water forum reportwater forum report

Water Forum ReportWater Forum ReportJanuary 2002 through June 2004

PHOTO CREDITS

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CHARLIE PIKE, REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RANDY SMITH

January 2002 to June 2004 3

Table of Contents

Letter from the Executive Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction to the Water Forum Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

About the Water Forum Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Signatories to the Water Forum Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Reporting Period Highlights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Increased Surface Water Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Actions to meet Customers’ Needs While Reducing Diversion

Impacts in Drier years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Improved Pattern of Fishery Flow Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Lower American River Habitat Management Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Groundwater Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Water Forum Successor Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

EIR Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

List of Tables - Figures - MapsMap of Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 1: Agreed Upon Surface Water Diversion Amounts and

2002 – 2003 Diversion Amounts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Zone 40 Water Supply Near Term Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Freeport Regional Water Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 2: Water Forum Best Management Practices At A Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sacramento County Groundwater Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Water Forum Report

I am pleased to present you with a report on Water Forum activities from January 2002 through June 2004. As you will see, the Water Forum Agreement is in full implementation. Noteworthy among these activities are the launching of the Cen-tral Sacramento County Groundwater Forum, advancements in the water conserva-tion element with good assistance from the Regional Water Authority, Water Forum stakeholder support for the Freeport Regional Project, and completion of a document presenting an improved fl ow standard for the lower American River. We also complet-ed a purveyor specifi c agreement with Sacramento Suburban Water District (Arcade service area) and with pleasure we welcome our newest member, the Florin Resource Conservation District who in June of this year signed a procedural agreement with the Water Forum Successor Effort.

Other activities of note include a sub-stantial outreach element introducing the Water Forum and the historic Agree-ment, obtaining grant fund money to better understand physical processes of the American River that will result in bet-ter management, and assisting the local resource agencies in helping to protect the American River. In acknowledgement of the tremendous effort expended by Wa-ter Forum stakeholders in developing the historic agreement, the Water Forum was awarded the prestigious 2003 Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award, signed by two Governors: Gover-nors Davis and Schwarzenegger!

The most notable missing piece of the Agreement is a fi nal agreement from federal and state agencies on our proposed improved fl ow standard for the lower American River. The goal is to complete this project by fall of 2005. If the state and federal agencies are serious about protecting the lower American River then the project can be completed within a year. We will continue to push this project as our highest envi-ronmental priority.

Letter from the Executive Director


Other items that we look forward to completing in 2004 – 2005 are the development of a governance structure for managing groundwater through the Cen-tral Sacramento County Groundwater Forum; a partnership with The Nature Con-servancy, Sacramento County Water Agency and the Southeast Sacramento County Agricultural Water Authority regarding Cosumnes River restoration activities and groundwater recharge; and development of a strategic plan for addressing the poten-tial consequences of spreading plumes of contaminated groundwater. Another impor-tant project is a partnership with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Association, California State University, Sacramento and the Water Forum to develop a program enabling students to directly participate in American River related research studies under the guidance of a professor for the benefi t of local, state and federal resource agencies.

We should all be aware that there are still clear challenges facing the Water Forum Successor Effort such as water supply for specifi c projects like the West Roseville specifi c plan, planning and development of the Sacramento River Water Reliability Study, and the use of water surplus for water purveyor district needs. These issues are challenging in part because they involve growth and long-term land use issues. We all recognize that the Water Forum Agreement is about water, not about growth, but one cannot deny that a reliable water supply is necessary for growth.

Challenges will be met the same way the Water Forum Agreement was negotiated — through collaborative problem solving. I am confi dent the lessons learned in devel-oping the Agreement will also help us implement this historic plan.

Leo WinternitzExecutive Director


Introduction

After signing the Water Forum

Agreement in April 2000, stakehold-

ers created the Water Forum Successor

Effort to oversee, monitor and report on

implementation of the Agreement.

One responsibility of the Successor

Effort — and an assurance to the

signatories — is to prepare an annual

report documenting progress and

important developments. This is the

Successor Effort’s second report,

covering January 2002 through June

2004.

About The Water Forum Agreement

A diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers and local govern-ments are signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Water Forum Agreement.

The Water Forum Agreement is a comprehensive package of linked actions to achieve two coequal objectives:

• Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and

• Preserve the fi shery, wildlife, recreational and aesthetic values of the lower American River.

There are seven major elements to the Water Forum Agreement, which must be implemented in combination through 2030 for the Agreement to be successful. These elements include:

1. Increased Surface Water Diversions

2. Actions to Meet Customers’ Needs While Reducing Diversion Impacts in Drier Years

3. Improved Pattern of Fishery Flow Releases from the Folsom Reservoir

4. Lower American River Habitat Management Element (HME)

5. Water Conservation

6. Groundwater Management

7. Water Forum Successor Effort


• AKT Development• Arden-Cordova Water Service• Associated General Contractors• Building Industry Association of Superior

California• Carmichael Water District• California American Water Company

(formerly Citizens Utilities Company of California)

• Citrus Heights Water District• City of Folsom• City of Roseville• City of Sacramento• Clay Water District• County of Sacramento• Del Paso Manor Water District• El Dorado County Water Agency• El Dorado Irrigation District• Environmental Council of Sacramento• Fair Oaks Water District• Florin County Water District• Friends of the River• Galt Irrigation District• Georgetown Divide Public Utility District• League of Women Voters of Sacramento• Natomas Central Mutual Water Company

• Omochumne-Hartnell Water District• Omochumne-Hartnell Water District• Orange Vale Water Company• Orange Vale Water Company• Placer County Water Agency• Placer County Water Agency• Rancho Murieta Community Services • Rancho Murieta Community Services

