?00 I S anish Canyon ID 0.500 t rircrzst o loo 2A S anish Canyon 2 0.010 2D Stagz 2 - I'ircrest 0.010 2C Crestvie+v 0.003 3 Oak Knoll I 0.010 , 4 Oak knoll? 0.010;::';. _ . Total 1.333 I-luwever, the District is in the plamting stages to remA~'c thee7:isting 0.I N9G l'ircrest tank and replace it with a new 0.35 ~4G gallon tank. ~6~,is anticn2led that this ^ew tank will be completed in the spring of 3008. This w71 then Sive the Di~tet 1593 MG of storage or 84 percent of the required storage as dctemtined 6}• the me'tli~d above. ReltaGility The District does not have standby power at its N~rgard well field. however, V+'ell S is equipped with a propane powered engine that can lti; used in the event of a power outage. In addition, the District li5s an emergency iritercbttnection with the City of Ukiah The c~nneclinn .n Ih~ C'ir,-, fCtkiah is Ihmueh a sei nfSi'<-inch lockinr, valvee In an emergency, a comtection can he made heiweett these t~4o valves. The capacity of this intercotutection is reported to be 400 gpm. The production Irum \4'cll No.S combitie.d with the system storage, a moderate amount of conservation; and the eriiereency inteAie with the City of Ukiah should enable the water system to meet demands under all biit the severest conditions. • ,, -: Cnnscrrntinn The'I~isinci deie"s not have ian established consen~ation program. As a result of the rural tfaiure of a stgmftcaut part outs service area and significant agricultural use, the W,.illow CR'D has'avery high per~connection water use. ht 19y6athe Willow C~1'D perforated an analysis and found that of its then 1,006 service connections, igwas serving approximately 1,650 units of which approximately 850 were single family dwellings. The average water use for these residential units during that yearwas 508 gallons per day (gpd) and the average daily production per residential connzction during the month of maximum production was 1,074 gpd which wac nearly 59?', the I~ai eahitn u,ze I-~a;ed on tnlal cnnneciinns. b. Furut•e Demm~ds Camectiats The Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan, prepared by the t\9endocino County Planning Agency in .luly 2005 projects an average population grattnh of approximately 2.4°~ per near in the District's service area for a total increase of 46%. This translates into 479 6S Ukiah Valley Drinking 11'ater .Adequacy ,4ssessment Nuvember °007 connections Deer the 19 year period of 2007 through "1025 for a projected total of 1,529 cotmectiuns. A lame development is cutTently in the planning stages for the District which will add 94 totimhouses, ! 07 single family homes and a small number of commercial connections. ll7is development was orieinally planned to be cons4-ucted in three phases xnd Lie completed in 201 I. 1lowe\er, despite approvals From the County, this development has not moved forward in the past year. Snpplp Dcumuds e> Assuming the same maximum rates of water use per coluiec~Gon for the future as have -- occurred in d7e last t0 years, the projected domestic \vater=dtri7ands in _'025 are gh'cn in'I able Xl-5 below: Assuming the agricultural use.remau7s t9esame, 132 A1=ti', the total demand would be 1,890 AMY in 2025. Ta61e SI-5 Protected Sws!em Demands in ?025 ' 1'alue ~ ~ I'cr Connection Demand, do Connecfions~ -r~ llemand r. MGt)`, ~. Avc DaY 1,049 1,529 1~fi0 ~ Maz Dav 2,337 1,529 ''?~,~k57 htax Month 1,984 1,529 ~~3ttfG,.. Annual I.IS All'C 6,529 1,758'Ah~a;, I :\ ~ Dcurind U2 APti" Touil Annual ~t_ ~;J,390 AFY Slorrrgc Xrqurruucrrfe- The total storage regwretnent by the \eai3025 is estimated as 2.67 <`(G for the year 2~~~ 8$ shOwll bCln\V: ,- .- ~ r i~~ ..1. ?025 Storage Regiliremer~('=1.G0 MC + 0.25;i~3.57 MG + 0.18 MC = 2.G7 MG c. ~1'ssrtaevtent of Cgn:pltnnci,~ ~~ :Table XI-6 comps the requ~red~water rights, source and storage capacities wid7 the estimated demand57or the }ears-'2006 and 2025. ;: Table \L-4: 1Villow CwD:•13e wired 1Vater Ri hts, Source and Story e Ca acities With current Ca acih~. ,_ Item Current Ca acih' llcmands y--`r"' _ ~ ~ Current 2025 \Vatcr Ri hIS,.A:B-:~s' 3,068!" 1,074 2,043 Suurcc Ca act-';;~`N1CD J.76 2.q5 ).57 Story ~e Valume, MG 1.343 1.69 2.67 ,::, :,,c:::Cc;D::tO irarcr rte Lr nJ1,44J.4F n~hich.i: Irrni:edro;YOrcnnc~r ra Jr-, ape^r rnvnrr Post 49 riglr! nj 71x,1 /'and 900 ,4F n3, cnntrrrn rnilh AICFC Uisvicl. 717e District currently has a total reliable source capacity of 2.9 MGD Gom the Burke Hill wells and 0.86 MGD from the Norgard wells. The Norgard wells are only approved for use in the dry season. 1 iowevcr, this is when peak system demands oceur so these wells can be counted h7 reliable source capacity. phis capacity is adequate to 69 fit:rah Valley Drinking \1'ater ildequacy Assessncnl T~~ovembcr 2007 meet the requirements of the California \',%atenvorks Standards for cun'ent system demands and the projected maxinnim day demand for the year 2025. The District's wafer right. ~ehich is more than adequate to meet its total current and (itlwe annual demands. is inadequate to meet demands durine the high demand summer periods. As a result, the District has contracted with the ~4CGC District Cor 900 AF1' to supplement its capacip~ during the summer periods. This is adequate to meet its cunent and projected '_025 demands. The District does not currently meet the California AV~atertvorks Standards for storage capacity with a cwrent deficiency of approximately OS> t•%((:r. However, the District plans to add 250,000 eallons of additional storage in 2005.:Afier this is clone the District will have approximately 84 percent ofthe stodge tornpet current requirements. 4y the year 2025 the storage deficiency is pro_jecled to`grow to 1°.OS MG, assuming the 250.000 gallons oC additional storage is installed'. The District does not leave an established conservation prpgram and does hove a very hieh per connection water use. Dxcluding lame agricul'ii'r31 use, the average day use during the maximum month on a per comtcction ~basis~aeeraged 1,523 gpdc for the ten- year period 1997 - 2006. This is the highest per connection use in the Ukiah Vatley and approximately 69 percent ereafcr than that of Ukiah. However, it should be noted that the use is based on a total syste,nt cotgitecuon basis wlt~ch ma}~ be nusleading because of the substantial number ofmu(tifatitily coiutectiGns. The District has standb'; power only foi.