5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview · with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and participation by Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento in the Community Rating System

5 MITIGATION STRATEGY

Sacramento County 5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011

Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the

jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment,

based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on

and improve these existing tools.

This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the

Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. It describes how the County and

participating jurisdictions met the following requirements from the 10-step planning process:

Planning Step 6: Set Goals

Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities

Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan

5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview

The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the identification of

mitigation actions, and the hard work of the HMPC led to the mitigation strategy and mitigation

action plan for this LHMP update. As part of the plan update process, a comprehensive review

and update of the mitigation strategy portion of the plan was conducted by the HMPC. Some of

the initial goals and objectives from the 2005 plan were refined and reaffirmed, some goals were

deleted, and others were added. The end result was a new set of goals, reorganized to reflect the

completion of 2005 actions, the updated risk assessment and the new priorities of this plan

update. To support the new LHMP goals, the mitigation actions from 2005 were reviewed and

assessed for their value in reducing risk and vulnerability to the planning area from identified

hazards and evaluated for their inclusion in this plan update (See Section 2.0 What’s New).

Section 5.2 below identifies the new goals and objectives of this plan update and Section 5.4

details the new mitigation action plan.

Taking all of the above into consideration, the HMPC developed the following umbrella

mitigation strategy for this LHMP update:

Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process as

well as HMPC success stories so that the community better understands what can happen

where and what they themselves can do to be better prepared.

Implement the action plan recommendations of this plan.

Use existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence.

Monitor multi-objective management opportunities so that funding opportunities may be

shared and packaged and broader constituent support may be garnered.


5.1.1 Continued Compliance with NFIP

Given the flood hazard in the planning area, an emphasis will be placed on continued compliance

with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and participation by Sacramento County and

the City of Sacramento in the Community Rating System. Other cities are encouraged to begin

participating in the CRS. Detailed below is a description of the County’s flood management

program to ensure continued compliance with the NFIP. Also to be considered are the numerous

flood mitigation actions contained in this LHMP that support the ongoing efforts by the county

to minimize the risk and vulnerability of the community to the flood hazard and to enhance their

overall floodplain management program.

Sacramento County’s Flood Management Program

Sacramento County has participated in the Regular Phase1 of the NFIP since 1979. Since then,

the County has administered floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum

requirements of the NFIP. Under that arrangement, residents and businesses paid the same flood

insurance premium rates as most other communities in the country.

Sacramento County has participated in CRS since 1992, shortly after its 1990 launch. The CRS

program is designed to recognize floodplain management activities that go above and beyond the

NFIP’s minimum requirements. CRS is designed to reward a community for implementing

public information, mapping, regulatory, loss reduction and/or flood preparedness activities. On

a scale of 10 to 1, Sacramento County is currently ranked Class 4 putting it in the top eleven in

the nation and second best in California.

The activities credited by the CRS provide direct benefits to Sacramento County and its

residents, including:

Enhanced public safety;

A reduction in damage to property and public infrastructure;

Avoidance of economic disruption and losses;

Reduction of human suffering; and

Protection of the environment.

The activities that Sacramento County implements and receives CRS credits for include:

Activity 310 – Elevation Certificates: The Water Resources Department maintains

elevation certificates for new and substantially improved buildings. Copies of elevation

1 There are two phases for a community’s participation in the NFIP. The Emergency Program is the initial phase of

a community’s participation in the NFIP. Limited amounts of insurance coverage are provided. The Regular

Program is the final phase of a community’s participation in the NFIP. In this phase, a FIRM is in effect and full

limits of coverage are available.


certificates are made available upon request. Elevation Certificates are also kept for post-

FIRM and pre-FIRM buildings and maintained in computer format. Elevation Certificates,

plans, regulations and other records are maintained in a secure location away from the permit

office.

Activity 320 – Map Information Service: Credit is provided for furnishing inquirers with

flood zone information from the community's latest Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),

publicizing the service annually and maintaining records.

Activity 330 – Outreach Projects: A community brochure is mailed to all properties in the

community on an annual basis. An outreach brochure is mailed annually to all properties in

the community's Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The community also provides flood

information through displays at public buildings and community events.

Activity 340 – Hazard Disclosure: Credit is provided for state and community regulations

requiring disclosure of flood hazards.

Activity 350 – Flood Protection Information: Documents relating to floodplain

management are available in the reference section of the Sacramento Public Library. Credit

is also provided for floodplain information displayed on the community's website.

Activity 360 – Flood Protection Assistance: The community provides technical advice and

assistance to interested property owners and annually publicizes the service.

Activity 410 – Additional Flood Data: Credit is provided for conducting and adopting

flood studies for areas not included on the flood insurance rate maps and that exceed

minimum mapping standards. Credit is also provided for a cooperating technical partnership

agreement with FEMA.

Activity 420 – Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving approximately

5 acres in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as open space. Credit is also provided for

open space land that is deed restricted.

Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for enforcing regulations

that require freeboard for new and substantial improvement construction, protection of

floodplain storage capacity, natural and beneficial functions, enclosure limits, other higher

regulatory standards, land development criteria and state mandated regulatory standards.

Credit is also provided for a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)

Classification of 3/3, for certification as a floodplain manager and the adoption of the

International Building Codes.

Activity 440 – Flood Data Maintenance: Credit is provided for maintaining and using

digitized maps in the day to day management of the floodplain. Credit is also provided for

maintaining copies of all previous FIRMs and Flood Insurance Study Reports.

Activity 450 – Stormwater Management: The community enforces regulations for

stormwater management, freeboard in non-SFHA zones, soil and erosion control, and water

quality. Credit is also provided for watershed management master planning.

Activity 510 – Floodplain Management Planning: Based on the updates made to the NFIP

Report of Repetitive Losses as of June 30, 2008, Sacramento County has 102 repetitive loss

properties and is a Category C community for CRS purposes. All requirements for the 2009

cycle have been met. The County continuously tracks repetitive loss properties, and the


current repetitive loss status of the County is included in Appendix H to this plan. Credit is

provided for the adoption and implementation of the Floodplain Management Plan. Since

Sacramento County is a Category C2 community with an approved Floodplain Management

Plan, a progress report must be submitted on an annual basis. In addition, as detailed in the

Section 3.0, Planning Process, this LHMP is being developed to maximize CRS credits for

Activity 510.

Activity 520 – Acquisition and Relocation: Credit is provided for acquiring and relocating

buildings from the community's flood hazard area.

Activity 530 – Flood Protection: Credit is provided for buildings that have been flood

proofed, elevated or otherwise modified to protect them from flood damage.

Activity 540 – Drainage System Maintenance: Portions of the community's drainage

system are inspected regularly throughout the year and maintenance is performed as needed

by the Department of Water Resources. Records are being maintained for both inspections

and required maintenance. Credit is also provided for an ongoing Capital Improvements

Program. The community also enforces a regulation prohibiting dumping in the drainage

system.

Activity 610 – Flood Warning Program: Credit is provided for a program that provides

timely identification of impending flood threats, disseminates warnings to appropriate

floodplain residents, and coordinates flood response activities.

Activity 630 – Dam Safety: All California communities currently receive CRS credit for the

state's dam safety program.

The 300-series CRS activities are continued as a regular part of the County’s floodplain

management program. In addition, Activity 330 in the 2012 manual prompted Sacramento

County to collaborate with the City of Sacramento to participate as pilot communities to assist in

developing and testing proposed revisions to the 2012 CRS public information program.

The 2012 CRS Public Information Series is being revised to credit CRS communities for

developing programs for public information specifically tailored to their particular hazards,

natural resources, and audiences. Such a program would be like an existing public information

strategy but using more creative approaches to communicate with target audiences. The revision

will also include measurement techniques to assess outcomes and redirect programs as needed to

achieve desired outcomes.

2 The CRS classifies communities into three categories. Each category of community must deal with repetitive flood

problems in different ways, depending on the severity of the repetitive-loss problem. Class A: A community with

no unmitigated repetitive loss properties. No special requirements from the CRS. Class B: A community with at

least one, but fewer than 10, unmitigated repetitive loss properties. Class B communities are required by the CRS to

research and describe their repetitive loss problem, create a map showing the location of all repetitive loss properties

and complete an annual outreach activity directed to the repetitive loss addresses. Class C: A community with 10 or

more unmitigated repetitive loss properties. The CRS requires Class C communities to do everything a Class B

community does as well as prepare a floodplain management plan and repetitive loss area analysis for all areas.


The pilot program includes establishing a committee to include non-government stakeholders

who are involved in flood concerns or flood-related public information activities.

The CRS identified six messages of primary importance to the program. The committee will

evaluate each of six messages for applicability to the local situation, and develop public

information projects for each relevant message. The CRS public information program will be

implemented over a strategic time phase. More information on this pilot program is provided in

Mitigation Action #2 of this LHMP.

Additional work in the 400-series – The County is mapping local flood hazards, to be posted on a

web-based system (activity 410) in an effort to provide the public with flood hazard information

in addition to the FEMA flood insurance rate maps. The (activity 450) watershed management

plan, a section herein, will be kept current collaborating with the cooperative technical partner

cities and the county.

Additional work in the 500-series - The County will continue to work with repetitive loss

property owners to mitigate future loss potential reporting on an annual basis. Additionally,

there are two homes scheduled to be elevated subject to grant application currently in the queue.

Meanwhile the drainage maintenance team is maintaining GIS based call logs and prioritizing

drainage improvement projects.

Additional work in the 600-series - a committee will consider how public outreach might better

describe various flood hazards.

5.2 Goals and Objectives

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of

mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.

Up to this point in the planning process, the HMPC has organized resources, assessed hazards

and risks, and documented mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals, objectives, and

mitigation actions were developed based on these tasks. The HMPC held a series of meetings

and exercises designed to achieve a collaborative mitigation strategy as described further

throughout this section.

During the initial goal-setting meeting, the HMPC reviewed the results of the hazard

identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. This analysis of the risk

assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the framework for

the HMPC to formulate planning goals and objectives and to develop the mitigation strategy for

the Sacramento County Planning Area.

Goals were defined for the purpose of this mitigation plan as broad-based public policy

statements that:


Represent basic desires of the community;

Encompass all aspects of community, public and private;

Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome;

Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and

Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.

Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means

are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they

are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives

and actions that will be used as means to achieve the goals. Objectives define strategies to attain

the goals and are more specific and measurable.

HMPC members were provided with the list of goals from the 2005 plan as well as a list of other

sample goals to consider. They were told that they could use, combine, or revise the statements

provided or develop new ones, keeping the risk assessment in mind. Each member was given

three index cards and asked to write a goal statement on each. Goal statements were collected

and grouped into similar themes and displayed on the wall of the meeting room. The goal

statements were then grouped into similar topics. New goals from the HMPC were discussed

until the team came to consensus. Some of the statements were determined to be better suited as

objectives or actual mitigation actions and were set aside for later use. Next, the HMPC

developed objectives that summarized strategies to achieve each goal.

Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the HMPC identified the following

goals and objectives, which provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within

the Sacramento County Planning Area.

GOAL 1: Minimize the loss of life, injury, and property damage from natural hazards

(reduce the risk and vulnerability of the community to hazards through mitigation efforts)

Objective 1.1 Assure long term protection of existing and future development from

natural hazards

Objective 1.2 Protect critical facilities from natural hazards

Objective 1.3 Protect the environment from natural hazards

1.3.1 Protect and enhance water quality, critical aquatic resources and habitat for

beneficial uses.

Objective 1.4 Maintain/enhance the flood mitigation program to provide 100/200/500

year flood protection

1.4.1 Protect, create, and restore flood control facilities and waterways to convey flood

waters and to provide flood control services to surrounding areas.