District• Regional Water Authority• Regional Water Authority

(formerly Sacramento Metropolitan Water (formerly Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority)

• Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District• Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District• Sacramento Association of Realtors• Sacramento Association of Realtors• Sacramento County Alliance of • Sacramento County Alliance of

NeighborhoodsNeighborhoods• Sacramento County Farm Bureau• Sacramento County Farm Bureau• Sacramento County Taxpayers League• Sacramento County Taxpayers League• Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of • Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of

Commerce• Sacramento Municipal Utility District• Sacramento Municipal Utility District• Sacramento-Sierra Building & Construction • Sacramento-Sierra Building & Construction

Trades CouncilTrades Council• Sacramento Suburban Water District• Sacramento Suburban Water District

(formerly Arcade and Northridge Water (formerly Arcade and Northridge Water Districts)

• San Juan Water District• San Juan Water District• Save the American River Association Inc.• Save the American River Association Inc.• Sierra Club-Mother Lode Chapter• Sierra Club-Mother Lode Chapter

Map of Region - shaded areas indicate Water Forum area of interest

Signatories to the Water Forum AgreementSignatories to the Water Forum Agreement


Reporting Period Highlights

• Launched the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum

• Conducted orientation for new Water Forum Successor Effort stakeholder representatives

• Received prestigious 2003 Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award

• Advanced the development of an improved pattern of fi shery fl ow releases from Folsom Reservoir

• Took full advantage of wet water years to continue preparing for future droughts

• Made signifi cant advancements toward meeting water conservation commitments

• Completed the Lower American River Flow Management Standard Draft Policy Document

• Received a $466,000 grant from the United State Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Bay Delta Authority Ecosystem Restoration Program to develop temperature modeling predictive tools

• Established a landscape task force with local governments, water purveyors, green industry and environmental/public interest groups to review implementation of landscape water effi ciency ordinances.

• Completed water supply/land use coordination procedures along with related peri-odic accounting of water use.

• Initiated discussions regarding Cosumnes River watershed and groundwater protec-tion between the Sacramento County Water Agency and The Nature Conservancy.

• Instituted discussions and analysis of groundwater contamination in central Sacra-mento County.

• Assisted the Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and others in monitoring aquatic resources of the lower American River.

• Completed a Purveyor Specifi c Agreement with Sacramento Suburban Water District.

• Continued work on the remaining unresolved issues of the Placer County Water Agency Purveyor Specifi c Agreement, including development of a Best Manage-ment Practice for the Agency’s raw water supply.

• Convened stakeholders to provide support for the Freeport Regional Water Project.

• Welcomed the Florin Resource Conservation District (Elk Grove Water Service) as a member of the Water Forum with a Procedural Agreement.


Increased Surface Water Diversions

Increased diversions will be needed in the region even with active conservation programs and the recommended sustainable use of groundwater that are also part of the Water Forum Agreement. The Agreement outlines agreed-to diversions for each supplier and the facilities needed to divert, treat and distribute this water. Support for increased diversions and facili-ties is linked to the suppliers’ en-dorsement and, where appropriate, participation in each of the seven elements of the Agreement.

In October 2003, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) embarked on the long-awaited $31 million PCWA American River Pump Station Project under the admin-istration of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The project will be a key water diversion for PCWA that will remove some of the construction impacts in the American River canyon that remain from the late 1960s and early 1970s construction work on the Auburn Dam. The project also includes funding to allow safe recreation purposes on the river. (See page 27 for more details on the recreation funding.)

As part of the Auburn Dam construction work, the river was altered and diverted through a half-mile-long tunnel and PCWA’s former pump station was removed. When construction of the dam was suspended in 1977, PCWA was left without a permanent year-round facility to divert water and use the water rights it holds to the American River.

When the current project is completed in 2007, the old diversion tunnel will be closed, the river will fl ow more naturally through the canyon and PCWA will be able to pump up to 35,500 acre-feet of water per year to customers in Placer County.

Table 1 (on page 10) shows the historic maximum amount of water diverted from the American River, using 1995 as the baseline; the amount of water that will be annually diverted by the year 2030, depend-ing on the type of water year and the diversion amounts in 2002 and 2003.

1


Table 1: Agreed Upon Surface Water Diversion Amounts and 2002 – 2003 Diversion AmountsTable 1: Agreed Upon Surface Water Diversion Amounts and 2002 – 2003 Diversion Amounts

Purveyor 1995 Base-

line

2030 Diver-

sion (wet/

ave years)

2030 Diver-

sion (drier

years)

2030 Diver-

sion (driest

years)

2002 Diversion

(actual)

2003 Diversion

(actual)

American River DiversionsFolsom 20,000 34,000 34,000–

22,000

20,000 21,351 23,404

Roseville 19,800 54,900 54,900–

39,800

39,800 29,852 29,967

San Juan

Consortium54,200 82,200 82,200-

54,200

54,200 69,727 69,037

Arden-Cordova

(Southern California

Water Company)

5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,765 7,027

Sacramento

Suburban North-

ridge Service Area

0 29,000 0 0 16,283 ~14,504

Sacramento

Suburban Arcade

Service Area

3,500 26,040 0 0 796 ~710

South County Ag 0 35,000 0 0 0 0

SMUD 15,000 30,000 30,000-

15,000

15,000 14,194 19,731 (in-

cludes 5,000

sold to Arden

Cordova)

Placer County

Water Agency8,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 22,846 22,866

