Purpose of Newsletter:

The purpose of the Flood Plain Management Newsletter is to communicate current and future issues relative to flood plain management activities with the local citizens, Reclamation, Levee, and Flood Control Districts, State and Federal Agencies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources hosted their third outreach meeting on July 24, 1997, in Marysville, Yuba County. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings to educate and inform the Reclamation; Levee; and Flood Control Districts; together with concerned citizens on flood plain management activities currently underway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and to discuss recommendations of the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Team (FEAT) report. A copy of the FEAT report was provided to the attendees.

The meeting provided an opportunity to present the public with additional tools and avenues necessary for a successful flood recovery program. A discussion of a new challenge for managing flood waters that addressed the term known as "Nonstructural Alternatives" was presented. A brochure entitled "Meeting the CHALLENGE" was distributed to the attendees. The meeting also provided a forum for questions and answers.

FEAT Overview

Mr. Ward Tabor, General Manager of the Reclamation Board, summarized recommendations in the Governor’s FEAT report. The recommendations addressed the need for better emergency response actions at all levels of government and how to better manage our floodplains. Land use decisions need to be reviewed and considered as part of the overall comprehensive analysis. The recommendations also highlighted the need to review the roles and responsibilities of the Reclamation Board. Recommendations also included the review of the Reclamation Board’s Floodway Program. Some of the issues that lie ahead include authorization for new projects and an examination of Federal and State flood plain management regulations. The FEAT report encourages the Reclamation Board to support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service flood plain restoration proposals. The Department of Fish and Game is urged to facilitate levee repair and river channel maintenance.  Congress is urged to increase FEMA funding for updating rate maps. There is a need to improve computer modeling and mapping capabilities, and a FEAT recommendation that the Department of Water Resources strengthen local outreach to landowners to explore nonstructural alternatives. The report also urges the Corps of Engineers to use PL 84-99 funding to fix seepage and piping problems. In closing, Mr. Tabor addressed the requirements for establishing a floodplain management task force and the challenges that lie ahead for improving floodplain management.

Public Law 84-99 Update

LTC Schwing, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided an overview of PL84-99, which is the Corps authority to provide emergency assistance and repair damaged levees. The Corps authority only provides for project repairs back to preflood conditions and the repair must be economically justified.

 Progress on most of the PIRs have been completed with plans and specifications currently underway. Construction work is expected to be completed during the August-November period. In addition, LTC Schwing provided information relative to the Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 which now provided the Corps the flexibility to use PL84-99 funds for nonstructural alternatives.

Options for Nonstructural Alternatives

Mr. Doug Plasencia, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., under contract with the Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in the nonstructural alternatives program provided a short overview briefing on nonstructural alternatives.

 The definition of a nonstructural measure along with examples was discussed as outlined in the brochure on "Meeting the CHALLENGE". We are examining options of this type because it makes good sense economically and environmentally. Traditional methods for flood control only work to the point they are designed. From a systems basis, nonstructural measures will allow the reduction of potential flooding system wide, while removing the risk to the public.

Next Steps

Short Term - Mr. Bill Fakes, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided an overview on the short term approach for nonstructural alternatives. PL84-99 was changed by WRDA 96 to permit the inclusion of nonstructural alternatives in the repair process. The decision to implement a nonstructural alternative belongs to the local sponsor and not the Federal government. Sponsors will still have responsibilities under a nonstructural alternative. In that regard, the sponsor must accept transfer of ownership of lands or interests associated with the land. They must participate in the funding package on the nonstructural alternative to be developed and execute a project cooperation agreement (PCA).

Long Term - Mr. Ward Tabor, Reclamation Board provided a closing overview of long term recommendations. The Governor’s FEAT Report urges Congress to support the Corps study efforts associated with the flooding. Recommendations include funding the Yuba River Feasibility Report as well as legislation to conduct a comprehensive study of the San Joaquin River Basin. The Reclamation Board, Corps and Flood Control agencies need to pursue a 200 year level of protection project for the Sacramento River. The report also directs the DWR to evaluate the effect of canals or ditches adjacent levees relative to levee integrity.

