Annex B-3 Reclamation District 817. Table of Contents. 1 Introduction to Reclamation District

Transcription

1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction to Purpose of the Plan Governing Body Legal Authority History & Impact of Natural/Technological Hazards Summary of Local Mitigation Activities Plan Adoption Process Documentation of Local Government Adoption of the LHMP Planning Process Documentation of the Planning Process Description of Participation of RD Local Capabilities Assessment Local Human and Technical Resources Local Mitigation Funding Sources Local Ordinances & Regulations 26 4 Risk Assessment Hazards Identifying Jurisdictional Hazards Profiling Jurisdictional Hazards Vulnerability Assessment: Overview Asset Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability Assessment: Estimating Potential Losses Asset Vulnerability for RD Mitigation Strategy Unique Mitigation Goals to Reduce Vulnerabilities Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Prioritizing Mitigation and Implementation of Mitigation Actions Actions and Projects to Reduce Vulnerabilities to Existing and Future Hazards Plan Maintenance 46 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 1

2 Table of Figures Figure Figure 4 1 RD 817 Flood Vulnerability Table of Tables Table 1 1 RD 817 Board of Directors Table 3 1 RD 817 Mitigation Planning Timeline Table 3 2 RD 817 attendance at Yuba County Stakeholder Meetings Table 3 3 RD 817 Technical Resources Table 3 4 RD 817 Mitigation Funding Sources Table 4 1 RD 817 Asset Improved Value Summary Table 4 2 RD 817 Population Exposure to Flood Table of Documents Document 2-1 RD 817 Resolution of Adoption Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 2

3 Acronyms Acronym AFB AFG BAFB CalTrans CBEDS CDF CEQA CHP CUPA DHS DMA DoD DWR EAP EOC FEMA FERC GIS gpm GPU Haz Mat HAZUS HEC HVA ISO LAFCO LHMP MHMP MJP MSR NFPA NIMS OES PG&E PL Prop 1E Prop 40 Prop 50 Prop 84 RD RR RWQCB SACOG SEMS SR Definition Air Force Base Assistance to Firefighters Grant Beale Air Force Base California Department of Transportation California Basic Educational Data System California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) California Environmental Quality Act California Highway Patrol Certified Unified Program Agency Department of Homeland Security Disaster Mitigation Act Department of Defense Department of Water Resources Emergency Action Plan Emergency Operations Center Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Geographic Information Systems gallons per minute General Plan Update Hazardous Materials Hazards U.S. Hydrologic Engineering Center Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Insurance Services Office Local Agency Formation Commission Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Municipal Services Review National Fire Protection Association National Incident Management System Office of Emergency Services Pacific Gas and Electric Public Law Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Fund California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 California Clean Water, Parks, and Coastal Protection Act Reclamation District Railroad Regional Water Quality Control Board Sacramento Area Council of Governments Standardized Emergency Management System State Route Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 3

4 SSWD STAPLEE UCR UFC UPRR USACE USDA WESD WUHSD WWD WWTP YCWA YRDP YSDI South Sutter Water District Social Technical Administrative Political Legal Economic Environmental Uniform Crime Report Uniform Fire Code Union Pacific Railroad United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Department of Agriculture Wheatland Elementary School District Wheatland Union High School District Wheatland Water District Wastewater Treatment Plant Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 4

5 Foreword The (RD 817) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex was prepared and funded as a component of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Yuba County Plan) and is supplemental to the Yuba County Plan. The project was funded by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program. The purpose of the Plan is to identify and prepare for disasters and emergencies, and to prioritize effective mitigation strategies to prevent loss of life and reduce damage to property and the environment. The development of the county-wide plan provided the opportunity for local governmental agencies and special districts to develop local hazard mitigation plans and participate in comprehensive mitigation planning. In early 2004, the California Governor s Office of Emergency Services (OES) notified all California local governments of the new requirements regarding hazard mitigation project funding and the changes in the federal law regarding hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Services Act (Stafford Act), which is a source of funding for disaster assistance available to local governments. Two provisions of DMA 2000 were to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation and to require local governments, including special districts, to have a local hazard mitigation plan to be eligible to receive assistance from the Stafford Act mitigation programs. Rules and regulations codifying this Act establish the minimum hazard mitigation requirements for States, Tribes, and local entities and require that a jurisdiction must have a federally approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to apply for and receive mitigation assistance for any federally declared disaster after November 1, The Yuba County Plan and the local annexes were developed to meet DMA 2000 requirements and enabled local governmental agencies and special districts in the County to develop hazard mitigation plans to qualify for grant funds available from FEMA. The Yuba County Plan is a multijurisdictional plan which was jointly prepared and developed by stakeholders representing 32 federal, state and local governmental agencies or special districts. The County of Yuba serves as the lead agency responsible for the plan development and preparation for the Yuba County Operational Area. The RD 817 Hazard Mitigation Plan (RD 817 Plan) was developed for the District and is an annex to the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Yuba County Hazard Mitigation staff provided resources and technical services to coordinate the development of the RD 817 Plan, providing assistance in research and the writing of the Plan in cooperation with the RD 817 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The RD 817 Plan follows the same organizational structure of the County Plan and contains all required plan elements including a description of the planning process, local capabilities, risk assessment, and mitigation strategies with an implementation plan. Utilizing the risk assessment developed for the County Plan, the RD 817 Planning Committee identified the hazards that posed the greatest risk to their district. Only those hazards ranked as a high priority hazard are included in this District Plan. Each of the high priority hazards is summarized by its history of occurrence and the probability and location of future events. Vulnerability and loss estimates address the impact of the high priority hazards on the assets protected by RD 817. This community-specific risk assessment provides the basis for the mitigation strategies selected by the RD 817 Planning Committee for inclusion in the County Plan. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 5

6 Title 44 Part 201 Mitigation Planning in the CFR defines a local government as any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. RD 817and Stakeholders participating in this project benefited from the information sharing, collaboration and training provided in this multi-jurisdictional planning process. The planning process supported enhanced emergency management and mitigation projects. The benefits of developing a multi-hazard mitigation plan annex for RD 817 included: Technical assistance and resources for collaboration among the private and public sector partners at all levels of government participating in hazard mitigation; Research regarding the enabling legislation or statute, government code or rule for participating jurisdictions; Identification of inventory, District assets and critical infrastructure vulnerable to hazards; Hazard identification, vulnerability and risk assessment for comprehensive planning; Identification of mitigation measures to address hazards that affect the District and multiple jurisdictions; Leveraging individual capabilities, sharing costs and resources through collaboration to prevent the duplication of efforts; External discipline and guidance provided through the planning process; and Prioritizing mitigation actions and projects for comprehensive planning and maintenance. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 6

7 1 Introduction to Reclamation Districts in Yuba County began as farmers mounded soil to protect farm land from flooding by nearby rivers. The State Legislature enacted law so Reclamation Districts could be formed as a way to pay the costs to reclaim the land. This law (Water Code et seq.) provides a means for counties to finance the reclamation of land that has been made unusable by overflow or flooding. Services and facilities that can be financed by a Reclamation District include all things necessary and convenient to reclaim the land. Items commonly financed include facilities and services for sewage and waste removal and facilities to be used for the irrigation of lands inside or outside the district. (source: California Property Tax Information: What is a Reclamation District?) Reclamation Districts in Yuba County provide protection through a system of levees on the Yuba, Bear, and Feather Rivers. Local Reclamation Districts are responsible for the maintenance and operation of levees and pumps. Maintenance is generally provided by volunteers. There are five levee maintenance districts in Yuba County. As in most cases, the needs and resources vary from district to district. Three of the districts include at least some urbanized area, while two are predominately agricultural. The levee systems are under the jurisdiction of each Reclamation District in which the levee or portion of the levee is located. Any improvements to the levee systems or other types of improvements to remove areas from the floodplain are the responsibility of the Reclamation Districts and will require an adequate comprehensive financing system to provide system maintenance to FEMA required standards. Routine levee maintenance functions center on vegetation and erosion control, slope and patrol road maintenance, and rodent control. Vegetation control requires the removal of excess vegetation by either burning or mowing, and also ensures that adequate vegetation cover exists for erosion control. As areas change from agriculture to urban development, vegetation control by burning is less acceptable and mowing the levees becomes the preferred practice. This requires additional and specialized equipment and more personnel, which increases maintenance costs. Slope maintenance involves checking for slumps and keeping the slopes flat and even, which makes them more stable and easier to mow. Tracking and dragging levee slopes are methods to accomplish this. Tracking involves using a dozer blade to smooth small bumps and running the dozer up and down the slopes to even out others. Dragging involves a tractor or dozer dragging a large metal beam along the slope to even out bumps. Patrol roads must be kept in good shape with biannual grading and compaction. Patrol roads are important to ensure wet weather passage on top of the levee for levee patrol and flood fighting during flood events. Aggregate base material will have to be added from time to time. Ground burrowing rodents can do significant damage to a levee if not controlled. Their burrows can serve as paths for levee seepage which can ultimately result in failure. Levees must be inspected and surveyed for any settling, slope slumping, or erosion problems. Any identified levee section problems will have to be corrected. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is in the process of modifying its levee inspection procedures and it is expected that more effort will have to be applied in the areas of rodent control and slope maintenance. The districts themselves will be assigned more responsibility for levee inspections that will have to be conducted by professional personnel. (RD 817) encompasses approximately 2,600 acres of primarily agricultural land directly west of the City of Wheatland, which consists of two levee reaches totaling 7.7 miles. RD 817 is responsible for the maintenance and operation of these two levee Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 7