Carmichael W D 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 8,507 9,308

City of Sacramento 50,000 310 cfs 90,000 50,000 61,809 ~60,463

Sacramento River DiversionsPlacer County

Water Agency0 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0

City of Sacramento 45,000 290 cfs 290 cfs 290 cfs 52,212 ~51,076

County of

Sacramento0 up to 78,000 up to 78,000 up to 78,000 4,355 4,763

Natomas Central

Mutual53,000 45,600 45,600 45,600 88,120 77,146 (direct

diversions

7,923 (dry

year transfer to

DWR)

~ indicates approximate amount~ indicates approximate amount

Actions to Meet Customers’ Needs While Reducing Diversion Impacts in Drier Years

To avoid impacts to the American River during dry water years, purveyors have To avoid impacts to the American River during dry water years, purveyors have agreed to reduce their surface water diversions and use alternative supplies, agreed to reduce their surface water diversions and use alternative supplies, such as groundwater, or increase conservation to meet their customers’ needs. such as groundwater, or increase conservation to meet their customers’ needs. Both 2002 and 2003 were average years. No actions were necessary to reduce Both 2002 and 2003 were average years. No actions were necessary to reduce diversions, nor was there any need for alternative supplies.

However everyone understands that dry years, reduced diversions and alterna-However everyone understands that dry years, reduced diversions and alterna-tive supplies are a future certainty. Between January 2002 and June 2004, pur-tive supplies are a future certainty. Between January 2002 and June 2004, pur-veyors worked to develop feasible alternatives to meet their customer’s needs in veyors worked to develop feasible alternatives to meet their customer’s needs in drier and driest years. Highlights include:

Regional Water Authority

The Regional Water Authority (RWA) is a joint powers authority that serves The Regional Water Authority (RWA) is a joint powers authority that serves and represents the interests of 21 water providers in the greater Sacramento, and represents the interests of 21 water providers in the greater Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado County region. Formed in 2001, the Authority’s primary Placer and El Dorado County region. Formed in 2001, the Authority’s primary mission is to help its members protect and enhance the reliability, availability, mission is to help its members protect and enhance the reliability, availability, affordability and quality of water resources.

RWA programs are designed to support and implement the objectives of the RWA programs are designed to support and implement the objectives of the Water Forum Agreement. These programs include:

• Implementation of the American River Basin Regional Conjunctive Use • Implementation of the American River Basin Regional Conjunctive Use Program, utilizing a $22 million grant from the California Department of Program, utilizing a $22 million grant from the California Department of Water Resources

• Developing and implementing a regional water master plan, and

• A water effi ciency program designed to help local purveyors implement best • A water effi ciency program designed to help local purveyors implement best management practices on a regional basis.

Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan Update

The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) is a major water supplier The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) is a major water supplier in the southern metropolitan area of Sacramento County, including the area in the southern metropolitan area of Sacramento County, including the area defi ned as Zone 40. In December 2002 the SCWA released the draft Zone 40 defi ned as Zone 40. In December 2002 the SCWA released the draft Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP), which is intended to provide a fl exible Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP), which is intended to provide a fl exible plan of water management alternatives to meet future water demands in the plan of water management alternatives to meet future water demands in the Zone 40 study area through the year 2030. It includes planning for use of the Zone 40 study area through the year 2030. It includes planning for use of the surface water and groundwater supported in the Water Forum Agreement and surface water and groundwater supported in the Water Forum Agreement and stays within the sustainable yield recommendation for the central basin. In stays within the sustainable yield recommendation for the central basin. In 2003 the SCWA released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2003 the SCWA released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the alternatives outlined in the WSMP. The fi nal EIR is expected in late 2004.alternatives outlined in the WSMP. The fi nal EIR is expected in late 2004.

2 Acre-foot: The amount of water required to cover an acre of land one foot deep (about the size of a football fi eld) or about 326,000 gallons.

Unimpaired Infl ow (or Full Natural Flow): The natural water pro-duction of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to or from other water-sheds.

Wet/Average Years: Years when the pro-jected unimpaired Folsom Reservoir infl ow from March through November is greater than 950,000 acre-feet.

Drier Years: Years when the projected unimpaired Folsom Reservoir infl ow from March through November is less than 950,000 acre-feet.

Driest Years: Sometimes referred to as “conference years,” when the pro-jected unimpaired Folsom Reservoir infl ow is less than 400,000 acre-feet March through Novem-ber. Diverters and others are required to meet and confer on how best to meet demands and protect the American River.



Also in 2003, the Water Forum initiated discussions with The Nature Conservancy and the County of Sacramento to improve their collective understanding of the rela-tionship between Cosumnes River fl ows and groundwater. It is hoped these discussions will provide a basis for agreement on protection of the Cosumnes River watershed and groundwater in south-central Sacramento County.

City of Sacramento Water Intake Facilities

In early 2004, the City of Sacramento completed a new water intake facility on the Sacramento River near the Jaboom Street Bridge. The City also completed additional treatment capacity and improvements to its existing water treatment facility at the Sacramento River Treatment Plant.

Work on the E.A. Fairbairn intake facility on the American River was completed in 2003. This doubled the facility in size. The capacity of the Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant is also being doubled in size and will be completed in early 2005.

These new and improved facilities will contribute to fl exibility in Sacramento’s water diversions. By switching to the Sacramento River during dry years, the City will re-duce its use of American River water.

Zone 40 Water Supply Near Term Study AreaZone 40 Water Supply Near Term Study Area


Freeport Regional Water Project

The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EB-MUD), in close coor-dination with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the City of Sacra-mento, are developing the Freeport Regional Water Project on the Sacramento River ap-proximately one mile north of the Town of Freeport and within the City of Sacramento. The project will provide surface water to SCWA’s Zone 40 to be used in conjunction with groundwater to help meet future water needs in the central Sacramento County area.