~$%ell S at this time. This well should be able to produce approximately 1~.4"T,iGD, tt~hicli~~ontbined with the 400 gpm (O.SR MGD) Interconnection;trrthe Ciq of Ukiah, provides a capaciq~ oCnearly 2 ~9GD. This will meet the Distric('s"needs except under the most severe demands. However, it should be noted that U~'ell S is at the very souiliecn erid of the distribution system and the system lacJs ;iijequatc d,isu'ibu[inn storage 13oth of these factors could contribute to the ,pash'ict vulnerability to a water outage during an extended potver outage or natural disaster such as ancarthqua(:c. 70 Ukiah Valley Drinking N'ater :ldcquacy Assessment November '_007 lII. Hopland 11'nrcr Usc 'fable \li-1 summarizes data from the District`s atmual report submitted to the Deparuncnt on connections and +vater use for the period of 1997 through 2006. Tahle XII-I . Hopland 14'ulcr Disu~icl grater Use 1997-?006 1i'atcr Production year Connections Maximum D:n~ Maximum Month Average. l)ii:~~ Annual MCD/ do MCD/ do ~'I;GD%' .dc AF/(AF/Coon) 1997 281 D.63R,246 OAS/1,599 ;;;10.24/BCi~~:;,, 272/1.0 1998 283 0.62/2,194 0.42/1,470_ •~~021/734` -~ 232/0.82 7999 ?911 0.5812,000 0.41/I.g0;1.. .0.21/734 ~ 238/082 ~ 2000 290 NA 0.44(1;'552 ~ 0.25/865 'n81/0-97 ?0177 293 0.&6/2,949 0.4`(=/1,399 0.24/819 -'70/0.92 2pp2 293 0.43/I,487r r ,:0'33; I}~23 ~~0.21/729 ?3Y/0:8'_ ___ 2nu3 294 0.57/1,964 OAG%1~3~80 ,.d1d".~?Bi9G3 ~ 31`7/1.08 ~ 21104 285 0.51/1,795 0.49/1,73r~i;>; ~~ 0.25/880 ~ 282/0.99 2005 294 0.43/1 487°I 17.55/1,865" 0.21/729 240/0 82 2006 324 0.49/154~1l7 0.47/1,435 'O;F4/755 374/0.84 '. Plnuninc°i 1,964 1,965 9(,} L0H (l l ,tlarimunr Day ryas calculated byv~{ntripli'x}g.Yll~A~'erage Doy;.by Z-OJ brcmrse dm(p production n~as nor recurdec! -d I ~- J I (2} The pdr connectioq,p/coming slues lrsedore r6c m¢l7(ilulir yet connection values reposed in dry. five peat ~~jieriod 2Zt02 - 1006 6ecair'se the entire distribalion s}extern u•¢s replaced fn ?OOI Examination nt cunnection~fata reported 1o;11te Department since 1997 indicates that the District has gro~~~n at an annual average7ale of 1.5 percent per year. I-[owever, for the la$t-S:;years, there~hat bc~it'esse.njral~no gro++nh in the system. Given that the replacemeirt~af~most of the distribution system in 3001 has significantly ri~iuced the per connection ++atev"use. it would be inappropriate to use the highest per ~, ;. coitneclion use over the last Ceti years. Therefore, for purposes of assessing compliance with California Waterworks Standards, the highest per connection values for average day, ma~lii>.um monQ3jand amoral use over the last five years are used. The maximum day value`is~estimatcd by multiplying the average day usage value for each year by a factor of 2.011=V1aicli was obtained from the four systems that did record daily production. These per comiection values are shown in Table XIl-2 below for average day. ma:;inwm day, maximum month and annual use as well as the maximum demands that could currently occur based on these values: 71 Ukiah Valley Dr.nking Wnler Adequacy Assessment Novcmber'_007 Table XII-? t`9 aximum Currcni Svstcm Demands Demand Dtasimum per Cnnucelion Demand, _ ?11112-3 0 0 6, ^pdc Connections i Maximum Current Demand, 01GD As~crn c Das~ 9G3 3?4 0-31 Maximum D;rv 1.964 334 Q64 ntaximnm Dlmrlh _ I,8G5 i 3'_4 0.60 Annual LOR AF/connccilon ~ 334 350 AF The average day use during the maximum month for the years 2002 - 2006 averaged I;~ 16 gpdc. 'this is approximately 40 percent higher than theCi'ty.oC Ukiah. 1{'rt(er Rr~LrGS - In April 200>, the S\\rRCl3 advised the District that it had dcte~mined that both of its then active wells ('2 and 3) were drawing water Gom a subterraricimLSU~cam (lowing in a known and definite channel and that it did not hold apermit or licenseao appropriate water from the Pwssian River watershed. Since the District is located taithin the boundaries and 'place of use of the f+9CPC Dislrict, it entered into a coiitiac( for 200 API' of Project 1','ater with the t\4CI=C District.; „ The District has advised the S W:RCB shat it believestlat it has valid pre-1914 and pre- 1949 rights from users within the-~i-spier. I-Iowever, at4his time, the Dislrict has not filed necessa,^; document~uon io iustilj these claims and therefore has no rights to the water it is pumping other than tluough its c~nGftet with the`•1\4C['C District. In 2006, the District,suFplicd atotal oP274 AP of+vatcr to its customers. This was 74 AP more than i~f~'contrac~~tl~ith the NiC['C Dislrict. As a result, the Department issued amendmene.nutnlier one tq-t7ie District's dmestic water supply permit restricting it from mat mg 2n}:a~ : sen~tce cotutections tu'ils distribution system. In addition, the permit amendment d¢ccted`the Dtstricl to submit a technical report to the Department that g`i4es an eualuattori of its ++ater iiglils and reliable source capacity and includes a :plan and 4me seli~dule for ~Q~taining sufficient legal source capacity to serve the District's existing<cu,~tomers. Of Hie;'?74 AF the DisGiict pumped in 2006, 34 AP or approximately I2 °io of the total ~~,. was slildt` lo. the Hopland Dand of Pomo Indians. This water was hauled by truck to the Sho Ka Wal~Casinoctiti~hich is located approximately four miles east of Highway 101 on Slate Highway 1,75: The casino is located outside of the MCFC District's place of use. Surjncc Sources T!:e Disu~ict has ne direct Cirersioas of surface ::~atcr. Graundrnn(er The h[opland PUD's source of supply is Gom one active well. Krell No. 2 is located adjacent io the Russian River. The District also has a standby well, \Vell No. 3, which is located adjacent to Fcliz 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 Krell No. 3; with a capacity of 65 gpm that is not an approved source 72 Ukiah Valley Drinkm!s `.A'uter Adequacy Assessment Nm~embcr 3007 and has been required by dte DcparAnenl to be properly destro}ed. Each of the wells is described in 'Cable XII-3: r.,t,~~ ~.n_t n~~t~~u 1v~,~u~ - _ ~.~1Vcll ~- ~ ~ Year Urillcd Ca achy, m Status Uu \1'ell I tJA ti5 Not an A roved Source Russian Ricer H'eII 1969 450 Primarq source Peliz Creek 1Vell 7 1951 I35 Standb ~ source Trcubncnr The District has no treatment other than disinfection for it`s wells. \~'ell 02 is currently brine evaluated to determine if it is under the direct infl~ueiicc.t~f surface water. II it is determined that this well is under the direct in(lucncubC surface water then additional treatment facilities will be required. ~ _ ` Srora,{~e . The District has two relatively new storage tanks with capacities of 0.30 and 0.50 \4i; for a total storaee volume of O.SO MG. This 1Juuld,provide-approximately 34 hours of storaee during the maximum day demand. 