Draft

Implementation Plan
California Department of Water Resources

December 2009
Draft
FloodSAFE
Implementation Plan

California Department of Water Resources

Agreement No. 4600007756
Activity No. 0901D2

December 2009
 0901D2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i

Abbreviations and Acronyms viii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.2 Geographic Areas 2
1.3 Background 5

2 FloodSAFE Initiative 8
2.1 FloodSAFE Definition 8
2.2 Vision 9
2.3 Goals 9
2.4 Foundational Objectives 10
2.5 Guiding Principles 11

3 Overview of FloodSAFE Coordination 15

3.1 Functional Area Organization 15
3.2 DWR Coordination 24
3.3 Coordination of Work 26
3.3.1 Functional Area Cross-Coordination Teams 26
3.3.2 Technical Coordination Groups 28
3.3.3 Meetings 30
3.4 Program and Project Management 31
3.4.1 Program Management 31
3.4.2 Project Management 33
3.5 Overview of FloodSAFE Implementation 34

4 Deliverables and Resourcing 36

4.1 Deliverables 36
4.1.1 Emergency Response 39
4.1.2 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship 41
4.1.3 Floodplain Risk Management 44
4.1.4 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants 47
4.1.5 Evaluation and Engineering 48
4.1.6 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy 50
4.1.7 Legislation, Budget and Communication 51
4.2 Resourcing 53

FloodSAFE i DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

5 Reporting and Tracking 61

5.1 Need for Reporting and Tracking System 61
5.2 Project Progress Reporting 62
5.3 Project Progress Tracking 69
5.4 Program Reporting 72
5.4.1 Communication and Briefing Materials 72
5.4.2 Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment Materials 73
5.4.3 Project Management Materials 73

6 Investment Strategy 74
6.1 Investment Need 74
6.2 State General Fund 76
6.3 State Bond Funds 76
6.4 Cost Sharing 77
6.5 Investment Status 78
6.6 Near-Term Investment Plan 79
6.6.1 Investment Strategy 79
6.6.2 Summary of Planned Investments 80

7 FloodSAFE Governance 82
7.1 Overview of Roles and Responsibilities within DWR 82
7.2 DWR Internal Teams and Coordination Groups 84
7.2.1 FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team 86
7.2.2 FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team 86
7.2.3 FloodSAFE Environmental Conservation Team 87
7.2.4 FloodSAFE Management Services Coordination Team 88
7.2.5 Functional Area Management Team 88
7.2.6 Technical Coordination Groups 89
7.3 Partnerships 89
7.4 Local Agencies 91
7.5 Management by Functional Area 94

8 Updates and Supporting Plans 95

8.1 Implementation Plan Updates 95
8.2 Supporting Plans 95

Appendix A Flood Emergency Response (FA 1) 1

A.1 Program Rationale 1
A.2 Goals and Objectives 3
A.2.1 Goals 3
A.2.2 Objectives 3
A.3 Elements and Components 4
A.3.1 Real-Time Flood Conditions, Status, and Warning 6
A.3.2 Climate Data Collection and Precipitation/Runoff
Forecasting 6
A.3.3 Reservoir Operations and River Forecasting 7

FloodSAFE ii DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

A.3.4 Flood Operations Emergency Response 7

A.3.5 Delta Flood Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Project 8
A.3.6 Updated Hydrology and System Re-operations 8
A.4 Geographic Focus 9
A.5 Major Deliverables 9
A.6 Performance Measures 12
A.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 14

Appendix B Operations & Maintenance and Environmental

Stewardship (FA 2) 1
B.1 Program Rationale 1
B.2 Goal and Objectives 2
B.2.1 Goal 2
B.2.2 Objectives 2
B.3 Elements and Components 3
B.3.1 Channel Maintenance 4
B.3.2 Flood Control Facilities Operations and Maintenance 4
B.3.3 Levee Operations and Maintenance 5
B.3.4 Levee Repairs 5
B.3.5 Environmental Initiatives 6
B.4 Geographic Focus 6
B.5 Major Deliverables 6
B.6 Performance Measures 10
B.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 11

Appendix C Floodplain Risk Management (FA 3) 1

C.1 Program Rationale 1
C.2 Goal and Objectives 2
C.2.1 Goal 2
C.2.2 Objectives 3
C.3 Elements and Components 5
C.3.1 Floodplain Management Technical Support 6
C.3.2 Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation 8
C.3.3 Floodplain Risk Notification 10
C.3.4 Flood Risk Planning 10
C.4 Geographic Focus 12
C.5 Major Deliverables 14
C.6 Performance Measures 17
C.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 19

Appendix D Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants (FA 4) 1

D.1 Program Rationale 1
D.2 Goals and Objectives 1
D.2.1 Goals 1
D.2.2 Objectives 2
D.3 Elements and Components 2

FloodSAFE iii DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

D.3.1 Central Valley Flood Projects 3

D.3.2 Statewide Flood Program 4
D.3.3 Delta Flood Projects 4
D.3.3.1 Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program.......... 5
D.3.3.2 Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects................. 5
D.3.3.3 Delta Levees special Flood Control Projects Initiatives 5
D.3.3.4 Development of Guidelines for Grant Funding to Local
Projects 7
D.3.4 Program Support 7
D.4 Geographic Focus 8
D.5 Major Deliverables 8
D.6 Performance Measures 11
D.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 12

Appendix E Evaluation and Engineering (FA 5) 1

E.1 Program Rationale 1
E.2 Goal and Objectives 1
E.2.1 Goal 1
E.2.2 Objectives 2
E.3 Elements and Components 2
E.3.1 Levee Evaluations 3
E.3.2 Integrated System Evaluations and Engineering 4
E.3.3 Design Review and Policy Development 5
E.4 Geographic Focus 6
E.5 Major Deliverables 7
E.6 Performance Measures 10
E.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 10

Appendix F Flood Management Planning and Conservation

Strategy (FA 6) 1
F.1 Goals and Objectives 1
F.1.1 Goals 1
F.1.2 Objectives 1
F.2 Elements and Components 2
F.3 Program Rationale 2
F.3.1 Central Valley Flood Management Planning 2
F.3.2 Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning 9
F.3.3 Conservation Strategies 10
F.4 Geographic Focus 11
F.5 Major Deliverables 11
F.6 Performance Measures 14
F.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 14

Appendix G Legislation, Budget and Communication (FA 7) 1

G.1 Program Rationale 1
G.2 Goals and Objectives 1

FloodSAFE iv DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

G.2.1 Goal 2
G.2.2 Objectives 2
G.3 Elements and Components 2
G.3.1 Communication and Briefing Materials 3
G.3.2 Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment 5
G.3.3 Legislative Liaison and Legal Issues 5
G.3.4 Program Management, Budget and Fiscal Services 6
G.3.5 FloodSAFE Program Administrative and Coordination
Services 7
G.4 Geographic Focus 8
G.5 Major Deliverables 8
G.6 Performance Measures 10
G.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule 11

Table of Figures

Figure 3-1 Flood Management Functional Areas and FloodSAFE

Initiatives 19
Figure 3-2 Flood Management Functional Areas and USACE
Communities of Practice 20
Figure 3-3 DWR Role in Functional Areas 25
Figure 3-4 Functional Area Cross-Coordination Teams 26
Figure 3-5 FloodSAFE Management Responsibilities 31
Figure 5-1 Example Project Charter 63
Figure 5-2. Template for Monthly Project Progress Report 65
Figure 5-3. Example Completed Monthly Project Progress Report 66
Figure 5-4. Program Tracking and Reporting Framework 68
Figure 5-5. FloodSAFE Component Deliverable Glossary of Terms for
Tracking System 70
Figure 6-1. Estimated Distribution of Investment Costs 75
Figure 7-1. Relationship among Coordination Teams and Groups 84
Figure 7-2. FloodSAFE Governance 85
Figure 7-3 FloodSAFE – A Partnership Program 90
Figure 7-4 Local Agency Participation 93
Figure 7-5 Management Program Variability 94
Figure A-1 Flood Emergency Operations Phases 1
Figure A-2 Flood Emergency Response Functional Area 5
Figure B-1 Operations and Maintenance Functional Area 3
Figure C-1 Floodplain Risk Management Functional Area 5
Figure D-1 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants Functional
Area 3
Figure E-1 Evaluation and Engineering Functional Area 3
Figure F-1 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
Functional Area 3
Figure F-2 CVFPP Planning Areas 7
Figure G-1. Legislation, Budget, and Communication Functional Area 3

FloodSAFE v DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table of Tables

Table 3-1 Functional Area Support of FloodSAFE Foundational

Objectives 21
Table 3-2. Functional Area as Center of Excellence 23
Table 4-1 List of Deliverables 37
Table 4-1 List of Deliverables, cont. 38
Table 4-2 FA 1 – Emergency Response (To Be Updated) Table 4-3 FA 2
Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship (To
Be Updated) 54
Table 4-3 FA 2 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental
Stewardship (To Be Updated) 55
Table 4-4 FA 3 Floodplain Risk Management (To Be Updated) 56
Table 4-5 FA 4 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants (To Be
Updated) 57
Table 4-6 FA 5 Evaluation and Engineering (To Be Updated) 58
Table 4-7 FA 6 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
(To Be Updated) 59
Table 4-8 FA 7 Legislation, Budget, and Communication (To Be
Updated) 60
Table 6-1. Estimated Cost Shares for Needed Flood System
Improvements through 2030 77
Table A-1 Implementation of Flood Emergency Response Program
Elements 10
Table A-2 Performance Measures 13
Table A-3 Emergency Response (FA 1) State Investments 15
Table B-1 Implementation of Operations & Maintenance and
Environmental Stewardship Program Elements 7
Table B-2 Performance Measures 10
Table B-3 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship
(FA 2) State Investments 12
Table C-1 Implementation of Floodplain Management Program
Elements 13
Table C-2 Performance Measures 18
Table C-3 Floodplain Risk Management (FA 3) State Investments 20
Table D-1 Implementation of Flood Protection Projects and Project
Grants Program Elements 10
Table D-2 Performance Measures 11
Table D-3 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants (FA 4) State
Investments 13
Table E-1 Implementation of Evaluation and Engineering Program
Elements 9
Table E-2 Performance Measures 10
Table E-3 Evaluation and Engineering (FA 5) State Investments 11

FloodSAFE vi DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table F-1 Implementation of Flood Management Planning and

Conservation Strategy Program Elements Need updated table 13
Table F-2 Performance Measures 14
Table F-3 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy (FA
6) State Investments 15
Table G-1 Performance Measures 10
Table G-2 Legislation, Budget, and Communication (FA 7) State
Investments 12

FloodSAFE vii DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BAM Bond Accountability and Management

CEQA California Evironmental Quality Act
CLD California Levee Database
CRS Community Rating System
CTP Cooperating Technical Partners
CVFED Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and
Deliniation
CVFPB Central Valley Flood Protection Board
CVFPP Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
CWP California Water Plan
DFM Division of Flood Management
DFG California Department of Fish & Game
DRMS Delta Risk Management Strategy
DSIWM Division of Planning and Local
AssistanceStatewide Integrated Water
Management
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIP Early Implementation Project
F-CO Forcast-Coordinated Operations
FCSSR Flood Control System Status Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insusrance Rate Map
FloodSAFE California’s FloodSAFE initiative for
integrated flood management
FMO Flood Maintenance Office
FOC federal-State Flood Operations Center
FOCIS Flood Operations Center Information System
FSESSRO FloodSAFE Environmental Stewardship and
Statewide Resources Office
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System

FloodSAFE viii DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance

HUD Housing and Urban Development
LFPZ Local Flood Protection Zones
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LMA local levee maintaining agencies
LLUR Local Levee Urgent Repair
LOLE Local Levee Evaluation
MAS Mapping Activity Statement
NED National Economic Development
NEPA National Evironmental Protection Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Progam
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NULE Non-Urban Levee Evaluations
NWS National Weather Service
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAL Provisionally Accredited Levee
PL Public Law
QFP Quantitative Precipitation Forecast
SPFC State Plan of Flood Control
RD Reclamation District
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

FloodSAFE ix DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

1 Introduction

The need to improve public safety through

FloodSAFE is an initiative to improve
integrated flood management is urgent due to integrated flood management in California
more people living and working in flood-prone through a system-wide approach while
areas, better understanding of system deficiencies, reducing flood risk at regional and local
and possible changes in flood magnitude and levels. The flood management improvements
frequency from climate change. In 2006, the will be achieved through three processes:
California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) launched FloodSAFE California – a 1. Improve basic flood management
multi-faceted initiative to improve public safety functions including Flood Emergency
through integrated flood management. This Response, Operation and Maintenance of the
document uses terms ―FloodSAFE initiative,‖ or flood control facilities, management of the
simply ―FloodSAFE,‖ to refer to FloodSAFE floodplains, fixing the erosion sites,
California. enhancing riparian habitat consistent with
public safety, and implementation of local
As part of the FloodSAFE initiative, California projects.
began the long process of improving flood
management systems by investing heavily to 2. Implement regional projects to reduce
complete emergency levee repairs near several flood risks including "Early Implementation
high risk urban areas, evaluating levees that Projects" and implementation of USACE
protect urban and rural areas, delineating flood- projects.
prone areas, informing the public about flood
risks, enacting significant new laws, sharpening 3. A system-wide approach in which broad
procedures for responding to emergencies, and system evaluation is conducted (i.e., map the
providing funds to lead a sustained effort to floodplains and evaluate the conditions of the
improve flood management statewide. levees throughout the system) to determine
flood system deficiencies and define feasible
projects/programs to fix system deficiencies
1.1 Purpose and Scope by developing a comprehensive system-wide
The purpose of this document is to present the flood protection plan for the Central Valley
implementation plan for California’s FloodSAFE (i.e., CVFPP).
initiative. The FloodSAFE Implementation Plan
is intended to define authorities, responsibilities,
timelines, budgets, priorities, and expected
outcomes of flood management programs as they
are currently known. The implementation plan focuses on flood management work
required over approximately the next five years, but also provides long-term direction to
year 2025 and beyond. The implementation plan has been prepared at a strategic level of
detail to describe the overall objectives of the FloodSAFE initiative and how the work
will be accomplished. FloodSAFE work activities are organized under six technical
functional areas and a program management functional area.

FloodSAFE 1 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

The term ―functional area‖ was chosen by DWR’s Division of Flood Management
(DFM) managers to describe the type of work being done, rather than the organizational
structure. Each functional area is specialized in/with
specific technical expertise (Center of Excellence) Seven Functional Areas
with distinct technical roles and responsibilities. Each
functional area is closely aligned to a DWR office as FA 1 Emergency Response
shown in Section 3. FA 2 Operations & Maintenance
and Environmental Stewardship
This implementation plan provides strategic-level
guidance for implementation of California’s FA 3 Floodplain Risk
FloodSAFE initiative by providing descriptions of Management
how work will be accomplished in seven different FA 4 Flood Protection Projects
functional areas. The plan will be supported by & Project Grants
strategic plans or other detailed management plans FA 5 Evaluation & Engineering
for programs and projects as appropriate within each
FA 6 Flood Management
functional area. The implementation plan describes
Planning and Conservation
major elements and components for each functional
Strategy
area; descriptions of detailed work activities and tasks
will be left for other reports under each functional FA 7 Legislation, Budget, and
area. Communication
The FloodSAFE Implementation Plan was prepared
for DWR internal use to help all managers understand the relationships among the
functional areas and to help them monitor expected outcomes (deliverables and
performance measures). The implementation plan is intended to be flexible, with updates
prepared as conditions evolve.

1.2 Geographic Areas

The FloodSAFE initiative is designed to provide benefits to taxpayers throughout
California. However, some of the funding and work is focused within certain geographic
areas, especially the Central Valley, the Delta, and the State-federal project levees in the
Central Valley. Figure 1-1 shows the Central Valley and the remainder of the State’s
hydrologic regions.

Central Valley. The Central Valley contains the majority of the State’s flooding
problems and the majority of its flood protection facilities (reservoirs, weirs,
levees, etc.), including the State-federal flood protection system. In addition, the
area includes local flood management facilities that are not part of the State-
federal system.

State-Federal Flood Protection System in the Central Valley. While not

technically a geographic area, the State-federal flood protection system in the
Central Valley is the major flood protection system in the State. Due to the
existence of the complex flood system within the Central Valley and the
population and property at risk in this area, most of the flood protection
improvements for FloodSAFE will take place within the State-federal flood
protection system in the Central Valley.

FloodSAFE 2 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Delta. The Delta (738,239 acres) was given a legal boundary (Section 12220 of
the Water Code) in 1959 with the passage of the Delta Protection Act. The 1992
Delta Protection Act refined the definition to provide primary and secondary
zones within the previously defined legal Delta. Due to unique issues in the Delta
and the State’s interest in benefits provided by Delta levees, the State provides
financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies (LMAs) for 732 miles of
non-project Delta levees and 385 miles of project levees.

Area Outside of Central Valley. The area of the State outside of the Central
Valley also has flooding problems and flood management facilities, but these
generally affect local areas and are smaller in scale than those in the Central
Valley. The State provides cost sharing with local communities for flood
management projects.

Statewide. Some of the flood management programs for the implementation of

the FloodSAFE initiative will be applied throughout the State.

In addition, California is divided into ten hydrologic regions. The descriptions of the
functional areas in Appendices A through G identify the geographic area(s) to which they
apply.

FloodSAFE 3 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 1-1 California Hydrologic Regions with Central Valley Overlay

FloodSAFE 4 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

1.3 Background
In January 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger drew attention to the State’s flood problem,
calling for improved maintenance, system rehabilitation, effective emergency response,
and sustainable funding. In a white paper entitled Flood Warnings: Responding to
California’s Flood Crisis, DWR outlined the flood problems that California faces and
offered specific recommendations for administrative action and legislative changes. The
major flood system issues are shown in the text box.

Since that time, Hurricane Katrina and the resulting flooding in New Orleans provided a
vivid reminder of levee vulnerability and consequences of flooding urban areas.
California’s own flooding in 2006 produced by storms with recurrence intervals of as
little as five to ten years highlighted that the system is fragile and deteriorating.
Emergency appropriations and the repair of critical levee erosion sites necessary before
the winter of 2006 contributed to furthering public awareness of potential flooding.

Flood System
There are several threats to California’s flood systems that must be considered together
when looking for ways to reduce the risk of flooding.
Channel Capacity. Flood channels and adjacent levees must have capacity to
carry design flood flows that vary throughout the system. In part, this means that
levees must be high enough to contain the design flows.
Seepage. Water seepage through or under a levee embankment can lower the
integrity of a levee.
Erosion. High velocity flows can erode levee material, making a levee unstable and
subject to failure.
Encroachments. A levee should generally be clear of inappropriate structures or
debris that can cause problems with inspections, maintenance, flood fights, or the
stability of levees.
Vegetation. Growth of some vegetation, especially large trees in certain areas on
levees, may weaken levees and reduce public safety. However, research will be
initiated to determine the extent to which various types of vegetation may be
beneficial in the design of flood control systems or substantiate the need for
rigorous application of current maintenance standards on the levee prism.
Structural Instability. The levees must be structurally stable and established on
foundations with adequate strength to retain flood flows.
Seismic Loadings. Many levees that were constructed without the benefit of
modern engineering practice may perform poorly during earthquakes.

FloodSAFE 5 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

The unprecedented funding through Propositions 1E and 84 in November 2006

demonstrated the public’s willingness to invest in flood management. These propositions
and other emergency appropriations (Assembly Bill 142) place California flood funding
at an all time high. At the same time, the Administration has made it clear that the current
funding is only a substantial down payment on flood improvements that will require
additional public support for future bond measures.

The need for adequate flood management is more critical now than ever before. Over the
years, major storms and flooding have taken many lives, caused significant property
losses, and resulted in extensive damage to public infrastructure. However, a combination
of recent factors has put public safety and the financial stability of State government at
risk. California’s flood protection system, comprised of aging infrastructure with major
design deficiencies, has been further weakened by deferred maintenance. Escalating
development in floodplains has increased the potential for flood damage to homes,
businesses, and communities.

Court decisions have resulted in greater State government liability for flood damages. In
2003, Paterno v. State of California, the court held the State of California liable for flood-
related damages caused by a levee failure. In the Arreola v. Monterey County decision of
July 2002, local agencies were held liable for the 1995 flood damages that resulted from a
failure to properly maintain the Pajaro River project. The maintaining agencies had not
been able to use standard mechanical clearing methods to remove vegetation in the
channel because of environmental requirements to protect riparian habitat.

Due to funding and environmental concerns, both the State and local agencies in all
regions of the State have found it increasingly difficult to carry out adequate maintenance
programs using previous methods. Environmental regulations are requiring development
of new approaches for local and State agencies to deal with the backlog of maintenance
activities.

In addition to the challenges of maintaining a sustainable and integrated flood

management system in the Central Valley, great challenges also exist in the Delta. Levee
failures in the Delta can affect farmland, small communities, the ecosystem, and the
largest water supply projects in California. The Delta includes nearly 60 major islands
and tracts lying below sea level that are kept dry by marginal levees, many founded on
peat soils. During the last century there have been more than 160 levee failures and island
inundations, most of which occurred during flood seasons. Most of these levees have
problems associated with long-term levee settlement and island subsidence. Other areas
of California with smaller flood management systems need the State’s assistance in
making needed improvements.

DWR designed the FloodSAFE initiative to make the first significant improvements in
flood safety since the flood systems were constructed.

FloodSAFE 6 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Recent Events and Progress

Greater Taxpayer Liabilities. The November 2003 Paterno v. State of California legal decision
found that when a public entity accepts a flood control system built by someone else, it accepts liability
as if it had planned and built the system. The Paterno ruling held the State responsible for defects in a
Yuba County levee foundation that existed when the levee was constructed by local agricultural
interests in the 1930s.
Expanded Flood Programs. After years of reduced budgets for State flood programs, substantial
funding increases are now available for system repair and improvement, emergency response, Delta
levee programs, and other programs.
Reminders from Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina and the resulting flooding in New Orleans
provided a vivid reminder of levee vulnerability and long-lasting consequences of flooding urban areas.
Federal Programs. Since late 2005, the USACE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) have cooperated to develop fully coordinated federal flood management programs and
policies through the Interagency Flood Risk Management Committee. The resulting efforts, partly
resulting from reviews of practices and policies in the aftermath of the flooding of New Orleans, are
resulting in stricter standards for levee design, construction, operations and maintenance, linked to
floodplain mapping and stricter levee accreditation requirements under FEMA’s Map Modernization
Program.
California Flooding 2006. Many regions of California experienced dangerous and costly flooding in
early 2006 from flood events that were neither powerful nor rare.
Critical Levee Repair. In February 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger declared a State of Emergency
for the California levee system, resulting in expenditure to repair critically eroded levees.
Climate Change. In July 2006, DWR released Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into
Management of California’s Water Resources that highlights rising sea levels, earlier spring snowmelt,
and increasing flood peaks as conditions that will impact the flood management system.
Delta Investigations. Several investigations including the Delta Risk Management Strategy identified
the high risk of Delta levee failure and estimated that the risk will increase in the future.
Funding. Emergency appropriations in May 2006 and ballot propositions in November 2006
provided over $5 billion to enhance flood safety statewide – a record amount, but far less than needed.
A strategy to provide long-term, sustainable funding is still needed.
Flood Management Reform Legislation. In 2007, new flood bills were passed focusing on
responsible floodplain land use planning, proactive cost sharing rules, shared responsibility for flood
safety, and ensuring that adequate maintenance is performed.
Central Valley Flood System Improvement Framework. In February 2009, a partnership of
federal, State, and local agencies completed the Framework to demonstrate a commitment to flood
system improvement that allows California Central Valley levees to maintain PL 84-99 eligibility while
long-term system improvements are being considered and appropriately implemented. It began as a
vegetation issue, but was expanded to address multiple threats to levee integrity.
FloodSAFE Initiative. Work in seven functional areas is progressing to improve public safety by
achieving FloodSAFE foundational objectives – the subject of this document, FloodSAFE
Implementation Plan.

FloodSAFE 7 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

2 FloodSAFE Initiative

FloodSAFE is a statewide multi-faceted initiative to improve public safety through

integrated flood management and builds on the State's ongoing flood management work.
Integrated flood management requires more than building new levees or other physical
changes to flood management systems. For example, flood management facilities must be
operated and maintained. Procedures for forecasting storms, managing the floodplain,
educating the public, and conducting emergency response operations during the
unfortunate times when floods occur are all
essential parts of flood management. The Draft FloodSAFE Strategic Plan
Investigations, planning, and designs are (DWR, 2008) provides strategic guidance
necessary before physical improvement to system for implementation of the FloodSAFE
facilities can be constructed. The FloodSAFE initiative. See DWR’s web portal at
initiative includes significant improvements to http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/plan/
existing facilities, programs, processes, and for a copy of the strategic plan.
preparedness.

FloodSAFE is more than investing the funds from Propositions 1E and 84. The initiative
recognizes that DWR’s base flood management programs must continue indefinitely,
long after bond funds are expended. The initiative will require additional State bond
funding, cost sharing from federal and local entities, continued general fund
contributions, or other funding to ensure that integrated flood management is sustainable.

2.1 FloodSAFE Definition

FloodSAFE is an initiative to improve integrated
flood management in California through a system- Integrated Flood Management is an
wide approach, while reducing flood risk at approach to dealing with flood risk that
regional and local levels. The flood management recognizes the
improvements will, therefore, be achieved through Interconnection of flood
three processes: management actions within broader
water resources management and
1. Improve basic flood management functions land use planning
including Flood Emergency Response,
Operations and Maintenance of the flood Value of coordinating across
control facilities, management of the geographic and agency boundaries
floodplains, fixing the erosion sites, and Need to evaluate opportunities and
implementation of local projects. potential impacts from a system
perspective
2. Implement regional projects to reduce flood Importance of environmental
risks including "Early Implementation stewardship and sustainability
Projects" and implementation of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects.

FloodSAFE 8 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

3. A system-wide approach in which broad system evaluation is conducted (i.e., map

the floodplains and evaluate the conditions of the levees throughout the system) to
determine flood system deficiencies and define feasible projects/programs to fix
system deficiencies by developing a comprehensive system-wide flood protection
plan for the Central Valley.

2.2 Vision
The FloodSAFE Vision is:

A sustainable integrated flood management and emergency response system

throughout California that improves public safety, protects and enhances
environmental and cultural resources, and supports economic growth by reducing
the probability of destructive floods, promoting beneficial floodplain processes,
and lowering the damages caused by flooding.

2.3 Goals
Goals represent desirable outcomes of
the FloodSAFE initiative that will Sustainable Flood Management System
continue to be important in the future.
DWR will work with partners to make An objective of the FloodSAFE initiative is to
formulate strategies that will result in a sustainable
the decisions and investments necessary
flood risk management system in California.
to meet the following goals:
The sustainable flood management system is designed
Reduce the Chance of to provide for:
Flooding – Reduce the
frequency and size of floods that Ease of operation and maintenance of flood
could damage California facilities, with reasonable costs.
communities, homes and Enhancement of sustainable environmental
property, and critical public resources, recreational opportunities, creation
infrastructure. of open space, and protection of agricultural
lands.
Reduce the Consequences of
Flooding – Take actions prior to Integration of multi-purpose projects and
resources use, to share out flood system
flooding that will help reduce
maintenance and enhancement costs.
the adverse consequences of
floods when they do occur and Safe communities for a sustainable economic
allow for quicker recovery after growth that can fuel sustainable funding for
flooding. operation and maintenance of flood facilities
and future enhancement needs of the system.
Sustain Economic Growth –
Provide continuing opportunities To create a sustainable flood risk management
for prudent economic system, flood managers need to integrate flood
development that supports storage, levee setbacks, floodway easement, bypass
robust regional and statewide system, and groundwater recharge with other flood
economies without creating management strategies.

FloodSAFE 9 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

additional flood risk.

Protect and Enhance Ecosystems – Improve flood management systems in ways
that protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, where possible, and other public
trust resources.
Promote Sustainability – Take actions that improve compatibility with the
natural environment and reduce the expected costs to operate and maintain flood
management systems into the future.

2.4 Foundational Objectives

In order to meet FloodSAFE goals, a set of foundational objectives is needed to provide
specific outcomes that can be accomplished.

1. Provide 200-year (or greater) level of flood protection to all urban areas of
California.
2. Provide 100-year (or greater) level of flood protection to all small (populations
less than 10,000) communities of California.
3. Restore 1957-level design performance for rural areas in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley and expand flood protection where feasible.
4. Maintain and improve the integrity of Delta levees for long-term protection for
multiple Delta resources.
5. Provide additional Delta flood protection to support other ongoing programs to
achieve a sustainable Delta.
6. Improve ecosystem processes in conjunction with flood system improvements by
developing and implementing a long-term conservation strategy.
7. Establish an interagency mitigation banking program that provides lasting
environmental benefits.
8. Improve coordinated reservoir operations in the Central Valley to reduce flood
risks.
9. Develop a comprehensive Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) (as
described in SB5) with extensive stakeholder input by January 1, 2012.
10. Delineate expected floodplains for 100- and 200-year flood flows for all urban
communities in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Valley.
11. Achieve 90 percent annual pass rate for urban levees in the Central Valley when
inspected according to federal and State levee standards (e.g., maintenance,
encroachment, etc.).
12. Improve operations and maintenance so flood facilities continue to operate as
designed.
13. Improve procedures for flood emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.

FloodSAFE 10 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Each of DWR’s flood management functional areas will contribute to meeting one or
more of these foundational objectives (see Section 3).

2.5 Guiding Principles

Future flood management actions should be guided by principles that are considered with
every project, program, or policy decision to ensure that flood management dollars are
spent wisely and that flood programs are effective and consistent with other California
programs and priorities. The following principles will guide work in achieving the
FloodSAFE goals and objectives.

1. Approach flood risk management on a system-wide basis and prevent adverse

impacts.
Improvements to a flood system made on a project-by-project basis can fail to address
system-wide needs. A system-wide (preferably watershed) approach is needed for future
investments in flood protection. A system-wide
approach that takes into account the natural System-Wide Approach to Flood
processes and functions of rivers and matches Management
appropriate flood management actions to The FloodSAFE California Initiative is
conditions and forces that exist within the river promoting flood management risk reduction
system will help deliver effective and through an integrated system-wide approach.
sustainable flood management projects. This approach requires system-wide evaluation
of the flood management system, identification
Today’s flood management systems protect of the system deficiencies, and formulation of
lands with varying needs. Some areas, such as appropriate integrated system improvements.
densely populated cities, warrant greater With this approach, the costs and benefits are
protection than floodplains where population shared at the system level instead of each
density is low and flood damages would be project within the flood control system. The
comparatively minor. A minimum of 200-year improvements will be evaluated to ensure they
protection should be sought as quickly as provide system-wide flood risk reduction in
possible for all urban areas. Rural areas, where addition to local benefits. Flood system
economically feasible, should be restored to improvement costs will be shared by all
design levels of protection that permit beneficiaries (i.e., flood risk reduction,
agricultural land uses and open space. environmental enhancement, etc.). This
approach requires that FloodSAFE negotiate a
Whatever the level of protection, a system-wide broad cost-sharing agreement with USACE in
approach is needed to ensure that improved which system-wide flood risk reduction
protection in one region does not lead to program cost sharing is agreed upon instead of
unanticipated increases in flood risk to other a traditional project-by-project evaluation and
areas. All improvements must be evaluated cost sharing arrangement.
against criteria for acceptable levels of impact,
and if impacts exceed the criteria, appropriate
measures must be taken to mitigate the impact. Some improvements to urban areas can be
made now in advance of a complete system evaluation where the improvements are not
expected to adversely affect other areas.

