Council Agenda Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Council Agenda Report"

Opal Todd
6 years ago
Views:

Agenda Item #10 Council Agenda Report SUBJECT: REVIEW, DISCUSS AND APPROVE LETTER TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD REGARDING ISSUES WITH THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN MEETING

1 Agenda Item #10 Council Agenda Report SUBJECT: REVIEW, DISCUSS AND APPROVE LETTER TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD REGARDING ISSUES WITH THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN MEETING DATE: April 5, 2012 RECOMMENDATION The Mayor requests that the City Council of the City of Rio Vista review and discuss the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) and approve a letter to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board regarding potential impacts of the CVFPP to Rio Vista. BACKGROUND The State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) and the CVFPP represent policy of the CV Flood Protection Board protecting the Central Valley from disastrous flooding. The Systemwide Planning Area (SPA) considers areas that are not technically covered by the SPFC, although the State does not plan to expand its jurisdiction to areas not in the SPFC (See Attachment 1). SPFC levees are project levees and appear on the DWR Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Atlas of 1993, and is a project facility under the State Water Resources Law of All other flood control levees (and there are many) are non-project levees and maintained primarily by Reclamation Districts (RDs). Rio Vista, although it sits on the edge of the Sacramento River, is located just downstream from the Yolo Bypass, and is threatened by flooding, is not part of the SPFC. Rio Vista is in the SPA. Apparently, the reason Rio Vista has not been in the SPFC is we have no levee or floodwall that is SFPC maintained (see discussion of levees below). The SPFC ends just above Rio Vista, at our borders, though maps do not detail this adequately. In the SPFC and the CVFPP, Rio Vista is classified as a small community on a par with Isleton, Walnut Grove, Courtland, Hood, Knights Landing and other small cities along the Sacramento River or its tributaries. All identified small communities (see Attachment 5) are in the SPA. However, none of the maps in the plan show which towns are in the SPFC. Levees The State and Federal governments have established (and continue to refine) standards for flood protection levees. The classifications are Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) and Public Law (PL8499). The latter is a higher standard.

2 Page 2 North of Rio Vista are two SPFC levees and an additional non-project levee (Attachment 2 though difficult to see, and Attachments 2A, 2B and 2C): Reclamation District 536 Egbert Tract SPFC levee. Map 2A shows it is meeting PL8499 standards. Mellon Levee, North of Rio Vista SPFC levee. Map 2B shows it meeting PL8499 standards except along the river. This part of River Road is a low-height levee road, State Hwy 84, leading to the Cache Slough Ferry. (It washed out in the flood of 97/98) The Mellon Levee is NOT on the maps showing the SPFC levees, and is maintained by the Solano County Water Agency. This lack has been pointed out to the DWR section responsible for the CVFPP, but needs to be mentioned again. RD 2084 Little Egbert Tract. Map 2C. It is below HMP standards except for short portions at either end which meet PL8499. This is most likely not a SPFC levee it is not on the CVFPP maps. It is a restricted height levee, designed to overflow in a flood. This levee did not overflow in 97/8 to my knowledge, and did not contribute to the damage to SH 84 the flood water came from the river. These levees are the sole protection that Rio Vista has from a significant flood from the Yolo Bypass. CVFPP The 2012 CVFPP is a Framework Plan, with no specific project details. This makes it somewhat difficult to comment on, so our comments will be broad. The purpose of the plan is to provide a systemwide investment approach for sustainable, integrated flood management in areas currently protected by facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC). The CVFPP will be updated every five years, with each update providing support for subsequent policy, program and project implementation (page 1-1). The plan has been in preparation since 2009, with significant public input. The Mayor participated in the Delta Work Group for the entire 2 years, through all three phases. During this time, she was assured that the concerns of Rio Vista would be considered, though this is not evident in the final document since Rio Vista is not in the SPFC. A Program EIR has been completed and the Executive Summary has been reviewed. The plan outlines three scenarios: Achieve State Plan of Flood Control Design Capacity; Protect High Risk Communities; and, Enhance Flood System Capacity. Each scenario was evaluated for effectiveness and cost. The most effective, and most expensive ($31 to $41 Billion), scenario was Enhance Flood System Capacity. A fourth, preferred, scenario, the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA), would provide increased protection from flood risks, some secondary benefits, and would cost $13 to $16 Billion. Key elements include: Minimum of 200-year level of protection for urban communities protected by facilities of the SFPC; Lower peak flood stage through much of the system, especially for the Feather, lower Sacramento and lower San Joaquin rivers; 100-year protection for small communities where feasible; Proactive floodplain management, including a program to floodproof and/or relocate structures in the floodplains where building ring levees and other flood structures is not feasible; Enhancing rural-agricultural area flood protection by repairing known localized problems that cause the highest risk of exposure and restoring all-weather roads on levee crests; Leveraging flood system improvements to create habitat through levee setbacks, waterside planting berms and the extension and expansion of bypass systems and to connect riparian habitat from he Delta to Butte Basin and Oroville; Connecting fishery habitat from the Delta to Yolo and Sutter Bypass and to Butte Creek; Supporting policies, implementation programs, and financing strategy (CVFPP, page 2-29)

