Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcentral valley floodSTATE OF CALIFORNIA -CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GQVERNOR CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD 3310 EI Camino Ave., Rm. 151 SACRAMENTO, CA 95821 {996)574-0609 FAX: (916)574-0882 PERMITS: {996) 574-0685 FAX: {916) 574-0682 January 18, 2011 Mr. Bill Connelly, Chair Butte County Board of Supervisors Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 ~44fiD ~s~~~s~ RS JAN 1 d 2Q11 ~R~~~~. Cq~tIFpRNI A SUBJECT: Response to Protest Letter for Permit Application No. '1857fi, Singh Unit Res#oration Proiect, Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park Dear Mr. Connelly: Thank you for your March 19, 2010 letter indicating the Sacramento River Reclamation District is in opposition to the above mentioned project. Attached for your review is the Addendum to the Final Environmental Im act Re ort for the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park Habitat Restoration and Outdoor Facilities Develo ment. Within this Addendum, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has addressed your concerns noted in your protest fetter. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) requests that any comments you may have regarding DPR's responses #o your protest concerns be submitted to the Board by February 1, 2011. Should you have any questions regarding the Addendum or #his letter, please call Jon Tice at (916) 574-2380, or you may contact him via a-mail at 'tire water.ca. ov. Sincerely, Mitra Emami, P.E. Senior Engineer Attachment: cc sww Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bidwell Sacramento River State Park Habitat Restoration and Outdoor Facilities Development .: " -- f-, 4 .i ~-AavENOUnn to the Final Environmental Impact Report: - . Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park Habitat Restoration and Outdoor Recreation Facilities Development Prepared for the Central Valley Ffood Protection Bvard Evidentiary Hea:r,ng`on the ~Encroachme,nt Permit; Application for Riparian Habitat Restoration on the Singh Unit of the Bidvvefl-Sacramento' R~~er~$tate`P~arfc a . ~ J n:ua ry 2011 .. .. .. .. .. .k w Table of Contents P~ Introduction - . ~. 3 1. Hydraulic Analysis of-the Singh Unit Restoration 5 . 2. Supplemental Sedimentation Analysis of the Singh Unit Restoration 6 3. Encroachment Permit Application Comment Letters and References to 6 ---~--the~Firtal EIR -_ .- _-.~.. .---...-~---..---.. ;, 4. Revised Restoration Planting Plan Eliminating Rose and Blackberry, 11 December 9, 2010 5, Maintenance,and._Monitoring I?la;n for: the Singh, Orchard Restoration. 12 F'indir~gs Related tb CEC~ Guidelines Section 15162 6. Findings Related to CEC,tA Guidelines Section 1,5562 12 Attachments ~ . A. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan for the Singh Restoration, 14 December 2010 B, Letters Responding to the Notice of the Encroachment Permit 23 Application from the Central'Valley Flood Protection Board C. Hydraulic Analysis far Flood Neutrality on the Nicolaus and Singh 4 d Properties, Sacramento River, Mud Creek, and Big Chico Creek, May 30, 2008, Prepared for The Nature Conservancy by Ayers Associates D. Sedimentation Analysis - Supplemental documentation ~..g E, Summary of Outreach Activities ~s- F. Revised Planting Plan 7a z. Introduction The California Department of Parks -and ,Recreation {State ~ Parks): with: planning assistance from The Nature Conservancy {TNC} proposes to implement the restoration of~the Singh'Unit a #3-acre~arcel includ'ed'iri the Bidweli=Sacramento Rive~~5tate Park. The' Firtaf EiiVironmental°lmpact Repprt far"the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park Habitat Restoration and Outdoor Recreat'iion 'Facilities Developmerifi' Project {SCH#2007082160] dated September 17, 2008 included the development of recreation . facilities and restoration of riparian~habitat on two properties, the Nicolas.praperty, the Singh Unit. California State Parks owns the Singh unit and the Nicolas property is owned _~~,_~.~._:_..~^. b~r._TNC_and~will.be.~ransf~rred..to,-State Parks as~art_of the_pro~osed_pra~ect Dior to, . habitat,restoration activities:and recreation facilities development, on:that property. The restoratian .of the ,Nicolas, property is not included with.,,- the encroachment Permit request since restoration and development of the property is delayed until the expiration of a Wlliiamson Act contract in 2418. ,. , .. The. restored-;Singh- property, is;:planned. toprovide both _environmental and public ;: outdov:r_ recreatonal:opportunities. The parcel will, be restored .with native, habitat {see attached Revised Planting Plan and will include unpaved, interpretive trails. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared following well-attended public information ancl, scoping.rneeting.:The Central:Valley Florid .Protection Board {CVFPB}.was identified ' as a Responsible' Agency ,and was_ included ~n...ti~e distriiaution .and review of the Draft EiR. The DrafC .FIR was, released for puhhc.rev'tew and filed with the,5tate Clearinghouse on January 31, 2008. The public review process included multiple meetings with •• surrounding landowr~.ers and; local agencies.and a puhli,c hearing: iri,,Ghico on February• 19,:2008„ Thirteen written-commer±ts:were .received to the. Draft ;Flit and addressed in .: . . •_ ; the,Final El#i:: As a result:of the,public input that :was received,, substantial .changes were made to the project design that was incorporated.into~the Final FIR..; The Notice of Determination was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 16, 2008. In late 2009, funding was secured for the restoration construction of the Singh property. In July 2009, an application was filed for an encroachment permit {#18576 BD) and notices were sent to surrounding property owners by CVFPB staff in March 2010. Seven letters were received in response to that notice. These letters largely restated concerns that had previously been raised during the public review process and that had been addressed in the Final FIR. Subsequent discussions with Central Valley Flood Protection Board staff led to the agreement that an Addendum to the Final FIR, as specified in CI:Clq Guidelines Section 1516- is the appropriate method to summarize the concerns expressed in these letters and to demonstrate how the concerns are addressed in the Final EiR. Accordingly, this Addendum was prepared by State Parks to provide clear documentation to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act had been met for the proposed encroachment permit. As noted in the Final EIR, the restoration required an encroachment permit from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. ~ • Gaiifornia State CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 provides specific guidance,regarding:the use of an Addendum. to an Environmental. Impact Report that., has been previously certified by the Lead Agency. That;guidance is provided,below. x.5164. Addendum`to.an EIR or Ne ative Declaration: ~-, . . ,, .; _ . _. _~.~{~)~be_~~ad~ag~n~y~..~r~e~psir~sil~l~ag~.~.y~sha~pre~taur~:.:.an~dd~cium._~~ a ----.-- previouslycertlfied EIR if ~sorne changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions descrifoecl in Section' 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent E1R Fia~e occurred. (b) An addendum to an adapted negative declaration maybe prepared if only minor technical-changes or additions are necessary or none `of the conditions described in • Section ~.5T62 calling for the preparation of a ~subsequenti Ella or negative declaration have occurred. .. ~c) An addendum need not be`circulated`for public`review but can be included in or attached to the final iMIR or adopted negative declaration. ~d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final ~[R ar ,., adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e} A f}rief`ex~lanat'ion of the decision not to prepare a'subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 151&2 should `i;e included in 'an° addendum to an EIR; the' lead agency's ' findings on -the project, 'or elsewhere in the' record. The explanation • must be supported liy substantial evidence. 4 .. 1 Hydraulic Analysis of the Singh :Unit Restoration . , ~; A complete l~ydraulicanalysis,was prepared for. the Singh. Unit restoration as, part of the . Final EIR. :Ayres .Associates .with Tam,: Smith as the :protect, manager prepared the . analysis;.: titled Wydraulic. Analysis for .flood Neutrality,;on the Nicholaus ,and Singh Properties -Sacramento River, Mud Creek and .Big Chico. Creek:- May 30, :2008. The hydraulic analysis is included. In its .entirety inAppendix C. The Hydraulic:Analysis uses a ~-dimensional hydraulic model that was developed by Ayres Associates for the area surrounding the Nicotaus and: Sing restoration areas.: ;Ayres was chosen. for the.work because they had the most extensive experience modeling the Sacramento River _ __ including significant work for the Army_Corps of Engineers and the Department of Water __ ~' Resources as part,~of the:nearby,Hami~ton City setback 1e~ee project ~..~ Qs requested, by;Butte Couhty`and„others the`original Hydraulic Analysis~was'expanded to consider the `impacts of the proposed. habitat restoration on flows from Mud Creek and sig Chico Creek as~well as tte`Sacramento River in the`Final EIR. .The model was ~calibrated~with the best'a~ailable`fload flow inforr~ation,arid evaluated 'the proposed vegetation communities at their full growth, consistent "with ~ remnant `riparian vegetation in the.. area. The hydraulic analysis report provides ~ complete information . related. to any changes in the r-elocity'and depth of.flood'#Iows. The hydraulic analysis was. included,in the Firtal EIR and shared with Butte County and other interested local landowners and policy decision makers.. The hydraulic analysis determined that the proposed restoration would not have a negative ;impact on.;the, flood control system anal, the, surrounding properties. The specific conclusions of the analysis.related, to the Singh. Unit are as follows: • -The. meadow flow-through , in the Singh ~ property : causes a 2.0 ft/s increase, however ,given the low existing ,conditions velocities- (Z.0 ftJs} and planned ~, _ vegetation, a resuttnn#,velocity,of 3.0 ft/s will not create any harmful effects at this location. _ •. ,The :hydraulic. madeLshows. very little change in water surface elevation. There are na increases in water: surface as a result of this restoration. in summary, the hydraulic analyses demonstrated:that the,filow-through meadow area would provide capacity to accept flood flows that compensates for the increase in .roughness: resulting from the full growth, of :the riparian, forest.:. As a result it was determined that the Singh :Unit restoration will: not increase flood flow levels or cause changes , in. flood :flow velocity .that result In :;erosion or ;deposition impacts on surrounuing;properties.. ,The Hydraulic Analysis. is provided in Attachment A 5 2. Supplemental Sedimentation Analysis of the Singh Unit Restoration - The hydraulic analysis contained- in the Final EIR arzd included as Appendix C of this Addendum documents that the restoration will not reduce the €low rate or the velocity of flood flows and therefore 'increased sedimentation will not occur: Tom Smith of RiverSmith Engineering prepared °expanded technical interpretation of the Hydraulic Analysis results related to sedimentation. Mr. Smith was the project manager for the Hydraulic Analysis while with Ayres Associates. This analysis is provided in Appendix ©. ` 3. Encroachment-Permit Application Comment Letters and References to the - Final EIR --- -------an-response-to-r~otiEes~of-floe-~encroachmed~per-mit-application-for~he-5ii~gh-LJpit-habitat ------- restoration that were sent by the Central Valley Flood `Protection Board to area .landowners and agencies the CVFPB received seven letters. protesting the proposed habitat: restoration... These letters are provided in their entirety as Attachment A. The . letters. raised. concerns. that .had previously, been, addressed.., This section of the Addendum identifies the. potential impacts of the proposed restoration that.are raised • in each letter-and indicates haw these cor}terns are addressedin the Final EIR. - a.. Letter from Laura E. Mendonca Revocable-Trust dateci March 17,2010 ' • Removal of the exist€n berms is a ositive action. Author's. note:- there are two ioerrns located on the Singh parcel. the East Bean is paral.fel to River Road and is at average 11' feet high. The Southwest Berm is much smaller and averages 3' feet in height. • - ' ~ removal of the berms rivas discussed in the Draft EIR and was fully addressed in the f=inal EIR. Removal of the berms was incar~orated in the hydraulic analysis in the Final EIR and considered ~as part of that analysis. The removal of the berms `fs noted in Section 3.4.2 and Exhibit 3.7 of the -Final EIR-and in the response to Draft Irlii comments. It is noted that the berm on the east side of the site along Mud Creek was not included in the Army Corps of Engineers plan for flood protection along -Mud Creek at the request' of local landowners and the Reclamation Board: The berm to be removed from the Singh Unit is the"refore an unperrnitted structure on the floodplain. Inputs received during the public meeting process from local landowners also supported the removal of the berms. • ' Restoration will slow'and redirect the flow of floodwater cousin erosion This ~cancern was raised during `the review of-the Draft EIR and 'was fully addressed in the Final EIR. The hydraulic analysis and discussion in section 4:3.3 of the Final EIR documents that the restoration of the Singh'Unit will not result in slowing or redirecting the flow of floodwaters. Common Response 6 to Draft EfR comments throughout the FEIR also addresses this concern in detail citing information from the hydraulic analysis. 6 . •, Restoration of the Peterson Unit cited as an exama[e of potential problems This concern wa_s addressed during the..Draft,ElR review although it relates. - to an area that is not a part of the,proposed .restoration or the proposed encroachment permit. A portion of the Peterson Unit, which ties to the - : south of ahe Singh Unit, .was .restored to riparian.:habitat in 2005-06. Neighboririg.,landowners~ indicated that, they"feel ~~at vegetation on that .