2. Integrate land use planning with flood risk management.

FloodSAFE 11 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Land use decisions that explicitly consider flood threats will reduce risks and liabilities.
Throughout much of the Central Valley, the State government has assumed responsibility
for the integrity of levees built by local reclamation districts or the USACE. In many
cases, FEMA has accredited these levees as being capable of withstanding a 100-year
flood event based on old engineering certifications, or has merely ―grandfathered‖ these
levees into the accredited system. Local agencies make decisions on where to allow urban
development, sometimes without the benefit of accurate risk information.

Better information regarding flood risk management must be made available to local
officials. Because it is in everyone’s interest to prevent catastrophic flooding, all parties,
both public and private, must work together to make sound decisions that protect lives
and property.

1. Encourage and fund projects that offer multiple or regional benefits.

Precipitation events and the associated runoff that produce
floods are an integral part of the entire water system in
California. Actions taken related to providing flood
protection can also affect water supply, water quality,
cultural resource preservation, and ecosystem health. In
order to maximize public benefits from State government
funds, projects that help satisfy multiple objectives or add
to the sustainability of the system need to be given higher
priority over single purpose projects.Natural and Beneficial
Functions of Floodplains

2. Protect and restore natural floodplain processes and promote environmental

stewardship.
Systems of water supply and flood protection are more successful when they
accommodate and sustain ecosystem functions. Significant benefits provided through
natural floodplain functions include provision of soil fertility, groundwater recharge, and
habitat for at-risk species and ecosystems, as well as provision of floodwater storage,
reductions of flood velocities and peak flows, and sedimentation.

Sustainable systems are also more economical over time. The goal of an environmental
stewardship ethic is to create human systems consistent with natural systems, where each
is ultimately sustainable.

DWR fosters the environmental stewardship ethic by embracing broad concepts of

impact avoidance and protection of natural resources, as well as minimization, mitigation,
restoration, and enhancement of natural ecosystem functions and values. DWR will
incorporate ecosystem restoration as an objective in water and flood management
projects, including partnering with restoration efforts of others to achieve net
environmental benefits. (Ecosystem restoration is the process of reestablishing, to the
extent possible, the structure, function, and composition of the natural environment.)

FloodSAFE 12 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

DWR will focus on non-structural solutions that reduce susceptibility to flooding, aim for
watershed-based solutions, and use traditional structural approaches where appropriate.

3. Design and build flood protection facilities to avoid catastrophic or unexpected

failures.
All flood protection structures (such as a levee) should be designed and built to avoid
unexpected failures. In other words, new flood protection facilities will be designed,
constructed, and maintained to minimize failures (such as from seepage) while flows are
at or below the design level.

4. Promote and fund regional planning.

The State government should encourage a regional approach to flood management.
Floods are not constrained by political boundaries. Achieving adequate flood protection
will require neighboring communities, tribal governments, or districts to pool resources,
cooperate on land use decisions, coordinate on projects, and communicate flood risk and
flood preparedness to residents.

5. Adapt flood management to cope with climate change.

Today, evidence exists that suggests climate change is influencing the size and frequency
of flood flows. More winter precipitation is falling in the mountains as rain and less is
being stored in the snowpack. Storms are becoming more severe and runoff events are
larger and more frequent than previously expected. California will face larger floods in
the future, and flood management systems must accommodate the larger expected flows.
Sea level rise may also reduce levee stability in the Delta.

6. Provide accurate information about flood risks to help residents and

communities make safer decisions.
Californians deserve to know about the flood risks they face, the actions they can take to
reduce that risk, and how to respond when a flood occurs. No matter how much a flood
protection system is improved, some risk of flooding always remains. This risk, called
residual risk, exists due to the chance that a larger flood will occur than the one the
system was designed to manage, and that undetected deficiencies in the flood protection
system may lead to unexpected failures.

Timely and accurate flood information and emergency preparedness at local and
individual levels can help make people safer. Accurate information on flood risks is also
essential to help inform individual choices, local land use decisions, and development of
effective emergency response plans.

7. Leverage State investments to provide maximum public benefits.

Always attempt to leverage available State funding by obtaining local and federal cost
sharing to the maximum extent possible.

Preference should be given to actions that provide desired multiple benefits at the
minimum net cost to the taxpayers when selecting projects or policies for

FloodSAFE 13 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

implementation, and when considering initial capital costs and expected future costs for
Operations and Maintenance.

8. Provide Equitable Access to Decision Process.

All communities should be provided access and opportunity to participate in the decision
making processes that affect them. Whenever possible, offer assistance to disadvantaged
communities to help them participate in relevant public processes and funding decisions.

FloodSAFE 14 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

3 Overview of FloodSAFE Coordination

A wide variety of related programs and projects is required to implement improvements

to California’s flood management to meet the FloodSAFE foundational objectives. This
chapter describes the coordination necessary to unite individual work efforts into a
comprehensive program.

During the preparation of this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan, it was recognized that
coordination is required at many different technical, managerial, and business levels and
coordination is required at all stages of work beginning with identifying needed work to
final reporting. This includes coordination vertically throughout the FloodSAFE
Program to mobilize and fully utilize the available DFM resources. Additionally,
communication and coordination is necessary horizontally across the different parts of
FloodSAFE to collaborate on work items that support several different parts of
FloodSAFE. This coordination occurs at two basic levels: (1) accomplishing and sharing
work products, and (2) managing the overall FloodSAFE initiative.

3.1 Functional Area Organization

Implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative consists of work in seven different, but
related, functional areas. Work efforts that are aimed at achieving the same function are
grouped together into functional areas. For example, work necessary to maintain the
flood facilities in serviceable condition can be grouped together in one functional area.
Likewise, work necessary to plan for flood system improvements can be grouped into
another functional area.

Some functional areas have been part of DWR flood management for decades and some
are new to the FloodSAFE initiative. This section describes how the work is organized
into closely coordinated functional areas. This approach is based on the
acknowledgement that flood management includes much more than improvements to
existing flood facilities. Prior to FloodSAFE, USACE traditionally conducted work for
some functional areas.

Following is a brief description of each functional area. Each is described in further detail
in separate sections (see Appendices A through G).

FA 1 Flood Emergency Response. This functional area includes work to better

prepare for, respond to, and recover from flood emergencies. A program for flood
emergency response is a necessary part of flood management because California
will always face flood emergencies, even when system improvements reduce the
frequency of flooding. Program activities include inspection and assessment of
flood projects’ integrity; reservoir operations and river forecasting; flood data
collection, management, and dissemination; precipitation and runoff forecasting;
Delta flood preparedness, response, and recovery; and statewide flood emergency

FloodSAFE 15 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

response functions. Under the FloodSAFE initiative, major work is underway to

improve DWR’s Emergency Response Program. This has been a base program
within DWR’s DFM. See Appendix A.

FA 2 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship. This

functional area includes work necessary to keep specific flood management
facilities (as defined in the California Water Code) in good, serviceable condition
so facilities continue to function as designed. Without effective Operations &
Maintenance, flow capacity could be reduced over time and facilities could
deteriorate, leading to failures and flooding. Program activities include channel
maintenance (hydraulic assessments, sediment removal, channel clearing, and
vegetation management); erosion and levee repairs; levee inspection, evaluation,
and maintenance; and flood control facilities’ operation and maintenance
(inspection, repair, and replacement of the pumping stations, weirs, gate
structures, etc.). This has been a base program within DFM. See Appendix B.

FA 3 Floodplain Risk Management. This functional area is aimed at reducing

the consequences of riverine, coastal, and alluvial fan floodplain flooding. A
major focus of this work includes better delineation and evaluation of floodplains
to assist local decision makers with their near- and long-term land use planning
efforts. Floodplain management is a highly cost-effective and efficient suite of
tools that works cooperatively and in conjunction with flood system
improvements to significantly improve public safety through sustainable land use
in flood-prone areas. Program activities include floodplain management technical
support (FEMA technical support and floodplain technical data support);
floodplain risk notification (risk notification, parcel database management, and
Levee Flood Protection Zone (LFPZ) maps); floodplain evaluation and
delineation (Central Valley floodplain evaluation and delineation, flood
depth/frequency analyses and floodplain limits, alluvial fan floodplain evaluation
and delineation); and floodplain risk planning (flood risk in general plans, hazard
mitigation planning, building standards code update, alluvial fan task force, and
other supporting programs). This has been a base program within DFM. See
Appendix C.

FA 4 Flood Protection Projects & Project Grants. This functional area is

responsible for the review of flood projects, cost-sharing on federal feasibility
studies, and the State’s input to project selection and funding in the Central
Valley, the Delta, and throughout the remainder of the State. This functional area
develops criteria and guidelines for granting funding to local agencies to
implement selected flood management projects. Program activities include
coordinating with the USACE and local agencies for improvements to the State-
federal Flood Protection System in the Central Valley; coordinating with the
USACE and local entities to increase federal cost-share funding and achieve
legislative reforms regarding flood management projects in the Central Valley;
partnering with local agencies on Early Implementation Program (EIP) projects;
implementing statewide grant programs, including the Flood Control Subventions
Program, Floodway Corridor Program, and Local Levee Assistance Program; and

FloodSAFE 16 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

administering the Delta Subventions and Delta Special Projects programs. This
has been a base program within DFM. See Appendix D.

FA 5 Evaluation & Engineering. This functional area performs assessments of

existing facility conditions for use in identifying deficiencies and needed
improvements. This is a new program with the FloodSAFE initiative within DFM.
See Appendix E.

FA 6 Flood Management Planning and Conservation. This functional area

looks beyond individual projects to plan how all facilities, operations, and other
practices and policies work together as a system. While each of the other
functional areas conduct some planning for their work, the Flood Management
Planning and Conservation functional area is the primary planning area for the
FloodSAFE initiative. Planning processes under this functional area will produce
the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP), Statewide Integrated Flood
Management Plan, and the Conservation Strategies. This is a new program with
the FloodSAFE initiative. A portion of the work will be managed within DFM
and a portion within DWR’s Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management
(DSIWM). See Appendix F.

FA 7 Legislation, Budget and Communication. This functional area seeks

budgetary stability, and promotes local and federal cost sharing, and consistent
coordination and public outreach to implement the FloodSAFE initiative. Specific
components include communication and public outreach, federal advocacy,
legislative liaison, and bond accountability and management. Each of these
components actively supports all the functional areas. Proactive engagement will
allow the State to address potentially contentious flood management issues to
benefit public safety and natural resource sustainability, facilitate the State’s
ability to maximize federal cost-share funding, and enable DWR to effectively
coordinate, manage, track, analyze, and report bond expenditures per Executive
Order S-02-07. Activities in this functional area are imbedded in, and are integral
to, successful progress of other functional area programs. This is a new program
with the FloodSAFE initiative. See Appendix G.

Figure 3-1 identifies the functional areas and lists major program elements and DWR
supporting offices. Work within each functional area is supported by elements, which
represent major divisions of work within a functional area. Each element is supported by
two or more components, which represent programs or groups of projects. Each
component is made up of a number of activities. Each activity is made up of a number of
tasks, a unit of work such as data
collection. This FloodSAFE
Implementation Plan only introduces Functional Area
elements and supporting components o Element This Plan
for each functional area. This  Component
hierarchy is shown in the adjacent Activity
o Task
sidebar. Vertical coordination and
communication between the groups

FloodSAFE 17 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

completing the work is necessary to ensure that there continuity between the tasks and
activities and the components and elements that they support.

DWR’s work organization in functional areas is closely aligned with how the USACE
organizes its work under ―Community of Practice‖. USACE flood-related work is
organized into four areas – Emergency Management, Structural Safety, Planning and
Policy, and Operations and Regulatory. USACE provided information contained in
Figure 3-2, which shows the USACE Communities of Practice for flood work and where
they fit with respect to DWR’s functional areas.

The combination of work for these seven functional areas will meet the FloodSAFE
foundational objectives. Table 3-1 shows which functional areas will play a role in
meeting each FloodSAFE foundational objective. Work in all functional areas is also
guided by the principles shown in Section 2. The Legislation, Budget, and
Communication Functional Area (FA 7) provides management support to the six
technical functional areas. Table 3-2 identifies where the specialized technical expertise
resides within the Functional Areas.

FloodSAFE 18 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 3-1 Flood Management Functional Areas and FloodSAFE Initiatives

FloodSAFE 19 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 3-2 Flood Management Functional Areas and USACE Communities of Practice

FloodSAFE 20 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 3-1 Functional Area Support of FloodSAFE Foundational Objectives

Functional Areas for Implementation of FloodSAFE

(Support of FloodSAFE Foundational Objectives)

FloodSAFE Foundational FA 1 FA 2 FA 3 FA 4 FA 5 FA 6 FA 7
Objectives Flood Operations & Floodplain Flood Evaluation Flood Legislation,
Emergency Maintenance Risk Protection and Management Budget and
Response and Management Projects Engineering Planning and Communication
Environmental and Project Conservation
Stewardship Grants Strategy
1. Provide 200-year (or greater) level of flood
protection to all urban areas of California.     
2. Provide 100-year level of flood protection to
all small (populations less than 10,000)     
communities of California.
3. Reduce flood risks in rural areas in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.      
4. Maintain and improve the integrity of Delta
levees for long-term protection of multiple Delta      
resources and to achieve a sustainable Delta.
5. Improve ecosystem processes in
conjunction with flood system improvements.     
6. Establish an interagency mitigation banking
program that provides lasting environmental    
benefits.
7. Design and implement Forecast-coordinated
operation program for Central Valley   
reservoirs.
8. Develop a comprehensive Central Valley
Flood Protection Plan (as described in SB5)       
with extensive stakeholder input.
9. Identify opportunities to improve integrated
flood management statewide.       
10. Delineate expected floodplains for 100 and    

FloodSAFE 21 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

200-year flood flows for all urban communities

in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Valley.
11. Achieve 90% annual pass rate for urban
levees in the Central Valley when inspected
according to Federal and State levee   
standards (e.g., maintenance, encroachment,
etc.).
12. Complete a Delta Emergency Operations
Plan.   
13. Improve operations and maintenance so
flood facilities continue to operate as designed.   
14. Improve procedures for flood emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery.     
Notes:
 = Major direct support to meet foundational objective
 = Contributor of support to meet foundational objective
 = Coordination and budgetary support

FloodSAFE 22 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 3-2. Functional Area as Center of Excellence

FloodSAFE Implementation

Functional Primary DWR Area of Contribution to CVFPP and

Areas Managing Office Expertise FloodSAFE
Functional Hydrology and Emergency Updated hydrology with climate
Area 1 Flood Operations Response, change
Office Hydrology,
Flood system documentation
Modeling
Flood System Information
Reservoir Re-operation
Functional Operations & O&M and Flood system O&M needs
Area 2 Maintenance environmental
Office stewardship of
flood control
facilities
Functional Floodplain Non-structural Floodplain delineation
Area 3 Management management of
Awareness Mapping
Office the floodplains
Zoning ordinance
FEMA coordination
Functional Flood Projects Flood project Feasibility evaluation of projects
Area 4 Office feasibility study
USACE coordination
and funding
Functional Levee Evaluation Evaluation of Identification of Flood system
Area 5 and Engineering flood system deficiencies
Office integrity
Formulation of system-wide
improvement projects
Engineering evaluation of system-
wide projects
Preparation of hydraulic studies
Functional Flood Flood planning Preparation of CVFPP
Area 6 Management and
Formulation of Conservation
Planning Office environmental
Strategy
And FSESSRO conservation
Preparation of State Plan of Flood
Control
Flood Control System Status Report

FloodSAFE 23 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Functional FloodSAFE Program FloodSAFE program management

Area 7 Project management &
FloodSAFE
Management communication
communication/stakeholder
Office
involvement
FloodSAFE advocacy
FloodSAFE investment/budgeting

3.2 DWR Coordination

DWR DFM is responsible for managing work for all functional areas. Management of the
Flood Management Planning and Conservation Functional Area is shared by DFM for
planning within the Central Valley and by DSIWM for planning statewide. DSIWM also
manages preparation of updates to the California Water Plan, a closely associated
planning activity to the flood management functional areas.

Figure 3-3 identifies the Functional Area responsibilities assigned to each DFM office
and selected DWR offices.

FloodSAFE 24 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 3-3 DWR Role in Functional Areas

FloodSAFE 25 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

3.3 Coordination of Work

The interconnected nature of many of the technical aspects of the FloodSAFE Program
create logistical challenges for project managers to complete their work when they are
dependent upon other work and deliverables that are led by other project managers in
other Functional Areas. The Functional Area Cross-Coordination Team (FAXCT)
concept was created to help assemble Functional Area-prepared information and
deliverables needed to complete larger FloodSAFE Priority Deliverables such as the
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. The FloodSAFE Priority Deliverables are typically
large and complex, and are highly visible, and therefore they will be one of the primary
measures to determine the overall success of the FloodSAFE Program.

3.3.1 Functional Area Cross-Coordination Teams

Initially, ten FAXCTs have been identified by FloodSAFE Program Managers to
coordinate interdependent work that supports multiple FloodSAFE priority deliverables.
These projects (or work) are the most visible FloodSAFE products that have project
interdependencies. The success of FloodSAFE will largely be judged on the successful
completion of many of these projects that have project interdependencies, and therefore
work (component deliverables) that supports these efforts is considered high priority.

Figure 3-4 shows the link between the Functional Areas and the FAXCTs.
Figure 3-4 Functional Area Cross-Coordination Teams

FloodSAFE 26 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

FloodSAFE Outreach & Partnerships – The FloodSAFE Outreach and

Partnerships FAXCT primarily relies on work from the Emergency Response
(FA1), Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy (FA6), and
Legislation, Budget, and Communication (FA7) Functional Areas. It is
considered a high priority because the communications and outreach efforts to
project partners and the public are considered essential to the long-term viability
of the FloodSAFE Program.

Flood Emergency Response and Real-Time Operations – The Flood

Emergency Response and Real-Time Operations FAXCT primarily relies on work
from the Emergency Response (FA1) and O&M and Environmental Stewardship
(FA2) Functional Areas. It is considered a high priority because of its direct
impact on saving lives and protecting property during flood emergencies.

Flood Models Analysis and Dissemination – The Flood Models Analysis and
Dissemination FAXCT primarily relies on work from the Emergency Response
(FA1), Floodplain Risk Management (FA3), and Evaluation and Engineering
(FA5) Functional Areas. This FAXCT requires a significant amount of
coordination between the modeling efforts that are spread throughout the three
functional areas to support technical analyses needed to delineate the floodplains
and to define the natural resources and functions of floodplains.

Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy – The Flood

Management Planning and Conservation Strategy is the cornerstone of
FloodSAFE because it will be responsible for the preparation of the Central
Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) and a comprehensive conservation
strategy. The conservation strategy will be integrated with work conducted in
other functional areas; therefore, close coordination with all functional areas will
be needed. The preparation of the CVFPP relies on completion of many activities
conducted by all functional areas within the FloodSAFE Program.

Operation & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship – The Operation

& Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship FAXCT primarily relies on work
from the Emergency Response (FA1), Floodplain Risk Management (FA3), and
Evaluation and Engineering (FA5) Functional Areas. This FAXCT requires a
significant amount of coordination between the modeling efforts that are spread
throughout the three functional areas to support technical analyses aimed at
reducing the loss of life and property caused by floods and restoring the natural
resources and functions of floodplains.

Delta-Specific – The Delta-Specific FAXCT relies on information prepared by

the Emergency Response (FA1), Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants
(FA4), Evaluation and Engineering (FA5), and Flood Management Planning and
Conservation Strategy (FA6) Functional Areas. Cross coordination activities by
all participants is needed to identify and implement a comprehensive Delta-
focused flood management program that supports other FloodSAFE objectives.

FloodSAFE 27 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Levee Risk Assessment – The Levee Risk Assessment FAXCT primarily relies
on information gathered by levee inspections conducted by the staff of
Emergency Response (FA1) and O&M and Environmental Stewardship (FA2)
Functional Areas, and the evaluations conducted by Evaluation and Engineering
(FA5). Close coordination between functional areas will be needed for successful
assessment of the levees.

Mapping and Delineation – The Mapping and Delineation FAXCT primarily

relies on hydrologic information prepared by Emergency Response Functional
Area (FA1). hydraulic modeling and analysis prepared by the Floodplain Risk
Management Functional Area (FA3), and levee conditions information provided
by Evaluation and Engineering (FA5). Cross coordination activities by all
participants is needed for successful preparation of floodplain mapping for the
Central Valley.

Regional Projects – The Regional Projects FAXCT primarily relies on

information prepared by the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants
Functional Area (FA4) and the Evaluation and Engineering Functional Area
(FA5). Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy Functional Area
(FA6). Cross coordination activities by all participants is needed identify and
implement regional flood projects on a priority basis based on the local need and
support of FloodSAFE objectives.

Flood and Water Management and Statewide Planning – The Flood and
Water Management and Statewide Planning FAXCT primarily relies on
information prepared by Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
Functional Area (FA6), and system reoperation information conducted by
Emergency Response Functional Area(FA1), as well close coordination with local
agencies. Cross coordination activities by all participants is needed for successful
preparation of the Statewide Integrated Flood Management Plan.

3.3.2 Technical Coordination Groups

Projects need to be coordinated with other work conducted in multiple functional areas.
Some project activities are implemented by staff from multiple functional areas.
Therefore, technical coordination groups should be formed to provide the needed
coordination and overall project management. Technical coordination groups include the
following (see Figure 3-1 for the functional areas used in the bullet list below):

Hydrology and Hydraulic (H&H) Technical Group – H&H Technical Group

includes staff from Flood Hydrology (FA1), Library of Models (FA1), Floodplain
Management (FA3), and Levee Evaluation and Engineering (FA5). The Chief of
Levee Evaluation and Engineering will lead the group. The consulting team will
engage with the H&H Technical Group on an as-needed basis. The
responsibilities of the H&H Technical Group are:

- Guide the overall H&H study progress, set project priorities

FloodSAFE 28 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

- Prepare and update schedule for preparation of the H&H models and studies
- Coordinate activities of the DWR offices engaged in H&H, USACE
hydrology study group, and consulting teams conducting hydraulic studies
- Work with all functional areas and other programs within DWR to identify
various programs’ H&H needs; guide the H&H technical work to ensure all
needs are met
FloodSAFE Information Management Technical Group – Representatives
from the California Data Exchange Center, Hydrology and Flood Operations
Office, Flood Project Integrity, Levee Evaluations, Floodplain Management, and
Integrated Flood Management Planning Office are members of this Group. The
Information Management Technical Group is responsible for identifying, planning
for, and gathering the FloodSAFE programs’ engineering information. This
Group provides an oversight role for FloodSAFE geo-referenced data
management and is responsible for:

- Coordinating documentation and preparation of the information needs of the

FloodSAFE Initiative
- Developing procedures and standards for collection, storage, and
dissemination of flood information
- Planning for budgeting and development of the information system

Two significant accomplishments of the Information Management Technical

Group to-date have been the preparation of geo-reference data standards for
FloodSAFE information and preparation of a whitepaper that describes the
process for establishing the ―Library of Models.‖

System Re-operation Group – System re-operation studies require a coordinated

approach among staff of DFM, DSIWM, and the Bay-Delta Office. DFM staff
have expertise and interest in the update of hydrology with climate change and
operation of the reservoirs with flood control reservations. DSIWM is interested
in re-operation studies and their relation with conjunctive management, water
storage and supply, the Delta, and other downstream resources. The Bay-Delta
Office has modeling tools to evaluate the effects of re-operations throughout the
system and in various service areas. A technical group should be established to
coordinate the interest of various programs and formulate a system re-operation
scope of work and project management plan. The Group should include members
from DFM, DSIWM, and Bay-Delta Office.

Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Technical Group – Preparation of the

CVFPP requires system evaluation, identification of its deficiencies, and
formulation of specific projects and programs to fix the deficiencies and reduce
flood risk in California. Most of the technical information collection and
evaluation will be performed by staff in several functional areas. This technical
group coordinates CVFPP technical activities, including the following:

FloodSAFE 29 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

- Providing oversight for CVFPP technical studies

- Developing a broad framework for defining and conducting necessary
technical studies
- Allocating resources for technical works
- Assembling a technical team to prepare the studies
- Coordinating technical studies throughout the FloodSAFE Program
- Preparing schedules for various studies
- Monitoring work in progress

The Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy Functional Area

Manager, Evaluation and Engineering Functional Area Manager, Flood System
Integrity Branch Manager (FA1), Managers of hydrology and hydraulic studies
projects, and consultants (as appropriate) should be members of the Technical
Group.

3.3.3 Meetings
Some of the coordination activities associated with FloodSAFE implementation is
addressed through a series of standing meetings. Over 60 different standing meetings
have been identified which included FloodSAFE management, technical work groups,
executive level meetings, etc. Each of these standing meetings focuses on a specific
aspect of the FloodSAFE program, and is defined based on the following conditions:

Meeting Name/Description – Identifies the name and/purpose of the meeting.

Meeting Frequency - The frequency of the standing meetings range from:
weekly, biweekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or as needed.
Meeting Participants - The meeting participants are determined based on the
purpose of the meeting, and may include DFM organizations (section, branch,
office), other DWR Divisions, project partners, and A&E contractors. Technical
meetings may include individuals from different organizations that are working
together on specific projects.
Meeting Sponsor - This identifies the organization responsible for setting up the
meeting, running the meeting, and documenting the results of the meeting.
Meeting Purpose – The meeting purpose is defined to provide definition and
focus for each meeting.
Meeting Manager – The meeting manager is responsible for meeting success.

Additional information is being developed for each meeting to improve the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of the meeting ensure the right people are included.

FloodSAFE 30 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

3.4 Program and Project Management

The complex and interrelated nature of the FloodSAFE Program requires significant
coordination of administrative activities by the managers responsible for the
implementation of the Program. The purpose of this section is to address some of the
management, logistics, and coordination aspects of the FloodSAFE Program. This
includes an appropriate level of planning and management to provide coordination and
share the FloodSAFE vision among the wide variety of State, federal, and local agencies
that have or share various responsibilities.

3.4.1 Program Management

Ten program management items have been identified that are necessary to guide
FloodSAFE implementation. The FloodSAFE Management Responsibilities identified
on Figure 3-5 need to be completed at three different levels within the FloodSAFE
Program, including at the Office-level, FloodSAFE Program, and DWR. The details for
each management item may differ between the various levels.

Figure 3-5 FloodSAFE Management Responsibilities

1. Budget & Fiscal Tracking and Reporting – The purpose of this item is to track
and manage financial resources in a manner that builds public trust and meets
bond accountability expectations. This item includes planning, managing, and
tracking bond funds and reporting back to Legislature.

FloodSAFE 31 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

2. Program Tracking & Status (Weekly, Monthly) – The purpose of this item is
to demonstrate performance of ongoing programs by timely reporting on progress
on meeting various program schedules and objectives. Many of the technical
elements in the FloodSAFE Program were developed at the program level, and
their progress should be tracked and reported to other FloodSAFE programs and
other interested parties.

3. Performance Matrices & Program/Project Reporting (Quarterly/Annual) –

The purpose of this item is to establish a routine reporting program that succinctly
reports program progress based on the established performance matrices.

4. Management of FAXCT – The purpose of this item is to facilitate the Functional

Area Cross-Coordination Team management by establishing clearly defined
authorities, responsibilities, timelines, budgets, priorities, and expected outcomes.
This includes developing and carrying out project implementation plans for each
FloodSAFE Functional Area.

5. Project Review Board – The purpose of this item is to provide clear direction
and feedback of work in progress and to empower project teams in accomplishing
FloodSAFE objectives. Project Review Boards will provide consistent review and
feedback of program activities to the managers to deliver a consistent high-quality
product.

6. Legislative and Legal Coordination – The purpose of this item is to develop and
apply a business risk management strategy for implementing FloodSAFE that
reduces unnecessary legal and financial liabilities for the people of California.
This includes providing legal and legislative review of bills, legislative requests,
and public record requests.

7. Project-Level Project Management – The purpose of this item is to identify the

project management needs and to develop project/activity–level project
management that will be completed by the technical staff. They will be
responsible for tracking and reporting on scope, schedule, and budget of their
assigned projects and reporting progress on a monthly basis.

8. Human Resources and Facility Activities – The purpose of this item is to

recruit, hire, and train appropriate personnel to provide technical staff leadership,
expertise, and program oversight. This includes program-level human resources
functions such as training and performance appraisals.

9. Contract and Invoice Processing – The purpose of this item is to renovate

contracting and procurement processes to meet DWR business needs (e.g., to
provide required consultant and other support services and to provide State cost
shares for locally sponsored projects.)

10. Management Systems and Tools Development – The purpose of this item is to
improve analytical tools and data management systems to develop, archive, and
share new information as it becomes available. This includes developing a simple

FloodSAFE 32 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

but comprehensive reporting program that can automatically generate status

reports that can be used to meet various levels of reporting requirements, and an
extensive multi-media outreach program that can be used to engage the public,
interested parties, participating and partnering agencies, and other offices within
DFM and DWR.

3.4.2 Project Management

Many of the project management aspects of the technical work reflect a similar multi-
leveled structure with different roles and responsibilities at various levels of the program.
While there are features that are common to the different levels, the differences between
the levels of responsibility are based on the size and complexity of assignments. The
project management descriptions are presented at two levels, management of the
Functional Area Cross-Coordination Team, which generally includes work at the
component and element level, and management of individual projects, which generally
occurs at the task and activity level.

Management of the FAXCT - This level is responsible for both the

management and coordination of the individual technical work (identified as
project management), which typically resides in a single Functional Area as well
as the program coordination necessary across multiple Functional Areas to
complete the FloodSAFE Priority Deliverables. A FAXCT Manager is
generally responsible for:

o Managing Functional Areas and Functional Area Cross-Coordination

Teams

o Program Tracking based on an Program Interdependencies, which may

include combinations of the components, component deliverables, and
functional areas

o Reporting at the Functional Area, Element, and FAXCT level (program)

and for the Office (organization)

Project Management - Project management of individual work projects will be

completed by technical staff usually at the section or staff levels. It is anticipated
that they will use standard project management tools to track project
scope/schedule/budget. A project manager is generally responsible for:

o Managing projects, which may include components and component

deliverables, activities, and tasks

o Project Tracking based on generally accepted engineering-based software

programs such as Microsoft Project or Primavera; the actual project
management tools may vary based upon the individual project manager

o Reporting progress at the Component/Component Deliverable and/or

Activity level (program) and Section or Branch (organizational)

FloodSAFE 33 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

3.5 Overview of FloodSAFE Implementation

As described throughout this section, multiple levels of coordination and communication
of technical staff and managers are necessary to implement the FloodSAFE Program.
Figure 3-6 presents the range of organizational responsibilities related to internal
(coordination and communication and external (outreach) communications, completion
of the technical work and program interdependencies, and program and project
management. Overlaps exist between the organization levels.

For example, Section-level staff is primarily responsible for completing and managing
technical work. Coordination is required with other staff who provide information to
them and to others that are dependent upon their work. Much of this coordination will be
conducted through project-specific meetings. Section-level staff may have limited
outreach responsibilities that are focused on their technical work.

Staff with more management responsibilities may have smaller roles in completion of
technical work, but larger roles in coordinating the work between functional areas and
conducting outreach activities.

The DFM FloodSAFE Program Office is responsible for integrating both technical work
and program management in support of developing flood management policies that are
then communicated to project partners and stakeholders through the outreach program.

As with many aspects of the FloodSAFE Program, communication and outreach are
multi-dimensional, and may be based on a combination of technical issues, regional
issues, or local agency responsibilities. Regional coordinators will be used to ensure a
comprehensive outreach program addresses local issues while maintaining consistency
with the FloodSAFE Program. A detailed communications plan is being developed to
document the internal and external communications plan.

FloodSAFE 34 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 3-6 FloodSAFE Implementation Overview

FloodSAFE 35 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

4 Deliverables and Resourcing

To meet the FloodSAFE foundational objectives, each functional area must deliver
specific work products within its area of expertise. The need to produce these
deliverables is what this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan is all about. Resourcing
defines what entities will be responsible for producing the deliverables.