8 reaches, which are part of the Dry Creek and Bear River levee systems. RD 817 depends on volunteer labor to maintain and operate its levee system. RD 817 is adjacent to and west of RD 2103, which provides protection to the City of Wheatland. A levee failure in RD 2103 would allow water to proceed west and eventually pond on, and flood the lands in RD 817. Thus RD 817 is subject to flooding from levees that are not in their district. Failure of RD 817 levees would not pond flood waters high enough to flood the City of Wheatland. Source: Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Flood Study, Water Resources Review Document Comprehensive Report, December 22, 2006, Pg., 4-6, 64. RD 817 This is an entirely agricultural area to the west of RD It is responsible for maintenance of 7.7 miles of levee. (Dry Creek South Bank from the Bear River to Oakley Lane, 3.8 Mi (Unit 1) Bear River North Bank from Dry Creek to a half mile above Oakley Lane, 3.9 Mi (Unit 2)) This district has no permanent staff. This district relies on volunteers, and maintenance is accomplished by using the farm crews of the farms protected. The farmers are reimbursed for the labor costs for the farm crews. They donate their management time and equipment time. The district has an annual budget of approximately $30,000 which is equivalent to $3,900/mile. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 8

9 Figure 1 1 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 9

10 1.1 Purpose of the Plan The Plan identifies and evaluates specific local hazard mitigation strategies to be considered by RD 817 and its planning support for those strategies developed by the RD 817 Planning Committee. The planning effort provided for the development of a comprehensive Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan which required commitment and collaboration among Federal, State, and local agencies and the community. The partnerships established among stakeholders provided opportunities for the identification of resources, hazards, vulnerability, and potential risks to RD 817. The collaboration provided an opportunity for stakeholders and the community to discuss and prioritize hazard mitigation strategies for the District. The strategies presented are deemed appropriate and effective by recommendation of the RD 817 Planning Committee, the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Stakeholders, and individual local agencies, and private groups. The impact on resources and cost of disasters has forced local governmental agencies to address disasters through pre-disaster planning and hazard mitigation projects to improve public safety. The impact of disasters in Yuba County is significant in the history of disasters in California. Recent disasters include the flood disasters due to levee failure in 1986 and 1997 as well as wildland fires in 1997 and The devastation resulting from the levee failures and floods of 1986 and 1997 resonated throughout the County, cities and communities. Agencies and areas that did not sustain damage provided emergency support and assistance to the thousands of evacuees and emergency support personnel. The 1997 Flood forced the evacuation of over 30,000 people and was considered one of the largest evacuation efforts in the State of California. The impact to the residents of Yuba County was a reminder of the vulnerability and need for emergency planning and coordination among first responders and local emergency management. The purpose of the RD 817 s hazard mitigation plan is to identify those hazards which affect the District and its constituents, identify the risks these hazards pose, and integrate hazard mitigation strategies into the activities and programs of the District to the extent practical. The Plan will assist RD 817 and Yuba County in minimizing the damaging effects of future disasters and maintaining eligibility for certain hazard mitigation funds. This Plan is intended to serve other purposes, including the following: Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding to help District constituents better understand the natural and human-made hazards that threaten public health, safety, and welfare; economic vitality; and the operational capability of the District. Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements to ensure that the District complies with laws and regulations that encourage or mandate special districts to develop comprehensive mitigation plans. Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability to provide the policy basis for mitigation actions that should be promulgated by the District to create a more disasterresistant future. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 10

11 Achieve Regulatory Compliance to qualify for many federal and state grant programs, the District must have an approved mitigation plan to receive a project grant. The District must have an approved plan by November 1, 2004 to be eligible for HMGP funding for Presidential declared disasters after this date. (Plans approved after November 1, 2004 will still make the District eligible to receive PDM and HMGP project grants). 1.2 Governing Body RD 817 is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 3 members who are elected from landowners within district boundaries. Directors are appointed or elected to staggered four year terms. Table 1 1 RD 817 Board of Directors Board Member Board Member Board Member Office Held Official Jack Gilbert Joe Conant Ray Bascochea 1.3 Legal Authority As a reclamation District, RD 817 falls receives its authority from Division 15 of the California Water Code. 1 Citation 2 Purposes 3 Territory 4 Overlap 5 Petitioners 6 Petition to Water Code Div. 15, comprising : derived from :415:507, Political Code b. To reclaim and protect land from overflow. ( 50101, 50110, 50300); irrigate lands inside or outside district ( 50910, 50912). Collect, treat and dispose of sewage and waste in district of less than 100 acres and situated adjacent to Stockton Ship Channel ( 50903). Special provision for Edgerly Island Reclamation District ( 50905); special provision for hydroelectric power in Reclamation District No ( 50906). Any body of swamp and overflowed, salt marsh, or tidelands, or other lands subject to flood or overflow, susceptible of one mode of reclamation ( 50101, ). Authorized in Yolo and Solano Counties (1873-4:425:602). No lands included in another district ( (b), 50311). Holders of title or evidence of title to 1/2 or more of the lands ( 50300, 50006). Board of supervisors of county where greater part of lands situated ( 50300, 50011). 7 Procedure Petition, hearing, order of board of supervisors ( ). 8 Voting 9 Records 10 Government No provision. Landowners, one vote per $1 assessed value of real estate or if taxes levied on land and improvements, one vote per $1 assessed value of taxable land and improvements; proxy and cumulative voting allowed ( 50016, 50704, 50753, 50759) for special provisions for RD 1000 ( ). Formation orders: county recorder and State Lands Commission ( 50330, 50332). Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 11

12 Code Governing Board 12 Eminent Domain 13 State and Federal Cooperation 14 Debt Segregation 15 Bonds 16 Revenues 17 Assessments 18 Taxation of District Property 19 Sale Outside District 20 Department of Water Resources 21 Inclusion Exclusion 3, 5, or 7 trustees ( 50600, 50601); or all of the landowners ( ) for special provisions for RD 1000 ( ). Real or personal property necessary for district purposes ( 50930, 50910). May cooperate and contract with U.S. under Federal reclamation laws ( ) and enter into agreements for refunding of bonds (See ); plans of districts in Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District must be approved by State Reclamation Board ( ). See "Assessments." General obligation, by majority vote, in amount of outstanding or authorized assessments ( ); refunding by majority vote ( 52505, 52703); may issue interest-bearing, demand or time warrants ( ; 53300); revenue bonds by majority vote under Revenue Bond Law of 1941 ( 52400, 52401). Water rates for irrigation ( 50911); sales, leases of property ( 50931); rentals and sales of delinquent land sold to district ( 51660, 51680, 51720, 51753); charges for services, including standby charges ( 50911, 52402). Assessments and additional or supplemental assessments of lands according to benefits for district works, to pay bonds, etc.; may be called in installments; ( , , ); assessments of lands in proportion to benefits for maintenance, repair, and operation of works and for supplemental works and incidental expenses (may be spread over 5 years) ( ); assessments of lands for unpaid irrigation charges ( ); assessments on lands benefited to pay amounts due U.S. under contract ( 50978); assessments to pay formation expenses, not to exceed 2% of assessed valuation of land ( 51485). No provision. May furnish water to contiguous land outside district ( 50912). No provision. See Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of Inclusion: land in compact form, capable of being embraced in a district and not part of another district ( 53660). Consolidations: State Lands Commission to assign number to the new district ( 53500, 53504). 22 Dissolution See Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of RD 817 as a special district is a form of local government created by the local community to meet a specific need. State law defines a special district as "any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries" (Government Code 16271[d]). In other words, a special district is a separate local government that delivers public services within defined boundaries. When residents or landowners want new services or higher levels of existing services, they can form a district to pay for them. Fire districts, irrigation districts, and pest abatement districts exist Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 12