• . . V property~lirnts the flow of #loodwaters:''A site analysis indicates, however, that:th.e vegetation that may, limit the flow is .remnant riparian vegetation ...and was not part ofthe restoration,on~the Peterson..Unit. Nonetheless, the California.State Parks initiated a project in December of 2010 to remove ~ 3 __~_._ natural vegetation in the subject ,area-anc~`ricrease-the a-bility of tl3e area to carry flood flows, ; ... .. It is-also important to note that,,unlike the„remnant riparian vegetation on :,. the Peterson knit,. the restoration pf the.Si.ngh Unit.witl include a grassland .. J flow-t~rou,gh:.corridpr along the existing swaie that:;:crosses the property. , State„Parks ,will.;annuaily maintain this corridor~as,an open flow-through . , _ area. ;As demonstrated in:the.hydraulicanaiysis this ;flow-through area will accept flood flows such that there will not be a restriction to flood flows ;: ,- ;following restoration. .See Appendix, C, hydraulic .analysis, for evidence to . ~suppartlh~s ., .. - .. .. : . • b ,:~ Letter. from iaaul .Mir~asian dated March 19, 201a (attachment letter from Paul Minasian~:dated.4ctober.3, 2000) :, ,. _ • : -State Parks has not divuleed.specific land and veeetation chanties and refuses to communicate_what~they intend,to do . . • The plans for the restoration and recreation improvements on the Singh Unit as.•well as the. Nicolaus~property were the subject _qf multiple public - meetings attended by many local Jaraclowners and_other interested parties. State Parlcs met with interested parties and made changes to these plans as ... - -:a result-of inputs received.:: The land_,use and: restoration plans were a part ,of,the :Draft El,R,and are. included in the; Final, EIR The, respondent attended .. .. at:least:anti. of. the..public, information meetings:.where the plans were reviewed;:and provided.a seven-page .comment to the Draft EIR that is . ,< :,~ included.n #he_ Final.E1R as. Comment L3. , DPR has: clearly informed and engaged interested parties, as; Ito : their ,:.p[an, for ;land and vegetation changes. A summary of outreach activities an this project is included in Appendix E. ;. .,.., - :, ~:: :iestoration will induce drainaee and-flood protection impacts _ .. ~: This=concern. was: raised during ;the, review of the .Draft ElR and was fully addressed in the Finai EIR. The hydraulic analysis and Section 4.3.3 of the • .7 i i Final EIR document that the restoration of the Singh Unit will not result in , slowing "ar redirecting the=flow of floodwaters. Common Response 6 to ' 'Draft E#R comments also addresses this concerti in detail citing information from the i~ydraulicanaiysis. +" 'Thee-attached letter of October 3 2000 cited "concerns with the revious • ~ restoratiort of the Peterson tract and re nested a 300-foot wide flow throueh ... `area 'Th#s`concern wa§' raised during the re~iev+, of~the Draft EIR although it ' relates• to an area that is not a part of the proposed restoration or tl7e `Proposed encroachment permit. A portion" of the Peterson Unit,_which lies to the south of the Singh Unit and #s near the boat ramp, was restored to ' riparian habitat in 2005-06. Neighboring landowners indicated that they believe vegetation on that property limits the flow of floodwaters. A site analysis #ndicates, `however, that the` vegetation that" may limit the flow is ~• `remnant riparian vegetation that was not ~a part of the restoration on the • Peterson Uniti. Nonetheless; the Department of-'Parks and Recreation . initiated a "project in Qecetnber of 2010 to remove natural vegetation in the •~~ -'subject area and increase the ability of the area to carry flood flows. II is also irnportantta note'that, unlike the remnant riparian vegetation on the Peterson Unit, the restoration of the Singh Unit will include a grassland flow-through corridor along the existing Swale that crosses the property. ' ~ This corridor wilt be "continually mainfained~ as ari open flow-through area by State Parks. As demonstrated itt' the ~Mydra~(ic • Analysis this #law- ' thiougli area will accept flood flaws such that there "wilt not be a restriction to flood flaws following-iestaration. c: Letter from Clint Maderos Backhoe~ dated'lVlarch 20, 2010 • •' The ra osed restoration will alter terrain and- lu the flood control s stem ''in the area ~ ` .. _ . This concern wes raised during the rev~eriu°of the• Draft EIR and was fully " addressed in the Final flR The hydraulic analysis-arid 5ectian 4.3.3 of the Final 1=1R document that "the restoration of'~the Singh Unit will not result in slowing or redirecting the flow of floodwaters. Common Response 6 to - Draft SIR comments also addresses this concern in detail citing information `from the hydraulic=analysis- • Convertin a ricultural use to recreational use constitutes an unacce table nuisance ' -This concern was raised during the review of the Draft EIR and was fully • " addressed in the Final E#R: Section 4.2.4 f the Final EIR addresses the 8 .. ~ .. potential irrlpacts of the change from agriculture to: riparian habitat and recreation.uses. - i d. :Letter from I:es:Herringer.fr. gated March 2~., 2010.,: - ,; • The proposed Hamilton City- setback_ levee will restrict fl_aod flows in the ,,., .. . . ... wicin' of the ro osed restoration This concernwas raised during:the review o€:the Draft EIR and was fully E.. ; : ~ addressed in the Final EIR.: The,hydraulic analysis-and Section 4.3.3 of the FinaI~ElR.document,thatfihe:restoratio.n:ofthe-Singh Unit will not result in slowing~ar redirecting the flow offloodwaters -Common Response 6 to L __ _ __~~ ~ Graft EIR comments also,addressesth~s .concern In detail citing inforrr-ation ~: from.the hydraulic analysis.: , • The restoration area will become a siit.tra _ . ,. The hydraulic analysis documents that the restoration will not reduce the ,flow rate or the Welocity of.flood flows so tFiat;increased sedimentation will not occur. The Sedimentation Analysis; contained .in:.Appendix D of this Addendum .provides further technical interpretation of the Hydraulic . Analysis results; related .:to ~, this point, concluding that there are no ... measurable changes, in:velacity or flaw depth, and therefore no changes to ' 'the existing erasion and sedimentation patterns. are =anticipated. ,. ,.... • ~ The proposed l~familton City setback levee and the prooosed restoration will ~ restrict flood flows and put oressure an the Big Chico Creek Levee This:~cancern related to #heproposed restoration •raising-flood levels was discussed during.the review of the: Draft EIR: and was,fully addressed in the Final EIR through the hydraulic;analysis,and related references. While not a - part of•this: proposed-.restoration :or .the proposed-:encroachment permit, the; Hami#ton City -setback levee project;proposes to=.build a levee located ~:: approximately 1.5 .;miles: west .af,;the :Singh:. Unit. As part of the .. , development. af. plans for. this project;:,~the Army :Corps of Engineers, in ;, coordination..with the. ,Department: of Water .Resources, developed a two- .dimensional .hydraulic model for:the project: area.--They there modeled the effects of. the proposed. levee for the ~;: 2, 5, 14, 25, :50, x.00, 200 and 500- - ~ year'.flood flows.: A key purpose for this modeling was to ensure that the new Levee would be setback sufficiently so that it would not result in higher flood levels on the east, Butte County, side of the River. Therefore that ~ levee, if funded and constructed~~will not~;raise flagd levels or put additional pressure on the privately awned; Big Chico Creek•.levee: ,.:The hydraulic analysis.that isin•:the;,Fina1 EIR and contained in Appendix C • - , ,. of. this,; Add~er~dum , documents that.; the:,. proposed restoration will not 9 increas's flood levels in the area and therefore it wil! nat raise flood levels at the Big Chico Creek levee or put additional pressure on the levee. _ e. Letter from Butte County Board of Supervisorsdated March 24, 2010 :.Butte-Coon reviousl o osed the ro'ect The concerns of Butte County"were raised during the .review of the Draft EIR ar~d are-addressed in the Final ElR in Responsesta Draft EIR Comments, L1'. Butte County initially indicated concerns with:the potential impact of the two restoration projects (Nicolaus and Singh) on flood flaws and expressed a particular concern 'with ."a" proposed RV campground on the __ ___~ -_ Nicolaus property. In response;-State Parks removed the RV campground from the plan. State Parks staff also met with County representatives twice in 203.0 and reviewed the overall plan, the restoration plan for the Singh Unit, and the hydraulic analysis. ~ More time is re `wired to'anal ze an environmental im acts and or floodin impacts to Butte County The comment, on March 24, 2010,- indicated that more time was required for ` review of potential environmental and/or flooding impacts and requested ~ an additional comment period of "no less than 30 days. - 'Sub"sequent comments from Butte Gnunty have not been received. The . comment does not raise any new environmental issues that were not adequately considered in the'Final EIR.:..: f. Letterfrom Mendonca Orchards-Inc. dated March 25, 203.fl • ~ The ro osed restoration will lead to ~ increased' sediment de osits and increased floodin on' upstream properties The hydraulic analysis' documents that the restoration will not reduce the flow rate or the "vebcity of flood flows so that increased sedimentation will not'occur: The grass flaw through area on the-Singh Unit was included per requests from ~ the upstream' neighboring property owners. The Sedimentation "Analysis contained in5ection ~2 of this Addendum provides "further-technical interpretation of the Hydraulic Analysis results related to this-point, concluding that there are na measurable changes in velocity or -- flow depth and therefore. no changes to -the existing erosion and sedimentation patterns are anticipated. • ~ "~ g: Letterfrarri John Noek dated March'28, 2010 ~" . • The removal of the`existini;:berms'is not protested =" This consideration was raised during the review of the Draft EIR and was fully addressed in #he`-Fina( EIR. Remova# ~of the beans was Hated the hydraulic analysis in" the" Final EIR and' considered as part of that analysis. The removal of the berms is noted in Section 3.4.2 and Exhibit 3.7 of the - ~a Final,Elli and;in the response to Draft Ellt cammer~ts i.3-3 it is Hated that the_berm on :the east side. of-the ;site along Mud:-Creek was: not included in the Army Carps of Engineers plan for flood protection along Mud Creek at the.; request: of. local .land, owners. and: the iteclamatan ~aard and is therefore~an.unpermitted structure an the,floodplain.~ ,Inputs received during: the .,public rneeting.proeess1~fron~ local landowners also supported the removal of the.berms. _ . • .. Siltation :will redirect flood .flows . an surroundin ro ernes increase the ,._ .. , _ crease the duration affloodsn~ velocityaf flood.flaws and in _. _ the: hydraulic analysis docu_ments_that the restoration will. not reduce the_ ~~ ~ flow. rate or the velocity of flood flaws so.that increased. sediimentation will not occur. The sedimentation analysis contained in Appendix D of-this Addendum provides further technical interpretation of the Hydraulic Analysis results related to this point, concluding that there are no measurable changes in.veloclty ar flow depth.,and therefore na changes to ,. _ : ~ , ,,. , :.._ ,;... , the existing erosion and sedimentation patterns are anticipated. t, . Restaratian:o#.t~e Petersari Unit-cited as are example of crew#ns a ghysical . barrier to flood flows ;. ~ ~. -~ ' This. concern was raised during the review.nf the ,©raft `EIR although it relates; to an, area ,that is Hat„a_ part of, the proposed restoration or the .proposed encroachment permit, .A,portion _nf:the,Petersan..Ur~it, which lies to the south of the Singh Uriit, was restored:ty riparian habitat in 2005-06. Neighboring landowners have indicated that they feel that vegetation an that; property limits, the,.flow qf. floodwaters... A site:.analysis indicates, ..however, ;that the vegetation.-:that may limit. the flow is,.remnant riparian .;;vegetation that was Hat a part of the. restoratior~._on the Peterson Unit. Nonetheless, the Department of Parks.and Recreation initiated a project in December of 2010 to remove natural vegetation in the subject area and _ , .. F, increase the.ability of the area to carry flaod.f[ows. .It,is also irr~portant to note: that, unlike the remnant,riparian vegetation on the Peterson Unit, the restoration of the Singh Unit will,. include a grassland flow-through corridor along the existing Swale that crosses the property. . ;State Parkswi[I continually maintain,.~his.corrid~r.as an open.flawthrough area. As demonstrated.in the. Hydraulic Analysis;thls8ow-through area will _ accept flood flows.such that there will not.be a restriction to flood flows following restoration. 4. Revised Restoration Planting Plan gliminating Rose. and Blackberry At the request of Centro! Valley 1=1oad Protection Soard staff, two plants, which have thorns, was eliminated from the planting mix in the restoration plan for the Singh - ~~ -Unit: Additionally, the distance between the planting~rows was increased from ~.6 feet fo 30 feet.' The Revised restoration=planting plan is included as Appendix 1=. ''5. ~ Maintenance and Monitoring Plan for the Singh Orchard Restoration -The hydraulic analysis contained in the 1=irial EIR`and in Appendix c of this Addendum '(documented that the proposed restoration' at full growth' will not restrict the flow of floodwaters. The restoration plan for the Singh ' Unit ~ includes a flow-through ' meadow area that will be planted to native grass species. This flow-through area is important to the continued`accommodatiori of flood flows following restoration and, therefore, State Parks will' perPorrrt annual maintenance to ensure that area stays ' ~_ `open ancl'free of woodY~vegetation a~id~flood=~ debris. The_fallow_ in~g Maintenance___ ar€d Monitoring Plan €or the Singh orchard Restoration details the actions that State .` Parks will taketo maintain tills area. fi.`~indings Relayed to CEQA Guidelines Section 151f2 This Addendum provides an analysis of the comments that' were received by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board relative to the encroachment permit ~-" -application for'the• proposed Habitat restorat~art of the Singh Unit. This analysis has address each comment and conclude that thecomments do -not raise potentially 'significant envirorimental'impacts'tha# were not adequately addressed in the Final EIR.