4.1 Deliverables
Appendices A through G contain detailed listings of deliverables for the functional areas.
Many of these are preliminary or interim products that lead to the major deliverables. The
listings in the following sections are a summary of the major deliverables for each
functional area. Table 4-1 summarizes the number of deliverables by Element and
Component that have been identified to date by the Functional Areas and by other
sources. Some review is needed to reconcile the deliverables to be included in the
FloodSAFE Implementation Plan.

FloodSAFE 36 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-1 List of Deliverables

FloodSAFE 37 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-1 List of Deliverables, cont.

FloodSAFE 38 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

4.1.1 Emergency Response

Many of the deliverables of the Flood Emergency Response functional area are not in
report products, but in real-time decision making such as flood fighting and flood
warning during a flood emergency that saves lives and reduces flood damages and
recovery time. Following are major deliverables over the next several years.

Real-Time Flood Conditions, Status, and Warning

Document State Flood Control System facilities

Implement two pilot projects for real-time monitoring and reporting of seepage
through and movement of the levees during high water events, including
installation of monitoring devices

Prepare an annual local agency reporting summary for the Central Valley Flood
Protection Board (CVFPB)

Inspect and report to USACE on an annual basis the maintenance status of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River flood control systems, including federal
project levees, channels, and major flood control structures

Complete Emergency Response Information System Integration (ER ISI) to fully

integrate data and GIS systems to facilitate decision-making during major flood
events

Enhance Flood Operation Center Information System (FOCIS) and improve

interagency access to FOCIS for sharing flood information between partners

Develop and implement a plan for enhancement of real-time data collection and
exchange, including a provision for data collection network redundancy

Complete After-Action reporting on annual basis

Climate Data Collection and Precipitation/Runoff Forecasting

In cooperation with federal, local, and State agencies, install additional sensors
and monitor network climate data for rain/snow transition

Conduct climate change analyses, coordinate climate research projects

Develop and implement a process for improved precipitation forecasting

including better documentation and verification

Develop and utilize an improved snowmelt forecasting model to enhance

accuracy of snowmelt forecasts and to provide timely snowmelt monthly volume
forecasts to water managers

FloodSAFE 39 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Reservoir Operations and River Forecasting

Complete design and implementation of Yuba-Feather F-CO program

Develop tools for five-day reservoir release forecasts as part of the San Joaquin
River Watershed F-CO program

Implement Forecast-Based Reservoir Operations for San Joaquin River system

Implement Forecast-Based Reservoir Operations for Sacramento River basin

reservoirs

Implement water control manual clarifications, modifications, and revisions for

reservoirs, as needed

Develop an unsteady-state hydraulic model to provide accurate river forecasting

in the case of a levee break

Develop an improved river routing model

Flood Operations Emergency Response

Prepare DWR Emergency Response Plan

Develop and implement a flood response training plan for DWR staff, particularly
for FOC, Incident Commands, and local LMA staff; train about 2,800 DWR and
LMA staff in flood fighting methods, Incident Command, and other emergency
operation activities

Conduct annual table top and functional exercises and training to prepare for
flood events

Using the pilot projects, work with local emergency services managers throughout
the State to incorporate flood operations emergency response into local agencies’
emergency response plans

Delta Flood Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Project

Complete DWR Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

In cooperation and coordination with State, federal, and local agencies, prepare
Delta Multi-Agency Integrated Flood Emergency Operations Plan

Complete Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery project

Updated Hydrology and System Re-operations

Working with USACE, prepare an updated hydrology for Central Valley streams

FloodSAFE 40 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Develop tools to evaluate the impact of climate change on hydrology, water

supply, and flood protection

Formulate and implement re-operation pilot project

4.1.2 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship

Most of the deliverables of the Operations & Maintenance and Environmental
Stewardship functional area are not in report products, but in real-time maintenance
activities. Following are major deliverables over the next several years.

Channel Maintenance

Develop and implement vegetation management plans for the Sacramento River
Flood Control Channels

Manage vegetation to pass design flows in a manner that also protects and
enhances the environment within Cache Creek Settling Basin, Butte Creek, Bear
River, Cherokee Creek, and Feather River

Develop equipment spreadsheets to track existing, ordered, and needed equipment

Develop sediment removal plans for the Sacramento River Flood Control
Channels

Complete planning and obtain permits for removal of 500,000 cubic yards of
sediment from Cherokee Canal in Butte County

Remove 50,000 cubic yards of sediment from Sycamore Creek near Cohasset
Road in Chico

Obtain permits to remove 60,000 cubic yards from in front of the Sacramento
Weir and complete the removal

Develop hydraulic models for the Sacramento River Flood Control System. The
current plan is to complete hydraulic models used for vegetation management
plans for Cache Creek, Elder Creek, and Sutter Bypass by December 2011, and
begin developing hydraulic models to address sediment management issues
associated with the Cache Creek Settling Basin and Bear River

Complete sediment removal on Sycamore Creek, the Sacramento Bypass in front

of the Sacramento Weir, and the Bear River, and develop and implement the
Cherokee Canal System Sediment Plan by October 2011

Support Channel Maintenance Program by developing Vegetation Management

Plans for individual river and stream reaches

FloodSAFE 41 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Flood Control Facilities Operations and Maintenance

Repair and/or replace flood control structures assigned to DWR in Water Code
Section 8361

Complete the following rehabilitation or reconstruction activities during the next

five years:

o Sutter Bypass East Borrow Canal – Willow Slough and Weir #2

Replacement

o Butte Slough Outfall Gate Structure Rehabilitation

o Sutter Bypass Pumping Plants Control System/Backup Power

Rehabilitation

o Knight’s Landing Outfall Gate Structure Rehabilitation

o Bridges are considered special structures and are budgeted and managed
as a separate component. The Bridge Inspection Program is intended to
identify rehabilitation and repair issues with bridges within the
Sacramento River Flood Control System and will be implemented in
Fiscal Year 2009-2010. This program is expected to identify additional
bridge projects once initial inspections are completed.

o The Sacramento Yard Groundwater Investigation and Remediation Project

is budgeted and planned within the Rehabilitate Hydraulic Control
Structures Component for the five-year plan. This project is a major
undertaking that will continue from Fiscal Year 2008-2009 through Fiscal
Year 2012-2013.

Levee Operations and Maintenance

Address backlogged deficiencies and improve current maintenance practices

Perform routine maintenance for vegetation control consisting of mowing,

dragging, burning, and spraying in areas that have not been routinely maintained

Trim existing trees consistent with new DWR Vegetation Management Standards

Expand aggressive rodent abatement and repair program

Replace mile markers and road access gates as needed

Improve encroachment control/abatement program

Enhance pipe inspection program

FloodSAFE 42 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Update levee logs

Develop plans and specifications and obtain permits needed to repair 10 to 15

small erosion repair sites in Maintenance Area (MA) 9 (contingent on funding
availability)

Inspect DWR-maintained levees after high water, identify damage, obtain permits
to repair damage, and work with Maintenance Yards to perform repairs

Address underseepage and evaluation of foundation material for for Tisdale

Bypass south levee at Sutter Bypass east levee

Clarify maintenance obligations for Honcutt Creek levees and begin MA

formation process, if required

Collaborate with USACE to complete the revision of Operations and Maintenance

Manuals for Reclamation Districts (RDs) 2099, 2100, and 2102 levees

Levee Repairs

Repair 350 PL84-99 sites as listed in the 2006 inventory (187 sites are eligible for
federal funding)

Repair 154 Sacramento River Bank Protection Project (SRBPP) sites as listed in
the current USACE inventory by the end of 2016.

Repair 76 Sacrament-San Joaquin Erosion Repairs Program (SSJERP) sites as

listed in the 2007 inventory by the end of 2016

Repair five critical Levee Stability Program sites by the end of 2010

Repair additional sites as identified and prioritized by the ongoing FloodSAFE

Levee Evaluations Program, utilizing available federal, local and in-house
programs and resources

Schedule proposed repair sites looking two to three years ahead, with six to 12
repair sites per year

Prepare environmental documentation for repair sites

Contract drawings and specifications for repair sites

Environmental Initiatives

Complete Feather River Pilot Program General Permit and use the gained
experience to develop and obtain a second ―Regional General Permit‖ for
maintenance activities

FloodSAFE 43 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Expand Regional General Permit for channel clearing activities consistent with
the Feather River General Permit Pilot Program; review the Maintenance Yards’
activities and USACE regulations for working in waterways and determine if
additional permits are required for routine maintenance practices

Perform yearly review of Maintenance Yards’ activities and existing permits to

determine if permit conditions need updating

Implement the Elderberry Management Plan and Bank Project

Complete development of streamlined Small Erosion Repair Permit process with

resource agencies by working through the Interagency Flood Management
Collaborative

Continue hosting the Interagency Flood Management Collaborative to promote

cooperation among resource agencies and DWR

Begin construction of a 140-acre riparian habitat restoration project at Colusa

State Recreation Area to meet mitigation obligations for the Tisdale Bypass
Sediment Removal Project and seek agency concurrence to use site for advanced
mitigation for other maintenance projects

Conduct yearly monitoring of mitigation areas and prepare required reports

Complete annual Surface Mining Reclamation Act reports for two sites

4.1.3 Floodplain Risk Management

The major deliverables for the Floodplain Risk Management Functional Area are as
follows:

Floodplain Management Technical Support

All required work products including field-based Community Assistance Visits,

Community Assistance Visit reports, local official’s workshops, technical
assistance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Five Year Business
Plan associated with the annual FEMA-DWR Community Assistance Program
contract
Increased opportunities for non-enrolled communities to join the Community
Rating System (CRS)
Increased opportunities for enrolled communities to improve their CRS
classification
State Agency compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and the
California Executive Order for Floodplain Management B-39-77 and government
code requirements for floodplain management

FloodSAFE 44 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Additional technical assistance to all levels of government and the public beyond
the requirements of the FEMA-DWR Community Assistance Program contract
Technical support for all levels of government and the public related to FEMA’s
Map Mod and Provisionally Accredited Levees (PAL) programs.
A leadership role in the development of FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and
Planning (MAP) program for FloodSAFE compatible applications in California
The award of FEMA and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants to
leverage state funding for floodplain mapping, multi-hazard planning, and hazard
mitigation
An Enterprise Geodatabase with updated data sets deployed at California Data
Exchange Center (CDEC)
Best Available Maps (BAMs) for communities in the Central Valley
BAMs outside the Central Valley

Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

Aerial imagery for 9,000 square miles in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey data for 7,800 square miles in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
Bathymetric survey data for major rivers and tributaries associated with the State
Plan of Flood Control
Channel cross sections and structures to support hydraulic model development for
major rivers and tributaries associated with the State Plan of Flood Control
New hydraulic models for major rivers, tributaries, and overbank areas associated
with the State Plan of Flood Control
Water surface profiles for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood events
associated with the State Plan of Flood Control
New floodplain maps for 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood events associated with
the State Plan of Flood Control
Awareness Floodplain Mapping of an additional 15,000 stream miles over the
next five years

Identification of active alluvial fan floodplains in Southern California

Quaternary geologic mapping of Southern California communities
500-year floodplains for urban areas within the Central Valley and outside the
area of influence of the State Plan of Flood Control

FloodSAFE 45 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Web viewer to facilitate use of floodplain maps such as Central Valley Floodplain
Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED) maps, Levee Flood Protection Zone
(LFPZs) and BAM maps
Floodplain mapping and other studies described in FEMA/DWR Mapping
Activity Statements (Inter-Agency agreements)
Floodplain mapping studies and hydraulic analyses requested by DWR on a case-
by-case basis that may include support for Delta planning and the State Water
Project (SWP)
Update LFPZs maps for areas protected by the State Plan of Flood Control

Floodplain Risk Notification

A parcel database with Geographical Information System (GIS) data for counties
within the area of influence of the State Plan of Flood Control
Annual notification letters to property owners in LFPZs beginning by September
1, 2010, of potential flood risks and mitigation measures
Collaborate with local, State, and federal agencies to increase flood risk
awareness and mitigation strategies

Flood Risk Planning

User’s Guide document for cities and counties to use in coordinating and
implementing 2007 flood legislation and land use planning
Notify the public of the availability of the User’s Guide, and conduct public
outreach workshops to assist in the implementation of the guidance
Integrated flood management input to the California Water Plan (CWP) Update
2009 including flood-related regional report data and flood risk management
strategy
Integrated flood management input to the Integrated Water Management plans
based on criteria, consistency, and compliance with program guidelines
Hazard Mitigation
o Grant applications to develop Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) models
o Develop Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) flood models pending
funding
o Update HAZUS-MH ―default‖ databases such as essential facilities, utilities,
transportation systems and general building stock for use by various State
agencies, local governments and others pending funding
o Enhance DWR’s ability to respond to requests from the Governor,
Legislature, and other officials concerning statewide flood risks

FloodSAFE 46 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

White Paper on topics of federal interest

Information and data on topics of state interest
Agency workgroups as related to Executive Orders on Floodplain Management
Updated State Executive Order as amended by Federal Executive Order
A report that summarizes the history of Southern California flooding
A suite of tools including GIS data to assist local planners, developers, and
decision makers evaluate flood and other hazards
A model ordinance, available to communities to support land use decisions related
to flood risks associated with development on alluvial fans
A findings and recommendations report that will identify future research needs
and actions specific to alluvial fan floodplain management including flood hazard
mapping needs
An outreach and implementation plan
Participation in California Building Standards Commission process to adopt new
code related to public safety
Participation in California Building Standards Commission process to adopt new
code to reduce flood damages to structures
4.1.4 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants
The major deliverables for the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants Functional
Area are as follows.

Central Valley Flood Projects

Participate in completion of Central Valley flood protection project feasibility

studies with the USACE and local agencies as they are identified

Participate in completion of Flood System Improvement Projects (Early

Implementation Projects) as they are readied for construction and provide State
share of funding

Participate in Flood System Improvement Projects (USACE Projects) as they are

identified and provide State share of funding

Statewide Flood Program

Prepare solicitation packages and provide grant funding for selected projects in
the Flood Protection Corridor Program

Provide State share of funding for flood protection projects outside the Central
Valley through the Flood Control Subvention Program

FloodSAFE 47 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Participate in and provide funding for levee repair project for Local Levee
Assistance

Delta Flood Projects

Continuation of funding for levee rehabilitation projects on special Delta projects

consistent with the legislative mandates of AB 360 (ongoing)

Continuation of planning for habitat mitigation and improvement projects,

including a habitat banking initiative to increase the efficiency of levee repairs
while contributing to landscape-level habitat benefits (ongoing)

Continuation of financial assistance, within limits of available funding, for

preservation and rehabilitation of non-project levees (ongoing)

Revise current interim guidelines for local assistance under the Special Project
Program and develop final guidelines for distribution for Delta levee
rehabilitation flood projects

Complete the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS)

Complete research and prepare a report on Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials

Incorporate results of the subsidence research and update when future research
recommends changes in guidance

Collaborate with the Flood Emergency Response Functional Area on completion

of a Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Program Support

Prepare grant guidelines for State investments in statewide flood projects

Provide environmental services on statewide flood projects on an as-needed basis

Provide technical assistance on statewide flood projects on an as-needed basis

4.1.5 Evaluation and Engineering

The major deliverables for the Evaluation and Engineering Functional Area are shown
below.

Levee Evaluations

Chico Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Marysville Geotechnical Evaluation Report

FloodSAFE 48 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Sutter Basin Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 784 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Natomas Geotechnical Evaluation Report

NEMDC East Geotechnical Evaluation Report

American River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Sacramento River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Davis Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Woodland Geotechnical Evaluation Report

West Sacramento Geotechnical Evaluation Report

SJAFCA Bear Creek Geotechnical Evaluation Report

SJAFCA Calaveras River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 404 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 17 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Stockton Urban Non-Project Geotechnical Evaluation Report

South Sac Streams Urban Non-Project Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Sacramento River Flood Control System Geotechnical Assessment Report – GAR

San Joaquin River Flood Control System Geotechnical Assessment Report – GAR

Sacramento River Flood Control System Geotechnical Evaluation Report – GER

San Joaquin River Flood Control System Geotechnical Evaluation Report – GER

System Evaluations and Engineering

Identify deficiencies within the Central Valley Flood Control system

Formulate remedial actions (Management Actions) in response to identified

deficiencies

Prepare recommendations for Flood system improvements for CVFPP

Prepare projects’ cost estimates at the proposed projects

FloodSAFE 49 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Prepare Flood System Improvements Feasibility Study

Final documentation of remedial alternatives for State-Federal Project levees

protecting urban areas

Work with the Conservation Strategy elements to incorporate conservation

activities into the remedial actions and system improvements.

Design Review and Policy Development

Develop Statewide Seismic Criteria and Policy for Levee Performance

Vegetation research paper describing the effects that woody vegetation growing
on or near levees has on levee integrity

Evaluate expected seismic performance of existing Central Valley urban levees

Characterize the probability and consequences of flooding due to the 200-year

seismic event

Establish an Independent Consulting Board

Review flood projects on behalf of CVFPB

4.1.6 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy

The major deliverables for the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
Functional Area are as follows.

Central Valley Flood Management Planning

Draft Descriptive Document for the SPFC (December 31, 2009)

Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) for the SPFC (December 31, 2010)

Status Report on the Progress and Development of the CVFPP (December 31,
2010)

CVFPP (January 1, 2012)

Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning

Draft Recommendations for Improving and Sustaining Integrated Flood

Management in California (by January 1, 2012, as a complementary document to
the legislative mandated CVFPP)

Concept of Integrated Flood Management Planning included in California Water

Plan Update 2009

FloodSAFE 50 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

More detail on Integrated Flood Management Planning, including opportunities

and estimated costs incrementally included in California Water Plan updates
subsequent to 2009

Conservation Strategies

Central Valley Conservation Strategy

Delta Conservation Strategy

4.1.7 Legislation, Budget and Communication

The major deliverables for the Legislation, Budget and Communication Functional Area
are as follows.

Communication and Briefing Materials

Public Outreach Strategy document

Monthly briefing materials (budget, program status, executive briefing, program

management summary, and program management status briefing)

Quarterly briefing materials (Bond Accountability Report, Budget/Fiscal Report,

Program Status Report, FloodSAFE Newsletter)

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports (Expenditures Report, System Improvements

Report, Bond Accountability Deliverables Report, Benchmark Indicators Report,
Semi-annual CVFPB Status Report on System Improvements

As-needed materials for public meetings, workshops, and forums, and requests for
information

Fact sheets, brochures, and other program publications as needed

Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment

Legislative and Congressional briefings as needed

Executive briefings (State and federal) as needed

Local agencies’ briefings as needed

Legislative Liaison and Legal Issues

Summaries of State and federal legislation as needed

Summaries of regulation changes as needed

FloodSAFE 51 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Guidelines for progression of FloodSAFE work as needed

Summaries of administrative processes and requirements

Field requests for information from Legislature and provide timely responses

Prepare periodic status reports to Legislature

Assist in preparation of briefings for legislative staff

Program Management, Budget, and Fiscal Services

Materials for meetings as needed

Strategic plan updates as needed

Bond Expenditures Plan updates

Prepare PMI process, tools and training guidelines

Programs and project reporting (monthly, quarterly, and annual)

Prepare web page for public access to bond expenditure

Annual budgets

Funding allocations

Expenditures tracking reports

Expenditure projection reports

Policy documents

Responses to Control Letters

Responses to agencies’ requests

Decision Memo responses

Meetings and briefing summaries

Governor Action Requests

DWR 1498 Agreements

FloodSAFE 52 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

4.2 Resourcing
The resourcing estimates for producing the deliverables listed above are shown in Tables
4-2 through 4-8. In these estimates, the work is broken down into 5 percent increments to
provide a broad indication on where the funding (see Section 6) is likely to be applied.
These resources and the total estimated percent allocation for all seven Functional Area
are shown below:

Functional area office staff __ percent

Other DFM staff __ percent

Other DWR staff outside DFM __ percent

USACE __ percent

Local agencies __ percent

Consultants __ percent

Other agencies and academic institutions >5 percent

Other entities such as resources agencies and academic institutions will also conduct
work, but their roles are expected to be smaller than the 5 percent increment used in
Tables 4-2 through 4-8. Resource allocations to local agencies include the State share of
expenditures for constructing flood protection facilities.

FloodSAFE 53 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-2 FA 1 – Emergency Response

FloodSAFE 54 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-3 FA 2 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship

FloodSAFE 55 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-4 FA 3 Floodplain Risk Management

FloodSAFE 56 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-5 FA 4 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants

FloodSAFE 57 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-6 FA 5 Evaluation and Engineering

FloodSAFE 58 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-7 FA 6 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy

FloodSAFE 59 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 4-8 FA 7 Legislation, Budget, and Communication

FloodSAFE 60 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

5 Reporting and Tracking

DWR management, FloodSAFE partners, technical task staff, the Legislature and
Governor’s office, and the general public have a need to know how the FloodSAFE
initiative is progressing and what is being achieved for its multi-billion dollar investment.
Considering the complexity of flood system improvements, reporting, and tracking of
progress, including expenditures, will be keys in maintaining broad and up-to-date
understanding of progress. It is also important to have the information readily accessible
so customized reports can be assembled in a timely manner.

5.1 Need for Reporting and Tracking System

The FloodSAFE initiative needs a tracking and reporting system that will:

Organize reporting efforts for hundreds of project deliverables

Track project interdependencies to avoid gaps and minimize overlaps

Provide a simple framework that can be efficiently (does not take much time) and
effectively (focuses on the pertinent information needed for reporting)
implemented by FloodSAFE staff and managers

Provide a consistent and appropriate level of information that can be used to

report FloodSAFE progress to different audiences in different reports

Be responsive to accountability requirements approach of Executive Order S-02-

07 included as part of Bond Accountability and Management (BAM), which
includes:

o Front-End Accountability

o In-Progress Accountability

o Follow-up Accountability

Support other reporting requirements (i.e., DFM, FloodSAFE, CVFPB, other)

Share information and improve communication and coordination within

FloodSAFE

Provide consistent information about FloodSAFE to external parties

Provide information to cross-train junior staff in other aspects of flood

management outside of their direct responsibility

FloodSAFE 61 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

5.2 Project Progress Reporting

To understand FloodSAFE progress, accurate information is needed on each of the
projects, for every component, every element, and every functional area of FloodSAFE.
By reporting on the progress of every project, many different types of reports can be
customized using the base information on projects. For example, if a briefing is needed to
be given to legislative staff on progress being made on Emergency Response, information
would be readily available on all projects within that functional area.

Three steps are necessary for project reporting to be successful:

1. Define Project and Deliverables. Before any technical work on a project begins,
project staff will identify and define project deliverables, establish milestones and
performance measures, and assign the deliverables to project managers. This
front-end accountability sets the stage for a successful project. The project team
will prepare a project charter (see Figure 5-1 for example) to summarize the
project scope, roles, and responsibilities; refer to other more detailed documents;
etc. DWR management will review and comment on the charter before the team
begins its technical work. The step will be updated as needed during project
implementation.

2. Monthly Functional Area Reporting. By the last working day of each month,
project managers will complete a progress report for their project and submit the
report to their office chief. The report will be a simple one page document that
should be prepared in a fraction of an hour. See Figure 5-2 for instructions to
complete the template and Figure 5-3 for an example of a completed report and
level of detail desired. Each office chief will review the reports for completeness
and submit them to the FloodSAFE reporting staff managed by Functional Area 7
by the second day of the next month.

3. FloodSAFE Reporting Responsibilities. The FloodSAFE reporting staff will

review, edit, and assemble draft progress reports based on the reports submitted.
The completed draft will be re-circulated for a 2-day review. The completed
monthly project progress reports will be available for use within the first week of
the new month. The completion time may be earlier when required for a CVFPB
meeting.

FloodSAFE 62 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 5-1 Example Project Charter

FloodSAFE 63 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

FloodSAFE 64 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 5-2. Template for Monthly Project Progress Report

FloodSAFE 65 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 5-3. Example Completed Monthly Project Progress Report

FloodSAFE 66 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
The completed reports are then usable for preparation of a wide variety of monthly
reports and additional reports, all using the same consistent information. Examples of
reports that can be prepared based on the collection of monthly project progress reports
are as follows:

Reports to CVFPB

Project status reports and project fact sheets for BAM

Office and branch meeting

Branch, section, and staff meetings

DFM and FloodSAFE meetings and briefings

DWR Executive meetings and briefings

Quarterly and annual reports

Unscheduled workshops and presentations

Reports to meet requests from Legislature or Governor

External briefings

The reports will also be on record for follow-up accountability reporting when needed.

These completed reports are not only a valuable source of information for other reporting
needs of FloodSAFE, but should save project staff and project managers time in the
future. Rather than periodically being asked for quick updates to meet specific and
evolving needs of DWR management or the Legislature, project managers will only need
to prepare simple reports once each month. Roll-up of information into customized
reports to meet immediate needs will be prepared by Functional Area 7 using this
information without needing to request participation from the project managers.

Figure 5-4 is a graphical representation of this monthly process. Note that Step 1 will be
conducted initially and updated as needed during project implementation.

FloodSAFE 67 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 5-4. Program Tracking and Reporting Framework

FloodSAFE 68 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

5.3 Project Progress Tracking

To make the monthly reporting accessible and easy to summarize, a project progress
tracking system is being developed. Assembled information, including the monthly
reports described above will be available on a web-based application. This will provide
timely and consistent information to all needing the information.

To facilitate preparation of summaries or other queries of the information in the tracking

system, each functional area together with each of its elements and components will be
given a unique lettered designator. For example, the seven functional areas will be
designated ―FA1‖ through ―FA7‖. The Channel Maintenance element under FA2 will be
―CM.‖ The Inspection and Evaluation component under Channel Maintenance will be
―IE.‖ Each component deliverable under each component will be numbered
consecutively beginning CD01. Based on these examples, the first deliverable under
Inspection and Evaluation would be FA2.CM.IE.CD01.

Figure 5-5 shows an example of these designators for the seven functional areas and their
elements and components.

FloodSAFE 69 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 5-5. FloodSAFE Component Deliverable Glossary of Terms for Tracking System

FloodSAFE 70 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

FloodSAFE 71 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

5.4 Program Reporting

The Legislation, Budget, and Communication Functional Area (FA 7) is responsible for
program reporting. Using the information contained in the progress tracking system,
including the monthly project progress reports, a wide variety of program reports will be
prepared. The following sections show the major program reports – others are expected.

5.4.1 Communication and Briefing Materials

Monthly Briefing Materials

a) Monthly budget briefing by functional area

b) Monthly program status by functional area

c) Executive briefings

d) Program management summary – Project Dash Board

e) Program management status briefing by functional area

Quarterly Briefing Reports

a) Bond Accountability Report

b) Budget/Fiscal Report

c) Program Status Report

d) FloodSAFE Newsletter

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports

a) Expenditures Report

b) System Improvements Report

c) Bond Accountability Deliverables Report

d) Benchmark Indicators Report (tied to FA performance measures)

e) Semi-annual CVFPB status report on system improvements (also for

USACE and local agencies)

FloodSAFE 72 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

As Needed Materials

a) Materials for public meetings/workshops

b) Unscheduled presentation materials

5.4.2 Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment Materials

Legislative Briefings

a) State Legislature

b) Federal Congress

Executive Briefings

a) State executives

b) Federal executives (USACE, FEMA, USBR, and others)

Local Agencies’ Briefings

a) County Supervisors

b) LMAs

c) Water management agencies

5.4.3 Project Management Materials

Project progress tracking system and reports

Bond Expenditures Plan

PMI process, tools, and training materials

Guidelines

Annual budgets

Policy documents

Governor Action Requests

DWR 1498 Agreements

FloodSAFE 73 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

6 Investment Strategy

California must make significant investments in its flood management systems over the
next 20 years in order to provide public safety. No single source of funding will meet all
these infrastructure needs. Instead, a mix of federal, State, and local funds will be needed
to ensure adequate investment. This mix of funding sources will vary according to the
type of project or program, beneficiaries, availability of funds, urgency, and other factors.

6.1 Investment Need

The full investment needed to fulfill the FloodSAFE foundational objectives can’t be
estimated at this time because of incomplete information. Over the next several years,
investigations on the condition of the existing flood system and planning studies to define
needed improvements will better define the cost of improvements and the annual cost to
operate and maintain the system once improvements are completed.

Flood management investments are needed throughout the State. Based on expert
judgment, current cost estimates for flood system improvements statewide are in the $25
billion to $30 billion range over the next 20 years, far in excess of available funds that
can be used as State cost shares. Since the largest and most damaging floods in California
occur in the Central Valley, upgrade of flood protection facilities in the Central Valley
will demand the largest investments. The six main areas for investment are as follows:

1. Upgrade Central Valley Urban Levees. Upgrading urban levees (about 345
miles of project levees and 110 miles of non-project levees) to 200-year level of
protection is estimated to cost about $12 billion.

2. Protecting Central Valley Non-Urban Areas. Improving flood management and

restoring flood carrying capacity of the streams in non-urban areas is estimated to
cost about $4 billion.

3. Delta Improvements. Upgrading Delta levees to protect life and property, water
supply, infrastructure, habitats, and recreational areas is estimated to cost about $4
billion.

4. Improvements Outside the Central Valley. Flood protection subventions

outside the Central Valley is estimated to be about $4 billion.

5. Upgrade Flood Control Structures. The cost to upgrade existing flood control
structures (weirs, gates, pumping plants, outlets, and other structures) in the
Central Valley is estimated to be about $0.5 billion.

FloodSAFE 74 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

6. Improving Other Flood Management Procedures. Improving emergency

response, management of floodplains, implementing system re-operation, and
making minor system repairs is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion.

These initial cost estimates total about $26 billion over the next 20 years. These estimates
will be refined in the coming years as better definition of system deficiencies and needed
improvements are available. Figure 6-1 provides a graphical representation of the
distribution of these estimated costs through 2030.
Figure 6-1. Estimated Distribution of Investment Costs

There are also many unknowns on the amount of funding that will be available over the
next five to ten years. The amount of State General Fund available for major flood
management improvement projects may not be significant, depends on appropriations
from the Legislature, and is subject to wide variations. State Bond funding depends on
the legislative actions and approval by California’s voters. Overall, the State’s varying
budgetary health can be expected to directly influence funding available for investments
in flood management. Similarly, federal funding contributions depend on Congressional
action. Local funding contributions can also vary by location and time.

These funding uncertainties (need and availability) are prime reasons why this
implementation plan needs to be periodically updated as more information becomes
available.

FloodSAFE 75 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

6.2 State General Fund

The State has funded basic flood management activities for years through the State
General Fund. Most of the functional areas described in Section 3 include long-standing
programs that need to continue year after year, long after the FloodSAFE initiative is
implemented. All functional areas will need money from the General Fund in the future.
The functional areas that have historically been primarily funded as base programs under
the State General Fund are:

Flood Emergency Response

Operations & Maintenance

Floodplain Risk Management

Flood Protection Projects/Project Grants

The amount of money available for flood management through the General Fund has
varied widely from year to year. After years of reduced General Fund budgets for State
flood programs in the early 2000s, substantial funding increases have occurred in recent
years. The General Fund contributions to DFM programs has increased from $________
million in fiscal year 2000-01 to $_______ million in 2008-09.

6.3 State Bond Funds

Periodically, State bonds have provided funding for flood management. However, for the
first time in recent history, California voters
have provided a large influx of funds to Water Code Section 12585.7
For Nonfederal Capital Costs of Flood
improve statewide integrated flood
Management
management through Propositions 1E and 84.
The State normally pays 50 percent of the non-
These bonds provide a significant start to
federal cost share, but will pay up to 20 percent
needed system improvements, but are
more if the project makes significant
basically a down payment that needs cost
contributions to other objectives:
sharing with partners and likely additional
Endangered species
State bonds will be needed in the future.
Important habitats
DWR annually prepares a bond expenditure Open space
plan for the upcoming fiscal year pursuant to Recreational opportunities
Article 4 of the Disaster Preparedness & Flood control for communities with
Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 median household income less than 120
(Proposition 1E). The plan provides percent of the poverty level
information on: Flood control for State transportation
or water supply facilities
1. An investment strategy to meet long-
term flood protection needs and
minimize State taxpayer liabilities
from flooding

FloodSAFE 76 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

2. Proposed expenditures of bond funds

3. Federal appropriations and local funding to match those expenditures

The return on bond fund investments needs to be maximized by leveraging other

investments from federal and local sponsor participation. The flood management
investment strategy will be updated annually through an adaptive process that recognizes
changing flood management needs and priorities, as additional information is gathered
through investigations and flood system evaluations conducted by FloodSAFE.

