Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Table of Contents

2 Planning Process...... 2-3

2.1 Documentation of the Planning Process...... 2-3

2.1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process ...... 2-4 2.1.2 List of Participating Jurisdictions...... 2-9 2.1.3 Yuba County Jurisdiction Planning Participation ...... 2-12 2.1.4 Asset and Resource Identification Process ...... 2-12 2.1.4.1 Geographic Information System / FEMA HAZUS-MH Support...... 2-13 2.1.4.2 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions...... 2-14 2.1.4.3 Global Positioning System Support ...... 2-16 2.1.5 Persons, Companies, Agencies, and Organizations Involved in the Planning Process 2-16 2.1.5.1 Interface with Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority...... 2-25 2.1.5.2 Interface with Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council...... 2-26 2.1.5.3 Stakeholder Committee Meetings...... 2-27 2.1.6 Public Participation in the Planning Process ...... 2-44 2.1.6.1 Public Input...... 2-44 2.1.6.2 Public Workshops ...... 2-45 2.1.6.3 Community Meetings ...... 2-49 2.1.7 Neighboring Communities and Other Stakeholder Participation Opportunities ... 2-61 2.1.8 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans, Reports, Studies, and Technical Information...... 2-71 2.1.9 Plan Review Process...... 2-92

2.2 Adoption by Yuba County Jurisdiction ...... 2-93

2.2.1 Documentation of Yuba County Jurisdictions’ adoption of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) ...... 2-93 2.2.2 Documentation of Participating Jurisdictions’ Adoption...... 2-99

Section Two: Planning Process 2-1 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Table of Tables Table 2–1 Multi-Jurisdictional Record of Participation ...... 2-11 Table 2–2 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Steering Committee ...... 2-17 Table 2–3 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee ...... 2-18 Table 2–4 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Committee Stakeholders Meetings ...... 2-29 Table 2–5 Existing Documents...... 2-71 Table 2–6 Jurisdictional Adoption of the Yuba County Plan ...... 2-99

Table of Documents Document 2-1 Yuba County Board of Supervisors Agenda - September 18, 2007...... 2-94 Document 2-2 County of Yuba Resolution of Adoption...... 2-97 Document 2-3 YCWA Resolution of Adoption...... 2-100 Document 2-4 City of Marysville Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-101 Document 2-5 Marysville Levee Commission Resolution of Adoption...... 2-103 Document 2-6 City of Wheatland Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-105 Document 2-7 Reclamation District 2103 Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-106 Document 2-8 Reclamation District 817 Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-107 Document 2-9 Camptonville Community Services District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-108 Document 2-10 Camptonville Union Elementary School District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-109 Document 2-11 District 10-Hallwood Community Services District Resolution of Adoption .... 2-110 Document 2-12 Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-111 Document 2-13 River Highlands Community Services District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-113 Document 2-14 Olivehurst Public Utilities District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-114 Document 2-15 Reclamation District 10 - Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-117 Document 2-16 Reclamation District 784 Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-118 Document 2-17 Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-120 Document 2-18 Foothill Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-121 Document 2-19 Linda Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-122 Document 2-20 Smartville Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-123 Document 2-21 Marysville Joint Unified School District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-124 Document 2-22 Plumas Lake School District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-125 Document 2-23 Wheatland Elementary School District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-126 Document 2-24 Yuba County Office of Education Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-127 Document 2-25 Browns Valley Irrigation District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-128 Document 2-26 Linda County Water District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-129 Document 2-27 North Yuba Water District Resolution of Adoption...... 2-130 Document 2-28 Peoria Cemetery District Resolution of Adoption ...... 2-131 Document 2-29 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions - GIS Meetings ...... 2-132 Document 2-30 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions - Map Distribution List ...... 2-146 Document 2-31 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey...... 2-153 Document 2-32 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey for Schools ...... 2-154 Document 2-33 Agency Fact and Information Sheet ...... 2-156 Document 2-34 Hazard Survey #1 ...... 2-157 Document 2-35 Hazard Survey #2 ...... 2-160

Section Two: Planning Process 2-2 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2 Planning Process DMA 2000 Requirements – Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management – requiring planning and coordination among local agencies. For the first time in the history of federal disaster assistance, mitigation planning is a requirement for certain types of federal and state disaster assistance funding.

The financial impact to respond to and recover from disasters such as the levee breaks, flooding and fires in Yuba County has cost all levels of government and the private sector millions of dollars. The damage and impact of disasters on the communities and residents is immeasurable. Disasters have shaped the way we prepare for and respond to disasters throughout the State. Hazard mitigation is no longer an optional program, it is now a requirement.

Hazard mitigation planning provides for the coordination of resources to identify hazards, assess risks and develop a strategy to minimize the effects or eliminate losses from disasters. Planning efforts can result in projects and programs that can become long–term, cost effective means for reducing the impact of natural and man-made hazards.

2.1 Documentation of the Planning Process DMA 2000 Requirements – Planning Process Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies that have authority to regulate development, as well as business, academia and other private non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information FMA Requirement §78.5 (a): Description of the planning process and public involvement. Public involvement may include workshops, public meetings, & hearings. Element A. Does the plan follow a narrative description of the process to prepare the plan? B. Does the plan include who was involved in the planning process? (For example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated in the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval?) D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, business, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information?

Section Two: Planning Process 2-3 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Description of the Planning Process Mitigation Planning is a process for States and communities to identify policies, activities and tools to implement mitigation actions. Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. The County applied the DMA 2000 Planning Process for the development of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

To comply with the federal hazard mitigation requirement the Yuba County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to develop a local hazard mitigation plan for Yuba County on May 25, 2004. The process of hazard mitigation involves evaluating the hazard’s impact and identification and implementation of actions and projects to minimize the impact of disasters. Hazard Mitigation may occur during any phase of a threat, emergency or disaster. Mitigation can and should take place during the preparedness (before), response (during), and recovery (after) phases of emergency management.

2.1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process The initial work on the planning process began on May 25, 2004, when the Yuba County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution after receiving notification of the requirements of the Stafford Act and DMA 2000, adopted a signature resolution (Document 2-1) authorizing the Yuba County Chairman of the Board to submit a letter of intent to develop a local hazard mitigation plan.

Development of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Plan and local LHMP was based on guidance provided in the “Hazard Mitigation -How to Guides.” The planning effort was implemented by the Stakeholders Planning Committee consisting of agency and special district representatives. The potential risk and vulnerability of assets and exposure to disasters was considered in identifying participants. The planning process steps provided the framework for stakeholders in development of the Plan and local annexes. The four step process identified and used by the Stakeholders Planning Committee as required by the DMA 2000 Planning requirement included:

• organizing resources; • assessing risks; • developing a mitigation plan; and • implementing the plan and monitoring progress.

To ensure coordination and understanding of the new FEMA requirements, the Project Director attended a FEMA Region IX Hazard Mitigation Training in July 2004, to receive training on Hazard Mitigation planning and guidance for local governments. Representatives participated in hazard mitigation training sponsored by FEMA Region IX and shared knowledge and information regarding hazard mitigation planning.

The first step in the planning process was to organize and identify resources and stakeholders in involved in emergency management in Yuba County and through existing partnerships. Securing stakeholders to work in cooperation with the existing emergency management and resource agencies and organizations in from all surrounding counties and agencies working with Yuba County. This task was accomplished by the core planning group consisting of representatives of the Yuba County Emergency Services Operational Area Council, Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, Yuba County Fire Chiefs and State OES. The Stakeholders were identified in July 2004 and it was determined that a Hazard Mitigation Community Workshop would provide an opportunity to bring all interested local governments, special districts and the community together.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-4 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Early in the planning process it became evident that most agencies and special districts were unaware of hazard mitigation and the need for comprehensive planning. To encourage stakeholders to participate in the planning process, information on local agency resources, project work and damages sustained in past disasters was obtained from State OES to provide historical damage and identify potential hazard mitigation projects.

The Project Kick-off was held on August 13, 2004 at the Yuba County Government Center present program information regarding the new federal requirements, DMA 2000 regarding disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding for all governmental entities. Letters of invitation to participate and support the county-wide planning effort were sent to all local governmental agencies and special districts in Yuba County which followed a statewide mailing from the State OES encouraging development of local hazard mitigation planning.

A presentation was given by the representatives from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Department of Water Resources, Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, MBK Engineering, North Tree Fire, Dimensions Inc., and Yuba County departments. The benefit of Hazard Mitigation was explained to the public and private sector representatives. Yuba County Appointed Officers, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Sutter County OES, Colusa County OES, Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), local law enforcement and fire department representatives, and concerned members of the public. This presentation outlined the need for a countywide local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP).

At the Kick-off the County agreed to form a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee comprised of stakeholders. The County of Yuba served in the capacity as the lead agency with staff support provided by the Project Staff. Working with all participants concerned groups within the County’s boundaries in the planning process staff provided technical assistance in research, writing and development of the plan and many agencies and special districts.

The process of community participation and involvement was an integral component in the planning process. Stakeholders representing local government agencies, public and private agencies and communities, participated in the planning process to provide for accurate identification of assets, resources capabilities and prioritizing mitigation strategies. The collaboration among stakeholders and coordination of resources in the planning process was the foundation of the County Plan and local hazard mitigation annexes

The Yuba County Stakeholders Planning Committee was formed with the responsibility for:

• Ensuring the efficient progress of the planning process; • Developing the County’s hazard identification and risk assessment; • Coordinating public involvement and input; • Providing data and information to develop the Yuba County Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan; • Meeting monthly to review progress and address the Yuba County Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan development needs; • Developing mitigation strategies; and potential mitigation actions • Identifying the maintenance, monitoring and updating of the Plan

Section Two: Planning Process 2-5 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

The planning process identified and addressed the major areas of • Stakeholder and resource asset identification • Coordination with jurisdictions within the planning area • Public outreach and education • Hazard identification and profiling hazards • Vulnerability to Hazards • Risk Assessment • Regional hazard mitigation coordination with adjacent jurisdictions • Develop potential mitigation strategies and projects including benefit cost analysis • Rank and prioritize mitigation projects • Identify potential funding sources • Identify method to maintain the Plan

Public outreach and education was a primary components in the planning process. Through out the planning and development of the Plan, the public was invited to participate and encouraged to provide comments on all aspects of the process. Hazard Mitigation Questionnaires were distributed throughout the County in cooperation with participating stakeholders and available on the County of Yuba Hazard Mitigation Website. Information submitted via the questionnaires was compiled and resulted in the hazard ranking used for the Plan. Hazard mitigation informational brochures and outreach packets were developed highlighting the benefits of developing hazard mitigation plans for the community and what individuals could do to safeguard their lives and property in the event of a disaster.

The planning efforts provided hazard specific presentations for the public to encourage individual action. The foothill region presentations highlighted fire hazard threat and information on fire safe techniques, while the valley community presentations focus was on the flood and levee threat. Successful mitigation programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Community Rating System (CRS) discussed and highlighted at all community meetings.

The planning process primarily addressed hazards and disasters in Yuba County, but the Planning Committee realized that the problems that affect Yuba County and its jurisdictions do not necessarily start or end within the borders of the planning area. The surrounding jurisdictions were invited to participate, with much of the cooperation coming from neighboring Yuba City, Sutter County, and Butte County.

The County requested information from all special districts and agencies participating in the planning process to establish a resource directory which included assets exposure and potential risks. Individual agency disaster assistance information was obtained to provide accurate information regarding the impact and losses sustained in past disasters and hazard events.

The FEMA guides provided the introduction to hazard mitigation and the process for referencing requirements throughout the planning process and development of local plans. Topics and information addressed throughout the planning process was from information presented in the guides. The FEMA Planning Guides covered the following topics:

• Getting Started –Building support for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-1) - Overview of DMA 2000 and the need for developing hazard mitigation plans.

• Understanding Your Risks- identifying hazards and estimating losses (FEMA 386- 2) - How to identify and research hazards and risks, and estimating the cost of disasters.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-6 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Developing the Mitigation Plan- identifying mitigation actions and implementation strategies (FEMA 386-3) - Identify mitigation actions and projects to address disasters and hazards through effective plan development and collaboration.

• Bringing the Plan to Life- implementing the hazard mitigation plan (FEMA 386-4) - Developing the Plan for effective implementation which will support disaster and emergency efforts.

• Incorporating Special Considerations -hazard mitigation planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6)

• Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7)

• Multi-jurisdictional Mitigation Planning- State and Local Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) - A useful guide for developing multi-hazard mitigation plans.

The DMA 2000 Planning Guides and materials were provided as guidance for special districts and governmental agencies to use in the planning process. Special district and local agencies will continue to use the guides to implement projects and for the update of the planning process, risk assessment, and identification of potential hazard mitigation projects.

All jurisdictions within the geographic planning area were contacted several times, yet some chose not to participate. Many local jurisdictions are represented by all volunteer staff and participated but did not fully comply with all the participation requirements. Several special districts and jurisdictions elected not to participate due to resource limitations and staff constraints.

The Stakeholders Planning Committee was formed to actively participate in the planning process to identify past disasters, hazard impact and vulnerability, assets and resources capabilities, and potential mitigation strategies. The collaboration among stakeholders provided for sharing information, knowledge and technical expertise which strengthened the planning process and was the foundation of the Plan. The planning process provided for coordination among stakeholders, some who previously had little or no knowledge of emergency management or hazard mitigation. The collaboration of resources and planning efforts throughout the planning process of over two years provided an opportunity to put the some of the identified hazard mitigation strategies and activities into action.

In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural and man- made disasters, the planning process included an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the development and drafting stage. This process is still on-going with many local agencies and special districts. Many of the Stakeholders represent local agencies and special districts staffed by volunteers that receive no compensation. The composition of the volunteer special districts provided an opportunity to expand the public participation role in the process and provided increased education and awareness of hazard mitigation. Regional involvement in emergency management and partnerships with surrounding counties provided for participation And support in the planning process. Butte and Sutter County representatives participated in numerous stakeholders and community workshops and meetings which provided for comprehensive planning and coordination of resources.

The a primary objective in the planning process was encouraging the community and stakeholders to participate in hazard mitigation programs to address the impact of disasters by understanding risks and taking action to prevent losses. The Stakeholders Committee and the public participated in the plan development throughout the development and prior to plan approval. This provided the opportunity to engage in the process and establish community

Section Two: Planning Process 2-7 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______support for the identified strategies and projects. The neighboring entities which included Beale AFB and other interested parties were invited to be involved in the planning process. Sharing information and networking has been a standard procedure with the monthly stakeholders meetings and public notices to provide for review and comment. Presentations from Stakeholders and other members of the community provided new information and consideration for the Plan development. The participation of Stakeholders strengthened the planning process, networking and collaboration essential for emergency planning and identification hazard mitigation planning. Stakeholders participated in the planning process sharing existing plans including information and resources in the development of the Plan. This process included the review of numerous existing plans, studies and technical reports and appropriate information which was discussed at planning meetings and workshops.

Continued public participation was part of the planning process and was provided through community outreach efforts which included a mass media campaign. This campaign included the Hazard Mitigation project web-site, printed brochures and Hazard Mitigation Workshops featuring technical expertise providing information on disasters and the potential risks.

At each public meeting, members of the community were unaware current efforts to identify a mitigation Plan and implement projects to reduce the potential vulnerability and impact of disasters affecting lives, property and the environment. Information on potential hazards in the County and “Hazard Mitigation” was a new concept. Many residents were unfamiliar with the County’s past disaster history and the devastating impact on local resources or the commitment from the Yuba County Board of Supervisor’s to mitigate potential of reoccurring events such as the levee failures through the levee improvement projects.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-8 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.2 List of Participating Jurisdictions DMA 2000 Requirements – Prerequisites Multi-Jurisdiction Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted FMA Requirement §78.5 (f): Documentation of formal plan adoption by the legal entity submitting the plan (e.g., Governor, Mayor, County Executive) Element A. Does the plan indicate the specific jurisdictions represented in the plan?

The following information provides the documentation and participation status of all jurisdictions in the County and surrounding areas who participated in the Plan.

The Planning Committee agreed on the established criteria for participation in the Multi-Hazard mitigation planning process. Each jurisdiction was required to meet the requirements for participation to be considered full participants for the purposes of the planning process and Plan development (Table 2-1).

The requirements for plan participation were:

• Adoption of the Yuba County Multi-jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Plan by the local jurisdiction Board of Directors (Appendix A) • Participation in the Hazard Mitigation Stakeholders Committee • Participation in Community Events • A ranking of hazards and mitigation priorities by the jurisdiction • Identification of the jurisdiction’s assets • Review/validation of vulnerability assessment • Identification of Hazard Mitigation Projects and Activities

Stakeholder and partner identification involved the creation of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and was achieved through monthly stakeholder committee meetings, held on the second Tuesday of every month. Initial contact was made with area jurisdictions through letters, e-mails, and phone calls to agency representatives. The stakeholder meetings coupled with individual agency meetings ensured the coordination with jurisdictions in the planning area.

The County of Yuba served as the lead agency for the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project and the development of the Plan. Technical assistance and staff support was provided for the local entities and special districts participating in the planning process. Two local government entities, elected to participate in the planning process to develop their own enhanced local hazard mitigation plans. These entities are:

• Yuba County Water Agency • Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District

The following jurisdictions were active participants in the planning process and met the plan process criteria: • County of Yuba (Lead Jurisdiction) • City of Marysville (Annex A) • Marysville Levee Commission (Annex A-2) • City of Wheatland (Annex B) • Reclamation District 817 (Annex B-3)

Section Two: Planning Process 2-9 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Reclamation District 2103 (Annex B-2) • Camptonville Community Service District (Annex C) • Camptonville Union Elementary School District (Annex C) • District 10-Hallwood Community Service District (Annex D) • Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Service District (Annex E) • River Highlands Community Services District (Annex F) • Olivehurst Public Utilities District (Annex G) • Reclamation District 10 (Annex H) • Reclamation District 784 (Annex I) • Foothill Fire Protection District (Annex J) • Linda Fire Protection District (Annex K) • Smartville Fire Protection District (Annex L) • Marysville Joint Unified School District (Annex M) • Plumas Lake School District (Annex N) • Wheatland Elementary School District (Annex O) • Yuba Community College District (Annex P) • Yuba County Office of Education (Annex Q) • Browns Valley Irrigation District (Annex R) • Linda County Water District (Annex S) • North Yuba Water District (Annex T) • Keystone Cemetery District (Annex U) • Peoria Cemetery District (Annex V)

The following agencies are within the geographic planning area, but did not fulfill the planning process criteria. These jurisdictions were contacted by phone and invited to join the planning process at several stages throughout the course of the Project. Some of the organizations listed below were given presentations at the regular meetings of their respective governing boards: • Wheatland Union High School District • Brophy Water District • Camp Far West Irrigation District • Cordua Irrigation District • Hallwood Irrigation District • Ramirez Water District • Wheatland Water District • Dry Creek Mutual Water Company • Plumas Mutual Water Company • South Yuba Water District • Browns Valley Cemetery District • Brownsville Cemetery District • Lofton/Wheatland Cemetery District • Smartville Cemetery District • Strawberry Valley Cemetery District • Upham Cemetery District

Section Two: Planning Process 2-10 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Table 2–1 Multi-Jurisdictional Record of Participation A- B- B- Annex Letter * * * A B C C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T 2 3 2 U V

t t t t t t t y 3 7 4 0 e a n n d D D D D D D D D D D D D l c c c c c c c c 0 1 8 1 l i i i i i i i b o o n S P S S S

S S i S S P P P i i r r r r r r r 1 8 7

n t a u t t t t t t t t

v F F F F s E l E C C C C 2 e

e d t t c

a

t

s s s s s s s Y

s l i s i i i i i i i

k e a e e t c c l i g c n r e a y s d d y f l i i i i l t a s c l D D D D D D d D f r r r e e l u o d n A o i i o

h

i l m i i t t s

L

u a r t n l r i h r a d n o v

e s r y y n n v i t s s l n y t a o r e r i i o m e a t s E e e D M t g o s r n L t w t l U W

i

t U i e i e l o V o a H

a D D e f t

f n a t t a t l

a o

h t

f l i a n e t F D l e l C o o u a e e a s n

g m i l

n n n o

o

m h w W W i p l i

o t i o g n

H e o i n u e o o y t i m m S / y l o i i H t C U y y a r v e m C W c o g t t t a w

i e e

t t 0 i J i i r P r v b a e n

f I t a a o y c 1 C n n C C

f r m i e C t r e

e u

a o C l i t l y u u t m m a

v a L e l O O B Y l i b n i c

i e

- / o o

m a a p i l n r l l c u e v u y l R s a a r h C C l t o l c c e t o t m

l

s a P c n t i r m

i c e e n i s e a a a y R t V s i v r e o

u b R P R R d b C m s y

s D a s o r b R N n u e o a y i n u o r M C Y K C

L m

h a w D a a e o o M b r v b L i u l u B Y Y O

Record of Participation Letter/Resolution X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X of Support Stakeholder X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Participant Sponsor/Attend Community X X X X X` X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Event Rank & Prioritize X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Hazards Identify Assets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Review/Validate Vulnerability X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Assessment Identification of Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Projects

Section Two: Planning Process 2-11 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.3 Yuba County Jurisdiction Planning Participation DMA 2000 Requirements – Prerequisites Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-Jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. FMA Requirement §78.5 (a): Description of the planning process and public involvement. Public involvement may include workshops, public meetings, & hearings. Element A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction participated in the plan development?