A project of this kind was anticipated by the Water Forum Agreement in order to carry out the Agreement’s groundwater management element, which calls for stabiliz-ing the groundwater basin and reversing declining groundwater levels through the importation of surface water to the central county area. Additionally, the project solves the contentious issue of EBMUD’s diversions from the American River, which was the subject of intense litigation beginning in the 1970s. Parties involved in the case agreed to a diversion from the Sacramento River in lieu of the American River.

In 2003 the Freeport Region Water Authority released its Draft Environmental Im-pact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for public review and com-ment. During this time Water Forum convened stakeholders to attend various edu-cational events at which issues and interests concerning the project were discussed. In addition, the entire WFSE membership was briefed several times throughout the process by County and Freeport Regional Water Authority staff at Water Forum ple-nary meetings.

With the release of the Final EIR/EIS, Water Forum stakeholders worked to provide comments in support of the project to the County Board of Supervisors, City Council and Freeport Regional Water Authority, while pointing out that a key tenant of the Water Forum Agreement is the recognition that site-specifi c impacts of any project should be mitigated. Water Forum stakeholders were organized to attend meetings to support the concept of the project and it appears their participating made a difference in the approval process. The project was certifi ed in April and May 2004. Completion of the project is expected in 2010.

1

2

3

1. Proposed Location for 1. Proposed Location for water intake pumping water intake pumping facility.

2. Proposed general loca-2. Proposed general loca-tion for future SCWA tion for future SCWA water treatement water treatement plant.

3. In some years, addi-3. In some years, addi-tional water would be tional water would be transported to Folsom transported to Folsom South Canal for EB-South Canal for EB-MUD customers.MUD customers.


he lower American River

(LAR) provides habitat to a

variety of fi sh, including a signifi cant

number of fall run Chinook salmon.

The river’s spawning population

accounts for nearly 25 percent of the

total spawning populations found in the

Central Valley and is nearly 2.5 times

as great as the total estimated escape-

ment of the San Joaquin River system.

According to the Department of Fish

and Game, the fi nal estimate for

in-river (does not include hatchery)

escapement (number of adult fi sh

returnng to the river to spawn) in

2002 was 118,114 fi sh. In-river

escapement of Chinook in 2003 was

158,516.

A fair number of steelhead is also

found in the lower American River. In

the early 1970s, the estimated steel-

head run size was 15,000 fi sh.

The estimated run size today is about

2,000 fi sh.

Trout, striped bass, American shad,

and Sacramento splittail also fi nd

habitat in the lower American River.

Improved Pattern of Fishery Flow Releases from Folsom Reservoir

To achieve the Water Forum’s coequal objective of preserving To achieve the Water Forum’s coequal objective of preserving the fi shery, wildlife, the fi shery, wildlife, recreational and recreational and aesthetic values of aesthetic values of the lower Ameri-the lower Ameri-can River, fl ow can River, fl ow releases and water releases and water temperatures from temperatures from Folsom Reservoir Folsom Reservoir must more closely must more closely match the needs of match the needs of anadromous fi sh, anadromous fi sh, particularly fall run particularly fall run Chinook salmon Chinook salmon and steelhead and steelhead trout. trout.

During 2002 and 2003, the Water Forum Successor Effort During 2002 and 2003, the Water Forum Successor Effort continued development of a Flow Management Standard and continued development of a Flow Management Standard and in late 2003 released a Draft Policy Document. The document in late 2003 released a Draft Policy Document. The document describes the recommended fl ows and water temperatures, river describes the recommended fl ows and water temperatures, river management and monitoring and evaluation of the program. management and monitoring and evaluation of the program.

Although the development of the Draft Policy Document had Although the development of the Draft Policy Document had been delayed for several years, the additional time allowed for been delayed for several years, the additional time allowed for better biological justifi cation and a more comprehensive fl ow better biological justifi cation and a more comprehensive fl ow standard. Most signifi cantly, modeling conducted to create the standard. Most signifi cantly, modeling conducted to create the Draft Policy Document shows that the proposed fl ow standard Draft Policy Document shows that the proposed fl ow standard would have no signifi cant water supply impacts to federal or would have no signifi cant water supply impacts to federal or state water contractors.state water contractors.

The Bureau of Reclamation has acknowledged that it will ask The Bureau of Reclamation has acknowledged that it will ask the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to modify the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to modify its operating permit to accommodate a new fl ow standard. its operating permit to accommodate a new fl ow standard. The Water Forum Successor Effort will continue to work with The Water Forum Successor Effort will continue to work with Reclamation and the State and federal resource agencies to Reclamation and the State and federal resource agencies to incorporate a fl ow standard into Reclamation’s river manage-incorporate a fl ow standard into Reclamation’s river manage-ment operations by fall of 2005. Subsequently, the Bureau of ment operations by fall of 2005. Subsequently, the Bureau of Redamation will fi le for petition with the SWRCB in the fall Redamation will fi le for petition with the SWRCB in the fall of 2005 requesting an amendment to its water rights on the of 2005 requesting an amendment to its water rights on the American River to incorporate the agreed upon fl ow standard. American River to incorporate the agreed upon fl ow standard.

T 3


4 Lower American River Habitat Management Element

The Habitat Management Element (HME) for the lower American Riv-er, combined with other elements of the Water Forum Agreement, is in-tended to fulfi ll one of the Water Forum’s two coequal objectives: “Preserve the fi shery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River.”