~' AccardingIy; it is"recommended that a subsecluerit`ElR'is`~not required and it is recommended that' `the `following findings be adopted `in accordance with the provisions of Section 15162 of the State CFQA~Gui;delines. ' ~' A.'' Substantial changes have not been proposed in the project which will require- major revisions of the Final EIR due ta' the involvement of new signifcant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously "' identified significant effects; B. Substantiai~changes have not occurretl with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the Final ' SIR due to the in~alvement of new signifcant environmental effects or a siabstantia! increase in the'se~erity of prev'soosly identified significant effects C: New in#ormation of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been "known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR vvas certified, has not been'identi#iedthot shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the i=inai EIR; 1Z ` 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severs than shown in the Final EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or al#ernatives ~previausiy found not to `bs feasible would in fact' ~e feasible, and`~'wo'utd substantially reduce one or more ~ significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adapt ! ". I the mitigation measure or alternative; or ` " .. ~ -. ~ 11/litigatlon~ measures or alte'rnati~es which arse'corFSiderably different`#rom `those analyzed in the Final ElR would substantially reduce one'or -more ' significant effects on the environment, but the~projecf p~oponenfs<iesline #o adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. ~~ ,.. .. ~. ,. . ._ . ~:~ .. .. 13 Attachment A Maintenance and .Monitoring. Plan for. the Singh Orchard Restoration Bidweii- .Sacramento River state Park The management of California's State Park,System is guided by th.e State Constitution, the appticabte codes of California Law, proclamations, executive orders, the California Code of ,Regulations (CCR); Department:Notices ar~d.policies ofthe California 5tate:Park and Recreation Com, mission.. The State legislature provides annuai funding allocations to this Department for its operation and maintenance. _ . The 43-acre Singh Orchard parcel is a restoration project located within.the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park at river mile 194. The property coincides with other units within the Bidwell- Sacramento River State Park in terms of access, recreational uses, facilities, operation and maintenance. The maintenance and operation for this new unit shall coincide with all current operations executed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and implemented by the Northern Buttes District. Maintenance funding is provided by the Northern Buttes District's annuai operations budget as well as potential funding earmarked under Natural Resource maintenance provided by the Department's'Natural Resources Division. The. maintenance of the Singh parcel related to the accommodation of flood flows will focus on the Grassland buffer zone and the Flow through Meadow areas. This focus will ensure that the site can accommodate flood flows consistent with the Hydraulic Analysis for Flood Neutrality on the Nicholaus and Singh Properties -Sacramento River, Mud Creek and i3ig Chico Creek dated May 3fl, 2©08. The two-dimensions! hydraulic model cited in that Analysis was calibrated against actual flood flow records to ensure that the model accurately reflected existing conditions. The model also incorporated Manning's Roughness Coefficients for the proposed . restoration planting areas that represent those vegetation communities at full growth, comparable to other remnant riparian areas in the area covered by the model. Accordingly, no unusual maintenance activities are required for the riparian forest area in the restoration. The grassland areas, the northern Grasslands Buffer Zone and the Flow through Meadow will, however, is specifically maintained by the Department to ensure that they remain open, free of .woody vegetation and able to accommodate flood flows as described in the Hydraulic Analysis. Preparation for flood events shall be initiated at first indication of flood potential from the Sacramento River, Mud Creek and Big Chico Creek, or by November 1~ of each year, which ever occurs first. Staff will visually inspect the area when weather patterns indicate flood potential. This flood preparation stage coincides with the stage at which Butte County Public Works closes River Road, which provides access to the project site. 14 Consistent with the Department's Operation Manual,:the following is a summary of operation and maintenance procedures to be implemented immediately upon the commencement of restoration at the Singh parcel -".with specific instructiops relating to preparation for flood events: • Maintenance staff will mow the 3.3-acre northern Grasslands Buffer Zone and the ~.6 __. acre Flow through Meadow annually. They will mow the Northern meadow area"and-the grassland buffer area prior to flood season to provide an unobstructed flaw through: At. the reopening of the facility after flood season, woody debriswill be removed and disposed of properly off.-site and outside the designated"floodway. • Visual inspection of the site will be performed at the"frst;indication of flood potential or before November 1~ of each year, which ewer occurs'first t'o ensure-removal of all trash and woody debris from the project"site: Ali trash and debris shall be disposed outside of the designated floodway. This is consistent with the current maintenance operation for i3idwe[I-Sacrarnerita.River State Pant. . ,:~. . • Unpaved interpretive trails will be maintained.'to be clear from vegetative debris, weeds, and trash after-each high water event. Occasional re-grading by hand may be necessary to maintain original grades and comply with~the Americans with Disabilities Act. The construction and maintenance af.State Park?trails are governed by the parameters . within the State Parks Trail Handbook, whicH`describes grade, base materials, tread width and trait height clearance and erasiorrcontrol ~, .. .. }; • No buildings are planned for the Singh Unit. Concrete;trash receptacles will be available. . For flood preparation, all trash and plastic receptacle~liine~s will'tae removed from the site at:-the first indication of flood potential; Once the park unit fs reapen.ed after flood . ' season; maintenance staff will remove:debris-•as~neeessary and..prepare facilities for operation. Significant amounts of flood debris shall be disposed of:outside.the ~. designated flaodway at an approved location. "~ • Alt fire protection measures will conform to the Department's Fire Management Policy and an approved wildfire management plan (DPI2 Operations Manual 0300 NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION 0313.2 -FIRE MANAGEMENT} ~S i ., Location Maia . :, Singh Parcel Ri~er`Miie 194 Bidwell=Sacramento River State Park- ' ` r' ` u ~ Sacr~nlentaAve 4-E;-- t te ;E'' ' ~. ° ~~~ , ~~-~_ -:~ ~ ~ ( Singh Parcel 'RiverMile`994 ~r~-~: r Bid~xell~Saeralreer~o Rlver State Park ;` 1~ :,x 1 .. ~: ~ ~ .a °~ -.. ~' f :. 1 ~ y' e, ~ ~ i Glenn County r Bute Cout~fy ~'~- ,~ ' ..', ~ ._t .. f ~~ . t i f ~r Y ~ {~.. ~. - - '::. 4' ~.. 7 25 x'5 :: ..... S' r N ; - r+rtifes ~ ~ ,~grsphla 100'128 16 ;~. ~ 0 ga as as fs is ilnds FgW%kS mTes Main Map Legend ' ®5!aW Puck Boundary 5SatePadc Sutwnil Boundary ~USFWSApprovctlN4VRBaurrtlary Call!am(a Qapar4sttnt of Fish and Oame {DFG} Q The M1fahae Canservanry {'fNC} Q United Stales Rsh and WiWGfe Service Q.19 FWS) Rrgiartal Map Sunset Ranch {TNC). READ 3634 Legend ®sa~vav 0 Beard Property, REAL] 2030 ®~ ~IXW ra9~7-KYa+tl JV+huEy mPxry P.'nryun. Zip{ tmtle ~e C/Vltrl eTp~p~ -~ ~~ , . f bJONmt: Udoa f4iAm. me sKC4aGa:c[extn [ho7cs~iCwahbP Isie6seirA iGpr,erC VuS; `a' p5. •.• ~•~.]YET.IYf SCJ"P S~QT~P[CRa»P~mdGC: REA]'J IO17. )71r. ~ ~CASOM~il1 6KCM~is ~~~~ rtPQ •IEIUM I~fM:19lY'SAYtl~ - 1p[er RPSl~ YW SPV PUG[1lG GCxvYG: L:IC.TPtf[~61C ue W4 Cei ai:eP a~Om7roeik NO~mCm 7yxnA ©trrr ~PLLmartlnv from m-rtrl4Gxr RO]i .. •(ki61NtP1 cae. ueyc apan.~ xsoseaaaCal nnrms pxtlm g Ap1490Gp Bidwefl~Sacramento R"rWer State Park m a' 71nGl igL24ZOrf-02F 1i a ~ ~ ~ ~ DPR Operations Manual 0300 Natural Resources Section 0313.2 -EIRE MANAGEMENT 0313.1.2 ,Natural Resource Restoration Projects Lands acquired far the State Park System are often ecologically degraded from previous uses, requiring their restoration to conditions that allow healing and recovery. In addition, lands that have been under the Department's management may have become degraded due to the lack of adequate resources to maintain them in a healthy condition. Such lands may be degraded to an exTen~~thatthei~r recovery~cannot-b~ accomplishedwithinlhe support=~ased~'"""` maintenance program. Restoration of these resources is often addressed through restoration projects that meet specific objectives. and are accomplished within specific timeframes. ' 0313.1.2.1 Natural Heritage Stewardship Program The Natural Heritage Stewardship Program, initiated in 1984, is abond-funded . program specifically for the protection, restoration and enhancement of natural heritage resources within the State Park System. The program consists of many individual projects involving the direct management of the resource rather than its engineered protection, focusing on ecological rather than construction approaches..The program also does not include projects that are plans, studies, or data collection other than as part of project work involving.directaction to a resource. :Projects are expected to resolve a problem or to reduce it to a paint where it can be managed through support budget means. Projects are not:for ongoing or recurring resource maintenance needs. Natural Heritage Stewardship #~rogram projects typically have one ar more of the following objectives: • Remove or control exotic organisms in natural areas; • Revegetate natural areas; • Correct excessive erasion that threatens natural systems and scenic features by restoring natural conditions; ' • Reintroduce organisms extirpated from a natural system or area; • Protect, restore, or enhance critical natural communities or rare, threatened, or endangered species and their habitats; Restore natural processes such as tidal action orfloodingwhen such processes can be accomplished by a short-term corrective action. ' 18 - Stewardship projects are often-.multi-year in scope;but are designed and funded in annual phases. Projects typically'compete an a statewide basis and are selected from the Department's Park infrastructure €~atabase {PIA}. 0313.2 Fire Management; .. Wlldland fire, whether:human-caused ors naturaiiy;ignited, may contribute to or hinder the ~achievemen# of park management objectives.: Therefore, park fire management programs will be.designed to•meet park resau.rce management - ~= objectives whileensuring that #irefighterand. public~:safsty are not compromised. 0313.2.1 Wildfire Management The Department manages unwanted wildiand fires to protect people, property, •. andthe natural,,cultural and scenic: resources of the.,par~C sys#em;• Although _ fightning-caused fires and burning:by Native Americans occurred-for thousands - ;. of years in.manyGaiifornia ecosystems, present;day;unplannedfiree can have ~.. deleterious effects art natural;resources due.ta:unnaturai buildups of combustiblevegetation. • However; fire suppression activities, such as bulldozer . fire control lines, can soinetimes~have greater adverse,impacts ort park resource values than the #ire itself. The Department's goal ~is to prevent all unplanned human-caused fires an its . ~ -lands:: Given thatsorr~e unplanned:fires will occur, both lightning-caused and human-caused, ~t:becames the:D.epartrnent's.responsibi~ity:to protect human ` . ,life,-::and to minimixedamage to~parlc. facilities and, resources from. wildfires and .: from allsu.ppcession activities.. , . . , ~: • Managemsr3t actions for:wiidfa~d fires. on Department lands involve pre-firs ;• planning, fuel (vegetation) management, public safety me'asurss, fire control support, post-fire evaluation and rehabilitation. Q313:2.1:~.• WildfireManagement; planning _.. , ; , . TheDepartment can best protect.its #acilities,.natural and,cultural resources, and ... .. ,personnel Arad visitors.~by ma,intaini[~g a park unit wildfire management plan that ,. , . . provides park.staff and apprapriate:fire,supp,ression personnel with important -inforrnation.on :park. infrastructure, resources values, and gen~rai suppression tactics before a wildfire occurs. The format for unit wildfire ,management plans can be found in the Natural Resources Wandboak. 19 A park unit's wildfire management plan, when approved by the Department of - - parks'and Recreation and the Department of i=orestry and Fire Protection (CDi=) ' or its agent, is designated asthe local fire. protection agreement forthe park `unit.:,, Since most of the firefighters on a large conflagration ire unaware of the Department's ownership, land management objectives and resource concerns, park staff should describe these concerns directly to the appropriate firefighting staff'during these emergencies. This combination of planning and on-the-ground communication :during a wildfire incident can be highly effective in preventing unnecessary damage to park'resoiirces and facilities. It can also facilitate rapid repair of damage to parlciands. 0313.2.1.1.3. Wildfire Management Planning policy . . - It is the policy of the Department that each Department-operated unit that may experience wiidland frres will~i~ave a wildfire management plan providing `requisite`informatiomforemanagingwlldfire events, such as thQ locations of Sensitive park resources, facilities; v+iater supplies and existing roads. Wildfire `ma'nagement plans will be reviewed by designated headquarters-staff and '~ approved°by the District>SUperintendent: 0313.2.x.2 Vegetation Management and Fuel Modlflcation ` The'Department maintains wildland properties in orderto preserve the natural, ~''' cultural;"and-scenic features'for the people of~Caiifornia.'Many of these native • ecosystems contain plantsthatcari'becomefiammable under..specific environmental conditions of high wind, high temperature and low humidity. These ecosystems inevitably burn either from natural or human causes. - Buildings constructed adjacent to'parkunits'in`the-wildland-urban interface zone ''''are at`riskfram'wildlandfires. There are ~threeprineipal causes of ignition of structures in this zone.