The Yuba County Multi–Hazard Mitigation Plan is the representation of the jurisdictions’ commitment to reduce risks from natural and man–made hazards, and serves as a guide for the local decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural and man–made hazards.

In order to ensure the applicability of the Yuba County Multi–Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for each participating jurisdiction, task and activities were identified for each jurisdiction to actively participate in the planning process. Each jurisdiction was invited to participate in monthly stakeholder meeting and workshops to ensure collaboration and to build a foundation for a comprehensive County Plan. A roundtable discussion. which generally followed presentations, proved to be beneficial for all participants as discussion proved additional information and transfer of knowledge among stakeholders. Each jurisdiction representing local government agency or special district sponsored hazard mitigation meeting for their respective boards and the public to participate in the planning process and development of their local hazard mitigation plan annex. Local agencies participating in the process became advocates promoting participation and collaboration with each other. This information is also reflected in detailed information and descriptions of participating agencies in the planning process, in Annexes A-V.

Jurisdictions participated in the planning process by attending stakeholder meetings and participating in and hosting community meetings. Each participating jurisdiction was provided with the FEMA “How-To” Guides for mitigation planning and provided information and input into their respective areas of expertise or function. For example, fire protection districts reviewed all sections in the Yuba County Plan relating to fire including hazard identification, risk assessment, mitigation strategies and actions. The Fire Safe Council and the County Fire Planner was instrumental in addressing the Fire Hazard and planning process for the Planning Committee. instrumental Additionally, each jurisdiction provided information for development of their annexes and often shared information and resources among similar agencies.

2.1.4 Asset and Resource Identification Process A major component of the planning process, and a primary reason for the identification of area stakeholders, was the gathering of information regarding resources and assets available to the region through individual jurisdictions and agencies. Many jurisdictions were unaware of their assets and how they obtained their funding to fulfill responsibilities. The Project Staff developed Agency one page summaries for each jurisdiction and stakeholders to provide and overview of their respective role and responsibility, service area, resources and hazard mitigation activities.

Prior to the formation of the Planning Committee, there was not a database in existence that provided a listing of the assets owned and operated by the jurisdictions within the County. For example, the County has limited information regarding resources and assets at risk. Therefore, one of the initial tasks to be identified was the gathering agency resource and asset information.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-12 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

To accomplish this task, the Committee had a variety of resources previously unavailable to the jurisdictions and agencies to accurately record this information from the State and other resources.

2.1.4.1 Geographic Information System / FEMA HAZUS-MH Support The Stakeholders utilized the Geographic Information System (GIS) in the planning process to establish a visual representation of their respective agency or special district boundaries. Critical facilities and resources in the jurisdictions were identified using GIS and hazard information. (GIS) software, ArcGIS version 9.1 and Spatial Analyst 8.3, along with the GIS software HAZUS– MH MR2 developed by FEMA, were critical components in the development of a comprehensive risk assessment and vulnerability analysis for the County Plan and local agencies and districts.

The successful implementation of GIS and Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) in this project relied on inter– departmental cooperation within the county and inter–agency cooperation countywide in the exchange of data resources. Contacts were developed with county departments, local jurisdictions, and State and Federal liaisons to acquire data and ascertain its applicability to the plan development.

Project work undertaken in the planning process included collection and review of GIS data resources and review of building inventory information from the county sources. Information was secured to ensure a representative potential loss analysis from HAZUS. To accomplish this, an extensive review of the default information contained in HAZUS databases was conducted. The review included a comparison of data from the County Assessor, comparison of critical facility and infrastructure data obtained through the plan development, and data obtained as a result of the community meetings and public input.

A primary task and key function of GIS within the development of the plan was the creation of maps for community meetings. These meetings allowed for the exchange of current information developed by Yuba County GIS and information collected or created as part of the planning process. These maps allowed the local community to inform the Yuba County Jurisdiction about local concerns such as infrastructure, access, and critical facilities. This exchange of information allowed for a more inclusive GIS database for the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis so that the potential loss estimates developed from HAZUS were as representative as possible of actual conditions in the county.

Once the HAZUS inventory was updated, potential disaster scenarios were conducted to assess potential loss. These disaster scenarios included damage from wildfire, flooding, and earthquake. The principal benefit of these disaster scenarios was to ascertain the areas of the county that were most vulnerable to natural disasters. The results from the HAZUS analysis were used to create maps in the plan that display inventory, potential loss, and vulnerability, which were then used to identify and develop specific mitigation projects for the Yuba County Jurisdiction as well as the participating jurisdictions.

This information has been extremely beneficial in the development of future mitigation plans for the county. The data will be included in the Yuba County GIS system for future use and planning.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-13 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.4.2 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions Initially the jurisdictions did not have a clear understanding of their service boundaries, the placement of their assets, or their exposure to potential hazards. As most jurisdictions are comprised of volunteers with little or no formal disaster training, it became a role during the course of the plan development to educate the stakeholders on their roles and responsibilities in disaster planning, response, and recovery.

The GIS mapping project is a component of the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project developed to assist the jurisdictions within the County to provide support and resources for their development in disaster planning, response, and recovery. The Project GIS staff provided assistance to identify and assess the risks in each jurisdiction, to prioritize activities within each jurisdiction to reduce damage to property, and to prevent loss of life from natural and man–made disasters.

Project staff provided technical support for individual agencies and districts to ensure were necessary for a jurisdiction to understand and respond to the request for collaboration. To assist in this process, jurisdictional maps for presentation and handouts were developed for local community meetings. These maps had several purposes: • To clarify for the jurisdiction their assets’ direct vulnerability to their local hazards; • To increase each jurisdiction’s appreciation of their relationship to neighboring jurisdictions: o How the effectiveness of their projects was influenced by other jurisdictions’ projects; o How their projects affected neighboring jurisdictions projects; o How projects and policies affected the vulnerability of their residents; o How projects and policies affected the vulnerability of residents in neighboring jurisdictions; o How projects and policies in neighboring jurisdictions affected the vulnerability of their residents; • As their legal boundaries became clear, the efficient provision of services for the jurisdiction; • The reduction of duplication of service by neighboring jurisdictions; • The reduction of duplication of service into neighboring jurisdictions; and • The location of critical assets in a spatial presentation encouraged the efficient placement of strategic response assets.

Support was provided to ensure that the placement of critical assets and facilities within Yuba County reflected the actual vulnerability for each jurisdiction. To ensure the highest quality data, meetings were held with each jurisdiction to assist them in the identification of their unique critical assets and facilities. Then each jurisdiction received training in the proper use of a GPS unit. GPS units were then made available for each jurisdiction to record the location of their assets and facilities in electronic format.

Some jurisdiction’s critical asset and facility location GPS data was instrumental in the creation of asset vulnerability maps. The collected data which was combined with the historical footprint of hazards within the County to reveal the vulnerability of each jurisdiction’s critical assets and facilities to their hazards. The identification of the vulnerability of their critical assets and facilities has led to the development and in some cases the implementation of projects and policies to reduce their vulnerability.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-14 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

The asset inventory and agency or district maps were generated in several sizes and formats depending upon the method best suited to the transmittal of information to each jurisdiction. Maps were updated as new projects, critical assets, and facilities were built within a jurisdiction. For example, new water tanks and fuel reduction treatment zones were added within the foothill fire protection districts, the new Bear River Setback Levee in Reclamation District 784 and new critical facilities in Reclamation District 10 necessitated an updated series of maps.

The information and maps generated for each jurisdiction provided information for first responders regarding mitigation projects and hazard areas to use in emergency situations. During the flood incidence of 2005–2006, the newly developed infrastructure designed to mitigate sustained flood damage in Reclamation District 784 performed as intended during the winter storms. This new infrastructure enabled the County to avoid sustained repetitive flood damage; in addition, homes previously elevated were able to avoid flood damage. The mapping effort provided support for the recovery process and supported the documentation for the initial damage assessments damage to specific parcels and their improved values.

During the Marysville Fire of August 16, 2006, maps with the fuel treatment zones were made available to first responders and the County EOC to assist in the establishment of the fire break crucial for the effective control of the fire. The rapid control of the Marysville fire was critical in the reduction of the loss of property and life for the affected community. Again the county was able to rapidly respond to the State’s request for initial fire damage assessment.

Based on the work accomplished through the pre–disaster mitigation grant: • The County is able to tie the location of previous damage to areas where damage is likely to reoccur; • The tracking of historic damage information enables the County to determine effective mitigation projects for the future safety of the county residents and their property; • Flood mitigation projects such as the Interceptor Canal, the Clark Lateral Slough, the Olivehurst Detention Basin, the Bear River Setback Levee, and the proposed Feather River Setback Levee are a direct result of the tracking of historic storm damage information within the county; • The ability of agencies seeking to mitigate damage sustained during hazard events to readily access information necessary to complete funding requests in an expedient manner; • Agencies seeking funds for the mitigation of damage from potential hazard events are able to readily access their necessary information; and • School districts within the county have used elevation information in conjunction with existing schools and newly established communities to select sites for new schools above the 100–year flood zone but still within areas of greatest need.

A full list and description of GIS assistance to jurisdictions is provided in Documents 2-3 and 2-4, which are attached at the end of section 2.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-15 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.4.3 Global Positioning System Support The Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project, as part of its effort to ensure that the data received was up-to-date and accurate, purchased 10 Global Positioning Systems (GPS). These GPS units were loaned to special districts and agencies to collect information regarding assets and resources. The GPS units will support location of resources and provide accurate information that will be useful in the planning process and for the development of the local agency annex plans.

Most of the organizations and agencies in Yuba County are volunteer organizations that did not have the resources to secure this information had the units not been provided by the project. Once the information was gathered, the GPS units were returned and the information placed into a GIS layer and used in the risk assessment for the County and for each jurisdiction.

2.1.5 Persons, Companies, Agencies, and Organizations Involved in the Planning Process The Yuba County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan was a collaborative process involving hundreds of stakeholders representing federal, state and local governmental entities, citizen committees, private non-profit entities, and the private sector. The Committee received input from every participating entity and was guided by a steering committee made up of the members of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors.

Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee The Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project was overseen by a steering committee (Table 2-2), and compiled by Yuba County staff, contractors, and representatives from local agencies. Table 2-3 lists all participants in the planning process and their corresponding agency. Representatives from all area jurisdictions were invited to participate. Local private non-profits, community organizations, private companies and utilities were all represented on the planning committee.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-16 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Table 2–2 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Steering Committee Name Affiliation Daniels Logue Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 1 Bill Simmons Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 2 John Nicoletti Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 2 Mary Jane Griego Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 3 Donald Schrader Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 4 Hal Stocker Yuba County Board of Supervisors – District 5

The steering committee was involved at all levels of the project, regularly providing input on the hazard identification process both through committee meetings and staff conferences. The steering committee was instrumental in the planning process, providing guidance to project staff. On December 19, 2006 at the regular meeting of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors, project staff gave a presentation to the full committee. For the agenda and presentation from this meeting, see Appendix C.

In addition to the steering committee, guidance for development of the project was provided by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Guidance at the state level was provided by: • Frank McCarton • Paul Jacks • John Rowdan • Becky Waggoner • Robert Mead • Ken Worman • Frank Hauck

The project was headed at the staff level by Project Director Patricia Beecham. Staffing for the project consisted of the following: • Katie Atkinson • ShirLee Belisle • Stacey Brucker • Patricia Camarena • Michael Colvin • Daniel Crawford • Lisa Cunningham • Seth Fuhrer • Cheri Klusman • Matthew Lechowick • Barbara Miles • Joe Oates • Cindy Parsons • Janice Rhodd • Greg Royat • Paula Schulz • David Slayter • Bonita Steers • Ric Sumner • Andrew Vodden • Clarence “Buck” Weckman

Section Two: Planning Process 2-17 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

The following consulting companies also contributed to the development of the Plan • Dimensions Unlimited o Genevieve Pastor-Cohen o Theresa Hayes • MBK Engineers o Ric Reinhardt o Larry Dacus

Under the guidance of the Steering Committee, the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee met monthly beginning in December 2004. The Planning Committee members represented participating agencies, special districts and jurisdictions at Stakeholders Meetings and Community Workshops. Table 2–3 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Name Title Agency/Jurisdiction Aikens, Curt General Manager Yuba County Water Agency Androvich, Steve Director Yuba County Administrative Services Angle, Eric Emergency Services Fremont-Rideout Health Group Bartlett, Jack Volunteer CSA 2 Citizen, Fire Safe Council member Beecham, Jack Chief of Police Marysville Police Department Beecham, Patricia Project Director Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Beilby, Dione Superintendent Plumas Elementary School District Belisle, ShirLee Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Bendorf, Robert County Administrator Yuba County Administrator’s Office Yuba County Health & Human Services Bentulan, Lissa Epidemiologist Department Bhattacharyya, Ani Assistant Director Yuba County Public Works Department Black, Virginia Sheriff Yuba County Sheriff’s Department Boeck, Van Principal Engineer Yuba County Public Works Department Bondurant, Ron Citizen, Council member Camptonville/ Fire Safe Council Bonea, Ryan Coordinator Yuba County Resource Conservation District Boon, Dan Chief of Police Wheatland Police Department Boyd, Dick Citizen Fire Safe Council member Brock, Steve Bi-County Ambulance Yuba County Water District, Yuba County Brown, Jenny Board Member Resource Conservation District Reclamation District 784, Three Rivers Levee Brown, Rick Director Improvement Authority Brucker, Stacey Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Brunner, Paul Executive Director Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Burr, Beverly President Burr Consulting Principal, Wheatland Elementary School District, Camarena, Patricia Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Cantwell, Gary HAZ MAT Specialist Yuba County Environmental Health Case, Rick Ranger United States Forest Service Yuba County Health & Human Services Cassady, Joe Health Officer Department Loma Rica – Browns Valley Community Cerf, Susan Director Services District Cherry, Deidre Ranger United States Forest Service, Plumas Cherry, Mike Ranger United States Forest Service, Tahoe Christofferson HAZ MAT Specialist Yuba County Environmental Health Marcie

Section Two: Planning Process 2-18 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Name Title Agency/Jurisdiction Clark, Tim Fire Chief Smartville Fire Department Coffelt, Bob Plans Coordinator Beale Air Force Base Yuba County Health & Human Services Cole, Kathy Administrator Department American Red Cross, Yuba County Hazard Colvin, Mike Consultant Mitigation Yuba County Health & Human Services Cortez, Shannon Health Education Department Cotter, Walter General Manager Browns Valley Irrigation District Crawford, Dan Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Crompton, Greg Chairman Dobbins-Oregon House Action Committee Foothill Fire Protection District, Yuba County Cunningham, Lisa Consultant Hazard Mitigation Assistant Fire Chief/ Foothill Fire Department Cunningham, Ric member Yuba Fire Safe Council DeBeaux, John Manager Sutter County Office of Emergency Services Durfor, Steve Sheriff Yuba County Sheriff’s Department Dykes, Catherine Planning City of Marysville Ferchaud, Dan Engineer California Department of Transportation Fleming, John Coordinator Yuba County Economic Development Emergency Services Fuller, Bill Yuba City Fire Department Planner Furtado, Matt Captain/Fire Planner Yuba County Planning, Cal Fire Rural Development Galvan, Paula United States Department of Agriculture Manager Gilbert, John Director Reclamation District 817 Graham, Don Director Reclamation District 784 Yuba County Board of Supervisors, Yuba Griego, Mary Jane Supervisor, Director County Water Agency, Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Griese, Martha Executive Director American Red Cross Griffin, Marty Chief Building Inspector Yuba County Building Inspection Guerrero, Kevin Cal Fire Gulserian, John Manager Butte County Office of Emergency Services Hallwood-District 10 Community Services Haile, Chris Director District Hallwood-District 10 Community Services Hall, Mary Secretary District Hammontre, Pete Chairman Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District Emergency Service Hansen, LeRoy American Red Cross Coordinator. Harrison, Wade Captain Olivehurst Fire Department Hart, Stephen Chief Olivehurst Fire Department Hatherly, Mike Director Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District Hendrix, Phil Facilities Manager Plumas Lake Elementary School District Henry, Jerry GIS Coordinator Yuba County Information Technology Hernandez, Joe Chief Marysville Fire Department, Cal Fire Hollis, Claudia Coordinator FREED, Center for Independent Living Emergency Services Holman, Keith American Red Cross Director Jacobson, John Board Member Yuba County Water District

Section Two: Planning Process 2-19 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Name Title Agency/Jurisdiction Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Johnson, Jim Coordinator Council Yuba County Health & Human Services Journagan, Cyndi Administrative Assistant Department Loma Rica-Browns Valley Fire Department, Kavanagh, Gary Battalion Chief Cal Fire Kostas, Mike Lieutenant Marysville Police Department Lamon, Dave Public Works Director City of Marysville Lechowick, Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Matthew Lee, Mike Director Yuba County Public Works Department Lofton, Doug General Manager Linda County Water District Long, Alan Captain Yuba County Sheriff’s Department Lucas, Phillip Project Manager Fellowship of Friends Ludwick, Al Board Member Reclamation District 784 Department Head Yuba County Environmental Health Mann, Tej Councilman Yuba City Council Macintosh, Lynne United States Department of Agriculture Manzo, Cory Facilities Director Marysville Joint Unified School District Assistant County Margo, Randy Yuba County Administrator’s Office Administrator Yuba County Health & Human Services Maskell, John Health Educator Department McBride, David Manager Yuba County Information Technology McClain, Kent County Administrator Yuba County Administrator's Office McGuire, Delores Peoria Cemetery District Senior Emergency Mead, Robert Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Services Coordinator Meneni, Robert Director Yuba County Administrative Services Miles, Barbara Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Miller, Walter Beale Air Force Base Mills, Curtis Assistant Chief Smartville Fire Protection District University of California, Davis Cooperative Extension, Nader, Glenn Coordinator Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council Supervisor Yuba County Board of Supervisors, Nicoletti, John Director Yuba County Water Agency O'Connell, Terry United States Forest Service Emergency Services O’Hara, Brian Yuba County Office of Emergency Services Coordinator Manager Olsen, Loren Director Yuba County Water District Onken, Steve Power Systems Manager Yuba County Water Agency Paquette, Art Captain Wheatland Fire Authority Health and Safety Parker, Katie American Red Cross Coordinator Parsons, Cindy Administrative Assistant Yuba County Office of Emergency Services Paschke, Ginny Director Yuba-Sutter Domestic Animal Assistance Pastor-Cohen, Senior Vice President Dimensions Unlimited, Inc Genevieve Patene, Jolene Emergency Services Fremont-Rideout Health Group Peterson, Cora Board Member Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District

Section Two: Planning Process 2-20 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Name Title Agency/Jurisdiction Pickell, Clark HAZ MAT Specialist Yuba County Environmental Health Loma Rica – Browns Valley Community Pogge, Silvio General Manager Services District Agricultural Pooler, Dennis Yuba County Department of Agriculture Commissioner Emergency Service Polson, Keith American Red Cross Coordinator Ramirez, Eddie Ranger United States Forest Service Reid, Mike Principal Wheatland Elementary School District Reinhardt, Ric Principal MBK Engineers Roberts, Bob Trustee Keystone Cemetery District Roush, Kevin Assistant Director Yuba County Department of Agriculture Royat, Greg Consultant Yuba County Hazard Mitigation