13 today because taxpayers were willing to pay for public services they wanted. Special districts localize the costs and benefits of public services. Special districts can be distinguished by four common characteristics: A form of government, Governed by a board, Provides services and facilities, and Has defined boundaries. Special districts enjoy many of the same governing powers as other cities and counties. They can enter into contracts, employ workers, and acquire real property through purchase or eminent domain. They can also issue debt, impose taxes, levy assessments, and many charge fees for their services. Special districts, like other governments, can sue and be sued. Special districts have the corporate power and tax power but rarely the police power. The corporate power is the ability to "do things," like constructing public works projects such as dams and sewers. It's the power to deliver recreation programs and collect garbage. The tax power is the authority to raise money to pay for these projects and services. The police power is different; it's the authority to regulate private behavior to accomplish a public goal. Governments that make rules and enforce them use the police powers: zoning property, requiring business licenses, or setting speed limits. Special districts rarely have police powers. Instead, they usually build public facilities and provide services. When special districts do have police powers, they are usually related to some corporate power. Banning alcohol from a park district's picnic area is one example. Special districts are primarily accountable to the voters who elect their boards of directors and the customers who use their services. However, although they are not functions of the state, the state also provides critical oversight to special district operations. Special districts must submit annual financial reports to the State Controller and must also follow state laws pertaining to public meetings, bonded debt, record keeping and elections. (Source: What s So Special About Special Districts?; A citizens Guide to Special Districts in California, Third Edition, Kimia Mizany & April Manatt, February 2002) Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 13

14 1.4 History & Impact of Natural/Technological Hazards Camp Far West Dam Spillway Camp Far West Dam is owned and operated by the South Sutter Water District. The Dam is located on the Bear River on the Yuba-Placer County line in the south eastern portion of Yuba County. A narrow canyon runs below the Dam for about one mile where it opens up into the flat lands. At this point there is a diversion dam. The diversion dam moves Bear River water into the South Side Canal and the Camp Far West Canal located, respectively, on the south and north sides of the Lower Bear River. The Lower Bear runs from Camp Far West Reservoir 16 miles to the confluence with the Feather River, at the southern boundary of the Yuba-Sutter County line. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 14

15 1.5 Summary of Local Mitigation Activities Source: Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Flood Study, Water Resources Review Document Comprehensive Report, December 22, 2006, Pg 37 & 71. RD 817 and 2103 Levee Improvement Program RDs 817 and 2103 are in the process of developing a program of levee repairs to provide 200-year protection to the City of Wheatland. This program is broken up into three phases. Phase 1 Bear River, River Mile 9.5 to This Phase is broken up into ten (10) reaches and includes construction of 19,200 feet of slurry wall through the levee, varying in depth from 30 to 75 feet. Also included is erosion protection and replacement of culverts that do not meet FEMA certification requirements. Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2007, with completion in October Phase 2 Phase 3 Dry Creek, River Mile 4.6 to 7.5. This phase is in the initial stages of development. A problem identification study, alternatives development, CEQA compliance, permitting, and design will be conducted in Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2008, with completion in October Bear River, River Mile 5.9 to 9.5 and Dry Creek, River Mile 0.0 to 4.6. Work on this Phase has not been initiated. A problem identification study, alternatives development, CEQA compliance, permitting, and design are anticipated to be completed in Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2008, with completion in October Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 15

16 2 Plan Adoption Process DMA 2000 Requirements Prerequisites Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement 201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each participating jurisdiction must provide supporting documentation, such as a letter of adoption, that the MJP, and the jurisdiction s annex has been formally adopted as their own LHMP. RD 817 formally adopted the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Wheatland Annex B; and Annex B3-RD 817 as its local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) on December 14, Resolution 07-01, adopting the Yuba County Plan, Wheatland Annex, and RD 817 Annex was passed by a 3-0 vote with 0 abstentions at the regular meeting of RD 817. The meeting was publicly noticed and the public was given the opportunity to comment on the agenda item prior to adoption. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 16

17 2.1 Documentation of Local Government Adoption of the LHMP Document 2-1 RD 817 Resolution of Adoption Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 17

18 3 Planning Process DMA 2000 Requirements Prerequisites Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process. The MJP must document EACH jurisdiction s participation OR the participating jurisdiction must include this information in EACH jurisdiction s annex to the MJP. The RD 817 planning process was conducted as part of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and involved the collaboration of numerous governmental entities and state and federal agencies. This section describes the planning process from the perspective of RD 817 and includes descriptions and accounts of planning meetings that the District participated in or conducted in the planning process. In addition to these meetings, information gathered throughout the course of the project was incorporated into the RD 817 annex where appropriate. For a complete description of the planning process undertaken by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project, see Section Two of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.1 Documentation of the Planning Process Table 3 1 RD 817 Mitigation Planning Timeline Mitigation Planning Timeline Organize Resources July 2004 June 2007 Assess Risks September 2004 December 2006 Develop Goals April 2005 February 2006 Plan writing, development, and review December 2006 July 2007 Plan Adoption September 2007 Table 3-1 reflects that development of the hazard mitigation plan was an ongoing process and did not necessarily follow a linear pattern. The plan writing, development and review included opportunities for the public to provide comments. The process for creating the RD 817 annex was part of the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Thorough the Yuba County Mitigation Project planning committee meetings, and RD 817 meetings, the planning process included an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. Opportunity were available for neighboring entities, and other interested parties, to be involved in the planning process, and the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Each step in the planning process was built upon the previous step, providing a high level of assurance that the mitigation actions proposed by the participants and the priorities of implementation are valid. The plan annex identifies and evaluates specific local hazard mitigation strategies to be considered by the District and its planning support for those strategies developed by the Committee. The strategies presented are deemed appropriate and effective by recommendation of the RD 817 Mitigation Planning Committee and individual local agencies and private groups. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 18

19 1. Organizing resources The project provided an opportunity to research the history of RD 817 and to solicit support and input from the residents served by RD 817. The additional research and support provided information essential for the grant funding and applications, and provided an exchange of information regarding comprehensive planning. 2. Assessing risks The risk assessment identified the critical risks, hazards and the proposed mitigation projects to provide maximum safety for the residents and businesses protected by the levees maintained by RD Developing a Mitigation Plan RD 817 has used the development of the MHMP and the RD 817 Annex to prepare the initial damage assessment and emergency project work done following the Winter Storm FEMA 1628-DR-CA. The asset and critical facilities information within the MHMP provided the bases for the development of emergency work performed and the identification of hazard mitigation projects to mitigate losses. 4. Implementing the plan and monitoring progress. RD 817 has used the DMA 2000 Process to support all phases of Emergency Management in the daily operation. The MHMP will provide a foundation and provide for collaboration among stakeholders and the private sector. Upon adoption of the County Plan and the RD 817 Annex, RD 817 will be eligible to apply for federal grant funds to implement critical projects to provide for the safety of all community members Description of Participation of RD 817 The Rd 817 Hazard Mitigation Plan was placed as an agenda item on the RD 817 monthly Board Meetings. This gave the Board and interested community members an opportunity to participate in the planning process. RD 817 Board members Jack Gilbert and Joe Conant regularly met with hazard mitigation staff to provide information and develop hazard mitigation projects and strategies to protect the residents and infrastructure of the RD 817. The RD 817 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee consisted of the following representatives: Jack Gilbert Joe Conant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Staff Patricia Beecham, Project Director Stacey Brucker, David Slayter RD 817 participated in the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project Stakeholder Meetings. These meetings were held to gather Yuba County agencies, special districts, private entities, and other stakeholders together to discuss cooperation and collaboration in finding county-wide solutions to the hazards that affect the area. RD 817 participated in these meetings as a partner with other agencies to brainstorm and collaborate on mitigation projects that could benefit all of the agencies in the County. Partnerships were also formed with law enforcement, fire departments and districts, state and federal agencies, and many more to gather information and ideas to craft a comprehensive mitigation plan. Below is a summary of the Stakeholder meetings attended by a representative from RD 817. For the agendas, sign in sheets and minutes of these meetings see Appendix B of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 19