- . The first cause involves the ignitiori''of accumulations of ignitable materials on, under, or next to the structure, which, in turn, ignite decking or enter attics ` through'soffit vents. This material'can be ignited~via ground fires or aerial flamir-g brands. This threat can be eliminated liy removing all flammable debris that Fias accumulated on or under'the building, clearing the vegetation that is within 30 feet of the iauilding; and screening all openings to the attic or under the structure. The second cause involves aerial flaming brands, which Land directly on . flammable surfaces of the structure. These brands can originate from wildfires 20 over one half-miie away from the structure. Buiidings that are constructed to strict"codes of~ignition-resistive mate~lals are at very'low; risk:of:ignitionfrnm -flaming brands ~.: ;:: ... ::. ...;: ; ~ -The third cause'is severe; radiant/convective heat of burning material near the structure which can: 1) ignite the sides~ofthe.building; 2):breakthewindows, i ~allowing~-burning embers into the interior ofthe building, 3) ignite the interior furnishings through the windows, or ~4)-burn/deform the;window casings causing the windows to slip out. ! - :,. _ ~ ~ l=ire modeling, analysis of past wildland-urban interface zone.fires, and _~ experiments to determine the:ignitability of structures-have eonfirmedwthat even the radiant/convective~heat~ of extreme f)aming~fror~ts_-poses law risk to any structure which is 130 feet or more distan#; especiallyif that structure conforms to strict interface fire codes of ignitabllity,~and window strength and reflectivity. :~ .:The Departmentrautirfely receivesrequests/demands,from outside entities to ' clear wildland~vegetation on ,Department lands in:.order;to: . 1. Reduce the threat of wildfire to private property; 2.. Reduce fire insurance costs toy private: iandQwners; ~ ..>. 3. Comply with strict local ordinances; and .. .4..Mitigate;thethreat.ofaiabi#ity:for:mair~taini,ng~a dangerous condition. °~ Department lands have also-been.subjected to trespass and encroachment by .. . ' persons illegally-:attempting to modify;the vegetation ; Mydifyiug ecosystems on park properties for tf~e purpose. of protecting adjacent,private, structures from wildland fire can significantly degrade park values and in same cases adversely . impact populations of threatened endangered species and:cu~tural resources:• 0313:2:1.2.1 Flamrnabke Vegetation/Fuel Madiflcation :Policy ~' :It is the.llepartment's:palicy:to prohibitthe°canstruc#ion~and maintenance of firebreaks, fuelb,reaks;.and, other fuel modification zones on Department lands, .., except~w.hen:~. ; ;. a. Required by state law to ciear around it's structures/facilities; • _ :. , ba- :Previous;legal commitments have,been. made to.allow the creation and . ',maintenance of=fuel modification areas; _ ; ;: c. It is critical to•.the protection af.life or.park resaurces;,or. d, Park vegetation 130 horizantal.feet from,a non-Department habitable structure is capable of generating sufficient radiant/connective heat when burning under-Red Flag Warning conditions to ignite the habitable structure. ' 21 All identified "and approved fuel modification zones will be described in the unit wildfire management plan and will be constructed and maintained to the Department's standards (refer to Natural Resources Handbook). All proposed - ~. ~.fuei modification projects must be reviewed for environmental impacts (see - .. DOM Chapter 0600,.Inriironmental Review). All other areas previously modified for fire protection- purposes but not meeting the above. exceptions will be returned to natural conditions:.. Fuel modification proposed by CDF and in keeping with Local Operating Plans _ _ will be carried out by cDF only after review and approval by the District '~ Superintendent, in keeping with Department-Policy. In.those circumstances, CDF is to ensure-all necessary permits, CEClq, and other requirements are met prior to proceeding with such work. °. The Department will actively participate in the local land use decision process to prevent'conflicts with this policy. DPR 181, Wildfire Protection; should be used as a template td conveythe Department's objectives-when corresponding with local landowners and regulatory and permitting entities. 0313.~.~..3 Closure of Fire~Damaged Areas -Ail or a portion of a park unit maybe closed when:an unwanted wildland fire is threatening or burns an Department lands (see DOM Chapter 110Q, Visitor' , "Safety): Areas of spark"=unit, which have burned, will remairrclosed until appropriate Department staff have inspected the-.area and rectified any public ' safety, property or resource protection-issues." 033.3:x.1.4 Reporting Written reports and maps are needed to `maintain a history of fires afFecting~' each Department park unit. This is useful information far ecosystem research ' and future prescribed fire and wildfire management planning efforts. For large conflagrations,` Incident Action Plans, status reports, and'-maps are very important d.e-briefing information and aid in the identification of resource damage in need of repair. - Each unwanted wildland fire that burns on, orthreatens;-Department lands, regardless of origin, will be recorded on a DPR~385, Public Safety Report with a completed©PR 385A, Public Safety Report Supplemental -Natural Hazards, 11Vildfires:`'In addition; a prescribed fire/wildland fire:summary should be completed for each wildland fire. For reporting purposes, this does not include - ~ - fires burning solely in vehicles, structures; or refuse. ' 22 Attachment B Letters Responding to the Notice of the Encroachment Permit Application from the Central Valley Flood protection Board 23 M & 7 CHIGO E~ANCH • 3964 CH1C0 FIIVER ROAD • CHICO • CAE_11=DRNIA 95528 • (530) 342-2954 • FAX {530) 342-4t 38 IY~T Jon Yego, Chief Fioodway Protection Sectiam Division of Flood Management, DWR R~: application ## 18576 $D Dear Mr. Yego, . 3-21.-2014 This it~?~-written re,~arcii~ the applicatia_m the CVF'PB_ to restore a 43 acre parcel to --- riparian vegetation at Sacramento River mile ] 94, on the east b~~a~ofthe aver: T~have . specific co~nents on the project that relate to flood control issues on the M8cT Rauch. . The ranch has a levee on Big Chico Creek-left that protects the ranch when the Sacramento River is at flood stage. Big Chico Creek's confluence with the Sacramento . River is at RM 193. The USACE will soon be completing a Sacramento River Flood Control Project at Hamilton City which constructs a 7 mile set back levee with the south end of the levee terminating at RM 192.5. This set back levee will restrict the Sacramento River Flood flows into a tighter area in the vicinity of the proposed riparian vegetation planting project at RM 194. The restoration project is adjacent to Big Chico Creek, M&T Ranch, and our Big Chico Creek Levee. If the 43 acre area is planted to riparian vegetation, over time it will fill sn and become very dense and serve as a silt trap. The USACE set back levee aztd the proposed restored area will eventually serve as a restriction to Sacramento River flood flows which will put additional pressure on my Big Chico Creek Levee and may cause it to fail. There are other parcels north of this ~3 acres that the State Park either owns or is reported to have designs to own, that would further exacerbate our flood flow problem in the event they are someday also restored with . . riparian vegetation. This in combination with the USACE set-back levee could prove to . be a disaster to this ranch. This Letter is my protesk to this proposed riparian restoratiotx planting if I can not be assured that someday there will not be comsequences'to the integrity of our Big Chico Creek •Levee. May I suggest that this area be main#ained as a grassland. I Dave enclosed a map of the new USACE setback levee. Sin ely, `~~~ ~./- Les ermger, 3r. CC Palri 1V1ina5ian cc Jeff Meith .r '-.~ ,Y~ FARM DOLLARS AT WORK z4 4 t rS,~~~~'~~-rc 1~~~5: 41 ~ ~:1'.trtf~,y-~ -t;" = ~, ; ~i ~5 f i ..~ i~ _ t1{1~ '4 air "21W ~ ~ t~ ~T~+- - f~ 7 . h ..k~~~ ~~ ~r ~ l~ 3 1 1~ ~I J~~ : `` "+. - '~A7.lf "Iyit'Y~" i ~ 'y ^9LLL"'titi4~i~ y ?4_ ;; y y~ ,t. ~ ~ ~~ P ~~ .,~aL ~i.. '..+~ .`ir7~'3 ` '~ 1'i S~A.n'.~ ~ L I ]i: ~~tYi i 'ta y 1 T~J?+k~5 r~'~~+~~~~~~ 1" r it ~FT t. ! a *Y~t [~.1 as 's 54 .r ~. s ~ ' y- r c. _ _ 5 ~-~ ,~y ~ ~ r~r r ~ Y.9 Nil. C r ~ 5~'~r'~ -~' ''rte,-3-'~~ ..ki~:r~ir +c ,y :~ ~, S ;a G - c'_ 9 ~ -R raY•~..r+~ -~~ ;fie. ~. G: ~ti v ~ Y F trS~.~~t~ ,155- .r~„~' ~, :'~^~'=^y~ , r {~y ~ ii! s i 'ti~ >r y„ ) u-a,'a ~t`"i~1 ~ x.,,.,~.~'~ - ::K~.:, r f, - F~ o- Y,.,r r. £ F~~7 ' , `fx~ ,L`~r flag -. .= 7.. ~.s4~ y~' J s 'k~ `4. ., ~...._ ~. f~k'7 3h~ ~i' ~~7~p.~~q~ 3~i` .~;~, ~ ti-i~rs~y, yati-+~.- ~.•.:. -~.i%x -.&S~~ {ii ~< <. •. ) :~'•:~~~.~ ~ -` .:HST; ? f ,.~~~1'~~~rtx.{, . ~•~', ...~a_,4 'w d ~SY°~~i1a GItikN ~'S~. _rfil .'4•~;.~.ik''n; "~~+F; ~y ~AY ?~ Y~'-'' i.. - _ ti . ~~ ~~ ~: •,-. ~ a. Alteenatine 6 (eferrnediate Setback Upstream Ftam'slton City of liwy 321l.acalty Glaad Damage Reduc41a4+ Developed Setback Downstream and ecosystem Reztoratian, CA 4f Hwy 32 reapereated Sepie+ab~r23, 20P7 i [` i 1 ZS Clint Maderos Backhae Clint i~aderas 12102 River Road Chico, CA 95973 central Valley Road Protection Board Jars Yego_ . Flaadway Protection Section Division of Flood Management 3310 El Camino Ave. Rm LL40 Sacrarnenta, CA 95821 X916] 574-06D9 Iv[arch 2Q, 201fl PROTBS'I' OF APPLICATION 18576 BD In response to the plan to restore a 43-acre parcel (Singh Unit) by removing two • existing °berms"_and nonnative vegetation, and planting riparian vegetation and ;nature grasses within the designated flaodway River Mile 194) of the left (east) -bank of the Sacramento River, I protest this application. I have lived and farmed walnuts far the past 24 years at 12102 River Road,. upstream from the location [Section 2, T21N, R1W, MDl3&M) of the proposed project. This project of the California Department of Parks and Recreation is clearly and directly appositional tb the interests of all of the.neighbaringfarmers who succeed in their workdue to the;flood managementinfrastructure that has been constructed in the vicinity, for example, the adjaceni<levee. The health of our agriculture depends on reinimiz#ng the ei'fects of flooding on our orchards and fields. The -Park. Department plan to alter the.terra#n at the above location amounts to ..putting a plug into to a system that has developed aver decades to deal with seasonal flooding which occurs from numerous sources. ' I protest the planting of vegetation in this location. This action is contrary to the interests of all of the farmers in this area. The California Department of Parks arrd Recreation is premature in their attempts to recta#m this area. Their plans to ''convert historical agricultural use land within the Butte County Green Line to a recreational use constitutes an unacceptable nuisance tcs the farmers who are working to make a living here, Sincerely Yours, ,• _ ~ ~~ ~' Clint Nladeros 530.514.8665 L 2 ;~ { N11NAS[AN, SPRUANCE, PALfL R. MlNASLAN, I~EC. JEFFRIrI'aIVII"I,1-i 7EI.~PHONE: ~~oysa~-zees - SDARES ~ MElTH IuI. Atvn-lonrr soARes DAV[Dd.57EFfENSOI~ , ..~,; ;. FACSIMIl..E:. , LLP ' SEXTON pLIS71l~[ C. Ct']OP~R c~oR~ . w~ rt [530) 633-8197. , AsuL7I~ .r~ c ' ` A'I~ORNE:1'S A~ 1.AW WILLIAM H. SPRLIANCE, ~ ' A ParhleBFdp inchtdt5g ProfeastGael Cnlp4rstEens . -... Of CounBel .. ~ 1681 BIRt3 S'rRE~F MICHAEL V. SOON, ' P.O. BOX 4679 .: :. Qf Counsel .. , ORdVILl.1=. CAI,fFd12NfA 95965-iG7A ' E _ WriEs~s emal4: pminaslan®minaslanlaw.cors - o _ ._ ... . I March 19, 2010 Re: bepartmeut of Pairks & Recreation Applicatton No ~857fi~BD t<i''zestore a 43- acxe parcet (Smgli,Unit~,by removing two'e~ting lier>~is'aiid nonnative vegetation and planttng =ipariaii vegetation and native grasses within the ,.. - designated floodway (River Mile. i94) `of the left (east) Bank of the' Sacramento RiL~vsr, west of Chico, `South of Sacra7[nento Avenue;' Section 2~ T".~IN, R1.W, M.D.B & M:` ~Sac>rasnento River, Butte C©unty) ' ~. Ladies & Gentle>;xLen: The Lanra E.. Nieridonca~ Revpcalle TrLlst received a copy of yews notification of March 9, 2OI0 as .ah adlaaent landawne~r regarding the ISepartment of parks & Recreation's Application No. 18576 BD for the removal of berms and nonnative vegetation and a replanting within `the designated floodr~vay on the East harilc_ of the Sacramento Riveir.:'l'lie Sacramento Inver Reclamation District ix>i which tliiese lands are located has never~receiyednotice~ of the Application made. .. We would appreciate ~.t of Y~ would talcs each of the following stepsregarding the Application .. _ a„ _ _ ... ~ . 1. , Attaclied.you will fizid letters from 2O4~,through 2008 of the Saczai~ento River Reclamation District.'tlvrough this office fo the Department of Parks & Recreation . requesting consultation and an. oppor'axnity to renew'and world with them'in zegaxd to developmeafof any g~adiug;~leveling or laaliitat restoration plan: Waliin~InesS to divulge specific laud and vrrgetatioi3i 'changes has iievsx occurred. ~'We would appreciate it if you - 27 .. .. To: Ce~til Valle}~Ftaod Pzotection Board . Rc: Depsr~nent of Parks & Recreation Application No. 18576 BD Dabs: March 19, 2010 Page 2 would provide a full copy of those letters and of this letter to each of the Members of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, because we believe they reflect three (3} principle themes: ! A. When local interests step forward to work in. providing a system for review of grading and land elevation or vegetation changes, and work. in _ _ caope_ratzon with the County and former Reclamation Board,, as .