The HME also is necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act’s requirement to avoid or lessen, to the extent reasonable and feasible, all signifi cant impacts to the LAR resulting from future increased surface water diver-sions identifi ed in the Water Fo-rum Agreement. It contains fi ve programmatic components that together address fl ow, temperature, physical habitat, and recreation issues for the lower American River:

1. Habitat Management Plan2. Habitat Projects that Benefi t the Lower American River Ecosystem3. Monitoring and Evaluation4. Project Specifi c Mitigation5. Lower American River Recreation

The Habitat Management Element will be implemented through two major plans, the FISH Plan (Fisheries and In-Stream Habitat) and the Recreation Plan, which have both been incorporated into the River Corridor Management Plan (RCMP). The RCMP is a coordinated approach to management of the lower American River that was developed through a voluntary consensus-based process involving 21 governmen-tal agencies, 17 non-governmental stakeholders and three partnerships, including the Water Forum.

HME Funding

The City of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) are the primary funding agencies for the Habitat Management Element; however, the HME receives contributions from other agencies, including the San Juan Water District, the City of Roseville and Southern California Water Company.

Folsom

Nimbus Dam

Folsom Dam

Folsom Reservoir

SacramentoSacramento

Howe

Ave.

Freeway

Folsom Blvd.

Hazel Ave.

Sunrise Blvd.

Fair Oaks Blvd.

99

160

5

50

50

Sacramento

River

LakeNat

om

a

American

River

Capitol City

Folsom

Nimbus Dam

Folsom Dam

Folsom Reservoir

SacramentoSacramento

Howe

Ave.

Freeway

Folsom Blvd.

Hazel Ave.

Sunrise Blvd.

Fair Oaks Blvd.

99

160

5

50

50

Sacramento

River

LakeNat

om

a

American

River

Capitol City


HME Reporting Period Accomplishments

• Completion of draft fl ow management standard (FMS) for the lower Ameri-can River and public distribution of related policy document

• Workshop for resource agencies on components of FMS

• Participation in and sponsorship of fi rst American River Science Confer-ence

• Sponsorship of American River Park-way Foundation efforts to improve LAR Parkway

• Design and implementation of water temperature monitoring plan for the LAR

• Sponsorship of a LAR fl ow fl uctuation workshop

• Sponsorship of workshop to develop monitoring element of proposed FMS

Salmon Survey

Monitoring and evaluation of fi sh populations is an essential component of the Initial Fisher-ies and In-Stream Habitat Management Element and Restoration (FISH) Plan for the lower American River, which is the implementation vehicle for the Habitat Management Element of the Water Forum Agreement.

In July 2003, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) approached the Water Forum for help in the performance of a lower American River fall-run salmon escapement survey. In the spring of 2000, DFG tagged juvenile fall run Chinook salmon that had been raised at the Nimbus Hatchery and other hatcheries throughout the Sacramento Valley. The fi sh were expected to return as adults in the fall of 2003. Due to budget cuts at the state level, DFG did not have the funds required to perform the required survey of these returning adults and asked the Water Forum and other agencies, including the Department of Water Resourc-es and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, to step in.

As a result, the Water Forum hired two seasonal aids to work as part of a team assigned to the lower American River to collect coded wire tags from fi sh and conduct a survey estimate. The aids worked from October through December. Funding for the project was through the Habitat Management Element Fund in the amount of $10,000.


• Research on potential automation of the power penstock intake shutter system at Folsom Dam

• Funding partner for LAR salmon survey

• Grant received and work began on temperature reduction modeling project

• Monitoring of LAR spawning gravel restoration sites

• $35,000 annual support toward update process for the American River Parkway Plan

• Partnered with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to fund a steelhead oversummering assessment in the lower American River.

Lower American River Temperature Reduction Modeling Project

It is believed that high water temperatures in spawning and rearing habitat impact Fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead production in the lower American River (LAR) during critical stages of the species’ freshwater residency. As a result, managing the temperature of water fl owing into the LAR from Folsom Reservoir, through Lake Natoma, and through Nimbus Dam has become a critical component to restoring healthy anadromous salmonid populations. Having to offset the warming of the Folsom releases as they fl ow through Lake Natoma is a major contributor to the depletion of cold-water storage in Folsom Reservoir.

The following operational and structural actions have been identifi ed as likely to reduce tem-peratures in the LAR:

• Install a temperature control curtain immediately upstream of Nimbus Dam,• Install a temperature control curtain at Lake Natoma’s plunge point,• Remove the debris wall in front of Nimbus Dam powerhouse,• Modify the channel in Lake Natoma, and• Modify Folsom Power Plant’s peak loading operation.

In 2002 Water Forum stakeholders submitted a grant proposal to the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program to develop the computer modeling predictive tools necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these identifi ed actions. The $466,000 proposal was accepted and is be-ing funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Water Forum has contracted with the U.S Bureau of Reclamation to develop the model-ing tools and perform the work necessary throughout the three-year project. The resulting information will be used to assess the effectiveness of the identifi ed actions individually and in combination in order to support a recommendation as to the development and implementation of one or more of the actions for the purpose of reducing water temperatures in the LAR.


Water Conservation

The Water Conservation Element of the Agreement helps meet the region’s water supply needs by minimizing the need for increased groundwater pumping and increased use of surface water, including diver-sions from the American River. Each water supplier in the region commit-ted to implementing a comprehen-sive water conservation plan, which is to be fully implemented in 2004, and to preparing annual reports to chronicle their progress.