3 Page 3 The portion of the plan with the potential to impact Rio Vista include: Change or Expand o Fremont Weir north of Woodland in the Yolo bypass increase length and notch the weir to allow fish passage (also part of Bay Delta Conservation Plan BDCP) o Sacramento Weir, just north of Sacramento widening and automation of gates o Setback levees in the Yolo Bypass Expand Yolo Bypass (Attachment 3) o Setback levees north of Rio Vista, no specific location o 42 miles of new levees, no specific location Potential Impact of Bypass Expansion to Rio Vista Attachment 3 indicates the extent of lower Yolo Bypass expansion to just north of Rio Vista. There are no details of the project, added levees, etc. There should be more information in the 2017 Plan Update. Attachment 4 shows the estimated changes in total flood flows for flood levels 2%, 1% (100 year), and 0.5% (200 year). The change in estimated peak flow for No Project vs. SSIA shows a slight increase in flow for a 2% flood, a decrease of 24,000 cfs for a 1% flood, and slight decrease of 4,000 cfs for 0.5% floods. Note this does not consider the impact of storm surge, tide level, or sea level rise. Note: Sea level rise will be considered in the 2017 update. This plan used the 1997/8 flood (El Nino) as a surrogate; the tide was about 2 feet higher than expected (this is the flood that washed out Hwy 84/River Road). Small Community Flood Protection (Attachments 5 & 6) Rio vista is shown as a small community, but is not included in SPFC. This plan suggests assistance in protecting communities through floodwalls, improving adjacent SPFC levees (Mellon and Egbert?) and other strategies. The plan estimates a total of 22 small communities would receive 100-year protection through various structural and non-structural actions. Questions for us include: Is Rio Vista included as a small community? What kind of protection assistance would we receive, if any? Issues to Bring to Attention of CV Flood Protection Board 1. Rio Vista is not in the SPFC, even though: We are at the end of Yolo Bypass, subject to flows from the Bypass as well as the River and sloughs; We are somewhat protected by SPFC levees (Egbert and Mellon), but question if they are sufficient; Our industrial area along River Road, our downtown commercial and residential are subject to 100 year floods; We have no riverfront protection along our entire length. 2. The impact from an expanded Bypass is not clear; is the theoretical decrease in flow projected in the SSIA accurate? What impact would increased habitat in the Bypass and increased seasonal flooding have on Bypass capacity? These issues need much more study, particularly in light of increased habitat in the Bypass planned and proposed in the Bay Conservation and Development Plan. 3. Maps north of Rio Vista are incorrect: Location of Egbert Tract levee Absence of Mellon Levee

4 Page 4 Approve attached letter to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board outlining our concerns. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS None. ALTERNATIVES Edit content of letter Mayor Attachments: Letter Attachments 1 through 6

CITY OF RIO VISTA One Main Street, Rio Vista, California 94571 Phone: 707-374-6451 Fax: 707-374-5063 April 9, 2011 Ms.