0.~7 MGl~ that has occurred in the last five fears. Lined cm the ma:cuuum current ti'ater demands, m the system over the last Ilve .'ear.. the California \~tatenvorks Standards~requi(es 0 ('~ MG of-distribution storage as sho++m b}'the following calculation, assumitiSahat-u I,SOO gPm Lire capacity is necessary for a nvo hour period ~ ,.'' Currcnt.STb r;igc.Requircment = 0.31 D1G ~-:Q15:a U.64 P1G +U.IS MG = 0.65 I17G -_,-. Y b. Future Denealyds _F Cnnnectra'irs~- ~'~ Over the 10-~edrueriod frotn~d,997 through 2006, the District has experienced an ,, 7,~:J. au~rage atntual increase in cottgechons of 1.5 percent per year. Assuming dtis same ratc,~7~gro1lrth, the ntriiber oG'~omtections the District serves will grola by 29 percent overtliei;]9year peri~~`oC2007 tluough 2025. This translates into the District being projected t~~ serve 41 Reconnections in the year 2025. This number will be used for placating putpuses,despite the District being under a connection moratorium at the current time.~'TIie~MCFC District has stated it has contracts for 7,400 AP1' of its 5,000 AFI' allocatiori of water in Lake Mendocino. A4CFC District has indicated it would contract wish the Disu icl for additional water as long as 1lopland pUD does not supply water to customers outside t`dCPC District's place oCuse. 1-3ow'ever, a contract for additional source would be required to go tluough a formal review process under the California Errvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). 73 Ukiah Valloy Drinking A4'atzr Adequacy Assessment tvbvcmbzr 3007 Sr,pp(r Dcrnner(s Assuminc the same maximum rates of water use per cotmection for the future as occurred in 2002 through 20(16. the projected wafer demands by the year 202 are gi~cn in Teble III-4 belo~c: "(able Vf-4 Proieeted System Demands in'_0~5 \~. luc Pcr Connection Ucmand. ~ do Connections Dcm:unl a1GD Ave Duy 96J 418 0.40 ~tnx U:n~ 1,964 ~IIS O.ti2 Max ~lnnih I.SG~ _ 413 0.75 Annual 1.08 AP1'C 415 451 AFl' Smrnge RequiremcnCr l-he total storage requirement by the year 2025 is esliniated is 0 7S~!?,1G as shown below '_U25 Storage kcquircmcnt = O.J11 ,11G ' U?i x Q.8'_ pIG +0.18 isle = 0.78 PIC; c. Assessn7enl of Compliance 'fable \II-5 compares the required water rights, source and storage capacities with the estimated current system demands 8rid demands for 2075. Table XII-5' tlopland PUD Requirzd R'aler. Rights, Sou}ceand Storage Capacities with Curren Capacin~. Item Curren Cu :ici ll' Sf'SICm Demands __~ -~ Current 2025 Water Ri hts, A'E 200' ~ 274 451 Source Ca ncit ~; 1Vf_"GR ~ 0.G5 _ 0.64 0.82 Story a Volume, MG=-~~'~-. _ O.SO 0.65 0.73 __-_~ (!) Hoplau ,f'(JD has o~t~~iui~act/nr?(J0.1{1%.frp3it tha d1CFC District. The Distract currei~tl}~ has ari~tal des~eloped source capacity of 0.65 MGD which is adgguate to meet pits-current sbuc'e requirements, but is inadequate to meet the projected 2025 systeiudemands. However, if Well 03 were put on active status it would provide an additional 135 gpm (0.19 MG) of source capacity which could just meet tli4 projected 205 requirements. The District lias~eeii advised by the SWRCB that all of its wells are drawing from the wrderllow of tlfeiRussian Riser and must be covered by a water right. However, the District's only ~a~ater right at this time is (he contract that it has wish the tvfCPC District for 200 Af per year, which Is not adequate to cover us current use of 274 Al`Y. liy the year 2025, the annual s}'stem demand is expected to increase to 4~ 1 APY. With a current storaee volume of O SO MG, the District has adequate storage to meet Calilbrnia \Vatenaorba Standards to the year 2025. 74 I!kiah Valley Drinl.ing \Vatrr :adequacy Assessment No~•emhcr ?007 The District has a ven' high per connection water use during the month of maximum demand I I,~I? gallons per comtectiun per dad). Tltis use is approximately a0 percent higher than the Cite of Ukiah. ,', 75 A'iTACHMENT ~~ Wa~nerh~~~Bonsi~mc~re l'~nisullin~ Civil IOlcinccr.. /~ Curpurllian Viclx~l,l., P. non~i;;nom, P.G. Rulnii C, w'a~~ r. P.6. Paula 1. w9lcilut \ixiicw T. B;unb:ux'r. P.E. NOVClriber 16, 2007 6acid ~I. Houv<n. P.F. Ryan IE. tinilfu. Mr. David J. Rapport Rapport and Marston 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 (EIS) prepared for FERC for the Proiect advises that the implementation of the RFA (Reasonable and Prudent Alternativel would risk dewaterin>? of Lake Mendocino under worst case droufiht 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 altemative." 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 altemative shows a trace of Lake Mendocino contents over the 21 years modeled, from 1975 through 1995. It shows the Lake falls to near 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. sag Mo'tb 7birsi Sfx~(, Suite 325. Sncmnu+uo, Calffornfa 9sxla-ozsa Ph: 9164416850 Fx 91G9s8386! 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 I) and net river losses (in Scenario 2) to represent demands for Lake Mendocino releases. The Potter Val ley Project modeling used estimates of demand 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: l) 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 predict that there would be 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. Under these conditions the only available supply for water purveyors would be from the Ukiah Valley eroundwater 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 (seep. 4- l6, 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 Department of Water Resources (DWR) 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 anaroximately 10,000 AF." On page 16, the Assessment states: "The Ukiah Valley, basically that area from Lake Mendocino south to Burke Hill, contains a eroundwater aquifer that has been estimated by DWR in 1983 (EIR for the Potter Valley Project) 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 1 18-4, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sonoma County), does not say anything about the ~a~n~ert~ B c x~ISi~nc >re „~~~~ ,, 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 [) 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 ofnormal precipitation and runoff has fully recharged any deficit. As we have previously reported based on the foregoing, the groundwater basin is healthy. On page 39, the Assessment states: "The Citv's water rights are more than adeouate to meet current and projected needs throueh the near 2025 using either the Department's projections or the City's UWMP projections." "While the Citv has the `leeal' water rights to serve these projected system demands, based on the chanee 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 projected to result in a 33 percent average reduction during normal years and greater reduction in dry ey ars „ 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 drv periods." Wa~~I~er~~Bcrosi~;nc >re Mr. David Rapport November 16, 2007 Page 4 This statement is consistent with our understanding ofthe SWRCB's position as indicated in correspondence previously provided to the City. Please contact me ifyou have any questions or additional concerns regarding the foregoing. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTINGIIC111VIL ENGINEERS ~~W~S~~ Robert C. Wagner, P.E. Encl. ~ COULFOJZpdC ~arner~~:Bonsi,~ yore Office of Energy ~ Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission May 2000 FERC/EIS-0119F FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME 1 v.:: PR4 ~IANGES IN MINIMUM FLOW REQUIREMENTS AT THE POTTER VALLEY PRO]ECT FERC Protect No. 77-110, California asnc noon 8$8 f'irs't'Stieet, N.E., Washington, DC 20426 MAY J 0 2(100 1 ~ PottarValleyProlactFE1S 4.1tt are predicted to fall below the 25 cfs minimum requirement at Hopland in two months of the 21-year simulation period (i.e., September and October at the end 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. Eel River slream flows under 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. I-SA and B) are predicted to be similar to, and sometimes even higher than, unimpaired conditions, especially in the flow range of 0 to 140 cfs. In the winter and spring months, (December through March; Figure 4.1-8C and D), flows below 140 cfs would also increase signiflcantly 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-SE, 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 flaws 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 Ee! River under the proposed action would lead to improvements in the physical habitat available to support anadromous salmon and steelhead (Section 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 rtnder the proposed ac~lorr. Figure 4.1-9 shows the simulated average monthly reservoir volumes in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino for the 21-year simulation period. Tn Lake Pillsbury, average monthly storage volumes are predicted to remain above 20,000 ae-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 drawdown 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 the proposed action would be bettor in conserving water stored in Lake C Pillsbury. As with all of the alternatives, there is little difference between the predictions Potter Valley Protect FEIS ~'~~ stream flows at Hopland are predicted to fall below 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-I). However, it also would produce stream flows in rho 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 rho no action alternatives. Ee/River stream flows under the Sonoma alternative. The seasonal flow duration curves below Cape Hom Dam arc 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 Hom Dam, especially those between 0 and 90 cfs. Flow frequencies in the fall and early winter months of October through January (Figure 4.1-11A, B, end 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 as under current conditions (Figure 4.1-11D, 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 Eei 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 Sonoma a/ternatlve. Figure 4.1-12 shows the average monthly reservoir volumes in Leke Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino based on the 21-year simulations with NRCE22 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), thts Somona alternative would produce mean monthly storage less than 20,000 ac-ft in four of 21 years. The maximttm 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 aaft 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 percent end zero, respectively. Therefore, the Sonoma alternative would put substantially more pressure on water stored PotNr Veilay Propct FElS I.33 for the Tribes alternative. These increases in upper Eel 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-ft in three of 2l years (a frequency of 14 percent) under the DOI alternative. The predicted minimum storage volume in Lake Pillsbury during the worst-case drought is ti52 ac-ft, 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- ] 8B) 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 watcr balance modeling predicts that Lake Mendocino would drop below the 35,000 ac-ft 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-ft for cturent 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- case drought, both currently and in the future. Russiax Rlver streamJlows under the DOI alternative. 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, duc primarily to this alternative's elimination of the emergency operating conditions that conserve water in Lake Pillsbury when it reaches exceptionally low levels. I-Iowever, 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-ft can be considered to be equivalent to a dewatered reservoir). Stream flows predicted at Hopland under the DOI alternative 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 Potter Wllev Pro/ec! FE/S ,~ -- DO{ aitamativa - DOI albmatlve In 2020 80 a: 60 - T v 40 _. ~~ 3S 20 - - IL' C 120 c 100 80 .., a~ ~ 60 .~ 40 °~ 20 o: 0 Time (Months over 21-year period) Figure 4.1-18. Mean monthly stora8e volumes predicted is Lske Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino ander the DOI alternative and the 21-year aimulatioo ~. period (Source: sta@'analysis). ~~848~~#~484~~8~84~~84~48~~4~g~~8~~4~~g~84 Time (Months over 21-year period) Potter Ystlay Prolact FEIS ~aa 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 are: 1) removal of the emergency reservoir operating rules that conserve water in Lake Pillsbury during very dry periods, and 2) slightly lower EBRR minirnum flow requirements between the PVP powerhouse and Lake Mendocino. These differences eliminate any water shortages in the F.BRR and result in slightly lowerreservoir levels in Lake Pillsbury. Ee! River streamJlows under the PVID alternative. Stream flows produced by the PVID alternative below Cape Horn Dam would be essentisily the same as under the proposed action, because the minimum flow requirements arc not different (Figure 4.1-20). There would be significant improvements th most months relative to no action, but the summer flows (July~eptember) would remain low and similar to the no action, proposed action, and Sonoma alternatives. Associated habitat improvements are discussed in Section 4.2. Reservoli conditions mtder !kt PYID allerrra!lve. The PVID 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 bt greater under the PVID alternative than under the proposed action. The maximum annual drawdown of Lake Pillsbury that is predicted during the worst-case drought is 11,394 ao-R, which is comparable to no action and better than the Sonoma, Tribeis, 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 rho 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 wean monthly volume that would occur during e worst-case drought under the PVID alternative is predicted to be 15,512 ac-R for current Poxor Valley ProJact FE1S 4.8g 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 alternatives. 