__ Sacramento ~i,iv~ Reclamation District has done and ron~inues to he willing to do, issues can be resolved. As your,board members review this packet of correspondence and our efforts to deal with the State,af California in regard to its plans, hopefully the board members, will ask the questions: {1}, Hove. can we approve this .project when. at every stage, the Department of Parks & Recreation refuses to commuiucate and specify exactly . what they intend xv do? How can we tum the Nature Conservancy as . a contz~actor and Parks & ~R.ecreation loose, vsrlien over eight (8) Yeazs there have been repeated attempts,by the local inters to work with the Department Parks. & Recreation that have been zebuffed and , . responded to with non definitive responses; (2) Mike Peterson of your Board staff indicates that your board is ,requesting additional,plans, profiles and specifications ofthe . vegetation vvliich is act{zally to be installed. ~ We have been asking for. ; , -this. same. information repeatedly, `including,the enclosed March 1'7, ` . .2008 letter relating tv the CEQA process and have received no specific plans for the Singh or Nicholas properties. The Depa~lent of Parks & Recreation is going to induce a-drainage and flood protection disaster because they refuse to work with the parties who know this. area and~knaw its flow .characteristics. Tine only question is whether the Reclamation Board is going to be a paxly to this disaster. ~3). In 20.QO, Butte County and tb;e Reclamation Board entered into a IViemorandum resolving litigation,whichrontemplatedthe farmaf~an , . of the Sacramento. River Reclamation District and,its involvement at, the basic level to reduce load upon the, Cowty and the Reclamation Board and tv provide an interface with landowners so they would understand the importance of choosing crops or vegetation and Z~$ To: Control Valley Flood Protection Board ... . Re: Department ofParks & RacxeaiiauApplica#ionNo.185'I6 BD Date:.. March 19, 200 . • Page 3 choosing leveling or grading plans which would allow for maintenance of the existing flow functions of this land which i,s often -. - flooded, either from Mud Slough or from the Sacrarriento River. The landowners within the area work with the• Sacramento River Reclamation District and Butte-County before they make changes. We have an~agency of the State of California -the Department of Parks & Recreation that is now proposing to remove berms, to plant T vegetation in an area which has been open and undulating andhas -- easily taken care of flows from each direction, and they cannot camrnunicate with either the neighbors, the Sacramento River Reclamation District, B~ztte County, nor apparently can'.they -supply . the information to the Reclamation Board because" they are "the -~ - State". Public funds are sa limited that we cannot afford this attitude. Your Board can correct taus situation. (~) This is a matter which should be taken off of"the Agen~.a.`of the , l ' '. Central Valley Flood Protection Board until such time as the ``~ Department of Parks & Recreation has fully explored and elucida#ed . its plan for the Singh property and the adjacent Nicholas property..., , with Sacramento River Reclamation District andBntte County. tf we are being unreasonable"or obsttuctiomst;in:the; opin}on of,your staff, e. . the Flood Protection Board: can #hen place the matter back on.your Agenda. At this point, however, it is obvious that the Department of . Parks & Recreation and perhaps the Nature Conservancy, who wishes: ~: to be employed by the State, axe attempting to run aver the locals and we Believe -the Central Valley Flood Pirotection Board as well, by . its'vagueness and uneertatnty: Tlie exact tole of the Nature - Conservancy in-this stonernralling is unknown to us at this txme. ;: - . .~ :Very truly .yoius, M.INASiAN, ~l'RUANCE, MEiTH; SOARES :8c SEXTON; ALP dictated but not read; sk,~ned In writers'absence to avald delay - .By: PRM:clcl lnclosures: Corresponclemca 2000 thz4ugii 2008 cc w/enclosures: Board of Trustees, Sacraments 5:1QpnfsalSaaeclCen7aEVnrney Flood Conservaf~n 6oetd.l.w~d PAUL R. MINASIAN 1 Rivet Reclamation District ~9 MINASIAN, SPRL~AI~CE, BASER; MEt'~H, SOAEtES & SEXTON, LLP e A'1'TQRNEYS A7' LAW PAUL R. MINASIAN, INC. [A PAATNERSHIY INCLUDING YFiOFESSIDREAI. CORPOAATIDMS} ~ PAUL JACKSON 1VliNA51AN, 1593-'1889 Wii.[.IAM H. SPRUANCE, iNC. 1881 BiRb STREET DAViO H. MINASIAN, RET. 18$9 WfLLIAM H. BAKER fli, INC. P.O. 8OX 9879 JHFFRE'! A. ME:ITH ~ ORDVfLLE, CALIFORNIA 85885-9673 M. ANTHONY 8OARES TELEPFfONE (5301 533.2885 MICHAEL V. SEXTON FACSIMILE 1530} 533.0387 fl'T 8- P RSaB lif W.CCm ~~~ ~~~ October 3, 2t1~00 Stuart Edell, Manager Land Development Division . Butte County Public Wars Depaztpr~.ent 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 . Rob McKenzie and: Neil H. McCabe Assistant Cannty Counsel, Coulrlty of Butte . 25 County Center Drive i Ozoville, California 95965 . Re: I3evelopmexit Permii; Depart~n~t of Parks & Recreation, foz the Peterson Addition to the Bidwell=Sacrazrtez~td River State Park . Ladies and' Gentlemen: Avery .pzoductiye meeting was.held with Woody. Elliott of the .Department of Parks & Reczeatiaia and the Baazd of Dizectoxs of Sacra~nenta,River Reclamation. District ("SRRD") an October 2, 2000. As you know, .bon the County an:d the SRRD axe feeding heir way slang in zegard to the Development Permit process. The feat thaf the first Development Perzntit fo cozme before the Butte County and the SRRD involve an intensive Feyegetation proposal by the Depaztmexlt of Parks & Recreation makes the effort even more important and demands logical treatment. - We believe that as a result of the meeting and discussiom that there was a substantial recognition on tlx:; part ~of the Department of parks & Recreation, which zecag9xitian of coarse pry ' existed the meetings, that the planting of intensive vegetation in low lying azeas could xestxlt in blockage and structural changes in flood elevations and the retention and lack of drainage of flood j waters ixx Mud Creek upon the;decline in river levels in the Sacramento Rivet. I 4 ~ . _... - __.... .. ._._....._.. .. ._ _ . . - - - .. ... ~~/ To: Butte Cauaty Public Works Dopartu~nt; Butte County Co~sel , . Re: DcvalopnzentP.ermit,Depar~neutofParks&ltecreatio~,far'ff~ePetersot~Addi#iontot~eBidweIlSacram~nto . River Stan park Date: October 3, 2D00 . Page 2 The Board of Directors:and;the Department of Parks..& Recreation recagnize.~lrat not all .. .,. - vegetative developmexa#s,;incZucling agricultural.. deyelapments; wail.involve these potential zmpacts, norwillallrevegetationplanshavethepotentialofbeingegviyalentto.structuratunpecl~merxts~toflobd flows or drainage. Mr. Elliott indicated that if the SRRD would suggest alternatives, the prospect of obtaining a Permit from Butte County might well be, ad~antageaus compared to going through the Reclamation Board. After extensive discussioh, the SRRD agreed that if a Development l'ezmit Applicatior~was~made: ~y the~_Departmet~t of Parlpi& R~crea#aon to~~the~~Count3r of Butte {in which-~- -- Pera~it they mayreserve any cla~stbat no pernrvttirig authority exists because it is difficult to show , the flood and drainage changes as a result of intensive revegetation work resulting irx a. structure or ' levee equivalent), and if that Permit showed the maintenance of at least 140 yards (34D feet) of open spaceSavamtahdevelopmentinsteadoftheplantingaftrees,bushes andHimalayan.blackberrybushes in the law-lying areas of Fields 1, 2 and 3 so that water may.leave Mud Crcek near the Northeast corner of the Singh PAY arjd the Peterson Addition, and~proceed during draidagephases im which . the level of the Sacramento River is droppiskg across the Peterson Addition towards the Sacramento River, that with the other mitigation measures proposed by the SRRD and the existing plan of the Department ofParks & Recreation, thatno significant detrimental impackwill arise`as`a ~resalt of flood or drainage characteristics. This 304' wide areaneed notbe in one open swath (which of course wouldbe preferable}, arxd the Deparkrient of Parks & Recreation may locate it in two or three parallel areas in the low points of its existing property. One excellent portion of this plan is that there is no intent to provide for extensive leveling or can#avring of the property to change the drainage pattern in an urraatuxal way. We believe, therefore, that the Department of Parks 8c Recreation will shortly be asking that you issue a Permit based upon the CEQA process and the Development Plan alternatives. Although the density ofplanting zs extretrielyhigh inthose areas in which planting wiII actor, the above change should be located in a fashion in which little impact will occur on adjoining agricultural lands to change either the flooding pattern or the drainage pattern after floods. As soon as youha~-ereceivedtheApplication forPermit, we~would appreciate receiving a copy of it to conform that this change which was ,discussed•has been included. The-District will be l~iappy to review the plan grid the hydrologic work of Mr. Countrynaaan, and report #o the County our recommendations, thus reducing the investment of time by the County. We wi.11 notify the surrounding landowners and inaonpoxate theirr views. Tlie issuance of a Permit by Butts County hs in fact a betterment and improvement upon the coriditians faced by the Departrzierxt of Parks Sc Recreation, If Parks & Recreation were required to submit this matter to the ReclamationBoazd, it seems unlikelythat they could get their project moving this fall and winter when the planting conditiozis will be ideal. ' Ta: Bittte.Covnty Pnhlic Works Departmq~, Brdte County Counsel ~ - Re: Developaaent Permit, Departusent ofPerlcs'BtRecreatiosi, far the PeLersonAdditionto tha Bidvre3l-Sacramem#o River State Park Date: October 3, 204 Page 3 . 3~ - LETTER ~F PR~TES~`: ~ . Mendonca Orchards, Inc. 3685 Chico Rivet Road Chico, CA 95928 Ph (530) 342-477I Fax (53.0} 893-3274: • ; . , March 25, 2010 ` Central Valley Flood Control Board 3310 El Camino Avenue'Room LL40.. -: Sacramento; CA, 95821 - ~ . ; , .. , . ::: .. Attention: Central Valley Flood Control Board . I am writing; this. "Letter of Protest" to you in response to a letter fxana ~e Central Valley . Flood Control Board pertaining; to am::application;for; gropased Zend activities. by :the California Department of Pants and Recreation. We ovvn and operate farm land north {up stream) from: the :proposed land project, ~ Tl~,e project,desexiptzazx is to restore a 43. acre ; - ., (Singh Unit).by zemoving~two Existing;berms and nonrsative (agricuitural);~egetation axad , :, planting riparian vegetai~ion and pative. grasses witbizi the. des7gnazed floodway (River ~, Mile 144} of the left (east) bank of the Sacramento Ri~er:• ,The. ~ocataon of tlais.proposed. _: land application is West of Chico and South of Sacramento Avenue Section 2, T21N, R1W, MDB&M ~Saczamenta R~'tver,~Butte:County). - .:: ~ . . The type of vegetation axed other property ,cb~angesrtl~at. is::being proposed for: this location - • will eventually, lead to increased• sediriient deposi.#s` frorn flood~:;water~ir-. the project ~-: -, , ~,., property as yell as a dez~€seir plant~habitat;which-:will in res~tlt~cause increased flooding on' ..;.. up-stream propsrtles iu~cluding our land just north o~ Saento Avenue; .;'Thus increased " . _ _ flooding w€ll rnalte out land less far3mable as a result of increased disease pressure from increased flooding.. o~ pur.: existing~ozrl~~rd. creased filoodirtg will also negatively impact public rQads_ amd resiclerxces itz the area. Depending on the ciegrce of changes, the proposed modifications could make our farm land less usable and restrtrict• its uses for:crop thus reduoina its value. _ Again vice strongly appose as stated in this Letter of Protest the requested land changes listed above for the reasons stated on tl~e land which the California Department of Parks . and Recreation has filed an application. .. _ -, . Sincerely, . ~u'''' Steven Mencloaca Chief Financial Officer 33 Laura E. Mendanca Revocable Trust 3437 Chico River Road Chico, CA 95928 Central Valley Flood Protection Board 3314 El Camino Avenue, Raom LL40 Sacramento, CA 95821 SUBrECT: PROTEST - :' March 17, 2010 1 am totally opposed to the project that California Department ofParks and Recreation is - appiYing for a permit to perform works on property kmawn ~as the Sir<gh~Uiiit~loca#ee=o~i die _.._..._.......~_w._.._.._...._ designated flaodway (River Mile 1.94) o~fthe left bank of the Sacramento River. The removal of tb•e man made berms could allow good dzainage flow, by not allowing water to back-up. But the removal of p~rbduc;ing walnu# trees, and replacing with tiparian , vegetation and native grasses will anly create a huge pxoblem for inyland: The `natural habit' will~slow the flow of water causing it to be redirected as debris builds zxp and large amo7mts of sift are deposited. Sinbe my land is opeia fariniand; water that is ' ~. . redirected tivill take the path of leasf resistance; flowing across my land carising,extreme erosion to my property and loss of income for•myself. For a direct example of what will happen to the Sigh Unit if this permit is allowed, take's cook at the Peterson Unit on the south side of the Singh Unit. This was planted with riparian vegetation `z~attual habitat''. As the debris and silt built up on the Peterson Unit, it •:. • also fi11~ the :existing sloughs causing watery began to back up and stand on both properties to the north of the Peterson Unit: This is the direct result of not:maintaining the natural drain sloughs:- I~ am asking that this permi# be denied. '. I ask that if you have ~y questions Tease direct thezra to my sori Lary Mendonca (contacE . information below) as he is my spokespezson and will tie happy to speak on my behalf' • regarding mycancerni"s on this matter: . Sincerely, `'Lauxa~E. Mendomca Farmer/Praperty owner r ~,ri~• ~'~e11ddI3,Ca "~ ~ _..._ 654 Reavis Avenue Chico, CA 95928 530-228-7625 530-342-7625 ... 3 ~- ~,~© ~ f. 7ohrx 7. Nock .: ~ ~ ,. .... 4033 Chd Fexry Road ;, Chico, CA 9592$ . Mazch 28, 2#110...: .., .. .. . . A.s a neighboring ProP~' o~'~ I objeot to the creation of new property uses that will create obstracti€ons to flood flows that divert waters onta my property and to t17at of other farmers who wish to eontinve in production agriculture. , . 