Schroeder, Gary Captain Beale Air Force Base Schultz, Tom Director Reclamation District 10 American Red Cross, Scott, Michael Coordinator FREED Center for Independent Living Seymour, Michael Beale Air Force Base Shipman, Rose Administrative Assistant Yuba County Water Agency Yuba County Health & Human Services Shotwell, Rob Assistant Director Department Slayter, David Project Staff Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Smith, Jerry Volunteer citizen Reclamation District 10 Smith, Shaun Lieutenant Yuba County Sheriff’s Department Snow, Don Manager Union Pacific Railroad Spooner, Val Director of Nurses Yuba Co. Health &Human Services Depart. Wheatland Fire Authority, Stineman, Darryl Chief/ Director Reclamation District 2103 Supervisor, Yuba County Board of Supervisors, Yuba Stocker, Hal Director County Water Agency, Fire Safe Council Thomas, Chuck Pacific Gas & Electric Company Emergency Service Tiffany, Susan American Red Cross Coordinator Todd, Herschel Principal Marysville Joint Unified School District Townsend, Scott Beale Air Force Base Vickrey, Bill Disaster Services American Red Cross Vodden, Andrew Project Staff Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Vogel, Bill Emergency Services American Red Cross Waggershauser, Marysville Fire Department Joe Walker, Dan California Department of Transportation Walker, Don Community member Citizen, Yuba Feather Lions Club Waller, James Director Reclamation District 10 Deputy County Ward, Aaron Administrator – Yuba County Office of Emergency Services Emergency Services Warren, Richard California Department of Social Services Waskiewicz, John Director Smartville Fire Protection District Webb, Rich Chief Linda Fire Department

Section Two: Planning Process 2-21 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Name Title Agency/Jurisdiction Chairman Reclamation District 784 Webb, Rich Director Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Whitenton, Walt Citizen Whitmore, Dale California Department of Fish & Game Wilkinson, Chris Chief of Police Yuba Community College Williamson, Sarah Fremont-Rideout Health Group Wright, Steve City Manager City of Wheatland Chief Smartville Fire Department Zamora, Marc General Manager River Highlands Community Services District

Section Two: Planning Process 2-22 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Participating agencies: Federal Agencies: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) United States Forest Service (Plumas, Tahoe, Feather River) (USFS) United States Air Force–Beale AFB Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) State Agencies: California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) California Department of Forestry (CDF) California Department of Water Resources (DWR) California Highway Patrol (CHP) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) State Reclamation Board University of California, Davis (UCD) Cooperative Extension Yuba Community College District Adjoining County Participants Butte County Colusa County Sutter County Yuba City Local Government/ County Special Districts City of Marysville–Fire/ Police Department City of Wheatland–Fire/ Police Department Camptonville Community Service District–Fire, School, Water & Cemetery Yuba County Water Agency Olivehurst Public Utility District River Highlands Community Service District Yuba County Office of Education (YCOE) Community Service Area # 2 Yuba Feather Community Services District Education Offices/School Districts: Marysville School District Plumas Elementary School District Wheatland Elementary School District Wheatland High School District Fire Departments: Dobbins–Oregon House Fire Protection District Foothill Fire Protection District Linda Fire Protection District Loma/Rica Browns Valley Hallwood/District 10 Community Service District Marysville Fire Department Olivehurst Fire Protection District Plumas/Brophy Fire Protection District Smartville Fire Protection District Wheatland Fire Department Levee Districts: Marysville Levee District Reclamation Districts: Reclamation District 10 Reclamation District 784

Section Two: Planning Process 2-23 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Reclamation District 817 Reclamation District 2103 Water/Irrigation Districts: Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) Brophy Water District *Cordua Irrigation District Linda County Water District *Plumas Mutual Water District *Ramirez Water District *South Yuba Water District Yuba County Water District Utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) California Cities Water Private Organizations: Yuba Sutter Disposal (YSDI) Bi–County Ambulance Dobbins/Oregon House Action Committee (DOACT) Dobbins/Oregon House Fellowship of Friends North Tree Fire Sleep Train Amphitheatre Private Non–Profit Organizations American Red Cross Rideout Hospital Fremont Hospital Yuba Watershed and Fire Safe Council Yuba Feather Lions Club Yuba County Departments: Administrative Services Agricultural Commissioner Economic Development Environmental Health and Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Program Health and Human Services Information Technology Probation Department Public Works Sheriff’s Office Yuba County Resource Conservation District Yuba County Office of Emergency Services

Section Two: Planning Process 2-24 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.5.1 Interface with Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Yuba County’s most prominent hazard mitigation efforts are spearheaded by the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA). TRLIA is a joint powers authority formed by the County of Yuba and Reclamation District 784.

The Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project worked extensively with TRLIA throughout the planning process, primarily on the development of a public outreach program to the residents of the developing community of Plumas Lake, as well as residents in the existing communities of Arboga, Linda, and Olivehurst, all of whom are impacted by the work being done by TRLIA.

The Hazard Mitigation Project and TRLIA were both born in 2004, making collaboration between the two projects a natural fit. Additionally, TRLIA levee projects along the Yuba, Feather, and Bear Rivers made it Yuba County’s most prominent hazard mitigation effort.

South County Community Outreach Program

The first major collaborative project between the two projects was the development of the South County Community Outreach Packet. The packet was distributed at all public meetings held in the South County and given to every new homebuyer in the Plumas Lake area by the developers. The packet was regularly updated with new materials as they were developed or new information as it became available. The packet included: • A Table of Contents • A notice to homebuyers from TRLIA providing an overview of the levee projects • A quarterly newsletter from TRLIA providing an update on the levee project • A brochure from TRLIA • A list of current members of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors with contact information • Information on the Wide Area Rapid Notification System (WARN) • Information on the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department emergency notification procedures • Information on the Emergency Alert System • A document identifying potential evacuation routes • A map of the area with highlighted evacuation zones and potential routes • Brochures: o Prevent Losses, Act Now (PLAN) from the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project o South Yuba County Evacuation Plan o Flood Hazard and Safety Information from the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project o Guide to Emergency Preparedness from the Yuba County Health and Human Services Department o National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System from FEMA o Family Disaster Supply Kit from the American Red Cross o Family Disaster Plan from the American Red Cross The community outreach packet is appended to the end of section 2. See the attached folder.

TRLIA and the Hazard Mitigation Project also collaborated on numerous public outreach meetings. Notes on these meetings are available in section 2.2.3. • Plumas Lake Community Meeting at Rio Del Oro School – January 19, 2005 • Plumas Lake Community Meeting at Rio Del Oro School – March 16, 2005 • Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Stakeholders Community Meeting – August 24, 2005 • Plumas Lake Community Meeting at Rio Del Oro School – November 3, 2005

Section Two: Planning Process 2-25 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Plumas Lake Community Meeting at Rio Del Oro School – November 16, 2005 • Linda Community Meeting at the Feather River Center – January 19, 2006 • Plumas Lake Community Picnic and Safety Fair – June 11, 2006 • TRLIA Open House and Scoping Meeting – June 29, 2006 • Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Stakeholders Community Meeting – October 12, 2006

Both TRLIA and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project were major participants in the FEMA Community Workshops hosted by the Yuba County Administrator and the Yuba County Building Department. These workshops were held to present information regarding preliminary FEMA maps as part of its floodplain re-mapping project. TRLIA and the Project both presented information at these meetings, as well as provided handouts and other information on the efforts by both organizations to safeguard the lives of Yuba County citizens. See Appendix C for the flier announcing these workshops

On April 5, 2006, a TRLIA subcommittee meeting of the Reclamation Board of the State of California was held at the Yuba County Government Center. TRLIA provides monthly reports to the State Reclamation Board, and at the preceding regular meeting, a report on the public outreach and safety program was requested. Hazard Mitigation Project staff, working with representatives from TRLIA, prepared and presented an overview of the ongoing efforts of the Hazard Mitigation Project, County of Yuba, and TRLIA to educate the citizens of south Yuba County on disaster preparedness and the programs offered by the agencies. The agenda and presentation for this meeting can be seen in Appendix C.

2.1.5.2 Interface with Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council The Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council was a major partner in the development of the Yuba County Plan. The Fire Safe Council meets monthly at the CDF fire station in Dobbins and features representatives from each of the foothill fire agencies, CDF, USFS, the Sheriff’s Department, Yuba County Office of Emergency Services, private citizens, and others. Fire Safe was integral in identifying future fire mitigation projects for the Yuba County foothills, and has been active in seeking and obtaining fire mitigation grants in the past.

Fire Safe was formed following the 1999 Pendola Fire. On the heels of the equally devastating 1997 Williams fire, Pendola burned a swath through much of the Yuba County foothills. However Pendola, like Williams before it, did not receive a federal disaster declaration. In response, the proactive communities of the foothills realized a need to begin to mitigate the effects of fire on the district. Spearheaded by Yuba County Supervisor Harold “Hal” Stocker, the Fire Safe Council was formed in 2001. Since that time, Fire Safe has taken a lead role in fire mitigation in the foothills, seeking and obtaining grants to fund various projects. The chipping program provides free chipping to residents who request it, providing an opportunity for brush clearance around structures to maintain defensible space around homes. Fuel breaks have also been funded through fire safe grants. A fuel break identified and funded by fire safe allowed CDF and local fire fighters to limit the damage from the Marysville Road Fire in August 2006. The ability of firefighters to fire off that fuel break enabled fast containment of the fire, and limited the damage to only one home destroyed.

Fire Safe has also been a major proponent of the Yuba County Fire Planner position, a collaborative project from the Fire Safe Council and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. Identification of this position is one of the success stories of the Hazard Mitigation Project. The fire planner advises all fire agencies and provides for universal and uniform application of Yuba County and State Fire Code throughout the County. Fire Safe identified grant funding for 50% of this position its first year in existence, then lobbied for its continuation.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-26 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

The Fire Safe Council was one of the earliest stakeholders to participate in the planning process. Representatives from the council attended and presented at the kick-off and advertised the event at its meetings. The Hazard Mitigation Project was on the agenda at every Fire Safe meeting over the course of the project and Fire Safe representatives were present at almost all Hazard Mitigation Stakeholder meetings.

Fire Safe participated in the planning process by reviewing all aspects of the plan related to fire. Fire Safe provided information on the areas of particular concern within the Yuba County foothills and possible projects to mitigate them. Fire Safe, having taken an active lead in mitigating the fire hazard in the foothills, was uniquely able to identify potential mitigation projects for the region to protect the lives and property of those residing in the foothills.

2.1.5.3 Stakeholder Committee Meetings Stakeholder meetings were held on the second Tuesday of the month at 1:00 pm every month beginning from December 2004 through February 2007. The exceptions to this were in August 2005 and October 2006, when the date and time of the stakeholders meetings were changed so as to accommodate evening stakeholder meetings for the public. Stakeholder meetings were collaborative efforts to create a truly comprehensive hazard mitigation plan that addressed all hazards and included input from jurisdictions, private entities, utilities, and others. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and Governor’s Office of Emergency Services provided guidance for the duration of the project and were active participants in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee.

As part of the stakeholder committee, surveys (documents 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 at the end of Section 2) were developed for the agencies and jurisdictions so that Hazard Mitigation Project staff could begin to gather information on each of the agencies and their hazard mitigation needs. These surveys were the building blocks on which each jurisdiction’s annex was built.

Hazard Mitigation Project Kickoff

Stakeholders were first invited to participate in the project kickoff on August 13, 2004. Invitations were sent to all public agencies in the jurisdiction, as well as local utilities, community groups, state and federal agencies, and private concerns. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and California Department of Water Resources were integral to making the event a success. The letters were followed up with phone calls from hazard mitigation staff personally talking to each invitee and providing some background information on the event. The local press was also notified.

The event presented information on the hazard mitigation process and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. Presentations on floodplain mapping, fire safety, and Yuba County’s disaster history and mitigation activities were given. The ability of GIS software to serve as a valuable tool in hazard mitigation planning was featured. The numerous attendees left the meeting with an understanding of DMA 2000 and the hazard mitigation process that Yuba County was undertaking.

The workshop featured technical experts and representatives involved in emergency management, prevention, and hazard mitigation programs. The event was held at the Yuba County Government Center in Marysville. Participants and sponsors included: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Forestry (CDF), the County of Yuba, Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, Three Rivers Chapter of the American Red Cross, MBK Engineering, and North Tree Fire (a private fire company).

Section Two: Planning Process 2-27 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Agencies from around the county brought fire fighting, communications, and rescue equipment to show and to explain their role in disaster preparedness and response. The Yuba Watershed and Fire Safe Council had a display about fire safety in the foothills, and American Red Cross demonstrated their brand new communications van. Law enforcement agencies brought information and handouts explaining their responsibilities and services in pre–disaster and disaster response.

The local media disseminated the information presented to the public with coverage in the daily Appeal-Democrat, weekly Rabbit Creek Journal, and the bi-monthly Territorial Dispatch. Local news radio station KUBA 1600 AM covered the event, including an on-air interview with State OES Deputy Director Paul Jacks. For documentation of this event, see Appendix B.

Monthly Stakeholders Meetings

Following the kickoff, individual agencies were contacted and work began on the process of compiling information for the plan. During this time, mitigation staff realized that there was an immense amount of information that needed to be shared with both the hazard mitigation committee and other agencies. Beginning in December 2004, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee met monthly to provide updates and disseminate information to all stakeholders. The monthly meetings allowed agencies with little previous contact to make connections and both provide and receive information that was integral to providing adequate protection to the citizens of Yuba County. Table 2-4 provides brief summaries of these meetings. Each meeting has corresponding documents, which are referenced in each meeting summary.

For agendas, sign-in sheets, and presentations from these meetings, see Appendix B.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-28 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Table 2–4 Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Committee Stakeholders Meetings Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Evacuation plan for Woodleaf –Eddie • A meeting overview by Glenn Nader of the Yuba Watershed Ramirez USFS Protection & Fire Safe Council • Resources Disaster Response Gary Taft, • An introduction to DMA 2000 and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation United States Air Force (USAF) Beale, Project identify resources for community • A presentation by hazard mitigation staff on how to conduct a risk • develop lines of communication with the assessment and the role of the HAZUS GIS software in addressing communities and agencies surrounding all hazards and establishing a process to identify and asses risks, as Beale well as prioritizing activities to reduce damage to property and • ID card or a placard – Chuck Thomas- PG&E prevent loss of life from natural and man-made disasters. issued in emergencies • A discussion of funding for FEMA fiscal year 2004/2005 competitive • Agency Representation at the Incident Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Projects and its availability to fund Command Post- Kavanagh CDF hazard mitigation plans and projects • Identify representatives, phone numbers December • A roundtable discussion on from each agency 14, 2004 o Inter-agency communication and coordination • Central database for information, see what is o Identifying hazards and risks going on— rerouting of traffic, first o Databases and resource information responders know which way to go o Studies and projects • Incident Command Center- two laptops for • Potential hazard mitigation projects accessing web sites loaded and ready to go Following the presentations and discussions, subcommittee work groups for with information… looking ahead at fuel communication, fire planning, and flood planning were formed loads, CalTrans road closures, etc. • Reverse 911 • Computer access to current Information • Automatic Vehicle location system for Sheriff Patrol cars • Upgrade early warning system • MJUSD footpath for evacuation of Yuba Feather School to USFS station

Section Two: Planning Process 2-29 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Levee improvement projects-YCWA • An overview of the DMA 2000 process and each agency’s role and • Coordinated releases for Bullards Bar and responsibilities as outlined by the Act Oroville Dams-YCWA • An introduction to HAZUS GIS software and how it is used to identify • Identify shelter facilities in the event of an and assess risks, prioritize activities to reduce damage to property, evacuation and prevent loss of life from natural and man-made disasters • Develop Public Awareness information for • A discussion of the FEMA Fiscal Year (FY) 2004/2005 competitive the South County pre-disaster mitigation grant program and possible projects to apply • Stakeholder information, knowledge, for funding resources added to HAZUS data January 11, • A workshop on multi-hazard mitigation risk assessment using • Earthquake retrofitting of the Courthouse 2005 worksheets for the FEMA How-To Guide #2. • Schools defensible space and sprinkler The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood systems Planning committee work groups met following the presentations. • CalTrans-coordinate emergency response and identify available resources • Strengthen Marysville Levees to protect critical assets • Identify an alternate County EOC • Fire Station and evacuation center in Hallwood The meeting began with an overview of DMA 2000 and the Yuba County • Coordinate fuel reduction-Fire Safe Hazard Mitigation Project. The group then broke into workshops. Session • ARC-Update facilities information one included workshops on: • Developing School Hazard Mitigation Plans • Developing Local Hazard Mitigation Plans with an emphasis on fire February 8, districts and special districts 2005 • State, City, and County Agencies The second session included workshops on: • Developing a communication plan • Developing an evacuation plan • Updating HAZUS GIS/Risk Assessment Inventory

Section Two: Planning Process 2-30 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Yuba College as Alternate EOC • An overview of the DMA 2000 process • Access through southwest corner of Beale • A status report on the efforts by Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Staff for evacuation to identify and assess risks, prioritize activities to reduce damage to • Sheriff’s Dept.-Countywide communications property and prevent loss of life from natural and man-made disasters plan using FEMA’s HAZUS GIS software • Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection March 8, • A report on the hazard mitigation event and agency meeting calendar District (DOHFPD)-Listing private water 2005 • A presentation by the Yuba County Water Agency soliciting input for sources to be used in fire fighting the development of the YCWA Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan • Proper fittings to access water The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood • Evacuation Routes for DOHFPD Planning committee work groups met following the presentations.

A Plan Development Assistance Workshop on Resource Identification and Risk Assessment using worksheets from FEMA How-To Guide #2. Presentations at this meeting included: • RD 784- Levee Work • An update on efforts by agencies on the progress being made in the • BVID- providing water to CDF DMA 2000 process and report on the meeting calendar • Yuba College for sheltering • An update on the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan • ARC- identify structures and facilitating • A presentation by Don Snow of Union Pacific Railroad on chemical agreements transportation safety, specifically emergency response, • MJUSD-rural school wells with naturally preparedness, and mitigation on the rail lines occurring asbestos • Dan Walker of the California Department of Transportation provided • Abandoned mines data base April 12, 2005 information regarding CalTrans asset inventory and resources in Yuba County • A presentation from the Yuba County Water Agency on the progress being made on the YCWA Hazard Mitigation Plan • A presentation from the Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District on the progress being made on the DOHFPD Hazard Mitigation Plan The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood Planning committee work groups met following the presentations.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-31 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • CALCORD authorization for communication • An update on the DMA 2000 process and Yuba County’s Progress on • Armature radio operators the project • School bus radios • A presentation from Jack McHatton, Chief of Telecommunications • Communications Project: Inventory of all and Bill Pennington, Assistant Chief of Communications from the radios in the county for EOP and HMP Governor’s Office of Emergency Services regarding statewide communications and communications support and planning for emergency response, preparedness, and mitigation • A presentation from Captain Alan Long of the Yuba County Sheriff’s May 10, 2005 Department Communications Division on emergency procedures and daily operations • Pete Hammontre, chairman of the Yuba County Rural Fire Joint Powers Agency provided information regarding emergency communications support and future planning efforts • An update on HAZUS risk assessment analysis and review worksheet information, asset inventory, and future planning efforts The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood Preparedness committee work groups met following the presentations. Presentations at this meeting included: • A report on the progress being made on the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project • A presentation from Jim Johnson of the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council regarding strategic plans and a summary goals, objectives, and projects June 14, • The Dobbins Oregon House Fire Protection District gave a 2005 presentation regarding development of the DOHFPD local hazard mitigation plan and potential hazard mitigation projects and activities • A discussion of the planning for the July evening workshop designed to share information regarding successful mitigation planning efforts and project information to the public The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood Preparedness committee work groups met following the presentations.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-32 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Fire Mitigation: Water hookups • An overview of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and • Marking water sources on mail boxes progress on the County Plan • Signage • An overview of the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council’s planning process and collaboration with resource agencies to identify community fire prevention strategies and support the Yuba County Project • A report on the capabilities of GIS for fire mapping, mitigation strategies, and projects. A summary of GIS project work and fire July 12, 2005 hazard models • An overview of the mission of Beale Air Force Base and its current efforts including planning, exercises, anti-terrorism efforts, and coordination of resources to support local community mitigation efforts and projects. • Planning for an evening workshop to allow the community the opportunity to provide input to stakeholders The Emergency Response and Communication, Fire Planning, and Flood Preparedness committee work groups met following the presentations.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-33 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • TRLIA- levee improvements • Planning updates from the Dobbins Oregon House Fire Protection • YCWA- power interruptions District and Wheatland Elementary School District • Partnership with county and agencies to • A presentation from the Yuba County Health and Human Services produce one packet/document that’s Department on public health preparedness planning universal preparedness for consumers • A discussion on risk assessment and ranking priorities • ARC-partnership with PG&E for disaster preparedness The meeting was continued to a special evening Stakeholder meeting • ARC- coordination with local responders to designed to share information regarding successful mitigation planning efforts provide emergency care for families with and project information to the public. Recognition of the efforts of home fires Stakeholders representing federal, state, and local agencies in the planning August 24, process and in mitigating damage and impact from natural and man-made 2005 disasters. The meeting included presentations from: • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority – an update on South Yuba County levee projects • Yuba County Water Agency – update on Hazard Mitigation Planning • Yuba County Health & Human Services Department – Public Health & Safety • Pacific Gas & Electric Company – What You Should Know About Power Interruptions • American Red Cross, Three Rivers Chapter – The American Red Cross in Your Community • Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council – Fire Prevention & Mitigation in Yuba County