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 stremx flows under the PVID alterxative. 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 (yeaz 2020), due to this alternative's elimination of the emergency operating conditions that conserve 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 I S 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 patterns 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 alternatives. 4.2 ECOLOGICAL RESOTIRCES 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 alternatives. Although all of the action alternatives 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 Assessment 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 altettzatives. These data were supplemented by information from I1MFS, 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 Office of Hydropower Licensing, rebruary }ivy .. r -- '':Y1' T~ QRIG'INAL Pe~t~'st.Fncrgy Regielatory COtl~ii's9ipn FERC7LIS-0119D DRAIR ENVtRONlVIEIUTAL~=~iCT' S'S'A ~ NT PROTEC7tON~ ANb MA11~!'~~ t~~~#~#~RY RESOURCES AT THE `POf~''t~~1;~~Y"~~'~1~~~?CT ~, ~g U3a8~ ~ 03 ~sF•;~ DES 2.~`'i~i: 888 First Strtet, N.E., Wa~hirigton DC 204~6< Potter vauer orae ers ~.z~ Table 3.2-4. Groundwater Basins in the Russian River Watershed. (Source: DWR 1983) Average Usa e Well Yield Capacity Safe Yield Basin (gpm) (acre-feet) (acre-ft/year) Sonoma Coun y 90 to 00 +2,00 ,D Unknown 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 Sanel Valley 500 20,000 Moderate for Irrigation smaller basins in the counties located to the north (e.g. Mendocino, Lake, and Humboldt counties). It was estimated in the C" DWR Bulletin 118-9 (1983) that the available storage in 1980 in the Alexander Valley and Healdsburg 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 a roan w+a er Sur ace Wa er To a Mga D (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Russian 121.1 1 .66 1 Upper Eel 13,70 19.71 28.41 Middle 13.70 28.92 92.62 Eel Lower Eel 10.75 6.05 16.80 S. Fork 5.37 2.17 7.59 Eel Total 169.66 68.53 233.19 (130.39 (198.92 Freshwater> Freshwater) Potter Valley Drag E1S -LITERATURE CITED E4 DWR (Department of Water Resources). 1983. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma County, Volume 5, Alexander Valley and Healdaburg 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 Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status of the Southern OregonlNorthern California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit of Coho Salmon. Federal Register: June 18, 1997. 62{117):33038- 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 Regulatory Commission). 1978. Final Impact Statement Potter Valley Project No. 77-California. FERC/EIS- 0007. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation, December 1978. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1983. Opinion No. 187: Opinion & Order Denying Appeal, Approving Settlement & Issuing New License (Major) Re: Pacific Gas & Electric. Commission Order/Opinion Issued October 4, 1983. Fisher, J. P. and W. G. Pearcy. 1994. Interannual Trends in Steelhead Abundance and in Ocean Conditions, Prepared Under Subcontract to 5. P. Cramer and Associates, Gresham Oregon. Fluqum, 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 I~ ~ Lake Mendocino Content WBE Scenario A 120 LL a Q °0 100 .~ c 80 0 v 2 60 v v z > 40 z c 0 ~ 20 A v F 0 a~n ~n~ennrowrnmoo.+.-~rv rimmoav+ineennrommmoo.~.~rvrvmmo ain n nnnnnnnnnnoo ao oo ao o~aQ o~oo ao w aom ao oQwmmoammmmrnmmmmmmmm ~+ n~+ iii n~+ n~+ n~ a~ nY, `aY. nG nri ¢Y, aYi n~ n~ aG nY~. `aY, `aG o.Y, nG n oaoao¢oaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoa 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 faw; 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 ATTEST: Linda Brown, City Clerk ITEM NO: sa DATE: November 26, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUi3]ECT: 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 ofP~eparation (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 ATTACHMENT r ; ele n o-~ COUNTY OF MENDOCINQ pone 7o7-a67-2569 PLANNING TEAM =Ax 7o7-a67-saga www.co. mendocino.ca.usiplanningteam 501 Lovd 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 & 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 8 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 Sheriff's Department Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority Mendocino Transit Authority Millview County Water District No. California Trails Council NOAA -National Marine Fisheries Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District Rogina Water Russian River Flood Control District State Clearinghouse State Dept. of Water Resources State Parks 8Recreation-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 PREPARED BY: _ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~' a~ it Gorny TITLE: tanning Team Direct r s-: i~ tt (~ f ~ E'!~{~- TELEPHONE: (707) 467-2569 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. Mendocino County Planning Team REVISED NOTICE OF PREPARATION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2007 DRAFT ^KIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN SCH No_ 2003072038 Project Background In Z00? and 2003, Mendocino County prepared a Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (WA}'), and in 2004 and 2005 a Draft Program lnvironmenlal hnpacl Report (EIR) was prepamd for that projw[. In 2{705, the Draft Program E[R (.State Clearinghouse No. 200308038) was circulated Cor public review. 