6.4 Cost Sharing

Flood projects are generally funded by State, federal, and local agencies. Historically, this
mix of funding sources varied according to the type of project or program, beneficiaries,
availability of funds, urgency, and other factors. Although the process of providing cost-
sharing on a project-by-project basis has worked in the past, it is a time-consuming
process and it may not be an effective process for implementation of FloodSAFE, which
consists of a wide range of programs/projects that have broad system-wide multi-benefits.
FloodSAFE should seriously engage with USACE and negotiate a FloodSAFE cost-
sharing agreement in which the entire program cost is shared without project-by-project
evaluation. An agreement should be reached for sharing the entire FloodSAFE
investment over the next 20 years.

The California Legislature has emphasized the need to make ―all feasible efforts to obtain
funding from the federal government in advance or by arranging to perform work which
is a federal responsibility prior to the availability of federal appropriations with the
intention that the costs will be reimbursed or eligible for credit by the federal
government‖ (Budget Act of 2008).

Typically, the federal government contributes up to 65 percent of project costs, leaving

the remaining 35 percent to the non-federal sponsor. The federal government may pay a
lower percentage for some types of improvements. The State and the local sponsors pay
the remaining non-federal cost share. The State typically pays 50 to 70 percent of the
non-federal cost. Considering all project types, preliminary estimates indicate that the
cost share for long-term FloodSAFE improvements would be about 40 percent State, 48
percent federal, and 12 percent local. See Table 6-1 for the estimated cost shares for the
investment needs shown in Section 6.1.

Table 6-1. Estimated Cost Shares for Needed Flood System Improvements through 2030
Major Investment Needs Total of $26,000 Million ± $5,000 Million
State Local Federal Total
1- Upgrade Central Valley Urban Levees 3,200 1,400 7,400 12,000
2- Upgrade Central Valley Non-Urban Levees 1,400 300 2,300 4,000
3- Delta Levee Improvements 3,110 890 0 4,000
4- Subvention Programs Outside Central Valley 1,000 410 2,590 4,000
5- Upgrade Flood Control Structures 190 0 310 500

FloodSAFE 77 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Major Investment Needs Total of $26,000 Million ± $5,000 Million

State Local Federal Total
6- Improve E.R., Flood System O&M (Rehab), 1,500 0 0 1,500
Management of Floodplains, and Implement
System Re-operation
TOTAL 10,400 3,000 12,600 26,000

To date, little federal investment has been made to match the FloodSAFE investments.
The FloodSAFE initiative has developed a federal engagement and communication
strategy (see FA7 in Appendix G) to work with USACE to formulate a partnership
program that would fully engage USACE in the FloodSAFE program and that would gain
support for federal funding. In parallel, FloodSAFE staff will work with the Governor’s
Office and federal legislatures for federal authorizations and appropriation of flood
protection measures in California.

6.5 Investment Status

Due to the urgency to begin FloodSAFE implementation, flood management
improvements for FloodSAFE began in 2006 – work is underway in all seven functional
areas. The two areas requiring the largest investments were critical erosion repairs that
required immediate attention and the need to proceed with some high priority levee
improvement projects, especially for increased protection of urban areas in deep
floodplains.

A summary follows of these and other achievements:

Cleared sediment from Fremont Weir and Tisdale Bypass to restore system
capacity.

Initiated public process for developing Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.

Reduced flood control subvention backlog of claims by half.

Structural evaluation of 2,100 miles of levees in the Central Valley is underway.

Evaluation of levees protecting urban areas is 70 percent complete. Evaluation of
the remaining levees protecting non-urban areas has been initiated. For FY 2007-
08 and 2008-09, the State invested about $148 million in geotechnical evaluations
levees.

Stockpiled a quarter million tons of rock for the Delta levee emergency work.

Over a thousand people trained for flood fighting statewide this year.

Completed 235 urgent levee and river bank repairs throughout the Central Valley
at a cost of $283 million.

FloodSAFE 78 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

$408 million allocated for Early Implementation Projects (EIP) in which $130
million has been paid to-date. EIP Projects include:

o Two Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency projects for Natomas Levee
Improvement.

o Several Three River Levee Improvement Authority projects along the

Yuba, Feather, and Bear Rivers.

o RD2103’s Bear River North Levee Rehabilitation project.

o Levee District 1 levee setback work at Star Bend on the Feather River.

Hundreds of other similar projects remain to be evaluated and implemented.

Table 6-2 in Section 6.6.2 shows State investments (bond and General Fund) already
expended (FY 2006-07 through 2008-09) for each of the seven functional areas. Since the
start of the FloodSAFE initiative, and through FY 2008-09, the State has invested a total
of $137 million in general funds and $2,259 million in bond funds.

6.6 Near-Term Investment Plan

Since State, federal, and local funds currently available are not sufficient to complete the
FloodSAFE foundational objectives, a strategy is needed for investment in the near term.
In the long term, an economically viable plan must be developed to provide additional
funding for flood management improvements.

6.6.1 Investment Strategy

The seven functional areas, together with their goals, objectives, and deliverables define
the near-term investment strategy. Money must be invested in all functional areas to
make measured progress while plans are developed for more extensive, longer term
investments. In other words, DWR’s near-term investment strategy is to implement the
work identified in Appendices A through G, with emphasis on completing deliverables
identified in those Appendices. Available funding allocated to each functional area
defines the level of effort and priorities for implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative
in the near-term.

This strategy provides improvements in all aspects of flood management as described in

this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan. Without this strategy, all available funding could
easily be expended on EIPs, without having a broader system-wide plan or making
improvements in other aspects of flood management. While flood protection projects will
receive the largest share of the near-term State investment, the strategy should also
include substantial investments for emergency response, operations and maintenance,
floodplain risk management, and evaluations of the existing system, which will also
provide near- and long-term flood system improvements. The strategy also includes
ongoing management of these activities in the Legislation, Budget, and Communication
Functional Area (FA 7).

FloodSAFE 79 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

6.6.2 Summary of Planned Investments

System investigations and planning will allow refinements to the budget estimates over
the next several years. As planning progresses, identification of federal and local
participation is expected to further refine the allocation of State funding. Part of the
investment plan refinement will be further consideration of ways to make flood
management funding sustainable and more efficient. For example, DWR is working on a
fund that will allow quicker response during an emergency. The Flood Emergency Fund
(E-Fund) would make funds available for immediate use during flood fighting or a levee
break rather than having to wait several days for emergency appropriations. Also, DWR
will further investigate ways to make funding more sustainable for local entities. For
example, past efforts have considered establishing an assessment district as a source of
funding for levee maintenance, or local cost share of system improvements.

Table 6-2 shows expended and projected funding for each functional area with General
Fund and bond (1E & 84) funds through FY 2017-2018. A more detailed breakdown of
the anticipated funding for each functional area and its elements can be found in the
following section and in Appendices A through G. These will be updated at least
annually as more information is available.

FloodSAFE 80 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table 6-2. Initial Investment Plan for State Flood Management Funds
Estimated State Funding ($millions)
Expended Projected Projected
State Funding 3 Years 5 Years 4 Years
Functional Area
Source (FY 2006-07 (FY 2009-10 (FY 2014-15 Total
Through Through Through
(2008-09) (2013-14) (2017-18)
$273.7
Flood Emergency
General Fund 65.4 11.8 49.5 126.7
Response
Bonds (1E & 84) 66.3 80.7 0 147.0
$328.5
Operations & Maintenance
and Environmental General Fund 30.9 12.5 52.4 95.7
Stewardship
Bonds (1E & 84) 49.5 168.7 14.6 232.7
$167.7
Floodplain Risk
General Fund 15.5 7.2 30.1 52.7
Management
Bonds (1E & 84) 46.1 69.0 0 115.0
$329.3

Evaluation & Engineering General Fund 0 0 0 0

Bonds (1E & 84) 148.0 178.3 3.0 329.3

$1,974.9
Flood Management
Planning and Conservation General Fund 0 0 0 0
Strategy
Bonds (1E & 84) 672.6 1,282.4 19.8 1,974.9
$2,877.1

Flood Protection Projects General Fund 25.7 4.5 19.1 49.3

& Project Grants Bonds (1E & 84) 1,273.7 1,260.0 290.6 2,824.3

Prop 13 0.9 1.2 1.4 3.6

$8.0
Legislation, Budget, and
General Fund 0 0 0 0
Communication
Bonds (1E & 84) 0.8 4.0 3.2 8.0
$28.4
Central Valley Flood
General Fund 4.1 2.7 11.5 18.3
Protection Board
Bonds (1E & 84) 1.0 5.1 4.0 10.1

Total General Funds (12 years) $137.4 $36.0 $151.1 $324.7

Total Bonds (Props. 1E, 84, and 13) $2,258.9 $3,049.3 $336.6 $5,644.8

Grand Total General Funds plus Bonds $5,987.5

FloodSAFE 81 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

7 FloodSAFE Governance

FloodSAFE governance describes the roles and responsibilities of management personnel

and coordination processes necessary for efficient oversight of the FloodSAFE initiative
implementation.

7.1 Overview of Roles and Responsibilities within DWR

To enable the successful implementation of FloodSAFE and delivery of the program’s
outputs, it is critically important to define the specific roles and responsibilities of
managers within FloodSAFE. The major positions of responsibilities within the
FloodSAFE organization are as follows:

Deputy Director – The Deputy Director will serve as the Executive Sponsor
providing vision and leadership for FloodSAFE and to the FloodSAFE Executive
Manager; possess a broad and comprehensive knowledge of statewide flood
management systems, relation between flood management and other resources
management, policies, State and federal legislation, and issues affecting
FloodSAFE now and into the future; serve as a member of the FloodSAFE
Deputy Director Team; provide executive leadership in the development and
execution of FloodSAFE policy that supports the FloodSAFE strategic objectives;
approve policies supporting FloodSAFE; and takes direction from the Director of
DWR.

Assistant Deputy Director – The Assistant Deputy Director will assist the
Deputy Director to initiate, develop, and review policies related to a specialized
area of focus, such as environmental or engineering; serve as a member of the
FloodSAFE Management Team; work collaboratively with other policy
executives and managers; review and comment on ―Decision Memorandums‖;
and reports to the Deputy Director.

Chief of Division of Flood Management (FloodSAFE Executive Manager) –

The Chief of DFM will serve as the FloodSAFE Executive Manager and have
final authority over and responsibility for the successful delivery of all
FloodSAFE Programs; work closely with and be supported by the FloodSAFE
Deputy Director Team; provide leadership, management, and direction to the
FloodSAFE Program; take final direction from and report to the Deputy
Director; and serves as a member of the FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team.

Chief of FloodSAFE Program Management Office – The Chief of the

Program Management Office will work closely with the Chief of DFM and the
FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team to provide program management support for
all functional areas; manage the bond expenditures, develop budget for the

FloodSAFE 82 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

programs to support the FloodSAFE objectives, and act as the main point of
contact and spokesperson to the State Legislature, Department of Finance, and
DWR Fiscal Services in regard to the FloodSAFE budget and resource needs;
exercise authority to make decisions regarding the management of FloodSAFE
resources; direct the FloodSAFE Communication and Outreach Program; direct
execution of FloodSAFE projects’ tracking, reporting, and Bond Accountability
and Management; recommend policy approval to the FloodSAFE Deputy
Director Team; report directly to the Chief of DFM; brief the Deputy Director
and Director as needed; and serves as the lead of the FloodSAFE Management
Team.

Chief of FloodSAFE Environmental Stewardship and Statewide Resources

Office (FSESSRO) – The Chief of FSESSRO is responsible for the
environmental stewardship and conservation program as it relates to the
FloodSAFE Program; coordinate and work closely with Flood Projects
Operation & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship, Flood Protection
Projects and Project Grants, and Flood Management Planning and Conservation
Strategy Functional Areas; formulate environmental conservation strategies and
present them to the FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team for approval; is
responsible for budgeting, resourcing, execution, and completion of the
environmental conservation projects for FloodSAFE; serve as a member of the
FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team; and reports to the Deputy
Director.

 Chief of Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management (DSIWM) –

The Chief of DSIWM serves as a member of the FloodSAFE Integrated Water
Management Team responsible for preparing the Statewide Integrated Water
Management Plan and conducting System Re-operation studies; is responsible for
integrating flood management with the new California Water Plan Update; and
provides for regional coordination.

 Chief of Division of Integrated Regional Water Management - The Chief of

Division of Integrated Regional Water Management serves as a member of the
FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team and is responsible for regional
water management planning and providing for regional coordination.

DFM Office Managers - Functional area managers are generally Office Chiefs
within DFM and take direction from and report to the Chief of DFM; are
responsible for execution of the programs and projects within their respective
functional area; directly supervise Project Managers for FloodSAFE projects
and provide oversight and direction to contracted resources; are responsible for
functional areas’ budgets and allocation of resources; provide direction and
oversight to Project Managers and Project Teams; and coordinate their activities
with the FloodSAFE Program Management Office. Managers of the Flood
Management Planning and Conservation Strategy Functional Area serve as
members of the FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team.

FloodSAFE 83 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Program/Project Managers – Program/project managers are branch or section

chiefs, and in some cases are portfolio managers, and coordinate their work with
managers in other functional areas; directly manage a program or a project;
supervise senior staff responsible for various activities; develop and maintain a
project management plan; deliver a project within an approved scope, budget,
and schedule as defined in an adopted project management plan; identify the
project requirements, establish clear and achievable objectives, and initiate the
project process; track and report projects’ progress (budget used, deliverables
accomplished, meeting milestones, significant concerns) according to an
approved project management plan; manage project team work efforts to meet
deadlines; provide leadership, oversight, and support to project activities such as
budgeting, design, contracting, and completion of project deliverables; and
report to their respective functional area managers or supervisors.

7.2 DWR Internal Teams and Coordination Groups

FloodSAFE Governance includes a structured process to guide FloodSAFE
implementation and to ensure the proper organizational coordination needed for
successful implementation. FloodSAFE Governance includes the following teams and
coordination groups (see Figure 7-1 for relationship of teams):

FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team Meeting

FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team
FloodSAFE Environmental Conservation Team
FloodSAFE Management Services Coordination Team
Functional Area Management Team
Technical Coordination Groups
Figure 7-1. Relationship among Coordination Teams and Groups

FloodSAFE 84 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

These teams are responsible for coordinated delivery of FloodSAFE projects. Frequent
coordination between all team members is essential for successful implementation of
FloodSAFE.

Figure 7-2 shows how the managers described in Section 7.1 will use teams and
coordination groups as part of the FloodSAFE Governance structure. The figure includes
the organization for the integration of FloodSAFE with water management.

The roles and responsibilities of each team are described below.

Figure 7-2. FloodSAFE Governance

FloodSAFE 85 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

7.2.1 FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team

The FloodSAFE Deputy Team will meet on a bi-weekly basis and is comprised of the
following:

Deputy Director in Charge of Flood Management

FloodSAFE Executive Manager

Chief of FloodSAFE Program Management Office

Chief of FSESSRO

Assistant Deputy Director

Chief Legal Counsel

Office Chiefs will attend the meetings as needed for discussion of policy issues related to
any particular Functional Area. The FloodSAFE Deputy Team Meeting will be led by
the Chief of the FloodSAFE Program Management Office. The Team will be responsible
for the overall implementation of FloodSAFE. The Team will review and approve high-
level policies related to FloodSAFE implementation. Specifically, the Team will:

Provide high-level policy directions for FloodSAFE implementation

Review and approve the FloodSAFE Bond Expenditure Plan and establish and
implement annual program priorities

Review and approve FloodSAFE investment strategies

Ensure collaborative integration of interdisciplinary approaches into programs

Ensure programs and projects are properly coordinated among all FloodSAFE
functional areas and other organizations within DWR and with partnering
agencies

7.2.2 FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team

FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team will meet on a monthly basis and is
comprised of the following:

FloodSAFE Deputy Team

Chief of FSESSRO

Chief of Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management

FloodSAFE 86 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Chief of Division of Regional Integrated Water Management

Chief of Division of Engineering

The FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team is led by the Deputy Director in
Charge of Flood Management. This team will be responsible for coordination of
FloodSAFE Program activities across the Department and will address FloodSAFE
resources and services needs to ensure timely implementation of integrated programs and
projects. Specifically, the FloodSAFE Integrated Water Management Team

Addresses high-level departmental policy issues related to FloodSAFE

implementation

Ensures timely delivery of intra-divisional service needs of FloodSAFE

Coordinates FloodSAFE Program activities with other major DWR technical

programs as related to flood management

Provides for proper FloodSAFE communication and coordination between

various technical offices in DWR

7.2.3 FloodSAFE Environmental Conservation Team

Environmental Conservation is a major element of the FloodSAFE initiative and a large
amount of FloodSAFE resources will be allocated for environmental conservation and
permitting. Close coordination between DFM managers and environmental managers is
needed to ensure an integrated flood and environmental conservation program is
formulated and implemented. The Team will meet on a monthly basis. The roles and
responsibilities of this Team include:

Coordinates environmental conservation activities among FloodSAFE activities

Develops environmental conservation strategy consistent with FloodSAFE

objectives and with a shared vision

Formulates strategies to link flood system improvement permitting, conservation

strategies, and mitigation banking into an integrated flood and environmental
program

Develops environmental conservation funding strategies and annual budget

Members of the Environmental Conservation and Permitting Team include the Chief of
FSESSRO as the team leader, Chief of Delta Suisan Marsh Office, Flood Management
Planning and Conservation Strategy Functional Area (FA 6) Manager, Flood Protection
Projects and Project Grants Functional Area (FA 4) Manager, and Operations &
Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship Functional Area (FA 2) Manager.

FloodSAFE 87 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

7.2.4 FloodSAFE Management Services Coordination Team

The FloodSAFE Management Services Coordination Team is led by the Chief of the
FloodSAFE Program Management Office and will meet on a monthly basis. The team
members consist of the following:

Chief of FloodSAFE Program Management Office

Chief of Division of Management Services

Chief of Fiscal Office

Chief of Budget Office

Specific responsibilities of the Team include:

Review of the FloodSAFE annual budget

Coordination with Department of Finance and Governor’s Office and legislatures

Ensure adequate and timely delivery of the departmental resources/services in

support of FloodSAFE implementation

Coordinate FloodSAFE management services issues with appropriate offices in

DWR

7.2.5 Functional Area Management Team

The Functional Area Management Team is responsible for the completion of the
FloodSAFE programs’ deliverables. The Team consists of Functional Area Managers and
the FloodSAFE Executive Manager. The Team meets weekly and includes the following
members:

Functional Area Managers

FloodSAFE Executive Manager

Specific responsibilities of the Functional Area Management Team include:

Briefing and updating the Functional Area Managers on policies and guidance
developed by the FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team and other issues discussed
at other Governance Teams meetings
Formulating and discussing high level issues that should be elevated and
addressed by the FloodSAFE Deputy Director Team or other Governance Teams
Coordinating work activities between all functional areas
Addressing FloodSAFE implementation issues including resource,
organizational, administrative, and scheduling issues

FloodSAFE 88 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Discussing budget, funding, and schedule of project deliveries across functional

areas, ensuring project deliveries meet the FloodSAFE schedule

7.2.6 Technical Coordination Groups

Section 3.3 describes the technical coordination groups that will ensure that appropriate
technical information is passed among the functional areas. To assist in this matrix
management process, portfolio managers will attend the coordination groups at
appropriate times to assist the coordination and transfer of information.

This coordination of technical information includes scheduling of information availability

in one functional area with information needs of another functional area. In some cases,
preliminary information may need to be passed among functional areas to facilitate work
progress. In these cases, the technical coordination groups will coordinate the scheduling
and determine what information is exchanged before final products are ready for use.

7.3 Partnerships
Flood system improvement has been a coordinated partnership of State, local, and federal
agencies. Many agencies have roles and responsibilities in flood management in
California. The role and engagement of these agencies in relation to functional areas and
specific flood system elements are presented in Figure 4. FloodSAFE will continue the
tradition of working closely with local and federal partners to improve flood protection in
California. The key partners at the federal level are Federal Emergency Management
Agency and the USACE. Partnership with USACE is required for successful
implementation of the Program. Progress has been made in coordinating FloodSAFE
activities with USACE. Enhanced partnership with USACE will ensure USACE is a full
FloodSAFE partner, will engage in the Program, will provide leadership in program
development and implementation, and will support full cost-sharing for the FloodSAFE
Initiative.

Flood projects are generally funded by State, federal, and local agencies. Historically, this
mix of funding sources varied according to the type of project or program, beneficiaries,
availability of funds, urgency, and other factors. Although the process of providing cost-
sharing on a project-by-project basis has worked in the past, it is a time-consuming
process and it is not an appropriate or sufficient approach to implementation of
FloodSAFE, which consists of a wide range of programs/projects that provide broad
system-wide multiple benefits. FloodSAFE should negotiate a broad cost-sharing
agreement with USACE in which system-wide flood risk reduction program cost sharing
is agreed upon instead of a traditional project-by-project evaluation and cost sharing
arrangement.

FloodSAFE 89 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 7-3 FloodSAFE – A Partnership Program

FloodSAFE 90 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

7.4 Local Agencies

Each of the seven functional areas provides opportunities for stakeholder and public
participation during FloodSAFE implementation. Roles and responsibilities of local
agencies will vary and need to be defined on a project-by-project basis. Local agencies
need to have a clear understanding of the types and level of flood management support
provided by DWR. In addition, since there are a large number of local agencies in a
watershed/basin with different jurisdictions, authorities, and responsibilities, DWR needs
a clear understanding local roles and responsibilities. Some of the questions to be
addressed during preparation of the more detailed management plans for each functional
area to help define these relationships may include:

How will FloodSAFE information be presented to local agencies?

What DWR flood program activities apply to an individual watershed or river

basin?

How will FloodSAFE interact with local agencies?

Who is the appropriate FloodSAFE lead to interact with local agencies?

What is the expectation from local agencies?

Some of the issues that DWR needs to address include:

How to integrate management with technical disciplines.

How to integrate/coordinate with local agencies in meaningful ways

(i.e., hydrologic region/river basin/local agency).

How will technical work/analyses be applied consistently across functional areas?

Some of the key roles of local agencies within FloodSAFE will be to:

Plan, design, and construct improvements to components of the flood

management system in cooperation with DWR and the USACE

Lead collaborative efforts between urban, rural, and environmental interests to

develop integrated regional plans

Conduct sound levee inspections and maintenance, including repairing erosion

sites as they occur

Establish robust emergency response plans

Inform residents of flood risks regardless of flood protection level

Provide political support to help secure federal funding

FloodSAFE 91 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Establish assessments and provide funds as local cost shares

Fund and carry out inspections, operations, and maintenance of flood

management facilities

Operate reservoirs in their jurisdiction during flooding in coordination with

USACE and the Flood Operation Center

Promote appropriate land use planning to meet FloodSAFE goals and objectives

Implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative at the local level will require DWR to
interact with many local agencies that may have different and sometimes overlapping
jurisdictions, authorities, and responsibilities. Participation of local agencies also depends
on the functional area and the type of project or program that they are interested in
developing in their geographic area.

Figure 7-4 shows one example of how local agencies can participate in all the functional
areas and components performing work within their watershed. The participation can be
expected to be different depending on agencies’ jurisdictions, authorities, responsibilities,
and other circumstances. The example shows areas of participation for the LMAs, local
office of emergency services, water agency or reservoir operators, and local planning
agency. Each functional area manager should be aware of different levels of local area
participation.

In most cases, each functional area spans many geographic areas, referred to as
hydrologic regions. Ten hydrologic regions in the State are defined by distinctive
watersheds. Since local agencies and the public may not know where to begin within
DWR when they need assistance, DWR regional managers will help direct these inquiries
to the correct DWR manager.

FloodSAFE 92 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure 7-4 Local Agency Participation

FloodSAFE 93 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

7.5 Management by Functional Area

The degree of management required for different management issues is expected to vary
among the functional areas as shown in the schematic in Figure 7-5. Budgets, project
management, organizational management, and inter-program coordination vary
significantly among the functional areas. The functional areas that lead to improvements
in physical facilities will require higher management efforts than the others that are more
non-structurally oriented.
Figure 7-5 Management Program Variability

FloodSAFE 94 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

8 Updates and Supporting Plans

The FloodSAFE initiative is designed to improve California’s integrated flood

management through improvements in each of seven functional areas. Due to the urgency
to begin implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative, work in all functional areas has
been underway for the past few years.

This FloodSAFE Implementation Plan is intended to provide broad guidance on how the
work necessary to achieve FloodSAFE foundational objectives will be conducted.
Recognizing that there are still many unknowns, especially in costs, for flood system
improvement, this Plan is intended to be flexible and periodically updated as more
detailed information becomes available. Each functional area manager will prepare a
strategic plan and more detailed project and program management plans as needed to
support the program based on the guidance provided by this plan.

8.1 Implementation Plan Updates

Due to the long development time, changing conditions (population, climate, etc.), the
technical complexity of system improvements, and uncertainty about funding, policy, and
political environment, the plan must be flexible and adaptable to changing conditions.
DWR will update this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan and its management plans for the
various functional areas when needed. DWR will conduct an annual review of
implementation progress, issues, and budgets to determine when an update of the
FloodSAFE Implementation Plan is warranted.

The first anticipated update of this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan is within six months
following the 2012 adoption of the CVFPP by the CVFPB. While the first CVFPP may
not be a definitive plan, it will provide better definition of the types of system
improvements and their costs for potential implementation within the Central Valley. At
a minimum, subsequent updates to the FloodSAFE Implementation Plan will follow each
five-year update of the CVFPP. Available funding is expected to be a major stimulus, or
constraint, to implementation. Changes in funding (federal, State, and local) will be a
prime reason for needing to adapt the Implementation Plan.

8.2 Supporting Plans

Each functional area manager will prepare additional supporting documents to provide
more detailed guidance for work necessary to produce needed deliverables. These
documents may include a functional area strategic plan and will include project
management plans for the major portions of work. These documents will be used to
support this FloodSAFE Implementation Plan and provide information for its updates.

FloodSAFE 95 DRAFT
Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix A Flood Emergency Response (FA 1)

Flood Emergency Response is one of seven functional areas necessary to implement the
FloodSAFE initiative. Flood Emergency Response refers to preparedness, response, and
recovery activities necessary before, during, and after a flood emergency. The Flood
Emergency Response functional area has been a long-standing base program in DWR’s
DFM, but FloodSAFE makes improvements to the program. While the composition of
the program is likely to change over time, Flood Emergency Response must continue
indefinitely into the future, regardless of the protection provided by the improved system.

Both structural and non-structural management actions implemented as part of the

FloodSAFE initiative will reduce the likelihood of flooding and lower property damage
and the potential for loss of life. However, Flood Emergency Response work is based on
the acknowledgement that there will always be some residual flooding risk that must be
managed. The work is managed by the Hydrology and Flood Operations Office of DFM.

A.1 Program Rationale

Even the best flood system will face emergencies. Floods larger than the design
capacities of facilities can cause failures and inundations of floodplains. Undetected
problems with levees or other unexpected problems can arise. As stated in the Draft
FloodSAFE Strategic Plan, ―no matter how Figure A-1 Flood Emergency Operations
much is done to reduce the likelihood of Phases
flooding, there always remains some chance
that floods will still occur – this fact leads to
residual risk.‖ The Flood Emergency
Response functional area includes the work
that DWR currently does along with new
program improvements to better deal with
the residual risk.

There are three phases of the flood

emergency operations that are shared
among State, federal, and local agencies
(Figure A-1). The overall goal is to
minimize the impact of floods on
communities in California by preparing for
emergencies, by responding to actual
conditions during an emergency, and by
expeditiously recovering after the
emergency has passed.

1. Flood Preparedness and Planning. Actions identified under this phase are
designed to prepare flood emergency staff from DWR and other agencies to be

FloodSAFE A-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

trained, informed, and ready for major flood events. This is the planning phase of
emergency response that puts the resources in place before a flood event. Some
work under this phase includes:

Inspect flood facilities to ensure the flood control system is in a state of

readiness for a flood event

Evaluate and document the system’s integrity; this includes an understanding

of flood control system deficiencies

Conduct flood emergency response planning by working with other agencies

involved in emergency response; plans should be prepared to identify the
flood hazards in any jurisdiction, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
emergency responders, and to develop clear lines of communication between
all parties

Develop the necessary tools, models, and information that will be needed in
an operational mode during a flood emergency

Conduct exercises and training on how to respond to emergencies

Stockpile materials needed by the emergency responders prior to any flood

emergencies

Coordinate data management and processes for exchange of flood information

between flood control agencies

2. Flood Response. Flood response is the operational phase of the program that
occurs during the emergency. To effectively respond to flood emergencies, DWR
would:

Collect precipitation, temperature, and river stage data for use in preparing
watershed runoff forecasting, reservoir operations, and river forecasting

Prepare river forecasts, flood warning, and hazard notifications to local

emergency responders

Coordinate operation of the reservoirs to manage flood flows downstream of

the major reservoirs

Patrol the flood control facilities and levees during high water to identify any
imminent threat to flood control structures and respond as necessary

Assist in flood fight activities such as placing sand bags on levees or placing
material to counter erosion from wind waves

FloodSAFE A-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Provide access to flood system information that is critical to the success of

any response actions

3. Flood Recovery. The recovery phase includes evaluating the flood system,
identifying what needs to be fixed, evaluating the proposed recovery actions,
prioritizing recovery actions, and implementing mitigations and flood system
improvement actions. After the flood emergency has passed, an After-Action
Report is prepared that summarizes response and recovery activities conducted by
DWR offices and other entities. Flood management system evaluation and
implementation of specific mitigation measures are required to ensure flood
system integrity are preserved as part of the flood recovery phase. DWR flood
recovery responsibility is limited to assistance in evaluating and repairing
damaged flood management facilities and recovery of State infrastructure.

A.2 Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives for Emergency Response are aimed at making DWR’s
emergency actions more efficient and timely.

A.2.1 Goals
The over-arching goal of the Flood Emergency Response functional area is to strengthen
flood emergency response throughout the State to save lives and protect property. The
key program goals include:

Improve watershed forecasting and reservoir operations to reduce peak flows at

key locations during high-water events

Improve flood forecasting, warning, and notifications statewide to reduce loss of

life and property by providing additional advance flood warning time to the public

Increase effectiveness of overall federal/State/local agencies’ flood response

Improve integrity of the flood control system by documenting flood control

facilities and identifying and recommending improvement for system deficiencies

Respond effectively to flood emergencies and reduce recovery time after flood
events

A.2.2 Objectives
The Flood Emergency Response Program will achieve the stated goals through
attainment of the following objectives:

Inspect, understand, and document the flood control system’s status and
deficiencies

FloodSAFE A-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Preserve the State’s investment in data collection, model development, and other
tools that are prepared for FloodSAFE

Improve the Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program:

o Integrate flood emergency response into the local agencies’ emergency

response plans

o Update the DWR Flood Emergency Operations Plan

o Include development of a Delta Emergency Operations Plan

o Include an effective training program for DWR and local agencies’ staff in
flood emergency response including flood fights and flood emergency
exercises

o Upgrade the State-Federal Flood Operations Center (FOC) to enable

effective management of major flood events including
upgrading/modernizing FOC equipment and tools

Improve tools (i.e., forecasting models, data collection, and management) and
processes (i.e., flood warning, notifications, and reservoir operations) that can
significantly improve timing, reliability, and accuracy of flood warnings

Coordinate reservoir operations during major floods

Design and implement a decision support system based on five-day advanced

forecasts for effective flood management of reservoirs with flood control
reservations in the Central Valley

A.3 Elements and Components

The Flood Emergency Response functional area is organized around six program
elements (also called projects). Each element is supported by components that provide
more detail on the work to be performed (see Figure A-2). Following are descriptions of
the elements and their components.