Section Two: Planning Process 2-34 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Community Wildfire Protection Plan • An overview of the August 24 community meeting • Beale as a secure staging area in • An update on hazard mitigation plans combination with Beale • A presentation from the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services • ARC- IPF system for screening volunteers on the efforts being made by Yuba County to assist in the Hurricane • BVID- leaves clogging water delivery system September Katrina fallout 13, 2005 • BVID clearing ditches for water • An update from Martha Griese, CEO of the American Red Cross delivery/creating a fire break Three Rivers Chapter on the efforts of ARC to assist in the aftermath • PG&E power lines as fuel breaks of Hurricane Katrina • Health and Human Services- special needs • A workshop discussion of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project populations sheltering and risk assessment/ranking priorities • Accurate maps for first responders Presentations at this meeting included: • RD 784-elevate pumps above flood line • Updates from the Dobbins Oregon House Fire Protection District, • Uri Mountain evacuation Yuba County Water Agency, and Reclamation District 784 on their • Fuel treatment along roadways progress towards completion of local hazard mitigation plans • Fuel breaks around communities • Updates from the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services and • Public Works- fuel breaks, line of sight and American Red Cross Three Rivers Chapter on Hurricanes Katrina better evacuation corridors October 11, and Rita • Woodleaf fuel reduction 2005 • A review of risk assessment/ranking of priorities and a discussion of • Possible safe zones in the foothills potential mitigation projects • Sheriff mobile mapping capability • A discussion of evacuation routes for high hazard areas with Yuba • Special needs data bank and ID cards County Undersheriff Steve Durfor and Yuba Watershed Protection • Photo ID cards for all disaster personnel and Fire Safe Council Coordinator Glenn Nader • Recruitment of Health professionals and provide ID cards

Section Two: Planning Process 2-35 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Sheriff- Communications enhancements to • A project overview and plan updates from Yuba County and special improve emergency command vehicle districts • A Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority levee project update from Assistant County Administrator Randy Margo • An update on fire mitigation planning from Glenn Nader of the Yuba November 8, Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council and hazard mitigation staff 2005 • An update on hazard analysis and risk assessment • An update on special district plan development • A discussion of potential mitigation projects • A discussion of evacuation planning moderated by Yuba County Undersheriff Steve Durfor and Yuba County Health Officer Dr. Joe Cassady Presentations at this meeting included: • A project overview and DMA 2000 plan update including county plan, project timeline, and special districts • A presentation from CalTrans • A presentation form Beale Air Force Base on its emergency plans December • An update on hazard analysis and risk assessment summary from 13, 2005 County hazard mitigation staff • A report on fire mitigation planning from Glenn Nader of the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council Workshop discussions on local hazard mitigation plan updates, potential hazard mitigation projects, and the Yuba Community Wildfire Protection Plan were undertaken Presentations at this meeting included: • A project overview and reports on agency and special district progress on the hazard mitigation process January 10, • A status report on the damage sustained during the 2006 winter 2006 storm event • A presentation from the Yuba County Water Agency on the damage YCWA sustained as a result of the 2006 winter storm event • A workshop discussion of potential hazard mitigation projects

Section Two: Planning Process 2-36 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

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

Section Two: Planning Process 2-37 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Public Works- flooding Hammonton • An update on the damages sustained by participating agencies as a Smartville Rd result of the 2006 winter storm event and the status of FEMA funding • Slow rise flood plan to aid in recovery • Reverse 911 • A presentation outlining the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and • Elevating Plumas Arboga Rd its role in helping with the hazard mitigation process • Emergency responders access to gated • A summary overview of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi communities Hazard Mitigation Plan • Emergency incident training April 11, 2006 • A workshop discussion of potential fire mitigation projects • Camptonville evacuation plan • A technical assistance workshop for those agencies ready to begin • Camptonville special directional antennas writing their plan annexes • Public education and awareness of fire • Risk management program • Installing generators at all critical facilities • Fire coordination with other counties • Additional access to water sources • County fire planner position • Storage and upkeep of sandbags Presentations at this meeting included: • Health and Human Serves- Hand washing • A discussion of building ordinances and fire planning by the Yuba education; supply of masks County Building Department Ranking of public health issues and May 9, 2006 • • A report on Avian Influenza and infectious disease preparation by socioeconomic issues for recovery from hazard mitigation staff and the Yuba County Health and Human disasters Services Department Presentations at this meeting included: • ARC-Train shelter workers • An update on agency and County hazard mitigation plans • Evaluation of evacuation and sheltering of • A presentation by Bill Vogel, Chief of the Disaster Services Bureau of special needs populations June 13, the California Department of Social Services on regional evacuation 2006 and mass care sheltering • A workshop discussion of regional mass care sheltering and associated hazard mitigation projects • A discussion of planning for the Hazard Mitigation and Safety Fair

Section Two: Planning Process 2-38 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • Fire station in the south county • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority and Plumas Lake update • Sub-station for law enforcement in the south • Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 update county • Community Wildfire Protection Plan update by the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council • Woodleaf Evacuation and Sheltering plans by the United States July 11, 2006 Forest Service • A presentation on the formation of a Pandemic Flu Sub-Committee by the Yuba County Health & Human Services Department • A report on the development of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Website • A report on the progress of the Yuba County Mitigation Plan and Special District Annexes Presentations at this meeting included: • Evacuation, shelter-in-place, special needs • A roundtable discussion of each agencies progress on their populations respective hazard mitigation efforts • Vertical evacuation in City of Marysville, • An update on Pandemic Influenza from the Yuba County Health & shelter –in-places in upper stories Human Services Department • Courthouse, elevate communications, August 8, • An overview of the hazard mitigation program from Fletcher Jackson generators, etc. 2006 and Jim Wyatt of FEMA and Robert Mead from State OES • Field data collection, i.e. fire hydrants • District maps with census tracts/blocks • County-wide combined fire training • Fire dept. conduct training for Sheriffs, i.e. wildland fire, basic fire safety during incident

Section Two: Planning Process 2-39 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • More firebreaks, fuel reduction, and water • An introduction to the group of Aaron Ward, Deputy County tanks-4 more per district Administrator – Emergency Services • D-OH drafting ditch, cleaned • A report on the August 16, 2006 Marysville Road Fire by Cal Fire and • County needs another tank at 4-H camp. the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council September • GIS water sources on an on going basis, • An overview of hazardous materials mitigation by Yuba County 12, 2006 develop meta files for fire use Environmental Health – Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). • Standard signs for water source locations • An update on the Yuba County Water Agency Multi-Hazard Mitigation • Camera, Oregon Peak lookout Plan • CUPA training for fire fighters • An update on Pandemic Influenza from the Yuba County Health & • YCWA, water delivery to Wheatland Human Services Department

Section Two: Planning Process 2-40 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • CUPA, monthly data updates needed • A roundtable discussion moderated by Yuba County Supervisor Mary • Data base for special needs population Jane Griego on the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project tracing • An update from the Yuba County Health and Human Services • Evacuation planning Department on their ongoing public safety plans

The meeting was continued to a special evening Stakeholder meeting designed to share information regarding successful mitigation planning efforts and project information to the public. Recognition of the efforts of Stakeholders representing federal, state, and local agencies in the planning process and in mitigating damage and impact from natural and man-made disasters. The meeting included: • Awards given to members of the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department in October 12, honor of their efforts to save lives during a structure fire in the City of 2006 Marysville, the Trauma Intervention Program for aiding those displaced by the fire, the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council for its efforts in hazard mitigation planning, and Greg Crompton for his efforts in hazard mitigation planning • A presentation from Matt Furtado, Yuba County Fire Planner, on fire mitigation and safety • A report on the Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council’s chipping program • An overview of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project • An update on the FEMA flood mapping process • A presentation from the Yuba County Water Agency on its Forecasted-Coordinated Operations project • A report from the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority on the current status of the levee improvement projects

Section Two: Planning Process 2-41 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • NIMS training for county staff • A report from the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services on its • YCWA, camera, fuel reduction to protect participation in the Emergency Medical Services Authority statewide communication at Oregon Peak exercise • YCWA, spillgate retro-fit • A report from the Yuba County Water Agency on its presentation to • D10, fix/redesign valve gates November the YCWA Board of Directors and an update on the YCWA plan 14, 2006 • A discussion of benefit cost analyses and project costs from hazard mitigation staff • An update on Yuba County hazard mitigation plans and a review of the water resources document • An update on Pandemic Influenza from the Yuba County Health & Human Services Department A special workshop meeting. Representatives with agencies in attendance December worked with Yuba County hazard mitigation staff individually to discuss the 12, 2006 progress being made on individual agency plan annexes and identify information that was still needed. Presentations at this meeting included: • A report on the efforts of the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services • An update on the South Yuba County levee projects by the Three January 9, Rivers Levee Improvement Authority 2007 • A report and presentation to the Stakeholders group regarding the Yuba County Municipal Services Review (MSR) being undertaken by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for collaboration with the mitigation project and review process

Section Two: Planning Process 2-42 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Meeting Description Date Mitigation Actions Discussed Presentations at this meeting included: • An update by each attending agency on the progress being made towards completion of local hazard mitigation plans and plan annexes • A discussion of the DMA 2000 plan review process and where the February 13, Yuba County Plan is in the review process 2007 • A report from Cal Fire (CDF) on the updating of fire hazard severity zones • A review and discussion of the identified mitigation projects for fire, including identification of funding sources and the agency responsible for maintenance of the projects.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-43 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.6 Public Participation in the Planning Process To ensure public involvement in the planning process, the Yuba County Jurisdiction was responsible for scheduling, publicizing, and organizing public meetings. Stakeholder meetings featured technical experts, engineers, and speakers from Federal, State and local government, from agency representatives involved in flood protection, fire protection, medical response, health professionals, transportation, and utilities from both public and private sectors. Three countywide workshops were held to encourage public input and to review the draft plan. These community outreach efforts involved State and Federal agencies, the Corps, and DWR, participating as technical experts and providing essential information for public awareness. Community meetings, workshops and stakeholder meetings provided a mechanism by which residents were informed and gained an understanding of the planning process, the hazards and risks within the county, and possible mitigation strategies.

Copies of Committee and public meeting attendance sheets and meeting agendas are available in Appendix C. Below is a summary of the planning process and public involvement:

2.1.6.1 Public Input Public input was encouraged at all meetings and community forums. Surveys, handouts, and open question/answer forums have given citizens and stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the planning process. Press releases were posted in the local newspapers; the Appeal Democrat (a daily publication), the Rabbit Creek Journal (a weekly publication), and the Territorial Dispatch (a bi–weekly publication). Interviews were conducted with local radio and television; Channel 3 and Channel 10 (Sacramento area stations), Channel 19 (local cable television), KUBA and KMYC (local radio stations).

Surveys (Documents 2-8 and 2-9 attached to Section 2) were developed and residents were encouraged to fill them out at all public meetings, workshops and stakeholder meetings. The survey was also available on the hazard mitigation website in electronic format. Two surveys were developed, the first about the program as a whole, with the second geared toward developing a comprehensive hazard ranking. The second survey lists more hazards than the first, a result of the feedback that was received from the first version. Participating jurisdictions held at least two public meetings and asked local residents to participate in the survey. Many of the jurisdictions had booths at local fairs, bazaars, fundraisers, and gatherings to inform the public, solicit involvement and request residents to fill out the survey. Survey responses were tabulated and then analyzed to establish hazard and mitigation priorities both within the given jurisdictions as well as county wide.

Numerous presentations were presented on the DMA 2000 process using information provided by FEMA and State OES to area communities and jurisdictions to educate and bring forth the importance of hazard mitigation. Print media was developed as leave–behinds for public education; “South Yuba County Evacuation Plan” (for South County residents) highlighted the primary evacuation routes, safety information and emergency measures; “Prevent Losses Act Now” (the multi–hazard mitigation plan) explained hazard mitigation, its planning process, and assessing risks; “Yuba County Office of Emergency Services–Flooding” (for floodplain residents) discussed flood proofing the home, emergency supplies, contact numbers; and “Yuba County Office of Emergency Services–Fire” (for foothills residents) discussed fire hazards and, how to fire proof the home. Flood preparedness information packets were prepared and disseminated for the Plumas Lake/Arboga outreach effort as well as “Telephone Emergency Notification System (TENS)” an emergency evacuation notification. The project utilized Federal, State, County and American Red Cross brochures to inform the public on many areas of hazard

Section Two: Planning Process 2-44 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______mitigation, emergency services, pre- and post disaster preparedness, and recovery. These brochures are available in the folder attached to Section 2.

2.1.6.2 Public Workshops

August 13, 2004 To introduce the Yuba County Pre-Disaster Multi-Hazard Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan development, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (MHMPC) planned a countywide Kickoff and Workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to provide information and training for Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation planning to local governmental organizations and representatives. The workshop featured technical experts and representatives involved in emergency management, prevention, and hazard mitigation programs. The event was held at the Yuba County Government Center in Marysville. Participants and sponsors included: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Forestry (CDF), the County of Yuba, Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, Three Rivers Chapter of the American Red Cross, MBK Engineering, and North Tree Fire (a private fire company).

August 24, 2005 was the second workshop, held at the Yuba County Government Center in Marysville. Agencies were invited to display information and discuss their role and responsibilities in Pre–Disaster, Disaster Response and Disaster Mitigation to share with the public. The Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council brought different types of building materials that are common in home construction and had a demonstration burn to show the effectiveness of using fire retardant materials, especially in the fire prone foothills of the county. Forty–nine people attended the meeting.

Presenters were: • Kent McClain, Yuba County CAO and Executive Director of the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority–“Yuba County Levee Improvement Projects”; • Curt Aikens, General Manager of the Yuba County Water Agency–“Yuba County Water Agency Hazard Mitigation Plan”; • Cyndi Journagan, Director of Nursing, Yuba County Health and Human Services Department–“Health and Safety”; • Marie Jordan, Director of Operations and Maintenance PG&E, and Chuck Thomas, Supervisor PG&E, Marysville–“What you should know about Power Interruption”; • Martha Griese, Executive Director, Three Rivers Chapter of the American Red Cross– “American Red Cross in Our Community”; • Glen Nader, Yuba County Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council and UC Davis Cooperative Extension Agent–“Fire Prevention and Mitigation in Yuba County”.

For press releases, agendas, and other materials related to this meeting, see Appendix C.

October 12, 2006 At the regular Stakeholders meeting on September 12, 2006, it was decided that the next meeting would be an evening meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to see the progress being made on the hazard mitigation project. The date for the meeting was set for Thursday October 12, 2006 at 6:00. The public workshop was preceded by a pre-meeting at 4:00 to allow time between meetings for stakeholder participants to set up their displays. The format was much the same as the previous stakeholders community meeting, held in August 2004, with representatives from participating agencies providing information to the public about their roles in hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness efforts for the County. The community portion provided the public with an opportunity to receive updated information on the progress being

Section Two: Planning Process 2-45 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______made toward the completion of the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the benefits participating agencies have received through the program.

The first notice of this meeting was sent the next day, Wednesday September 13, 2006. The notice was sent to all stakeholders with a note that hazard mitigation staff would be in contact with them to discuss participation in the community meeting. The e-mail also included a flier for distribution for any agencies that wanted to help in the distribution process. Follow-up phone calls were then made to stakeholders to invite participation in the meeting.

Various agencies were contacted in the month leading up to the meeting. Though some were unable to attend due to prior commitments, the overall response was very positive. Many agencies participated in the meeting, including: • Cal Fire • Dobbins-Oregon House Action Committee • Yuba County Health and Human Services Department • Reclamation District 784 • Yuba County Sheriff’s Department • Yuba County Board of Supervisors • Yuba County Water Agency • Yuba County Office of Emergency Services • Marysville Fire Department • Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District • Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council • Office of the Yuba County Administrator • United States Forest Service – Tahoe National Forest • United States Forest Service – Plumas National Forest • American Red Cross • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority • Yuba County Probation – Victim/Witness Program • Casa De Esperanza • Yuba County Public Works Department • Yuba County Environmental Health – Certified Unified Program Agency • District 10-Hallwood Community Service District • Smartville Fire Department • Olivehurst Fire Department • Plumas Lake Elementary School District • Yuba Community College District • Yuba City Fire Department • Sutter-Yuba Mosquito & Vector Control District

Each of these agencies had representatives attending the Stakeholders meeting and/or participated in the public meeting.

Another notice was sent to all stakeholders on Friday, October 6 with the note that follow-up phone calls would be made prior to the event on the 12th.

Public Dissemination In order to maximize the success of the community meeting, a comprehensive advertising campaign was put into affect, using multiple mediums to advertise the event to the public.

Media – • Press releases were sent to the Appeal-Democrat, which added the meeting to both their online and paper calendar. A brief about the meeting ran in the October 8 edition.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-46 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• The same press releases were also sent to KUBA Radio, who mentioned the meeting several times during their regular news broadcasts.

Websites – • The meeting was featured on the main page of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation website and on the Community Meetings page of the same website. The Yuba County website added the meeting to its upcoming events calendar on the main page. • The press release and flier were also sent to Gary Bradford, webmaster of www.plumaslake.info. The information was posted on the main page, event calendar and the community action forum.

Fliers – The fliers were distributed by a variety of agencies, which posted them at their offices and helped to distribute them to the community. The fliers were placed at the Guard Station at the Yuba County Government Center and were posted at several department front desks.

On October 11, the fliers were distributed to the following area schools:

Marysville Joint Unified School District • Alicia Intermediate School • Arboga Elementary School • Cedar Lane Elementary School • Cordua Elementary School • Ella Elementary School • Johnson Park Elementary School • Kynoch Elementary School • Linda Elementary School • McKenney Intermediate School • Olivehurst Elementary School • Yuba Gardens Intermediate School

Plumas Lake School District • Rio Del Oro Elementary School • Riverside Meadows Elementary School

Wheatland Elementary School District • Bear River Middle School • Wheatland Elementary School

The fliers were sent home with the students on October 11. A total of 7,500 fliers were distributed to the schools. Announcements – The meeting was announced at the regular meetings of the Yuba County Water Agency Board on September 26 and October 10. The Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council announced the meeting on October 11.

Stakeholders Community Workshop

The Community meeting began at 6:00 on Thursday, October 12, 2006. It began with special presentations from the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to the American Red Cross, Yuba County Sheriff’s Department, Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council, and Greg Crompton for their efforts in hazard mitigation and public safety. The awards were given by Yuba

Section Two: Planning Process 2-47 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

County District 2 Supervisor John Nicoletti, Yuba County Administrator Robert Bendorf, Assistant County Administrator Randy Margo, and Deputy County Administrator Aaron Ward.

Following the award presentation, the citizens in attendance were invited to visit the informational booths and vehicles provided by various agencies for the event. The display and vehicle providers were: • Yuba City Fire Department – Kid’s Safety House • Marysville Fire Department – manned Yuba County Fire Department’s (YCFD’s) Kid’s Safety House • Yuba County Sheriff’s Office – YCSO boat and vehicle • Olivehurst Fire Department – Fire Engine • Smartville Fire Department – Fire Engine • American Red Cross – Emergency Communications Response Vehicle • Yuba County Probation Victim/Witness Program – McGruff the Crime Dog and other materials • United States Forest Service Plumas and Tahoe National Forests – Smokey the Bear • Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council – Display highlighting Slapjack mitigation project • Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District – Display highlighting chipper program • Sutter-Yuba Mosquito & Vector Control District – Mosquito Fish • Yuba County Water Agency – Photos and informational brochures • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority – Newsletters and Brochures • Yuba County Building Department - FEMA Floodplain maps • Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Committee – Display, brochures, maps and draft copies of the Yuba County, YCWA, and Dobbins-Oregon House mitigation plans

Once the meeting was called back to order, Yuba County District 3 Supervisor Mary Jane Griego moderated as Assistant County Administrator Randy Margo gave a presentation on the update of the Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain maps and their impact on the Yuba County Community.

Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Director Pat Beecham gave a brief overview of the hazard mitigation project and the benefits that have been received through the project to participating agencies.

Yuba County Water Agency General Manager Curt Aikens provided information on the YCWA Hazard Mitigation Plan and the hazard mitigation efforts being undertaken by the Water Agency. He described the Forecast-Coordinated Operations project being developed in conjunction with Oroville Dam to manage releases during high water periods. The result of this project should decrease the risk of flooding downstream of these two dams.

The final presentation of the evening was given by Supervisor Griego and Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Program Manager Ric Reinhardt. They discussed the ongoing levee repair projects in South Yuba County.

All presentations were followed by question and answer periods to give the public the opportunity to have their questions answered and their concerns addressed.

The event was well attended by both stakeholders and the community. The meeting concluded at 8:00 pm.

For Fliers, Press Releases, Agenda, and other documents associated with this meeting, see Appendix C.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-48 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.6.3 Community Meetings The Planning Committee met with local Boards of Directors to present the DMA 2000 requirements and the hazard mitigation planning process. Each board discussed the plan and decided how much they would be involved. Each board then passed a resolution to participate as part of the county wide plan. The jurisdictions were required to have a least two public meetings for the purpose of hazard identification and prioritization, and to develop mitigation strategies for identified hazards within their boundaries. Hazard Mitigation Project staff attended all the public meetings held by the individual jurisdictions to help answer questions and give technical assistance.

Community Meetings were held in conjunction with the local agencies in the region and hosted by the member of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors that represent the region. Other agencies, such as the Yuba County Water Agency, Yuba County Sherriff’s Department, Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, Yuba County Public Works Department, and many more worked with Hazard Mitigation Project staff to ensure that all community meetings were successful.

The process for initiating a community meeting was similar in each case. Often a community meeting was requested by the host agency or a Board of Supervisors representative. Hazard mitigation staff would then identify a location and date for the meeting to be held, checking available dates against the schedules of the hosting agency and County Supervisor.

Once an acceptable date was identified and the location confirmed, local agencies were contacted to collaborate on the planning process. For foothill community meetings, this included all fire districts in the region, the local community groups (DOACT, Fire Safe Council), and the Yuba County Water Agency, among others. In the valley, local flood control agencies (Reclamation Districts, TRLIA) were also contacted in addition to the above list. Utilities that serve the county (Yuba-Sutter Transit, Vector Control, PG&E, OPUD), were also contacted to participate in community meetings. Yuba County agencies and departments were also active participants in the planning process, including the Sheriff’s Department, Office of Emergency Services, Public Works, Community Development, Health and Human Services, and Administrative Services.

When the participants had been confirmed, a press release was sent to the local media including: • The Appeal-Democrat, a local daily newspaper • The Rabbit Creek Journal, a local weekly newspaper • The Territorial Dispatch, a local bi-monthly newspaper • KUBA 1600 AM, local radio news station The press release was generally sent a week before the event, with a follow-up release sent two days prior to the event.

A flier was developed for the event as well, which included a list of participating agencies and what information would be available at the meeting. The fliers were posted at the offices of the participating agencies, and in every department at the Yuba County Government Center, as well as at the guard station/front desk. The fliers were also posted on the Office of Emergency Services website, the Hazard Mitigation website, and the main page of the Yuba County website. For meetings held in the valley, the community website http://www.plumaslake.info was also contacted and information was posted on the community action forum. Two days prior to the meeting, fliers were printed and distributed to area schools and sent home with children, ensuring that a significant portion of the community was made aware of the meeting.

Every effort was made to ensure that information about the meeting was disseminated to the public. As a result, the meetings were very well attended. The information provided at these meetings was often new and invaluable to the community. Many individuals within any given jurisdiction were unaware of the time spent on their behalf in response to emergencies and the

Section Two: Planning Process 2-49 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______need for community support, volunteerism, and citizens to fill positions on local boards. As a direct result of these community outreach efforts, residents have come forward to volunteer for positions and to form local groups to fill such needs as levee patrols in time of high water events. Communities came together to discuss safe evacuation routes and fire safety in the foothills. Members of the Planning Committee helped local jurisdictions prepare for and attended almost two hundred local meetings, and met frequently with local planning committees (Calendar of meetings is on file at the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services.)

Major Community Events The Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project often attended regular meetings of jurisdictions, governing bodies, and meetings that were open to the public, to allow both elected officials and the community at large to comment on the planning process.

Additionally, the project hosted community meetings which were held in conjunction with agency partners, but were separate from board meetings. These meetings were tailored specifically to educate and inform the communities, and provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan. Two of these meetings were public workshops intended for the entire County and done in conjunction with the Stakeholders Committee. (Described in section 2.1.6.2). Other meetings were targeted to specific geographical areas, with information on flooding the focal point in south county meetings, and fire in the north.

For documentation of these meetings, see Appendix C

Plumas Lake Community Meetings

The time frame of the project (August 2004-Sept. 2007) coincided with a period of tremendous growth for Yuba County. Much of this growth occurred in the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area in South Yuba County. Affordable home rates combined with its short distance from Sacramento made this area an attractive location to purchase a new home. Because many of the new homeowners in Plumas Lake moved to Yuba County from other areas, many were unaware of the services provided by Yuba County. That, combined with the efforts of the Three Rivers Levee improvement Authority (TRLIA) to improve the areas protecting not just Plumas Lake, but the entire south county, made Plumas Lake a natural focal point for a series of community events. Many of these meetings were conducted at the behest of the State of California board of Reclamation who stated, “there’s been quite a bit of information, material, and data that was submitted by [Yuba County] to the [Reclamation] Board in terms of pamphlets and inundation works and studies and public meetings that they have been doing simply to notify the people of the flood risk in the area” . (Board Member Bill Edgar, January 21, 2005) http://recbd.ca.gov/meeting_transcripts/2005/transcript-1-05.doc).

January 19, 2005 The first community meeting in Plumas Lake was held on January 19, 2005 at Rio Del Oro School. Because the subdivision is currently populated only by homes and schools (a fire station opened in January 2007), Rio Del Oro, the first school constructed in the area, has become the de facto community center for the residents of Plumas Lake. The meeting was hosted by Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego and sponsored by the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Project, who worked extensively with Plumas Elementary School District (now Plumas Lake School District or PLSD) Superintendent Dione Bielby.

Fliers were developed and distributed by Rio Del Oro School and Arboga School, and was targeted for the new residents in Plumas Lake and the existing residents in the community of Arboga. A press release was sent to local media. A meeting announcement was placed in the Appeal-Democrat, which also sent a reporter to cover the meeting. KUBA radio also announced the meeting in the days preceding the event.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-50 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

For many in the community, it was the first opportunity for residents to receive information from all of the service sectors of Yuba County. Many were unaware of which agencies provided services to the Plumas Lake area or had yet to make contact with these agencies. It was a first opportunity for many new homeowners, and the meeting was very well attended as a result. Over 100 people attended this meeting, which featured presentations on:

• Law enforcement and emergency response from Yuba County Sheriff Virginia Black • Traffic Safety from Captain Scott Silsbee and Officer Jeff Larson of the California Highway Patrol • Fire Protection and Emergency Response from Chief Rich Webb of the Linda Fire Department • American Red Cross Services from Disaster Assistance Coordinator Mike Scott • Reclamation District 784 from RD 784 President Richard Webb • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Projects from Yuba County Administrator and TRLIA Executive Director Charles Kent McClain • Emergency Services and Disaster Preparedness from Emergency Services Coordinator Patricia Beecham.

Representatives from the Yuba County Departments of Public Works, Community Development, and Emergency Services were also in attendance at the meeting, which concluded with a panel discussion and question and answer period for the residents.

The hazard mitigation project was discussed as part of the presentation on emergency services and disaster preparedness, and the brochures and surveys developed by the program were handed out to the residents in attendance. The community was asked what they were concerned about regarding hazards in the county, and solicited possible solutions to those problems.

March 16, 2005 The communities of Arboga and Plumas Lake were again invited to attend a community meeting on March 16, 2005 to discuss the hazards that face the south county area. Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project sponsored the event, which was held at Rio Del Oro School and hosted by PLSD Superintendent Dione Bielby.

Fliers were developed for the event and distributed throughout the community. Students at Rio Del Oro School and Arboga School were given fliers to take home to their parents on the day prior to the event. The local media was contacted and an announcement appeared in the Appeal-Democrat and was broadcast on KUBA Radio.

The meeting was smaller in scope than the one that preceded it, focusing on the TRLIA levee projects and the hazard mitigation project. Yuba County Administrator and TRLIA Executive Director Charles Kent McClain provided information on the levee projects and Emergency Services Coordinator Patricia Beecham discussed the hazard mitigation project and solicited input from the community members in attendance. Surveys and brochures developed by the program were distributed. Information for the plan was solicited, specifically the hazards that affect the area.

Representatives from the Yuba County Departments of Public Works and Community Development were also in attendance to discuss the growth occurring in Plumas Lake and the efforts being made by each department to build and maintain the infrastructure in the region.

November 3, 2005 Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego sponsored a community meeting for the residents of Plumas Lake and Arboga on November 3, 2005 at Rio Del Oro School. The meeting was co-

Section Two: Planning Process 2-51 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______sponsored by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and hosted by PLSD Superintendent Dione Bielby.

Fliers were developed and distributed to the community. The fliers were also given to the students at Rio Del Oro School and Arboga School to take home to their parents on the day preceding the event. The local media was contacted and an announcement appeared in the Appeal-Democrat and was broadcast on KUBA radio.

The meeting included presentations on: • Levee Maintenance and Patrol within Reclamation District 784 by RD 784 President Richard Webb. • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Projects by Yuba County Administrator and TRLIA Executive Director Charles Kent McClain • The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan by Project Director Patricia Beecham

Richard Webb solicited the residents in attendance to volunteer to be trained on how to patrol a levee during a high water period. The residents interested marked an “X” on the sign-in sheet present at the meeting. In all, 12 people volunteered to be trained for levee patrols.

Surveys and brochures developed by the hazard mitigation project were distributed and information for the plan was solicited, specifically the hazards that affect the areas. It was also announced that a mitigation planning workshop would be held on November 16 at Rio Del Oro School to provide information and encourage community participation in the planning process.

November 16, 2005 Shortly following the meeting on the 3rd of November, a hazard mitigation planning workshop was held on November 16, 2005 at Rio Del Oro School. The evening workshop was held to provide information and encourage community participation in the mitigation planning process. The workshop process included identifying resources, risks, hazards, and mitigation actions to prevent and mitigate damage and impact from natural disasters and manmade hazards.

The meeting also included a discussion of law enforcement and emergency response moderated by Yuba County Undersheriff Steve Durfor.

RD 784 President Richard Webb discussed volunteer levee patrol guidelines and showed a video titled “High Water” from the California Department of Water Resources. This training video covered how to identify problem areas on a levee during a high water period.

A workshop discussion and a question and answer period followed the presentations, pertaining to levee projects, potential hazards affecting the Plumas Lake and Arboga communities and the work being done to minimize those hazards.

June 11, 2006 Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego and the Plumas Lake Homeowners Association hosted a community safety fair and picnic on June 11, 2006 at Rio Del Oro School. The event was sponsored by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and provided an opportunity for the residents of Plumas Lake to acquaint themselves with the services provided to the area, learn about safety techniques, and provide comments and input into the draft of the Yuba County Multi- Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Fliers were developed and given to members of the Plumas Lake Homeowners Association who walked door-to-door, leaving a flier at every home in the Plumas Lake Area. Because the school year had been completed, the fliers were not distributed through area schools as had been done

Section Two: Planning Process 2-52 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______for previous meetings. The local media was contacted and an announcement appeared in the Appeal-Democrat and was broadcast on KUBA radio in the days leading up to the event. Notices for the meeting were also posted on the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project website and the Plumas Lake community forum.

Agencies from both the public and private sectors attended and provided information to the community. The event began at 4:30 with a welcome from Supervisor Griego and community member Carla Wilcoxen. Attending agencies set up tables and booths with information about the services provided for Plumas Lake. These included: • Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project: had surveys and brochures available to the community. Every completed survey was also a raffle ticket, with the prize being a map that had been used by the project to identify the hazards in the area. Draft copies of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Yuba County Water Agency Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan were made available for public comment. A community meeting presentation also ran on a loop on a laptop computer, with staff available to discuss the project and solicit input from the community. • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority: provided maps of the levee projects being undertaken by TRLIA. TRLIA personnel were in attendance to discuss the projects and address the concerns of residents. • Yuba County Water Agency: had materials and information on YCWA’s role in flood management in Yuba County. Brochures were also provided on the Agency’s Forecast- Coordinated Operations Project and the Yuba River Accord. • Yuba County Sheriff’s Department: had information on neighborhood watch programs, the Sheriff’s STARS program, and had materials on the role and responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department in Plumas Lake. Several members of the Sheriff’s Department were in attendance to discuss law enforcement in the community. • Yuba County Health and Human Services Department: had information on the public health department, including brochures that highlighted the public health programs in Yuba County. The Health Department also provided educational materials for children. • Linda Fire Department: provided several fire trucks, including an antique fire truck for public display. The fire department also provided materials for the community and entertainment for children, including a clown and face painting. Free hot dogs were also provided by the Linda Fire Department, one of the major participants in the event. • California Highway Patrol: provided a patrol vehicle for display, as well as materials for the public. Several officers were on hand to discuss the role of the CHP in Plumas Lake. • Bi-County Ambulance: provided an emergency response vehicle for public display. • American Red Cross: provided its Emergency Communications Response Vehicle for public display. ARC representatives were also in attendance to discuss their programs and role in emergency management. • Yuba-Sutter Transit: The area’s public transportation provider had materials available on its bus routes and schedule, including its commuter routes to Sacramento. • The Appeal-Democrat: The area’s daily newspaper, which covers Plumas Lake events. Representatives from the Appeal had subscription information available. • Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control: provided a tank of mosquito fish, a type of fish that eradicates mosquito populations. The information provided was of special interest to the residents of Plumas Lake. Surrounded by farmland, the subdivision has a considerable mosquito population, which exacerbates the risk to the population from West Nile Virus and other diseases carried by mosquitoes. • Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc: provided information on garbage service for the residents. YSDI is the sole provider of garbage service in the area, and had information available on the services provided.

Materials were also provided by the Yuba County Department of Public Works, Yuba County Economic Development, the Fremont-Rideout Health Group, and the Sutter-North Medical

Section Two: Planning Process 2-53 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Foundation. Representatives from these organizations were unavailable to attend the community event, so materials were distributed at the Yuba County Mitigation Project table.

At 5:30, presentations on Yuba County hazard mitigation, levee projects, and flood control were given in the multi-purpose room at the school. The presentations were given by: • Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego, who discussed the efforts being made by the County to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents in Plumas Lake • TRLIA Executive Director Paul Brunner, who introduced himself to the community as the new executive director and provided an overview of the TRLIA levee projects • YCWA General Manager Curt Aikens, who discussed the Forecast-Coordinated Operations Project and YCWA's role in flood control in Yuba County • Hazard Mitigation Project Director Patricia Beecham, who discussed the process for identifying hazards and projects to safeguard the lives and property of all residents of Yuba County. She also solicited input from the community and encouraged those in attendance to provide comments on the draft plan available at the event.

The event was very well attended and the community enjoyed the opportunity to commune with each other and receive information on the services that are provided to them by both private and public agencies.

Linda Community Meetings The community of Linda is one of the communities in Yuba County that has been most impacted by disaster in its recent history. The 1986 levee break along the Yuba River not only flooded Linda, but destroyed much of its economic infrastructure, leaving a central marketplace in a period of destitution that it has only recently begun to overcome. Linda is also a community that is affected by the levee repair projects being undertaken by TRLIA.

For documentation of these meetings, see Appendix C.

January 19, 2006 Following the 2005/2006 winter storm event, it was decided that a community meeting would be held to discuss the impacts from the storms, as well as highlight the mitigation projects that had served to reduce the damage from what could have been a major event. The meeting was hosted by Yuba County Supervisor Daniels Logue and sponsored by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project.

Local agencies were contacted and confirmed for participation. The focus of the meeting was to be on flooding, emergency response, and other related issues. The focus was primarily on the efforts being undertaken by Yuba County and other agencies to safeguard the community of Linda and the rest of the south county. Draft copies of the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan were also made available for comment at this meeting. Fliers were prepared and distributed by the resource agencies. The fliers were also sent home with children from Linda Elementary School, Cedar Lane Elementary School, Johnson Park Elementary School, and Lindhurst High School. The local media was notified of the event and an announcement appeared in the Appeal-Democrat. Radio station KUBA also broadcast notifications of the meeting in the days leading up to the event.

The meeting was held in the Feather River Center in Linda, the site of the former Peach Tree Mall. As stated above, the theme for the evening was hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness. Following opening statements and a meeting overview from Supervisor Logue and Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Director Patricia Beecham, a series of presentations were given. The presentations came from: • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority: Executive Director and Yuba County Administrator Charles Kent McClain discussed the TRLIA levee projects and their impact

Section Two: Planning Process 2-54 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

on flood protection for Linda. The presentation included a discussion of levee repairs on the Yuba River, including the location of the 1986 levee break, and the benefits to the community of potential setback levee projects along the Bear and Feather Rivers. • Yuba County Water Agency: General Manager Curt Aikens provided information on hazard mitigation projects undertaken by YCWA. This included a discussion of forecast- coordinated operation between the YCWA owned New Bullards Bar Dam, the primary flood control structure on the Yuba River, and the Oroville Dam, the primary flood control structure on the Feather River. The benefits of additional stream gauging were discussed in conjunction with Forecast-Coordinated Operations (F-CO) as part of a comprehensive flood strategy undertaken by the County of Yuba and YCWA. • Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Projects: Public Works Director Kevin Mallen highlighted examples of mitigation projects undertaken by Yuba County and their impact on the residents during the storm event. The cleanout of Clark Slough, the elevation of homes on Mage Avenue, and the Olivehurst Detention Basin were all discussed as example of projects that mitigated the costs of the storm. • Emergency Evacuation Procedures: Steve Durfor, Yuba County Undersheriff, explained the process for emergency evacuation in Yuba County. The Wide Area Rapid Notification (WARN) system was discussed, which allows for targeted evacuation messages to reach an area. Undersheriff Durfor added that telephone notification was only one way that residents would be notified, and that notices would also be given over the Emergency Alert System (EAS) over television and radio, and that the sheriff’s department would be personally notifying residents as well. • National Flood Insurance Program: Local insurance agent Gary Ashburn discussed the importance of purchasing flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), even for those who are not required to own it. It was stressed that the history of flooding in Yuba County indicates that it is not always those who are required to own flood insurance that are affected by flooding, and that those who are not required should be proactive in seeking to protect themselves. • Yuba-Sutter Domestic Animal Disaster Assistance: YSDADA representative Meg Burgin provided information on assisting animals in the event of a disaster. It was advised that all residents who own animals develop a plan to deal with their animals during an evacuation. Information on animal safety was also provided. • Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project Director Patricia Beecham provided information on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the efforts being made by Yuba County to complete a hazard mitigation plan to meet the requirements of DMA 2000. Public input into the planning process was solicited and the residents in attendance were encouraged to provide comments on the draft plan made available at the meeting.

Brochures and surveys developed for the project were distributed and the surveys were returned. Maps of the Linda region were displayed, with residents asked to identify locations of high water during the storm event, as well as locations of repetitive flooding and damage. Several of the residents identified locations that were prone to flooding that had taken on water during the winter storm event. Locations that had never previously seen water but were inundated during the event were also noted, and all observations were made with an eye towards future mitigation projects.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-55 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

District 10/Hallwood Community Meetings The communities of District 10 and Hallwood are largely rural, with some areas of residential development. District 10/Hallwood has been impacted in the past by flooding, and the threat of flooding remains a concern. The reclamation district that serves the area operates on a meager budget and is staffed by volunteers. The levees in the area are in need of repair.

Fire service is also a concern to the residents. The area contracts with the City of Marysville to provide fire service. However, the distance from the Marysville Fire Station to District 10/Hallwood is such that response time to the area is far from ideal.

December 1, 2004 The focus of this first meeting for the District 10 Hallwood community was an introduction to the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. The meeting was held at the Yuba County Government Center and hosted by Yuba County District 4 Supervisor Donald Schrader.

Local agencies were contacted and confirmed for participation. Fliers were prepared and distributed by the resource agencies. The local media was notified of the event and an announcement appeared in the Appeal-Democrat. Radio station KUBA also broadcast notifications of the meeting in the days leading up to the event.