20 Table 3 2 RD 817 attendance at Yuba County Stakeholder Meetings Meeting Date January 10, 2006 February 14, 2006 March 14, 2006 Description Presentations at this meeting included: A project overview and reports on agency and special district progress on the hazard mitigation process A status report on the damage sustained during the 2006 winter storm event A presentation from the Yuba County Water Agency on the damage YCWA sustained as a result of the 2006 winter storm event A workshop discussion of potential hazard mitigation projects Presentations at this meeting include: A discussion of fire risk assessment and asset inventories for fire departments An update from the Yuba County Water Agency on damages sustained as a result of the 2006 winter storm event A report on risk assessment and hazard mitigation and the role of GIS in these processes A workshop discussion of potential hazard mitigation projects Presentations at this meeting include: A summary update of the 2006 winter storm event and FEMA funding A presentation on mitigation efforts by the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council by Glenn Nader and hazard mitigation staff A presentation on risk assessment and prioritization of hazards by hazard mitigation staff A workshop discussion of potential hazard mitigation projects Mitigation Actions Discussed Woodleaf mastication project Remote fire sensing through satellite imagery 10,000 water tanks for foothills Repositioning transmitters for better coverage Expanding hydrant system in Brownville Community based volunteer inspector for clearance enforcement Develop shelter in place and safety zones Emergency responder map books Communications- cell phone/radio List of Ham Radio Operators in Yuba County Public Works-purchase repeater for communicating with Sheriff Physical assessment of communications holes Elevate essential facilities, especially in the south county Amphitheater repeater switch needs protecting Repeaters-generator backup support Update repeaters Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 20

21 Meeting Date April 11, 2006 January 9, 2007 Description Presentations at this meeting included: An update on the damages sustained by participating agencies as a result of the 2006 winter storm event and the status of FEMA funding to aid in recovery A presentation outlining the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and its role in helping with the hazard mitigation process A summary overview of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan A workshop discussion of potential fire mitigation projects A technical assistance workshop for those agencies ready to begin writing their plan annexes Presentations at this meeting included: A report on the efforts of the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services An update on the South Yuba County levee projects by the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority A report and presentation to the Stakeholders group regarding the Yuba County Municipal Services Review (MSR) being undertaken by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for collaboration with the mitigation project and review process Mitigation Actions Discussed Public Works- flooding Hammonton Smartville Rd Slow rise flood plan Reverse 911 Elevating Plumas Arboga Rd Emergency responders access to gated communities Emergency incident training Camptonville evacuation plan Camptonville special directional antennas Public education and awareness of fire Risk management program Installing generators at all critical facilities Fire coordination with other counties Additional access to water sources County fire planner position Storage and upkeep of sandbags Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 21

22 3.2 Local Capabilities Assessment DMA 2000 Requirements Planning Process Local Capabilities Assessment Requirement 201.4(c)(3)(ii): Of the Federal Register Interim Final Rule 44CFR Parts 201 and 206 states [The State mitigation strategy shall include] a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities. Element A. Does the plan provide a description of the human and technical resources available within this jurisdiction to engage in a mitigation planning process and to develop a local hazard mitigation plan? B. Does the plan list local mitigation financial resources and funding sources (such as taxes, fees, assessments, or fines) which affect or promote mitigation within the reporting jurisdiction? C. Does the plan list local ordinance which affect of promote disaster mitigation, preparedness, response or recovery within the reporting jurisdiction? D. Does the plan describe the details of in-progress, ongoing, or completed mitigation projects and programs within the reporting jurisdiction? Local Human and Technical Resources RD 817 is a rural agricultural area that primarily protects agricultural lands. With the City of Wheatland expanding beyond the city limits, the responsibility of flood control and internal drainage becomes increasing more important. RD 817 is maintained and operated by volunteers and local farmers who use their own equipment and farm crews, farmers are reimbursed for the farm crew labor. RD 817 receives $30,000 annually for the district which amounts to $3,900/mile of levee for maintenance and operation costs. Below is a general cost estimate prepared by MBK Engineering. Source: Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Flood Study, Water Resources Review Document Comprehensive Report, December 22, 2006, Pg Rule of Thumb estimates for annual maintenance costs per mile of levee can be suggested. The following are those estimates: Rule of Thumb Annual Costs for Maintenance $54,000 per mile (Urban District includes drainage maintenance) $18,000 per mile (Urban District levee maintenance only) $27,000 per mile (Rural District includes drainage maintenance) $ 9,000 per mile (Rural District levee maintenance only) The Rule of Thumb estimates include the development of a reserve fund equal to approximately the annual budget of a maintenance district. This reserve fund is for capitol projects of extraordinary maintenance and would be replaced through assessment every five years. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 22

23 Table 3 3 RD 817 Technical Resources Position Y/N Department/Agency Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human caused hazards Floodplain manager Surveyors Staff with education or expertise to assess the community s vulnerability to hazards Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Emergency manager Grant writers N N N N N N N N N N Local Mitigation Funding Sources Table 3 4 RD 817 Mitigation Funding Sources Financial Resources Y/N Comments Community Development Block Grants Capital improvements project funding Authority to levy taxes or assessments for specific purposes Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Incur debt through private activity bonds Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 23

24 Grant Programs with Mitigation Plan Requirement Stafford Act Grant Programs Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Projects eligible to be funded by the HMGP HMGP funds may be used to fund projects that will reduce or eliminate the losses from future disasters. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem, for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. In addition, a project's potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. Examples of projects include, but are not limited to: Acquisition of real property for willing sellers and demolition or relocation of buildings to convert the property to open space use Retrofitting structures and facilities to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards Elevation of flood prone structures Development and initial implementation of vegetative management programs Minor flood control projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies Localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and floodwall systems, that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities Post-disaster building code related activities that support building code officials during the reconstruction process. FEMA-Dec :24:40 EST Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. Public Assistance (PA) The objective of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program is to provide assistance to States, local governments, and certain Non-Profit organizations to alleviate suffering and hardship resulting from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. The Public Assistance (PA) Program is administered Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 24

25 through a coordinated effort between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the State (grantee), and the applicants (sub-grantees). While all three entities must work together to meet the overall objective of quick, effective program delivery, each has a different role. FEMA's primary responsibilities are to determine the amount of funding, participate in educating the applicant on specific program issues and procedures, assist the applicant with the development of projects, and review the projects for compliance. Through the PA Program, FEMA provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain Private Non- Profit (PNP) organizations. The Federal share of assistance is not less than 75% of the eligible cost for emergency measures and permanent restoration. The grantee (usually the State) determines how the non-federal share (up to 25%) is split with the sub-grantees (eligible applicants). To be eligible for Public Assistance funding, the project work must be necessary to: Eliminate an immediate threat to lives, public health and safety; Eliminate immediate threats of significant damage to improved public or private property; Ensure the economic recovery of the affected community to the benefit of the community at-large; and to Mitigate the risk to life and property by removing substantially damaged structures and associated appurtenances as needed to convert property acquired through a FEMA hazard mitigation program to uses compatible with open space, recreation, or wetlands management practices. National Flood Insurance Act Grant Programs Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities to implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk. Three types of FMA grants are available to States and communities: Planning Grants to prepare Flood Mitigation Plans. Only NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project grants Project Grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses, such as elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. States are encouraged to prioritize FMA funds for applications that include repetitive loss properties; these include structures with 2 or more losses each with a claim of at least $1,000 within any ten-year period since Technical Assistance Grants for the State to help administer the FMA program and activities. Up to ten percent (10%) of Project grants may be awarded to States for Technical Assistance Grants. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-Bereuter- Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L ), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist States and communities reduce flood damages Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 25