Other Activities:

Non-Governmental Organization Meetings

On July 23, 1997, a coordination meeting was held at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, with representatives of several Non-Government Organization (NGO). Participating in the meeting were representatives from Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Sierra Club, and Friends of the River. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss short and long term efforts to date, seek input and recommendations on future direction for nonstructural efforts and outreach and coordination needs regarding flood plain management issues. Though most of the focus was on the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin’s, changes required in nationwide policy were highlighted.

 Mr. Doug Plasencia provided an overview of events that led up to the meeting, including recapping WRDA 96 authorization for implementing NSA’s. Mr. Bill Fakes gave an update on PL 84-99, including the status of the four NSA’s. Mr. Paul Dobie briefed the group on activities and the role of the Interagency TasK Force (ITF).

 The overall feeling of the participants was that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the appropriate agency to lead the long term efforts.

 A second meeting was held on August 6, 1997. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit further input from the Farm Bureau and those directly associated with issues related to the non-structural options. There was a brief overview of the background of PL 84-99 activities and the OMB guidance that led to investigation of non-structural options under PL 84-99.

Status of Current Nonstructural Alternatives:

 RD2099 – The landowner has accepted the offer from the USFWS and land acquisition and transfer process is underway. A FONSI was signed and executed on July 28, 1997. Sacramento District is currently coordinating with the USFWS and the State of California NSA sponsor issue. Sacramento District has initiated property surveys and topo surveys to determine existing flood elevations and potential impacts on adjacent landowners by abandonment of the existing levee. USFWS has indicated that the existing dairy operations facility will be demolished and only the family housing facility will need to be flood proofed.

 RD2100/2102 – The landowner of 2100 has not accepted the USFWS offer with negotiations still underway. The landowner of 2102 has been on vacation and has not evaluated the USFWS offer. Flood proofing of the West Stanislaus Irrigation District Pump Station will be necessary as a structural component of the NSA.

 RD2124 – RD2124 has indicated by letter, July 2, 1997 that they will accept local sponsor responsibilities. A draft PCA has been completed and forward for their review. A meeting scheduled for August 8, 1997 to review comments and status of NSA structural component plan (lowering and breaching of levees, flood proofing access roads and pumps and acquisition of LERRDs). A FONSI was executed on July 25, 1997. CA DWR is circulating the final EA for compliance with CEQ.

 San Joaquin #18 (Salt Slough) – The State Reclamation Board and the SJRLD1 have indicated verbally, that the levee repair is unwarranted and a NSA is requested. Sacramento District is securing a written request. A PIR completed on July 18, 1997 indicated that repairs were justified since the benefit/cost ration was .40 to 1. The EA is under development and will be circulated for public comment in early August 1997. The recommended plan is acquisition of flowage easements on 700 acres. The area is currently open space being used as pasture lands. No structures or damageable property is threatened.

Questions and Answers

 Highlights of the meetings Q&A sessions follow. Please note that they are not a verbatim record of the discussion but a general summary.

 Q. What are we doing to protect the urbanized areas?

 A. NSAs are not proposed for Urban Areas. The NSAs are normally in areas that have levees associated with agricultural lands. Levees in urbanized areas are being restored.

 Q. How can we alleviate mitigation sites in the river that block flow in the river bottoms? NSAs need to remove all the obstructions and allow more free flow of the river?

 A. We agree, no mitigation should be done without a thorough analysis. This analysis should be a comprehensive interagency approach.

 Q. In reference to the FEAT report, can something be done on the Feather River? The Yolo Bypass is a good model. Is that something we could do for the Feather River?

 A. Yes, this could be addressed in the long-term analysis.

 Q. In regards to the Yuba River and the Sutter Bypass can we remove the vegetation in the mitigation area? Does one agency have the authority to authorize removal?

 A. No one agency has the authority. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has cleared the channel areas of authorized projects in the past. The State is responsible for the channel maintenance now.