'The application iefers to the e~sting walmrt orcb~ard as `~vnnative veg~tion". The use of the this field ss a walnut orchard requires the trees to be maizrtalned in a certain way that, as a consequence, allows increased water flow during flood events. The walnut tree orchard canopy must be prtm,ed with enough clearance to allow tractors and othe~c orchard equipment to pass uaderneath. Also, ma,~or silt accumulations must be removed in order for m+chard operations to pzoceed. These pra~cticxs are in ca~ra.st with what will occur with "aaative vegetatiton", Tlie nave vegetation will not be main#ained. The vegetation canopy will be low to tine ground with no clearance. Silt emulations will be allowed and go unmitigated. The result is the hydrological roughness will.increase overtime ~ native vegetation creates a physical barriee to flows. The native vegetation will catch 'brush sad debris fmm uPs#ream and ivr~r constrict flows. Silt laden flood waters will stow in this area. due ibo the increased hydrological mugbaiess and thereby raise the level •. of the properly aver time. The increase in property elevation will necessarily shift flood flaws to surrounding properties and. will destroy the current drainage Patterns which allows surface water to drain off from a$ticultural properties to the north (tire Mendonca Parties}. The result of tlais project will be increase flooding to neighboring farming operations and the destruction of tlxe current drainage pattern that allows the Mendonca property to drain. The increased flood flows will be felt both. as increased velocity o£ flood flows (due to the creation of increased hydrological roughness an the Singh Unit) and increased duration of flood eves {due #o the destruction ofthe natoral drain patterns across the Singly Unit). Neither ofthese consequences should be allowed. Tkte property immediately to the South of the Singh Unit is known as the Peterson Unit and is now part of State Parks. It was restored to riparian vegetation and is creating a 3S" physical banner to flood flows. The Petexsan Unit demonstrates that flood flows become restricted, silt accumulates and land levels rise, and that eventaaliY ~~~~"PmF~3''` owners received iuacreased flooding due to this t~ of land use change. The addition of the Singh Unit to the physical bazrrier created by the Peterson Unit w~l, create increased . ~ * #looding conditions 'which will Mize surround farmimg property, potentially to the port of becoming tm-~eaanomic. As a neighl~ring ProP~Y per and on behalf ofmy nei~bors, I ask yvu to consider- i this application carefully in view of the proposed change in land use and bow it will be ~ maintained and act in a way that maximizes flaw across the, Singh Unit. Please do not allow the California Department of Parks and Re~crea~.ion to harm the sutrouudiug lands.-', Please deny the request to Norm this property td aaattl~.er piece of -~maintaiued ------ ziPaiaaa'u~egefontba~twill create $dili~aonrfltsccl~g7nrthis~~x~itical: draimage~~area:-------- 3b March 24, 201.a ion Yego, Chief Floodway Protection Section Division of Flood Management Central Valley Flood Protection Board 3310 El Camirxo Ave., Rm. LL44 Sacramento, CA 95821 RE: Application to Remove Two Berms Near Proposed Sacramento-Bidwell State Park Mx. Yego, On March 23, 2010, the County learned that the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) sent an application to the Central Valley Rood Protection Board (CVFPB) for the projec# as described below: ,Description: To restore a 43-acre parcel (Singh Unit) by removing two existing berms and nonnative vegetation and planting riparian vegetation and native grasses ~+ithin the designated floodway (River Mile 194) of the left (east bank of the Sacramento River Location: The project is located west of Chico and south of Sacramento Avenue: Section 2, T21 N, RI W, ~B&M (Sacramento River, Butte County) Letters from CVFI'B seat to adjacent property ovvx-ers, dated March 9, 2010, gave them 20 days to protest the project or the matter,~y be approved on the CVFPB's consent agenda. The area in question pertains to the proposed Sacramento-Bidwell State Park. Butte County has previously sent a letter of opposition to this project and sent a delegation to Sacramento to oppose it. The County also sent a 3engthy response to the State's Environmental, impact Report on the project. Nonetheless, neither CDPR nor CVFPB notified the County on the application by CDPR. The deadline to comment ofthe application was March 29, 2010. However, the Co~uaty found out 37 about the applica#ian on March 23, 2010. The County's, engineer needs time to study the application to analyze aay environmental ~ a~-d/ar the flooding impacts to Butte Cowaty. Therefore, the Butte County Board o£ Snpemsars requests an eaeter~sion of the comment period of no less than 30 clays. Sincerely, Bill Connelly, Chair Butte County Board a£Supervisors cc: Butte Ca~mty $oatd of Supervisors ----~__...__StuarkEdell,utyJ~ire~or,~uttcl~ouot~&~bliE~~g------- --------.--- Enclosure 3$ $ . s Attachment C Hydraulic Analysis for Flood Neutrality on the Nicolaus anal Singh Properties, 3 Sacramento River, Mud Creek, and Big Chico Creek, May 30, 20DS, Prepared for s The Nature Conservancy by Ayers Associates `. I , 3 ~' i HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOOD NEUTRALITY ON THE ` NICOLAUS~AND SINGH PROPERTIES. SACRAMENTO RIVER, MUD CREEK, AND BIG CHICO CREEK May 30, 2008 Prepared For: 7'he~a.~.~`~ ~. ~onservancy~ Protecting nature, Preserving Iffe. . _a /~ gD Prepared For: ~onser~anc~r. Proteetir~g nature. Preserving Ilfe. v00 Main Street ' Chico, California 55928 Prepared By: ASSOGiATES 2150 River Plaza Driae, Suite 330 Sacramento, CA 55833 {916) 563-7700 Ayres Associates Project Number: 33-0577.00 ~( Tabie of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION. .... ...................................... ............. .........................1 1.1 Genera} ..........................:..:........................................:...................:....................1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................1 1.3 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................3 - 2.0 TWO-DIMENSIONAL HYDRAULIC MODEL RUNS ..............................:...............4 2.1 Existing Condition............: ...........:...................:..................................................4 ---- ----- - -- 2.2._. _~th-t?lu~~cf~anditiQ>~.~..~...........4.....~...,.,.~.ti,A.s,_.~..-tie.....s..~.-~.~,..~....,.~,.....,.~.u..~.~ .~..- ...._. 3.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING ......................................................................................~ 3:1 Generai .....:......................................................................................................... 5 3.3. Material Roughness .................................. ...................................................... 6 .... 3.4 Boundary Conditions .........................................................................................: 6 3.5 Calibration ........................................... .......................................:....................7 4.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS ......:..............................................................7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................16 6.0 REFITRENCES .....................................................................................................16 Hydraulic Analysis far 1=laod Neutrality t Nicolaus and Singh Properties May 3t), 2D0$ Ayres Assodates Inc EngineerslScientlstslSuroeyors Sacramento, CA ~~ 9.0 INTRO©UCTiON 1.1 General This'report summarizes the findings of a`.2-dimensional hydraulic analysis on the Sacramento River from approximate river mile {RM} 191 to RM 196.5 and includes Big Chico Creek and Mud Creek, as shown in Figure 1: This report was p~eparedao assist The Nature Conservancy {TKC} in', analyzing of the. hydraulic a#fec#s of riparian restoration and the.removal:afi small berms along Mud-Creek within the Sacramento River floodplain. To determine the hydraulic eflectsof#hese changes on the floodplain ofthe river, an -_- ___ _-existing 2-dirriensional-(2D} hydraulic model was mod(fiedar;~d,used:;~T.he:~reyious two- ---. _._- .~.- ---.~....~... __ dimensional, model was developed .for.TNC.ta analyze Levee setbacl<~ options arid- restoration {Ayres Associates, 2002}, .Then new model included~:the #ributary Bows of Mtid Creek.and.E3ig Chico.CreelC - 1 The riparian restoration areas and the berms are located. on the left side;of the.;` ~ • Sacramento River floodplain, at approximately, RM 194.." 195 assflown in Figilre,2 (n 1=lgure 2, the land use change, areas are outlined., and the:yelfow lines show #he;~` locations af~the,berms. The:project area cor"silts of two'areas, the northern area is lcnnwn as the:Nicolaus.Planting Zone,-and tfte southern area is the Singh Planting Zone. ,f 1.2 Purpase.and Scope ; -- . The purpose of this. projecf'was to use an existing~two-dimensional hydraulic model to eveluate~the hydraulic effects.of?habitat ~estorstion arid berm remor-a(. Thls'modeling was initially developed and;calilii'a#ed~for the~J-levee project The,madel:was the extended and re-calibrated-for tfe U.S. Array Corps of Sngineers~ project:(USACI=}: For - mare efficiency. in running the model; the limits were reduced to"RM 191 Ito '196.5, as shown in~:Figure ~. The project~was accomplished as laid cut ire the sccjpe`items fisted below ..:~ ~ ~ . ~ -- .. ~ _ .. • Develop and`caii brats the 2-D hydraulic model to the .1995 Flood Rvent with, the - updated 1and;tise map (2006}:Based on the previous ~2=D hydraulic model developed by Ayres.Associates In 2002, the updated mode[ was modified with 20fl6, year land; use -„,, _ • Develop an existing. condition hydrau[ic model -This. hydraulic model simulated the 1995 flood flow using past-January 1995~tapagraphy,`riverconfigdration and 2000 land use. • Prdposed~alternative hydrau[ic model run.=This hydraulic simulation~anaiyzed the 'impacts of the`potential land~use ci~atiges and. the remo~al`:of berms on two parcels in conservat(on ownership in:the reach between RM 194.and :FiM~195. . iiydrauiicAnalysis for FEaod Neutrality 1 , ..~,- ;,:, ,. - Ayres Assodates lac :.. Nicofaus and:Sinph.Prapertlas ~n9ineersj5clenflsfslSurveygrs • NEaY 3E1; 2008 . Sacramento, CA y I r ~ `~ - `? C~?+- ~ Mamlitan ~,~ q f3 - ~ '` •. ~' ~~rvetr' ~~ ~ . ~zo 9pq ,. , a -y ' - •~. _ . ~il r ~~,. it ' _ _ 6: ~ ~ ' t , ~ : ~' ~ 9yo ~• a~ . ~ . 45 M a ~Imit ..~1-- ~° . Wet!' ~~ .~. .,- ----- - , - ,, ~ _ • ~ ~~, ;~._ • _ r . - s _ .. ~ .' ~ ~ `y , r !fe'y' ' ~'r f ~~ `~ v , ,-~ - _ 793' ~ ~ .... I - - .. r ~,, ~ ' . ~ •` f' ~ rs~er:~ ~ . ~ ~ 1 , N ~-~- 'a.6s T Scfden staa.i r S Figure 7. l.ocatiol~ Map showing project area iiydraullc Analysis for Flnad Neutrality 2 Ayres Associates lna Nicolaus and Singh Properties EngineerslSdenllstslSurvaybrs luay 3D, 20fl6 Sacramento;'CA figure 2. Project Area.showin~ Proposed Mabi#at Restoration Communities 1.3 Acknowledgements This analysis was authorized i,y The Nature Conservancy (TNC) throug3~ ti,e Sacramento Riper Projects office in Chico, California. The point of contact for TNC is Mr. Ryan Luster in Chico, California. The hydraulic rriodeling was,conducted by the Sacramento office o€ Ayres Associates under the direction of Mr. Thomas W. Smith, Pi=, GE. Hydraulic Analysis far >=1ood Neutrality 3 Nlcolaus and Singh Properties May 30, 2008 Ayres Associates Inc EnglneerslScientistsJSunreyors 8auamenfc, CA 2.0 TWO-DIMENSIONAL HYDRAULIC MODEL RUNS 2.1 Existing Condition The existing condition hydraulic model represents the land use in 2005 {based on aerials developed by the U.S. pepartment of Agriculture) and the river configuration that existed following the 1995 flood events, The existing conditions land use in the project area is Shawn in Figure 3. The model uses the topographic mapping data developed for USACE following the 1997 flood event, This run will sefve as a baseline for comparison to the with-project condition. 2.2 With-Project Condition The with-project condition model incorporates proposed land use changes within two conseivation ownership parcels {see Figure 4). In the Nicolaus Planting Zone, the land is currently covered by orchard, and will be converted to campgt'ound and forest, with a grassland buffer for the with-project condition. In the Singh Planting Zone, the proposed land use change is from orchard to :mostly riparian forest, with a grass buffer at the north edge, and a meadow flow through. The rest of the model has the same land use for bath the existing condition and the with-project condition. The with-project condition-model also removes the berms along the right ban[c of the Mud Creek, in the Sacramento River floodplain near RM 194, and the southern boundary of the Singh property. These berms are shown in Figure 2. The sizes and locations of berms were field verified by Ayres Associates in May 20fl7. Figure 3. Existing Conditions Land Use Hydraulic Analysis for Flood Neutrality Nlcolaus and Singh Fropertles May 30, 2UOB DisatJle Main 'Channel ... --~-~--•--•---- - -- .. Culllvated~leld PasturalGrasslend Creek Bed SandlGravel Seuannah Orchard FarestA~iparian rlVelr~FlawlOveriapping Palley Oak ~iVoadland valley Oak Savanr~h Valley Oak t~lparian Forest Cottonwood filpagan Forest campground Figure~A.. Witla-Project Land Use Ayres Associates Inc Eng[neerslSclentlstslSunreyors Sacramento, CA 3.D HYDRAULIC MODELING ' . 