26 to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-Bereuter- Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss (SRL) structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). SRL Properties are residential properties that: a) have at least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each, when at least two such claims have occurred within any ten-year period, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or b) which at least two separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the value of the property, when two such claims have occurred within any ten-year period. Funding: Authorized up to $40 million for each fiscal year 2005 through Purpose: To reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). Eligible flood mitigation project activities: Flood-proofing (historical properties only); Relocation; Elevation; Acquisition; Mitigation reconstruction (demolition rebuild); and Minor physical localized flood control projects. Federal / Non-Federal cost share: 75 / 25 %; up to 90 % Federal cost-share funding for projects approved in States, Territories, and Federally-recognized Indian tribes with FEMA-approved Standard or Enhanced Mitigation Plans or Indian tribal plans that include a strategy for mitigating existing and future SRL properties. Eligible Mitigation Activities: Acquisition of properties, and either demolition or relocation of floodprone structures, where the property is deed restricted for open space uses in perpetuity. Property Acquisition Projects (Buyouts) Since 1993, participating communities have purchased more than 20,000 properties as to prevent future damages. FEMA encourages all homeowners in affected communities to be sure they get all the information they need about buyouts so they can make the best decision for their families and their communities. Property acquisition is one of many forms of hazard mitigation but it is the most permanent form. It removes people from harm's way forever. In a property acquisition project, the community buys private property, acquires title to it, and then clears it. By law, that property, which is now public property, must forever remain open space land. The community can use it to create public parks, wildlife refuges, etc. but it cannot sell it to private individuals nor develop it. Property acquisitions work the same way as any other real estate transaction. Property owners who want to sell their properties will be given fair prices for them. It is a terrific opportunity for people who live on or near hazard areas to get to safer ground Local Ordinances & Regulations Among the ordinances adopted by the City of Wheatland that promote disaster mitigation relating to flooding hazards is: The City s floodplain ordinance. The City has placed a self-imposed moratorium on construction until the levees which protect the City are certified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA. This ordinance has the effect of requiring those wishing to develop in the City to provide funding for levee repairs and maintenance. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 26

27 Policies Wheatland General Plan Policy Document, Part II July 2005; Health and Safety, Chapter 9 9.C.1. The City shall continue to implement floodplain zoning and undertake other actions required to comply with state floodplain requirements, and to maintain the City's eligibility under the Federal Flood Insurance Program. 9.C.2. The City shall require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects. The City shall require proponents of new development to submit accurate topographic and flow characteristics information. 9.C.3. The City shall not allow development in areas subject to flooding unless adequate mitigation is provided, to include project levees designed for a standard project flood. 9.C.4. The City shall require flood-proofing of structures and outdoor storage areas for hazardous materials in areas subject to flooding. Hazardous materials and wastes shall be contained within flood-proofed structures or storage areas. 9.C.5. The City shall prohibit the construction of facilities essential for emergencies and large public assembly in the 100-year floodplain, unless the structure and road access are free from flood inundation. 9.C.6. The City shall continue to work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reclamation Districts 2103 and 817, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the State Department of Water Resources in defining existing and potential flood problem areas and solutions. 9.C.7. The City shall preserve floodways and floodplains for non-urban uses, except that development may be allowed in a floodplain with mitigation measures that are in conformance with the City s Flood Protection Master Plan. 9.C.8. The City shall formulate emergency management plans for the safe evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from dam failure. Plans shall be reviewed and periodically updated. 9.C.9. The City shall participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. 9.C.10. The City shall require that roadway systems for areas protected from flooding by levees be designed to provide multiple escape routes for residents in the event of a levee failure. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 27

28 4 Risk Assessment DMA 2000 Requirements Risk Assessment Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Identifying Unique Jurisdictional Hazards & Risks: Was a risk assessment (all sections) completed, by this participating jurisdiction. For each unique hazard or risk that as not covered in the main section of the MJP? [Only unique or additional hazards and risks, within a participating jurisdiction, should be included. These would be hazards and risks that are not already included as part of the MJP. For each unique hazard, a profile of the hazard along with vulnerabilities should be included in the jurisdiction's annex or supplement to the MJP. Example: A jurisdiction with a volcano, not covered in the MJP, would complete all risk assessment section for their volcano.] The RD 817 risk assessment was conducted as part of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and involved the collaboration of numerous governmental entities, state and federal agencies, water districts and agencies, and departments of Yuba County. The risk assessment was conducted as part of the planning process. For a description of the complete planning process, see Section Two of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section describes the components of the risk assessment process, including a discussion of the identified hazards, a profile of these hazards, a review of the RD 817 asset inventory, a vulnerability assessment, and the impact of future development in the service area of RD 817. According to FEMA, a risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards (FEMA 2001). Any mitigation activities to reduce losses to life and property must be based upon a thorough assessment of the risks to these assets. The steps involved in conducting the risk assessment include: A profile of the potential hazard occurrences (location and extent) and historical occurrences; Probability of a hazard; Vulnerability to assets and potential impacts; and Analysis of future development trends. These steps provide the basis for the risk assessment presented in this section. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 28

29 4.1 Hazards DMA 2000 Requirements Risk Assessment Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(i) & (ii): Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. Identifying Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction For EACH Hazard identified by THIS jurisdiction a narrative summary of the Overview of the Hazard (from the jurisdiction s perspective) and the Impact (to people, buildings, the environment, etc.) if the Hazard occurred, shall be part of each jurisdiction s annex or supplement to the MJP. A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition. A natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property. A hazard event is a specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard (FEMA How-to Guide # 2, Appendix A). RD 817 addressed all hazards, natural and man-made, that could affect critical facilities and infrastructure within their jurisdiction. Natural hazards include those that arise from natural earth processes such as uncontrollable meteorological or geological events. Events of man made origin include accidental or intentional events such as the derailment of a rail car carrying hazardous material or terrorism, respectively. All hazards that may affect the District were considered and ranked according to the likelihood of their occurrence using the best available knowledge and data by the RD 817 Planning Committee and other stakeholders, including community members. Hazards included in the Plan may be potential threats to the District and are described in terms of the nature of the hazard, the magnitude, duration, and location. Each hazard is summarized by its history of occurrence and the probability and location or future hazard events. This was accomplished through review of previous studies conducted by the county or other jurisdictions, including state and federal agencies. Using GIS, mapped information was used to identify areas potentially at risk of a particular hazard in RD 817. Profiled hazards are described by their location within the District, likelihood of occurrence, extent and magnitude, and history of occurrence in the jurisdiction. Potential damage to assets affected by these hazards is identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. Each hazard was described in an informative manner to ensure that users of this Plan who may be unfamiliar with a particular hazard will have a better idea of the potential for property damage or loss of life Identifying Jurisdictional Hazards Hazard identification is the process of identifying hazards that threaten an area (FEMA How-to Guide # 2, Appendix A). The Planning Committee prioritized hazards by committee discussion, historical documentation and public input. The initial planning meeting provided an opportunity to discuss the role of the Yuba County Plan and the identification of hazards to assess the impact of the hazards on the District. Additionally, RD 817 participated in several public stakeholder meetings to review hazard vulnerability information and receive input on the development of the plan. Subsequent conversations with RD 817 board members identified the impact to assets and hazards. The RD Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 29