 Q. When will the slurry walls along the Feather River be in place? The locals are most anxious for the work to get done – we want something to happen now! (NOTE THIS PROJECT IS UNDER ANOTHER AUTHORITY NOT PL 84-99)

 A. The two contracts (RD 784, 2a & 2b) will be awarded in August and completed in time for the next flood season.

 Q. What type of material is being used for the slurry walls? Is this rodent proof?

 A. It is a bentonite and cement mixture. The material is not rodent proof like concrete would be, however, rodents would be somewhat inhibited from borrowing. It is not 100 percent rodent proof though.

 Q. How deep is this slurry wall?

 A. They vary from 40 to 70 feet in order to prevent movement of the water. The depth is dependent on the type of problem.

 Q. Do slurry walls create a problem somewhere else relative to a lack of having a slurry wall?

 A. No. There should be no great impact.

 Q. Is dredging the Feather and Yuba River a possibility instead of raising the levee? Would this not lessen the pressure on the levees?

 A. It depends how much water you can get downstream. Lowering the Rivers may help. The cost however may be prohibitive.

 Q. What is the role of DWR and the Reclamation Board relative to Fish and Game proposals that purchase land? Do they need approval from the Reclamation Board?

 A. No. The only thing required is a permit if the proposal involves environmental impacts.

 Q. Which of the 61 basins are in Yuba County and which will be first?

 A. 4 of the 61 basins are in Yuba County, They are: Subbasins 15, 16,17, and 40. RD 784 is in subbasin 15 and will be completed first.

 Q. What happens if private property is procured in relation to a flood control project and who is responsible for maintenance?

 A. If it is a flood control project - the sponsoring agency is responsible for maintenance.

 Q. If we consider an NSA that includes a setback levee, how do we keep USFWS from implementing habitat mitigation requirements? We need to know that USFWS, Fish and Game and other conservationists will not interfere with the flow of the river.

 A. No one seems to have a clear answer. However, it could be addressed in the PCA. Certainly, it could be addressed in the long-term analysis - the interagency floodplain management work group should specifically address this type of issue.

 Q. Why are you doing this study if CALFED is already doing the same study?

 A. What the interagency task force is doing includes CALFED. The issues you have raised are very valid. What we are trying to do is link all the current ongoing activities related to flood plain management together so that there is no duplication. It is a major undertaking. We want you to be part of the process. What we achieve in California will be a model for the rest of the country.

 Q. The FEAT report - recon study - Can we help to ensure your funding is there?

 A. The bill is pending, the boards support budget has not been signed.

 Q. Does Fish and Game have a basic standard for channel maintenance?

 A. No. Please contact the Reclamation Board if you have any problems.

 Q. Is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stepping away from structural work? Will the Corps participate in the Yuba River Basin?

 A. No, we are not stepping away from structural solutions. We need your help for a more comprehensive plan and therefore are going to have more workshops. The Corps will participate.

 Q. Do you see any NSAs in Yuba City?

 A. Not at this time. However, you should work with the Reclamation Board.

 Q. What is the practice for adverse land use by communities? Is there anything that would preclude us from building?

 A. Flood insurance - the community has to take a self-responsibility move. Future cost sharing for those who are practicing good flood control risks.

 Q.FEMA mapping - FEMA never mapped some areas?

 A. What ever is outside the floodplain - we are trying for the 200 year flood plain. Our goal is work with locals to avoid building in the floodplain and to work with FEMA to clearly delineate on a map. We can only mange within set parameters.

Visit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Internet homepage for the South Pacific Division at www.spd.usace.army.mil for information regarding the Interagency Task Force efforts associated with the nonstructural alternative program. For further information or clarification about this document, please contact:

Ms. Serene M. Terrazas,

Office: (916) 364-3025 FAX: (916) 364-3107

 Mailing Address:

 Interagency Task Force

Disaster Field Office

Building 3785, Room 2

3695 Bleckely Street

Mather, CA 95655

 Return to Interagency Task Force