5 CITY OF RIO VISTA One Main Street, Rio Vista, California Phone: Fax: April 9, 2011 Ms. Nancy Moricz Central Valley Flood Protection Board 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room 151 Sacramento, CA RE: 2012 Draft Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Dear Ms. Moricz: The City Council of the City of Rio Vista has reviewed the 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and is requesting that our concerns be addressed. The Mayor, Jan Vick, was a part of the Delta Area Working Group and attended most of the meetings in all three phases of work. Throughout the entire process she was assured that Rio Vista would be part of the plan. However, it does not seem this is the case. 1. Rio Vista is not included in the State Plan of Flood Control, only in the Systemwide Planning Area, even though: The City is at the end of the Yolo Bypass, subject to flows from the Bypass as well as the Sacramento River and adjacent sloughs; We are somewhat protected by SPFC levees (Egbert Tract and the Mellon Levee), but question if they are sufficient. Mellon levee is a dry levee. Our industrial area along River Road, our downtown commercial and residential are subject to 100 year floods; We have no flood protection along our entire riverfront. Although the CVFPP states that the State does not intend to increase its jurisdiction, the City of Rio Vista thinks that it should be included in the SPFC and CVFPP since it is a vulnerable small community on a flood-prone section of the Sacramento River. 2. The impact from an expanded Yolo Bypass is not clear; is the theoretical decrease in flow in the SSIA accurate? This needs much more study, particularly in light of planned increased habitat in the Bypass and proposed in the Bay Development and Conservation Plan which could affect the capacity of the Bypass. At a meeting of the Solano County Water Agency Paul Marshall, Asst. Division Chief for Flood Management assured that flows would be studied further for the 2017 update, but we question whether that is timely, given the potential impacts of the BCDC.

6 Page 2 3. The maps indicate that an expanded Bypass would encompass Egbert and Little Egbert Tracts, all the way to the Rio Vista northern City Limits. This is of great concern for future potential flooding and the CVFPP Comments potential of decreased flood protection to the north. Although the plan indicates levee upgrades and possible additional levees, there are no details, which gives the City grave concerns. 4. The CVFPP maps for the area north of Rio Vista are incorrect and incomplete. Although the levee on Egbert Tract (a SPFC levee) is rated by DWR as meeting PL 8499 or HMP standards, an additional SPFC levee, the Mellon Levee, which is at the city limits of Rio Vista, is not listed or noted. This levee is maintained by the Solano county Water Agency. DWR maps indicate that it is at PL 8499 standards from River Road west, but that the levee going north along HWY 84 is below HMP. This road is slightly raised, but cannot be said to offer flood protection. The issue with the maps and the omission of the Mellon Levee has been mentioned to DWR staff on numerous occasions, even before this final draft was published. 5. Small Communities Although Rio Vista is included on the map of small communities (p 3-9/10), it is not clear if we would be considered for improvements. Since we are vulnerable to floods, it would seem that Rio Vista should be included in the SPFC and eligible for assistance. Our entire river front is within a 100-year floodplain. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments and concerns. The CVFPP is a good beginning, but needs much more work overall before the next update in Sincerely, Jan Vick, Mayor City of Rio Vista 1 Main Street Rio Vista, CA jvick@ci.rio-vista.ca.us

PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER, FREEPORT TO VERONA, CALIFORNIA,

PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER, FREEPORT TO VERONA, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD OF FEBRUARY 1986 By J.C. Blodgett and J.B. Lucas U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 88-82 CO CM I m r-h CM Sacramento, California