EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the period of April and May 1997 there has been increasing concern related to how to best coordinate the efforts of PL84-99, a short term recovery program, with the long term vision of developing a more comprehensive flood plain management strategy for California, especially the Central Valley.

Considering discussions of the CALFED Policy Board, on May 13, 1997, the Interagency Task Force volunteered to hold a meeting to discuss how to move towards a more integrated process and address the long term vision. On May 14, 1997, a multi-agency group met and crafted a proposal to form a Flood Plain Management Working Group of the Interagency Task Force. The group further identified 8 critical issues that need addressing to allow for the successful implementation of the flood plain management initiative. The highest priority items dealt with the potential impacts on adjacent landowners that would result from implementation of a non-structural solution. This was closely followed by developing a better understanding of program authorities and funding that would allow for the implementation of both short term and long term strategies.

BACKGROUND

Record rains in December 1996 and January 1997 brought significant flooding to Northern California, especially the Central Valley. The reservoir and levee systems of the region passed record volumes of water, and unprecedented river stages in many of the major river systems. Flood damages were extensive including in excess of 80 levee failures in the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and other river basins. Most levee failures were related to the extended duration of flow in the rivers, the subsequent saturation and piping of flows under the levee and in some cases the ultimate collapse of the levee due to piping induced erosion of the subsurface of the levee.

In the weeks and months following the flooding, recovery strategies varied from the traditional approach of restoring in place all damaged infrastructure. Policy makers and citizens were asking basic questions related to methods of recovery and whether alternative flood plain management strategies such as non-structural alternatives should be considered for implementation.

While there are many factors influencing this change in philosophy there were several factors at the local and national level that led to the consideration of alternative strategies. Some of these factors include:

 1993 Midwest flood experience and the success of non-structural strategies in reducing damages in 1995 flooding.

 A general sense that many property owners in flood prone areas are becoming tired of living at risk and are open to non-structural strategies.

 The publication of the White House Interagency Task Force Report, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21^st Century, commonly called the Galloway Report which in part urged the balancing of structural programs with non-structural strategies.

• Legislative Changes in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 that directed the Corps of Engineers to consider non-structural alternatives in the application of PL84-99, Emergency Repair Program.

• The organization of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which focuses heavily on the water resource and land resource issues of the region.

• The ongoing development by the State of California of the Flood Emergency Action Team (FEAT) Report, and a general sense that the state is very open to considering alternative strategies to strict structural controls.

In response to these events several concurrent actions occurred, or were ongoing (see diagram) and include:

1. The Corps of Engineers initiating PL84-99 activities including the consideration of non-structural alternatives, with a deadline of having repairs or commitments to implement non-structural solutions by November 1, 1997.

2. White House/OMB/CEQ directives that required the formation of an Interagency Task Force (ITF), with the Corps of Engineers designated as the lead agency to coordinate restoration activities with a specific emphasis on non-structural alternatives (NSAs) under PL84-99.

3. CALFED recognition of the opportunity to integrate program activities into those non-structural alternatives accomplished under PL84-99 funding.

4. A general recognition that PL84-99 by design is limited in scope and can not be used as a tool to respond to a system-wide basin plan or study analysis.

5. On-going basinwide planning studies for:

I. Sacramento River Watershed Reconnaissance Study

II. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Special Study

III. The San Joaquin River Mainstem and Tributaries Study

IV. Small Community Flood Assessment Program

6. A desire by many to develop a system based plan, whether this is through a proposed Phase IV Comprehensive Study mechanism of the Corps of Engineers, individual basin studies as currently authorized, or through programs of other Federal and state agencies.

Throughout the recovery process it was apparent that for non-structural alternatives there was both a short term and a long term strategy. What was not clear however was integration of the short-term strategy, primarily the Corps’ PL84-99 program, with the long term strategies of implementing a broader flood plain management approach for Central California. During the CALFED Policy Board Meeting of May 13, 1997, there was clearly expressed a need to outline an overall vision that integrates the efforts of existing programs and/or studies. From those discussions the Interagency Task Force and the Corps of Engineers volunteered to hold a meeting to explore a broader vision of how to address the non-structural and flood plain management opportunities in the region. More specifically it was noted that many had ideas on projects that could be implemented, but there was not a clear vision of the structure necessary for successful implementation.

EXPLORATORY MEETING

A meeting was held on May 14, 1997, to brainstorm the need for a multi-agency coordinating group on non-structural and more specifically flood plain management issues. Participants included: Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, CALFED, DWR/Reclamation Board, Department of Fish and

Game/Wildlife Conservation Board, and the Corps of Engineers. The following is a consensus based problem statement, organizational structure, and listing of key issues that must be resolved to facilitate the implementation of flood plain management strategies. In addition, this paper provides for general discussion, analysis and conclusions with a recommendation to move forward.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

STRUCTURE TO ADDRESS PROBLEM

ISSUES INITIALLY IDENTIFIED

The following issues were identified, and ranked for priority.