30 817 staff and planning committee ranked the hazards, discussing potential loss and impact on critical and essential services in terms of threat level to the jurisdiction. As a result of the meetings, public discussion, and input from stakeholders, the following hazards were identified as High priority by RD 817: High Priority Hazards in RD 817 Flood/Levee Failure Flood/Internal Drainage Severe Winter Storm Profiling Jurisdictional Hazards The areas protected by the reclamation districts in Yuba County have a long history of flooding. Internal drainage issues in the area need to be addressed, both in the existing, aging infrastructure and in the areas of proposed development. Flood control is provided by levees, and insuring an adequate level of protection is an on-going mitigation effort. Areas in and around the City of Wheatland may be within the FEMA designated floodplain. All hazards that could affect RD 817 were considered and ranked according to the likelihood of the occurrence using the best available knowledge and data provided by the Planning Committee and other stakeholders, including community members. Hazards included in the Plan may be potential threats to the City of Wheatland and are described in terms of the nature of the hazard, the magnitude, duration, and location. Each hazard is summarized by its history of occurrence and the probability and location of future hazard events. This was accomplished through review of previous studies conducted by the county or other jurisdictions, including the City of Wheatland, state and federal agencies. Using GIS, mapped information was used to identify areas potentially at risk of a particular hazard within the district. Each hazard was described in an informative manner to ensure that users of this Plan who may be unfamiliar with a particular hazard will have a better idea of the potential for property damage or loss of life. For a full discussion and profile of hazards see Section /Flooding and Section /Levee Failure in Annex B City of Wheatland Flood/ Levee Failure Flood control systems are typically designed to provide protection against 25-year to 200-year flood events. Flood control for the City of Wheatland and General Plan Area, which includes land protected by RD 817, is provided by a series of levees. These levees are intended to protect the City of Wheatland and adjacent areas from the following sources of flooding: North Bear River Levee Located south of the study area with flows from east to west South Dry Creek Levee Located north of the study area with flows from east to west West San Joaquin Drainage Canal Levee Located east of the study area with flows from south to north and into Dry Creek northeast of study area. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 30

31 RD 817 is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the western portions of the Dry Creek and Bear River levees, west of the City of Wheatland. The portions of the levees that are the responsibility of RD 817 do not directly protect the City of Wheatland. The levee systems are under the jurisdiction of each Reclamation District in which the levee or portion of the levee is located. Any improvements to the levee systems or other types of improvements to remove areas from the floodplain are the responsibility of the Reclamation District. Portions of the Bear River levee system east of Highway 65 are located in Placer County and west of Highway 65 are located in Sutter County. Presently, the existing levee system does not provide adequate flood protection for development around the City of Wheatland and adjacent areas. However, the City has placed restrictions on building in those areas pending repair and certification of the levees that protect the area. Though there have been no recorded incidents of levee failure, verbal histories indicate that a levee failure occurred in the 1920 s along the Bear River Flood/ Internal Drainage In general, as agricultural lands are converted to development, the volume of runoff increases due to the construction of impervious areas (streets, roofs, parking lots, etc.); and peak flows increase due to greater channalization of the flow (street gutters and storm drains). Local flooding occurs because of inadequate sized facilities or deteriorated facilities such as drainage inlets, pipes, drainage ditches and related facilities that transport water to the Bear River, and Dry Creek. The Public Works Department operates and maintains the local drainage system within the City, as well as the two facilities outside the City limits consisting of the northwest detention pond and discharge pumps located west of SR 65 and south of Dry Creek, and partial maintenance of the east side ditch that connects the Wheatland Ranch Subdivision detention basin to Dry Creek. Outside the city limits the Yuba County Public Works Department operates the county local drainage systems which consist primarily of county roadway drain lines and side ditches. All other drainage facilities are maintained by the local property owners. Historical Occurrences In conjunction with the Winter Storm event, 72,000 gallons of treated wastewater was accidentally discharged into the Bear River as a result of excessive rainfall. Likelihood of Future Occurrence The FEMA 100-year floodplain provides elevation information and determines applicable insurance rates. Based on the proposed floodplain work map submitted to FEMA, a substantial portion of the northern area within the existing city limits is within a FEMA floodplain as well as areas west and east of the city limits. RD 817 protects an area where residential growth is projected. The City of Wheatland has taken the proactive approach of not allowing growth in these areas until the levees have been repaired Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 31

32 and certified. Many of the levee repairs are currently underway or scheduled to be completed in the near future. When the repairs are complete, certification of these levees will decrease the likelihood of a levee failure Severe Winter Storm Severe winter storms cause increased runoff, impacting internal and external drainage facilities. An increase in water volume puts an additional strain on levees, causing further damage through erosion, scouring, saturation, ponding of water, boils and seepage. The effects of a severe winter storm would be similar to those described above in Flooding from Internal Drainage. In a severe winter storm event the amount of rainfall and the short period of time it could fall, could cause a greater impact on the existing facilities to be able to handle the increased flows. This was apparent during the winter storm event in which three boils developed on the Dry Creek Levee, at the site of the 1997 Dry Creek levee failure within the RD 2103 area of responsibility. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 32

33 4.2 Vulnerability Assessment: Overview A County-wide vulnerability assessment was performed using the currently-established FEMA 100-year and 500-year flood zones. Data was obtained from FEMA s Q3 data base. County assets, including RD 817, were overlain by the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. An asset was considered to be completely inundated and a total loss (contents destroyed and the facility needed to be replaced) if any portion of the facility was found to be within the flood zone. This provides for a small contingency factor given the variability of flooding Asset Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment DMA 2000 Requirements Risk Assessment Assessing Vulnerability - Identifying Structures 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area Does the annex or supplement describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Does the annex or supplement describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area? Assets are the buildings and facilities, equipment, and infrastructure owned by a jurisdiction as well as the population served and infrastructure within the boundary of the District. Due to budget constraints and limited resources, RD 817 relies solely upon local volunteers. RD 817 does not own any equipment or facilities, all equipment for levee maintenance and other RD 817 functions are provided by the volunteers, mostly farmers. According to the 2000 population census, RD 817 had 119 persons and 51 residential units. This population is vulnerable to each of the identified hazards, and could suffer losses in the event of an emergency. Table 4-1 summarizes the improved values of the assets within RD 817 as of November Asset values were identified using information from the Yuba County Assessor s Office. Parcel structural improvement values are taken from the County of Yuba Assessor's Office database of improvements. These improvements are values as assessed by the County Assessor as of November Using a GIS, parcel boundaries were joined to the database of assessed values to create a layer of structural improvement values for each parcel. Land use codes from the County Assessor defined for each parcel were used to develop an Occupancy Class (Government, Residential, Commercial, Religious, etc.). For each occupancy class, improvement values were summed to present a generalization of the total exposure by occupancy for the District. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 33

34 Table 4 1 RD 817 Asset Improved Value Summary Occupancy Class Sum Improved Value AG/RURAL $ 11,213, COMMERCIAL $ 372, INDUSTRIAL $ 331, RESIDENTIAL $ 3,812, Total Improved Value: $ 15,729, RD 817 is responsible for the protection of the infrastructure within its boundaries. The function of the District is to provide emergency management during flood disasters. A County-wide vulnerability assessment was performed using the currently established FEMA 100-year and 500-year flood zones. Data was obtained from FEMA s Q3 data base. Assets within RD 817 were overlain by the 100-year flood zone. An asset was considered to be completely inundated and a total loss (contents destroyed and the facility needed to be replaced) if any portion of the asset was found to be within the flood zone. This provides for a small contingency factor given the variability of flooding. 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment: Estimating Potential Losses DMA 2000 Requirements Risk Assessment Assessing Vulnerability Estimating Potential Losses 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate Does the annex or supplement estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? Does the annex or supplement describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Vulnerability is expressed as the relative risk of a population, critical facilities, infrastructure, and building stock to natural and man-made hazards. This relative risk is expressed as the number of people exposed to a hazard as well as the replacement cost of buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure. The location of facilities, the distribution of the population, and the general building stock are overlaid by the locations of hazards and relative hazard risk areas within a GIS algorithm. The population, critical facilities, infrastructure, and building stock located within the inundation area are considered vulnerable. The terms loss and exposure are used frequently in vulnerability assessments. Loss is the relative amount of damage that may occur given a particular hazard event, while exposure is the total value, or replacement cost, for building stock or RD 817 assets. For RD 817 assets, loss is determined by referencing the location of a facility to the historical or potential occurrence of a natural hazard and determining the amount of damage that may be sustained, while exposure is the total value (often quantified as a replacement cost) of assets and facilities to a hazard event. Economic exposure is compiled from various sources. Structural values are estimated from the structural value in the Yuba County Assessor s parcel database. The total land values are also estimated from the land value reported in the Yuba County Assessor s parcel database. The Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 34