3.4 General The 2-dimenslanal hydraulic rrtodeling tool used:for~this:project.was:the RMA-2V; program, maintained and distributed by the USAC~ and mollified {~y Ayres Associates.. The program has been used extensively far similar projects an-the Sacramento Rixer: and has proven~to be an effective model#or representing river flow conditions.. The.. Surface:-:Water Modeling System (SMSy version,9.2•pre- and post-pra>~essor was:used.to develop the:model.geomefry fie and fb view model:resuits. : • 3.2 . Model dei-elcpmenf'. . .. , The geometric definition of the,project reach:is given in the.forrrt of a finite element network of triangular and quadrilateral elements;:known as a i~esh;~as shown.in.iFigure 5. The elements were sized and oriented to represent hydraulic features, breaklines, structures, and topagraphic'changss. l=ath elEment contains comer and mid-side nodes, which represent points_irt space {X, Y, ~ and define the topography of the project reach: These Hades were laid out .using.topographic mapping and aerial,photography as a reference for elemantsize and orlentatlon: Elevatlarrvalpes:±nrere,asslgne'd to'the nodes using •a d igital #ercain model of the river reach.... .. - ..._ - ..1, -. . H. Not To Smie ,~~ ^~~ti=y ~ r t ivv' E vri~u i ~ i v ~c ~f~c-~r~, ~ irc ~ ~ ._ Figure 5. Plan view~of the Fit~ite,~lement Mesh _ `^ HydreullcAnalysls for ~Iaad Neutrality ~ Ayres Assoctatea inc Nieolaus and Singh Properties Enginearsl5cferttlstsr5urveyors MaY 3t}, 2008 $a6F8R'Ee[ItO, CA 3.3 Material Roughness I ~ Material types were assigned to each element based on land use and roughness ~ characteristics. The land uses are represented in the.model by Manning`s roughness: coefficients The.materfal types were assigned.to each of the elements in the finite elem8ir~t mesh using 2006 aeiiah photograph. A Meld visit was also rr>;ade. to confirm laird usage: 1=ar each material type, a Manning's roughness coeffcient (n value) was assigned to represent a roughness "type. These.vatues were determined primarily from the previous modeling effort, and originaliy.were derived using standard engineering .. protocols and references. Material Types and corresponding Manning's n values used in the model are listed in Table 1. The land uses for the existing and with project condition ~ is shown in I~'igures 3 and 4. The material roughness of the campground is between Va ey 0ak'UVaodlancl and Scrub. There~ore;~fhe il7farining's'n ~aiue oi'-carnpground. is ~--•~• -~- ~-~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~~- ~ _ determined as the average n of #hose two matai•ials. '. • Table 4r :Manning's'Roughness Coefficients- • i Landscape ©escription ~'- Manning's Roughness Coefficients i_eveelRoad ~ ` ~ 0.025 Main Channel OA35 .Cultivated Field _ ~ 0.035 - PasturelGrassland 0.035 . Creek Bed , 0.035 ' Pine Creek Bed - 0.035 Sana~Gra~e~ ~ ' 0.04 Stony Creek Bed 0.04.: Savarinah ~ 0.05 Scrub ` 0.10: Orchard D:15. ,. :: Forest/Riparian 0:16 13ui1dingslStructfrres 0.20 , Va[ley Oak Woodland 0:12 Valley yak Sa~anrta.: ~ 0,05 .Valley OaEc Riparian Fflrest .0.95 Cpf#onwoo~ Riparian' Forest ` 0.16 " 'Campground 0.1 T I 3.4 Boundary.-Conditions :The hydraulic madei for this study'extends"frgm River Mlie (RM) 196:5 ~#.the upstream end to RM 191 "at the" downstream end, with the lower 3 miles an bath Mud Creek and Big Chico Creek as shown in i=figure 1. The RMA-2 program requires input parameters for the upstream.and downstream ends of the model.` i i f Hydraulfe Analysis for Ffoad Neutrality 8 Ayres Assaclates inc I Nlcalaus and"51ngh Praperdes EngineerslScier~istslSurveyors May 30, 20[}8 Saaarnenfa, GA E E The upstream flow data used forthis model was the peak flow data from the January 1995 flood event, published by USGS, of 17B,000 cfs. For Mild and Big Chico Creek, flow data from the 1995 event was not a~ai€able, so the channel design flows were simulated. The design flow"on Mud Creek was 15,000 cfs and on Big C hico Creek, it was 7,000 cfs. Downstream .water surface e[evatio~ bou r~dary conditions"were; referenced from :previous 2-dimens€onai madeling;conducted #or.the Butte Basin reach of-the Sacramento River. The water surface;eleVa#lon ass ignsd to the dowlistream:end,.of the niotiel was 130.5 ft . 3,S '. Calibration - --- - -'-- ~- -- ..~.~'.TTwo caiibratioris were~~oerformed'6y~t~i~e pire~laus;studies; one~o~the initial Jae~ee - ---- .. .wT ~..-- project #a a historic flood flow and again for tha USACE project to;a rrtore recent flaw event: The model used in this project is the €a#est version after calibration. `4A... HYDRAULIC MQ©ELINGRESULTS The velocity cantotars for.the ex€sting candit€an and tha wrth~rojact condition arf: shown ir! Figures 6 and 7, respactir-ely: The velocity differential plot is,shown in Figure 8:.The velacitjr .differential equals` the `existing condition values subtracting from the with-project - Condition values. The:velocity contours show.~that the yeioctty: is between 0:0 ftls and 3'.S " ftls in the project areas'for loth the existing condidbn.and"the" with-project~cond€tion., 1=or the with-project condition; the land use'chang,e'causes 'slight velocity increases. The largest velocity increase is 2.d ftlsand is located in the.meadow flaw-through passage in ':" >the=S~ngh praparty.. The existing velocity in that area Is;ratighly 1.0 ftls, and as,lang as the"passageway: remains ~egetated,.this increase should +7ot have any harmful effects. There, are increases ad jacent to M ud Greelc'of up #0 0.5 #tls {from `05 #t/s #0"7:0 ftls) ~; The grass buffers cause-an increase on the west side of the prs~perties, with tiie greatest ~. incrBase be€ng 1:2 f fls {frarrt ~ .0 ftla to 2.2 ftls) at the soutliern end of the NiCCilaus :Cammuc~lty. The removal of the berm from the, Srigh,.propeiiy''causes an Increase in " that area, of up to 0.7 ftls'{from 0.7 ftls to 1.4 f#/s) and also slightly reduces fhe velocity on the east bank of the Sacramento River adjacent to the;sife; Velocity vector plots for ,.existing and with; project condition are"shown in F[gures 9'antl ~0: These:do: riot show any significant change irr: the-flow path of the river and flaodplain . :The water depth plots for ttte existing conditi qn and the-with-projeot condition are shown in Figure 14 and''12,.respect~vely. The water;surface differential plot is shown in .Figure -13. The water surface elevation differential shows no increases withiri either the Nicalaus ar the"Singh Planting Zarin. A decrease of 0.10 ft accitrs at the tap of the Oak Savannah planting' w€thin the Nicolaus Community. 'I Hydraulic Ar~atysls far Flood Neutrality 7 , , Ayres Aasoafat8s Inc NEcaiaus and Singh Properties Eng~neerslScferEtlstslS~[r~eyars Niay 30, 2008 sacramentp, cA 4 Figure fi. Existing Conditions Velocity Hydraulic Analy§Is for Flood. Neutrality 8 'Nicolaus and Singh Properties Mey 34; 20Q8 -Ayres Associates Inc EnglneerslScteritistslSunreyors Sacramento, CA Figure 7. Restoration Conditions Velocity Hydraulic Analysis for Fiocd Naufraltty 9 Ayres Associates Inc Nicolaus and 51ngh Properties EngineerslSclentlslslSurvayors May 30, 2UE18 Sacramento, GA ~.aa i 1`.5a i at t .aa asa a:ao `=o.~a ..~ .aa -1.50 -~.aa Figure 8. Ve[acity Differential - Resto ration to ~xis#ing Hydraulic Analysis fvr Flvvd Neutrality i 0 Ayres AssvGates inc Nicalaus and Singh Praperttas EnginaerslSciantistslSurvayvrs May 30, 2008 Sacramerdv, CA Figure 9. Existing Conditions Velocity Vectors Hydraulic Analysts for Ffcod Neutrality 11 Ayres Associates ]nc NlcoEaus and Singlt Progerdes EngineerslScientistslSunreyors May 3U, 2©OS 5acramento, CA Figure 70. Restoration Conditions Velocity Vectors Hydraulic Analysts for Flood Neutrality 12 Ayres Associates Inc iVlcolaus and Singh ProperOes EngineerslScienfistslSurveyors i4[ay 30, 2808 Sacramento, CA Figure'19. ~xls#ing Conditions Wa#er Depth FkydrauficAnalysis for Flood Neutrality i3 Ayres AssocEates Inc Nicotaus and Singh Properties ~ngfneerslScientlstslSurveyors .May 34, 244$ ~ Sacramento, CA ~~:: .,, ~ _ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~. , ! - y=~,r a , 1, ~ L - ~ _ _. .. _ 't ' +i_.>~ ~ ~''= • _ ~ ~_Y • ~,5,. N~. u~~ :~~ _ rE + ' ~} S;,':~: Sri r -~ ;l ..4'SJ.3~: ~.y l..c:.•7 -i ~ ..~ { ~ n1• i . -Z. ~ e ~ F= ~ ~ Y.V. ' :. #~ • , 4 ~ .F ~ i : .~ _ t f e r F " t y ~~ i ~` ~.~}}~~ ~~}} ~ I] ~ t ~ s U ~ , ~. US SURVhl' FEET ' • v saa ~ aoo i soo zvvo ~! Figare 12. Resfaratian Canditians Water Oepth Hydraulic Analysis for Mood Neutrality T4 Ayres Associates Inc Nfcolaus and. Singh Properties Engineersl5cfentistslSurvayars May 3D, 2008 Sacramento; CA _, ~ . ~ . .... . . :;.. 0.60 a.ao o.4a 0.30 0.20 0.10 -0.00 -0.10 -a.zo -0,30 -0.40 -0.50 -0.60 -0.70 .. ~i .. - .~ US SURVEY FEET 0 500 1000 1500 2E100 Figure 13. Water Surface Elevation Differential -Restoration to Existing HydraullcAnalysls far Flaod Neutrality i5 ,.. ; Ayres Assadatas inc Nlcalaus and S]ngh Properties EngineerslSctentlstslSurveyars -May 3+J, 2008 Sacramento; CA 6.Q CONCi~USiONS Based on the analysis performed and results presented In this report, we offer the following conclusions. • The meadow flow-through in the Singh property causes a 2.0 ftls increase, however given the low existing conditions velocities (1 A ft/s) and planned vegetation, a resultant velocity of 3.0 ft/s will not create any harmful affects at this - location. • The with-project condition model shows a slight increase in velocities in the oak savannah area, campgreund area, grass buffers, and the locations of berm removals. These are considered less #han significant and should cause no . erasion problems. - • The hydraulic model shows very little change in water surface elevation. There. ~ are no increases in water surface as a result of this restoration. There is asmall - section of decrease of about 0.1ft in the Nicolaus Planting Zone. i3A' REFERENCES Ayres Associates, Twal]imensional Hydraulic Modeling of The tipper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 To RM 202A Including Riparian Restoration, Two Setback Levee Alternatives, And East Levee Rerrloval. Glenn and Butte Counties, California, 2002. U.S.- Qepart~rtent of Agriculture, 2006, Sacramento River Aerial Imagery Hydraulic Analysis for Ftood Nerrlral[ty ' Nlcolaus and Singh Praper~es May 30, 20(76 96 Ayres AssaGates Inc ~nglneerslSclerrtists/3unreyors Sacramento, CA Attachment D Sedimentation Analysis - Supplemental dociamentatio~~~ ,. ,:.. ,. " ~"9 R~verSmith ME~o~-NO ENGINEERING ,11 ~ ~i ~~vf a.MV "ro: Gregg VVemer, Senior project Director-Central Valley and Mountains ~~,~ ~~c~+NF _ ~tA_ from: Thomas VV. Smith, PE, GE Dace: January 5, 2011 rte: Singh Restoration Sedimentation Review and Analysis Pro act Sea e ~ 0~30.~ ~ CIVIL ~~Q ~~ CAt-lF~~ This review of the proposed restoration on the Singh :Unit of the Bidwell-Sacramento River State park was requested by the Chino office of The Nature Conservancy as a folEow-up to a previous hydraulic modeling report prepared try Ayres Associates in May, 20D6. Thant repor# summarized the findings of 2- dimensional hydraulic modeling and contained graphical outputs showing where changes in vegetation and land use would be and how that would affect flow paths, velocities and water depths. However that report did not address, in detail, whether or not there would be changes in sedimentation and erosion patterns as a result of the proposed project an the Singh Unit. Since the 20Q8 hydraulic rrcodeling report vfras released, neighbors to this Unit have voiced concerns that there may be changes in sediment and erosion patterns crew#ed by the proposed Singh project. The excerpt below is from a letter sent by Medonca Grchards, [nc (March 25, 20.10), located to the north of the Singh Unit which expresses a concern that the proposed land use changes will cause increased flooding on their parcel: _- '1'1:e t}ape of ve~etatir~n and other prnp~r~~ Lhan~es that is ~~ proposed gar #h~s lacatia~ ~~,~311 e~~e:::uai[y lead to ~lncreasetl sedin~eaxt dcpaslt,~ ~rn tlaod rater In the l;r~~j~;t, ~Ipxt~perty as ~vel1 as a der~,ser p3ant haYritat till~ich unll. in ~efit~lt cs~.ase irc~*~sed flc~cdin~ on. ', up"strear:~ pzcperties including our jaz~d.,ju~t rc~rth of Sacrame~~to ~~ea~ue. `l:l~is increased ~floading viiii ~nakc our land less t'a;~a.ahiv as a result of =~cr~s~esi tliseatie pressure frnr:~ ~trcrt;asc:tl flot~ding on our exitstyng orcl~:rd. lrcreased tlandix~g ~~113 also ne~alively i:r;~aci public roads and _:.:idences "=_n the: ~;L;~. i?cpcudinq an the d~~„cc of;.haul;~, #l~M pr:,nosecl ~nodificatioz~s could make o~ iat•m l~ ~d less usahla and sesirict its u,~cs far c€op thus r~ciit~ t4 vatue. RiverSmith engineering inc 4fl04 Corporate Way, Saeramarrto, CA 95931 Vo1Ce (976) 395.4455, Pax (949) 39S.44D7 Page 1 of 5 b~ The following excerpt from a letter represen#ing the Laura E. Mendonca Revocable Trust (March 17, 201fl} expresses concerns that increased sedimentation an the Singh parcel will cause erosion on the upstream parcel: 'Pile ~na~tiral habit' will ~lc~w ibc i<~a~• of~~a#er causing a} to be rec~cted as debris k~ttiids up and lame amoiarts o,€silt arc deposited. since ~riy laud is ep~ fa.Tmiand, water lthat is ~dir~cted vcrill take the path of least resistance, flov,•it>g across my land aatssir-g extrct~-re erosion to my property arad i.ass of incorr~c i"ar tnl~scif. Hydraulic Modeiinc R~sui(fs The results in the hydraulic modeling report showed vary Tittle change in velocity and water depth over the area modeled as shown in the figures that follow from the 20f}8 Ayres Report. . Making the project goad neutral" was by design. In developing the final confi'iguration for the proposed ' planting on the site, an iterative process was used and the layout was revised until a configuration was developed that contained any hydraulic changes to the project parcel. This was done by mimicking existing vegetation roughnesses as nearly as possible {within the hydraulic model) and #hen making additional adustments to the planting scheme where needed to make sure no off site impacts resulted. The roughnesses~used in the hydraulic modeling process have come from a previously calibrated, 2- dimerrsional model performed for the US Army, Corps of Engineers for the proposed setback levee at Hamilton City.` The values#or Riparian 1=crest and the Co#tanwood Riparian Forest arE slightly higher than~tiaat for orchard .and an open area of grassland was added to maintain the overall flow capacity through. the alts and neutral foodplairt hydraulics on adjoining parcels. The largest elange is within the grassland area of the Singh Unit and the differential velocity figure shows an increase of up to 2 fps far this area. This makes the new velocity over the grassed area approxima#ely`3 fps which is not considerE:d erosive far grass cover. Effects an Sedimenltation and Erosion Issues of sedimentation and erosion are directly related to floodpfain velocities, therefore any changes to the existing erasion and sedimentation patterns would be the direct result of changes in velocity antl, to a lesser exter>€, flow depths. A review of the differential velocities plot shows negligible change on any of the adjoining parcels. ~, There are same, changes within the Singh parcel primarily within the grassed` corridor where there is'an increase. of +2.0 fps {fatal velocity of approximately 3.0 fps). Forthe most part, existing velrscities:within this floodplain area are less than 2 fps and in the existit7g condition same areas of deposition are expected to occur: This will remain the same far the propo"sed plan. There are no measurable changes In flood depth on the floodplain for the Dore and after conditions, so no changes are expected in sediment transport in this area in relationship to flow depth. RivarSmith Engineering Inc .. 