The meeting was also held for the community to provide their input into the planning process. The hazards that affect the area were discussed, with much of the discussion focused on the threat and history of flood and the concern over the level of service provided by the Marysville Fire Department.

January 5, 2005 This community meeting was held at the Hallwood Women’s Club and was attended by over 70 members of the Hallwood community. Yuba County Supervisor Donald Schrader hosted the meeting, which included a discussion of the hazards that affect the Hallwood community.

Fliers for this event were prepared and distributed by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and members of the Hallwood community. The fliers were also posted at strategic locations in the community. A press release was sent to the local media, with an announcement appearing in the Appeal-Democrat and broadcasted on KUBA.

The hazards discussed at this meeting were the emergency response from the Marysville Fire Department and its effect on their insurance rates and traffic. The Hallwood community is bisected by the heavily trafficked State Highway 20. This hazard is exacerbated by the large amount of truck traffic from the local aggregate companies, which use side streets near and within the Hallwood community as well as Highway 20, creating a traffic hazard.

This meeting also saw the creation of a community workshop group to provide information and assistance to the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. One of the goals of this community work group was the construction of a fire station within the Hallwood community to decrease response time and lower the community’s ISO rating and corresponding insurance rates. This effort would culminate in the placement of a fire engine in District 10, and planning for construction of a permanent facility.

January 31, 2006 Following the 2005-2006 winter storm event the levees maintained by Reclamation District 10 suffered erosion damage. The cost of repairs for this damage exceeded the yearly budget of RD 10, once again highlighting the problem of levee maintenance in the area. Yuba County

Section Two: Planning Process 2-56 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Supervisor Donald Schrader hosted a community meeting to discuss both the problems facing the district and possible solutions.

A flier was prepared for distribution to the affected community. The flier was distributed by members of the community and posted in strategic areas throughout the region. The local media was informed of this meeting through a press release and a notice appeared in the Appeal- Democrat advertising the meeting.

The bulk of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the limitations of the RD in their efforts to maintain the D 10 levees. It was noted that funding might be available to conduct repairs on the damage incurred during the winter storm through the USACE and PL 84-99. However, it was also noted that this would be a temporary measure that would not address continued maintenance. The creation of an assessment district to provide funding for levee repair was discussed. The community, while leery of increasing their taxes, also appeared to understand the necessity of maintaining the levee system protecting them. Supervisor Schrader stated that he would provide a series of alternatives for the assessment and present it at the next community meeting to see which option would meet with the approval of the community.

A discussion of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project followed, and surveys were distributed to community members. It was stated that the hazards affecting the jurisdiction, including the difficulties with funding for the reclamation district, would be discussed in the Yuba County Multi- Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for the purpose of securing future grant funding to assist the RD with levee maintenance.

November 9, 2006 Supervisor Donald Schrader and RD 10 Commissioners James Waller and Tom Schultz hosted a community meeting to discuss an update on Reclamation District 10 and the issues raised at the previous meeting.

Fliers were developed for the meeting and distributed through community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the community. The local media was notified of the meeting and announcements were made in the Appeal-Democrat and on KUBA. Supervisor Schrader gave an interview and discussed the topics to be presented at the meeting.

The meeting began with notification from the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project that RD 10, through the efforts of the Project, had secured PL 84-99 funding to repair erosion on the Simmerly Slough levee. The erosion damage, caused by the 2005-2006 winter storm, was completed before the rains arrived.

The topics broached at the previous meeting were again discussed, and the options for assessment were presented. Additionally, community volunteers were solicited for RD 10 commissioners, with the pending retirement of Mr. Waller. The process for voting on a special assessment as outlined by California Water Code were discussed.

Yuba County Hazard Mitigation staff discussed possible mitigation projects for the area and made draft copies of its plan available for public review and comment.

Yuba County Foothills The Yuba County Foothills contains several fire protection and community service districts. However, many of the issues they deal with are the same. The primary concern for each of these districts is wildfire. The five fire departments have collectively formed the Yuba County Rural Fire Joint Powers Agency. Because many of the issues facing these departments are similar, much of their community outreach was interconnected between the districts. For that reason, this section details community outreach efforts for the foothills as a whole, rather than by region.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-57 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

September-October 2004 Representatives of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project attended the regular meetings of the special districts and community groups of the Yuba County foothills in September and October of 2004. Fliers were developed for these meetings and distributed by community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the foothills. The local media was notified of the meetings and announcements were made in the Appeal-Democrat, Territorial Dispatch, and the Rabbit Creek Journal. Yuba County District 5 Supervisor Hal Stocker was present at each of these meetings: • Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District – September 2, 2004 • Camptonville Community Services District – September 9, 2004 • Foothill Fire Protection District – September 13, 2004 • Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District – September 14, 2004 • Browns Valley Irrigation District – September 23, 2004 • Dobbins-Oregon House Action Committee – September 23, 2004 • Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council – October 13, 2004 • River Highlands Community Services District – October 13, 2004

An introduction to the hazard mitigation planning process was presented to the Board of Directors of each of the agencies, who were also presented with a map of their district to identify critical facilities and areas of concern for incorporation into the Plan. A discussion of DMA 2000 and the regulatory requirements concerning hazard mitigation planning took place, with an emphasis on the need for mitigation planning to continue to receive HMGP funds.

The community members present at the meetings were skeptical, but willing to provide the necessary information. The foothill agencies all passed resolutions of support for the planning process.

October 25, 2004 Supervisor Hal Stocker, DOHFPD, and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project hosted a community meeting and workshop for the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House at the Agnes Deen Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was the identification of hazards and potential mitigation projects for the area. DOHFPD had been one of the first agencies to sign onto the project and was anxious to complete an LHMP.

Fliers were developed for this meeting and distributed by community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the Dobbins-Oregon House area. The local media was notified of the meeting and announcements were made in the Appeal-Democrat, Territorial Dispatch, and Rabbit Creek Journal. The meeting was also announced at the regular meeting of the DOHFPD Board of Directors.

The workshop began with an overview of DMA 2000 and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. Residents in attendance were encouraged to discuss areas of concern within the district. The area had already been acknowledged as being at high risk for fire, and other hazards potentially affecting the area were mentioned and prioritized. Potential mitigation projects for fire and other hazards were identified, as were potential funding sources for these projects.

A map was provided at the meeting by hazard mitigation staff for the purpose of identifying critical facilities and areas of concern. Residents in attendance were encouraged to mark on the map areas of historic occurrence of hazards and locations of particular concern. The community identified several places where fuel loads and terrain could make firefighting difficult and areas where residents might have difficulty leaving in the event of an emergency evacuation.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-58 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Handouts and brochures were provided at the meeting describing fire safe techniques and providing information on hazard mitigation. Surveys were handed out and collected to allow residents to rank the hazards that affect the area.

December 19, 2004 Supervisor Hal Stocker, Community Service Area 2, and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project hosted a community meeting at the Agnes Deen Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was to identify hazards and potential mitigation projects for the foothills community.

Fliers were developed for this meeting and distributed by community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the County Services Area (CSA) 2 area. The local media was notified of the meeting and announcements were made in the Appeal-Democrat, Territorial Dispatch, and Rabbit Creek Journal.

The meeting began with an overview of DMA 2000 and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. The community members at the meeting identified fire as the hazard they were most concerned about, particularly in relation to evacuation routes. The area served by CSA 2 has limited emergency evacuation routes, and those roads that do exist are in poor repair. Measures to mitigate the concerns of the citizens were discussed, including the identification of alternate evacuation routes and locating funds to upgrade existing roadways. Materials were distributed describing fire safe techniques.

January 30, 2005 Supervisor Hal Stocker, DOHFPD, and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project hosted a community meeting at the Agnes Deen Community Center. The meeting was held for residents of the Dobbins and Oregon House communities and was held to provide information on fire history in the area, emergency service access, emergency evacuation, and establishment of a neighborhood watch.

Fliers were developed for this meeting and distributed by community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the Dobbins-Oregon House area. The local media was notified of the meeting and announcements were made in the Appeal-Democrat, Territorial Dispatch, and Rabbit Creek Journal.

The meeting began with an overview of DMA 2000 and the planning process. The stated purpose of the meeting was to provide a hazard ranking for the DOHFPD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, a stand-alone LHMP being written in conjunction with the Yuba County Plan. The hazard ranking were discussed and a hazard ranking voted on for inclusion in the DOHFPD Plan. The attendees also provided suggestions for projects to mitigate the identified hazards.

Representatives of DOHFPD and CDF provided information on the change in government code requiring 100 brush clearance around homes, an increase over the 30-foot requirement that had previously been in place.

Yuba County Undersheriff Steve Durfor led a discussion on the formation of a neighborhood watch program in the Dobbins-Oregon House community.

Information on fire safe techniques and the hazard mitigation plan were also made available. Surveys were distributed to provide information on hazards and hazard mitigation for incorporation into both the DOHFPD and Yuba County Plans.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-59 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

April 18, 2005 CCSD and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project hosted a community meeting at Camptonville Elementary School. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the hazard mitigation process and identify the hazards that affect the Camptonville community.

Fliers were developed and distributed through community members and posted at strategic locations throughout the Camptonville area. Additionally, the fliers were provided to students at Camptonville Elementary School to take home to their parents. The meeting was also announced by the CUESD through newsletters that are sent home with their students.

The meeting began with a presentation on DMA 2000 and the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. The planning process was discussed, including the need to identify the hazards that affect CCSD and potential mitigation projects for the area.

Handouts on hazard mitigation measures and hazard information surveys were distributed to the residents in attendance. The information received from the surveys was incorporated into the CCSD Annex and the Yuba County Plan.

June 13, 2005 Representatives of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project attended the regular meeting of the Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) Board of Directors. The purpose attending the meeting was to solicit the input of the FFPD Board of Directors and members of the community for information on the hazards that affect the service area.

Fliers were developed for distribution by community members and the meeting and agenda were advertised by FFPD. The objective of the meeting was to identify the district’s assets, their vulnerability to local disasters, and to develop a list of mitigation projects to prevent the loss of life and reduce damage to property.

The presentation began with a discussion of DMA 2000 regulatory requirements and information on the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. Information on hazard mitigation projects and fire safe techniques were made available to the board and attendees.

August 8, 2005 Representatives of the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project attended the regular meeting of the FFPD Board of Directors. The purpose of the meeting was to review a draft of the FFPD Annex and contribute information to the Yuba County Plan.

Fliers were developed for distribution by community members and the meeting and agenda were advertised by FFPD. Notices and agendas for the meeting were posted by FFPD.

The presentation began with a discussion of DMA 2000 regulatory requirements and information on the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project. Information on hazard mitigation projects and fire safe techniques were made available to the board and attendees.

Feedback The Yuba County Jurisdiction prepared the Multi–Jurisdiction, Multi–Hazard Mitigation Plan with regular input from the Committee. Components of the Yuba County Jurisdiction Multi– Jurisdiction, Multi–Hazard Mitigation Plan involved compiling research, reviewing studies and projects conducted in the area, and gathering input from the public. The draft Yuba County Jurisdiction Multi–Jurisdiction, Multi–Hazard Mitigation Plan was shared with the public by providing a draft at the October 12, 2006 stakeholders meeting.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-60 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.7 Neighboring Communities and Other Stakeholder Participation Opportunities In addition to the special districts within Yuba County, other stakeholders were invited to participate. This included state and federal departments and agencies, private business, and neighboring communities and jurisdictions. These stakeholders include:

• County of Butte The County of Butte is located northwest of Yuba County and includes the cities of Chico, Oroville, Gridley, Biggs, and Paradise. Water from the Feather River flows from Butte County into Yuba, linking the two counties in the area of flood protection. Oroville Dam, the major flood control structure on the Feather River, is located within Butte County, which was also the location of the most significant earthquake in the region in recent history.

Butte County Emergency Services Coordinator John Gulserian was present at several stakeholder meetings and met with Hazard Mitigation staff over the course of the project to discuss a regional approach to hazard mitigation. Butte County, which recently completed their hazard mitigation plan, has significant downstream effect on Yuba County, creating a natural partnership between the two counties for flood control and evacuation planning.

• County of Colusa The County of Colusa is located west of Yuba County, and is not adjacent. Colusa County includes the cities of Colusa and Williams.

Representatives form the County of Colusa attended the Project kickoff and were invited to participate in the planning process. Hazard mitigation staff worked with Colusa County OES personnel in the early stages of the project.

• County of Sutter The County of Sutter is located to the west and south of Yuba County and includes the cities of Live Oak and Yuba City. It is also home to the Sutter Buttes, the world’s smallest mountain range and a landmark of the area. The counties of Yuba and Sutter are often grouped as Yuba-Sutter and the two counties have historically worked together in areas ranging from business, such as the Yuba-Sutter Chamber of Commerce, to law enforcement, such as the Yuba-Sutter Anti-Gang Task Force. The cities of Yuba City in Sutter County and Marysville in Yuba County are often grouped as a single metropolitan area, the Yuba City Metropolitan Statistical Area, for the purposes of economic rankings.

The two counties are separated on their west-east border by the Feather River and their north-south border by the Bear River. Flood control efforts on the part of either county have effects on the other. The proposed Feather River setback levee in Yuba County will also alleviate pressure on the levees on the Sutter County side of the river, as the proposed setback levees at Starr Bend and Shanghai bend in Sutter County will also relieve pressure on the Yuba County side of the Feather. The 1955 levee break in Sutter County was every bit the equal of the 1986 or 1997 floods in Yuba County.

Hazard mitigation efforts, especially where it relates to flood control, is a regional issue and the County of Sutter is a major partner in that respect. Sutter County has supported Yuba County’s levee improvement projects, including sending letters of support to the Reclamation Board of the State of California.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-61 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Representatives from the County of Sutter have attended stakeholder meetings and met with hazard mitigation staff through the course of the project. Regional hazard mitigation strategies were discussed and incorporated into the Yuba County Plan.

• City of Yuba City The City of Yuba City is located to the west of Yuba County and is connected by two bridges across the Feather River to the City of Marysville. It is the most populous city in the Yuba-Sutter area and is the county seat of Sutter County. It is also the principal city of the Yuba City Metropolitan Statistical Area which comprises all of Yuba and Sutter Counties.

Yuba City faces many of the same issues as Yuba County, namely, its vulnerability to flooding. Yuba City has two areas of concern, Starr Bend and Shanghai Bend, for which they are currently pursuing Proposition 1E funding to construct setback levees. The 1955 flood event directly impacted Yuba City, with a levee break that inundated much of the City.

Representatives from Yuba City participated throughout the planning process. The Yuba City Fire Department provided materials and demonstrations at several community events and met with hazard mitigation staff to discuss regional hazard mitigation strategies and efforts.

• Yuba Sutter Domestic Animal Disaster Assistance YSDADA is classified as a tax exempt charitable organization which provides animal protection and welfare. YSDADA provides evacuation assistance for domestic pets and livestock in the Yuba-Sutter area and public awareness of the importance of disaster planning.

YSDADA approached hazard mitigation staff following a meeting for the community of Dobbins-Oregon House and expressed a wish to include animal evacuation and sheltering as part of the project. Ginny Paschke, Director of YSDADA, attended several stakeholder meetings and met with staff to discuss animal evacuation planning. YSDADA public outreach materials were made available at all community meetings sponsored by the Project, expanding the organizations public outreach efforts. Through connections made at stakeholder meetings, YSDADA is currently working with the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department on integration of animal concerns into evacuation planning.

• American Red Cross-Three Rivers Chapter The Three Rivers Chapter of the American Red Cross serves the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, West Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, and Beale Air Force Base and was chartered and opened its doors in the Yuba-Sutter area on May 10, 1917 (www.threerivers.redcross.org).

The Red Cross is responsible for shelter operations in the event of an emergency. Volunteers to run these facilities are trained by the Red Cross. Public outreach materials from the Red Cross were distributed at all community events through the course of the Hazard Mitigation Project. Representatives from Red Cross were present at numerous stakeholder meetings to discuss shelter operations and other volunteer services provided by the organization. Red Cross assisted the hazard mitigation project by providing information on shelter locations within Yuba County and providing input into the planning process.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-62 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Union Pacific Railroad UPRR is one of America’s leading transportation companies and the largest railroad in North America, covering 23 states and including rail lines through unincorporated Yuba County and the Cities of Marysville and Wheatland. Hazardous materials are transported daily across these rail lines, which have at-grade crossings across the county. The 1997 flood, which inundated UPRR rail lines in Yuba County, illustrated the potential business loss to UPRR if a disaster disrupts rail service. UPRR representative Don Snow estimated that a non-operational rail line costs UPRR approximately $1 million per hour.

Don Snow attended several stakeholder meetings and gave a presentation at the April 12, 2005 meeting on the UPRR hazard materials response protocol. He also met throughout the course of the project with hazard mitigation staff to discuss potential mitigation projects and strategies for hazardous materials and train derailment.

• Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District SYMVCD was formed in 1946 as the Sutter-Yuba Mosquito Abatement District under the Mosquito Abatement Act of 1915. The primary goal of the District is to conduct field surveillance to facilitate the detection and control of mosquitoes in order to suppress their populations and prevent the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases. As resources allow, SYMVCD also provides consultation and assistance for other vectors of public health importance such as; flies, fleas, ticks, and their associated diseases. (www.sutter- yubamvcd.org/History.htm)

SYMVCD was a major participant in the Project’s public outreach program, donating materials for distribution and staffing tables at several events. SYMVCD met with hazard mitigation staff throughout the project to discuss possible mitigation measures to minimize the effects of mosquitoes and other vectors on public health in Yuba County.

• California Department of Transportation CalTrans manages more than 45,000 miles of California’s highway and freeway lanes, provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public use airports and special use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. CalTrans carries out its mission of improving mobility across California with six primary programs: Aeronautics, Highway Transportation, Mass Transportation, Transportation Planning, Administration and the Equipment Service Center. (www.dot.ca.gov/aboutcaltrans.htm)

CalTrans District 3 headquarters is located in the City of Marysville. The district serves eleven counties in the Sacramento valley and northern Sierra areas; Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. The Marysville headquarters also serves as the North Region office which oversees the interrelated functions on divisions committed to project delivery within the 22 counties of Districts 1, 2, and 3. (www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/more.htm)

In Yuba County, CalTrans services State Highways 20, 49, 65, and 70. CalTrans was a major participant in the planning process and attended stakeholder meetings. CalTrans was among the first agencies in Yuba County to identify their assets and provide an inventory to the project for use in risk assessment and vulnerability estimates. Representatives from CalTrans presented information at stakeholder meetings regarding hazard mitigation efforts on CalTrans operated roadways. At a workshop for the community of Smartville, CalTrans also pledged to provide equipment and training for hazardous materials response to the Smartville Fire Protection District to contain hazardous materials spills until CalTrans HazMat teams can arrive.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-63 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• California Department of Water Resources DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, including the California Aqueduct. The department also provides dam safety and flood control services, assists local water districts in water management and conservation activities, promotes recreational opportunities, and plans for future statewide water needs (www.water.ca.gov). DWR is also the State agency responsible for disbursement of Proposition 1E funds.

DWR was a participant in the planning process. Representatives from DWR were present at the Project kick-off and presented information on floodplain mapping at the meetings. DWR also participated in floodplain mapping meetings held by FEMA and the Office of the County Administrator, events which the hazard mitigation project also participated in. Ricardo Pineda, Chief of the Floodplain Management Branch of DWR, has been in contact with hazard mitigation staff throughout the course of the project to provide input on regional hazard mitigation planning for floods.

• United States Army Corps of Engineers The mission of USACE is to provide quality responsive engineering services to the nation including planning, designing, building, and operating water resources and other civil works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, and Disaster Response) (www.usace.army.mil/who).

Following the 2005-2006 winter storm event, the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project and USACE worked together with local reclamation districts to identify area levees that suffered erosion damage or sloughing as a result of the high water incident. Utilizing the PL 84-99 program, repairs were made to RD’s 10, 784, and 2103 through the efforts of USACE and the Project. The booklet titled PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection program (RIP) January/April 2006 Flood Event, California/Nevada attached to this document provides more information on Pl 84-99 and the repairs resulting from the 2005- 2006 Winter Storm Event. The picture on the cover of the report shows erosion on Simmerly Slough in Reclamation District 10.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA, a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, provided funding for the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project though the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The primary mission of FEMA is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation (www.fema.gov/about/index.shtm).