1.4.2 Mitigate Repetitive Loss Properties.

1.4.2 Flood mitigation efforts should include considerations for protecting water supply

from contamination.

Objective 1.5 Minimize risk of levee breach, overtopping or other failures


1.5.1Maintain levees to standards described by state and federal regulations suitable for

risk reduction.

1.5.2 Address levee seepage and erosion issues on a proactive, ongoing basis.

1.5.3 Obtain funding for identified levee improvement projects.

Objective 1.6 Reduce the potential of wildfire incidents next to developed communities

1.6.1 Fuels reduction and maintenance of defensible space in the High and Very High

Fire Hazard Severity Zones, including the Rollingwood, American River Parkway, Fair

Oaks, and Orangevale areas.

1.6.2 Secure funding for staffing Fire Station #33 during red flag conditions.

GOAL 2: Enhance public awareness of the affects of natural hazards and public

understanding of disaster preparedness

Objective 2.1 Reduce exposure to hazard related losses

2.1.1 Fire fuel reduction and defensible space

2.1.2 Flood hazard awareness and mitigation

2.1.3 Insurance is the last but certain defense

Objective 2.2 Implement outreach/education programs pre- and post-disaster

2.2.1 Target outreach and education for each hazard type and risk area.

Objective 2.3 Develop, enhance, and integrate disaster response planning and training

2.3.1 Encourage at risk populations to develop and practice emergency plans, including

procedures for evacuation and shelter-in-place.

o 2.3.1.1 Consider utilizing a neighborhood approach to evacuation planning and

disaster response to assist first responders.

GOAL 3: Improve the capabilities of the community to mitigate or reduce losses

from natural hazards

Objective 3.1 Minimize hazard-related damage in order to maintain current service

levels

Objective 3.2 Maximize resources to provide mitigation from natural hazards

3.2.1 Coordinate jurisdictional responsibilities to various hazards through City and

Community Disaster/Emergency Response Plans and Exercises.

Objective 3.3 Increase the use of shared resources between agencies

3.3.1 GIS, Lidar, DFIRM

3.3.2 Water Supply

Objective 3.4 Strengthen Intergovernmental and Interagency partnerships

3.4.1 Transportation, waste disposal, fire districts

Objective 3.5 Promote public/private partnerships in hazard mitigation and education

programs

Objective 3.6 Increase coordination and communication among federal, state and local

agencies


3.6.1 Identify and implement mitigation projects that are mutually beneficial

GOAL 4: Position Jurisdictions for Federal and State Grant Funding

Objective 4.1 Maintain good standing with FEMA and State hazard mitigation

programs, regulations and requirements

Objective 4.2 Maximize funding opportunities through identification and tracking of all

types of Federal and state grant programs

4.2.1 Monitor and communicate to all communities: available grant programs,

timelines, and processes

5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that

identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects

being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and

existing buildings and infrastructure.

In order to identify and select mitigation actions to support the mitigation goals, each hazard

identified in Section 4.1 Identifying Hazards: Natural Hazards was evaluated. Only those

hazards that were determined to be a priority hazard were considered further in the development

of hazard-specific mitigation actions.

These priority hazards (in alphabetical order) are:

Bird Strike

Dam Failure

Drought

Earthquake

Earthquake Liquefaction

Flood: 100/200/500–year

Flood: Localized/Stormwater

Levee Failure

River/Stream/Creek Bank Erosion

Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms

Subsidence

Wildfire

The HMPC eliminated the hazards identified below from further consideration in the

development of mitigation actions because the risk of a hazard event in the County is unlikely or

nonexistent, the vulnerability of the County is low, or capabilities are already in place to mitigate

negative impacts. The eliminated hazards are:


Ag Hazards: Insect Pest

Landslide

Severe Weather: Extreme Heat

Severe Weather: Fog

Severe Weather: Freeze

Severe Weather: Tornadoes

Volcano

It is important to note, however, that all the hazards addressed in this plan are included in the

countywide multi-hazard public awareness mitigation action as well as in other multi-hazard,

emergency management actions.

Once it was determined which hazards warranted the development of specific mitigation actions,

the HMPC analyzed viable mitigation options that supported the identified goals and objectives.

The HMPC was provided with the following list of categories of mitigation actions, which

originate from the Community Rating System:

Prevention

Property protection

Structural projects

Natural resource protection

Emergency services

Public information

The HMPC was also provided with examples of potential mitigation action alternatives for each

of the above categories. The HMPC was also instructed to consider both future and existing

buildings in considering possible mitigation actions. A facilitated discussion then took place to

examine and analyze the options. Appendix C, Mitigation Strategy, provides a detailed

discussion by CRS mitigation category to assist in the review and identification of possible

mitigation activities. Also utilized in the review of possible mitigation measures is FEMA’s

publication on Mitigation Ideas, by hazard type. This was followed by a brainstorming session

that generated a list of preferred mitigation actions by hazard.

5.3.1 Prioritization Process

Once the mitigation actions were identified, the HMPC was provided with several decision-

making tools, including FEMA’s recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE sustainable

disaster recovery criteria; Smart Growth principles; and others, to assist in deciding why one

recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented

than another. STAPLEE stands for the following:

Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations)

Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem?


Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the

project?

Political: Who are the stakeholders? Will there be adequate political and public support for

the project?

Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal?

Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action

contribute to the local economy?

Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be

negative environmental consequences from the action?

In accordance with the DMA requirements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of a

benefit-cost analysis in determining action priority. Other criteria used to assist in evaluating the

benefit-cost of a mitigation action includes:

Does the action address hazards or areas with the highest risk?

Does the action protect lives?

Does the action protect infrastructure, community assets or critical facilities?

Does the action meet multiple objectives (Multiple Objective Management)?

What will the action cost?

What is the timing of available funding?

The mitigation categories, multi-hazard actions, and criteria are included in Appendix C:

Mitigation Categories, Alternatives, and Selection Criteria.

With these criteria in mind, HMPC members were each given a set of eighteen colored dots, six

each of red, blue, and yellow. The dots were assigned red for high priority (worth five points),

blue for medium priority (worth three points), and yellow for low priority (worth one point). The

team was asked to use the dots to prioritize actions with the above criteria in mind. The point

score for each action was totaled. Appendix C contains the total score given to each identified

mitigation action.

The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come

to consensus and to prioritize recommended mitigation actions. During the voting process,

emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost review in determining project priority;

however, this was not a quantitative analysis. After completing the prioritization exercise, some

team members expressed concern that prioritizing all the actions as a group is not very effective,

since many of the actions are jurisdiction- or department-specific. However, the team agreed

that prioritizing the actions collectively enabled the actions to be ranked in order of relative

importance and helped steer the development of additional actions that meet the more important

objectives while eliminating some of the actions which did not garner much support.

Benefit-cost was also considered in greater detail in the development of the Mitigation Action

Plan detailed below in Section 5.3. Specifically, each action developed for this plan contains a


description of the problem and proposed project, the entity with primary responsibility for

implementation, any other alternatives considered, a cost estimate, expected project benefits,

potential funding sources, and a schedule for implementation. Development of these project

details for each action led to the determination of a High, Medium, or Low priority for each.

Recognizing the limitations in prioritizing actions from multiple jurisdictions and departments

and the regulatory requirement to prioritize by benefit-cost to ensure cost-effectiveness, the

HMPC decided to pursue:

mitigation action strategy development and implementation according to the nature and

extent of damages;

the level of protection and benefits each action provides;

political support;

project cost;

available funding; and

individual jurisdiction and department priority.

This process drove the development of a prioritized action plan for the Sacramento County

Planning Area. Cost-effectiveness will be considered in greater detail through performing

benefit-cost project analyses when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for eligible actions

associated with this plan.

5.4 Mitigation Action Plan

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan

describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented,

and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis

on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the

proposed projects and their associated costs.

This action plan was developed to present the recommendations developed by the HMPC for

how the Sacramento County Planning Area can reduce the risk and vulnerability of people,

property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources to future disaster losses. Emphasis

was placed on both future and existing development. The action plan summarizes who is

responsible for implementing each of the prioritized actions as well as when and how the actions

will be implemented. Each action summary also includes a discussion of the benefit-cost review

conducted to meet the regulatory requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act. Table 5.1

identifies the mitigation actions and lead jurisdiction for each action. Only those actions where

the County is the lead jurisdiction are detailed further in this section. Actions specific to other

participating jurisdictions, or where other jurisdictions are taking the lead, are detailed in each

respective jurisdictional annex to this plan.


The action plan detailed below contains both new action items developed for this plan update as

well as old actions that were yet to be completed from the 2005 plan. Table 5.1 indicates

whether the action is new or from the 2005 plan and Section 2.0 contains the details for each

2005 mitigation action item indicating whether a given action item has been completed, deleted,

or deferred.

It is important to note that Sacramento County and the participating jurisdictions have numerous

existing, detailed action descriptions, which include benefit-cost estimates, in other planning

documents, such as watershed plans, stormwater plans, community wildfire protection plans, and

capital improvement budgets and reports. These actions are considered to be part of this plan,

and the details, to avoid duplication, should be referenced in their original source document. The

HMPC also realizes that new needs and priorities may arise as a result of a disaster or other

circumstances and reserves the right to support new actions, as necessary, as long as they

conform to the overall goals of this plan.

Further, it should be clarified that the actions included in this mitigation strategy are subject to

further review and refinement; alternatives analyses; and reprioritization due to funding

availability and/or other criteria. The participating communities are not obligated by this

document to implement any or all of these projects. Rather this mitigation strategy represents the

desires of the community to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities from identified hazards. The

actual selection, prioritization, and implementation of these actions will also be further evaluated

in accordance with the CRS mitigation categories and criteria contained in Appendix C.

Also, many of the action items included in this plan are a collaborative effort among

participating jurisdictions and other local, state, and federal agencies and stakeholders in the

Sacramento County planning area. Table 5.1 identifies the lead jurisdiction. The individual

worksheets for each mitigation action item identify other mitigation partners. In addition, many

of the more regional actions where the county or other jurisdictions are identified as the lead,

such as the Enhance Public Awareness of the Affects of Natural Hazards and Public

Understanding of Disaster Preparedness, will provide a mitigation benefit to all participating

jurisdictions.


Table 5.1. Sacramento County Planning Area’s Mitigation Actions

Action Title Lead Jurisdiction

New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development

Continued Compliance

with NFIP

CRS Category

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions

Enhance Public Awareness of the Affects of Natural Hazards and Public Understanding of Disaster Preparedness

Sacramento County New X X X Public Information

CRS Public Information Pilot Program

Sacramento County, City of Sacramento

New X X X Public Information

Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan

Sacramento County City of Citrus Heights

City of Elk Grove City of Folsom

City of Galt City of Rancho Cordova

City of Sacramento

New X X X Prevention/Public Information

Flood Insurance Promotion

Sacramento County New X X X Public Information

Evaluation and Mitigation of Critical Facilities in Identified Hazard Areas

Sacramento County New X X Property Protection

Finalize and Implement the Actions of the South Sacrament Habitat Conservation Plan

Sacramento County City of Elk Grove

City of Galt City of Rancho Cordova Sacramento Regional

County Sanitation District Sacramento County Water

Agency, Southeastern Connector

New X X X Natural Resource Protection

SAFELY OUT™ Evacuation Preparedness

Sacramento County Citizen Voice

New X X X Public Information

Public Education Program

City of Elk Grove New X X X Public Information



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Alerts and Warning System

City of Elk Grove New X X X Prevention

Emergency Operation Center (EOC)

City of Elk Grove New X X X Prevention/Emergency Services

Critical Facilities Database Development and Data Maintenance Processes

City of Elk Grove New X X X Prevention/Property Protection

Increase Redundancy/ Functionality of Water Wells and Sewer Lift Stations

City of Galt New X X X Structural

Increase Data Capacity of Emergency Frequencies

City of Galt New X X X Emergency Services

Evaluation and Mitigation of Critical Facilities in Identified Hazard Areas

City of Sacramento New X X Property Protection

Data Center Disaster Recovery Improvement

Los Rios Community College District

New X X Emergency Services

Community Emergency Response Training (CERT)


New X X Emergency Services

Update the critical facilities identified during this DMA planning effort with the City’s GIS technical group to support emergency management efforts.