35 vulnerability is expressed as a worst-case scenario where a complete loss of the structure or facility occurs. This allowed for the identification of the total damage that could occur. This section describes the methodology used to estimate the vulnerability of the residents and RD 817 assets to hazard events. The vulnerability assessment considers the potential impact of loss to a facility as well as the vulnerability of the facility to a natural hazard event. The impact of loss is the degree to which the facility is impaired by a natural hazard. This section measures vulnerability by the total exposure to the profiled hazards. By doing so, no consideration is given to varying levels of damage from the various natural hazards. The facility, equipment or infrastructure is assumed to be totally damaged by the hazard event and will require full replacement. Uncertainty is inherent in all vulnerability assessments. This assessment uses the best available data from many different sources. In consideration of this, we must note that the results of the assessment are approximations of relative risk by hazard. There are limitations in scientific knowledge as well; the assumptions made in determining seismic risk to facilities, population sampling methods, the strength of building materials, uncertainties in hydrologic models, loss estimation techniques where national or regional assumptions are used to represent local conditions all represent limitations in scientific knowledge that must be considered when reviewing the results of the vulnerability assessment Asset Vulnerability for RD 817 The vulnerability to the county from flooding was performed using the Federal Emergency Management Agency s (FEMA) 100-year and 500-year flood zones. This data was obtained from FEMA s Q3 data. The Census 2000 census blocks were overlain by the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. A census block was considered to be completely inundated if greater than approximately five percent of the block was overlain by the flood zone. This provides for a small contingency factor given the variability of the flooding hazard. The population at risk was determined by selecting parcels from the feature classes Y100_Flood_Exposure for the 100-year exposure and both the Y100_Flood_Exposure and Y500_Flood_Exposure to the 500-year exposure. Exposure classes FloodY100_Exposure and FloodY500_Exposure were used to calculate the sum of [improv_v] for the 100-year and 500-year floods. The 100-year and 500-year flood zones were merged to create a new feature class in special_district_hazards.mdb so that calculated values would be inclusive of the 100-year flood area for the 500-year flood. The new feature class Combined_Y100_Y500_flood_hazard was used in this selection for the 500-year event. If there is no difference between the exposure for the 500-year flood from the 100-year flood then there is no additional exposure for the 500-year flood. Census data was selected where the center of the census block occurred within the district s boundaries. Blocks of this new layer were selected that intersected the 100-year and 500-year flood extents. These blocks were saved out as a feature class if the blocks closely matched the district boundary or, if not, selected out as a new layer. This new layer was clipped to the district boundaries in most instances and exported out to a new feature class in the geodatabase special_districts_hazards_ mdb. This layer contains the original area of the block (in square feet) and, after clipping, as a feature class the area is automatically calculated to [Shape_area] in square feet. [Shape_area] was divided by [Orig_area] to create a percentage calculated in the field [pct]. [Pct] was multiplied against the total population for the block in the field [total_popu] to calculate the percentage of population for the block within the district boundary in the field [pct_popu]. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 35

36 Table 4 2 RD 817 Population Exposure to Flood Occupancy Class 100-Year Flood 500-Year Flood Ag/Rural $10,866,662 $10,866,662 Commercial $372,300 $372,300 Residential $2,181,060 $2,181,060 Total $13,420,022 $13,420,022 There are 24 RD 817 residents within the 100 and 500-year flood zones. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 36

37 Figure 4 1 RD 817 Flood Vulnerability Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 37

38 Description of Future Land Use & Development Trends DMA 2000 Requirements Risk Assessment Assessing Vulnerability Analyzing Development Trends 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability] in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions For EACH Hazard identified by THIS jurisdiction, does the annex or supplement describe the impact of land use and development trends within the participating jurisdiction? (With particular emphasis on future buildings and infrastructure). EXAMPLE: The annex or supplement should describe hoe a jurisdiction s land use and development trends would affect the flood hazard areas, the fire hazard areas, etc. The City of Wheatland and the area immediately surrounding the City is in the process of being developed. The largest proposed expansion, Johnson Rancho, when annexed, will bring 30,000 new residents into the City at full build out. The City s new General Plan has proposed mitigation projects to address the rapid growth in Wheatland. For details of ongoing and completed mitigation strategies and actions see the City of Wheatland Annex A. Future development is being limited by the City Council until the levees protecting the City have been certified by USACE and FEMA. Future development is slated to occur in areas with decreased flood potential. Future development will place homes in areas that are potentially vulnerable to flood, however the associated levee repairs will decrease the vulnerability to flood. Scheduled improvements to internal drainage and sewer facilities within the City will also decrease the exposure to internal flooding. RD 817 lies southwest of the City of Wheatland. A large area of the District falls within the 100- year flood zone due to it s proximately to Dry Creek and Grasshopper Slough. Rd 817 is at a lower elevation than Wheatland and RD If a levee failed in RD 2103 it would flow into RD 817, causing internal flooding. The City of Wheatland has limited development until the levees protecting the City, primarily in RD 2103, are improved and certified. Therefore, development within RD 817 is subject to levee improvements in RD Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 38

39 5 Mitigation Strategy The primary goal of RD 817 s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is: To protect people, property, and the environment from natural and man-made disasters. The information in the hazard vulnerability analysis and loss estimation information was used as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines explaining what the Reclamation Districts (RD 817 and RD 2103) and the City of Wheatland want to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy-oriented statements. Objectives are statements that detail how the goals will be achieved, and typically define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Other important inputs to the development of goals and objectives include performing reviews of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals. Stakeholder participation and community outreach to support the process of identifying hazard, risks, and mitigation goals was essential in the development of these comprehensive goals. The following provides an overview of the steps involved in preparing a mitigation strategy which consists of: 1. Assessing current capabilities; 2. Developing mitigation goals and objectives; 3. Identifying and prioritize mitigation actions; and 4. Preparing an implementation strategy. The hazard mitigation mission is served by goals that reduce vulnerability. Plan goals guide the overall direction of mitigation activities, which focus on the overall mitigation program. 5.1 Unique Mitigation Goals to Reduce Vulnerabilities DMA 2000 Requirements Mitigation Strategy 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Does the annex or Supplement include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long term vulnerabilities to each of this jurisdiction s identified hazards? In compliance with the DMA 2000, described below are the requirements for the RD 817 hazard mitigation goals. The information in the hazard vulnerability analysis and loss estimation information was used as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation goals are general guidelines explaining what RD 817 wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are RD 817 s long-range, policy-oriented statements representing District -wide visions. Objectives detail how the RD 817 s goals will be achieved, and define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Other important inputs to the development of RD 817 s goals and objectives include reviews of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals, as well as soliciting input from the public. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 39

40 5.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions DMA 2000 Requirements Mitigation Strategy Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. Does the plan include at least one identifiable action item for each participating jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan? AND Does the Annex of Supplement for this jurisdiction identify and analyze, for at least one action item; 1. How this action is prioritized in comparison to other proposed actions (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used to determine its priority) 2. How was (or will) cost-benefit criteria be considered for this action, and will cost-benefit be used in the prioritization of this action (as compared to other proposed jurisdiction actions). 3. How will this mitigation strategy/action be implemented and administered? (For example, does it identify the responsible department, existing and potential resources, and time frame?) Mitigation goals are general guidelines explaining what the City of Wheatland and the Reclamation Districts that protect the City, want to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are long-range, policy-oriented statements representing the City s visions. Objectives detail how goals will be achieved, and define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Goal 1: Provide emergency management to prevent personal injury, loss of life, and damage to property and the environment from natural and man made hazards: Enforce existing local, state and federal codes and regulations with regard to identified hazards, i.e. and flood prevention; Implementation of hazard mitigation programs and strategies; and Protection of life, property, and the environment before disasters occur. Goal 2: Enhance and protect City assets and support of identification of resources to address hazards, improve capabilities for emergency management: Enhance and improve City and Reclamation District emergency response and recovery plans to emergency situations; Secure and protect all critical assets and improve resources; and Continue coordination between the City of Wheatland, County of Yuba and all Stakeholders to collaborate in mitigation planning and strategies. Goal 3: Provide Public Education Information Programs to encourage citizen and business participation in disaster prevention and effective mitigation strategies in hazard areas to minimize losses: Mitigation Outreach to the public, schools featuring exemplary projects, emergency preparedness, and the National Flood Insurance Program; Emergency planning to ensure road access for emergency vehicles remain clear and free of vegetation; Ensure that all lifeline infrastructure are able to withstand hazard events or have contingency plans to quickly recover after a disaster; and Develop disaster preparedness program among the general public and businesses to address evacuations, preparedness and protection. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 40