FEMA was involved in the planning process throughout the project. Region IX, headquartered in Oakland, California, provided much of the oversight for the project. Representatives from FEMA were present at stakeholders meetings and conducted site visits to review progress on the planning process and to see examples of hazard mitigation in Yuba County. Representatives from the project also participated in FEMA floodplain mapping information meetings held in Yuba County and distributed information on the NFIP and CRS programs, as well as public safety information developed by FEMA. The mitigation planning how-to guides developed by FEMA were utilized throughout the planning process and served as a guide for Yuba County staff and all stakeholders participating in the Project.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-64 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• FREED, Center for Independent Living The FREED Center for Independent Living is a non-profit Independent Living Resource Center whose goal is to empower people with disabilities to exercise their civil rights in becoming active, productive members of the community. (www.freed.org/about_freed.html)

Representatives from FREED were present at several stakeholder meetings and met privately with hazard mitigation staff and were integral in identifying mitigation actions for the special needs population. The issue advocated by FREED most often was the identification of the location of the special needs population in Yuba County and ensuring that assistance will be available for this population in the event of an evacuation

• Dobbins-Oregon House Action Committee DOACT is an organization formed by members of the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House. It is a proactive group that spearheads community efforts of all types, from fire safety to community events and fundraisers. Representatives from DOACT were an integral part of the planning process. One of the first public outreach events undertaken by the projects occurred at a DOACT meeting, where representatives from DOACT provided some of the information utilized for the fire risk assessment and vulnerability sections.

• Yuba Feather Lions Club The Yuba Feather Lions Club is a community organization based in the Yuba County foothills. The Lions Club supported the hazard mitigation project by hosting meetings with the foothills communities and advertising hazard mitigation workshops and planning meetings.

• Fellowship of Friends The Fellowship of Friends is a non-profit religious organization which owns 1,200 acres in the Dobbins-Oregon House area. The Fellowship participated in the hazard mitigation planning process and aided in the process of identifying potential evacuation routes through their property. The Fellowship property has cleared and worked the property, making it a natural location for a staging area.

• Homeowners of West Linda HOWL is a community organization dedicated to improving the area of West Linda. Walt Whitenton, a representative of HOWL, attended the project kickoff and numerous other community meetings. HOWL partnered with the Project to identify potential mitigation measures to safeguard the community of West Linda and the entirety of South Yuba County.

• Plumas Lake Homeowners Association The Plumas Lake Homeowners Association is a group of citizens from the Plumas Lake community. The Association sponsored community events in the area, including the Plumas Lake Safety Fair and Picnic, which provided an opportunity for all public safety agencies serving Plumas Lake.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-65 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• California Department of Fish & Game DFG maintains native fish, wildlife, plant species, and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and their benefits to people. This includes habitat protection and maintenance in a sufficient amount and quality to ensure the survival of all species and natural communities. The department is also responsible for the diversified use of fish and wildlife including recreational, commercial, scientific, and educational uses (www.dfg.ca.gov/html/dfgmiss.html).

DFG worked with the hazard mitigation project to incorporate environmental concerns and conservation practices into proposed mitigation projects. DFG provided information to hazard mitigation staff on endangered species in Yuba County and their habitats.

• California Health and Human Services Agency CHHSA administers state and federal programs for health care, social services, public assistance and rehabilitation.

• United States Department of Agriculture The purpose of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is to develop and execute policy on farming, agriculture, and food. USDA aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in America and abroad.

The role of the USDA Rural Development Program is to increase rural residents’ economic opportunities and improve the quality of life. Rural Development forges partnerships with rural communities, funding projects the bring housing, community facilities, utilities, and other services. Rural Development also provides technical assistance and financial backing for rural businesses and cooperatives to create quality jobs in rural areas (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid= RD_Agency_Splash.xml&x=17&y=6).

Representatives of the USDA Rural Development program attended stakeholder meetings and met with hazard mitigation staff to exchange information beneficial to both USDA and the hazard mitigation project. USDA provided information on grant funding opportunities for hazard mitigation projects that was incorporated into the overall County funding strategy. The information on these grants was utilized by stakeholders in rural areas.

• University of California, Davis UC Davis is one of the nation’s top public research universities and is part of the University of California system. Located in the City of Davis, the school is located 55 miles south of the City of Marysville.

The University of California Cooperative extension, the outreach arm of the UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Program, has farm, 4-H, and nutrition, family, and consumer sciences advisors based in more than 50 county offices. In addition, Cooperative Extension specialists are headquartered at UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UC Riverside, where they conduct research and coordinate advisors’ activities. As a land- grant institution, the Cooperative Extension mandate is tied to the welfare, development, and protection of California agriculture, natural resources and people. (ucanr.org/ucce.shtml).

The coordinator of the Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, Glenn Nader, is employed by the UC Davis Cooperative Extension. Through the resources of CE, the

Section Two: Planning Process 2-66 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Fire Safe Council and hazard mitigation planning committee is better able to plan for conservation of resources and identification of areas of heavy fuel load.

• Yuba Community College The Yuba Community College District has campuses in Yuba County, the City of Woodland (Yolo County), and the community of Clear Lake. The Yuba County campus is located in the community of Linda and is located at an elevation higher than the rest of the community, making the campus a potential location for sheltering in an alternate emergency operations center or staging area.

Representatives from Yuba College’s Police Department participated in the planning process by attending stakeholder meetings and facilitating discussion on the use of Yuba College for sheltering. Chief Chris Wilkinson also met with hazard mitigation staff to discuss proposed hazard mitigation projects for Yuba College.

• NorthTree Fire International NorthTree Fire International is a private company that provides service, equipment, and personnel to assist in emergency response, recovery, mitigation, and preservation of the natural environment. NorthTree Fire presented information on GIS and its applicability to hazard mitigation and emergency planning at the project kick-off.

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal Fire protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and protects and enhances forest, range, and watershed values providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and urban citizens (www.fire.ca.gov). Beyond its wildland fire fighting role, Cal Fire crews respond to all emergencies including medical aid, hazardous materials spills, swift water rescues, search and rescue missions, civil disturbances, train wrecks, floods, and earthquakes. Because of the department’s size and major incident management experience, it is often asked to assist or take the lead in disasters, including the floods of 1997, 1998, and 2006, the 1991 Cantara train derailment and toxic spill, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1991 Tunnel Fire in the Oakland/Berkeley Hills, and the 2003 Southern California Fire Siege (www.fire.ca.gov/about.php).

In Yuba County, Cal Fire contracts with the City of Marysville, Hallwood District 10 Community Services District, and the Loma Rica Browns Valley Community Services District to provide fire service for those regions, in addition to their duties in fighting wildland fire in the Yuba County foothills, most of which is categorized as a state responsibility area (SRA). Cal Fire also provides the County’s hazard materials response through the Marysville Fire Department. Cal Fire also provides dispatch services to the fire departments in the foothills through its emergency communications center (ECC) in Nevada County.

Cal Fire was one of the major participant in the planning process. Representatives from Cal Fire attended every stakeholder meeting and provided invaluable information on the fire threat to the Yuba County foothills. Cal Fire’s fire hazard severity zones were used to develop the fire risk assessment and vulnerability sections. All proposed fire mitigation projects were discussed with Cal Fire representatives to ensure that they represented the best fire safe techniques and strategies available.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-67 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Untied States Forest Service The Untied States Forest Service was established in 1905 and is an agency of the USDA. USFS manages public lands in national forests and grasslands. Two USFS National Forests are located within the borders of Yuba County: o Plumas National Forest – occupies 1,146,000 acres of mountain lands in the northern Sierra Nevada. Beginning in the foothill country near Lake Oroville, the Plumas extends though heavily timbered slopes and into the rugged high country near U.S Highway 395. USFS manages this land to provide recreational opportunities, sustainable supplies of wood, water, hydropower and forage, habitat for fish and wildlife, and diverse plant communities. Plumas National Forest was established in 1905 by President Theodore Roosevelt. (www.fs.fed.us/r5/plumas/about/) o Tahoe National Forest – straddles the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in northern California and encompasses a vast territory, from the foothills on the western slope to the peaks of the Sierra crest. The North, Middle, and South forks of the Yuba River run through the Forest (www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/aboutus/index.shtml). USFS was an integral partner in the planning process. Representatives of the Forest Service attended community meetings and provided information on fire safety. USFS personnel also reviewed the proposed fire mitigation strategies and projects.

• United States Air Force – Beale Air Force Base The USAF operates Beale Air Force Base (BAFB), located in southeast Yuba County. BAFB is home to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing and the PAVE Phased Array Warning System (PAWS). BAFB operates its own security force and fire department, which respond to incidents on base. BAFB’s hazardous materials response team has been utilized in the past by Yuba County and its first responders during HazMat incidents off- base.

BAFB served as an emergency shelter during the 1986 and 1997 floods. Its location and available infrastructure have made it an ideal location for emergency sheltering in the past. However, since September 11, 2001, BAFB has stated that they cannot be made available as an emergency shelter due to security concerns.

BAFB representatives regularly attended stakeholder meetings and met with hazard mitigation staff. Beale’s future use as an emergency shelter was discussed, and information was provided on some of the Base’s programs.

• Yuba-Sutter Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit provides public transportation for Yuba and Sutter Counties with a commuter line to the City of Sacramento. Yuba-Sutter Transit buses have been used in previous disasters to aid in emergency evacuations. In addition to participating in community meetings , representatives from Yuba-Sutter Transit have been in contact with hazard mitigation and other Yuba County staff to discuss the use of these buses in future emergency situations.

• Pacific Gas & Electric Company PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to most of Northern California, including Yuba County. PG& E participated in the planning process by providing information on power outages in Yuba County and the location of substations. PG&E representatives also presented information to the public and to stakeholders on potential power issues during disasters as well as the services PG&E provides during and after an emergency.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-68 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Casa de Esperanza Casa de Esperanza is a local shelter for battered and abused women and children. They participated in community events and discussed crime prevention and personal safety.

• The Appeal-Democrat The Appeal-Democrat is a local daily newspaper serving the Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa County areas and is a primary source for disseminating news for Yuba County. The Appeal was a resource for the project in announcing upcoming meetings and providing press coverage of several mitigation planning events, including the kick-off and community meetings in Plumas Lake and Linda.

• KUBA AM 1600 KUBA AM 1600 is the primary local radio news source for the Yuba-Sutter Area. KUBA was a resource for the project in announcing upcoming meetings and providing press coverage of several mitigation planning events, including on-air interviews with Paul Jacks, Deputy Director at the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services during the project kick-off and Yuba County Supervisors when community meetings were held in their district.

• California Highway Patrol The CHP mission is to provide the highest level of safety, service, and security to the people of California. This is accomplished through five department goals: o Prevent loss of life, injuries, and property damage – to minimize the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from traffic collisions through enforcement, education, and engineering. To enforce the provisions of the California Vehicle Code and other laws to prevent crime. o Maximize service to the public and assistance to allied agencies – to maximize service to the public in need of aid or information, and to assist other public agencies when appropriate. o Manage traffic and emergency incidents – to promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout California, and to minimize exposure of the public to unsafe conditions resulting from emergency incidents and highway impediments. o Protect public and state assets – to protect the public, their property , state employees, and the state’s infrastructure. To collaborate with local, state, and federal public safety agencies to protect California. o Improve departmental efficiency – to continuously look for ways to increase the efficiency and/or effectiveness of departmental operations. (www.chp.ca.gov/html/what_we_do.html)

Within Yuba County, CHP provides traffic enforcement for state highways 20, 49, 65, and 70. Additionally, the CHP may also provide traffic enforcement along the roadways of Yuba County. CHP was a major participant in the planning process and provided information on accident rates and crime rates within Yuba County. CHP also partnered with the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department and hazard mitigation staff to identify evacuation routes. The evacuation routes that were identified out of the working group were then distributed to Yuba County residents as part of the project’s public outreach component.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-69 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Sleep Train Amphitheatre The Sleep Train Amphitheatre is a concert facility serving the greater Sacramento Valley and all of Northern California located in south Yuba County north of the City of Wheatland. The amphitheatre is an open-air music center that has also been identified as a safe zone in the event of a disaster. Representatives from Sleep Train worked with hazard mitigation staff to discuss the facility’s use as an emergency shelter. The facility has also been used for emergency preparedness exercises for a variety of agencies both within and without the County.

• Community Service Area 2 Community Service Area 2 is located within the Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District and includes an area that has limited evacuation options in the event of a fire or other emergency. CSA 2 hosted several well-attended hazard mitigation community meetings and worked closely with hazard mitigation staff to identify potential evacuation routes and mitigation projects for the area.

• Volunteers in Prevention The Volunteers in Prevention (VIP) staff the Oregon Peak Lookout located within the Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District. The lookout has been instrumental in the past in identifying, locating, and reporting forest fires in the Yuba County foothills. The August 2006 Marysville Road Fire was first reported by volunteers at the lookout, enabling responding fire agencies to contain the fire early, preventing damage beyond what occurred.

Representatives from VIP participated in the planning process throughout the length of the project. Volunteers reviewed the plan and provided input, particularly in the areas concerning fire prevention.

• Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc. Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc. serves more than 30,000 residential customers and 5,000 commercial customers and collects more than 100,000 tons of materials annually. YSDI provides service to the communities of Beale Air Force Base, Live Oak, Marysville, Wheatland, Knights Landing, Yuba City and the counties of Yuba and Sutter.

YSDI operates a waste disposal facility located north of the City of Marysville. This facility also houses the main office, a transfer station, and a Recycling Buy-Back Center. YSDI also operates a transfer station in Brownsville and a household hazardous waste collection facility in Yuba City.

YSDI participated in the planning process by providing information on its waste disposal facilities and discussed potential hazard mitigation projects for the facilities. YSDI also participated in community outreach events, providing information on the services provided by YSDI.

• Plumas Lake Builders Cooperative The Plumas Lake Builders Cooperative is an organization representing the companies building homes in Plumas Lake. The Builders Cooperative worked with hazard mitigation staff to distribute public outreach materials to the new residents of Plumas Lake, many of whom are new to Yuba County and unfamiliar with flood safe techniques. A representative of the Builders Cooperative has received over 1,000 public information packets from hazard mitigation staff. These packets are then distributed to each of the homebuilders who provide them to new homeowners in Plumas Lake.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-70 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.8 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans, Reports, Studies, and Technical Information Table 2–5 Existing Documents Existing Program/Policy/ Technical Documents Yuba County Marysville Wheatland Comprehensive Plan X X X Growth Management Plan X X X Capital Improvement Plan/Program X X X Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance X X X Floodplain Management Plan X X Flood Insurance Studies or Engineering studies for streams X X Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (by the local Emergency Management Agency) X X Emergency Management Plan X X X Zoning Ordinance X X X Building Code X X X Drainage Ordinance X X X Critical Facilities maps X X X Existing Land Use maps X X X Elevation Certificates X X X State Plan X X X

Comprehensive Flood Study Water Resources Review Document summarized flood control in Yuba County. Funded by the Yuba County Hazard Mitigation Project for the purpose of identifying and summarizing existing water resources documents, the report identified what had been studied, what was constructed, what was identified as feasible but not yet constructed, and areas for further study. The history of flood management in Yuba County is discussed and the existing flood features identified. Remaining hazard areas were identified with initial steps proposed for areas without active remediation actions. A priority for actions is identified, with emphasis placed on actions considered most urgent or those actions that would provide the greatest benefits. This information will enable Yuba County to pursue funding opportunities to address the remaining flood control problem areas.

Multi–Hazard Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): The EOP was developed to address the planned response and recovery to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies including terrorist threats in Yuba County.

The EOP establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergency or disaster affecting Yuba County. It identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of Yuba County communities, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural and technological emergencies and disasters. The EOP also establishes the operational concepts and procedures associated with field response to emergencies using the Incident Command Structure (ICS) for the EOC activities and recovery process.

The EOP is designed to establish the framework for compliance and implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) for Yuba County. It is intended to facilitate multi–agency, multi–jurisdictional coordination among Yuba County, local

Section Two: Planning Process 2-71 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______governments, special districts, and state agencies in emergency operations. The EOP also serves a secondary purpose as a planning and training reference. The EOP is designed to be used in conjunction with the State of California Emergency Plan.

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Slow–Rise Situations: The SOP was developed to provide guidance to the County and emergency services personnel during critical slow–rise flood events. Its purpose is to begin monitoring river elevations prior to the development of an emergency situation and prior to activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Yuba County.

Activation of the SOP is dependent upon the presence of forecast weather events, water releases from upstream dams, snow melt, or other situations that have the potential to affect river levels in Yuba County. The primary gauge for the Feather River is located at the 5th Street Bridge (Feather River at Yuba City - Yuba Gauge). The SOP is activated when the Feather River Gauge reaches 60 feet or an emergency condition exits. The SOP is designed to be used in conjunction with the County of Yuba Multi–Hazard Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).

Yuba County Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan: The HazMat (Hazardous Materials) Plan was developed to protect the public, environment, and property from an accidental release involving chemicals. The plan provides the methods and procedures that decision makers, county regulatory personnel, and response agencies will use for the management, tracking, containment, removal, and disposal of the hazardous materials from a hazardous materials incident in Yuba County.

The HazMat Plan establishes policies, authorities, roles and responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of Yuba County’s populace, environment, and public and private property from the effects of hazardous material releases. It also establishes the emergency response organization and operational concepts for hazardous materials incidents occurring in Yuba County. The plan establishes the procedures associated with the activation of the City of Marysville Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Response Team.

The plan serves as the principal guide for agencies of Yuba County, its incorporated cities, and other local governmental entities in mitigating hazardous material incidents. The plan is consistent with SEMS and is intended to facilitate multi–agency and multi–jurisdictional coordination between local, state, and federal agencies in a hazardous materials emergency.

In addition to being a reference document, the HazMat plan is an operational plan.

Disaster Plan for Domestic Animals: As a direct result of Hurricane Katrina at least 50,000 pets died because no emergency plans were in place to save them. Many pets were abandoned at the time, but hundreds of people ended up stranded in their homes after deciding not to abandon their animals when emergency officials said they could not take them along. The legislature unanimously passed the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act which was signed into law October 6, 2006.

The PETS Act requires local and state emergency preparedness authorities to include in their evacuation plans how they will accommodate household pets and service animals in case of a disaster. Local and state authorities must submit these plans in order to qualify for grants from FEMA.

The Yuba–Sutter Disaster Plan for Domestic Animal Disaster Assistance was developed to protect domestic pets and livestock in Yuba and Sutter Counties in situations that require evacuation. YSDADA provides on–going Disaster Preparedness classes for the general public so people will be aware of the needs of their pets and farm animals when faced with a possible

Section Two: Planning Process 2-72 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______evacuation order. Additional classes are conducted by cooperating entities such as Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), California Department of Forestry (CDF), State Department of Water Resources (DWR), Yuba County Office of Emergency Services (OES), the American Red Cross (ARC), and others. Volunteers set up displays at local malls and community events. YSDADA is leading the effort to incorporate an Animal Component in the Emergency Response Plans of both Sutter and Yuba County.

Service animals such as guide dogs are supposed to be evacuated with their owners. Household pets in carriers and cages will be allowed on public transportation if they do not endanger people. State and local emergency officials are supposed to find animals shelter and draft regulations as well as set up an identification system so pets can be reunited with their owners should they become separated during storms.

Small Pox Plan: The Yuba County Public Health Department developed the Smallpox Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Plan to prepare for the unlikely event of an outbreak of smallpox disease in Yuba County. The Plan is a regularly updated, operational working document divided into three phases: • Preparedness, • Response, and • Recovery. The preparedness phase is currently under implementation, while the response and recovery phases will be implemented in the event of a smallpox outbreak.

The Plan is adapted from the Interim Smallpox Response Plan and Guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the Interim Smallpox Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Plan and Guidelines created by Los Angeles County. It is subject to revision as additional guidance is received from State and Federal Governments as well as local experience gained in testing and conducting simulation exercises. The Plan serves as an annex to the Yuba County Office of Emergency Services (OES) SEMS Multi–Hazard Functional Plan.

The Smallpox Response Plan describes the Yuba County Health and Human Services Department (YCHHS) approach to: • Facilitating cooperation among all involved parties (e.g. government officials, health experts, industry, and the public). • Persuading and directing the behavior of individuals or communities. • Promoting informed decision–making about the acceptability of known risks. • Educating and correcting false or misleading information.