City of Sacramento 2005 X X X Prevention/Property Protection

Bird Strike Mitigation Actions

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

Sacramento County Airport System

New X X Property Protection



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Dam Failure Mitigation Actions

Mather Dam Improvements

Sacramento County New X X X Structural

Alder Creek Miners Dam Sacramento County New X X X Structural

Improved Flood Inundation and Evacuation Plan for Probable maximum flow from New Spillway at Folsom Dam

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services/ Public Information

Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project

SAFCA New X X X Structural

Folsom Dam Raise SAFCA New X X X Structural

Drought Mitigation Actions

Drought Contingency Plan

Southgate Park & Recreation District

New X X Prevention

Earthquake Mitigation Actions

Hughes Stadium Renovation at Sacramento City College


New X Property Protectionb

Flood Mitigation Actions

Improve County ALERT (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time) system of stream and rain gages

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services/Public Information

Elevation Projects to Mitigate Flood Risk


Arcade Creek Corridor Plan

Sacramento County New X X X Natural Resource Protection/Prevention



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Elevate up to Three Homes on Long Island (Grand Island Road, Sacramento River)


Mitigation Projects for Repetitive Loss Structures/Areas

Sacramento County New X ? X Property Protection

Improve Strawberry Creek Basins at East Stockton Blvd


Triangle Detention Basin Sacramento County New X X X Structural

Unionhouse Detention Basin Upstream of East Stockton Blvd Partnering with Park District and SAFCA


Unionhouse Creek Joint Use Detention Basins – Park Active or Passive Joint Use


South Sacramento Stream Group Detention Basins


Elder and Gerber Creek Sacramento County New Natural Resource Protection/Prevention/Structural

Florin Creek Basins –Florin Vineyard Drainage Master Plan

Sacramento County New X X X Prevention

Joint Use Detention-Park Basins on Laguna Creek


Pasa Robles Drive - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation

Sacramento County New X X Structural



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Chicken Ranch Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Morrison Creek - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Mayhew Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Strong Ranch Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Keep Watershed Management Plan Current CRS Activity 450 (county and cities)

Sacramento County New X X X Natural Resource Protection/Prevention

Woodside Condominiums Repetitive Flood Loss Property


Conversion to NAVD88 vertical datum (from NGVD29)

Sacramento County New X X X Prevention/ Public Outreach

Mitigation projects to reduce flood risk to critical facilities.

Sacramento County New X X Emergency Services/Property Protection

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling in Compliance with 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan


Delta Area Fire Station Needs to be Elevated or Flood Proofed to Protect Against Levee Breach Flooding to Assure Function in that Disaster Event.

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services/Property Protection



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Update and Adopt Floodplain Management Ordinance in Light of Levee De-accreditation


Mitigate Peak Flow on Dry Creek and Tributaries (including Placer County and City of Roseville)

Sacramento County New X X x Prevention

Repetitive Loss Church Building on Dry Creek


Determine Cause and Mitigate Mercury and Methyl Mercury Coming from Tributaries of American River

Sacramento County New X X X Natural Resource Protection

Pump Stations Sacramento County New Structural/Property Protection

Public Outreach Mailers Sacramento County New X X Public Information

Drainage improvements to reduce flooding on key evacuation routes


South Branch Arcade Creek – Gum Ranch Basin (with Fair Oaks Park District)


Dry Creek Flood Hazard Mitigation Acquisitions with County Park Dept

Sacramento County New X X Property Protection/Natural Resource Protection

Arcade Creek at Evergreen Estates Floodwall improvements


Linda Creek Peak Flow Mitigation




New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Improve flood protection and/or Evacuation Planning for Mobile Home/RV Park at Manzanita/Auburn. Alternatively, the park Should Establish Flood Warning and Evacuation Procedures.

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services

Capital Improvement Projects – Pipelines (2012-13)


Capital Improvement Projects – Pipelines (2014-15)


New City Sump 90 Operation Plan


Land Acquisition Southgate Park & Recreation District

New X Natural Resource Protection

Conservation Easements Southgate Park & Recreation District

New X Property Protection

Multi-jurisdictional Cooperation within Watersheds


New X Structural

South Sacramento Streams Group

SAFCA New X Structural

American River Common Features

SAFCA New X Structural

CVFPP - Flood Emergency Plan

City of Sacramento New X X X Emergency Services

Adopt Additional Floodplain Development Standards

City of Sacramento New X X X Prevention



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Update the General Plan to include the requirements of the CVFPP


Historic Magpie Creek Study


South Sacramento Streams Project: Union Pacific Railroad Flood Wall

City of Sacramento New X X X Structural

Natomas Levee Improvement Project (NLIP)


Retrofit of Repetitive Loss Properties

City of Sacramento New X X X Property Protection

Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) Outreach Campaign

City of Sacramento New X X X Public Information

Drainage Projects for Repetitive Loss Properties

City of Sacramento New X X Property Protection

Unionhouse Creek Existing Conditions LOMR and Channel Improvements


Emergency Notification and Evacuation Planning

City of Sacramento New X X X Emergency Services

Drainage Projects from the City’s Priority Drainage Project List

City of Sacramento New X X X Structural/Property Protection

Riconada Flood Wall City of Citrus Heights New X X X Property Protection

Storm Debris Removal City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection

Drainage and Flood Control Programs

City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection/Public Outreach



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

LID Rain Garden Plaza City of Elk Grove New X X X Natural Resource Protection/Prevention/Property

Protection

School Street Alley Drainage Improvements

City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection

Elk Grove Creek Outfalls City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection

Elk Grove Creek Restoration

City of Elk Grove New X X X Natural Resource Protection/Prevention/Property

Protection

Waterman Road Culvert Repair and Replacement

City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection/Structural

Waterman Road Culvert Replacement


Elk Grove Creek Flood Protection and Clean Water


Protection

Elk Grove Watershed Recommended Improvements


Multi-Functional Drainage Corridor for Shed C


Protection/Structural

9816 Sheldon Road – Enlarge Culverts


Sheldon Road Drainage Project


Sleepy Hollow Detention Basin Retrofit


Protection

Sleepy Hollow Lane Drainage Improvements


East Elk Grove Area/ Rural Region Improvements




New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Sheldon Road Ditch Improvements and Multi-Use Trails



Laguna Creek Watershed Improvements (New Pipeline and Enlarge Existing Pipelines)


Deer Creek Watershed Improvements (New Detention Basins)


SCADA System for the Stormwater Pump Stations

City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection/Emergency Services

Dry Well Installation at Kent Street and St. Anthony Court


Elk Crest Drive Pipes City of Elk Grove New X X X Property Protection/Structural

Strawberry Creek Detention Basin Retrofit



Laguna Creek and Whitehouse Creek Multi-Functional Corridor Enhancement


Protection

Whitehouse Creek Watershed Improvements


Grant Line Channel Improvements (Pump Station and Enlarge Pipes)


Alder Creek Watershed Council

City of Folsom New X X X Prevention

Redevelopment Area Drainage Improvements

City of Folsom New X X X Property Protection



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Drainage System Maintenance Tax Assessment

City of Folsom New X X X Structural

Floodplain Mapping City of Folsom New X X X Prevention

Drain Inlet Retrofit Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

City of Galt New X X X Property Protection

Creek/Streams Vegetation Management Plan

City of Galt New X X X Property Protection

Sunrise Boulevard Widening Kiefer to Jackson

City of Rancho Cordova New X X X Structural

Flood Response Equipment

Cosumnes Community Services District Fire

Department

New X X X Emergency Services

Flood Response Training Cosumnes Community Services District Fire

Department

New X X X Emergency Services

Coordinate with SAFCA, CA-DWR, USACE, and Sacramento County on Proposed Flood Control projects on Magpie Creek

City of Sacramento 2005 X X X Property Protection

Storm Water Management Practices - Implement Storm Water Management Practices as identified in Stormwater Quality Design Manual


New X X X Natural Resource Protection

Main Drainage Canal Bank Stabilization and Sediment Removal

Reclamation District #1000 New X X X Property Protection

Security of District Facilities

Reclamation District #1000 New X X X Property Protection



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

South River Pump Station Flood Protection Project

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

New X X X Property Protection

SRCSD Critical Facilities Flood Study (Planning)


New X X X Prevention

Levee Failure Mitigation Actions

Hydromodification and Stormwater Quality countywide

Sacramento County New X Natural Resource Protection

Ring Levees to Protect Delta Historic Villages


Levee Breach Scenario, Inundation, Evacuation, and Recovery Planning for Rural Areas South of Freeport

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services/Prevention

Improved Flood Inundation and Evacuation Plan for Structural Flood Control System Failure Scenarios in Urban Areas

Sacramento County New X X X Emergency Services/Prevention

Human Vertical Evacuation Structures in Areas of Widespread Flood Hazard


Livestock Vertical Evacuation Mounds in Areas of Widespread Flood Hazard


Highway 16 Levee Rehabilitation Project

Reclamation District #800 New X X X Structural

Bank and Levee erosion Reclamation District #1000 New X X X Structural



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Mitigation Actions

Public Education/Outreach Extreme Weather

City of Folsom New X X X Public Information

Heating and Cooling Centers for Extreme Weather

City of Folsom New X X Emergency Services

District Wide Roofing Renovations


New X Property Protection

Tree Management Southgate Park & Recreation District

New X Natural Resource Protection

Wildfire Mitigation Actions

Fuels Reduction in the American River Parkway

City of Sacramento/Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

New Property Protection

Coordinate with SAFCA on completion of South Sacramento Streams Group (includes Florin and Morrison Creeks) Projects in 2005. Provide greater than 100-year protection by improving conveyance and raising levees.

City of Sacramento 2005 X X X Structural Projects

Fuel Reduction and Modification

City of Folsom New X X Property Protection

Wildfire Prevention Outreach

City of Folsom New X X Prevention/Public Information

Wildfire Hazard Identification

City of Folsom New X X Prevention

Arson Prevention & Control Outreach

City of Folsom New X X Prevention/Public Information



New Action/2005

Action

Address Current

Development

Address Future

Development


with NFIP

CRS Category

Ignition Resistant Building Construction Upgrades

City of Folsom New X X Prevention

Reduction of Fire Hazard SRCSD Bufferlands


New X X Property Protection


Mitigation Actions

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions

1. Enhance Public Awareness of the Affects of Natural Hazards and Public

Understanding of Disaster Preparedness

Hazards Addressed:

Ag Hazards: Insect Pests

Bird Strike

Dam Failure

Drought

Earthquake

Earthquake: Liquefaction

Flood: 100/200/500–year


Landslide

Levee Failure

River/Stream/Creek Bank Erosion


Severe Weather: Fog

Severe Weather: Freeze


Severe Weather: Tornadoes

Subsidence

Volcano

Wildfire

Issue/Background: There are a total of 17 jurisdictions participating in the Sacramento-area

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Each jurisdiction is responsible for their own outreach/education

program for hazards in their community. The level of effort varies by jurisdiction. All

jurisdictions contend with limited resources; some must sacrifice educational outreach

campaigns to direct their limited resources to the most critical projects. A single unified outreach

program will ascertain both broad and targeted educational needs. Resources will be leveraged

by consolidating messaging where appropriate and reaching across jurisdictional lines.