The Water Conservation Negotiation Team (WCNT) participates in the annual report process by reviewing purveyors’ progress toward BMP implementation and directing staff in methods to assist purveyors with implementation if needed. The WCNT consists of members from each caucus. In addition the WCNT provides a forum in which all interests can discuss issues relating to implementation of the water conservation plans.

Following the second year of implementation, which was 2002, the water conserva-tion report stated that about 40 percent of the agencies would most likely have dif-fi culty meeting their Year-Four objectives without considerable effort going toward an increase in programs. The report noted that six of the 15 agencies would need to step up conservation efforts in order to meet their goals while the remaining nine appeared to be on track for full implementation by 2004.

Following this report, Successor Effort staff committed to work with all agencies to help them meet their water conservation obligations. To that end, in 2003 staff met with conservation staff and management of those six agencies identifi ed as unlikely to meet their goals. In addition, Water Forum staff continued to work with the Regional Water Authority to assist RWA in designing its programs that would most help Water Forum signatories achieve their water conservation goals. These meetings revealed that most agencies would probably show signifi cant progress in 2003.

In January 2004, water purveyor signatories were asked to complete reports for 2003. Analysis of these reports shows progress has been made toward BMP implementation. Of signifi cant note was progress made on BMPs 5 (Large Landscape Audits) and 9 (Commercial and Industrial (CI) Water Conservation). Water purveyors performed 128 large landscape water audits in 2003, compared to only 24 the fi rst year of imple-mentation. The Regional Water Authority’s “Rinse and Save” program contributed to Water Forum water purveyors completing 328 CI water audits, which was over seven

5


Best Management Practices

Each purveyor negotiated a water conservation plan consisting of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implementation criteria. These BMPs were adapted from the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Statewide Memorandum of Un-derstanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices(1994). While some purveyors accepted the standard recommended BMP implementa-tion criteria, others chose to negotiate “functionally equivalent” criteria that better met the needs and conditions in their service area. (For the full water conservation plans, see Appendix J of the Water Forum Agreement.)

Water Forum Best Management Practices At A Glance

BMP Title1 Interior and Exterior Water Audits and Incentive Programs for Single Family

Residential, Multi-Family Residential, and Institutional Customers

2 Plumbing Retrofi t of Existing Residential Accounts

3 Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair

4 Non-Residential Meter Retrofi t

4 Residential Meter Retrofi t

5 Large Landscape Water Audits and Incentives for Commercial, Industrial,

Institutional (CII), and Irrigation Accounts

6 Landscape Water Conservation Requirements for New and Existing

Commercial, Industrial, Institutional and Multi-Family Developments

7 Public Information

8 School Education

9 Commercial and Industrial (CII) Water Conservation

11 Conservation Pricing for Metered Accounts

12 Landscape Water Conservation for New/Existing Single Family Homes

13 Water Waste Prohibition

14 Water Conservation Coordinator

16 Ultra-Low Flush Toilet Replacement Program for Non-Residential Customers

-- Citizens Involvement Program


Groundwater

Each groundwater sub-basin in Sacramento County has unique charac-teristics and circumstances, requiring a management plan or process appropriate to the sub-basin’s needs and conditions. A key provision of the Agreement is recommendations of sustainable yield - the amount of water that can be safely pumped from the basin over a long pe-riod time without damaging the aquifer. Estimated average annual sustainable yield recommendations for each of the three sub-areas of the Sacramento County groundwater basin are:

• North Area — 131,000 acre-feet • Central Area — 273,0000 acre feet • Galt Area — 115,000 acre-feet

The north area is bounded by the Sacra-mento River on the west, the American River on the south, Folsom Reservoir on the east and the northern Sacramento County line on the north. The central area is bounded by the Sacramento River on the west, the southern bound-ary of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District and the southern Sacramento County line to the south, the American River to the north, and the foothills to the east. The south (Galt) area is bounded by the boundary of the Galt Irrigation District and Highway 99 on the west, the southern Sacramento County line on the south, the foothills on the east, and the southern bound-ary of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District to the north.

times as many audits in that category (BMP 9) as reported times as many audits in that category (BMP 9) as reported in 2002. Additionally, implementation of BMP 2 (Plumbing in 2002. Additionally, implementation of BMP 2 (Plumbing Retrofi ts) is ahead; with purveyors collectively distributing Retrofi ts) is ahead; with purveyors collectively distributing almost 11,000 retrofi t kits in 2003. almost 11,000 retrofi t kits in 2003.

Implementation of other BMPs remains problematic. For Implementation of other BMPs remains problematic. For example, BMP 16 (Non-residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet example, BMP 16 (Non-residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacements) continues to present challenges in implemen-Replacements) continues to present challenges in implemen-tation with only 110 non-residential toilets distributed by tation with only 110 non-residential toilets distributed by Water Forum purveyors in 2003.Water Forum purveyors in 2003.

Looking Forward — Progress is being made toward imple-Looking Forward — Progress is being made toward imple-mentation of BMPs 6 and 12, which both have to do with mentation of BMPs 6 and 12, which both have to do with landscape water conservation. Until 2004 full implemen-landscape water conservation. Until 2004 full implemen-tation of these BMPs could not be achieved because the tation of these BMPs could not be achieved because the regional landscape task force called for in each BMP did not regional landscape task force called for in each BMP did not exist. The Water Forum has convened this task force, the exist. The Water Forum has convened this task force, the purpose of which is to review water effi cient landscape ordi-purpose of which is to review water effi cient landscape ordi-nances and their implementation throughout the region. The nances and their implementation throughout the region. The task force will meet through 2004. The goal of the task force task force will meet through 2004. The goal of the task force is to identify what, if any, obstacles exist in implementation is to identify what, if any, obstacles exist in implementation of these ordinances and to recommend solutions to achieve of these ordinances and to recommend solutions to achieve implementation.implementation.