1. Impacts on adjacent landowners

• Flood Protection -- those adjacent landowners to a Reclamation District that previously had a levee in place - What does a proposed non-structural alternative do to existing flood protection?
• Endangered Species
• Environmental Compliance

• Existing -- Are existing authorities adequate?
• Needed -- If existing authorities are inadequate what is needed?
• Matrix – see enclosure.

 5. PL84-99 Timing -- Expectations

• How to assist COE in meeting deadlines. -- The emphasis here being July 1, 1997 as a target date for determining whether to go forward with a NSA or a structural repair.
• What will it take to get non-Federal sponsors and land owners to wait for a non-structural solution:

(Real estate transaction delays)

(Exposure to liability)

(Interim measures)

 6. Funding – Sources Need to be Identified

• Existing PL84-99 -- Current funding is dependent upon a Congressional Supplemental. How much, how soon?
• Needed -- What funding is needed from the agencies involved?
• Matrix
  

7. Phase IV, COE GI studies and other agency studies/programs 

• CALFED -- Relationship to and/or integration into the on going NSAs under the PL84-99 program
• Others

GENERAL DISCUSSION

As the Flood Plain Management Work Group progresses with the initial issues identified, there must be a clear linkage between existing programs associated with flood plain management.

Those linkages must address:

• Opportunities for managing floodways along the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Delta (including an identification of the current levee break fixes which can be shown to be feasible and cost effective implementation of the floodway management vision). Current projects along the stretch of the lower San Joaquin from, the I-5/205 interchange (Paradise Cut) to the Merced River which may fit into the overall vision are: RD 17, RD2062, RD2107, RD2094, RD2095, RD2075, RD2064, RD2031, RD2099, RD2100 and RD 2102. Along the lower Consumnes River is RD 2124. Through the ITF process, serious consideration of non-structural alternatives should be explored. The State, to include the Reclamation Board should be a full partner in the pursuit of non-structural alternatives.

• Identification of risk management issues for state, Federal, and local interest.

• Cost comparisons for non-structural versus restoring projects to pre-flood conditions. Preliminary estimates for example in the lower San Joaquin may exceed $200 million based on the alternatives available. Those alternatives range from levee setbacks to no restoration at all or a combination of both. Impacts of activities under the PL84-99 program should be considered. The cost comparisons should identify specific funding sources. Currently the only agencies that can clearly bring funding to the table are; the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Lacking at this time is an understanding of how FEMA and HUD programs could interface with this effort. In past flood events FEMA mitigation funding and HUD Community Block Grant funding have been powerful tools in the implementation of acquisition and relocation strategies. The state of California and CALFED may be able to offer funding related to ecosystem management and habitat restoration. See the enclosed authority's matrix.

• A public outreach plan and program that pro-actively present the benefits of the flood plain management vision and addresses risk management issues. The first area of focus should be to hold a general workshop of key constituents followed quickly with meetings in the Lower San Joaquin where the best opportunity clearly exists.

• Finally a plan of action for implementation on the viable non-structural alternatives must be addressed to include those activities that will transition to the long term solution.

One of the first efforts of the ITF-Working Group should be to review the existing Ad-Hoc Group’s report and those NSA proposals already presented to the ITF.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

There are many individual and agency ideas on what can be achieved in terms of non-structural alternatives to traditional levees. To date there has not been a mechanism to allow for the systematic appraisal of opportunities and a method to

define and resolve barriers that prevent implementation in the near and long term. The formulation of a Flood Plain Management Working Group of the

Interagency Task Force, will provide a forum to identify problems and develop recommended solutions. The participants concluded the May 14 meeting by identifying 8 initial issues with three distinctive groupings of priority. The highest priority items dealt with the potential impacts on adjacent landowners that would result from implementation of a non-structural solution. The second grouping dealt with authorities and funding for short term and long term implementation, and how to get a plan in place for a long term solution. The third grouping of priorities dealt with specific implementation, such as PL84-99, or with specific technical or management strategies to be applied in a given non-structural analysis.

While there is concern that the Interagency Task Force is really a short term task force, for now it provides a forum and mechanism to begin addressing the short term and long term issues. It is recognized that as the short term work of the ITF comes to a close it will be necessary to either expand the mission of the ITF or find a new policy level home for this working group.

The significance of the group recommendation that this working group be called the "Flood Plain Management Working Group" is very important. While the emphasis of the working group is very much on non-structural alternatives it allows for a broader vision of total flood plain management that includes flood protection and natural resource management strategies.

RECOMMENDATION

That the ITF-Working Group, hereby referred to as the "Flood Plain Management Working Group" is approved by the formal ITF. That the agencies making up the subgroup are committed to the pursuit of non-structural alternatives and other flood plain management strategies. That the Flood Plain Management Working Group begin to address the initial issues and review the Ad-Hoc Group’s report immediately in order for a determination to be made on those projects for which the July 1, 1997 is critical in restoration of flood protection by the next flood season.

ENCLOSURE - Authorities Matrix