Other Alternatives: Status quo.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Existing

outreach programs will be reviewed for effectiveness. Successful components will be expanded

across the broader region.


Responsible Office: Development Review Hydrology and Communications and Media

Priority (H, M, L): High

Cost Estimate: $75,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increase residents’ knowledge of potential hazards and activities

required to mitigate hazards.

Potential Funding: HMGP Grant

Schedule: 2012/13

2. CRS Public Information Pilot Program

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure

Issue/Background: The 2012 CRS Public Information Series is being revised to credit CRS

three types of Outreach Projects: 1.) Program for Public Information; 2.) Stakeholder

Implementation; and, 3.) Action Resulting from Outreach.

The County of Sacramento is a pilot community, in partnership with the City of Sacramento, to

―field test‖ the expanded CRS outreach opportunities and will develop recommendations for the

CRS Program Directors’ consideration as they finalize the 2012 CRS Program modifications.

The pilot program involves establishing a committee to include non-government stakeholders

who are involved in flood concerns or flood-related public information activities. In addition to

government participants, the PPI committee members include a representative from the flood

insurance community, a non-profit dedicated to community safety and security, and

representatives from local broadcast media. The committee also includes county and city elected

officials or members of their immediate staffs.

Program for Public Information

The CRS identified six messages of primary importance to the program. The PPI allows up to

four addition messages of local targeted interest. The committee will evaluate each of the

messages for applicability to the regional situation, and develop public information projects for

each relevant message.

For each message, the committee will:

Identify target areas and target audiences

Conduct effectiveness assessments of current public information programs

Identify similar public information efforts from other department programs or other regional

agencies


Develop desired outcomes for each message, i.e.: financially protect homeowners from flood

losses

Develop an public information strategy/project for each desired outcome

Establish measurement criteria for each project

Conduct an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of each project with respect to its outreach

goal.

Outreach projects the commit will consider for each message can include:

Informational Materials,

Traditional Media: Television, Radio, Newspaper

Outdoor advertising: Billboard, Transit, Signage

Presentations to organizations, such as homeowners, civic and business associations

Classroom Presentations

Social Media: Twitter, Facebook

Stakeholder Implementation

Projects components will be developed for stakeholders to manage. The PPI committee will

monitor the progress of stakeholder implemented projects and conduct an annual effectiveness

evaluation.

Action Resulting from Outreach

Annually, the committee will review each project to determin the project’s effectiveness in

reaching the outreach goal. Projects that are not achieving the goal will be modified or dropped

in favor of a project that is more likely to achieve a given outreach goal.

Other Alternatives: Continue with existing public information program for CRS

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: CRS program

Responsible Office: DWR Drainage Development section


Cost Estimate: $60,000 annually

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Life Safety, Property Protection

Potential Funding: Annual budgets

Schedule: 2011 - ongoing



Potential Funding: Annual budgets

Schedule: 2011 - ongoing

3. Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan

Hazards Addressed: All

Issue/Background: Local jurisdiction reimbursement for mitigation projects and cost recovery

after a disaster is guided by Government Code Section 8685.9. Specifically, this section requires

that the County must adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) in accordance with the federal

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as part of the safety element of its general plan adopted pursuant

to subdivision (g) of Section 65302. It is important for Sacramento County to incorporate the

County’s LHMP into the safety element as part of the next general plan update.

Other Alternatives: No feasible alternatives

Existing Planning Mechanisms through which Action will be Implemented:

Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources

Priority (High, Medium, Low): High

Cost Estimate: $8,000-10,000 application fees

Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant

Benefits (avoided Losses): Planning documents will help the City maximize potential for state

reimbursement

Schedule: As soon as possible

4. Flood Insurance Promotion

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure

Issue/Background: This new CRS activity credits communities that take an active role in

encouraging residents and businesses to purchase and maintain adequate flood insurance

coverage. It credits a four-step process that allows communities to assess their own needs and

receive credit for improving their coverage.

Assessment of flood insurance coverage: Perform the CRS self-assessment and conduct a review

of existing flood insurance policies, by type for the total community and by specific community

flood hazard areas.


Flood Insurance Outreach Plan: Design an outreach plan to educate the community, by

demographic target, of the importance of having flood insurance protection. The Flood Insurance

Promotion Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Program for Public Information (PPI)

committee.

Outreach Plan Implementation: Implement the various components of the outreach plan.

Coverage Improvement: Conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the outreach plan. A

likely measurement of success would be an increase in flood insurance policies.

Other Alternatives: Continue with existing public information program for flood insurance.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: CRS program

Responsible Office: DWR Drainage Development section and Communications and Media

Office


Cost Estimate: $20,000 annually


Potential Funding: HMGP Grant

Schedule: 2011 – ongoing

5. Evaluation and Mitigation of Critical Facilities in Identified Hazard Areas

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Dam Inundation, Levee Failure, Wildfire

Issue/Background: Based on the critical facility analysis completed for this plan, over 3,000

critical facilities have been identified within the Sacramento County Planning Area. This

number is anticipated to go up based on additional mapping of critical facilities as the GIS

mapping effort is completed. For Sacramento County, 52 mapped critical facilities have been

identified within the 100 year floodplain and another 164 (81-city) in the 500-year floodplain. A

detailed list of those affected critical facilities are included in Appendix E. Due to the significant

number of critical facilities identified within the flood and other hazard areas, additional

evaluation of each affected facility is required in order to determine which facilities should be

potentially relocated and/or protected. This project addresses the additional evaluation of

identified critical facilities to determine options for mitigation. The initial focus will be on those

facilities within the flood hazard areas, with other hazard-prone facilities to follow. The end

result of this analysis will be a list of facilities within the 100- and 500-year floodplain and their

mitigation recommendations and priorities.


Other Alternatives: No action, remove all critical facilities from the floodplain.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This will be

implemented through the County floodplain management program

Responsible Office: County DWR

Cost Estimate: Analysis and recommendations should involve staff time; resulting mitigation

measures will be cost on an individual facility basis.


Benefits (Losses Avoided): Analyzing mitigation measures for critical facilities will increase

both property protection and life safety for County residents.

Potential Funding: Existing budgets.

Schedule: Within five years

6. Finalize and Implement the Actions of the South Sacrament Habitat Conservation

Plan (SSHCP)

Hazards Addressed: Flood, wildfire, severe storms

Issue/Background: The South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP or Plan)

provides a regional approach to balancing development against conservation and protection of

habitat, open space, and agricultural lands. The SSHCP protects 30 species of plants and wildlife

including 10 that are listed as threatened or endangered under either the federal Endangered

Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or both. The SSHCP also

protects vernal pool, wetland, and stream habitats that are subject to the federal Clean Water Act

(CWA) and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The SSHCP also seeks a

programmatic Streambed Alteration Agreement under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600, et

seq.

The primary mechanism for conservation established under the Plan is the SSHCP Reserve

System, which will conserve habitat that will be managed and monitored to achieve the

biological goals and objectives for the covered species. Draft objectives are listed below.

Landscape Objective 1.1: Establish a 41,923-acre Reserve System that provides habitat for

covered species and other native biota.

Landscape Objective 2.1: Restore and/or create 1,786 acres of habitat within the Reserve

System to support covered species.

Landscape Objective 3.1: Ensure that preserves are designed to capture some portion of each

habitat type and establish preserves across different environmental gradients.


Landscape Objective 4.1: Implement best management practices (BMPs), low impact

developments (LIDs), and other avoidance and minimization measures as outlined in Chapter

6 and Appendices N and O. Employ the standards of the SSHCP Preserve Design Principles

as described in Appendix R when assembling preserves into the Reserve System.

Landscape Objective 5.1: Establish an average 50-foot buffer for covered activities at the

perimeter of each preserve within the UDA.

Landscape Objective 6.1: Establish linkages that connect preserves.

Landscape Objective 7.1: Management plans for each preserve will be developed within 1

year of acquisition.

Landscape Objective 7.2: Preserve documentation reports will be prepared for each preserve

prior to acquisition.

Landscape Objective 7.3: Create invasive species control plans for each vernal pool preserve.

Other Alternatives: Do not implement the objectives proposed in the plan and continue the

disjointed, confusing, and ineffective current process.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Plan

itself is the mechanism through which this action will be implemented.

Responsible Office: Sacramento County, City of Elk Grove, City of Galt, City of Rancho

Cordova, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, Sacramento County Water Agency,

Southeastern Connector

Cost Estimate: Since the plan is still in draft stages, cost estimates are still to be determined.


Benefits (Losses Avoided): Currently, individual project proponents must work with the

Wildlife Agencies to obtain permits required by wetland and species laws and regulations. The

resulting process can be disjointed, confusing, and potentially contradictory and ineffective.

Years of negotiation can result in not only costly expenses, lost time, and conflicting regulatory

requirements, but also small, fragmented, and isolated habitats that are difficult to manage

efficiently and typically not conducive to long-term species protection. The SSHCP will change

the existing regulatory regime, which will offer numerous benefits. First, the SSHCP will

provide Sacramento County residents with a comprehensive Reserve System that promotes

healthy, balanced communities, preserves floodplains, buffers agricultural/urban interfaces,

increases recreational opportunities, and protects biological resources and open space for future

generations.

Potential Funding: To be determined

Schedule: Since the plan is in draft state, the schedule for each objective is yet to be determined.


7. SAFELY OUT™ Evacuation Preparedness

Hazards Addressed: Hazards resulting in population evacuation or, in certain situations shelter

in-place, such as:

Earthquake

Flood: 100/200/500-year


Landslide

Levee Failure



Severe Weather: Tornados

Wildfire

Issue/Background: Although the nation has experienced several horrific disasters during the

past ten years, research shows that individuals and families are still not sufficiently prepared for

disasters. Even the most optimistic reports have found a little more than half of individuals and

families nationally have made any substantive preparations for disasters, and many of these

precautions would prove to be inadequate in the event of a real disaster. Research further

indicates that the situation is no better for individuals with disabilities or other access and

functional needs, and this population is particularly vulnerable during disasters.

SAFELY OUT™, a groundbreaking neighbor-helping-neighbor approach to evacuation, was

developed with technical assistance from the American Red Cross Capital Region Chapter, to

help ensure that our most vulnerable citizens -- including people with disabilities, frail seniors,

young children and others with access and functional needs -- are protected during disasters.

Utilizing neighbors who agree - prior to a disaster - to assist their vulnerable neighbors was

clearly seen as a straightforward, cost effective approach to help accomplish the goal of getting

all of our citizens to safety. Recognizing that we all need to be "first responders" after a disaster,

the SAFELY OUT™ Kit represents a unique alert and helper system, so that a vulnerable person

knows at least three of his or her neighbors have agreed that they will assist them to safety.

SAFELY OUT™ Kits are the foundation of the project. The SAFELY OUT™ Kit consists of a

two-sided door hanger indicating if someone needs help or is ―safely out,‖ a refrigerator magnet

and wallet card for recording essential evacuation and contact information, and information

sheets including a simple how-to-guide and helper details. The kit also contains an erasable pen

for use on the refrigerator magnet, a permanent marker for the door hanger, and adhesive strips

for securing the door hanger to another surface, if necessary. A storage bag which can be placed

in a refrigerator, cabinet, or closet, is included as part of the kit for storing medications and

additional critical medical or insurance information.