In addition, in 2004 Water Forum Successor Effort staff has In addition, in 2004 Water Forum Successor Effort staff has begun the process of updating water conservation plans with begun the process of updating water conservation plans with each water purveyor, as called for in the Water Forum Agree-each water purveyor, as called for in the Water Forum Agree-ment. The goal of the update process is to help purveyors ment. The goal of the update process is to help purveyors design conservation programs that are more suitable to their design conservation programs that are more suitable to their needs, based on their experiences during the ramp-up period, needs, based on their experiences during the ramp-up period, while continuing to achieve the conservation goals originally while continuing to achieve the conservation goals originally established in the Water Forum Agreement.established in the Water Forum Agreement.

Groundwater ManagementGroundwater Management

Over half of the water used in the Sacramento region comes Over half of the water used in the Sacramento region comes from groundwater supplies. Overpumping in some areas has from groundwater supplies. Overpumping in some areas has lowered the water table as much as 90 feet, and some wells lowered the water table as much as 90 feet, and some wells have been closed because of contamination. The Water Fo-have been closed because of contamination. The Water Fo-rum Agreement calls for a groundwater management plan to rum Agreement calls for a groundwater management plan to protect this valuable resource. The groundwater management protect this valuable resource. The groundwater management element includes monitoring the amount of water withdrawn element includes monitoring the amount of water withdrawn from the groundwater basin and the planned use of surface from the groundwater basin and the planned use of surface water in conjunction with groundwater. Three sub-basins water in conjunction with groundwater. Three sub-basins characterize the groundwater basin — each with unique char-characterize the groundwater basin — each with unique char-

6


acteristics and circumstances, requiring a management plan or process appropriate to the sub-basin’s needs and conditions. Between January 2002 and June 2004, highlights for each sub-basin include the following:

North Area

To ensure sustainable yield and protect the basin in the North Area, stakeholders formed the Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA) in August 1998 using the existing authority of the cities of Sacramento, Folsom, and Citrus Heights, and the County of Sacramento through adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement. SGA describes its mission as “managing groundwater resources in northern Sacramento County.” In fulfi llment of the Water Forum Agreement, SGA developed a Groundwater Manage-ment Plan for the management of the northern Sacramento County groundwater basin. SGA adopted its Groundwater Management Plan on December 11, 2003.

The plan establishes a goal, management objectives, and the primary components needed to manage the basin. These components include:

• Stakeholder Involvement • Monitoring Program• Groundwater Resource Protection• Groundwater Replenishment• Planning Integration

Central Area

The Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum (CSCGF) began February 26, 2002. Thirty representatives from six interest groups are participating in the negotia-tions. The group is employing the same principles of interest-based negotiation used to develop the Water Forum Agreement, in a public process designed to involve all community interests. The goal of these discussions is to reach agreement on satisfac-tory groundwater management arrangements in the central area as soon as feasible.

The CSCGF completed an eight-month Education Phase in October 2002. Negotia-tions for groundwater management began in November 2002. Agreements-in-Prin-ciple were developed in 2003, and the “Early Review and Authorization to Proceed” (ERAP) document was released in early 2004.

The Agreements-in-Principle are general understandings among CSCGF members that serve to document the progress made in the negotiation. They provide a starting point to discuss more specifi c solutions. The draft agreements focus on work to date in the following categories:

• Groundwater Contamination• Groundwater Management• Cost Sharing• Governance


The Agreements-in-Principle and release of the ERAP signify milestones for the CSCGF. During this phase extensive outreach to the general public has taken place in the form of editorial board briefi ngs with local newspapers and speaking engagements to community groups in addition to briefi ngs of various elected offi cials. Stakeholders and the general public have been encouraged to provide feedback on the Agreements-in-Principle and are asked to provide stakeholder representatives with authorization to proceed in negotiations. The CSCGF has asked for this action by mid-2004 so that Forum participants can proceed with developing a draft solution.

South (Galt) Area

The Southeast Sacramento County Agricultural Water Authority (SS-CAWA) is comprised of the Clay Water District, Galt Irrigation Dis-trict and the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District. These three districts formed a Joint Powers Agreement in 1997 and developed a coordi-nated groundwater management plan for the South (Galt) Area. In June 2002, the districts modifi ed their organization to a Joint Pow-ers Authority and adopted a new Groundwater Management Plan in December 2002. The SSCAWA is responsible for administer-ing and managing a “restoration study” on the Lower Cosumnes and Mokelumne river basins including groundwater recharge. The study is funded through the California Bay Delta Authority, formerly known as the CALFED Bay Delta Program.

Water Forum Successor Effort

The Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE) is charged with implementing the Water Forum Agreement. The most important job of the WFSE members and their represen-tatives is to address challenges that arise as a result of new information and changed policy or regulatory conditions. This ongoing process is the hallmark of the Water Forum process and agreement — it allows immediate focus on new issues and provides the WFSE the fl exibility to realign and the ability to sustain trust and momentum.

7


Momentum

When the WFSE began following adoption of the Water Forum Agreement, several member organizations appointed new representatives. To ensure a smooth transition for new representa-tives, the Water Forum staff hosted an orienta-tion in late 2002 that provided background information on substantive issues as well as training in interest-based bargaining. The WFSE meets six times a year as a plenary, and as need-ed for various caucus or sidebar conversations. This venue gives stakeholders the opportunity to monitor and respond to issues affecting their interest groups. Most importantly, the momen-tum, commitment and dedication exhibited throughout development of the Water Forum Agreement continue unaltered in the WFSE.