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 end individuals commeufing on the Dra(i EIR No formal action was taken to adopt the 2003 Draft fR'.AP or certify the 2005 DmCt EIR Although the 2003 Draft UVAP and 2005 Draft EIR have been used as' sources for new drafts, neither document includos official County policy because the documents were never adopted or certified by the board of Supervisors. Current 1'raj ec[ Prom August of 2006 [o August 2007, Mendocino County prepared e 200"7 Draft UVAP. The County will be preparing a Draft and Final Program ElA for the 2007 Draft UVAP proposed by the County o(Mendocino. The area (the "plan area") encumpassed 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 Dratt U V qY. The July No6cc oC Preparation included four alternatives that were being considered for inclusion in the CV AP and FIR documenLS. On August 2I, 2007, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors reviewed the alternatives ~denGfied in the original NOP and selecnxl an alternative that is the current WAP I'roj act The County received written responses to that 'v'OP as well as verbal responses at EIR scopiug meetings held on September 5, 2007- This revised NOP is being circulated to clarif}° the proposed project and to offer agencies and the public an additional opportunity to provide comments about what impacta and issues should be addressed in the Program EIR. The 2007 Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plau, if adopted, will serve as part oC the County's General flan. It will provide long-term policy direction Cor growth and development in the plan area over the planning period. The Area Plan refines and supplements the County General Plan to focus on issues oC importance in the Gkiah Valley. 'ilia land use classifications, policies, and implementation measures of the UVAP provide more detailed guidance Cor the plan area than is contained in the existing County General Plan. In addition, the 2007 DraC[ UVAP will update policies and programs' of the Qsun[y General Plaq which was originally adopted in 1981. The proposed goals, policies, and implementation measures included in the 2007 Draft UVAP can be reviewed on line at http'./itinyurl corn/2nloed. Proposed land use classifications for the Project and two land use altemadves, identified as A and 6, arc shown on ltte attached maps. 'Ilia table below summarizes buildom potential under the Project and the land use alternatives included for study. The Project and each of the alternatives would include the same goals, policies, and implemeutaton measures of the 2007 Draft OVAP_ Land Lse Alternative Allowable Development Potential Singh Family j~ Mu[!i-Famrly Retar[ ~ Lnduvtnal 1 flirts Units Uevelapmetr[(rg.fr) I Develapmen! I 2 C7~ / ro'ect _ 2 ~ 2 s t 2 07 to 4.60 mdlmn ' 2 40 million _ Alternative F~ 1,888 ~ ~ ~ 2 060 t 1 8~ to 3.90 mtlhon~ 2 56 million _.._ llion 0 ~ roiect 1,430 ~ c 296 t~ 1.80 imll on 3 7 3 mi 0 8 [( rn i Comment and Preparation Process The County end the County's EIR consultant have reviewed lho comments on the original NOP in beginning the preparation of the FIR. Agencies and members of [he public are welcome to submit additional comments; however, 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 tint described in [heir original comments. Comments previously submitted on the 2005 Draft EIR, to the degree that [hey are relevant to the 2007 Draft UVAP, are also being used to develop the EIR. Pursuant m stale and local guidelines implementing the Cali forma Environmental Quality Acl (CGQA), please be advised that the Mendocino County Planning loam will be the lead agency Ibr the project Based upon preliminary environnental studies for this proposed project, the original Draft Program E1 R, comments recervad on that Umfi Program BIR, and comments receivul on the July 2007 NOP, the Mendocino County Planning Ttam has determined that a full scope Program hIR focusing on the following issues is required for the project 1) Oenlo v and Soils 5) Aesthe[ics~Visual Resources 71 Public Health 2) Hvdrolo & Water ualit 7) Noise 12 A ricuhural Resources 3) biological Resources 8) Air Quality 13) Hazards & Hazardous Materials 4) Cultural Resonrces 9) Public Services 14 Po ulaLOn & Housim 5) Traffic & CUCUlation 10 Land Use IS Recreation To ensure that the FIR for this project is thorough and adequate, and meets the needs of ell agencies reviewing it we are soliciting comments on specific issues to be included in the environmental review. Public comments on the wope oC issues to be evaluated in Bte EIR arc encouraged. Details oRhe Comtry's proposed project, the 2007 Draft GVAP, and the 2003 Draft Program EIR are on file with the office of the Mendocino County Planning Team, Room 1204, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, CA 954A2, and arc available for public review between the hours oC 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A scoping meeting will be held on December 5, 2007 at 1 p.m. in Conference Room "C", Counry Offines, 501 l,ow Gap Road, Ukiah, California, 95482. Members of the public are invited to attend this meetimg and provide oral comments regarding the scope oC the Program FIR. Please submit written comments portaining to this Revised Notice of Preparation to the Planning Team by December 3, 2002 Commems by FAX will not be accepted. Please direct questions about the project itself to Phil Gomy, Planning Team Manager, at (707) 467-2569. Phil Gorny November I, 2007 Planning'feam Manager Date Page q2 f'~ i 1 .r ,,, `, ~_ `~ I6] _~ ~'t ,~ 191~~ ~ ~t, -~ I . ~ ~~ r °gg Wil' Is ~ ~~~ V 1 s._,~~~ 1 -.~ ,, ~_ R9 , ~ -~ MENDOCINO COUNTY ~ 1 _ ~ _ i2 ti ,ol k~ I - -~. _~ \ ~ " ~. ~ M.I. ~ ~ `i >, '- ~ I I ~ ~ t "~ `S ]53 ~ i. s i ie . e~,_ _ a ~~ ~ :. ~~ ~ ~ ~ / ,~ I ~r ~.,~. ~ ~ .~ ~ to y ~L l`\\. _. _.~ ., ~I ~._ _~. _.__ Regional Context Map Community Planning Proses 2007 Ukiah Ua/ley Area Plan SONOMA COUNTY ~i CMai WF KqI T2~/ille ~ ~.[ tiJ-., _r y ._T ~~~~~~(• `L - ~ ~ F' - ._ -Z 1 '.C~ a ,-~_ ~ L - ~ ,~s ~loverdole ~ '~ Z~ ~' 1 i i 1 r. ~ f I01 _ . ~'.' ~~ ' 11 ~. 129 r Healdsburp ~ i ~~ } w ~? 4 ~ I ` ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ t' _~ I .I-. ~ i!~~ ~n~onal FOresi S:ae Pvk o~-~ao ~ Soule: ESflI enOManCOUno Lounty Plenning Team Map preperetl Oy MIG. Inc. NovemOer 1, 2001 wnv ee~~d,n o vre..av Runu¢RSammi ~_; nlbzl h~.a n~.na e~~m xaaemel Riwana idbiwics LooI ROaE SubmLen ResltluJel .~~ IW~YOrFkwl plain ~ Wllmaa Mu114famlly ReslamlM Rani Community Ukiah Valley Area Plan Project m~.ea u~.. Re,~a.~n.vo~., I~~a.ami M~.~d.m.mv.ml ne~~=n~re - nedllfe. Masonne Rangelands MMetl Ufe'. NOnF l~~lp publl[Lanar _ Gwenl Commercial -. pnW ana zeoouon ~~~~, Community Planning Process 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ...~+aW ai town nm+mrw. Spume: Mentlmno Gounly PlannNg Teem Mappreperetl by MlG. /nc. November f, 200) Existing General Plan ("No Project" Alternative) ~~~~-~~ Community Planning Process souse: raeneouno Cwnry aiamringr m 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan ^"ee~eeietleyM~~ ~^_ rvo~emee. i. zog~ w~ amw ar cue «varm.nd,. e..nme..anrraa.a..,ma. u.~.. a..a.,,..Ydu. mv.~ami.w~a: ~...,a..a..~. nar..im, m..,~~a..«..,.e uvnv Rnn~marv m vre wav R.mmeRmaemlal eaneral cnmmereal L _ i inbal Land a q^eri al Ru nl Aesitlenli al Ineu sld al River and gnbwan¢s Loaal Amd Suburban Residenli al ggnalm re ~~ 106Year Flood Vlain Aailroae MWIi Fa milt' R¢t-0enlial Range LanJr Rural COmmunlry pWll[lands Communiy Planning Process Soume: uaneocino County Fanning ream 2007 Ukiah ~al/eyArea Plan MaPnao=a<se,M~~,l^= Na~ameaa, saw v~w=b.ev. ~mw..aw~nxa~.~~r VVAV Bou noary o freeway Remote 0.ultl dial MIxM VU'. ResiOenllal FO[us Induslnal L _~ 1"6°I Sa^d ~ Anertal Ru nl 0.esltlentlal ~ Ml red-VSr. General Ag rl [u pure 0.rveraM iribuuna Losal Road Suburban Resitlenlial Miaeb llu: Masonile Pange lands ~~ I00.YOr Fl"M Pleln ~~ ReIrmJ Mullrfamily Rxldenllal Leneral COmmuclal publls lznds Rural COm muniry ."" parMS antl Re[realion Ukiah Valley Area Plan Land Use Alternative A ~-~~~ Ukiah Valley Area Plan Land Use Alternative B ~ ~~^~m, ~ Community Planning Process source: me~aonrw county vlenrny ream 2007 Ukiah Va/leyArea Plan Ma,oreraaeerMl~, r~~. m.,r,,.a..«e,,..,a,,.a~,w~c~:ra~..~.eo maa..ma..~.a.r.r.m,.a.,,~..ro,..sa,mar,~,a...a,,.~.. No~emne. r. zoaz JVAP enundary m fre waY Remote Rnldenllal y, ieedUSe. Aes~tlemial FOeuS Induslnal L _ ~ irihal land ~ Aqe iial Rural Resid enlial ~aedUSe. General ggnsullurr. Rivv antl inLUn nes Lou'sIRwU M Suburbvi Resitlmlial General CUmmocial Ran®e hods 1~ IOM1Yenr flo od Pte In ~~ Railroad Mu114famlly RerVdenllal PubRC lands Rural COmmunlry ,. 1 parks and Recrearlon Comparison of Land Use Differences Between-the UVAPAIternatives and Use Change from the existing General Plan ` tm mg. S s m =- a< g` a m =m e- g` a 1 Creates a 19 acre mlxetl use area MU-3j in central Colpella # VES YES YES 2 Reclassdles 2 acre area of exislin apoRments from C to multifamlN ISR wtth R-3j 0 ' YES YES YES 3 Cha es a 41 acre area of AG-40 fo RR-1 on the west side of East Sltle Colpella Road, south of Colpella, ® YES YES NO 4 Redesl Hates the Colpella Sewa a treatment pontls as PS from AG-40 ® YES YES YES 5 Chan es several parcels south of Central Avenue from AG-40 to RR-1 0 YES YES NO b Chan es a sin le .5a parcel on the west sitle of North State from R-1 to SR ® VES YES NO 7 Creates a 114 acre RR-1 OPD tlesignotbn from an area west of US-101 already designated RR-10. Approximately 22 of those acres were orl mall aesi noted RMR-20. O YES YES NO B Connects two tliscontinuous RMR-20 areas by redesignating the infelvening 30 acres of RL460 parcels between them O yES YES YES ° 9 Cho es 60 acres of active a riculiural protludion from RL-160 to AG-40 A YE$ YE$ YES 70 Changes 14 acres of AG-40 parcels on Anfoni Lane to RR-10 O VES YES NO 17 Retlesignates 5 acres of developed AG-40 Parcels fo RR-1 at the nolihwesl comer of Easlside Colpella ROOd and Lake Merxioain0 DrirB # ~ YES YES 12 Redesignates 8 acres of tlevelapad AG-401and to multifamily residential use (SR wtth an R-3 Zoning] near Lake Mendocira Dr arKi the railroad tracks. # NO YES VES 13 Reaesrgnates 11 acres of developed AG-40 and SR parcels to allow for Mlxetl uses (MUNS) In the same area Itlentilied in #12. # VE$ ~ NO 74 Changes 10 acres of industrial lantl (p north of the intersection of Nolih State Street and Parduccl Road fo commercial C. # YES YES NO 15 Changes 62 acres of AG-40 land south of Lake Mendceino Dc north of the Mendocino Retlwood Company mill site to mixed uses MUNS # YES NO NO 16 Converts the vacan127 acres of intlustrlal Qj land east of north State St and the NPRR railroad backs fo mixed uses MUNS # YES NO NO 17 Changes 31 acres of vacant and occupied commercial parcels on both sides of North State St. south of Lake Mendocino Drive to maed uses MUNS # yES NO NO 18 Chan s 21 acres of RR-1 on both skies of iolllnl Lane from RR-1 to SR (12K min lot slze7, ® YES YES NO 19 Redesl notes 40 acres of commercial (CI lands on North State St. to Ip # YES .~$ .~$ 20 Reaesi notes the 75-acre Masonhe (west) site to allow a mu of tlevelopment types (MUM] # VES VES NO 21 Converts the 188 acre Lovefs Lace north agricultural area from AG-40 to mostly residential uses (Mixed Use Res. Focus # YES ~ ~ 22 Convelis the 15 acre south Of Lovefs Lane parcel from AG-401o Mixed Use Res. Focus. # YES YES VES 23 Redesl notes the mostly-vacant Industrial (p 5 acres of the Lovefs Lane area to allow for mixed uses (MU3j. # YES YES YES 24 ~ Converts the remaining 20 acres of the Inaustriol 10 area fo general commercial uses (q west of North State St and north of Em ire Dc YES YE$ NO j 25 Changes the indusfdal (p designation In the Brush Sf. triangle fo allow for mixed use development (MUBSij through the entire 85 acre area. # ~ YES NO 26 Changes the industrial (p designation In the same area as #25 above to commercial 1CI for 20 acres along the rauroatl and MUB3i for the remainder. O NO NO YES 27 Cha es the industrial p desi nation on the 2-acre parcel fo (MUBSi of the intersection of Brush Sf. and UB-107. # YES YES NO 28 Changes the Intluslrial pj designation on ine same 2-acre parcel idenfifietl in #2710 (C). 00 NO NO VES P9 Retleslgnates the 8acre RCHDCawneo propeM south of Brush Bt from Indusfriai Qj fo allow for mulllfamlN uses robe SR, with an R-3 zonin . # YES YES YES 30 Converts the 282-acre Discussion Area e and the 15-acre northern atl~olnin propeM from RL-16010 RR-1 PD. # VES YES NO 31 Retlesi notes ine northern 15 acres of the City-owned ballfieltls at the east end of Gobbi St, from AG-40 fo PS. O VES VES VES 32 Changes the northwestern ontl southwestern Corners (5 acres) of Jefferson ontl South State from General Commercial C 10 allow for mixed uses MU-2 # ~$ yE$ YE$ 33 Redesl notes the 15acre site occupied by Grace Hudson Elementary School from commercial (CI to PB. # YES YES YES 34 35 36 Change the 1 ]acre general commercial Iq and BR parcels south of Grace Hudwn to allow for mixed uses (M0. 