The completeness of the SAFELY OUT™ approach is what really sets it apart. SAFELY OUT™

is alone in providing a comprehensive kit and program that includes public education, media

outreach, and partnership and sponsorship development. Another unique aspect of the program is

that SAFELY OUT™ Kits are assembled by PRIDE Industries, which delivers first-rate

manufacturing and service solutions to businesses and government agencies nationwide, while

creating meaningful jobs for people with disabilities. The significant benefit of the SAFELY

OUT™ Project approach was recently recognized as a best practice by the RAND Corporation in

its Enhancing Public Health Emergency Preparedness for Special Needs Populations: A Tool kit

for State and Local Planning and Response, based on criteria including overall effectiveness,

comprehensiveness, and ease of implementation.

SAFELY OUT™ has been embraced by emergency responders, leading officials, and

organizations representing the vulnerable—frail seniors, people with disabilities, families with

young children, and more. The SAFELY OUT™ Kit provides a simple, affordable, and very

cost effective and complete solution to evacuation preparedness. The SAFELY OUT™ Project

approach yields an immediate ―street-level‖ impact, by providing the most vulnerable with a

tangible tool to assist them in becoming more prepared. The project exemplifies an almost

unprecedented level of public-private partnership, by bringing together state and local

government agencies, the business community, philanthropic groups, and community and faith-

based organizations, resulting in the distribution of more than 75,000 kits, including more than

50,000 kits in the Sacramento Area.

The SAFELY OUT™ kit is not intended to supplant other preparedness efforts, such as

preparing a comprehensive family preparedness plan, or assembling supplies for sheltering in

place or evacuation. Rather, the SAFELY OUT™ Kit was developed specifically to address

issues having to do with safe evacuation, particularly for those individuals with access and

functional needs. This multi-year, comprehensive HMP project will support the annual

distribution of 5,000 SAFELY OUT™ Kits to the most vulnerable in Sacramento County for

each of the next five years, for a total of 25,000 kits.

Other Alternatives: Some jurisdictions have tried to implement a disaster registry to collect the

names and locations of people who require special assistance, for use by fire and police

personnel, and rescue workers when disaster strikes. This approach has limited effectiveness as

there can be no guarantee that individuals with access and functional needs will get help first

during a disaster, since first responders simply cannot help everyone at once. Further, this

centralized approach shifts the responsibility to the registering agency and to already

overburdened first responders, instead of working with individuals, families, neighbors, and

caretakers to become better prepared and more individually responsible for their own situations

and safety.

While the County certainly should continue to emphasize personal preparedness as part of its

natural hazards public awareness campaign, such campaigns have had limited success in


improving the preparedness of those individuals with access and functional needs, particularly

those with disabilities.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Messaging

supporting SAFELY OUT™ and the preparedness needs of individuals with disabilities and

other access and functional needs should be incorporated into the public awareness campaign

project included in the HMP, as well as evacuation plans developed by the county and other

jurisdictions covered by this plan.

Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources, in partnership with

Citizen Voice, has the lead responsibility for the program. Distribution and outreach efforts will

also be coordinated with additional partner agencies, particularly those directly serving the

vulnerable.


Cost Estimate: $50,000 each year for a five year project period total of $250,000. This will

result in the production and deployment of 5,000 SAFELY OUT™ Kits annually for a total of

25,000 SAFELY OUT™ Kits over the duration of the project.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): This project is designed to save lives by ensuring that the most

vulnerable are evacuated safely, or to enable the quick identification of people requiring

assistance.

Potential Funding: County utility assessment funds

Schedule: Under this project, 5,000 SAFELY OUT™ kits would be distributed annually for five

years.

Bird Strike Mitigation Actions

8. Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

Hazards Addressed: Bird Strike

Issue/Background Statement: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directed that a

year-long Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) be conducted. This is a scientific study to

determine the nature of potential hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport. The

Sacramento County Airport System is in the end stages of data collection, which will then be

followed by data analysis. After submittal of the WHA to the FAA, it is anticipate that FAA will

determine that an update is needed to the Sacramento International Airport (SMF) Wildlife

Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). That document, which will probably take another year to

complete, will describe the tools and methods by which hazardous wildlife will be managed at

SMF.


Other Alternatives: None


Responsible Office: Sacramento County Airport System


Cost Estimate: Staff time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): The WHMP tools will be used to reduce costs associated with bird

strike to aircraft, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Risk to passenger and crew

life safety may also be reduced by management of wildlife on or near the airport.

Potential Funding: FAA, Sacramento County Airport System budget

Schedule: Within the next 3 years

Dam Failure Mitigation Actions

9. Mather Dam Improvements

Hazards Addressed: Dam breach and localized flooding, habitat restoration, water quality

Issue/Background Statement: This dam does not adequately serve the flood control needs of

the area. There are some downstream homes that might get a bit of water in a dam breach

scenario. There is a large upstream development known as Rio del Oro that would potentially

exacerbate peak flow and volume to this small reservoir. Modification to the dam would include

lowering and armoring the spillway to prevent failure.



Responsible Office: DWR Drainage Development section and Drainage Design section

Priority (H, M, L): Medium

Cost Estimate: To be determined

Benefits (Losses Avoided): This is a small dam, but a catastrophic breach would disturb

downstream residents and wildlife habitat

Potential Funding: Air Force, various grants, Stormwater Utility, developers in the City of

Rancho Cordova, Zone 11A drainage impact fees


Schedule: 2015-2020

10. Alder Creek Miners Dam

Hazards Addressed: Flood, sediment and pollutant load

Issue/Background: This dam was built in about 1890-1910 in Alder Creek upstream of Folsom

Blvd and is owned by the City of Folsom enveloped by property now owned by AeroJet. In

order to develop upstream, the dam must be refurbished or removed. The dam has been

considered to be below certification standards.

Other Alternatives: Doing nothing will likely not stand the test of time. Removing the dam

would likely be too upsetting to wildlife proponents.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Glenborough

at Easton Specific Plan Area development and Folsom SOI Specific Plan Area




Benefits (Losses Avoided):

Potential Funding: Various grants and local cost share

Schedule: 2013-2015

11. Improved Flood Inundation and Evacuation Plan for Probable Maximum Flow from

new Spillway at Folsom Dam

Hazards Addressed: Dam/flood

Issue/Background: Folsom dam modification project includes dramatically increasing the

ability to release water. The levee enveloped Lower American River has limited capacity, much

less than the maximum controlled release potential from the reservoir.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This is an

encouraged activity in the Community Rating System.

Responsible Office: County Water Resources with the City of Sacramento and City/County

Emergency Operations




Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduce loss of life

Potential Funding: various grants and local match

Schedule:


Flood Mitigation Actions

12. Improve County ALERT (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time) System Of Stream

And Rain Gages

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background Statement: The County’s ALERT system has been in operation since 1985.

The collection and dissemination of real time stream and rain data through the Internet provides

County staff, as well as local agencies and the public, with real time rainfall amounts and stream

levels. This information is used to warn of imminent and/or in progress flooding. Archived data

is also used in support of studies on a variety of floodplain and watershed issues. Currently, the

County’s ALERT network is thin within undeveloped portions of the unincorporated area. As

development occurs, there will be a need to augment the ALERT network to provide the public

and emergency responders with timely rain and stream data in these areas. Areas that are

expected to develop within the next 20 years include: Elder Creek, Gerber Creek, Florin Creek,

Unionhouse Creek, Upper Laguna Creek, Upper Morrison Reach, and Deer Creek.

Other Alternatives: No action


Responsible Office: Sacramento County DWR - Drainage Development Review/Hydrology





Schedule: The need to expand the ALERT network is dependent on the rate at which

development occurs. New ALERT stations will be installed as needed.

13. Elevation and Acquisitions Projects to Mitigate Flood Risk

Hazards Addressed: Flooding of residential structures

Issue/Background: Many residential structures within Sacramento County are at risk of

flooding from various sources. The Sacramento County Stormwater Utility constructs capital

improvements on a continual basis in an attempt to address these issues, but many structures can

only be protected by elevation or acquiring and removing homes.

Other Alternatives: Floodproofing measures, mitigate after next flood, insurance


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:


Priority (H, M, L): Medium (depends on property owner)

Cost Estimate: Generally $90,000 per house

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Property damage due to flood.


Schedule: 2012-2014

14. Arcade Creek Corridor Plan

Hazards Addressed: Improve water quality, reduce flooding potential, provide recreational

opportunities, improve habitat.

Issue/Background: The Arcade Creek Watershed Group was formed in 2002 with initial

support from the City of Sacramento and the US EPA. The group’s mission is to improve water

quality, reduce flood damage, enhance habitat, increase recreational opportunities, and encourage

local participation in protection efforts. A CALFED grant administered by the State Water

Resources Control Board was used to conduct studies and implement some projects within the

City of Sacramento. Most of the Phase II projects and studies have been completed. Remaining

is execution of the Arcade Creek Corridor Plan. This plan identifies numerous remedial and

maintenance projects along Arcade Creek and Cripple Creek that will fulfill the goals of the

Arcade Creek Watershed Group. The types of projects identified are as follows: remove debris

jam and flow obstructions, remove invasive nonnative vegetation, stabilize banks, improve pipe

outfalls, restore recreational trails, improve floodplain function, reconfigure the channel, control

runoff from parking lots, stabilize swales, remove sediment and vegetation at creek crossings,

remove concrete lined channel. Indentified projects are located within the City of Sacramento,

Sacramento County and the City of Citrus Heights.

Other Alternatives: Do nothing


Responsible Office: Arcade Creek Watershed Group (Sacramento County DWR would serve as

liaison.)


Cost Estimate: Approximately $1,000,000


Benefits (Losses Avoided): Erosion reduction, stormwater pollution reduction, habitat

improvement

Potential Funding: Various grants and local cost share.

Schedule: The Arcade Creek Corridor Plan outlines a 20 year plan for remedial and

maintenance projects. Public feedback is needed to help prioritize the projects.

15. Elevate up to Three Homes on Long Island (Grand Island Road, Sacramento River)

Hazards Addressed: Residential flooding

Issue/Background: Long Island is located within the Sacramento River in the delta area of

Sacramento County. The structures located there are pre-FIRM and have all been elevated

except for the two remaining low structures. To prevent neighborhood checker-boarding and for

the furtherance of good floodplain management, these two structures should be elevated. There

are no structural project options available to provide flood protection at this location.




Priority (H, M, L): Medium (is dependent on property owners)




Schedule: 2011-2014

16. Mitigation Projects for Repetitive Loss Structures/Areas


Issue/Background: There are about 100 repetitive flood loss properties in unincorporated

Sacramento County, having flooded two or more times in a ten year period.




Responsible Office: County Water Resources

Priority (H, M, L): Medium (is dependent on property owners)

Cost Estimate: generally about $90,000 per house

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced cost to NFIP


Schedule: Grants are available annually

17. Improve Strawberry Creek Basins at East Stockton Blvd


Issue/Background: There are existing detention basins on Strawberry Creek that should be

improved functionally and aesthetically


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The South

Sacramento Streams Group Project sponsored by SAFCA with the Corps of Engineers and the

City of Sacramento will likely determine specific functionality adjustments for these existing

basins. Aesthetic improvements should also be pursued with an agreement by a third party to

maintain the landscape amenities.

Responsible Office: County Water Resources with others

Priority (H, M, L): Medium (depends on Corps of Engineers study results)

Cost Estimate: about $200,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced flooding at area known as Vineyard Springs


Schedule: Depends on Corps of Engineers Study downstream and land development upstream

18. Triangle Detention Basin

Hazards Addressed: Flood control, and possible groundwater recharge


Issue/Background: There is an existing condition 1,000 cfs spill that occurs in the peak of the

100-year storm from Laguna Creek to Gerber Creek along Bradshaw Road. The Triangle

aggregate mine adjacent to Laguna Creek would serve to reduce the inter-basin spill.