41 Goal 4: Identify hazard mitigation projects for the public and private sector and collaboration with other stakeholders: Flood mitigation program; Roads and public mitigation projects to protect critical infrastructure; Ensure road access for emergency vehicles remain clear and free of obstruction; and Ensure that all lifeline infrastructure are able to withstand hazard events or have contingency plans to quickly recover after a disaster. Goal 5: Provide support for essential critical facilities and infrastructure to provide emergency access and egress for the community for all hazards: Enhance emergency communication and notification systems to sustain damage and remain operational in power failure for redundancy in communications for remote areas; Back up generators for critical facilities to ensure critical services and emergency needs; and Identify and support facilities to serve as shelters for emergencies to address mass shelters Prioritizing Mitigation and Implementation of Mitigation Actions In compliance with the DMA 2000, described below is the information regarding prioritizing mitigation actions and the requirements for the implementation of mitigation strategies. The recommended actions were developed and reviewed by the Planning Committee and Stakeholders. Actions and proposed projects were rated in consideration of cost-benefit, environmental impacts and feasibility concerns. It is understood that the mitigation strategies adopted in this plan are recommendations only, and they must be approved and funded in order to be implemented as official Hazard Mitigation Strategies. Actions may be implemented by the District, either solely or in conjunction with other governmental agencies, special districts or the community. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee acknowledges that these actions will go through a rigorous and detailed environmental, historic, or benefit to cost analyses prior to implementation. Although such considerations were considered in the prioritization of these strategies, further analyses will be undertaken before these strategies become scheduled for implementation. Upon adoption by the RD 817 Board of Directors, the selected strategies will be further developed and considered for implementation as funding becomes available. The plan describes potential sources of federal, state, local and private funding, and general procedures to obtain that funding. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 41

42 Mitigation Action The City of Wheatland is experiencing an unprecedented population growth that is anticipated to continue in the foreseeable future. In order to provide a current basis for evaluating future growth on both public and private lands, the Wheatland City Council made the decision to update the 1980 General Plan. As part of the General Plan Update, this report was prepared to serve as a planning tool for the City to evaluate flooding from external sources in the City of Wheatland and surrounding areas. The City of Wheatland and surrounding areas are bounded by the Bear River to the south, San Joaquin Drainage Ditch to the east and Dry Creek to the north. A selection of alternative measures with a range of impacts and associated costs to mitigate for the future flooding potential was evaluated. This report is intended to be utilized by the City in the GPU process. The actual development, implementation, and maintenance of flood protection for the City is the responsibility of the Reclamation Districts. Three alternative measures are evaluated to mitigate flooding potential from the Bear River, Dry Creek, and the San Joaquin Drainage Ditch with the intent of capturing the range of potential mitigation options for flooding from external sources. Alternatives 1 and 2 incorporate cross levees with positions selected to represent the range of locations that the cross levees could be located; Alternative 1 representing the furthest east and Alternative 2 representing the furthest west. The cross levees were developed as cost effective alternatives to protect the area within the GPU limits. This cost effectiveness is realized by avoiding the expense of improving the existing north Bear River and south Dry Creek levees downstream from the selected position of the cross levee. Alternative 3 does not incorporate a cross levee and requires improvements of essentially all of the existing levees bounding the city of Wheatland and the surrounding area. The flood control alternatives for the General Plan Area include: Alternative 1 Oakley Lane Cross Levee Alternative 2 Pleasant Grove Road Cross Levee Alternative 3 No Cross Levee In addition to the three alternative measures listed above, the option to provide additional flood protection for existing homes and planned development within the GPU to the north of Dry Creek is evaluated to demonstrate the ability to provide flood protection equal to that which exists for these areas and to that to be provided to the General Plan Area. The evaluations included a hydraulic analysis of the major conveyance features (the Bear River, Dry Creek, and the San Joaquin Drainage Ditch) to determine the impacts to the floodplains and channel hydraulics for each alternative and determine the design parameters for levee improvements or new levee construction. This report describes each alternative, discusses the implications for the mitigation alternatives, and provides a range conceptual-level cost estimates. The evaluations also considered environmental impacts for construction of the alternatives and provides a preliminary assessment of the permitting and approval process required. Further evaluations consider the timing of the improvements. There is a benefit to implementing a phased construction approach to provide incremental flood protection as discussed later in this report. Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 42

43 5.2.2 Actions and Projects to Reduce Vulnerabilities to Existing and Future Hazards The recommended actions were compiled by RD 817, City of Wheatland and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project through Stakeholder committee meetings and community meetings. The identified projects complement those projects identified is Section Five of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The actions were identified and prioritized in consideration of cost-benefit and environmental concerns. Those projects that were not considered feasible were not considered for inclusion on the final project listing. A complete list of the actions considered can be found in Section 5.5 of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Summary of Flood Mitigation Options Flood Control Measure Description Area Protected Considerations Estimated Cost Range Flood Control Alternatives for the Wheatland General Plan Area Alternative 1- Construct a cross levee between the North Bear River levee and the Oakley Lane South Dry Creek levee adjacent to Oakley Lane and improvements Cross Levee to the existing Dry Creek south levee and San Joaquin Drainage Ditch west levee. Alternative 2 Pleasant Grove Road Cross Levee Construct a cross levee between the North Bear levee and the south Dry Creek levee, parallel to and just east of Pleasant Grove/Forty Mile Road and improvements to the existing Dry Creek south levee, San Joaquin Drainage Ditch west levee, and downstream section of the north Bear River levee. General Plan Area 1,955 acres are protected General Plan Area plus area between the Alternate 1 Oakley Lane Cross Levee and the proposed Pleasant Grove Road Cross Levee. Pros: Cons: Pros: 3,579 acres are protected. Cons: Alternative 3 No 10.1 mile of existing perimeter levees improvements with no cross All of the area bounded on the Pros: Lowest cost alternative FEMA Certificate Flood Protection Minimize Internal Drainage No flood control improvements west of cross levee Disruption to farming Right-of-way issues Increased flood protection Minimize cross levee right-of-way Avoids high environmental mitigation costs Interior drainage Higher cost Highways issue $8.5 mil. - $20 mil $4,343/ac - $10,611/ac $14.8 mil - $35.0 mil $4,133/ac - $9,774/ac Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 43

44 Cross Levee levee south by the Bear River and by the north Dry Creek 3,846 acres are protected Cons: Maximum flood protection High cost Issues with existing levees near confluence High environmental mitigation for land gained $30.8 mil - $54.3 mil $8,011/ac - $14,115/ac Flood Control Option North of Dry Creek Flood control Provide a levee to protect existing homes and the proposed levee north of Dry development within the General Plan Area north of Dry Creek Creek Areas north of Dry Creek 214 acres are protected Pros: Cons: Leaves residents north of Dry Creek whole after construction of flood mitigation measure above Additional internal drainage and access requirements $1.8 mil - $2.7 mil $8,341/ac - $12,514/ac Category Action Item Goal Background Statement Priority Estimated Cost Improvements to existing levees. May include Estimates Flooding/ Levee system construction of a cross levee range from Levee 2/4 High improvement between existing levees on the $8.5 to $35 Failure N. Bear River and the S. Dry million Creek. Responsible Party: City of Wheatland,, Reclamation District 2103 Benefits Funding Source Timeline Increased flood protection. Levee assessment, bonds, local, state, or federal funding Ongoing Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 44

45 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 45