Outreach

The WFSE continues to be committed to commu-nity outreach as a means for maintaining awareness about our regional water issues and how the Water Forum Agreement is help-ing achieve the two coequal objectives. Water Forum staff participated in a num-ber of activities to further that objective, including representation at the annual Creek Week and Salmon Festival events, as well as

numerous papers and speeches to various local, state and federal organizations. In addition, Water Forum staff cultivates strong relationships with media representatives in order to facilitate communication between Water Forum signatories and various media outlets. Between January 2003 and June 2004, some of the outreach activities staff participated in included:

• California Water Resources, Science & Policy Class, University of California, Davis• Preserving California’s Rivers Conference (2003 & 2004), University of California,


Davis Extension• Lower American River Science Conference, California State University, Sacra-

mento• California Bay Delta Authority Environmental Water Account Science Program• Save the American River Association• Regional Water Authority• Water Education Foundation• American Fisheries Society• California Water Plan Update, California Department of Water Resources• Comstock’s Magazine• Auburn Dam Council• Environmental Scientists Workshop, California Department of Water Resources• Association of California Water Agencies• Galt Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee• City of Galt• Placer County Water Agency


EIR Compliance — The Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program

The County of Sacramento is the agency responsible for the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Water Forum Agreement. The purpose of the program is to assure diligent and good faith compliance with the mitigation measures that were recommended in the Water Forum Agree-ment’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted as part of the project to avoid or mitigate potentially signifi cant effects on the environment.

The Water Forum Annual Report provides information to stakeholders on progress meeting the Water Forum’s objectives and obligations. It also serves as the medium that documents progress towards achieving compliance with the EIR for the Water Forum Agreement in the MMRP.

Consequently, the Annual Report describes progress on each of the Water Forum’s seven elements and other activities from the time the Agreement was signed through December 2001. In addition, the following summary information is provided for Mitigating Features of the Agreement — Section 4.0 in the MMRP.

• Section 4.1 — Progress on implementation of the coequal objectives of the Water Forum Agreement: This report details progress on each of the Agreement’s seven ele-ments.

• Section 4.2 — Actions to meet customer’s needs while reducing diversion amounts in drier years: Updated reports on water conditions and diversion amounts were not necessary in 2002 and 2003 as these years were above the drier and driest year reductions criteria outlined in the Water Forum Agreement.

• Section 4.3 — Improved pattern of fi shery fl ow releases and state of the river report: During the past year, the Water Forum has engaged consultants with expertise in water resources and water law to assist in the development of a new fl ow standard for the lower American River resulting in an improved pattern


of fi shery fl ow releases. A draft standard consisting of minimum pre-scriptive fl ows, numerical and narrative ob-jectives, a river management element, and monitoring, reporting and compliance features was developed and released for public review in January 2004. Negotiations and coor-dination with the state and federal resource agencies are ongoing and will continue through the process of development.

• The State of the Lower American River report is currently being developed. A fi nal report, available for public distribution will be completed in 2004.

• Section 4.4 — Lower American River Habitat Management Element: The Habitat Management Element (HME) is necessary to comply with the California Environ-mental Quality Act’s requirement to avoid or lessen, to the extent reasonable and feasible, all signifi cant impacts to the LAR resulting from future increased surface water diversions identifi ed in the Water Forum Agreement. It contains fi ve pro-grammatic components that together address fl ow, temperature, physical habitat, and recreation issues for the lower American River. The annual report documents progress on this element of the WFA on pages 15-17, including major accomplish-ments between January 2002 and June 2004.

• Section 4.5 and 5.1 — Water conservation and status of Best Management Practice implementation: Water Forum staff and consultants develop a water conservation report each year. The report describes implementation of water conservation activities by water purveyors, consistent with terms in their Water Forum Agreement. Full implementation of water conservation plans is due in 2004. In cases where it appears purveyors are not likely to achieve implemen-tation goals, the Water Forum is working with them to achieve full implementation. The Water Forum Agreement calls for updates to the conservation plans every fi ve years. This process will begin in July 2004


with anticipated completion in early 2005.

• Section 4.6 — Groundwater management element: The Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum was initiated in 2002 to carry out a portion of the Wa-ter Forum’s mission to develop mutually agreed upon recommendations intended to protect the health and viability of the central Sacramento County groundwater basin for both current users and future generations. The CSCGF completed its education phase in 2003 and draft Agreements in Principle in early 2004. Outreach to interest group constituencies is also taking place in 2004.

• The goal of the CSCGF is to include an appropriate governance structure and plan to meet the unique conditions in the central Sacramento County area.

• Section 5.2 — Funding of Folsom Reservoir improvements: The Placer County Wa-ter Agency will receive approximately $10 million through a combination of state and federal appropriations to reconstruct the American River near Auburn to allow the return of safe recreation purposes on the North Fork of the American River downstream of the Highway 49 Bridge as part of the PCWA American River Pump Station Project. The project will also include land side recreation improvements to trails and vehicle access and parking improvements, including a $500,000 contribu-tion from PCWA towards the construction of a new pedestrian bridge. The project will remove some of the impacts that occurred as a result of construction work on the now-suspended Auburn Dam that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The improvements to recreation trails, parking lots, and river access points in the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area will meet obligations agreed to in the Water Forum Agreement.

Water Forum660 J Street, Suite 260Sacramento CA 95814916-264-1999 Phone

916-264-5286 Faxwaterforum.org

September 2004

water forum reportwater forum report

Documents