Other Alternatives: Unknown

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Sacramento

County is working on environmental report, hydrologic and hydraulic study to support the

project.

Responsible Office: Sacramento County Dept of Water Resources with Vulcan Materials

(Triangle aggregate miner).


Cost Estimate: About $1,000,000 (Zone 11W developer drainage impact fee plan)

Benefits (Losses Avoided): reduced flooding at area known as Vineyard Springs

Potential Funding: various grants and local cost share (Zone 11W)

Schedule: 2012-2014

19. Unionhouse Detention Basin Upstream of East Stockton Blvd Partnering with Park

District and SAFCA


Issue/Background: The US Army Corps of Engineers with Sacramento Area Flood Control

Agency and the City of Sacramento are working on flood control project for Unionhouse Creek

downstream of Highway 99 and adjacent East Stockton Blvd. There may be benefit in

constructing a peak flow detention basin upstream of Costco shopping center.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: South

Sacramento Streams Group Project -Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency with the City of

Sacramento and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Responsible Office: SAFCA with County Water Resources



Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced Peak Flow Flooding



Schedule: Depends on Corps of Engineers Study downstream and land development upstream.

20. Unionhouse Creek Joint Use Detention basins – Park Active or Passive Joint Use


Issue/Background: The Florin Vineyard Gap Drainage Master Plan shows proposed detention

basin sites on Unionhouse Creek


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Florin

Vineyard Gap Community Plan is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The Corps of

Engineers and Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency are working with the City of Sacramento

on the South Sacramento Streams Group Project. These proposed peak flow mitigation basins

will serve the interest of these agencies and the public.

Responsible Office: County Water Resources with Southgate Recreation and Park District



Benefits (Losses Avoided): Development mitigation


Schedule: to be determined as grant funds are available or development impacts increase. There

also may be some outcome of the downstream Corps of Engineers study that may demand

increased detention.

21. South Sacramento Stream Group Detention Basins

Hazards Addressed: Project would reduce flooding of residential and commercial areas.

Sources of flooding include Morrison Creek, Elder Creek, Florin Creek, and Unionhouse Creek.

Issue/Background: This project would obtain land and construct off-line detention basins

identified in various basin master plan studies.

Other Alternatives: To be determined by Corps of Engineers study

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Drainage

Studies.


Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources – Drainage

Development Section

Priority (H, M, L): To be determined by Corps of Engineers study

Cost Estimate: Expected to be over $20 million to obtain land and construct basins.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Undetermined at this time, but project would reduce flood damage

in residential neighborhoods and commercial sites.


22. Elder and Gerber Creek


Issue/Background: The North Vineyard Station Drainage Master Plan for Elder and Gerber

Creek improvements has a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit and will improve flood flow

conveyance, store peak flow volume, and enhance habitat.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This is

planned and essentially shovel ready.



Cost Estimate: $70 million

Benefits (Losses Avoided): This will reduce flooding and allow for safe land development.


Schedule: Before 2019 (expiration of the CWA 404 Permit)

23. Florin Creek Basins –Florin Vineyard Drainage Master Plan


Issue/Background: The Florin Vineyard Gap Drainage Master Plan proposes peak flow

detention basins on Florin Creek for control of existing flooding and accommodation of

additional land development.



Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Florin

Vineyard Gap Community Plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. There may be benefit

to the South Sacramento Streams Group Project managed by SAFCA with the Corps of

Engineers and the City of Sacramento. Southgate Recreation and Park District may desire to

incorporate active or passive park functions at the basins.




Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced flooding, improved stormwater flooding


Schedule: to be determined by Army Corps of Engineers study or as development impacts

increase.

24. Joint Use Detention-Park Basins on Laguna Creek


Issue/Background: The Vineyard Springs Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Board of

Supervisors in about 2000 including a drainage master plan. Subsequently, the drainage plan

was revised to be more environmentally sensitive. There are a few detention basins planned with

joint use by Southgate Recreation and Park District.

Other Alternatives: The basins could be relocated and could be developed without the joint use

component.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Sacramento

County Dept of Water Resources and Southgate Recreation and Park District have planned this

project subject only to funding and permitting by the Corps.




Benefits (Losses Avoided): Stormwater quality, flood control



Schedule: As funding allows

25. Pasa Robles Drive - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation

Hazards Addressed: reduce likelihood of flooding, reduce damage to adjacent structures

Issue/Background: The Pasa Robles Drive concrete channel lining is currently in a

deteriorated condition. Many concrete panels are cracked, broken, dislodged or missing in

numerous locations along the channel alignment. The channel lining also serves to retain soil for

supporting adjacent residential structures. The inability to properly maintain the channel creates

a reduced channel capacity, therefore increasing the risk of flooding structures in the adjacent

area. The mitigation project would entail repairing or replacing broken, missing, or shifted

concrete panels as needed.



Responsible Office: County Water Resources, Drainage Maintenance Engineering


Cost Estimate: $1,000,000/mile x 0.25 miles = $250,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Disrepair could lead to shifting of panels, blockage of channel flow

capacity, bank erosion, and adjacent structure damage.

Potential Funding: Various grants, local match by County Stormwater Utility

Schedule: as funding is available

26. Chicken Ranch Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Issue/Background: Currently, the condition of the concrete channel lining is deteriorated. Many

concrete panels are cracked, broken, dislodged or missing in numerous locations along the

channel alignment. The channel lining also serves to retain soil for supporting adjacent

residential structures. The inability to properly maintain the channel creates a reduced channel

capacity, therefore increasing the risk of flooding structures in the adjacent area. The mitigation

project would entail repairing or replacing broken, missing, or shifted concrete panels as needed.






Cost Estimate: $200,000/mile x 2 miles = $400,000




Schedule: s funding is available

27. Morrison Creek - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation

Hazards Addressed: reduce likelihood of flooding

Issue/Background: Morrison Creek concrete channel lining is currently in a deteriorated state.

The concrete bottom is cracked, broken, dislodged or missing in numerous locations along the

channel alignment. The inability to properly maintain the channel creates a reduced channel


project would entail repairing or replacing broken, missing, or shifted concrete bottom panels as

needed.





Cost Estimate: $200,000/mile x 6.8 miles = $1,360,000






28. Mayhew Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Issue/Background: The Mayhew Slough is located east of Bradshaw Road. Currently, the

concrete channel lining is in a deteriorated state. Many concrete panels are cracked, broken,

dislodged or missing in numerous locations along the channel alignment. The channel lining also

serves to retain soil for supporting adjacent residential structures. The inability to properly

maintain the channel creates a reduced channel capacity, therefore increasing the risk of flooding

structures in the adjacent area. The mitigation project would entail repairing or replacing broken,

missing, or shifted concrete panels as needed.





Cost Estimate: $200,000/mile x 0.5 miles = $100,000





29. Strong Ranch Slough - Concrete Channel Lining Rehabilitation


Issue/Background: Currently, the condition of the concrete channel lining is deteriorated. Many

concrete panels are cracked, broken, dislodged or missing in numerous locations along the

channel alignment. The channel lining also serves to retain soil for supporting adjacent

residential structures. The inability to properly maintain the channel creates a reduced channel


project would entail repairing or replacing broken, missing, or shifted concrete panels as needed.






Cost Estimate: $200,000/mile x 6 miles = $1,200,000





30. Keep Watershed Management Plan Current CRS Activity 450 (county and cities)

Hazards Addressed: Flood

Issue/Background: Sacramento County Dept Water Resources, the Sacramento County Water

Agency Zone 11 (enveloping the cities of Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights) with

the City of Sacramento developed a Watershed Management Plan in accordance with Activity

450 of the Community Rating System. It is important to keep this Plan updated.

Other Alternatives: Lose CRS credit

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The seven

cities and the County come together every five years to update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

at which time the Watershed Management Plan would also be reviewed and updated.

Responsible Office: floodplain manager for each city and the County.



Benefits (Losses Avoided): Maintaining a countywide watershed management plan is important

to reduce flood losses.

Potential Funding: various grants and local cost share

Schedule: Every couple of years

31. Woodside Condominiums Repetitive Flood Loss Property

Hazards Addressed: The flood hazard is back water from a pump station (D-05) and peak flow

from Strong Ranch Slough and a tributary called Sierra Branch.


Issue/Background: About 64 condominium units have flooded in 1986, 1997, 2005. Many

more flooded in 1986.

Other Alternatives: Floodproofing measures, floodwall, improve pump D-05, raze buildings,

insurance, mitigate after next major flood

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The

homeowners association must take the lead inviting the County to help with this mitigation

project.

Responsible Office: Homeowners Association and the County of Sacramento


Cost Estimate: $4 million

Benefits (Losses Avoided): There is preliminary evidence that the benefits would exceed the

cost.


Schedule: Depends on owners

32. Conversion to NAVD88 Vertical Datum (from NGVD29)


Issue/Background: The vertical datum is changing nationwide triggered by the federal adoption

of the NAVD88 as more accurate and no longer supporting the 1929 NGVD datum. Upon the

digital flood insurance rate maps effective date (about March 2012), the floodplains will be

mapped in NAVD.



Responsible Office: County Surveyor


Cost Estimate: $150,000 per year for two years, $75,000 per year perpetual maintenance

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Accurate bench marks will reduce errors in surveying and could

result in

Potential Funding: various grant programs and local cost share


Schedule: beginning in 2012 and continuing

33. Mitigation Projects to Reduce Flood Risk to Critical Facilities.

Hazards Addressed: Flood is the most prominent risk in this County, but there are others.

There are three types of flooding that should be considered: localized flooding, 1% annual

recurrence floodplain, catastrophic failure of structural flood control systems.

Issue/Background: Much work has been accomplished to map critical facilities and to assess

risks in this Plan. This action item proposes to keep current the critical facilities mapping, and

to develop mitigation projects where necessary.

Other Alternatives: Repair after flood event

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: County

Emergency Operations critical facilities committee included participants from most cities. This

group should continue to pursue mitigation.

Responsible Office: County Emergency Operations with Water Resources


Cost Estimate: To be determined.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced losses to critical infrastructure.


Schedule: As funds are available

34. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling in Compliance with 2012 Central Valley Flood

Protection Plan

Hazards Addressed: 0.5% annual recurrence flooding of creeks, streams, and localized

drainage

Issue/Background: In 2007, the CA Governor signed in to law several flood related bills,

collectively they will give local jurisdiction clear direction in the Central Valley Flood Protection

Plan due mid-2012. The applicability of the 200-year standard and cost to the County is not yet

known, but will be complex to implement.

Other Alternatives: Clarify interpretation or suggest revised legislation

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: See County

Watershed Management Plan




Cost Estimate: $300,000 per year for 4-years

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Flood safety, compliance with new legislation.

Potential Funding: various grants, local match

Schedule: beginning late 2012 after CVFPP is published.

35. Delta Area Fire Station Needs to be Elevated or Flood Proofed to Protect Against

Levee Breach Flooding to Assure Function in that Disaster Event.


Issue/Background: The Delta Fire Station is currently located in an area prone to flooding from

levee failure.

Other Alternatives: Floodproofing measures, repair after flood event


Responsible Office: Fire districts, reclamation districts, County



Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduce flood risk, improve firehouse function during a flood

disaster

Potential Funding: Various grants and local match

Schedule: depends on the fire department and available grant funds

36. Update and Adopt Floodplain Management Ordinance in Light of Levee De-

accreditation

Hazards Addressed: Flood – known floodplains

Issue/Background: The updated FEMA flood insurance rate maps (DFIRM) project is

scheduled to become effective about March 2012. This will trigger FEMA’s review of our

existing Ordinance. There are some sections that will no longer be relevant and some minor

revisions and clarifications that are due.



Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Water

Resources staff has already drafted the proposed update.

Responsible Office: Water Resources


Cost Estimate: n/a


Potential Funding: Zone 13 of the Sacramento County Water Agency

Schedule: March 2012

37. Mitigate Peak Flow on Dry Creek and Tributaries (including Placer County and City of

Roseville)


Issue/Background: Placer County prepared a new hydrology and hydraulics study for Dry

Creek (Civil Engineering Solutions and RBF Consulting, 2011) proposing several improvements

to mitigate peak flow. They will establish a fee program and Sacramento County has

conceptually agreed to participate. Further, the two counties with the City of Roseville will

cooperate to pursue various grant opportunities.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Implement

measure in the Dry Creek Watershed Study

Responsible Office: Placer County Flood Control Agency with Sacramento County Dept Water

Resources


Cost Estimate: to be determined

Benefits (Losses Avoided): The Dry Creek peak flow into Elverta and Rio Linda is significant,

fast moving, and dangerous to property and life. It is important for our upstream communities to

mitigate peak flow so as not to make this problem worse.

Potential Funding: various grants and local match funds


Schedule: determined by others

38. Repetitive Loss Church Building on Dry Creek

Hazards Addressed: 6550 Dry Creek Road

Issue/Background: Structure was built too low adjacent to a creek. Flood damage occurred in

1986, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005

Other Alternatives: Other alternatives: insurance, flood proofing, mitigation after next flood

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The structure

should be flood-proofed, raised, or razed.




Benefits (Losses Avoided): to be determined

Potential Funding: various FEMA grants and local match by the church congregation

Schedule: depends on owner, grant funds are available each year.

39. Determine Cause and Mitigate Mercury and Methyl Mercury Coming from Tributaries

of American River

Hazards Addressed: Human consumption of sport-fish contaminated with mercury

Issue/Background Statement: As a result of historical releases of mercury associated with gold

mining in Sacramento County, as well as in areas throughout watersheds upstream of

Sacramento County, mercury contamination is a significant hazard to County residents and

visitors, as well as wildlife. The State Resources agency, as well as Cal EPA and US EPA, have

recognized this contamination. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the American River, Lake

Natomas, and numerous water bodies that are tributary to them, are designated through the Clean

Water Act 303d listing process as impaired water bodies due to mercury levels found in fish that

so high that they are hazardous both to the human population and to wildlife. Additional water

bodies in and near Sacramento are likely to be added to the 303d list in the future due to mercury

contamination. Fish consumption advisories developed by the State Dept. of Public Health and

the Office of Environmental and Health Hazard Assessment warn people not to eat certain types

of fish caught in these waters.


The mitigation of this hazard will address some of the various factors in the Sacramento region

can affect the amount of mercury that enters the food chain and poses a hazard to human health

and the environment. Some of these factors may be subject to some level of influence by human

activity. Monitoring will be necessary to identify and prioritize key factors. Factors that affect

the hazards caused by mercury and may be addressed in the TMDL implementation plan include,

but are not limited to, nutrient levels, sediment transport, streambed modification, food chain and

ecological effects, fish consumption practices, management of water levels, water exports and

diversions, irrigation practices, salinity, oxygen concentrations, wetland restoration and

management practices, flooding of Delta islands, dredging, reservoir management, stormwater

and wastewater discharges and treatment processes, source control and pollution prevention

activities, and levels of mercury in sediments, water bodies, and discharges.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanisms through which Action will be Implemented: Delta Mercury

TMDL (adopted by Central Valley RWQCB); American River Mercury TMDL (in process)

Responsible Office: County Dept of Water Resources Stormwater Quality Section



Benefits (Losses Avoided): To be determined

Potential Funding: Various grants and local funding sources

Schedule: First phase implementation of the Delta TMDL has begun through 2020. Second

phase will begin in 2020, building on findings and results of first phase.

40. Pump Stations


Issue/Background Statement: The County of Sacramento, Department of Water Resources

(County) recently completed a partial assessment of its most critical storm water pump stations.

The underlying finding of this assessment was that while the equipment has been well

maintained, the pump stations are plagued with aged and obsolete electrical equipment, code

deficiencies, power supply and transformer issues, and maintenance concerns related to outdated

equipment for which spare parts are no longer available.

According to the EPA report, Taking Stock of Your Water System, (October 2004), the typical

useful life of electrical equipment is shown as the following:

Motor Controls/Variable Frequency Drives -- 10 years


Transformer/Switchgear/Wiring -- 20 years

Computer Equipment and Software -- 5 years

While these numbers are conservative and would likely be used in worst case scenarios such as

in dirty environments, salt spray, or where 100% reliability is critical, they still indicate that

County pump stations are likely to be prone to failure as their service life now exceeds 60 years

at multiple locations. To emphasize the severity of this problem, the following list summarizes

the construction dates of several of the County’s most critical pump stations:

Priority Station Name Date of Construction

1) Pump Station D05 1957










Using this list it can be reasonably deduced that the electrical components at each station exceed

the EPA’s useful life recommendations. In addition, the design guidelines used at the time of

construction did not require redundant power sources such as generator facilities. The sites also

utilize sheet metal buildings which are improperly sized in some locations and are also nearing

the end of their useful lives.

In order to mitigate the potential of future pump station failures, the County is prioritizing pump

station upgrades in an effort to budget for planned civil and electrical work. Planned civil work

includes building replacement and repairs, regrading and repaving existing pump station and

work areas, and fencing and security repairs and upgrades. Planned electrical work includes the

replacement of existing motor control centers, transformers, circuit disconnects, solid state pump

controllers, and wiring, and the placement of generators or automatic transfer switches to

accommodate power supply redundancy.

Planning for these pump station improvements now can help mitigate large scale flooding and

property damage by reducing the risk of catastrophic system failures. Improvements will also

help to maximize County resource allocations during and after large scale natural disasters.

Other Alternatives: No Action



Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources


Cost Estimate: Approximately $3,000,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Improved reliability of critical flood protection pumps


Schedule: As funds are available

41. Public Outreach Mailers


Issue/Background: The CRS program provides credit for community projects that take a

proactive approach, meaning credit for projects that reach out to people and give them

information, even when they do not ask for it. Its objective is to make people aware of the flood

hazard, flood insurance, ways to prevent or reduce flood damage, and the natural and beneficial

floodplain functions. Outreach projects are designed to encourage people to seek out more

information and take steps to protect themselves and their properties.

Other Alternatives: Lose CRS Credits


Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources- Drainage


Cost Estimate: $15,000 per year

Benefits (Losses Avoided): not measured

Potential Funding: various grants and local cost share

Schedule: Yearly

42. Drainage Improvements to Reduce Flooding on Key Evacuation Routes

Hazards Addressed: Flood hazards to evacuation routes


Issue/Background: Several major routes within the natural stream area of Sacramento County

are impassable during severe flooding events. This is a distinct safety issue since many of these

routes may be needed for evacuation or emergency access during flood events.






Benefits (Losses Avoided): Improved flood disaster management


Schedule: 2015-2020

43. South Branch Arcade Creek – Gum Ranch Basin (with Fair Oaks Park District)

Hazards Addressed: Residential structure flooding

Issue/Background: Gum Ranch is a large master planned project located within the South

Arcade watershed. The extensive flooding that occurs downstream of the project location can be

reduced with the installation of an oversized flood detention basin on the Gum Ranch project.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Gum Ranch

site improvements.




Benefits (Losses Avoided): mitigate development impacts, reduce existing flooding, improve

stormwater quality


Schedule: 2015-2020


44. Dry Creek Flood Hazard Mitigation Acquisitions with County Park Dept

Hazards Addressed: Residential structure flooding and emergency access issues

Issue/Background: The Dry Creek Parkway project is a multi-agency project designed to return

an area of Dry Creek floodway to a regional park site and open space. The floodway at this

location is very broad compromising access during flood emergencies. The Parkway project

goals and good floodplain management mandate the removal of the remaining residential

structures located within the floodway. At this time, 21 residential structures are still remaining.

Other Alternatives: Insurance, floodproofing, mitigation after next flood event

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Ongoing Dry

Creek Parkway project

Responsible Office: DWR Drainage Development section and Sacramento County Parks and

Recreation Department


Cost Estimate: Market value

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced flood losses in a wide floodplain area.


Schedule: 2012-2020

45. Arcade Creek at Evergreen Estates Floodwall Improvements

Hazards Addressed: Residential flooding

Issue/Background: Evergreen Estates is a low lying pre-FIRM development located next to

Arcade Creek. It is currently is protected to a maximum 25 year event by a de-accredited levee.

Site improvements necessary to provide 100 year protection include raising the levee and also

raising an adjacent street named Winding Way. These improvements have been identified in a

feasibility level study.

Other Alternatives: Insurance, floodproofing, mitigation after next flood event





Cost Estimate: $2.2 million in 2008 dollars

Benefits (Losses Avoided): flood protection for 85 residences


Schedule: 2015-2020

46. Linda Creek Peak Flow Mitigation

Hazards Addressed: Structural flooding

Issue/Background: Linda Creek and its tributaries comprise a 3580 acre watershed in

Orangevale area draining to the City of Roseville, which is a tributary to Dry Creek, which

ultimately drains back to Elverta and Rio Linda in Sacramento County. The Linda Creek

watershed is 99.5% developed. Flooding impacts within Placer County can be mitigated with a

detention basin project in Sacramento County.



Responsible Office: DWR Drainage Development section and Drainage Design section





Schedule: 2015-2018

47. Improve Flood Protection and/or Evacuation Planning for Mobile Home/RV Park at

Manzanita/Auburn. Alternatively, the Park Should Establish Flood Warning and

evacuation procedures.

Hazards Addressed: Flood overtopping creek and a floodwall that was not design reviewed by

the County.

Issue/Background: The tributary of Arcade Creek tends to rise very rapidly. On 12/31/2005

this property flooded leaving may people without a place to live.

Other Alternatives: Evacuation planning, insurance



Responsible Office: property owners with help from County Water Resources


Cost Estimate: not determined

Benefits (Losses Avoided): property, health and safety.

Potential Funding: various grants, private match, possible public funds

Schedule: Depends on owner

48. Capital Improvement Projects – Pipelines (2012-13)

Hazards Addressed: These projects will alleviate structure, garage, yard, and street flooding in

existing neighborhoods.

Issue/Background: The existing storm drain systems are 40-70 years old and do not meet

current design standards. There are eight pipeline projects scheduled for construction in 2012-13:

New York Avenue/Oriana Court, Ravenwood Avenue, Flagstone Street/Agate Way, Elkhorn

Boulevard/Schofield Way – Phase 2, Barrington Road, Elkhorn Boulevard/Schofield Way –

Phase 3, Kings Way/Verna Way, and 3509 El Camino Avenue.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: These

projects are identified and assessed using an 11-point prioritization ranking process. All projects

are approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources – Drainage Design

Section


Cost Estimate: Construction = $5,896,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): These projects will alleviate structure, garage, yard, and street

flooding in existing neighborhoods.

Potential Funding: Stormwater Utility

Schedule:


2012 Construction: New York Avenue/Oriana Court, Ravenwood Avenue, Flagstone

Street/Agate Way, Elkhorn Boulevard/Schofield Way – Phase 2, and Barrington Road

2013 Construction: Elkhorn Boulevard/Schofield Way – Phase 3, Kings Way/Verna Way,

and 3509 El Camino Avenue

49. Capital Improvement Projects – Pipelines (2014-15)

Hazards Addressed: These projects will alleviate structure, garage, yard, and street flooding in

existing neighborhoods.