FloodSAFE A-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure A-2 Flood Emergency Response Functional Area

FloodSAFE A-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

A.3.1 Real-Time Flood Conditions, Status, and Warning

This element provides the type of information needed to manage floods as they are
occurring (real-time). An effective response to floods requires hydrometeorological data,
reservoir operations data, and information about the integrity and condition of flood
control structures before and during flooding.

Flood Project Integrity/Vulnerability Assessments. This component provides

for an understanding of the flood control system’s status and its integrity by
compiling information such as levee performance, historic project maintenance
and repairs, past problems, erosion sites, and past flooding information that may
contribute to the vulnerability of project facilities.

LMA Assessment/System Reporting/Flood System Documentation. This

component includes collecting, storing, mapping, cataloging, documenting, and
maintaining and sharing information on Operations and Maintenance practices
and flood system facilities including levees, channels, and structures.

Inspection of Flood Projects. This component inspects maintenance of flood

control facilities, advises LMAs on levee maintenance practices, monitors levee
and channel erosion, monitors use of designated floodways, conducts flood fight
training, has first-response capability during high-water events, and does high-
water staking.

Flood Operations Center Information System. Information gathered through

system documentation and on the status of the flood management system can be
used through development of a Decision Support System to help make critical
flood operations decisions in the FOC during major flood events.

Flood Emergency Information Dissemination and Warning. This component

emphasizes development of a broad array of information management tools for
use in assessing flood conditions and flood control system status, and for storing,
using, and managing the information gathered in real-time during flooding and
under system documentation.

Data Exchange and Data Management. This component emphasizes

development of a broad array of information management tools for storing, using,
exchanging, and managing the real-time data and information gathered under
system documentation.

A.3.2 Climate Data Collection and Precipitation/Runoff Forecasting

This element provides river forecasts and flood warnings, coordinates reservoir release
operations during high water, provides information and forecasts on river flow and
watershed conditions for other purposes during non-flood periods, and provides
specialized hydrologic and hydraulic studies during non-flood periods.

FloodSAFE A-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Real-Time Data Collection Network. DFM operates an extensive telemetered

network of precipitation and stream gaging stations throughout the year. The
Real-Time Data Collection component provides accurate, timely, representative,
and reliable information to staff to produce accurate and timely flood forecasts,
make sound flood operation decisions, and support other public and private
agency decision making and emergency response.

Hydro-Climate Analyses. The Hydro-Climate Analyses component provides

input on the development and maintenance of the hydro-meteorological data
network; creates hydrology and climate information from the hydro-
meteorological data for use in operations, assessment, and planning and design of
facilities; distributes the hydrological and climate information to the interested
parties and the general public; and conducts climate change research.

Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF)/Watershed Runoff Forecasting.

QPF and Watershed Runoff Forecasting are critical parts of flood forecasting.
QPF is the forecast of short-term precipitation that is used as data input for the
watershed forecasting models.

Snowmelt and Seasonal Volume Runoff Forecasting. DWR is responsible for

forecasting runoff in all major water supply streams in the State, as directed by
Section 228 of the California Water Code, to ―gather and correlate information
and data pertinent to an annual forecast of seasonal water crop.‖

A.3.3 Reservoir Operations and River Forecasting

DWR, in cooperation with the California-Nevada River Forecast Center, prepares river
stage and reservoir inflow forecasts for streams in California.

Forecast-Coordinated Reservoir Operations. The Forecast-Coordinated

Operations Program aims to reduce peak flows in rivers downstream of reservoirs
by introducing new technology for improved management and operation of
reservoirs having flood control reservations.

Forecast-Based Reservoir Operations. This component develops forecast-based

operations for the reservoirs in the Central Valley. This may eventually lead to
opportunities to revise the USACE Water Control Manuals.

River Forecasting. The river forecasting staff prepares river stage based on
forecasted releases from the reservoirs and forecasted watershed flows for
unregulated streams. The forecasts are available to first responders, LMAs, state
and federal agencies, and the public.

A.3.4 Flood Operations Emergency Response

DWR is the lead State agency for flood emergency response and has lead responsibility
for flood emergency operations and flood fight assistance in the State. The FOC serves as

FloodSAFE A-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

a year-round focal point for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating hydrometeorological

information to cooperating agencies, emergency managers, law enforcement, news
media, and the public.

Department Statewide Emergency Operations Plan. DWR’s Emergency

Operations Plan is outdated and needs to be updated. Under this program
component, the plan will be updated in cooperation with various offices within
DWR and in coordination with the DWR Emergency Security Officer.

Local Agency Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response. Training,

exercises, and preparing for flood events are the most rudimentary but
fundamental elements of emergency preparedness. Improved staff training needs
and additional demands for more robust emergency response require establishing
a comprehensive program to improve flood emergency readiness.

DWR Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan. Due to the
vulnerability of the Delta to flood hazards and the potential impact of major
flooding in the Delta on State water supply infrastructure and the resources of the
Delta, this component will prepare the State to effectively respond and quickly
recover from large-scale flooding in the Delta.

A.3.5 Delta Flood Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Project

This element is formulated to provide detailed engineering and water quality assessments
to examine the effectiveness of various flood recovery strategies in the Delta. This
element also provides for technical support needed to design and develop facilities for
stockpiling flood response and recovery materials needed for effective response to
catastrophic flood events in the Delta.

A.3.6 Updated Hydrology and System Re-operations

With the hydrology, climate change potentials, and other changing issues facing
California, the need for improving the efficiency of the water supply and flood protection
system is now an essential part of water system operations and management.

Update Central Valley Streams Hydrology. Under this component DWR will
work with USACE to update the hydrology of the Central Valley Streams.

Climate Change Hydrology. This component will be closely coordinated with

the State climatologist to investigate the long-term impacts of changes in
precipitation patterns and other climate change-related factors on runoff.

Conduct System Re-operation Studies. Over the next five years, a multi-
faceted, multi-agency, comprehensive approach will be pursued to develop tools
to conduct system re-operation studies that integrate flood control and water
supply components of the reservoirs.

FloodSAFE A-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

A.4 Geographic Focus

The Emergency Response functional area performs the majority of its work at a statewide
level including flood data collection, local flood emergency preparedness and response
plans, and climate change analysis. Table A-1 shows implementation by hydrologic
region.

A.5 Major Deliverables

Many of the deliverables of the Flood Emergency Response functional area are not in
report products, but in real-time decision making such as flood fighting and flood
warning during a flood emergency that saves lives and reduces flood damages and
recovery time. Following are major deliverables over the next several years.

Real-Time Flood Conditions, Status, and Warning

Document State Flood Control System facilities

Implement two pilot projects for real-time monitoring and reporting of seepage
through and movement of the levees during high water events, including
installation of monitoring devices

Prepare an annual local agency reporting summary for the CVFPB

Inspect and report to USACE on an annual basis the maintenance status of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River flood control systems, including federal
project levees, channels, and major flood control structures

Complete Emergency Response Information System Integration (ER ISI) to fully

integrate data and GIS systems to facilitate decision-making during major flood
events

Enhance Flood Operation Center Information System (FOCIS) and improve

interagency access to FOCIS for sharing flood information between partners

Develop and implement a plan for enhancement of real-time data collection and
exchange, including a provision for data collection network redundancy

Complete After-Action Reporting on annual basis

FloodSAFE A-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table A-1 Implementation of Flood Emergency Response Program Elements

Implementation of Flood Emergency Response Program Elements in Hydrologic Regions

Hydrologic Region
Functional Areas and Program Elements San Francisco Sacramento San Joaquin North South
North Coast Central Coast South Coast Tulare Lake Colorado River
Bay River River Lahontan Lahontan
Emergency Response
Flood Project Assessments
Flood System Reporting & Documentation X X

Flood System Inspections X X

Flood Operations Center Information System X X X X X X X X X X

Flood Emergency Information Dissemination & Warning X X X X X X

Flood Data Management X X X X X X X X X X

Climate Change Analysis X X X X X X X X X X

Watershed Runoff Forecasting X X X X X X

Snowmelt Runoff Forecasting X X X X X X

Forecast-Coordinated Operations X X

Forecast-Based Operations X X

River Forecasting X X X X X X

Statewide Emergency Operations Plan X X X X X X X X X X

Local Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans X X X X X X X X X X

Delta Flood PRR Project X X

FloodSAFE A-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Climate Data Collection and Precipitation/Runoff Forecasting

In cooperation with federal, local, and State agencies, install additional sensors
and monitor network climate data for rain/snow transition

Conduct climate change analyses, coordinate climate research projects

Develop and implement a process for improved precipitation forecasting

including better documentation and verification

Develop and utilize an improved snowmelt forecasting model to enhance

accuracy of snowmelt forecasts and to provide timely snowmelt monthly volume
forecasts to water managers

Reservoir Operations and River Forecasting

Complete design and implementation of Yuba-Feather F-CO program

Develop tools for five-day reservoir release forecasts as part of the San Joaquin
River Watershed F-CO program

Implement Forecast-Based Reservoir Operations for San Joaquin River system

Implement Forecast-Based Reservoir Operations for Sacramento River basin

reservoirs

Implement water control manual clarifications, modifications, and revisions for

reservoirs, as needed

Develop an unsteady-state hydraulic model to provide accurate river forecasting

in the case of a levee break

Develop an improved river routing model

Flood Operations Emergency Response

Prepare DWR Emergency Response Plan

Develop and implement a flood response training plan for DWR staff, particularly
for FOC, Incident Commands, and local LMA staff; train about 2,800 DWR and
LMA staff in flood fighting methods, Incident Command, and other emergency
operation activities

Conduct annual table top and functional exercises and training to prepare for
flood events

FloodSAFE A-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Using the pilot projects, work with local emergency services managers throughout
the State to incorporate flood operations emergency response into local agencies’
emergency response plans

Delta Flood Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Project

Complete DWR Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

In cooperation and coordination with State, federal, and local agencies, prepare
Delta Multi-Agency Integrated Flood Emergency Operations Plan

Complete Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Project

Updated Hydrology and System Re-operations

Working with USACE, prepare an updated hydrology for Central Valley streams

Develop tools to evaluate the impact of climate change on hydrology, water

supply, and flood protection

Formulate and implement re-operation pilot project

A.6 Performance Measures

For each program element, specific performance measures have been identified. The
performance measures are listed in Table A-2. The success of program implementation is
measured by these performance measures and depends on the following:

Availability of funding for program implementation

Expertise and experience of the program managers and staff
Availability of consulting resources
Careful program tracking and course correction during program implementation,
as needed

A comprehensive program tracking and reporting system should be developed and used
by the program managers. Activities and achievement of each project should be noted
and tracked by the tracking system. Periodic progress reports should be prepared using
the program tracking system. Branch managers should use the tracking system to
evaluate the project’s progress in achieving performance measures on a quarterly basis
and make any adjustment or course correction needed for the projects under their
supervision.

FloodSAFE A-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table A-2 Performance Measures

Flood Project Integrity and System Evaluations

Real-Time Flood Conditions, Status, & Warning

1 Number of levee miles with pre-season vulnerability assessments
2 Number of flood system data catagories collected
LMA Assessment, System Reporting, and Flood System Documentation
1 Number of agencies meeting reporting requirements
2 Percent completeness of LMA assessment
(Goal 1, 2, 3, & 4)

Inspection of Flood Project

1 Time from inspection to reporting
2 Number of inspections and maintainence compliance assessments
Flood Operation Center Information System
1 Number of agencies accessing & uploading information through FOCIS
2 Number of flood preparedness & response catagories collected
Flood Emergency Information Dissemination and Warning
1 Number of FOC Coodination & Outreach Meetings
2 Number of data access to CDEC & other information management systems
Data Exchange and Data Management
1 Number of data exchange partners
2 Number of data records & products
Real-Time Data Collection Network
Precipitation/Runoff Forecasting

1 Number of cooporative data collection partners

Climate Data Collection and

2 Number of additional data collection sites and sensor catagories

Climate Analyses
(Goal 1, 2 & 4)

1 Number of basins with climate analysis

2 Number of climate data & global climate model outputs collected
QPF/Watershed Runoff Forecasting
1 Number of coordinated reseach projects connected to climate analysis and forecasting
2 Number of forecasts with probability ranges
Snowmelt and Seasonal Volume Runoff Forecasting
1 Number of basins with integrated snowmelt & monthly volume forecasts
2 Number of basins with improved accuracy for monthly volume forecasts
Forecast-Coordinated Operation of Reservoirs
and River Forecasting
Reservoir Operations

1 Number of Reservoir Operators providing 5-day release projections

(Goal 1, 2, 3, & 4)

2 Number of reservoirs with defined release strategics based on forecasts

Forecast-Based Operation of Reservoirs
1 Number of reservoir manual updates and/or rule clarifications
2 Number of reservoir manual revisions with rule curve changes
River Forecasting
1 Number of river basins with unsteady state forecasts
2 Number of river/stream forecast locations
Department Statewide Emergency Operations Plans and Preparedness
Emergency Response

1 Number of orientation, tabletop, and functional exercises

Flood Operations

(Goal 2, 3, & 4)

2 Number of trained FOC & ICT personnel

Local Agency Emergency Preparedness and Flood Response
1 Number of agency emergency prepardness plans inventoried
2 Number of flood annex plans completed
DWR Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan
1 Number of FOC Coodination & Outreach Meetings
2 Number of project tracking documents and status reports

FloodSAFE A-13 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table A-2 Performance Measures, Cont.

Water Quality Studies & Environment Assessments

Project (Goal 1)
Response, and
Preparedness,
Delta Flood
1 Number of water quality studies
Recovery
2 Number of benefit/cost assessments
Engineering & Facility Assessments
1 Number of cut-sheet & pre-designs completed
2 Number of transfer facilities assessed and facilities developed

Hydrology
Hydrology and
System Re-

1 Number of watersheds with updated hydrologies

operations
Updated

(Goal 1)

2 Number of watersheds with Climate Change runoff hydrologies

System Re-operations
1 Number of DWR Program Objectives Integrated
2 Number of Models & Tools Integrated

A.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table A-3 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Emergency Response functional area through fiscal year 2011-12. State investments
are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE A-14 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table A-3 Emergency Response (FA 1) State Investments

FloodSAFE California
Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response & Recovery Program

Five-year Program Augmentation Budget

(In Millions)

PROJECTS: Proposition 84, Chapter 3, Section 75032

Annual
GF 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Total
Real-time Flood Conditions, Status, & Warning $8.9 $0.0 $0.0 $2.7 $3.5 $2.1 $8.3
Flood Project Integrity / Vulnerability assessments $2.1 $0.0 $0.0 $1.0 $1.3 $0.7 $3.0
LMA Assessment & reporting, Flood System Documentation $0.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.5 $0.2 $1.1
Inspection of Project Works $1.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.7 $0.6 $0.3 $1.6
Flood Op. Center Info. System $2.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.2 $0.3 $0.2 $0.7
Emergency Information Dissemination & Warning $1.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.5 $0.4 $1.0
Data Exchange and Data Management $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.9

Climate Data Collection and Precipitation/Runoff Forecasting $5.1 $1.7 $1.7 $3.6 $2.9 $1.6 $11.5
Real Time Data Collection $2.7 $1.3 $1.5 $1.5 $1.2 $0.3 $5.8
Climate Analyses $0.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.7
QPF/Watershed Forecasting $0.2 $0.4 $0.2 $0.8 $0.8 $0.7 $2.9
Snowmelt/Runoff Forecasting $1.3 $0.1 $0.0 $1.0 $0.7 $0.4 $2.2

Reservoir Operations and River Forecasting $1.7 $0.8 $0.3 $2.0 $3.0 $1.8 $7.9
River Forecasting $1.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.4 $1.4
Forecast -Coordinated Res. OP. $0.5 $0.8 $0.3 $1.0 $1.0 $0.5 $3.6
Forecast Based Operations $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $1.5 $0.9 $2.9

Flood Operatiion Emergency Response $1.0 $2.8 $1.0 $3.5 $5.0 $11.0 $23.3
Department Emergency Response $1.0 $0.1 $0.1 $1.5 $2.0 $0.5 $4.2
Local Emergency Preparedness & Response $0.0 $0.7 $0.9 $2.0 $3.0 $0.5 $7.1
NEW JOC $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $10.0
Delta Emergency Prep. & Response Plan $0.0 $2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.0

Delta Preparedness, Response & Recovery Project $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0
Delta ER Communications $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0

TOTAL Prop 84 Allocation $16.7 $5.3 $3.0 $11.8 $14.4 $16.5 $56.0

Proposition 1E, Section 5096.821

Annual
GF 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Total
Delta Preparedness, Response & Recovery Project $0.0 $10.0 $37.0 $36.0 $4.0 $3.0 $90.0
Delta Emergency Prep. & Response Plan $0.0 $0.0 $4.0 $3.0 $3.0 $2.0 $12.0
Delta Facility & Logistics $0.0 $10.0 $29.0 $29.0 $1.0 $1.0 $70.0
Risk Assessments & Technical Studies $0.0 $0.0 $4.0 $4.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.0

Levee Improvement (Local Assistance Funding) ** DSMO Managed $0.0 $0.0 $35.0 $20.0 $0.0 $0.0 $55.0

Hydrology & System Re-operation $0.0 $8.0 $3.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0
Hydrology Update $0.0 $8.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.0
Climate Change Hydrology $0.0 $0.0 $3.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.0

TOTAL Prop 1E Allocation $0.0 $18.0 $40.0 $36.0 $4.0 $3.0 $101.0

FloodSAFE A-15 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix B Operations & Maintenance and

Environmental Stewardship (FA 2)

Operations and Maintenance is one of seven functional areas necessary to implement the
FloodSAFE initiative. Operations and Maintenance refers to the need to keep project
facilities in good working condition so they continue to operate as designed – wear and
tear on system facilities can reduce system capacity or make them more vulnerable to
failure. Operations and Maintenance has been a long-standing base program in DWR’s
DFM, but FloodSAFE makes improvements to the program. Operations and Maintenance
needs are expected to change over time as system upgrades are implemented. Work in the
functional area must continue indefinitely into the future, even after the FloodSAFE
functional objectives have been achieved.

Historically, Operations and Maintenance projects undertaken by the Flood Maintenance

Office within DFM were based on a backlog of deferred maintenance. Now, in addition
to continuing to work on deferred maintenance, new projects are identified through a
number of inspection programs. The work is managed by the Flood Maintenance Office
of DFM.

B.1 Program Rationale

Flood risk is reduced with improved maintenance of flood control facilities, levees, and
channels in the flood protection system. The Operations & Maintenance and
Environmental Stewardship functional area is a collection of integrated program elements
that provide continued operation and maintenance of the Sacramento River Flood Control
System. The system is comprised of flood channels, levees, bypass channels, and water
control structures in the Sacramento Valley that control and manage Sacramento River
and tributary flows during high water flood events. The system is designed to pass storm
water flows through the lower Sacramento Valley and the urban areas of the Valley, and
reduce flooding risk for cities, rural areas, and farms; thereby protecting lives and
property in the region.

Levees deteriorate with time because of rodent activity, vegetation growth, vehicle
traffic, encroachments, unauthorized construction or vandalism, high water erosion, and
other factors. The effectiveness and capacity of flood control bypass channels can be
reduced through sedimentation, vegetation growth, unauthorized obstructions, and other
means. Water control structures such as pumping stations and weirs can also degrade
with time and use. Flood maintenance work is needed on a consistent basis to fix flood
system deficiencies so that they will operate properly during storm events. The
Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional area will ensure
the continued proper functioning of the flood control system, and thus, the protection of
the region from flooding. In the case where critical levee repairs are needed to make

FloodSAFE B-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

levees serviceable for the following flood season they are fixed on a fast-track basis
under this functional area.

The Operations and Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional area covers
State activities for maintaining 293 miles of levees, 11 weirs, 5 gate structures, 4
pumping plants, 10 bridges, 50 miles of drainage canals, and all channels in the
Sacramento system. In addition, 60 LMAs perform maintenance for the Sacramento
River Flood Control Project and 29 LMAS perform maintenance for the San Joaquin
River Flood Control System.

State activities also extend to levee repairs for project levees being maintained by the
LMAs or Reclamation Districts. These repairs are done under three federal authorized
programs; Levee Stability Program (LSP), Sacramento River Bank Protection Project
(SRBPP) and PL84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance Program. In addition, the State repairs
project levees under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Erosion Repairs Project (SSJERP). In
some cases, critical erosion sites and levee instability problems cannot wait for system
improvement projects, but demand rapid repair before the upcoming flood season. In
such cases, the project levees are repaired on the recommendations made by the Levee
Evaluations and Engineering functional area.

LMAs maintain the remaining project flood facilities in the Sacramento Valley, project
facilities in the San Joaquin valley, and non-project levees in the Sacramento Valley, San
Joaquin Valley, and the Delta. Under the Emergency Response functional area, however,
the State inspects the maintenance of project levees maintained by LMAs. Under the
Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants functional area, the State also provides
financial assistance to LMAs for non-project levees in the Delta.

B.2 Goal and Objectives

Following are the goal and objectives for the Operations & Maintenance and
Environmental Stewardship functional area.

B.2.1 Goal
The goal of the Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional
area is to save lives and protect property by ensuring the flood control features in the
Sacramento River Flood Control Project are properly maintained and deliver the level of
flood protection they were designed and built to provide.

B.2.2 Objectives
The Objectives of the Program include:

Reduce Risk - Reduce flood risk to the people of the Sacramento Valley, their
homes and property, the State’s infrastructure, and the public trust resources.

FloodSAFE B-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Protect and Enhance Ecosystems - Maintain the Sacramento River Flood Control
System in ways that protect, restore, and where possible, enhance environmental
resources.

Promote Sustainability - Take actions that improve compatibility with the natural
environment and reduce the expected costs to operate and maintain flood
management systems into the future.

Reduce the Consequences of Flooding - Take actions prior to flooding that will
help reduce the adverse consequences of floods when they do occur and allow for
quicker recovery after flooding.

B.3 Elements and Components

The Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional area is
organized around the five program elements and a Program Management and
Administration function as shown graphically on Figure B-1.

While Environmental Initiatives is shown as a distinct program element, it is actually

integrated and embedded within each of the other program elements.
Figure B-1 Operations and Maintenance Functional Area

FloodSAFE B-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

B.3.1 Channel Maintenance

For this element, DWR is responsible for performing channel-specific maintenance
activities, including channel clearance, identified in the USACE Operations and
Maintenance Manuals to ensure maintaining channel flow capacity in the Project
channels.

Inspection and Evaluation. Based on field observations and subsequent

evaluations, this component determines what maintenance activities are most
required for the flood channel system and helps prioritize maintenance work for
those features.

Routine Operations and Maintenance. This component includes those practices

that are generally repeated annually in channels to maintain design flows and
allow adequate inspection of the channel. The Sutter and Sacramento
Maintenance Yards routinely perform channel maintenance including spraying,
disking, mowing, hand clearing, and grazing.

Implement Corridor Management Projects. This component includes activities

to maintain the flood channels through major vegetation management, sediment
removal, and major restoration/mitigation projects. These are projects that
periodically exceed work that is conducted by routine maintenance.

B.3.2 Flood Control Facilities Operations and Maintenance

This element is aimed at DWR’s assurance to the federal government for maintaining and
rehabilitating flood control structures. DWR operates, maintains, and repairs or replaces
flood control structures located throughout the Sacramento River Flood Control System
so that all those facilities function properly as designed and are ready for operation during
a flood.

Inspection and Evaluations. FMO staff are responsible for the periodic
inspection of flood structures under their care. These structures and facilities
would include pumping plants, weirs, bridges, and other appurtenant structures
identified in the Sacramento River Flood Control System.

Routine Operations and Maintenance. The Sutter Maintenance and Sacramento

Yards are responsible for routine inspection, assessment, maintenance, and repair
of flood control and hydraulic control structures in the Sacramento River Flood
Control System.

Non-Routine Projects. Most flood control structures require periodic major

repairs and rehabilitation that must be budgeted, planned, and implemented over
more than one fiscal year. These major repairs are designated as individual
activities assigned to specific program managers and include flood control
structures in bypasses, channels, maintenance areas, and maintenance facilities.

FloodSAFE B-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Facilities include pumping plants, which transfer runoff and excess water from the
land side of levees in the flood system to flood channels; bridges, which provide
access over and to flood facilities; and water control structures such as weirs.

B.3.3 Levee Operations and Maintenance

This element maintains levees and roads under DWR jurisdiction (State-maintained
Maintenance Areas and bypasses) in accordance with USACE Operations and
Maintenance Manuals, and after high water recedes, evaluates levees and completes
needed routines and extraordinary maintenance necessary to meet assurances provided to
the federal government.

Inspection and Evaluation. This component includes quarterly inspection and

evaluations of levees and roads to identify and prioritize routine maintenance and
formulate non-routine projects. Spring inspection is conducted to identify high
water damage and annual maintenance needs. Summer inspection is designed to
review the status of ongoing maintenance. Fall inspection is to assess the
conditions entering flood season, and winter inspection is to evaluate the high
water damage.

Routine Operations and Maintenance. Levees are distinct flood structures that
must receive annual maintenance attention. Most maintenance activities such as
mowing, disking, burning, dragging, and spraying as well as rodent control on the
levee are repeated every year for the levee to retain at least a minimum
satisfactory level of readiness for high water events.

Non-Routine Projects. Non-routine projects fall into three sectors:

o Extraordinary Maintenance, defined as the work that surpasses routine

work in magnitude or complexity

o Project Upgrades, for improving the existing flood control system

o Levee Maintenance Responsibility Resolution, for maintenance areas with

deficiencies

B.3.4 Levee Repairs

Existing levees can have critical problems that could lead to failure during the high water
events. Repair of these sites is needed regardless of other planned system improvements.
In general, repairs to State/federal project levees are being conducted under two elements
as stated in Bond 1E Section 821: the Erosion Repairs Program and the Levee Repairs
Program.

The Erosion Repairs element is limited to erosion repairs of channels and levees
and includes the federal Sacramento River Bank Protection Project (SRBPP) and
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Erosion Repairs Project (SSJERP). The SSJERP

FloodSAFE B-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

is Central Valley-wide and with regard to SRBPP, this cost-shared program will
be used to fix levees when the SRBPP authorization runs out.

The Erosion Repairs element includes but is not limited to erosion, seepage, and
underseepage repairs, and includes the federal Levee Stability Program and the
federal PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance Program. Unless noted, the objectives
incorporate all applicable federal requirements and technical criteria.

B.3.5 Environmental Initiatives

The Program’s environmental initiatives touch all the elements within the Flood System
Operations and Maintenance Program.

Develop and Manage Environmental Programs. The purpose of this program is

to engage in interagency collaboration that results in short-term, intermediate, and
long-term actions to more systematically and effectively manage the Central
Valley Flood Control Project, including permitting.

Manage Mitigation Requirements. This component is responsible for the

management of lands and habitats developed or acquired by DWR to mitigate for
flood management maintenance and improvement projects.

B.4 Geographic Focus

DWR maintains channels in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River flood control system.
The State’s work on the Operations and Maintenance of levees and flood control facilities
is focused on the Sacramento Valley hydrologic region as shown in Table B-1. LMAs
maintain the remaining project flood facilities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin flood
control system.

B.5 Major Deliverables

Most of the deliverables of the Operations & Maintenance and Environmental
Stewardship functional area are not in report products, but in real-time maintenance
activities. Following are major deliverables over the next several years.

Channel Maintenance

Develop and implement vegetation management plans for the Sacramento River
Flood Control Channels

FloodSAFE B-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table B-1 Implementation of Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship Program Elements

Implementation of Operations & Maintenance Program Elements in Hydrologic Regions

Hydrologic Region
Functional Areas and Program Elements San Francisco Sacramento San Joaquin North South
North Coast Central Coast South Coast Tulare Lake Colorado River
Bay River River Lahontan Lahontan
Operations & Maintenance
Channel Inspection and Evaluation X X

Channel Routine Operations and Maintenance X X

Coridor Management Projects X X

Flood Control Facility Inspection and Evaluation X

Flood Control Facility Routine Operations and Maintenance X

Flood Control Facility Non-Routine Projects X

Levee Inspection and Evaluation X

Levee Routine Operations and Maintenance X

Levee Non-Routine Projects X

Environmental Programs X X

Mitigation Activities X

FloodSAFE B-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Development and implementation of sediment removal plans to contract for large

scale sediment removal

Complete technical evaluations to determine how much vegetation should be

cleared or if accumulated sediment warrants removal

Complete visual inspections to determine whether the channel will perform

satisfactorily during the following wet weather season

Formulation and preparation of the plans and specifications to support contracting

for repairs or rehabilitation

Flood Control Facilities Operations and Maintenance

Prepare documentation of the inspection and evaluation methods and programs to

deliver the appropriate level of maintenance to each levee desired

Prepare documentation of the O&M requirements for weirs and gaging stations

Prepare documentation of the completed O&M activities for selected hydraulic

structures

Prepare documentation of the completed O&M activities for Sutter and

Sacramento Maintenance Yards

Prepare documentation of the completed O&M activities for the listed pumping
plants

Prepare documentation of the completed O&M activities for the listed bridges

Prepare documentation (post construction report) of the completed new facilities

Prepare documentation (post construction report) of the replaced or upgraded

facilities

Prepare progress reports of the groundwater investigation/remediation efforts at

the Sacramento Maintenance Yard

Levee Operations and Maintenance

Prepare documentation of methods and programs to deliver the appropriate level

of inspections and evaluations

Prepare documentation of completed quarterly inspections ready for incorporation

into data management system

Prepare documentation of completed levee evaluations ready for incorporation

into data management system

FloodSAFE B-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Prepare documentation of the completed O&M activities for Sutter and

Sacramento Maintenance Yards

Prepare documentation and reporting of potential problems spotted by patrols

Prepare documentation of emergency action taken by FMO staff

Prepare documentation of projects which exceeds the scope of routine work

Prepare documentation of projects which exceeds the scope of routine

maintenance

Prepare development and implementation of plans for formation of a Maintenance

Area when required

Levee Repairs

Repair 350 PL84-99 sites as listed in the 2006 inventory (187 sites are eligible for
federal funding).

Repair 154 SRBPP sites as listed in the current USACE inventory by the end of
2016.

Repair 76 SSJERP sites as listed in the 2007 inventory by the end of 2016.

Repair five critical Levee Stability Program sites by the end of 2010.

Repair additional sites as identified and prioritized by the ongoing FloodSAFE

Levee Evaluations Program, utilizing available federal, local, and in-house
programs and resources.