2. # Redesl mtes a 4 Gore Inausthal parcel south of Plant Roatl elan South Slate 31, from I to C. # Change an 8-acre area of SR from single-family use IR-7) zoning to multifamiN use (R-3f along South State 3f across from Plant Road. #' YES YES YES YES VES YES YES YES YES 37 Redesignates the 13 acres on the west side of State St, north of Stipp from SR fo mired uses [MU-2J. # YES YES NO 38 Retleslgnates the same 13 acres In #37 on file west side of State St, north of Stipp from SR to general commercial C onl O ~ ~ YES 391 Retlesigmtes the western portion of a tar e spilt-zoned parcel from RL-160 to RMR-40 match Ifs eastern portion. ® YES YES YES 40 Chan e ]3 acres of RR-5 tlesi Hated Iona elan SR-253 bock fo AG-40. ® YES YES NO 41 ConveR a 29 acre RR-1 U parcel elan US-101 norh of Burke Hill Rd fo RL-1600 YE$ ~$ ~ Notes Numbers 12 and 13, 25 and 26, 27 and 28 and 37 and 38 refer fo hvo dllferent options for the same physical locations. All area calculations approximate. Orlginatetl from the 2007 WAP process Originated from the 2003 UVAP process Other origin Please referto attachetl map for approximate loca;lons ' Rezoning under ex¢tlng General Plan OesiAna6on v Land Use AAemadve'B' keeps the RR-ig tlesignation where A alreatly exists. Lantl Use Aliemadve'B' only redesignates 10 acres to create a contiguous RMR-20 area. 2 j'~3 5~ ~ 6~ 4 i1;~- ~' 9 7 ~10 18~ X14 X11 t72&13 15 1 22224 ~20 /S 26 ~.! 25 29 27 6 28 Q31 32 I 33~ 34 36 35 \~ 37 8 38 39 t 40 ~% .I' ~- 411 - RaiLUep ~ fmrwey AenroreArygpnllal InrWUrWI Aa pLinps j_ ~~ IliWl flop -- grie(ul ANdI APidenlbl pgrit ullNP 9~ Pidk tangs Alvr aM iripulanA Lual Apyl SuburWnflesbPnllal Germrdl COmmer[ul ])rks anG gWrNlipn ® nM~gnal~CNege 10 Mullifamlly ReSlEPnull ~ RurelCammunlly Ine enving GeneralPWn Areas with Land Use Designation Changes ;,w ,~- i Community Planning ACCPSi Soma: MenEainb Counay vbnning Team 2007 Ukiah Valley Area Plan Maa n~PVarPe ev Mevencmn <punry vMoning uam rvovember lz, zao~ Attachment # ~_ ~f~l~ j~ C1~ ~i~~q~7 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. ] 204 Ukiah, CA. 95482 Re: Ukiah Valley Area Plan, T~'otice of Preparation and Joint Meeting on Preferred Alternative Dear Honorable Chairperson Smith. Members of the Board, and Mr. Gorm~: 1 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 altematives before the Board selects a preferred altemative. The NOP was issued on July 2, 2007, and requires the submission of written responses by August 6, 2007. The NOP describes the revised U VAP in general terms. From that genera] 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 altematives as presented at the April 24, 2007, joint meeting with the City Council. Apparently, up-to-date maps describing the a]ternatives 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 altemative. Since the Board isn't scheduled to make a decision about the preferred altemative until August 21s', the City requests that the County extend its time to file comments responding to the NOP to a date that is ] 0 days afrer 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 ha~~e 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 August 2, 2007 Honorable Board of Supervisors Mendocino County 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Ukiah City 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 City 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 AVEfVUE, UK~AH, CA 95482-5400 o~,..,,oe vminaa v.onn r-..++ vm,~co c~~, ~~,_~ .... 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 will 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 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, i 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 city ~f uk«r~ 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, t/ineyardArea Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412. (EIRs for community and specifc 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 classifcations, 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. Analysis 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 3p0 SE~AINARY AVENUE, UKIAH, rA 95482-5400 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 com fehensive and truly adequate Environmental Impact Report. iarle Stump, Directp~ a ing and Comm ity 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 AT&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'W~ 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. Atiuci invent # J } Proposal Nor ~... ~, a l&t City of Ukiah, CA* ' Corp Yard Rev 1.0 Friday, September 07, 2007 Equipment __ Part lumber Ill-CBL-Ol ID-CNTL-Ol ID-NET-Ol IU-RACK-Ol ID-VID-O1 Services Part Number IDS-Install T-100 'IDSolutions - __ - Qty Description 1 Cable Package,lncluding: S External Antenna for Wireless LAN Card 5 Wireless LAN Card 1 Control System, Including: 1 Wireless Access Paint 802. 1 Network Communications Equipment Pkg, Including: I Network Digital Video Management System I Network Digital Video Management Sys[em(Support) 5 Network DVMS(Camera) 5 Network DVMS(Camera-Support) I Network Video Recorder 512M6 DDR2,Pent 4 2.8 GHz, 800 MHz, 800GB HD 1 Rack Equipment and Hardware, Including: S Power Block I I OAC In 24AC Out 1 Video System Including: 1 Cable, Conduit and Misc. Hardware 4 Comer Mount Adapter 4 Gooseneck WaII Mount Bracket 1 Network Camera Color I8X AF POE/24VAC/DCI2 BNC 4 Network Camera PTZ Color I8X (4-73mm) AF 12VUC BNC 4 Nomtal Wireless 7" Tinted Dome w/ Heater/Blower 1 Outdoor Aluminum Housing 13" 24VAC Htr/Blwr (CAM & CAM 18) Total Price $2,550.00 $500.00 $9,900.88 $1,500.00 $10,445.50 Unit Price Total Price $6,190.00 $6,190.00 5600.110 $1,200.00 R 7,390.00 t Installation. Project Management, Engineering, Programming 2 Training Delivered -2 Hour Grand Total w/o Optional Items and w/o Shipping: Shipping: Grand Total w/o Optional Items: $32,286.38 TBD $32,286.38 'this proposal contains [he Enterprise ONSSI License that the city can implemwt as many times as they want It can be uGGzed to bring a consistency to the city Cor the management platforms of the cameras. Therefore there won't he so many stand alone systems. It is non-proprietary mtd very scalcable. The quote is for implementation and support with expedited parts for Ciry of Ukia. It will be a total of 4 PTZ cameras and I feed camera implementation The NVR would allow the city to add an additional 40 cameras to the system without a hardware upgrade or add on. Proposal#: 1001-090707-2 Friday, September 07, 2007 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO: 6b MEETING DATE: November 26, 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 ~ SERVING MENDOC/NO 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 2°d 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