Issue/Background: The existing storm drain systems are 40-70 years old and do not meet

current design standards. There are three pipeline projects scheduled for construction in 2014-15:

Somersby/Wixford, Eastern/Arden, and Rich Hill Drive.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: These

projects are identified and assessed using an 11-point prioritization ranking process. All projects

are approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources – Drainage Design

Section


Cost Estimate: Construction = $3,233,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): These projects will alleviate structure, garage, yard, and street

flooding in existing neighborhoods.

Potential Funding: Various grants and local cost share by Stormwater Utility

Schedule:

2014 Construction: Somersby/Wixford and Eastern/Arden

2015 Construction: Rich Hill Drive

50. New City Sump 90 Operation Plan

Hazards Addressed: Flooding Mitigation & Pump Station Readiness

Issue/Background: City Sump 90 was constructed in 1965 as a Reclamation Board conditioned

facility to mitigate increased storm-event flood levels associated with urban development

adjacent to the Beach Stone-Lakes basin in Sacramento County. City of Sacramento proposes to


operate the Sump only during specific storm events. Year-round operation of the Sump,

primarily to divert poor quality water away from the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,

increases wear and tear on the pump, which decreases pump readiness when required during

storm events. Year round operation has allowed encroachment of riparian forests into the

upstream channel. Revising the Sump operation criteria may require environmental mitigation.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City Public

hearings and State Clearinghouse circulation, per CEQA requirements.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, Dept. of Utilities, Engineering Services Division


Cost Estimate: $200,000 for environmental mitigation. $100,000 annual savings.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased pump readiness, and less annual O&M costs.

Potential Funding: To be determined.

Schedule: Environmental review schedule anticipated to require at least 6-months. Revised

sump operations can be implemented within weeks of initiation.


Levee Failure Mitigation Actions

51. Hydromodification and Stormwater Quality Countywide

Hazards Addressed: Levee Failure/Streambed Erosion and Deposition

Issue/Background Statement: The County of Sacramento stormwater group is working on a

hydromodification plan to improve stormwater quality and reduce erosion and deposition in

streambeds.

Other Alternatives: Prioritize areas of greatest impact


Other Alternatives:



Cost Estimate: Unknown

Benefits (Losses Avoided): To be determined


Schedule: To be determined

52. Ring Levees to Protect Delta Historic Villages

Hazards Addressed: The historically significant villages of Hood, Courtland, Walnut Grove

(west), Walnut Grove (east), Isleton, and Locke are located in areas protected by levees that do

not meet federal standards.

Issue/Background: In order for these communities to continue to thrive, there must be

improvements to the flood control system including cut off levees that would protect these

villages in case a levee in the larger reclamation district were to fail.

Other Alternatives: do nothing, limit construction permits, insurance and repair after flood

disaster

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Central

Valley Flood Protection Plan, scheduled for release end of 2011, should set the stage for

planning the needed flood control improvements. Then the County and the reclamation districts

would develop a plan and submit for various sources of funding.


Responsible Office: CA DWR FloodSafe California with the reclamation districts and the

County of Sacramento


Cost Estimate: There is preliminary evidence that ring levee projects would enjoy an positive

benefit/cost ratio



Schedule: Depends on community interest and funding

53. Levee Breach Scenario, Inundation, Evacuation, and Recovery Planning for Rural

Areas South of Freeport

Hazards Addressed: Levee breach flooding due to seepage, overtopping, seismic

Issue/Background: The County with the City of Sacramento developed levee breach scenario

maps for the urban areas stopping at the Pocket Area. The Corps of Engineers developed some

Delta maps but they stop short of being helpful in an actual flood emergency. It should be

worthwhile to develop levee breach scenario inundation and evacuation maps for the Delta in a

similar format to those used by the City/County emergency operations for the urban areas.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: There is

accurate topographic mapping that was developed by the State, the scope of work would be

defined same as previous mapping efforts in the county.




Benefits (Losses Avoided): Such mapping could save lives

Potential Funding: various grants, local match

Schedule: Upon determining limitations of work by US Army Corps of Engineers and others

who have been working this issue, and the interest of the five counties potentially lead by Dave

Peterson consultant.


54. Improved Flood Inundation and Evacuation Plan for Structural Flood Control System

Failure Scenarios in Urban Areas

Hazards Addressed: Levee and dam failure scenarios

Issue/Background: The City and County of Sacramento, in 2005, developed a number of levee

breach scenario inundation and evacuation maps or urban areas. These should be updated

periodically to maintain accuracy, and there may be other breach scenarios that should be

considered. There may be benefit in considering the new 100-year water surface elevation in the

river, and converting the maps and report text to NAVD88 vertical datum.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City and

County did much of this mapping in 2004-05 but some updates are recommended.

Responsible Office: County Emergency Operations and Water Resources with the City of

Sacramento



Benefits (Losses Avoided): Potential loss of life

Potential Funding: Various grants and local match


55. Human Vertical Evacuation Structures in Areas of Widespread Flood Hazard

Hazards Addressed: flood and catastrophic failure of levee

Issue/Background: Vertical evacuation is critical in areas where potential flood inundation is

deep and/or widespread and high ground is difficult to locate or time is of the essence. This

could be accomplished on flat rooftops, parking garages, structurally sound decks, or elevated

public or church buildings.

Other Alternatives: Horizontal evacuation plan

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Much of the

necessary topographic surveying and flood inundation studies are available to begin working

with communities to consider use of existing facilities.

Responsible Office: Community driven



Cost Estimate: Minimal if existing facilities are used. Costs will vary if new features are to be

constructed.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Potential life safety


Schedule: In next 5 years

56. Livestock Vertical Evacuation Mounds in Areas of Widespread Flood Hazard

Hazards Addressed: Catastrophic failure of levees, and widespread flooding due to Cosumnes

River and the Beach Stone Lake Floodplain

Issue/Background: Vertical evacuation is critical in areas where potential flood inundation is

deep and/or widespread and high ground is difficult to locate or time is of the essence. This

could be accomplished on mounds of fill material with an all weather surface.


Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Much of the

necessary topographic surveying and flood inundation studies are available to begin working

with communities to consider abilities.

Responsible Office: Community driven


Cost Estimate: Minimal if existing facilities are used. Costs will vary if new features are to be

constructed.

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Potential life safety of livestock


Schedule: In the next 5 years

Wildfire Mitigation Actions

57. Fuels Reduction in the American River Parkway

Hazards Addressed: Wildfire in the Wildland/Urban Interface Area


Issue/Background Statement: The focus of this proposal is fire fuel reduction along the

American River Parkway. This particular site is a State Recognized Fire Hazard according to

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, one of three partners in this proposal. According to the

Parks Department, this location is in critical need of a large-scale hand crew ―assault‖ to control

the fire fuel at, what is deemed, this urban-wild lands interface. The Parkway features canyons

and bluffs that are excellent breeding areas for wild fires.

Fire fuels come in two classes: invasive species that allow fire to spread quickly and burn

rapaciously, and native vegetation that, under more natural conditions should burn periodically,

now requires thinning or the creation of firebreaks because wild fires are not an appropriate

thinning tool. The following fire fuels must be removed or managed to have a successful fire

fuel reduction project:

Centaurea solstitialis (yellow star thistle) – Introduced unintentionally in the 19th

century

through contaminated seed stock, this noxious invasive plant is poisonous to horses and

crowds out native thistles and other important plants. It comes from Eurasia and requires a

significant amount of person power to remove every piece of the plant. It will burn, spread

and regenerate.

Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass) – This South American natives is lovely to look at, but

spreads quickly. It does not provide natural habitat for indigenous bird populations but it

does encourage non-native and scavenger bird populations. Its wispy tufts are flammable,

sending sparks far and wide.

Spartium junceum (Spanish broom) – Intentionally planted in California for its quick growth

and beautiful yellow flowers in the mid-19th century, brooms are little incendiary devices

that are hard to eradicate, can grow in very hard to reach locales and spread through the air

by wind and birds, in water and by their constant availability at local nurseries.

Arundo donax (giant reed) – ―Imported‖ carelessly from Southern California (where it also

poses a significant fire and invasive problem), giant reed clogs waterways and crowds native

habitat. Burning is not a tool for eradicating this pest, however, because Arundo spreads

from its root ball (fire rarely penetrates that deep) though it will burn if ignited and cause a

fire to spread quickly.

Rubus discolor and Rubus procerus (Himalayan blackberry and Himalyan blackberry,

respectively) thrive in riparian zones, even those that remain parched for most of the year.

These thorny and fruit-bearing bushes grow to enormous thickets. In late summer they

become fire fuel, and yet fire won’t kill it. This plant must be cut severely and then removed

at the root.

Vinca minor (periwinkle) – A lovely-to-look-at water-loving ground cover from western

Europe, periwinkle is pernicious in that it is a perennial that dries and looks dead for most of

the year (summer through autumn) and then comes back robustly. During summer, it would

be a likely candidate for helping wildfire to spread, especially at the suburban-wild lands

interface where it commonly is used, though not contained, in landscaping.


Generally speaking, invasive plant species are the leading cause of degradation of open space

anywhere both from the perspective of damaged habitat and potential fire fuel load; this is

particularly true in California. That said, they are not alone is posing a serious threat of wild fire

within the American River Parkway. Native species also pose threats of fire because they are not

allowed to burn naturally and yet grow into limb-touching arcs and ladder fuel ground cover that

could turn a natural phenomenon into a natural disaster in a flash. The primary fuel species that

will be trimmed or protected by a firebreak include the following:

Quercus virginiana (live oak) – Live oak trees are natural wonders because it is, for lack of a

better term, an evergreen (non-deciduous) oak. Live oaks grow from sturdy bases, sending

many shoots and small branches just above ground level, making them a classic fuel ladder

species.

Cercis occidentalis (western red bud) – This lovely ―blooming tree‖ has a bold spring

presence followed by a drying season into the summer. More shrub than actual tree, this

low-to-the-ground species sends out numerous competing trunks from its roots rather than a

primary trunk. Mature western red buds bloom tall enough off the ground to pose less of a

fuel ladder combustion problem than some of the younger/smaller versions.

Vitis sylvestris (wild grape) – The mammoth woody vines reaching from ground to canopy

can serve as wild fire wands. Like their domesticated siblings, wild grape vines enjoy cool

wet springs and early summer, but the dry heat of late summer and early autumn turn these

plants into fire fuel of a dynamic sort. Selective cutting and removal will be required for our

project.

Both County Parks and Metro Fire are responsible for responding to wild fire and its subsequent

damage, but owing to a host of issues including reduced budgets, small staffs and the

unpredictable natural of natural disasters, neither has the budget or person-power to be proactive

to prevent a wild fire. The two agencies look forward to partnering with the Sacramento

Regional Conservation Corps (SRCC) to make this project happen as soon as possible.

SRCC is excited about the opportunity to be an integral part of this important public safety

project while also having the opportunity to learn about and work within one of our region’s

incredible natural treasures. Corps members will learn to identify various species (beneficial and

invasive), removal and restoration techniques, and firebreak construction skills to help maintain

the integrity and ethereal beauty that is the American River Parkway.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanisms through which Action will be Implemented: The

Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps is currently working on a fuels reduction program in

specific areas of the Parkway. This proposal would extend that work to other areas within the

Parkway using their existing crews and equipment.

Responsible Office: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District



Cost Estimate: Approximately $1,700.00 per day using the Sacramento Regional Conservation

Corps

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Potential loss of numerous homes and structures from the

uncontrolled spread of wildfire from the American River Parkway area into the wildland/urban

interface area.

Potential Funding: FEMA Grant

Schedule: As soon as funding is available