Schedule proposed repair sites looking two to three years ahead, with six to 12
repair sites per year

Prepare environmental documentation for repair sites

Contract drawings and specifications for repair sites

Environmental Initiatives

Preparation of documentation of measures taken to improve interagency

collaboration

Preparation of documentation and implementation of enacted agreements between

FMO and regulatory agencies

Preparation of documentation of technical measure taken to implement

environmental mitigation programs

FloodSAFE B-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

B.6 Performance Measures

Table B-2 Performance Measures
Inspection and Evaluation
Number of streams with hydraulic models
Channel Maintenance

Number of hydraulic channel evaluations completed

Routine Operations and Maintenance
Number of channels passing design flows
Implement Corridor Management Projects
Number of plans developed
Reduction (in month) of time to obtain permit for implementation of flood control projects
Number of channel management plans completed
Number of cubic yard of materials removed
Facilities Operations

Inspection and Evaluation

and Maintenance
Flood Control

Number of structures inspected and assessed

Routine Operations and Maintenance
Number of structures repaired
Non-Routine Projects
Number of structures with major rehabilitation completed
Inspection and Evaluation
Levee Operations and

Miles of levees inspected

Maintenance

Routine Operations and Maintenance

Miles of levees meeting USACE inspection standards
Number of sites with underseepage remediation completed
Non-Routine Projects
Number of maintenance area responsibility resolutions
Number of erosion sites repaired
Environmental

Develop and Manage Environmental Programs

Initiatives

Number of projects implemented with integrated environmental resource protection

measures
Manage Mitigation Activities
Number of mitigation acres developed

Sacramento River Bank Protection Project

1. Percentage of damaged sites repaired
Sacramento-San Joaquin Erosion Repairs Program
1. Percentage of damaged sites repaired
Levee Repairs
Levee Stability Program

PL84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance Program

FloodSAFE B-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

B.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table B-3 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional area through
fiscal year 2011-12. State investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE B-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table B-3 Operations & Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship (FA 2) State Investments

FloodSAFE B-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix C Floodplain Risk Management (FA 3)

Floodplain Risk Management is one of seven functional areas necessary to implement the
FloodSAFE initiative. The primary purpose of Floodplain Risk Management is to reduce
loss of life and property caused by floods, and to restore the natural resources and
functions of floodplains. Floodplain Risk Management provides comprehensive guidance
and technical support to federal, State, and local officials in addressing floodplain
management issues, and assesses the floodplain management needs of California
communities while establishing strategies, measures, and priorities for meeting those
needs. The strategy includes identifying the most effective allocation of federal, State,
and local resources to address and provide the tools for identification, planning, and
mitigation of flood hazards, as well as promoting overall sound floodplain management
statewide. Floodplain Risk Management incorporates a comprehensive and system-wide
strategy designed to support an integrated federal, State and local planning approach by
developing appropriate and useful tools, providing technical assistance for resource
management support, and promoting more effective flood management efforts.

Floodplain Risk Management has been a long-standing base program in DWR’s DFM;
however, FloodSAFE makes improvements to the program. With changing land use in
the floodplain, this functional area needs to continue after the FloodSAFE functional
objectives are met. Floodplain Risk Management is based on the acknowledgement that
there will always be some risk to those living and working within the floodplain,
regardless of system improvements that are made to reduce the flooding potential. The
role of State National Flood Insurance Program Manager for California is part of
Floodplain Risk Management. This functional area is managed by the Levee Repairs and
Floodplain Management Office of DFM.

C.1 Program Rationale

Floodplain management is a complement to traditional flood control, which uses
structural means to store and convey flood waters. Rather than relying solely on
reservoirs, levees, weirs, and bypasses to protect development in floodplains, floodplain
management is aimed at reducing the threat of loss of life and damage to property
through the encouragement and use of nonstructural practices within the floodplain. To
fully achieve the goals of floodplain management, a new approach must be adopted; one
that takes full advantage of all methods available to reduce vulnerabilities to damages and
protects and enhances the natural resources and functions of floodplains using a system-
wide, integrated process.

Traditional structural methods strive to control or confine floodwaters in order to prevent

overflow to the surrounding land (floodplain). While these methods are necessary for a
viable flood management system, they also provide opportunity for development in the
floodplain.

FloodSAFE C-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Floodplain management begins with better definition of the floodplain limits, the
frequency of flooding, and water depth and velocity. Flood risk data can then be
communicated to property owners and land use planners providing them with the
resources necessary to make better decisions; for example, setting aside greenways or
parks for recreation and environmental use in the deepest areas of the floodplain, and
implementing building codes that incorporate methods to significantly reduce property
damage.
Floodplain Management
In 2002, the Department of Water Floodplain management includes actions to the
Resources convened a California Floodplain floodplain to reduce losses to human resources
Management Task Force, which developed within the floodplain and/or protect benefits to
38 recommendations related to development natural resources associated with floodplains and
in flood-prone areas. The Task Force sought flooding. Sample actions include:
to recommend floodplain management
1. Minimizing impacts of flood flows to
strategies designed to reduce flood losses
both social and economic resources
and maximize the benefits of floodplains.
The Task Force found that existing 2. Maintaining or restoring natural
programs are inadequate to accomplish floodplain processes
these goals. 3. Recommendations for removing
obstacles within the floodplain flowage
The recommendations were divided into areas voluntarily or with just
three categories: 1) Recommendations for compensation
Better Understanding of and Reducing 4. Avoiding encroachments into the
Risks from Reasonably Foreseeable floodplain
Flooding, 2) Recommendations for Multi-
Objective Management Approach for 5. Educating and planning of both public
Floodplains, and 3) Recommendations for and private entities for emergency
preparedness
Local Assistance, Funding, and Legislation.
The 96-page report can be accessed at 6. Evaluating floodwater management
http://fpmtaskforce.water.ca.gov. systems to help ensure that they are
maintained to the design flow capacities
C.2 Goal and Objectives
Following are the goals and objectives for the Floodplain Risk Management functional
area.

C.2.1 Goal
The goal of the Floodplain Risk Management functional area is to develop a statewide
integrated approach for flood risk reduction and long term floodplain sustainability that
reduces loss of life and property damage, and minimizes the economic impacts associated
with flooding. More specifically, the key program goals include:

FloodSAFE C-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Floodplain Management Technical Support

On a statewide basis, provide technical support to federal, State, and local

agencies, and the public in relation to flood hazard maps, levee data sets, and the
FEMA NFIP activities

Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

Develop new floodplain delineations to identify flood hazard risks statewide

Floodplain Risk Notification

Communicate flood risk to the public, and local, State and federal agencies to
increase flood hazard awareness

Flood Risk Planning

Incorporate flood risk management into statewide and local land use decision
making to identify potential flood hazards and mitigation strategies to reduce
flood risks

C.2.2 Objectives
Floodplain Management Technical Support

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Technical Support

Provide technical support to all levels of government and the public on the NFIP’s
Community Assistance Program, CRS, and FEMA’s Map Modernization and
Risk MAP programs

California Levee Database (CLD)

In coordination with FEMA and USACE, develop a statewide central repository

for levee and stream technical data for use by agencies and the public for flood
risk assessments and emergency response

Best Available Maps (BAM)

Collect and compile best available floodplain maps throughout the State and make
these maps digitally available to the public

Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED)

Develop up-to-date floodplain information including topographic data, hydraulic

evaluation, and 100-, 200-, and 500-year floodplains for the State Plan of Flood

FloodSAFE C-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Control that support FloodSAFE activities and future planning studies by DWR,
USACE, FEMA and others to provide the common building blocks in terms of
standards, methodologies, and tools needed for floodplain assessments.

Awareness Floodplain Mapping

For areas without any floodplain maps and expecting development within the next
25 years, develop advisory 100-year floodplain maps for use by government
agencies and the public

Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (AFFED)

Delineate 100-year advisory floodplains for active and inactive alluvial fans for
areas subject to development in Southern California over the next 10 to 20 years

Special Floodplain Mapping Projects

Conduct floodplain analyses and mapping projects throughout the State as

requested and funded by DWR, FEMA, or other agencies

Floodplain Risk Notification

Levee Flood Protection Zone Parcel Database

Utilize a third party parcel database to support annual risk notification to property
owners within the State Plan of Flood Control LFPZs and make it available for
other uses such as the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan outreach and
economic analyses

Annual Risk Notification

Provide annual written notification to property owners whose property is located

within a State Plan of Flood Control LFPZ and coordinate with federal, State, and
local partners to provide information about flood risks

Flood Risk Planning

Statewide Flood Risk Planning

At all levels of government, incorporate flood risk into land use and hazard
mitigation planning on a local, regional, and statewide basis

Legislation and Policy Support

Provide technical support and expertise as needed for development of State and
federal legislation and floodplain management policy

FloodSAFE C-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Alluvial Fan Task Force and Implementation

Provide guidance for development on alluvial fans in Southern California counties

where flooding is prevalent after wildfires and other hazards

Building Standards Code Update Project

Support adoption of DWR proposed building code updates that address flood
threats to improve public safety and reduce damage to buildings

C.3 Elements and Components

Flood risk is defined as the product of the chance of flooding and the consequences of
that flooding. Flood Risk Management planning considers ways to reduce the
consequences of flooding. DWR is performing many types of risk planning. This
planning is aimed at ways to integrate land use planning with flood risk management and
to provide information for use by other FloodSAFE programs. In addition, local
governments and reclamation districts will be actively engaged in all aspects of
floodplain management, including making flood risk assessment a part of their
development planning efforts and further enhancing funding mechanisms as necessary to
provide for floodplain planning, design, construction, and maintenance.

The Floodplain Risk Management functional area is organized around the four program
elements as shown graphically on Figure C-1.

Figure C-1 Floodplain Risk Management Functional Area

FloodSAFE C-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

C.3.1 Floodplain Management Technical Support

Floodplain management technical support requires significant collaboration and
coordination with other State, federal, and local entities. The focus on partnerships has
never been more important than with the introduction of the FloodSAFE program.
Floodplain Management Technical Support covers a broad scope of activities described
in the components listed below.

National Flood Insurance Program and Technical Support. As an active

partner with FEMA, DWR conducts coordination activities, and provides
technical assistance on pre- and post-disaster flood mitigation activities related to
the NFIP participating communities.

o NFIP Community Assistance Program. This program provides funding

to States to provide technical assistance including assisting with local
floodplain management ordinance updates, workshops and on-site
Community Assistance Visits to communities in the NFIP, and evaluating
community performance in implementing NFIP floodplain management
activities.

o Community Rating System Program. The CRS program provides flood

insurance premium discounts to residents of participating communities
that implement floodplain management activities above and beyond the
minimum requirements of FEMA’s NFIP. By following a preventative
multi-objective floodplain management approach, communities reduce
flood losses and mitigation costs, and promote public safety. FloodSAFE
provides opportunities for communities to enhance their participation in
the CRS program.

o Federal Grants. To better leverage state resources and support improved

mitigation planning and projects, FEMA and the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offer grants to fund floodplain
mapping, and multi-hazard planning and mitigation. FEMA's Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs provide funding for eligible
mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses and protect life and
property from future disaster damages.

o State Agency Compliance. DWR provides technical assistance and

support to State agencies to ensure compliance with California Floodplain
Management Executive Order B-39-77, the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain
Management Act (Water Code 8400-8415), and the State’s participation in
FEMA’s NFIP.
o Local Technical Assistance. Timely and accurate technical assistance to
residents and building trade specialists (architects, builders, contractors,
developers, engineers, realtors, surveyors, and others) is vital to the
implementation of compliant flood loss reduction techniques and

FloodSAFE C-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

strategies required by various agencies. DWR provides technical

assistance and guidance to all levels of government and the public on
Floodplain Risk Management and related issues beyond the NFIP.
o Map Modernization/Risk MAP/Provisionally Accredited Levee
Support. DWR is an active participant in FEMA’s Map Modernization,
Risk MAP, and PAL programs. DWR assists FEMA and their contractors
in gathering data, working with local floodplain management officials, and
with a variety of other closely related activities. Having more levees than
any other state, plus an extensive coastline, DWR’s contributions to the
success of the Map Modernization, Risk MAP, and Provisionally
Accredited Levee programs are critical to the overall success of the
programs nationally.

FEMA’s Map Modernization Program. FEMA’s Map Modernization

Program is part of a nationwide effort to transform FEMA’s Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) into more reliable, easier-to-use, digital
FIRMs (or DFIRMs).
FEMA’s Risk MAP. FEMA’s Risk MAP Program began in 2009 and
is designed to complete any unfinished work from the Map
Modernization Program, and to include new elements focusing on
coastal mapping, levee mapping, long-term maintenance of maps, and
a risk-based assessment program.
Provisionally Accredited Levees. The PAL program offers certain
communities a period of two years to prove the adequacy of their flood
defenses or conduct repairs to achieve accreditation before being
mapped into the floodplain.
Cooperating Technical Partners Program. These programs are
supported by FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)
Program, an innovative approach to creating partnerships between
FEMA, participating NFIP communities, and regional and State
agencies. The purpose of the CTP Program is to provide, through a
Cooperative Agreement, a means to ensure that partners can perform
program management and technical mapping–related activities. These
support activities include a variety of administration and management
functions. FEMA seeks qualified partners to collaborate in maintaining
up-to-date flood hazard maps and other flood hazard information.
DWR has been an active CTP, working to further FEMA’s Map
Modernization and Risk MAP programs.
California Levee Database. The California Levee Database is a state-of-the-art
GIS database that defines the location and ownership of more than 13,000 miles
of levees within the State of California for purposes of better understanding and
managing the California levee system. The database includes more than 1,600
miles of State-federal Project levees and more than 12,000 miles of other levees
and flood control structures. The California Levee Database was initiated in 2005

FloodSAFE C-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

through collaboration between DWR and FEMA, and has been expanded
continually since its creation.
Best Available Maps. Pursuant to Water Code § 9610, and as part of the overall
Central Valley Flood Management Planning process, DWR completed
preliminary Best Available Maps in July 2008 for the 100- and 200-year
floodplains located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley watershed for
areas protected by the State-federal project levees and areas outside the protection
of project levees. The maps have been prepared for 32 counties and 91 cities.
While the maps do not replace existing FEMA regulatory floodplain maps, they
are intended for informational purposes to assist local communities in better
identifying flood hazard risks, improve land use planning, and update city and
county general plans as required by various Government and Water Codes. The
maps will also be used as a reference for the Annual Flood Risk Notification
component. In addition, DWR has initiated developing a similar set of
preliminary Best Available Maps for the 100- and 200-year floodplains located
outside the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley watershed. There are a total of 40
counties and 381 cities either completely or partially outside the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley boundary. Currently, DWR is in the process of collecting
floodplain maps developed by USACE Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San
Francisco District Offices to incorporate into the data sets for the Best Available
Maps for outside the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley watershed.

C.3.2 Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

The Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation element includes work to estimate the
frequency, depth, and limits of potential flooding throughout the state. This information
provides building blocks in terms of floodplain assessments, standards, methodologies,
tools, and analyses supporting multiple applications including FloodSAFE programs and
projects. Evaluation and delineation of the Central Valley floodplains are of particular
interest to the State because of the large extent of potential flooding in deep floodplains
(up to 25 feet deep). Evaluation and delineation of alluvial fan floodplains in Southern
California are also of high interest to the State because of rapid development occurring in
many of these areas, the unpredictability of flow path from any given flood, and the
potential for life-threatening debris flows, especially after fires in the watersheds.
Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation. The Central Valley
Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED) program is developing
foundational information for the existing State Plan of Flood Control system to
fulfill the goals and objectives of the program and for use by other programs that
support FloodSAFE. The information developed will support future studies to be
performed by DWR, USACE, and FEMA, and will be available for use by local
agencies. The CVFED program will:
o Develop a sound topographic base for new hydraulic models with acquired
LiDAR, bathymetry, structures, and supplemental ground survey data
o Develop new hydraulic models for evaluating existing and future flood
risks that will help in understanding how floods can be expected to move

FloodSAFE C-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins in the Central
Valley
o Delineate areas at risk of flooding
o Support analysis of future proposed flood management system
improvements
Information resulting from this program will include new high quality
topographical data; new hydraulic models; and detailed floodplain evaluations
and delineations for multiple flood events in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River Basins.
Awareness Floodplain Mapping. This program is designed to improve the
identification of flood prone areas that are not mapped by FEMA or others. The
program does not implement a regulatory process such as the NFIP, but rather a
planning process providing advisory floodplain mapping to avoid unintentional
development in flood prone areas. The program provides the planning tools
necessary to help promote sound floodplain development. Other immediate
applications include support for the State’s development of advisory multi-
hazard mapping to be administered by the California Emergency Management
Agency under the authority of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation. The Alluvial Fan
Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation has multiple goals, including improving
the quality and accuracy of alluvial fan flood hazard data and mapping available
to local Southern California communities. The program will provide these local
agencies information in making land use decisions with the necessary tools to
understand the characteristics and potential hazards of alluvial fan floodplains.
The intent is to delineate all alluvial fan flood-prone areas including active
alluvial fans. Initially this effort will not identify regulatory floodplains, only
advisory flood hazard areas. However, it will lead to studies for use by local
regulatory authorities for areas not already mapped by FEMA or others. These
floodplain maps will be developed by the State as recommended by the Alluvial
Fan Task Force in cooperation with FEMA, the California Geological Survey,
and local agencies. The ten southern California counties that participate in the
Alluvial Fan Task Force will be consulted throughout the duration of the
program.
Special Floodplain Mapping Projects. This component includes the following
special floodplain mapping efforts:
o FEMA 500-Year Floodplains. Pursuant to Government Code § 65865.5,
§ 65962, and § 66474.5, and associated with the Central Valley Floodplain
Evaluation and Delineation component, DWR will delineate 500-year
floodplains for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins focused on the
State Plan of Flood Control and urban areas outside the State Plan of
Flood Control, which will be incorporated into FEMA FIRM.

FloodSAFE C-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

o FEMA Mapping Activity Statement. The FEMA Mapping Activity

Statement (MAS) is a key component of the CTP Agreement between
DWR and FEMA for NFIP mapping support. The MAS defines the
activities that will be accomplished, the entities responsible for
accomplishing those activities, how the activities will be funded, and the
nature of the working relationship between DWR and FEMA.

o Levee Flood Protection Zone Maps. Water Code § 9130 requires the
development of LFPZ Maps for areas protected by the 1,600 miles of
State-Federal project levees in the Central Valley. In addition to the total
inundation areas, those regions that would have depths greater than three
feet also need to be identified. DWR is in the process of launching an
aggressive multi-year program to evaluate and delineate detailed
floodplains for many of the areas protected by project levees. This
information will be used to update the LFPZ maps prepared during the
initial stage of the project. The LFPZ maps will be used for Annual Risk
Notification to landowners pursuant to Water Code § 9121.

o Floodplain Mapping Studies. This program includes special mapping

studies that are completed by architect and engineering contractors and
other federal agencies. These studies support flood risk planning, specific
new projects and existing DWR programs.
C.3.3 Floodplain Risk Notification
Required under the new flood legislation, DWR is developing and implementing a Flood
Risk Notification Program for properties protected by the State Plan of Flood Control.
These activities will expand in scope over the next five years as DWR develops a better
understanding of the potential flood hazards associated with the project levees and active
floodplains.

LFPZ Parcel Database. As required by Water Code § 9130 for Annual Risk
Notification, parcel data are needed to develop mailing lists of property owners
who have properties protected by project levees. The parcel database consists of
GIS shape files and the associated attribute data (assessor parcel number,
addresses, owner names, lot size, land use, building square footage, etc.).
Annual Risk Notification. Water Code § 9121 requires DWR to provide written
notices of potential flood risk to property owners in the LFPZs by September 1,
2010, and annually thereafter. These efforts will be coordinated on a local, State,
and federal level to raise flood risk awareness, and to increase education and
outreach regarding potential flood hazard and mitigation strategies.
C.3.4 Flood Risk Planning
The Flood Risk Planning element is focused on planning approaches to help residents and
communities make better, safer decisions using an integrated approach that includes land
use planning, hazard mitigation, task forces, proposed legislation, water plans, and
building codes. These activities are discussed below.

FloodSAFE C-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Statewide Flood Risk Planning

o Flood Risk in General Plans. In 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed
several bills aimed at strengthening the link between local land use planning
decisions and regional flood protection. Various Government and Water
Codes require all cities and counties in the state to amend the land use,
conservation, safety, and housing elements of their general plans to address
flood-related matters.
o California Water Plan Technical Support. DWR is providing technical
assistance in integrated flood management in the CWP Update 2009. The
CWP, which is updated every five years, provides a framework for meeting
the State’s water needs today and into the future. In the CWP Update 2009
the focus is on integrated flood management, a comprehensive approach to
flood management that considers land and water resources at a watershed
scale within the context of integrated regional water management, and aims to
maximize the benefits of floodplains and minimize the loss of life and damage
to property from flooding. Technical support activities include preparing
regional flood management information for inclusion to the 13 regional water
plan reports, development of a flood-specific strategy, participation in
workshops, meetings and plenary sessions, and other flood-related support.
The CWP Update 2009 is scheduled to be completed in March 2010.
o Hazard Mitigation Planning. FEMA’s grant programs can provide funding
to support eligible FloodSAFE regional and statewide flood planning
activities and hazard mitigation projects. One critical application of FEMA
grant funding is to perform flood risk assessments, which estimate the social
and economic impact that flood hazards can have on people, buildings,
services, utilities, and infrastructure in a community and/or region using
FEMA’s nationally applicable HAZUS-MH software program. HAZUS-MH
provides a standardized methodology and ―default‖ databases to estimate
potential losses from floods, earthquakes, and hurricane hazards. Because
HAZUS-HM is GIS-based software, flood models could be developed for
counties and/or hydrologic regions to benefit FloodSAFE and other statewide
flood planning programs.
Legislation and Policy Support. The Flood Risk Planning element also includes
tracking, review, and coordination of State and federal proposed flood legislation,
drafting white papers, and providing technical policy support for various Water
Committees. This includes authoring and updating the State Floodplain
Management Executive Order B-39-77 to ensure compliance with floodplain risk
management ordinances and regulations in coordination with Federal Executive
Order 11988.
Alluvial Fan Task Force and Implementation. Assembly Bill 2141, which was
enacted in 2004, authorized DWR to establish a stakeholder-driven Alluvial Fan
Task Force (AFTF) focusing on the floodplain management and land use in ten
Southern California counties. The formation of the task force was a key
recommendation of the California Floodplain Management Task Force in 2002.

FloodSAFE C-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

The purpose of the task force is to increase understanding of alluvial fan hazards
and to develop recommendations specific to alluvial fan floodplain management
and land use planning.
Building Standards Code Update Project. Pursuant to the California Health
and Safety Code Section 50465 (HSC §50465), DWR is required to propose
building code improvements that help provide greater public safety and reduce
flood damage for the Central Valley. The DWR proposed updates to the
California Building Standards Code, if/when approved by the California Building
Standards Commission (CBSC), would apply to areas protected by the CVFPP
where flooding levels are anticipated to exceed three feet for the 200-year flood
event. A building code improvement package was submitted to the CBSC in July
2009, which is currently going through California Building Standards
Commission’s code modification process.

C.4 Geographic Focus

The Floodplain Risk Management functional area applies to the entire State. However,
some components are primarily focused on the Central Valley. As defined in Senate Bill
5, Section 65007. (g), the Central Valley means the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley
excluding the Kings River and the Tulare Lake Basin. Table C-1 provides a visual
representation of this geographic focus by component.

FloodSAFE C-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table C-1 Implementation of Floodplain Management Program Elements

Implementation of Floodplain Risk Management Program Elements in Hydrologic Regions

Hydrologic Region

San Francisco Sacramento San Joaquin North South Colorado

Program Elements and Components North Coast Central Coast South Coast Tulare Lake
Bay River River Lahontan Lahontan River
Floodplain Management Technical Support
NFIP and Technical Support X X X X X X X X X X
California Levee Database X X X X X X X X X X
Best Available Maps X X X X X X X X X X
Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation
Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation X X
Awareness Floodplain Mapping X X X X X X X X X X
Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation X X X
Special Floodplain Mapping Projects X X X X X X X X X X
Floodplain Risk Notification
LFPZ Parcel Database X X
Annual Risk Notification X X
Flood Risk Planning
Statewide Flood Risk Planning X X X X X X X X X X
Legislation and Policy Support X X X X X X X X X X
Alluvial Fan Task Force and Implementation X X X
Building Standards Code Update Project X X

FloodSAFE C-13 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

C.5 Major Deliverables

The major deliverables for the Floodplain Risk Management functional area are as
follows:

Floodplain Management Technical Support

NFIP and Technical Support

All required work products including field-based Community Assistance Visits,

Community Assistance Visit reports, local official’s workshops, technical
assistance and the NFIP Five Year Business Plan associated with the annual
FEMA-DWR Community Assistance Program contract
Increased opportunities for non-enrolled communities to join the CRS
Increased opportunities for enrolled communities to improve their CRS
classification
State Agency compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and the
California Executive Order for Floodplain Management B-39-77 and government
code requirements for floodplain management
Additional technical assistance to all levels of government and the public beyond
the requirements of the FEMA-DWR Community Assistance Program contract
Technical support for all levels of government and the public related to FEMA’s
Map Mod and PAL programs.
A leadership role in the development of FEMA’s Risk MAP program for
FloodSAFE compatible applications in California
The award of FEMA and HUD grants to leverage state funding for floodplain
mapping, multi-hazard planning, and hazard mitigation
California Levee Database

An Enterprise Geodatabase with updated data sets deployed at California Data

Exchange Center
Best Available Maps

BAMs for communities in the Central Valley depicting 100- and 200-year
floodplains using FEMA, USACE, and DWR datasets
BAMs outside the Central Valley depicting 100- and 200-year floodplains using
FEMA, USACE, and DWR datasets

FloodSAFE C-14 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation

Aerial imagery for 9,000 square miles in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins
Digital Elevation Model for 6,200 square miles in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River Basins
Bathymetric survey data for major rivers and tributaries associated with the State
Plan of Flood Control
Channel cross sections and structures to support hydraulic model development for
major rivers and tributaries associated with the State Plan of Flood Control
New hydraulic models for major rivers, tributaries, and overbank areas associated
with the State Plan of Flood Control
Water surface profiles for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood events
associated with the State Plan of Flood Control
New floodplain maps for 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood events associated with
the State Plan of Flood Control
Awareness Floodplain Mapping

Awareness Floodplain Mapping of an additional 15,000 stream miles over the

next five years

Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluation

Identification of active alluvial fan floodplains in Southern California

Quaternary geologic mapping of Southern California communities
Special Floodplain Mapping Projects

500-year floodplains for urban areas within the Central Valley and outside the
area of influence of the State Plan of Flood Control
Web viewer to facilitate use of floodplain maps such as CVFED maps, LFPZs and
BAM maps
Floodplain mapping and other studies described in FEMA/DWR Mapping
Activity Statements (Inter-Agency agreements)
Floodplain mapping studies and hydraulic analyses requested by DWR on a case-
by-case basis that may include support for Delta planning, the State Water Plan
(SWP) and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
Update LFPZ maps for areas protected by the State Plan of Flood Control

FloodSAFE C-15 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Floodplain Risk Notification

Levee Flood Protection Zone Parcel Database

A parcel database with GIS data for counties within the area of influence of the
State Plan of Flood Control
Annual Risk Notification

Annual notification letters beginning by September 1, 2010, to property owners in

Levee Flood Protection Zones
Collaborate with local, State, and federal agencies to increase flood risk
awareness and mitigation strategies

Flood Risk Planning

Statewide Flood Risk Planning

User’s Guide document for cities and counties to use in coordinating and
implementing 2007 flood legislation and land use planning
Notify the public of the availability of the User’s Guide, and conduct public
outreach workshops to assist in the implementation of the guidance
Integrated flood management input to the CWP Update 2009 including flood-
related regional report data and flood risk management strategy
Integrated flood management input to the Integrated Water Management plans
based on criteria, consistency, and compliance with program guidelines
Hazard Mitigation
o Grant applications to develop HAZUS models
o HAZUS-MH flood models pending funding
o Update of HAZUS-MH ―default‖ databases such as essential facilities,
utilities, transportation systems and general building stock for use by various
State agencies, local governments and others pending funding
o Response to requests for information regarding regional and statewide flood
risks
Legislation and Policy Support

White Paper, information, and data on topics of federal interest

Leadership role in Floodplain Management Associations
Agency workgroups as related to Executive Orders on Floodplain Management
Updated State Executive Order as amended by Federal Executive Order

FloodSAFE C-16 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Alluvial Fan Task Force and Implementation

A review of a report that summarizes the history of Southern California flooding

A suite of tools including GIS data to assist local planners, developers, and
decision makers evaluate flood and other hazards related to alluvial fans
A model ordinance, available to communities to support land use decisions related
to flood risks associated with development on alluvial fans
A findings and recommendations report that will identify future research needs
and actions specific to alluvial fan floodplain management including flood hazard
mapping needs
An outreach and implementation plan to support the Alluvial Fan Task Force
Building Standards Code Update Project

Participation in California Building Standards Commission process to adopt new

code related to public safety
Participation in California Building Standards Commission process to adopt new
code to reduce flood damages to structures

C.6 Performance Measures

For each program element, specific performance measures have been identified. The
performance measures are listed in Table C-2. The success of program implementation is
measured by these performance measures and depends on the following:
Availability of funding for program implementation
Expertise and experience of the program managers and staff
Availability of consulting resources
Careful program tracking and change management during program
implementation, as needed
A comprehensive program tracking and reporting system should be developed and used
by the program managers. Activities and achievement of each project should be noted
and tracked by the tracking system. Branch managers should use the tracking system to
evaluate the project’s progress in achieving performance measures on a quarterly basis
and make any adjustment or course correction needed for the projects under their
supervision.

FloodSAFE C-17 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table C-2 Performance Measures

Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
NFIP and Technical Support
1. Completion of all work products required with the annual Community Assistance Program
contract: number of completed community assistance visits (CAV), number of CAV reports,
number of Community Official's workshops, number of responses to technical assistance
inquiries, and update of the NFIP Five Year Business Plan
2. Change in the number of communities participating in the Community Rating System
program
3. Change in classifications of Community Rating System participating communities
4. Change in flood insurance premium dollar savings by CA Community Rating System
participating communities
5. Change in the number of state uniform minimum credit points available under the
Community Rating System program
6. Number of responses to state agency inquiries, compliance with government code
requirements, and the California Executive Order for floodplain management
Floodplain
7. Number of responses and hours of additional technical assistance requested from other
Management
government agencies and the public
Technical Support
8. Amount of technical support delivered to all levels of government and the public for
FEMA's Map Modernization, Risk MAP and Provisionally Accredited Levee programs
9. Number of federal grants applied for and dollar value of the grants awarded
10. Number of responses to requests from local and state agencies for federal grant
application assistance and guidance
California Levee Database
1. Number of counties where levee and levee-like structures have been confirmed
2. Percent of levee attributes populated
3. The number of times the California Levee Database is accessed
Best Available Maps
1. Number of cities and counties utilizing the Best Available Maps for planning purposes
2. Number of times the Best Available Maps website is accessed
3. Frequency of updates to the maps based upon analysis of new data and comments from
local officials including changes to the FEMA maps
Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation
1. Percent of aerial imagery post processed
2. Percent of LiDAR post processed
3. Percent of stream miles with completed bathymetry
4. Percent of completed channel cross section surveys
5. Number of structures surveyed
6. Percent of 1-D models developed
7. Percent of 2-D models developed
8. Percent of stream profiles developed
Floodplain 9. Percent of floodplain delineations developed
Evaluation and Awareness Floodplain Mapping
Delineation 1. Number of stream miles for which Awareness Floodplain Mapping has been completed
Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation
1. Number of square miles where Alluvial Fan Floodplain Evaluations and Delineations
Special Floodplain Mapping Projects
1. Number of stream miles mapped for 500-year floodplains
2. Number of times the web viewer is accessed
3. Number of Mapping Activity Statements completed with FEMA
4. Number of floodplain mapping and other studies completed for DWR
5. Up-to-date Levee Flood Protection Zone Maps

FloodSAFE C-18 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Levee Flood Protection Zone Parcel Database

1. Identify the number of parcel owners to be notified
2. Number of returned risk notification letters because of incorrect property owner
Floodplain Risk addresses
Notification Annual Risk Notification
1. Number of written notifications to property owners or current residents in Levee Flood
Protection Zones
2. Number of website "hits" and public inquiries
Statewide Flood Risk Planning
1. Number of public workshops on User's Guide
2. Number of safety element reviews by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board
3. Number of website hits
4. Number of flood management needs identified from the regional reports that have been
addressed by integrated flood management

5. Number of flood risk management strategy recommendations funded and implemented

6. Percentage of approved RAP with a flood management component
7. Percentage of Integrated Water Management grants that include a flood management
component
1. Number of grant applications completed and awarded
2. Number of developed HAZUS-MH flood models/results
Flood Risk 3. Number of "default" databases updated and made available for use by other agencies
Planning 4. Number of flood risk data requests completed using HAZUS or other models
Legislation and Policy Support
1. Number of white papers as requested
2. Number of Legislative meetings attended as requested
3. Number of workshops and meetings related to Executive Orders, and number of bill
analyses completed as requested
Alluvial Fan Task Force and Implementation
1. Number of task force and plenary meetings
2. Number of participating organizations
3. Number of agencies adopting the model ordinances
4. Close out of the FEMA grant
Building Standards Code Update Project
1. Number of inquiries by California Building Standards Commission
2. Number of public workshops/meetings related to proposed new codes

C.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The Building Standards Code Update Project is currently using NFIP Technical
Assistance Funds. There is no specific funding identified for the Building Standards Code
Update Project. Future project expenses will require a dedicated funding source. In
order to complete the legislative mandate, proposals must be submitted over multiple
code cycles. For FYs 08-09 and 09-10, various sources of General Funds are being used
to support this project. The budget shown in Table C-3 provides an estimate of near-term
State investments in the Floodplain Risk Management functional area through fiscal year
2011-12. State investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE C-19 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table C-3 Floodplain Risk Management (FA 3) State Investments

FloodSAFE C-20 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix D Flood Protection Projects and Project

Grants (FA 4)

Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants is one of seven functional areas necessary to
implement the FloodSAFE initiative. Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants refers
to the State’s participation in improvements to the flood management system. This
functional area is responsible for the State’s input to project selection and funding. The
program provides grant money in the Delta and statewide through subvention programs.
This functional area is responsible for the majority of physical improvements to the flood
management system.