70Q4 Corporate Way, Sacramento, CA 85831 ~ ' Voice ($i8) 395.4455, Fax (916) 395.4401 .. Page 7 Df 5 6r Water Depth Differential - Restoratlan to Existing (Figure 8, p.10, Ayree, RU08) RlverSmfth Engineering ino 1004 Corpora#e Way; SacramenEo, CA 95831 Voce (916) 395.4455, Fax (916) 395.4401 Page 3 of 5 baZ 7.i~ ~~ 1.[)fl OSQ O.f]Q -I3.SU -1 .Q© -~ .~a -~~ .. ~ " ti •. .. ..' ussuav>:~r~r b 900 1000 15130 2000 Veiot:ity Differential -- Restoration to Existing (Figurel3, p.75, Ayres, 2008) River5mlth Engineering lnc 1pQ4 Corporate Way, sacramanto, GA 95839 Voice (918) 395:4455, Fax (99$) 395.4401 „- - PagB~4of 5 t 6~3 Conctus4ons Based on a further review of the hydraulic modeling results from the Ayres 2008 Report, { of€er the following canclusiorts: 4. Most all changes to hydraulics (vefacities) within the floodplain are contained on the Singh parcel, with the exception of a small reduction along the riverbank area downstream of the site and a small reduction along Mud Creek adjacent to the site. 2. Since there are no measureable changes in velocity or flow depth for the parcel immediately north of the Singh parcel (Mendonca property), no changes to the existing erosion and . .sedimentation patterns are predicted. .... _ ... _ . - _ -. ... _ ..... _ .. ... _ .. ..... . 3. C3verall floodplain velocities in the project area are slaw (approximately 2 fps or less} in the existing condition and as a result, some deposition may be occurring in the presently. This is not expected to change far the proposed restoration condition. 4. The increased velocity within the grassland corridor on the Singh Unit raises the total velocity to approximately 3 fps within this area and this is not considered erosive far grass cover. S. Since there are no major reductions in velocities, no new areas of deposition are anEicipated. 6: There is no change in the depth of flooding on adjoining parcels. 7:; !t is likely tha# the existing riparian forest downstream of the Singh parcel (Peterson Unit) has ' snme'carltrol over the overall floodplain hydraulics on the parcels of conoem. l~verSmith EngineerEng Inc 9004 Corporate Way, Seoramento, CA 95831 Valce (916) 395.AA55, Fax (918) 39S_4401 Pegg 5 OF5 ~4 Attachment E b~ Summary of Outreach Activities for grant ERP-02D-P16D to TNC The following is a ~~*~~ary of outreach activities that were conducted in 2007-and 2008. All outreach activities were conducted within the context of preparing the Environmental hnpact Report to comply with GEQA. During this process, TNC and the Cali£orraia Department o£ Parks and Recreation shared inforrciation on hydraulic modeling results, habitat restoratian glans, and recreation playas with neighbors of the project area as well as interested agencies. i~'eedback given • tp TNC and State Barks during public meetings and in one-an-one xneetiugs was incoxparated into the overall planning process to produce fuaai versions of the hydraulic aaaadelitag report, • restoration plans, and recreation plans. • Outreach activities are divided into two tirneframes: 1. pre-award and 2. Bast-award. Pre-award i outreach was conducted by TNC during the development o£the original CALFED proposal in summer 2001 while post-award outreach was conducted in 2007 and 2008 during the development of the Task 2 and Task 3 delivei~bles. ~.. Pre-Award Outreach August 10, 2001: Presentation to the Sacramento River Reclamaiaon Distinct Board of Directors TNC presented the original CALFED proposal on August l0, 2001 to the Sacramento Rawer Reclamation District Boazd of Directors meeting, and included local landowners in attendance. Michael Madden, Butte County Emergency Services Officer, was present on August 10, 2001, when TNC introduced this proposal to the Sacramento Rivet Reclamation District Boazd of Directors. Butte County Supervisor and SRCA Baird member, Sane Dolan, was notified of the original proposal submission. August 16, 2001 and September 19, 2001: Presentation to flats Sacramento River Conservation Area Foram Technical Advisory Committee • The proposal was also presented at the SRCA's Technical Advisary Committee meeting on August 16, 2001 and again on September 19, 200].. In addition, TNC provided an update in the SRCA Notes sent to approximately f 50 individuals and organizations. TNC attends SRCA Board and sub-committee meetings and will continue to give regular updates to the SRCA Board and interested SRCA stakeholders through these meetings and the SRCA Notes. August 23, 2001.: Presentation to the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forunx Baird of Directors The original CALFED proposal was presented at the August 23, 2001, Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF) Board o#' Directors meeting. ~66 August 27, 2001: Stakeholder meeting at TNC office. The CALFED proposal was discussed at a stakeholder meeting held on :August 27, 20D1.. All landowners in the project area were invited and numerous Landowners and;other interested parties were in attendance. Local. organizations represented at the stakeholder meeting include Sacramento River Preservation Trust and Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance. ` ~ 2. Post Award Outreach - ~ .. August 2007: Notice of Preparation and Final Project Descaription.diistributed - ~- ~. , .. :. ........ . .. . , .Tk~e E31~ NQtice Qf ~~epaxa#~o~ (~l'Q~} and final project de~criptjon,wa~ filed with the . State Clearinghouse and postcards were mailed to interested parties informing them o#' :; ' the NOP and project description availability. .. _ , . September 19, 2007: Public Scoping Meeting A public scoping meeting was held at the California Department of Parks anct Recreation Headquarters in Chico on September 19, 2007. At this meeting, a conceptual plan for the Nicolaus'arid Six3.gh properties' aras `pr~sex~ted~at~d comments from the,pubiic were received.: ; . Approximately 30 people attended the meeting. October ~.0, 20072: TNC and' StatE `Parks meets with neighbors to #he'sontli of Nicolaus amd ~ ,. north-of Singh properties' ::: _ - .. ,. . TNC and State Parks miet with meri~bers oftiie~Mendoxica fainilyat~the~Nicolaus property to~ "' discuss their aoncerns'rsgai'duag the zestoration design for the properties , .: .. , . ... ....-, .. i. .. . - ~anuary 31, 200$ --March 17, 2008: Distribution and Comment Period for Public Draft ~ EIIt ,. ~ ~ On Ja~xuary 31, 2Q08; State Parks'dishbuted to public-agencies az~.d the general public the Draft EIlt puirsuant to CEQA for the proposed prod ect. `A 45-day pu~ilic-re~+iew period, as required .by- - Sectioxi 1;5145 of the State CEQAA Giud'elines, Sias provided ozi ~e~Draft EiR that'ended on - -' ,.. March ].7, 200$: A notice of availability=bvas wiled to approximately 45 ~iAdividuals and agencies ."along with hard' copies- senti to approxirxiately 15 individuals and` agencies::.::.' In addition, hard copies of the DEIR and the Park Plan were available for review at the fallowing E locations. - ... .. - ~ ~ ... California lleparfaaoeut of Parks avd Recreation : .: 3 52S Esplanade ... .. .. Chico, California 95926 (530) 895-304 :. _ ! Chico Branclx o~ the Butte Couxity Library `' `: 1108 Sherman Avenue` - _ ~ Chico, Califor~.ia 95926 ,. , 7 f Oroville Branch of the Bette County Libraryy - 1824 Mitchell Avenue ~ , ;; .. . . Oroville California 95966 . 6.7 California State Parks Website; http:l/wwv~r.parlss.ca..gov/ Thirteen letters providing comments on the.doounnent were received by March 17, 2008. February 19, 2008: Public Hearing on Draft EIR Consistent.with;Sectlon 15202 of the, State CEQA Guidelines,; a<public hearing ~vvas held by State Parks on February 19, 2008 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.. at the Bidwell:Mansion SHP visitor Centex located at S25 The Esplanade, Chico; CA 95926, during.which.time agencies,and the public were given the opportunity; to providE .oral and written cammen~s,gn the Draft EIR, At this meeting, TNC presented results from the hydraulic ax~adeling as well as the restoration and recreation planning process _ . State Parks received:tbirteenleaers providing comments on the Draft E1R in:addition to comments received at: the Public, Hearing.. The written. and oral comments received on the Draft ., EIlt and the responses to those comments are provided ~ Chagtei 8 of the EIlt. All.comment :: ,:letters were. reproduced in their entirety a~acl oral; comments provided during the public-hearing:~~: were s1~~*~ari~ed. Each comme~at is followed.by a response to:the comrm~ent, withthe Dacus of the response being on substantive environmental issues. March 4, 2008: TNC and State Parks presents proposed project to the Sacramento. Riyer Conservation Area Forum TNC and State Parks presented the draft hydxaulia modeling report; restoration plans, and. recreation plans to the Sacramento River Conservation .Axes Forum's TechriicaI Advisory . Cooittee. July 3, 2008: TNC nee#s with Butte County Depar#nnent of Public Works TNC met with Stuart Edell, Butte County Deputy Director of Public ~lorks to. discuss xesults of the draft hydraulic modeling report. Based nn feedback front Butte County, TNC conducted, another round of modeling. August ~0, 2008: TNC meets with Butte County Department of Public W©rks TNC met with Stuart Edell, Butte County Deputy Directox of Public Works and Steve Troester,. To discuss issues concerning the Williamson Act contract for the Nieolaus property and a proposed timeline for restoring both the Nicolaus anal Singh properties. l'a September 17, 200$: final E2R ~istriibnted to hiterested partees and published at tlxe State Ciearingbouse (SHC# 2007082160). October I7, 2008: EIIt Certafied The Final EIR was certified by the Department of Parks and Recreation on October 17, 2008 when they filed a Notice of Deternzix-ation to the State Cleazughouse. This triggered a 30-day - period dozing which tine interesfied parties could contest the findings of the 1~inal EIlL All individuals and agencies who comxz~ented on the Public Draft E1R are notified of this step. - November 17, 2008: ETR Completed The Final ETR was not contested during the 30-day contest period and therefore was completed . .. ... . QR N~Y~~~ ~ 7, 2048. _ .. .. - - - .. . 70 Revised Singh Planting Plan . Notes: . i. All rows are spaced 30ft apart. 2. Tree rows will be parallel to the dixection of overbank #low as indicated on~the attached map.., :,,.;. valleyo$k~~~r~ ~ozesf ~vox~: _ . . Phase 1,~ Manual ~la3uting .. Density.(plant by row) 11' x 30' Emitter Density per Acre 132 Acres 18.9 Target:P. laming Date Spring, Project Year, 2 Total Locations 2,495 . Total l?lants 4,615 ~ ...: Caro... Structure ......... S atlas _ ..:'.. .., :.:: .. F uenc Total Overstary Platarrus racemosa Westerzx sycamore 19°/a 474 .... -• ~ Quartos lobata Valley oalc,. 3S% 873 , `' Midstory ~ ,4cer negundo, Box elder-. ~ 10% 249 F3~aximts lat~folia Oregon ash 10°/a 249 . Understory B,accharus ptIulm~ts Coyote brush 6°/a iS0 ` 7'oxlcodeiralron diverstlobum Poison oak . ~ S% 125 ~.: ..,.. ..-,..,~. ~. ,. .. .... 8S% 2121 Herbaceous ~ Carex barbarae -, Santa Barbara sedge, 40% 998 ._ .. Muhlenbergta rige~rs Deergrass ..; . s. 14% 249 __ ]?orbs flrtemisia douglQSiana .. Mugwart 14°/a ~ 249 Euthamta ocidentalis California goldenrod 10°/a 249 Urtica dtoecia Hoary nettle 5% ~ 12S Oenathara hookeri Primrose 5% 125 Vines AristoIochia caltforntca California pipevine 13°/a 324 Clematis ligusticifolia Gleraa#is 5% 12S Yitis caltformca California grape. __ 2% 50 100% 2495 7l Mlxed Riparian Forest (MRP) 1'base 1- Mannal Plan#iag Density {plant by row) 11' x 30' Emitter Density per Acre 132 Acres . 6.1 Target Planting Da#e Spring, Project Year 2 . Total Locations 80S Total Plants 1,151 Canopy Structure S~ecles Rregnency Total . .. Q~~erstory .. ,, PTatanus racemos~ ' . Wester, syc~;e 22% X77 ... Populusfremontir Fremont cottonwood 14°1o i 13 Quercus lobata Valley oak 12% ' 97 Ivlidstory .4cer rregundo Box elder 12% 97 ~ Baccharis sane folia Mule fat 6% 48 Fraximrs Iatifo7ia Oregon ash 10% $1 Saliz gooddingit Goodding's willow, 5% 40 `- Sa7ix lasiolepis Arroyo willow 5% ' ' ` 40 Understory shrubs Baccharus pilularis Coyote brush 2% 16 . Taxlcodendron diversilobum . Poison oak S% 40 .. ... .. .. ._.... ~ o-: 93/0 ..; 749' '_. Herbaceous Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedge 20% 161 Muhlenbergia rigens, Deergrass `~ S% 40 Fortis. Artemrsla douglasiana Mugwort 10% 81 Euthamra ocidentalis Calil'orriia goldenrod S% 40 "` ' ~ - . Urtica dioecfa - Hoary'nettle 3a/o 24 Denothera hookeri Primrose 2% 16 Vines Ar7stolochia cal farniaa California pipeviae... 2% I6 Clemartrs li olio ~f - Clemai~s 2% :; 16- ` Vtis califorriica Cali~fonva arape~ 1% 8 50% ' 403 7 oZ Cottonwood Riparian~~'orest (CWRI•~ ~' Phase 1- Manual Plan#lag Density (plant by row) Z 1' x 30' Emitter Density per Acre 132 Acres S Target Pleating Date Spxing, Project Year 2 Total Locations bb0 Total Plants 891 Cana y Structure Species Frequency Total _ - .O~+exstox3r Platanusracem~ ... Wes#ert3sycarn~oze 1$_/s. . 1~9 - - Populus fremvntii Fremont cottorwwood 23% 1S2 Quercus lobate Valley oak 12% 79 Midstory Acer negundo Box elder 4% 26 Alms rhomblfol~a White alder 2% 13 Baccharrs salicffolia Mule €at 5% 33 Fraximrs latifalta Oregon ash 5% 33 '~ Salix gooddtngii Goodding's willow S% 33 Salix lastolepis Arroyo willow 4% 26 ~ Understory Baccharus pilularrs Coyote brush 2% 13 ~ Toxicodencdron diversilobum Poison oak 5% 33 8S% S61 Herbaceous Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedge 20% 132 Carex praegracilis Slender sedge S% 33 . Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass 2% 13 Fortis Artemisia douglaslana Mugwoxt 4% 26 Urtica dioecia Hoary nettle l0% bb Vines Aristolochia californica California pipevine 5°~ 33' Clematis ltgustlcifolra Clematis 3% 20 Vitis californica California grape _ 1 % 7 SO% 330 7~ txtracted Figure 10 #rom the Ffnal Nicolaus and Singh Hydraulic Model-Report (Ayres Associates; 2DD8). Figure ZD indicates direction of overland flow with restoration conditions. ~~,.' I ~ i=igure 1.fl. Restoration Conditions Velocity Vectors f HydraulicMaiysis for Flood iVeutrality 92 Ayres Associates Inc EVicolaus and Singh Properties Engineersl5clentistslSurveyors May 36, 20Q8 Sacramento, CA ~~ Singh restoration communities showing direction of tree rows parallel with direttiort of overlarid flow . 7~