Interagency Task Force Report

Levee Repair and Associated Restoration Projects

California Floods of 1997

July 6,1997

 

 

  1. REFERENCE:

 

a. OMB memorandum dated 18 Feb 1997, Subject: Floodplain

Management and Procedures For Evaluation and Review of Levee and Associated Restoration Projects.

 

b. OMB memorandum dated 25 April 1997, subject: Monthly Agency

Reports on the Status of Levee Repair and Associated Restoration.

 

2. PURPOSE: To provide an updated monthly status report for activities during the last 30 days related to levee repairs and non-structural alternatives as required by the above references.

 

3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTIONS TAKEN: In response to the December 96 - January 97 flooding situation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assisted State and local authorities in flood fighting while coordinating with other Federal and State agencies on operations of reservoirs to minimize the downstream effects as much as possible. After the December-January floods, the San Francisco and Sacramento District offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice for levee rehabilitation assistance under the PL 84-99 program. The Public Notice process was extended until May 10, 1997.

 

During the period between the time of the public notice and the floodwaters receding, the districts implemented an interim flood protection plan. The plan provided flood protection for the remainder of the flood season by maximizing the use of reservoirs and completing initial levee rehabilitation. This phase provided for a 25-year level of protection. The District offices are currently conducting field investigations and working on Project Information Reports (PIR’s). Each PIR will address the costs, benefits, environmental assessments, etc. The PIR’s evaluate structural repair of the levee as well as non-structural alternatives. The district will restore a structure’s flood protection to a pre-flood level and return the structure to its pre-flood condition if a non-structural alternative is not identified or agreed upon by the sponsor and the lead agency.

 ________________________________________________________________

  

The Corps is continuing with the funded studies identified in the previous report. Efforts will continue under Phase III to identify potential NSA’s and to repair damaged structures in accordance with established procedures.

 

  1. OUTREACH: Before the Corps performs a PIR, a field site visit is held with the local flood control sponsor and other agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, State Fish and Game Agency and other appropriate agencies to investigate the damages and discuss the repairs or potential for a non-structural solution to the damaged levee. The Sacramento District has also hired an Architectural Engineer to assist them in non-structural solutions process.

 

The contractor in coordination with the ITF developed and participated in two regional public outreach meetings. These meetings were Co-Hosted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, and the California Department of Water Resources. The meetings were held in Modesto California on June 24, 1997, and in Sacramento on June 25,1997. The Public meetings were to educate the public and the levee sponsors on Corps activities to date, the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Team (FEAT) Report and the concept of non-structural alternatives as well as to provide points of contact to the public. The California Governor’s FEAT final report and a brochure titled "Meeting the CHALLENGE" (see enclosure 1) were provided at these meetings for the public. Additional public meetings are planned for the future in the months of July and August as necessary. A Flood Plain Management Newsletter (see enclosure 1) designed to further describe the NSA program and other floodplain management activities was developed. The newsletter was provided to all attendees of the two public outreach meetings, other RD’s and agencies for information. Congressional interest were also provided copies of the document.

 

For those projects for which a non-structural solution is a possibility, meetings will be conducted first with the potential land owners involved. If the non-structural solution is endorsed by the land owners in the responsible Reclamation District, then a series of follow up meetings will be conducted. Congressional interest will be kept informed. The Corps continues to have an excellent relationship with the State and the outreach meetings are proving to be beneficial.

 

  1. BARRIERS TO NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES: The primary barrier in implementing the NSA program is landowners not wanting to sell their land, the desire for structural flood protection, and the time and effort needed to finalize a non-structural alternative. It is a complex process. Several non-structural alternatives are attainable, but it is a lengthy process and may take several months beyond the November 1997 time period to complete. Actions taken to overcome these barriers are to work hand in hand with the other agencies the State and Local entities. The ITF is identifying strong candidates for this program and is concentrating on completing those projects in the short term. In the long term, which will be over the next several years or more, the Corps, CALFED, DWR and the other key Federal agencies will work together to fully consider relevant options regarding NSAs. In that regard, a Flood Plain Management Working Group was established to address Flood Plain Management activities. Efforts will consider recommendations from the Governor’s FEAT report. See Section 8.

 

Funding for NSAs is also considered to be barrier, see Section 6.

 

6. FUNDING: Funds in the amount of $63,709,664 have been allocated as of the end of June 1997 for flood fighting and levee repair by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A supplemental appropriation for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies in the amount of $415,000,000 was approved and signed by the President. Funds are considered adequate for the PL84-99 program in the State of California.

 

On June 16, 1997, the ITF further developed a matrix titled Potential Funding for Implementation of Non-Structural Alternatives (see enclosure 2). This was developed to show the short and long term funding potential and challenges facing the implementation of NSAs. As illustrated by the matrix, funding is perhaps our biggest hurdle in implementing non-structural alternatives once landowners willing to sell are identified.

7. PERSONNEL: There are 77 personnel working on the levee repair and associated restoration effort. There are 72 at the District level, 4 on the ITF Staff and Colonel David E. Peixotto, the ITF Chair at the Division level. On June 30, 1997, Colonel Peixotto retired from active duty and Mr. Paul Dobie chairs the ITF.