Flood Protection Projects and Projects Grants has been a long-standing base program in
DWR’s DFM, but FloodSAFE makes improvements to the program. The Flood
Management Planning and Conservation Strategy functional area is expected to identify
system improvements in which State participation is eventually implemented by Flood
Protection Projects and Project Grants. This functional area will likely continue
indefinitely into the future due to the long-lead time to implement individual projects and
the ongoing need for system improvements. This functional area work is based on the
acknowledgement that the State will continue to be a partner in viable flood management
projects in the Central Valley, in the Delta, and statewide. The work is managed by the
Flood Project Office of DFM, with Delta projects managed by the Delta Suisun Marsh
Office.

D.1 Program Rationale

The rationale for needing the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants functional area
is straight forward – to invest State funds in feasible flood management projects to
protect public safety and property. The program heavily relies on information from the
Evaluation & Engineering functional area and the Flood Management Planning and
Conservation Strategy functional area for technical information on needed project
improvements.

D.2 Goals and Objectives

Following are goals and objectives for the Flood Protection and Projects Grants
functional area.

D.2.1 Goals
The over-arching goal of the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants functional area
is to make timely and cost-effective investments of State money in improving flood
management systems throughout California in cooperation with federal and local
partners. The key program goals include:

FloodSAFE D-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Fund flood-related projects in the Central Valley to reduce the occurrence of

flooding for the protection of life, property, and other resource values
Fund flood-related projects in the Delta to reduce the occurrence of flooding for
the protection of life, property, and other resource values
Fund flood-related projects Statewide, exclusive of the Central Valley, to reduce
the occurrence of flooding for the protection of life, property, and other resource
values

D.2.2 Objectives
The Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants Program functional area aims to
achieve its stated goals and will support meeting the FloodSAFE foundational objectives
by attaining its own objectives:

Work with USACE on feasibility studies for improvements to the State-federal

flood management system in the Central Valley
Provide State funding cost share to improvements to the State-federal flood
management system in the Central Valley based on funding provided by the
Legislature
Continue the funding for subventions and special projects in the Delta based on
funding provided by the Legislature
Continue the funding for Statewide flood-related projects based on funding
provided by the Legislature
Provide environmental and technical support to the CVFPB
Administer State flood management investments throughout the State
Coordinate with federal agencies to ensure their technical and funding support for
flood management projects

D.3 Elements and Components

Three elements for the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants functional area are
organized around geographical areas of the State. The Program Support element covers
the entire State. Figure D-1 shows the elements and components of the Flood Protection
Projects and Grants functional area.

FloodSAFE D-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure D-1 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants Functional Area

D.3.1 Central Valley Flood Projects

The Central Valley Projects element includes project development work and provides the
State’s cost share for flood management facility improvements in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin valleys.

Feasibility Studies. The State participates and provides cost share for feasibility
studies with USACE and local partners. Several studies are underway and new
ones are expected in the future.

Flood System Improvement Projects – EIP. Although much of the bond money
from Propositions 1E and 84 will be expended after completion of the CVFPP in
2012, there is an identified need to proceed with some high priority projects
before then, especially for increased protection of urban areas in deep floodplains.
EIP includes projects that are ready to proceed in advance of the CVFPP. An
element of approval for these projects ensures that they do not eliminate
opportunities or prejudice the flood risk reduction alternatives that would provide
regional or system-wide benefits. EIP projects will only be considered until the
CVFPP is ready for implementation.

FloodSAFE D-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Flood System Improvement Projects – USACE Projects. The State continues to

participate and provide cost share to upgrade the State-federal flood management
system in the Central Valley. Several projects are underway and new ones are
expected in the future.

D.3.2 Statewide Flood Program

The ongoing Statewide Flood Program element provides financial cost sharing for flood-
related projects.

Flood Protection Corridor. DWR’s Flood Protection Corridor Program was

established to implement non-structural approaches to flood management in areas
of critical need. Such projects must also have a resource conservation component
addressing wildlife habitat conservation and/or agricultural land conservation.
The projects can be State-sponsored direct expenditure projects or competitive
grants to local government agencies (including levee maintenance districts) and
non-profit organizations.

Flood Control Subvention. The Statewide Subventions Program provides for

payments for the State portion of the non-federal cost share of federally sponsored
flood control projects in the State. These are projects that are not part of the State-
federal flood management system in the Central Valley.

Local Levee Assistance. On November 7, 2006, the voters of California

approved Proposition 84, which provided funds for programs to repair and
evaluate local levees and flood control facilities. These measures also provided
funding for the Local Levee Urgent Repair segment (LLUR) and Local Levee
Evaluation (LOLE) segment of the Local Levee Assistance Program. The
objective of LLUR is to assist local flood management agencies to evaluate and
perform urgently needed repairs to levees and other flood control facilities that are
critically eroded or unstable. The objective of LOLE is to assist local flood
management agencies with geotechnical exploration of existing local levees
(particularly those at risk of losing FEMA certification) and evaluation of the
collected data with regard to stability, seepage, erosion, and underseepage.

D.3.3 Delta Flood Projects

The Delta Flood Protection element consists of two components; the Delta Levees
Maintenance Subventions component and the Delta Levees Special Flood Control
Projects. This element provides technical and financial assistance to local levee
maintaining agencies for 732 miles of non-project Delta levees and 385 miles of project
levees. The program will continue to provide technical and financial assistance to local
agencies in the Delta. The improvement to the program for implementation of the
FloodSAFE initiative is simply that more funding is available for technical and financial
assistance. However, the Delta Flood Protection element acknowledges that it may not be
possible to invest enough to maintain the Delta levees in the current configuration,

FloodSAFE D-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

especially with the added risks of sea level rise and the potential for larger floods due to
global climate change.

D.3.3.1 Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program

The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is one component that supports the
Delta Flood Protection Element. The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program
provides financial assistance to local agencies for the maintenance and repair of both
federal project and local non-project levees in the Delta. All levee maintaining agencies
with responsibility for both federal project and local non-project levees in the primary
zone and/or local non-project levees in the secondary zone of the Delta, as defined by the
California Water Code Section 12220, are eligible to participate in this program. The
State reimburses local agencies for the part of the costs to maintain and improve non-
project and project levees guided by the program Criteria and Procedures approved by the
CVFPB.

Maintenance includes routine annual maintenance, habitat mitigation, repairs to restore

the existing levee cross section, slope protection, , repair of slips and scarps, and the
associated engineering and construction activities. Unavoidable impacts to habitat are
mitigated through environmental restoration activities of the Program.

D.3.3.2 Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects

The Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects program is the second component that
supports the Delta Flood Protection Element. The program provides funds to designated
local agencies in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for flood control projects and for
related habitat mitigation and net long-term improvement projects. Flood management
projects mainly consist of levee rehabilitation and improvement efforts.

Historically, the Special Flood Control Projects program focused on flood control
projects and related habitat projects for the eight western Delta Islands--Bethel, Bradford,
Holland, Hotchkiss, Jersey, Sherman, Twitchell, and Webb Islands; for the Towns of
Thornton and Walnut Grove; and approximately 12 miles of exterior levees in the Suisun
Marsh. With the passage of Propositions 84 and 1E, the Special Projects has been
expanded and is now available to all Delta local levee maintaining agencies within the
legal boundary of the Delta.

D.3.3.3 Delta Levees special Flood Control Projects Initiatives

This component achieves the program goals through implementation of a range of
initiatives as summarized below:

Through cooperative efforts among local, state, and federal interests the program
has assisted local maintaining agencies to raise more than 45 miles of local non-
project levees to the Delta specific PL 84-99 Standard therefore improving the
stability and reducing the risk of levee over topping. Significant projects were
undertaken on New Hope Tract and Bethel, Bradford, Jersey and Twitchell
Islands. Continuing consolidation of the foundation, which is mainly peat soil,

FloodSAFE D-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

will reduce the crest elevation of these levees over time and additional work will
be required before the levee sections will stabilize at the upgraded standard.

Through the assistance from Special Projects, local agencie has continued
maintaining the 50-acre habitat mitigation site on Bradford Island, which was
planted in 2007 with native species, to offset impacts associated with levee
improvement projects on the island is maintained.

Special improvement projects are projects which will restore levee sections, raise
the levee crest above the current elevation up to a level not exceeding PL 84-99
Delta-specific standard. In 2008 the Special Projects program was extended to all
islands in the Delta and eligible portions of the Suisun Marsh. In addition, the
USACE is actively engaged in projects within the Delta under PL108-361 and the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 Section 3015, their CALFED levee
Integrity Program.

Habitat enhancement for shaded riverine aquatic and restoration projects have
resulted in the creation of approximately 33 acres of riparian and wetland habitat
along with 16,000 linear feet of Shaded Riverine Aquatic (SRA) habitat in the
Delta. Islands where this habitat enhancement has occurred include Decker,
Twitchell, Webb Tract, and McCormack Williamson Tract. The Program has
other significant habitat enhancement projects under development at Meins
Landing, Dutch Slough, and Sherman Island. Purchase of Meins landing was
finalized in 2005 and will eventually provide tidal estuary habitat in Suisun Marsh
and help to offset impacts of levee projects on Van Sickle Island. The restoration
at Meins landing is being coordinated with the Suisun Marsh Plan. Dutch Slough,
which encompasses 1,166 acres, will restore a large contiguous area of intertidal
habitat. A project to continue to create setback levees on Sherman Island and to
concurrently restore about 2000 linear feet of tidal lands and SRA along this reach
was permitted in 2007 and is under construction

Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) is another activity undertaken by this

component. Phase 1 of DRMS analyzes the current and future levee failure risk
from earthquakes, high water conditions (storms and tides, climate change,
subsidence, dry-weather events and a combination of these factors). The analysis
also provides assessments of the consequences of levee failures to the local and
state economy, public health and safety and the environment. Phase 2 of the Delta
Risk Management Strategy is to evaluate long-term risk-reduction options for the
Delta Region. Phase 2 will describe a discrete set of actions that can be taken to
reduce the risks and consequences of levee failures.

The program's subsidence research, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials, and

Geographic Information Systems efforts are principally directed in support of
overall programmatic objectives.

FloodSAFE D-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

D.3.3.4 Development of Guidelines for Grant Funding to Local Projects

Since it was established in 1988 (under SB 34), the Delta Levee Special Flood Control
Projects program has invested about $200 million dollars in flood control and habitat
restoration projects carried out by local levee maintaining agencies in the Delta. Each
year, this funding has been dedicated to maintain and improve the aging Delta levees, and
for improving habitat and flood infrastructure. Proposition 1E and Proposition 84 have
significantly increased the amount of money available for levee projects in the Delta.
This increase in funding carries with it a commensurate increase in the responsibility to
be transparent and practical about how Special Projects in the Delta are funded. Thus the
Department is developing policy and corresponding guidelines (currently in the interim
phase) for prudent long-term investments in the Delta. These guidelines should be
further refined to develop final guidelines for distribution for Delta levee rehabilitation
flood projects.

Under the Interim Guidelines, the Delta levees program prepared and distributed a
Project Solicitation Package (PSP) in the beginning of 2009. Local agencies submitted 41
applications for funding, totaling about $55 million, in accordance with the interim
guidelines and the PSP prepared for this solicitation. Delta Flood Protection element
staff reviewed each project according to the guidelines and individually rated each of the
submittals. Each submittal was, then, presented to a selection panel of program staff and
was ranked by the panel according to how the submittals met the criteria and compared
with one another. This ranked list of submittals became the recommended project list for
funding. Through this process16 new projects were recommended for funding totaling
more than $22 million that will be made available to local agencies in the Delta.
Additionally, 60 local maintaining agencies requested funding for preparation of 5-year
plans costing the program nearly $4 million. Funding accounts for an additional $5
million to continue ongoing projects and research in the Delta.

The current guideline requires that recommended project list be forwarded to

representatives from the Department’s BDCP, DHCCP, and DBO programs for reviewed
and comment.

D.3.4 Program Support

The implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative will significantly increase investments
in flood management projects over the next 10 to 20 years. This will require an increased
need for work under the Program Support element.

Grant Guidelines. Grant guidelines need to be prepared and periodically updated

to provide consistent and fair information for those seeking grant funds for the
different areas of the State.

Grant Administration. Grant administration includes the decision to make a

grant, the expenditure of funds over the project implementation period, the
tracking of progress, and eventual project closeout upon completion.

FloodSAFE D-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Environmental Services. This component provides environmental permitting

support to the CVFPB.

Technical Assistance. This component provides technical assistance support to

the CVFPB.

Federal Coordination. This component provides coordination with USACE and

other federal agencies throughout project development.

D.4 Geographic Focus

The Flood Protection Projects & Project Grants functional area invests State funds
throughout California. However, funding related to levee repairs and levee improvements
are limited to the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions including
the Delta as shown on Table D-1.

D.5 Major Deliverables

The major deliverables for the Appendix D, Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants
functional area are as follows:

Central Valley Flood Projects

Participate in completion of Central Valley flood protection project feasibility

studies with the USACE and local agencies as they are identified

Participate in completion of Flood System Improvement Projects (Early

Implementation Projects) as they are readied for construction and provide State
share of funding

Participate in Flood System Improvement Projects (USACE Projects) as they are

identified and provide State share of funding

Statewide Flood Program

Prepare solicitation packages and provide grant funding for selected projects in
the Flood Protection Corridor Program

Provide State share of funding for flood protection projects outside the Central
Valley through Flood Control Subvention Program

Participate in and provide funding for levee repair project for Local Levee
Assistance

Participate in and provide funding for levee repair projects and local assistance
projects in the Yuba-Feather Basin

FloodSAFE D-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Delta Flood Projects

Continuation of funding for levee rehabilitation projects on special Delta projects

consistent with the legislative mandates of AB 360 (ongoing)

Continuation of planning for habitat mitigation and improvement projects,

including a habitat banking initiative to increase the efficiency of levee repairs
while contributing to landscape level habitat benefits (ongoing)

Continuation of financial assistance, within limits of available funding, for

preservation and rehabilitation of non-project levees (ongoing)

Revise current interim guidelines for local assistance under the Special Project
Program and develop final guidelines for distribution for Delta levee
rehabilitation flood projects.

Complete DRMS

Complete the research and prepare a report on Beneficial Reuse of Dredged

Materials

Incorporate results of the subsidence research and update when future research
recommends changes in guidance.

Collaborate with the Flood Emergency Response functional area on completion of

a Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.

Program Support

Prepare grant guidelines for State investments in statewide flood projects

Provide environmental services on statewide flood projects on an as needed basis

Provide technical assistance on statewide flood projects on an as needed basis

FloodSAFE D-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table D-1 Implementation of Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants Program Elements

FloodSAFE D-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

D.6 Performance Measures

Table D-2 Performance Measures
Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
Feasibility Studies
1. Number of feasibility studies in progress
2. Number of completed feasibility studies
3. [something about integrated flood management]
Flood System Improvement Projects (Early Implementation Projects)
Central Valley 1. Population in Sacramento Valley with 200-year (or greater) level of flood protection
Flood Projects 2. Population in San Joaquin Valley with 200-year (or greater) level of flood protection
3. Value of projects that fit into the CVFPP
Flood System Improvement Projects (USACE Projects)
1. Population in Sacramento Valley with 200-year (or greater) level of flood protection
2. Population in San Joaquin Valley with 200-year (or greater) level of flood protection
3. Acres of agricultural land in rural area with restored flood protection
Flood Protection Corridor Program
1. Acreage within corridor program
[some measure of benefit]
Flood Control Subvention Program
1. Number of agencies receiving funding
2. Number of levee miles receiving funding
Statewide 3. Dollars invested in feasible projects
Flood Program 3. [something about integrated flood management]
Local Levee Assistance
1. Number of evaluations in progress
2. Number of completed evaluations studies
3. Number of agencies receiving repair funding
4. Number of levee miles receiving repair funding
5. Dollars invested in feasible levee repair projects
Delta Flood Delta Special Projects
Projects
1. Number and cost of completed projects
2. Value of State benefits achieved in excess of cost
3. Number of miles upgraded to or beyond PL-84
4. Acres of habitat restored
Delta Subvention Projects
1. Number of levee maintenance districts receiving subvention funds
2. Levee miles receiving subvention funds
3. Dollars invested
Grant Guidelines
Program 1. Number of completed guidelines
Support Grant Administration
1. Number of grants in progress

FloodSAFE D-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

2. Percentage of grants with up-to-date status reports and support information

3. Number of grants completed will all documentation in place
Environmental Services
1. Number of agencies receiving environmental services
2. Number of completed analyses
Technical Assistance
1. Number of agencies receiving technical assistance
2. Number of completed analyses
Federal Coordination
1. Number and dollar value of projects receiving federal cost share
2. Percentage of status reports delivered on time

D.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table D-3 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Flood Protection Projects & Project Grants functional area through fiscal year 2011-
12. State investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE D-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table D-3 Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants (FA 4) State Investments

FloodSAFE D-13 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix E Evaluation and Engineering (FA 5)

Evaluation and Engineering is one of seven functional areas necessary to implement the
FloodSAFE Initiative. Evaluation and Engineering refers to assessments of existing flood
management facilities to identify deficiencies and needed improvements.

Evaluation and Engineering is a new functional area added to DWR’s DFM by the
FloodSAFE Initiative. Prior to FloodSAFE, most evaluations and engineering for existing
facilities were conducted by the USACE. Although this is a new program for DWR, it is
expected to continue after the FloodSAFE foundational objectives are met. This program
will work in coordination and partnership with the USACE. Evaluation and Engineering
is based on the acknowledgement that changing conditions, new knowledge about system
performance, and eventual facility deterioration will demand continued service.

E.1 Program Rationale

Many of the Central Valley levees were built to lower standards than those typically used
today. Some levees were built without the benefit of subsurface investigations or other
formal engineering design. In addition, levees along the main stem of the Sacramento
River were built close together to transport sediments from upstream mining during the
1800s. Now that most of the mining sediments are gone, the high velocity flows are
scouring the levees.

The premise of the Evaluation and Engineering functional area is to learn more about the
condition of these existing levees and the role they can play in upgrades to the flood
management system. This information feeds into planning work being conducted for the
Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy functional area and provides
justification for needed flood projects and improvements that are implemented through
the Flood Protection Projects and Project Grants functional area as well as the Operations
& Maintenance and Environmental Stewardship functional area.

E.2 Goal and Objectives

Following are the primary goal and objectives for the Evaluation and Engineering
functional area.

E.2.1 Goal
The goal of the Evaluation and Engineering functional area is to efficiently assess the
condition of existing levees and flood control structures, define flood system deficiencies,
formulate remedies, and conduct feasibility studies of the projects to fix flood system
deficiencies with consideration for environmental conservation. More specifically, the
key program goals:

FloodSAFE E-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Support flood basin certification efforts and the legislative mandate of urban 200-
year flood protection, and assist federal and local flood management programs by
providing geotechnical data and engineering analyses and remedial improvement
alternatives to local, State, and federal stakeholders, the CVFPP, and Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Improve geotechnical information collection, storage, exchange, and evaluation
methods between State, local, and federal flood management agencies.
Develop statewide policies for urban and non-urban levee performance,
emergency, and long-term levee remediation.

E.2.2 Objectives
The Program aims to achieve the stated goals through attainment of the following
objectives:

Provide timely and cost-effective evaluation of the flood control system in

accordance with current state of practice and applicable codes and standards.
Provide engineering support to determine flood system deficiencies and
improvements needed, using updated geotechnical information and the water
surface profiles produced through updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of
the Sacramento San Joaquin River system. Conduct system-wide engineering
feasibility studies of proposed flood protection projects with recommendations for
CVFPP.
Develop basis of design for flood system improvements by performing detailed
levee geotechnical investigations, flood system operational evaluations, and the
use of updated system design WSE and channel flow capacity.
Conform engineering designs to meet environmental compliance needs by
considering environmental conservation and multi-benefit concept in flood project
improvement design.

E.3 Elements and Components

Conducting geotechnical data collection and engineering analyses to identify deficiencies
in existing flood management system facilities and formulating and designing strategies
and projects to meet FloodSAFE objectives are key duties of the Evaluation and
Engineering functional area. The functional area is divided into three elements, each
supported by components as listed and shown graphically on Figure E-1.

FloodSAFE E-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure E-1 Evaluation and Engineering Functional Area

E.3.1 Levee Evaluations

Both the urban and non-urban levee evaluations included in this element are underway.

Urban Levee Evaluation (ULE). One of the highest priorities is the evaluation
of project levees protecting urban areas with populations greater than 10,000
residents. The ULE component includes a geotechnical evaluation on
approximately 350 miles of the State-Federal levee system (Project Levees) of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Flood Control system. These efforts focus on levees
protecting urban areas within Sutter Basin; the City of Marysville; urban areas
within RD 784; the City of Woodland; urban areas within the Natomas basin; the
City of West Sacramento; the City of Davis; the metropolitan area of Sacramento,

FloodSAFE E-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

protected from the American and the Sacramento Rivers; and, urban areas in the
lower San Joaquin Valley protected by levees maintained by the San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Agency, RD 404, and RD 17. This component consists of
geotechnical evaluations of urban levees including geotechnical exploration,
testing, and analysis that are required to evaluate the performance and safety of
existing urban Project Levees. This work will lead to prefeasibility designs and
cost estimates for potential levee repairs where deficiencies are noted.

Non-Urban Levee Evaluation (NULE). While it is clear that urban levees must
be consistently evaluated for their ability to provide at least a 200-year level of
protection, the NULE program is more complex in that some non-urban project
levees provide a relatively low level of protection for agricultural areas while
providing flood control system operational reliability. For example, the non-
urban project levees along much of the Sacramento River, north of Sacramento,
have three purposes:

1. Provide the project design flood protection for the basin

2. Provide flood system operational integrity; i.e., proper functioning of flood
by-passes and weirs
3. Enhance river velocity to manage debris flows

Thus the NULE program must be done as an iterative process that takes into
account the system-wide evaluations as they are completed that may change one
or more of the project purposes, or vary the levee evaluation criteria to meet
varying design flood requirements.

DWR’s NULE Program component consist of geotechnical assessment and

evaluation of non-urban levees including evaluation of over 1,300 miles of non-
urban State-Federal project levees and over 500 miles of appurtenant non-urban,
non-project levees to determine if they meet defined geotechnical criteria and,
where needed, to identify remedial measure(s). This will lead to prefeasibility
evaluations and corresponding cost estimates to meet those criteria.

E.3.2 Integrated System Evaluations and Engineering

The Evaluation and Engineering functional area provides system engineering support for
other functional areas for the FloodSAFE Initiative. The primary engineering activities
will be in support of Functional Area 6, the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.

This element includes the responsibilities for the engineering analyses needed to identify
flood system deficiencies and to develop remedial measures, called management actions,
to address the deficiencies. Information gathered under the Levee Evaluation element is
critical in conducting the engineering analyses as part of this element as identified below.

System Water Surface Impact Analysis. Flood system water surface impact
analysis (i.e. impact of water level for various levels of flood protections on the
levees) will be conducted as part of this component to determine the impact of

FloodSAFE E-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

water surface profile for various levels of protection on levee free board and
seepage through the levees.

Levee Reliability Evaluations. Evaluate geotechnical reliability of levees with

regard to the following failure mechanisms:

- Erosion: Normal and flood flows can erode levee foundations and
embankments.
- Through-seepage: Seepage through the levee embankment can result in
internal erosion and instability.
- Under-seepage: Seepage through the levee foundation can result in internal
erosion and instability.
- Stability: The levee embankment is subject to static forces which can result in
excessive movement.
- Settlement and subsidence: Consolidation and groundwater overdraft can
reduce effective levee height and associated hydraulic capacity of the channel.
Delta levee islands are subject to subsidence, which increases the effective
height of levees.
- Penetrations: Undetected animal or man-made defects (i.e., pipes, animal
burrows, construction problems) may generate uncontrolled, concentrated
seepage, and internal erosion.

This functional area will also prepare remedial alternatives and cost estimates to repair
levees in-place. The results of the above engineering evaluations will be the identification
of the Flood System deficiencies.

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Strategy. This component

includes working with the Conservation Strategy team to evaluate and
incorporating environmental mitigation and restoration measures into existing and
proposed Central Valley levees. Identify and evaluate system-wide
environmental improvements and integrate them with other management actions
designed to reduce flood risk in the system. Prepare cost estimates for both in-
place and system-wide improvements.

The information developed above will be used by the feasibility study team for preparing
technical feasibility and identification of system-wide benefits to cost ratios.

E.3.3 Design Review and Policy Development

This element prepares levee design criteria and standards for use in the FloodSAFE
initiative. The levee design criteria and standards selected for use by the State need to
consider the evolving USACE standards and be acceptable to FEMA for accreditation
based on a certification from a civil engineer.

FloodSAFE E-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Design Technical Reviews. The purpose of this component is to provide for

adequate and credible review of the flood system design works. The design
review is conducted for various projects and different clients. They include:
- Capital Projects
- Corps Projects
- CVFPB: This review is conducted on behalf of the Central Valley Flood
Protection Board.

Policy Development. This component of the Evaluation and Engineering

functional area is to develop various design policy, criteria, and design standards
for the engineering evaluation of the flood control system. The specific activities
include:
- Seismic performance of levees: The dynamic loading of earthquakes can
cause instability and excessive deformation and movement of levee
foundations and embankments. Assess the seismic vulnerability of Central
Valley levees in their existing condition and compare economic costs of
remediating seismic vulnerabilities pre- and post-earthquake. Research
technical policies and case histories of other levee systems for the purpose of
informing seismic policy for Central Valley levees.
- Levee Vegetation Research: Conduct levee vegetation research as member
of the USACE/SAFCA/DWR collaborative. Make independent findings and
recommendations for short and long-term levee vegetation policy for the
Central Valley.
- Levee Design Standards: Under this activity the staff will provide interim
design guidance that enables local and State agencies to construct levees to
meet various level of flood protection criteria with reasonable certainty and
conservatism. Design Standards will be developed for:
o Urban levees (interim and long-term)
o Non-Urban levees
o Non-Urban Levees protecting rural communities and critical infrastructure

E.4 Geographic Focus

Much of the work conducted for the Evaluation and Engineering functional area is
primarily limited to the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic while policy
level work is applicable to the entire state regions as shown in Table E-1.

FloodSAFE E-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

E.5 Major Deliverables

The major deliverables for the Evaluation and Engineering functional area are shown
below.

Levee Evaluations

Chico Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Marysville Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Sutter Basin Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 784 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Natomas Geotechnical Evaluation Report

NEMDC East Geotechnical Evaluation Report

American River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Sacramento River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Davis Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Woodland Geotechnical Evaluation Report

West Sacramento Geotechnical Evaluation Report

SJAFCA Bear Creek Geotechnical Evaluation Report

SJAFCA Calaveras River Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 404 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

RD 17 Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Stockton Urban Non-Project Geotechnical Evaluation Report

South Sac Streams Urban Non-Project Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Sacramento River Flood Control System Geotechnical Assessment Report – GAR

San Joaquin River Flood Control System Geotechnical Assessment Report – GAR

Sacramento River Flood Control System Geotechnical Evaluation Report – GER

San Joaquin River Flood Control System Geotechnical Evaluation Report – GER
System Evaluation and Engineering

Identify deficiencies within the Central Valley Flood Control system

FloodSAFE E-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Formulate remedial actions (Management Actions) in response to identified

deficiencies

Prepare recommendations for Flood system improvements for CVFPP

Prepare projects’ cost estimates at the proposed projects

Prepare Flood System Improvements Feasibility Study

Final documentation of remedial alternatives for State-Federal Project levees

protecting urban areas

Work with the Conservation Strategy elements to incorporate conservation

activities into the remedial actions and system improvements.
Design Review and Policy Development

Develop Statewide Seismic Criteria and Policy for Levee Performance

Vegetation research paper describing the effects that woody vegetation growing
on or near levees has on levee integrity

Evaluate expected seismic performance of existing Central Valley urban levees

Characterize the probability and consequences of flooding due to the 200-year

seismic event

Establish a Independent Consulting Board

Review flood projects on behalf of CVFPB

FloodSAFE E-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table E-1 Implementation of Evaluation and Engineering Program Elements

FloodSAFE E-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

E.6 Performance Measures

Table E-2 Performance Measures
Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
Urban Levee Evaluation
Levee 1. Miles of urban levee evaluations complete
Evaluations Non-Urban Levee Evaluation
1. Miles of non-urban levee evaluations complete
System Water Surface Impact Analysis
1. Miles of updated water surface profiles
Levee Reliability Model
1. Miles of levees evaluated
Integrated Environmental Conservation
System Acres of environmental enhancements incorporated into flood management projects
Evaluation and System Improvement Alternative Evaluations
Engineering
1. Percent of levee system with completed evaluations.
2.Number of projects formulated, evaluated with cost estimate, for flood system
improvements
System Cost Estimates

Design Review Design Technical Reviews

and Policy
1. Number of levee design technical completed
Development
Policy Development
1. Number of policies implemented

E.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table E-3 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Evaluation and Engineering functional area through fiscal year 2011-12. State
investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE E-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table E-3 Evaluation and Engineering (FA 5) State Investments

FloodSAFE E-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix F Flood Management Planning and

Conservation Strategy (FA 6)

Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy is one of seven functional areas
necessary to implement the FloodSAFE initiative. Flood Management Planning and
Conservation Strategy refers to planning and analyses necessary to evaluate the flood
systems as complete systems rather than a set of individual projects. This planning is
based on achieving the FloodSAFE foundational objectives and considering the
FloodSAFE guiding principles. Prior to FloodSAFE, most planning for the flood system
was conducted by USACE. The Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
functional area is based on the acknowledgement that integrated flood management is the
model for improvements. Even though this is a new program for DWR, it is expected to
continue after the FloodSAFE foundational objectives are met, but will likely continue at
a reduced level of effort.

Most of the other functional areas require planning to fulfill their objectives and while all
functional areas require a degree of interaction, Flood Management Planning and
Conservation Strategy is heavily dependent on input from all the other functional areas.
The Central Valley work is managed by the Central Valley Flood Planning Office of
DFM. The Statewide Flood Management Planning work is managed by DSIWM. The
conservation strategies work is managed by the FloodSAFE Environmental Stewardship
and Statewide Resources Office.

F.1 Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives for the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
functional area are shown below.

F.1.1 Goals
The primary goal of the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
functional area is to conduct, support, and improve integrated flood management
planning to address flood risk and improve flood system performance.

F.1.2 Objectives
Identify significant flood risks throughout California, document needs and
opportunities to improve integrated flood management, and develop a strategy to
pay for system improvements and continuing maintenance
Prepare and implement conservation strategies that enhance the ecosystem while
improving flood management
Perform evaluations of system-wide performance for use in planning system
improvements

FloodSAFE F-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Enhance the flood management component of Integrated Regional Water

Management (IRWM) and support agencies to improve integrated flood
management
Provide support for planning entities to create and continue updating
comprehensive IRWM plans to guide future flood management investments and
actions

F.2 Elements and Components

The Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy functional area is supported
by four elements as listed below and shown in Figure F-1.

F.3 Program Rationale

Planning is at the root of what Californians want the future flood management systems to
achieve. Planning considers alternative strategies for future systems and is the basis for
selecting future projects to design and fund under the Flood Protection Projects and
Project Grants functional area. The Flood Management Planning and Conservation
Strategy functional area has a major involvement in Central Valley Flood Management
Planning, but also accommodates statewide planning needs.

F.3.1 Central Valley Flood Management Planning

The Central Valley Flood Management Planning program addresses most of the flood-
related planning activities that were authorized by the California Legislature during the
2007/2008 session within much of the Central Valley. The purpose of the planning is to
develop a sustainable integrated flood management plan for areas protected by facilities
of the State-federal flood protection system in the Central Valley.

While planning for the Central Valley will be a system-wide analysis, the planning
approach will initially consider smaller portions of the system separately before they are
combined into one system. The technical work will be divided into five distinct focus
areas:

Area 1 - Upper Sacramento River, generally non-urban

Area 2 - Lower Sacramento River, mostly urban

Area 3 - Lower San Joaquin River, with the major urban area of Stockton

Area 4 - Upper San Joaquin River, generally non-urban

Area 5- Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta

The scope of work in each area will differ, reflecting variations in flood risks,
opportunities for flood system improvements, and the nature of potential improvements.

FloodSAFE F-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure F-1 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy Functional Area

The planning team will use information gathered by all functional areas to formulate
potential projects, costs, and trade-offs for each focus area and will then consider
combinations or modifications of projects for the system-wide analyses.

Central Valley Flood Management Planning consists of two primary projects – the
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) and the description of the State Plan of
Flood Control (SPFC).

CVFPP. DWR is required to prepare a sustainable, integrated flood management

plan called the CVFPP by January 1, 2012, for adoption by the CVFPB by July 1,
2012. The CVFPP will reflect a system-wide approach to protecting areas of the
Central Valley currently receiving protection from flooding by existing facilities
of the SPFC. In addition, the CVFPP will include a prioritized list, schedule of
implementation, and recommendations of both structural and nonstructural means

FloodSAFE F-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

for improving performance and eliminating deficiencies of flood management

facilities and addressing ecosystem and other water-related issues. The CVFPP
will be updated every five years (years ending in 7 and 2).

There are several threats to California’s flood systems that must be considered
together when looking for ways to improve flood management and reduce the risk
of flooding. The extent to which these threats are present would define the flood
system deficiencies that must be addressed.

DWR anticipates that the CVFPP planning process will evaluate system
deficiencies and formulate potential management actions and solutions for the
first CVFPP (due in 2012) using existing information, expert judgment, and new
information as available from other ongoing FloodSAFE efforts. The system
deficiencies will be evaluated and defined by analyses of the following threats to
the flood system integrity.

Inadequate Channel Capacity.

Flood channels and adjacent levees
must have the capacity to carry
design flood flows that vary
throughout the system. To ensure
channels can carry their designed
capacity flows, a comprehensive
hydrology and hydraulic evaluation
of the flood system is needed. This
evaluation includes updating the
hydrology of the watersheds with
climate change and conducting
hydraulic studies to determine water levels in the channel (and in floodplains) for
various levels of flood protections, levees must be made high enough to contain
the design flows and channels should be maintained to remove excessive
sediment and overgrowth in the channels to maintain the capacity.

Erosion. High velocity flows can erode river banks and levee material, making a
levee unstable and subject to failure. Critical erosion sites should be identified
and evaluated, and projects should be formulated to fix the sites. This includes a
system-wide evaluation of channel flow velocities and design of appropriate
measures to reduce/manage the flows and corresponding potential for continued
erosion.

Seepage. Water seepage through or under a levee embankment can reduce the
integrity of a levee. To study the threat of seepage to levee integrity and to design
measures to reduce the seepage threats, an extensive levee exploration and
geotechnical investigation is required for critical levees.

Encroachments. A levee should generally be clear of inappropriate structures or

debris that can cause problems with inspections, maintenance, flood fights, or

FloodSAFE F-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

levee stability. Identification and evaluation of the existing encroachments and

proper design and construction of structures encroaching flood control facilities
will reduce flood risks.

Structural Instability and Seismic Loadings. The levees must be structurally

stable and established on foundations with adequate strength to retain flood flows.
An engineering evaluation of critical levees is needed to determine which areas
need strengthening and to design and implement measures to ensure
operational/structural stability of the flood control system.

Many levees that were constructed without the benefit of modern engineering
may perform poorly during earthquakes. The Delta levees are especially
vulnerable as they are subject to future major earthquake threats and the risk of
multiple island flooding in the Delta.

The Flood System Engineering Element of the Evaluation and Engineering

Functional Area evaluates the flood system using existing and new information,
and identifies the threats and related system deficiencies throughout the flood
control system for use in the CVFPP.

To prioritize engineering analyses to meet the CVFPP schedule, specific

processes should be put into place to provide necessary information and analyses
for the plan. The current Hydrology and Hydraulics study schedule indicates that
most likely updated hydrology and hydraulic studies will not be ready by 2012 to
meet the CVFPP schedule. Therefore, Flood System Evaluation and Engineering
must prioritize its work and use interim Hydrology and Hydraulics’ information
to best serve the CVFPP. This prioritization may include the following:

14. Urban Areas (Areas 2 and 3): Develop a

Stakeholder Involvement Process
flood protection plan that would bring the
facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to FloodSAFE California initiated a broad
within its design standard for urban areas by stakeholder involvement process
2012. It should be recognized that updated throughout the Central Valley to brief the
hydraulic information may not be available water agencies, environmental interests,
prior to 2012, but using existing studies may LMAs, and other interested parties on
provide enough information to prepare a Central Valley Flood Protection planning
technically sound flood protection plan for the and to receive comments. The
Central Valley. Specific actions that can be stakeholder process is also used as a way
taken and incorporated into the CVFPP of collecting relevant local flood
include: information and soliciting input on future
Define and map major urban areas in the flood management actions. Stakeholder
Central Valley protected by the State-Federal involvement will continue throughout
flood control system development and preparation of the
CVFPP.
Define structures that provide flood protection
for urban areas

FloodSAFE F-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Define the hydrology and hydraulics of the system by using information from the
―Comprehensive Study‖ or any other sources as available, modify as appropriate,
get input from stakeholders, and use the information as interim input data

Compile up-to-date levee evaluation data gathered by DWR, combine them with
other existing data, process the information, and conduct an assessment of the
existing system integrity for urban areas

Using the above information, define system deficiencies; deficiencies may be the
result of one or more of the flood threats described earlier

Prepare flood management strategies that address the deficiencies; formulate

management actions (structural and non-structural) that fit each strategy; compile
a list of management action that contribute to and meet the objectives of the
strategies for each urban area (i.e., area 2a on the map)

Draft preliminary descriptions of the management actions grouped into specific

alternative flood risk reductions. Provide cost estimates for each set of flood risk
reduction alternatives.

Conduct preliminary system-wide risk analyses and benefit evaluation; conduct a

system-wide hydraulic evaluation of the projects to evaluate system-wide
performance of projects and programs

Using the above information, develop priorities (Project priority) for flood system
improvement management actions

Document the process and prepare recommendations for inclusion into the
CVFPP

Non-Urban Areas (Areas 1 and 3): Work to be completed for CVFPP: For non-urban
areas a different approach may be needed. The goal could be to reduce flood risks in
currently non-urbanized areas.

Review and describe flood protection needs for non-urban areas

Compile available levee integrity data for the areas

Identify and map small communities in rural area

Define system deficiencies for rural areas and the existing small communities
within the rural area.

Formulate management actions to improve flood management in the area

Prepare preliminary description of the management actions, compiled into

alternative flood risk reduction, for the area and prepare cost estimates

FloodSAFE F-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure F-2 CVFPP Planning Areas

FloodSAFE F-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Prepare recommendations for inclusion to CVFPP

The actions identified above are designed to evaluate the ability of the proposed
system improvements to provide the desired level of flood protection, and the
system wide impact and benefits of the management actions. Specific outcomes
of this process include preparing feasibility studies of the proposed
improvements, and evaluating projects’ local, regional, and system-wide benefits.

Reservoir Operations:

The CVFPP should also address potential flood management benefits from re-
operation of reservoirs with flood control reservations. For the 2012 CVFPP, at a
minimum, some pilot re-operation studies should be conducted. The pilot re-
operation studies can provide opportunities to bracket the benefits of re-
operations. Implementation of most re-operation projects would require structural
changes as well as changes in the reservoir flood control diagram. To fully
address re-operation benefits and cost, the following steps should be taken:

Identify all reservoirs with flood reservation that could potentially provide flood
benefits from re-operations

Identify structural changes needed to potentially re-operate the reservoirs

Conduct two re-operation pilot studies—one in the Sacramento River system for
rain flood (i.e., Oroville) and one in the San Joaquin River system for snow melt
flooding (i.e., Merced River)

Document the results of pilot projects

Document the costs of the study, potential structural modifications, and changing
the FCD

Using the above information, bracket a range of potential system-wide flood

control benefits from re-operation of the reservoirs

Provide recommendations for implementation of reservoir re-operation projects;

provide estimated costs and schedule

Parallel with the above technical evaluations, environmental conservation

strategies and potential guidance for institutional changes for flood management
will also be developed. Environmental conservation strategies will be designed to
facilitate the permitting process for potential management actions and to enhance
and preserve environmental resources for sustainable environmental and flood
management in the Central Valley.

Upon completion of the above activities, the results of the engineering analyses,
environmental conservation strategies, and institutional guidance, together with
economic analyses and cost estimates, would provide feasibility-level information

FloodSAFE F-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

that should be compiled to produce a feasibility study for flood system

improvements. The feasibility study will serve as a document in support of
programmatic environmental documentation for the CVFPP.

The feasibility study should acknowledge that

further refinement of the projects will be The CVFPP will include a host of
needed as additional information is developed management actions that include
(i.e., new hydrology and hydraulic studies may structural and non-structural
show that freeboard for 200-year protection for improvements, environmental
a specific project may need to be adjusted). conservation strategies, and potential
Existing studies may provide WSE and institutional changes (e.g., flood
channel capacities information that is accurate insurance incentives, etc.). The
enough for the feasibility-level evaluation and stakeholder involvement process will
for preparing early cost estimates. As funding assist DWR in collecting information
for the flood system improvement projects and developing a balanced set of
becomes available and projects move to the management actions for a sustainable
design level, the updated hydrology and flood risk reduction plan for the
hydraulics information will be available for Central Valley.
final projects design. Additional information
will be available to define the basis of design for projects.

Engineering evaluation of the flood system should continue beyond 2012 to

provide additional refined information for future updates of the CVFPP. The
additional work may include an update of hydrology and hydraulics, system
evaluation information, system deficiencies, list of projects needed to address
system deficiencies in each area, project cost estimates, and flood management
priorities. The CVFPP will consider potential climate impacts from sea level rise,
increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events.

Information for each area will be compiled into its own portfolio, or atlas, for easy
reference. This will include floodplain delineation, land use, population and
property at risk, existing flood facilities, identified deficiencies, and other
pertinent information.

State Plan of Flood Control. DWR is required to prepare the Descriptive

Document for the SPFC that will contain descriptions of SPFC flood control
works (facilities), lands, programs, plans, conditions, and mode of operations and
maintenance. This is a description of the existing system and is not a plan for the
future.

F.3.2 Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning

Most past flood planning efforts have focused on the Central Valley. Proposition 84
requires DWR to develop an economically viable rehabilitation plan for flood
management that extends beyond the Central Valley. Statewide Flood Management
Planning will assess the level of flood risk, identify needs and opportunities for

FloodSAFE F-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

improving integrated flood management, and develop a finance strategy for addressing
flood management needs and improvements statewide.

Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning. The Statewide Flood

Management Planning element will account for the differing needs and
opportunities in different regions of the State. Key DWR activities include:

o Assess significant flood risks statewide, including population centers,

floodplain areas, economic assets, and natural and cultural resources.

o Inventory existing and future flood management needs by surveying a

broad sample of the flood management community, by region, to answer
such questions as: What are the greatest challenges faced by local flood
managers over the next 25 years? What forms of assistance from State
government would be most useful? What projects do local flood managers
have planned, and do these plans include federal involvement? What is the
expected timing and what are the expected costs?

o Identify opportunities for integrated flood management projects across

floodplains.

o Formulate potential flood management solutions, including resource

management strategies, capital improvements, and operations and
maintenance.

o Develop regional cost estimates to provide flood protection improvements.

o Develop a finance strategy to fund improvements for integrated flood

management and continuing system maintenance.

Integration of Flood Management with the California Water Plan. This

component will integrate the information produced by the Statewide Flood
Management Planning component into the California Water Plan (CWP). This
provides an integrated approach to comprehensively address water management
issues in California. While the 2005 Update to the CWP included some flood
management strategies, the 2009 Update to the CWP will be the first to include
the integrated approach. More detailed information from Statewide Flood
Management Planning will be included in subsequent CWP Updates.

F.3.3 Conservation Strategies

Ecosystem conservation strategies will help protect and enhance the ecosystem while
improving flood management at the same time. Note: This section need to be updated by
FSESSRO staff

Central Valley Conservation Strategy. A system-wide Central Valley

Conservation Strategy will be developed and implemented by DWR, USACE, and
resources agencies to maintain and restore the ecological health of riparian,

FloodSAFE F-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems within the planning area of the flood control
project. DWR will be the lead agency in preparing and implementing the strategy.
The purpose of the strategy is to reconcile the management of flood risk with the
conservation of natural resources and establishment of natural processes. The
objective is to move beyond reacting to individual or incremental actions on a
case-by-case basis and develop advanced conservation strategies and actions that
meet or exceed baseline conditions; provide stability or enhancement to
associated fish, wildlife, and habitat; and contribute to recovery of target species.
The conservation strategy will function as a management plan for focus species
and ecosystems and will prescribe standards and guidelines that, when
implemented, will provide a high likelihood that viable habitats and populations
will continue to exist throughout the planning area.

Consistent with the broader plan for flood control maintenance, a short-term
(interim) and long-term conservation strategy will be developed. The purpose of
the short-term strategy is to avoid, minimize, and compensate for the effects of
immediate and ongoing corrective actions on focus species and ecosystems. The
long-term strategy will be more comprehensive and will interface with new
operations and maintenance standards established through development and
implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative.

Delta Conservation Strategy. Recognizing that environmental and water

management issues are different in the Delta compared with the majority of the
remainder of the Central Valley, State, federal and water agencies are developing
a Delta Conservation Strategy.

F.4 Geographic Focus

Portions of the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy functional area
apply to the entire State, and some apply only to the Sacramento River and San Joaquin
River hydrologic regions as shown in Table F-1.

F.5 Major Deliverables

The major deliverables for the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy
functional area are as follows.

Central Valley Flood Management Planning

Regional Conditions Summary Report

Compilation of Management Actions Report

CVFPP Evaluations Method Report

Summary of Management Solutions Report

FloodSAFE F-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Draft Descriptive Document for the SPFC (December 31, 2009)

State Plan of Flood Control

Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) for the SPFC (December 31, 2010)

Status Report on the Progress and Development of the CVFPP (December 31,
2010)

Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (January 1, 2012)

Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning

Recommendations for Improving and Sustaining Integrated Flood Management in

California (by January 1, 2012, as a complementary document to the legislative
mandated CVFPP)

Concept of Integrated Flood Management Planning included in California Water

Plan Update 2009

More detail on Integrated Flood Management Planning, including opportunities

and estimated costs incrementally included in CWP updates subsequent to 2009

Conservation Strategies

Central Valley Conservation Strategy

Delta Conservation Strategy

FloodSAFE F-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table F-1 Implementation of Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy Program Elements

FloodSAFE F-13 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

F.6 Performance Measures

Table F-2 Performance Measures
Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
1. Status Report on the Progress and Development of CVFPP complete
Central Valley 2. CVFPP complete by January 1, 2012
Flood
3. CVFPB adoption of CVFPP by July 1, 2012
Management
Planning State Plan of Flood Control
1. SPFC description document complete
2. FCSSR complete
Statewide Integrated Flood Management Planning
Statewide 1. Draft Recommendations Report
Integrated 2. Final Recommendations Report
Flood
Management Integration of Flood Management with CWP Update
Planning 1. Draft flood information submitted to CWP
2. Final flood information submitted to CWP
Central Valley Conservation Strategy
1. Draft of conservation strategy complete
Conservation 2. Final conservation strategy complete and being implemented
Strategies Delta Conservation Strategy
1. Draft of conservation strategy complete
2. Final conservation strategy complete and being implemented

F.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table F-3 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy functional area through fiscal
year 2011-12. State investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE F-14 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
Table F-3 Flood Management Planning and Conservation Strategy (FA 6) State Investments

FloodSAFE F-15 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Appendix G Legislation, Budget and

Communication (FA 7)

Legislation, Budget and Communication is one of seven functional areas necessary to

implement the FloodSAFE initiative. Legislation, Budget, and Communication refers to
the coordination and budgetary tracking and management activities necessary to
implement and communicate an initiative on the scale of FloodSAFE. Management of
billions of dollars of State funding and coordination with others including federal and
local funding partners is a major effort. Since the FloodSAFE initiative is currently
underfunded, this functional area will require work to secure sustainable funding to
implement the FloodSAFE initiative and to secure legislative support for all other
functional areas that must continue indefinitely into the future. Bond Accountability and
Management (BAM) and FloodSAFE expenditure reporting are also the responsibility of
this functional area.

Legislation, Budget, and Communication is a new functional area added by the

FloodSAFE initiative. This functional area is based on the acknowledgement that all
functional areas need budgetary stability and consistent coordination and public outreach.
While each functional area will conduct its own coordination/outreach needed for its
work and be responsible for managing its own budgets, the Legislation, Budget, and
Communication functional area provides assistance and support to ensure consistency.
The work is managed by the Bond Accountability and Management Office of DFM.

G.1 Program Rationale

DWR is responsible for the administration of the flood management bond funds and is
required to report to the Legislature how the bond funds are spent. The laws enacted by
Propositions 1E and 84 require DWR to produce quarterly, semi-annual, and annual
reports with detailed description of how the funds are used. Rather than having each
functional area fend for itself in Legislation and budget issues, the Legislation, Budget
and Communication functional area provides coordinated service to the entire
FloodSAFE initiative. In addition BAM activities need to be coordinated and consistent
reporting of bond expenditures needs to be compiled and report for the entire FloodSAFE
California Program.

G.2 Goals and Objectives

The goal and objectives for the Legislation, Budget, and Communication functional area
are as follows.

FloodSAFE G-1 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

G.2.1 Goal
The primary goal of the Legislation, Budget, and Communication functional area is to
facilitate legislation, budget, and communication matters to aid the efficient work of all
functional areas in improving flood safety.

G.2.2 Objectives
Meet the Legislature-mandated quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reporting on
how bond funds are being used

Develop public outreach strategy for use as guidance for other functional areas
preparing their own outreach plans

Serve as the clearing house for the FloodSAFE initiative in public

communications

Field information requests received from the Legislature

Ensure BAM requirements are met and Prepare periodic status reports and bond
reporting to the Legislature

Serve as primary contact for coordination with USACE and in securing federal
funding

Serve as the primary manager or the FloodSAFE budget and as advocate for
sustainable FloodSAFE funding

G.3 Elements and Components

The Legislation, Budget and Communication functional area is organized around four
elements as listed below and shown in Figure G-1.

FloodSAFE G-2 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Figure G-1. Legislation, Budget, and Communication Functional Area

G.3.1 Communication and Briefing Materials

This element will prepare tools and processes for communications and briefings to
benefit the entire FloodSAFE initiative. Staff will develop an outreach strategy for use by

FloodSAFE G-3 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

the other functional areas in developing their own outreach plans. This component will
serve the other functional areas to provide consistency in preparing public meetings and
other communications with the public. This will provide guidance on meeting geographic
coverage and frequency depending on the type and stage of development for each
program. In addition, standards for reports, web sites, and other communications will be
developed in this component. Some publications, such as fact sheets and brochures, for
all functional areas will be prepared under this component. Periodic reporting that will be
prepared include:

Monthly Briefing Materials

a) Monthly budget briefing by functional area

b) Monthly program status by functional area

c) Executive briefings

d) Program management summary – Project Dash Board

e) Program management status briefing by functional area

Quarterly Briefing Reports

a) Bond Accountability Report

b) Budget/Fiscal Report

c) Program Status Report

d) FloodSAFE Newsletter

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports

a) Expenditures Report

b) System Improvements Report

c) Bond Accountability Deliverables Report

d) Benchmark Indicators Report( tied to F.A. performance measures)

e) Semi-annual CVFPB status report on system improvements (also for

USACE and local agencies)

As Needed Materials

a) Materials for public meetings/workshops

b) Unscheduled presentation materials

FloodSAFE G-4 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

G.3.2 Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment

The federal government will be the State’s main partner in implementing the FloodSAFE
initiative. Effective coordination between State, federal, and local agencies will be
required at all stages from project concepts through completion of construction.
FloodSAFE implementation will not be possible without federal funding. Proposition 1E
requires that the State secure the maximum feasible amounts of federal and local
matching funds. This component will, in coordination with DWR Executive Office, serve
as the primary State advocate for securing the necessary federal funding.

USACE technical personnel will be involved in performing work for several of the
functional areas and will coordinate directly with each of those areas as needed. In
addition, this component will provide consistent communication and alignment with the
USACE at the management level. FEMA is ultimately responsible for levee
accreditation. Alignment with FEMA throughout FloodSAFE implementation will keep
FEMA involved and up-to-speed on developments affecting the flood protection system
and the floodplains.

Briefings designed for funding advocacy and agencies’ alignment include:

Legislative Briefings

o State Legislature

o Federal Congress

Executive Briefings

o State executives

o Federal executives (USACE, FEMA, USBR, and others)

Local Agencies’ Briefings

o County Supervisors

o Local maintaining agencies

o Water management agencies

G.3.3 Legislative Liaison and Legal Issues

The Legislature is a key player in the implementation of the FloodSAFE initiative.
Effective communication and reporting of plans and progress will aid the Legislature in
funding flood management activities and with direction for future implementation. This
element will also address legal issues that need to be resolved for progression of the
FloodSAFE initiative. Activities for this element include:

State legislation tracking and review

FloodSAFE G-5 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Federal legislation review and advocacy

Regulations tracking and review

Guidelines development

Tracking and review of administrative processes and requirements

G.3.4 Program Management, Budget and Fiscal Services

DWR is accountable to California general public for efficient management and
expenditure of State funds. Program management is a major role of FA7. Preparing bond
budgets and tracking of bond expenditures is essential to document investments of
taxpayer dollars.

Program Management. This component provides overall project management

support to the other functional areas. Management decisions that affect more than
one functional area are made here. The Legislation for Propositions 1E and 84
provided broad guidance on the amounts of money available by geographic area
and type of work. This component will prepare and maintain more detailed annual
budgets with breakdown by functional area, elements, and components. Program
management activities include:

o Program management Bond Accountability and Management

coordination/ offsite meetings
The Governor of the State of California
o Update strategic plans/ issued Executive Order S-02-07 requiring
all agencies to be accountable for ensuring
implementation plans as needed
that bond proceeds are spent efficiently,
o Update Bond Expenditures Plan effectively, and in the best interests of the
people of the State of California. To
o Implement application of PMI implement this accountability, each
processes, tools and training department needed to establish and
document a three-part accountability
o Programs and projects reporting structure for bond expenditures that
includes Front-end Accountability, In-
o Program internal coordination and Progress Accountability, and Follow-up
integration Accountability.

Budget Activities. This component will

manage FloodSAFE budgets including:

o Annual budget preparation

o Department of Finance liaison

o Cash flow and bond management

FloodSAFE G-6 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

o Budget breakdown tracking and management

o Funding allocations and agencies’ cost sharing tracking

o Expenditures tracking and reporting by project type (planning, design or

construction)

Fiscal Activities. This component will manage FloodSAFE fiscal activities

including:

o Contract and contract management

o Fund commitment

o Invoice payment

o Fiscal reporting

o Expenditure projections

o Year-end fund tracking and fund closing

G.3.5 FloodSAFE Program Administrative and Coordination Services

This element includes all administrative and coordination work required for FloodSAFE
implementation.

Program Administration Activities. This component includes the general

administrative activities necessary to maintain staff and other resources. These
include:

o Human resources activities

o Staff training

o Purchasing supplies and services

o Coordinating staff travel needs

o Acquiring and maintaining facilities

o Other administrative activities as needed

FloodSAFE Policy Document Development and Review. Policy development is

a critical component for a complex initiative like FloodSAFE. Administrative
staff prepare and broker several policy related documents:

o Prepare policy documents for FloodSAFE Management Team review and

approval

FloodSAFE G-7 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

o Respond to Control Letters

o Respond to agencies’ request

o Prepare and review Decision Memos

o Prepare program’ decision memos for Division Chief

o Prepare division program briefing summaries

o Prepare ―Governor Action Requests‖

FloodSAFE Governance Activities. The governance for the FloodSAFE

initiative resides in FA7. These governance activities include:

o Management of working groups

o Management of coordination teams

o Working with, and establishing guidance for, Regional Coordinators

o Coordinating across the DWR divisions

o Preparing DWR 1498 agreements

G.4 Geographic Focus

The Legislation, Budget and Communication functional area covers the entire State.

G.5 Major Deliverables

The major deliverables for the Legislation, Budget and Communication functional area
are as follows.

Communication and Briefing Materials

Public Outreach Strategy document (June 2010)

Monthly briefing materials (budget, program status, executive briefing, program

management summary, and program management status briefing)

Quarterly briefing materials (Bond Accountability Report, Budget/Fiscal Report,

Program Status Report, FloodSAFE Newsletter)

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports (Expenditures Report, System Improvements

Report, Bond Accountability Deliverables Report, Benchmark Indicators Report,
Semi-annual CVFPB Status Report on System Improvements

FloodSAFE G-8 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

As needed materials for public meetings, workshops and forums, and requests for
information

Fact sheets, brochures, and other program publications as needed

Funding Advocacy and Agencies’ Alignment

Legislative and Congressional briefings as needed

Executive briefings (State and federal) as needed

Local agencies’ briefings as needed

Legislative Liaison and Legal Issues

Summaries of State and federal legislation as needed

Summaries of regulation changes as needed

Guidelines for progression of FloodSAFE work as needed

Summaries of administrative processes and requirements

Field requests for information from Legislature and provide timely responses

Prepare periodic status reports to Legislature

Assist in preparation of briefings for legislative staff

Program Management, Budget, and Fiscal Services

Materials for meetings as needed

Strategic plan updates as needed

Bond Expenditures Plan updates

Prepare PMI process, tools and training guidelines

Programs and project reporting (monthly, quarterly, and annual)

Prepare web page for public access to bond expenditure

Annual budgets

Funding allocations

Expenditures tracking reports

FloodSAFE G-9 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Expenditure projection reports

Policy documents

Responses to Control Letters

Responses to agencies’ requests

Decision Memo responses

Meetings and briefing summaries

Governor Action Requests

DWR 1498 Agreements

G.6 Performance Measures

Table G-1 Performance Measures
Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
Monthly Briefing Materials
1. Percent of briefing materials completed on time
Communication Quarterly Briefing Reports
and Briefing
Materials 1. Percent of reports completed on time
Annual and Semi-Annual Reports
1. Percent of reports completed on time
Legislative Briefing
1. Number of meetings, briefings, or other communications with USACE management
2. Percentage of briefings with completed summaries
3. Declining rate of information requests received from Legislature
Funding
Advocacy and 4. Amount of federal funding ($) requested
Agencies’ 5. Cumulative federal funding ($) secured
Alignment
Executive Briefings
1. Percentage of briefings with completed summaries
Local Agencies’ Briefings
1. Percentage of briefings with completed summaries

Legislation Liaison
Liaison and 1. Legislation tracking summaries up-to-date (State and federal)
Legal Issues
2. Regulation changes summaries up-to-date (State and federal)
Program Management
1. Number of coordination meetings
Management, 2. Strategic Plan up-to-date
Budget and
Fiscal Services 3. Bond Expenditures Plan updates prepared on time
4. PMI process, tools and training are active
5. Tracking system operable

FloodSAFE G-10 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table G-1 Performance Measures

Element Component with Performance Measures (numbered)
6. Percentage of projects reporting submitted on time
Budget
1. Percent of bond budgets prepared on time
2. Declining rate of requests for budget modifications
3. Percent of departments with completed three-part accountability documents
4. Working web site for public access to bond expenditure information
Fiscal
1. Fiscal reporting up-to-date
2. Expenditure projections up-to-date
Program Administrative Activities
1. Administrative process in place and functioning
FloodSAFE Policy Document Development Review
1. Percent of policy documents complete

FloodSAFE 2. Percent of Control Letters and agencies’ requests completed

Program 3. Number of unresolved decision requests (zero as goal)
Administrative
4. Percent of division program briefing summaries completed
and
Coordination 5. Number of Governor Action Request completed
Services FloodSAFE Governance Activities
1. Number of working group meetings
2. Number of coordination team meetings
3. Number of meetings with DSIWM on California Water Plan Update coordination
4. Percent of 1498 Agreements completed

G.7 Projected Budget, Resources, and Schedule

The budget shown in Table G-2 provides an estimate of near-term State investments in
the Legislation, Budget and Communication functional area through fiscal year 2011-12.
State investments are dependent on future legislative appropriations.

FloodSAFE G-11 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
 0901D2

Table G-2 Legislation, Budget, and Communication (FA 7) State Investments

FA 7 - Legislation, Budget, and Communication($ million)

Annual GF 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-14 Total

Communication and Engagement $ -

Outreach Strategy Development $ -

Public Meetings and Communication $ -

Publication and Communication to Media $ -

Legislative Liaison $ -
Legislative Communication $ - $ - $ - $ 1,630 $ 9,780 $ 11,410
Bond Projects Progress Reporting $ -

Federal Engagement $ -
USACE Coordination $ -
Federal Funding $ -
FEMA Coordination $ -

Management and Accountability $ -

Bond Budgeting $ -

Bond Accountability and Management $ - $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 4,800 $ 7,200

Bond Reporting $ -
Program Coordination and Integration $ -
Project Management Support $ -

TOTAL $ - $ 800 $ 800 $ 2,430 $ 14,580 $ 18,610

General Fund $ - $ -
Prop 1E $ - $ 800 $ 800 $ 2,430 $ 14,580 $ 18,610
Prop 84 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Others (Fed) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Prop 1E & Prop 84 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total $ - $ - $ 800 $ 800 $ 2,430 $ 14,580 $ 18,610

FloodSAFE G-12 DRAFT

Implementation Plan December 2009
For additional information, contact:
Gary Bardini
(916) 574-0600
[email protected]

Or, visit us on the Web at: www.water.ca.gov

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Mike Chrisman
Secretary of Resources
Lester A. Snow
Director
Department of Water Resources

Prepared by GEI Consultants, Inc. for

The California Department of Water Resources
Naser Bateni, Program Manager (PE 36128)