 

  1. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE EFFORT: In an effort to improve Federal flood response and floodplain management in the future, the Clinton Administration challenged Federal agencies to look at non-structural alternatives instead of structural repairs to levee systems. Thus, the Office of Management and Budget in coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality designated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the lead Federal agency to facilitate this effort. The Corps convened an Interagency Task Force on 3 March 1997 to review floodplain management and procedures for evaluation and review of levee and associated restoration projects. Other members of the task force include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior which includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Agriculture -- Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Commerce -- National Marine Fisheries Service. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Transportation are not actively participating. State participants include the California Resources Agency, the Department of Water Resources, Reclamation Board and individuals from the CALFED program.

 

Agencies continue to struggle with their respective workloads. The agencies have been reminded that they must become involved early in the process, if the non-structural alternatives program is to be addressed appropriately. Agencies within the ITF structure are currently reviewing initial and final reports and working together closely with Federal and State environmental agencies and local officials as well as the CALFED program and the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which is addressing recommendations in the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Team report. While the main focus for non-structural alternatives will be on the Cosumnes and lower San Joaquin Rivers, the ITF is exploring other sites for potential non-structural solutions.

 

ITF staff attended the CALFED Policy Guidance meeting on June 17 and provided an update of RD 17 and other activities in general.

 

A formal ITF meeting held July 2, 1997, at the DFO, Mather Field, provided the agencies with updated information relative to the coordination efforts between the various agencies and the ITF. The GIS levee data base/mapping effort at the DFO is phasing down and the Sacramento District will provide maps on request to the other agencies. The ITF will coordinate all map requests from the other agencies with Sacramento District. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that a scoping meeting for the NEPA process was held on July 1, 1997, in Modesto. CALFED provided a short brief on the Category III funding program and provided copies of request for proposal forms that were handed out to the agencies in attendance. FEMA briefed that they still could not provide funds specifically for the NSA program but that the State of California had about $20 million in hazard mitigation funds resulting from the disaster flood event. NRCS is still reviewing the flowage easement program for which they now have funding based on the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The California DWR and the Reclamation Board updated the ITF relative to their being a need to chart all the ongoing activities to understand the relationship to each other as well as the status of three bills currently working in the State legislature. The Reclamation Board indicated that land owners downstream of the NSA proposal for RD 2124 have some concerns. The Interagency agreements and sponsorship required for the maintenance of NSA areas was briefly discussed. The ITF Staff Chief has agreed to take any issues to OMB and the other agencies for a July 16, 1997, meeting in Washington DC. The Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers briefed the ITF members on a new potential NSA located in the lower San Joaquin valley. This is sub-basin SJ-18, along Salt Slough. The request for repair is not feasible and a NSA is being considered. A Project Information Report (PIR) will not be available for review by the ITF until further investigations are accomplished to include land ownership and sponsor information.

 

The ITF staff at the DFO, Mather Field, continues to facilitate activities with the various Federal and State agencies. Over the last month, the ITF staff has facilitated meetings with the ITF membership relating to the working process of the NSA initiative, the GIS levee database effort, as well as the Flood Plain Management activities. In addition, the ITF Staff actively participated in the outreach meetings in Modesto and Sacramento. This ITF staff element will remain in place as long as the DFO is operational.

 

  1. PROJECT REPORT INFORMATION: Since the June 6, 1997, Interagency

Task Force monthly report there have been 12 additional levee project reports finalized with one being evaluated for a non-structural alternative. Eleven projects will be restored to pre-flood condition. Final memorandums have gone out to the South Pacific Division on 12 project reports. The ITF is continuing the process of evaluating all projects for potential non-structural alternatives.

 

Since the initial ITF report, 42 reports (out of 33 projects) have been circulated to other members of the ITF for review and comment. These 42 reports include drafts and finals and reflect projects under FEMA, NRCS and Corps authority. There is approximately a 40% to 70 % participation rate from the ITF membership for these reviews. Those agencies actively participating other than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are FEMA, BOR, BLM, FWS, NRCS, NMFS, CALFED, DWR and EPA. We have received no comments from the EPA. Enclosure 3 contains the comment sheets for each project along with a general summary status sheet.

 

10. SUMMARY: The ITF continues to provide a forum for those agencies motivated to participate in finding NSAs. Efforts continue on four likely NSAs. The NSA’s are: 1) RD2100/RD2102 - Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed with a multi-agency effort whose partners include the National Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources; 2) RD 2099 - which the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed; 3) RD 2124 - where coordination between Bureau of Land Management, the Reclamation District and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers is taking place for the NSA and 4) RD 17 - the Sacramento District in coordination with CALFED is evaluating a potential NSA . See the ITF monthly report dated June 6, 1997 for a summary description of these potential NSAs. Additional effort relative to a new NSA is in the concept stage as indicated Section 8 of this report. The ITF’s process, now well developed, continues to depend on agency involvement to be successful. We are continuing to develop outreach programs to reach out further to the local citizens, landowners and the levee districts in an effort to promote NSAs. The outreach program discussed in Section 4 has been a success. The major gains in NSAs will come from the long range efforts and the ITF setting the stage through some successful NSAs, increased public knowledge, and helping establish a favorable mindset. Overall, the ITF process continues to be outstanding. 

3 Enclosures PAUL W. DOBIE

Acting ITF CHAIRMAN

USACE

Enclosure 1

Enclosure 2

Return to Interagency Task Force Page