Isolation of symptomatic victims and the quarantine of exposed individuals are essential to ending an outbreak. Key personnel who are needed to maintain the human infrastructure of the community during an epidemic would need to be vaccinated. Key personnel who provide services for public safety or whose absence would significantly interfere with the ongoing response to the outbreak may include, but not be limited to: • Public health physicians and staff, • Hospital employees, • Physicians, pharmacists, and other clinicians, • Local government decision–makers, • First responders; public safety, fire, and EMS, • Utility, food service, and transportation personnel, • Family members of the key personnel listed.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-73 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

CERC Plan: The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Plan was developed to provide important public health guidance and protective measures to the public and partnering agencies in response to an emergency or crisis event in Yuba County from any public health hazard during any “state of war emergency”, “state of emergency”, or “local emergency” as defined by Section 8558 of the Government Code. The plan will provide guidance and protective measures for disease or negative health outcomes in a crisis event that triggers a level of public interest and media inquiry that requires a significant increase in staffing and/or resources to make a reasonable media response.

The objectives of the CERC Plan include: • Protect the health and safety of Yuba County residents, • Effectively communicate public health information to residents of the County during a crisis event, • Position the County Health & Human Services Department, Public Health Division as a trusted source and subject matter expert on public health matters, • Maintain a safe and orderly process during and after the crisis.

Influenza Pandemic Public Health Response Plan: The purpose of the Influenza Pandemic Response Plan is to lessen the impact of an influenza pandemic on the residents of Yuba County by providing a guide for the Yuba County Department of Health and Human Services (YCHHS) and health care providers for detection and response to an influenza pandemic event.

The plan lists the responsibilities and activities that apply to the Health Officer, supervisors, health agency staff, divisions, and other branches that have a role in an influenza pandemic emergency response. The plan fosters increasing awareness and greater concern among the public health, medical, and emergency response communities regarding “routine” annual influenza epidemics.

The following “stages” will be determined at the national level for purposes of consistency and coordination of the national, state, and local response: • Novel virus alert, • Pandemic alert, • Pandemic imminent, • Pandemic, • Second wave, • Pandemic over.

As the pandemic develops, the World Health Organization (WHO) will notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other national health agencies of progress of the pandemic from one stage to the next. CDC will communicate with California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and other state agencies about pandemic stages, vaccine availability, virus laboratory findings, and national response coordination. The State will communicate with local health agencies through the California Health Alert Network (CAHAN).

Local response in Yuba County will be addressed by the Mass Vaccination Manual which will contain both the Smallpox Response Plan (SRP) and the Pandemic Influenza Response Plan as annexes. The SRP will include procedures for command and control, detection and notification of public health threats, and position checklists that describe the roles of key YCHHS and other personnel during a public health emergency. Since many aspects of the public health response would be the same, this Influenza Pandemic response would be the same. The Influenza Pandemic Response Plan focuses on response characteristics unique to pandemic influenza.

Of importance to this Pre–Disaster Mitigation Document are the activation of the Emergency Operations Center and/or YCHHS Department Operations Center, and the following of Standard

Section Two: Planning Process 2-74 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Emergency Management Systems (SEMS) protocol when a “Pandemic Imminent” stage has been declared.

West Nile Virus Task Force: The West Nile Virus (WNV) Task Force is comprised of different agencies in Yuba County which includes the Health Department, Sutter-Yuba Vector Control, Rideout Hospital, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Health, School Districts, labs, blood donation centers, OES and various others. This task force was formed due to the need of mitigating issues related to West Nile Virus. Since Yuba County is primarily agricultural, mosquitoes abound in the area. Since WNV was introduced back in 1999, it has since spread from the east coast to the west coast. West Nile Virus rates have gone down since it came to California about 3 years ago but it does not necessarily mean that the threat is gone. The State of California has provided funding to several entities, usually focusing on vector control agencies. The Sutter-Yuba Vector Control Agency has applied for several grants given out by the State which allows them to increase mosquito abatement for the community.

The meetings are held on a monthly basis. During the meetings, statewide and local statistics are given, public education efforts are announced and a roundtable is started. Other major concerns are also brought up and discussed. The task force meetings start in March and end around September.

Some of the public education related to WNV includes going to retirement homes and senior- oriented clubs and educating them about how to prevent WNV. The health department also participates in health fairs and goes to schools to teach kids about WNV. They have also made available flyers and brochures to the public to educate them about WNV.

Strategic National Stockpile: The purpose of the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) plan is to outline how Yuba County plans to respond during emergencies that necessitate the request and use of the SNS for response to a credible CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive) threat or event when local resources have been depleted.

Although this Plan specifically addresses a terrorism threat or event as the trigger for access to the SNS, the SNS resource may be activated for other kinds of emergencies that call for a medical/health response that exceeds state and local resource capabilities (such as Pandemic Influenza). In such an event, roles, responsibilities, and procedures outlined in this Operational Plan would be followed to access and deploy the SNS.

Mass Prophylaxis/Vaccination Clinics: This plan addresses dispensing medications, including vaccinations, of asymptomatic persons, at pre-identified dispensing sites. Major functions performed at each dispensing site include:

• Receive, store, and stage SNS oral antibiotic and materiel • Triage symptomatic victims to treatment centers, arranging transport if needed • Provide emotional support for distressed persons • Maintain a patient tracking system • Educate and orient persons standing in line • Screen patients for allergies, drug interactions, and other contraindications • Interview/counsel patients who are screened out as complex cases • Dispense appropriate drugs to patients • Track SNS materiel and manage the reordering process as supplies diminish • Provide for security of dispensing personnel and materiel • Close down the dispensing site at the end of the event, including returning unused materiel to the Local or State Warehouse.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-75 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Grant: Yuba is part of a Five County Coalition (Sutter, Yolo, Nevada, Placer, and Yuba). The purpose of the HRSA Grant is to ready hospitals and supporting health care systems to deliver coordinated and effective care to victims of terrorism and other public health emergencies. Funds are for developing and implementing regional plans to improve the capacity of the health care system, including hospitals, emergency departments, outpatient facilities, EMS systems, and poison control centers to respond to incidents requiring mass immunization, isolation, decontamination, diagnosis, and treatment in the aftermath of terrorism or other public health emergencies.

The goal is to upgrade the ability of health care entities to respond to terrorist incidents; develop a multi-tiered system in which these entities are prepared to triage, isolate, diagnose, treat, and refer multiple victims to identified centers of excellence; and develop regional consortia to pool limited funding to accomplish these goals.

Yuba County Water Agency’s (YCWA) Emergency Action Plan (EAP): The EAP is intended to minimize the threat to public safety and to minimize the response time to an impending or actual sudden release of water from New Bullards Bar Dam, Our House Dam, and Log Cabin Dam. The Plan may also be used to provide notification when flood releases will create major flooding. Agency personnel who work on or near the project facilities or who have responsibilities under this plan shall be familiar with the notification procedures.

All facilities are inspected visually three times per week. Downstream flows are monitored continuously by the YCWA Colgate Power Plant when the Agency operators are manning the plant. In their absence, monitoring of stream flows is accomplished by PG&E personnel at their Wise Power Plant.

The Power Systems Manager (PSM) is responsible for assessing the severity of the situation. If failure is in progress or imminent, the operators have the authority to implement the plan. If the problem is a potential failure, the PSM is authorized to implement the plan. In the PSM’s absence, the General Manager is authorized to implement the plan.

CalTrans Highway Damage Emergency Operations Plan: Sets forth an outline of responsibilities within an organized structure, which will facilitate quick and efficient response to any emergency to minimize impacts to the roadways, the traveling public, and regional commerce. This organized structure is centered on the District’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The maintenance Program is the lead for Major Highway Damage emergency response.

The Emergency Operations Center will provide a central focal point for all Major Highway Damage emergency activities within the District. It will provide uniformity of response no matter what the emergency, and it will provide consistency is disseminating information to CalTrans management, CalTrans Headquarters EOC, local county EOCs, and to the public.

Particular situations may require the Department to operate differently than described in the plan. Emergency procedures are intended to be flexible enough to ensure that all situations are properly handled.

A vast majority of emergencies are handled at the District level without the need to activate the Headquarters Emergency Operations Center (EOC). However, when an extraordinary disaster occurs, The Headquarters Emergency Management Director or Designee activates the Headquarters EOC to maintain a statewide CalTrans picture, coordinates resources and information needed to support the directly impacted district(s), and coordinates activities with the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), State Operations Center (SOC) or Regional Operations Center (REOC). Emergency response policies are: • Minimize the loss of life and property.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-76 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Protect state–operated facilities and the state highway system. • Maintain current damage and operations information. • Restore damaged state transportation system facilities as soon as possible. • Assign appropriate personnel at key disaster sites to oversee operations and to provide consistent, verified public information to the District and headquarters Public Information Officers, and the media. • Cooperate with other key agencies at the local, state, and federal level. • Keep the Director, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and the Legislature informed of transportation–related issues and the status of CalTrans resources during an emergency. • Conduct periodic drills and exercises to test communication systems for preparedness, including notifying individuals on the fan–out chart and critique response, practice solving emergency management problems, validate current operating procedures, and practice multi–agency involvement coordinated by the Governor’s Office of Emergency services. The plan identifies the organizational structure of the Major Highway Damage EOC, roles and responsibilities of each function in the EOC and emergency response levels. • Maintain/restore traffic operations/good movement.

The District 3 EOP is based on the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The basic framework of SEMS incorporates the use of the Incident Command System (ICS), multi– agency or interagency coordination, the State’s master mutual aid agreement and mutual aid program, the operational area concept and the Operational Area Satellite Information System (OASIS).

When an emergency situation occurs, the EOC manager will be notified immediately by dispatch, if during normal business hours by the Duty Officer, or by other staff reporting the emergency. The EOC manager is responsible for immediately assessing the severity of the emergency and determining the level of response for the EOC staff.

Other Yuba County Studies: 1902–The Rivers and Harbors Act of June 13, 1902 approved the Yuba River Training Walls “to confine the river channel within well–defined limits” and to store hydraulic mining debris in the Yuba River. The work was never considered as part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project nor was it perceived as serving any flood management purpose. The design for the training walls was not precise and no “as built” plans exist as they are long embankments of mining tailings that existed in the river channel at that time. They were described as “to a certain extent experimental and can be repaired if required and if abandoned, cannot leave the river in any worse shape than at present.” The training walls were constructed from 1910 to 1935.

In 1951–Yuba County Board of Supervisors created the Yuba County Water Resources Board which looked at ways to control the Yuba River. Before the great flood of 1955, the State had started planning its California Water Project which would build Oroville Dam on the Feather River. But no project existed in State or Federal planning to control the Yuba River.

January 1961 A feasibility study report was filed outlining Yuba River Development that would cost approximately $185 million, covering dam construction, engineering, property acquisitions, legal activities, financing and other phases of a complete water program.

Key concepts of the Project were development of sufficient hydro power to repay bond financing without any tax obligation on the part of local landowners and long term contract for sale of power to Pacific Gas and Electric Company at a guaranteed annual payment which would be the sole security for the bond issue. In addition, some help was sought in the form of a Federal contribution in recognition of flood control accomplishments. A State contribution is based on recognition of statewide benefits to recreation and fish enhancement.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-77 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Five functional units comprise the Yuba River Development:

• New Bullards Bar Dam–Main dam and storage reservoir on North Yuba River. • Middle Yuba–Oregon Creek Diversion dams–draws water from the Middle Yuba and Oregon Creek into Bullards Bar by way of tunnels. • New Colgate Plant–A power plant which utilizes a 1,306 foot head of water stored and regulated from New Bullards Bar Reservoir. • New Narrows Plant–A power plant that uses regulated releases from the New Bullards Bar Reservoir through the existing Englebright Reservoir. • Recreation Facilities–Camp grounds, picnic areas, boat launch ramps and other onshore facilities along the New Bullards Bar Reservoir.

Of the total $180 million cost of the Project, $12.6 million was received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control; $1,092,100 in a grant from the State of California for water and sanitary facilities and for recreation benefits and $3,311,000 for fish enhancement benefits.

1972–the USACE Sacramento District, “Bear River Feasibility Report for Water Resources Development” concluded that “the only areas in the valley floor reaches that do not receive levee protection are those drainage areas tributary to the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal above Best Slough, including the communities of Linda and Olivehurst.” The report also concluded that structural flood control measures were determined to be the best solution for the Linda and Olivehurst flood problem, while zoning of the large agricultural lands to their current use appeared to be the most practical procedure to follow in other areas. The report recommended levee and channel work with pumping facilities to provide a high degree of flood protection to the Linda and Olivehurst areas as follows: • Enlargement of 2.4 miles of Linda Drain, including levees where needed, from just above Linda Road to the Southern Pacific Railroad. • A new diversion channel paralleling and just upstream from the Southern Pacific Railroad extending about 2.8 miles from Linda Drain to Reeds Creek. • Construction of a new flood channel paralleling Reeds Creek extending about 1.6 miles from the Southern Pacific Railroad to the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal to accommodate the diverted flows from the new diversion channel. • A new levee along the right bank of Reeds Creek from the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal right bank levee to high ground along State Hwy 65. • A pumping plant and sump area near the intersection of the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal right bank levee and the new levee described above. • Acquisition of flowage easements for 450 acres of agricultural land and the continued use of existing flowage easements on about 3,300 acres of agricultural land. • Acquisition of environmental easements on 150 acres around the Plumas Lake area. The report also recommended including recreation facilities, consisting of a hiking/biking trail on the proposed Reeds Creek levee and two parking areas with sanitary facilities to permit use of the trail (USACE, 1972). The plan was authorized by House and Senate Public Works Committee Resolutions, September 23, 1976 and October 1, 1976. The project was reclassified to inactive status by the USACE in September 1980.

1986–The MHM Incorporated, “Hallwood Drainage Study, Community of Hallwood” addressed zoning of the Hallwood area into five acre minimum parcels and the potential drainage issues that would result. It identified two sites where the main drains (Walnut Drain at Walnut Ave. and Plantz Drain at Plantz Rd.) and culverts should be installed. A third site was identified at Plantz Rd. near the levee that needed improvement. The report also recommended that historic drainage problems on two County roads, Walnut Ave. and Hallwood Boulevard, could be mitigated with roadway elevation and culvert installation under the roadway as follows:

Section Two: Planning Process 2-78 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• A 36–inch culvert at the head end of a natural slough along Walnut Ave. where water historically overtopped the roadway. Additional design considerations were necessary to include the construction of a home in the bottom of the slough with a ditch or other means to divert drainage flow around the residence; • An 18–inch culvert and roadway elevation at two sites located on the inside radius of the Walnut Ave. curves; • Roadway reconstruction, with elevation and drainage facilities that consist of a drainage swale along the east side of Walnut Ave. north of Hallwood Blvd. and cross culverts to direct water into the drainage swale; • Roadway elevation of Hallwood Blvd. and culvert installation northwest of Hooper Rd. The report concluded overall drainage problems in the Hallwood area were minimal due to the free draining soils of sand or sandy silts, but could be rectified with culvert installation and roadway elevation as priorities.

1987–The Kleinfelder, Geotechnical Engineering Report Marysville Levee Evaluation concluded that the Marysville Levee System surrounding the city was currently relatively stable under both static and seismic loading conditions. In addition, the report examined slope stability and piping under design flood conditions. The report did caution that a reach near Mile 3.1 of Unit 1 should be evaluated and monitored with continued and diligent maintenance. (Kleinfelder, 1987)

1989–The Ebasco Services, Inc, “Limited Reconnaissance Flood Project Study of Yuba River Basin” concluded that: • A serious threat exists along the lower Yuba River and in the Feather River flood plain due to the ever–present possibility of levee failure. Unless the structural integrity of the existing levee system can be restored, it would be most desirable to develop upstream storage projects or any other measures, such as a flood bypass which would decrease the frequency of high flows in the floodways and thereby the likelihood and the progression of levee failure. • The current operation of the new Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir can control river flows sufficient to provide up to 70–year event flood protection at Marysville. • Construction of new multipurpose storage projects might economically provide protection along the lower Yuba River from a flood event in excess of 100 years, if a credit of 60,000 acre–feet could be given to the incidental space normally available in the existing reservoirs in the upstream portion of the Yuba basin. • Significant improvement in the amount of power generated and severity of water shortages could be achieved with a minor modification in operating rules for the New Bullards Bar Reservoir by changing the minimum power release as stipulated in the YCWA/PG&E power purchase contract to schedule power releases to occur only during PG&E’s defined on–peak hours during critical dry years. Full plant capacity would still be available during needed periods. • Of the 12 potential flood control or multi–purpose projects identified in a preliminary screening process, four possible projects were identified to have a high potential for being built. It is not known if the suggestion to change the minimum power release was ever implemented. None of the four possible storage projects have been implemented nor are studies for their implementation underway. (Ebasco Services, Inc., 1989) 1. Authorized Marysville Project as conceived by USACE; 2. Combination of Bypass and Long Bar Project; 3. Humbug Project on the South Fork Yuba River; 4. Holbrook Flats Project on the South Fork Yuba River.

1990–The USACE Sacramento District, “Yuba River Basin Investigation, California, Reconnaissance Report” used existing flow frequency information on the Feather River below Oroville, levee profile information developed by DWR in 1988 and 1989, and hydrology developed for the authorized Marysville Lake project to conclude:

Section Two: Planning Process 2-79 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• A serious flood threat exists in the Yuba City/Marysville area from the Yuba River, its tributaries, and the Feather River; o The Yuba River will have 100–year level of protection at the design water surface elevation if the levee reconstruction is accomplished as recommended in the Phase II System evaluation; o On the Feather River below Yuba City but above the Bear River to provide a minimum of 150–year level of flood protection, a peak flow of about 292,000 cfs was estimated as the without project level of protection; • There is at least one economically justified alternative that would increase the levels of protection in the Yuba City/Marysville and Linda/Olivehurst areas; o Raise 3.0 mile of left bank and 0.2 miles of right bank Yuba River levees 1.7 feet to provide a 150-year level of protection; o Raise 5.1 miles of left bank and 1.3 miles of right bank Feather River levees 0.5 feet, and 6.2 miles of left bank and 2.0 miles of right bank Yuba River levees 3.0 feet; • A responsible non–Federal entity (YCWA or the California Reclamation Board) indicated a willingness and capability to share the costs of feasibility studies; • These alternatives were found to have acceptable cost benefit analyses.

1991–Despite increased salmon runs, The California Department of Fish and Game proposed new, much higher, instream flows to attempt to further enhance fishery conditions in the lower Yuba River. To achieve these flows, the State would have to reallocate water from the Agency’s use. The State Water Resources Control Board held hearings in 1992 and 2000. • During the critically–dry year of 1991, the Agency transferred approximately 28% of the total water supplies received by the State’s Emergency Drought Water Bank, which created a net benefit of $91 million to California’s economy, according to a Department of Water Resources study.

1992–The MHM Incorporated “Revised South Yuba Drainage Master Plan (SYDMP), community of Olivehurst and East Linda, Yuba County, California” provided a drainage solution for the Community of Olivehurst and East Linda. To obtain 100–year flood event protection, the report recommended: • Block the Olivehurst Drain and the Linda Drain from entering Olivehurst; • A levee and detention pond at the end of Clark Slough to avoid Bear River backup from entering Olivehurst via the Clark Lateral; • A levee between Hwy 65 and Hwy 70 to prevent Bear River backup from entering the Dan Ave./Mage Ave. area; • The Eastside Interceptor Canal to divert water around the community of East Linda be completed from the Orchard Subdivision north to Hammonton–Smartville Rd.; • Increase the size of the regional detention pond as development is approved in the East Linda area; • Channel improvements from North Beale Rd. to Hammonton Smartville Rd; • Reeds Creek levee and improvement canal to protect existing homes along Dan Ave., Rose Ave., and Mage Ave.; • Elevate the houses subject to flooding that have flowage easements which allow the Sacramento San Joaquin Drainage District to flood the property. Construction of the Eastside Interceptor and the regional detention pond respectively, are considered the highest priority features for construction.

1993–The USACE Sacramento District “Marysville/Yuba City Area (Phase II) Design Memorandum (DM)” concluded that sections of the project levees were found to be susceptible to seepage problems and did not provide the project design levels of flood protection due primarily to the result of sandy soils within the levee foundations. Proposed work in Yuba County consisted of:

Section Two: Planning Process 2-80 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• 8 ft toe drain on 2.6 miles (RD 10, Unit 2 Levee Mile (LM) 3.0 to 5.6 on the Feather River ease levee, Site 4); • Waterside cutoff wall on 0.61 miles (Marysville Levee District, Unit 1 LM 0.30 to 0.91 on south side of Jack Slough, Site 14); • 8 ft toe drain on 1.8 miles (RD 784, Unit 2 LM 3.1 to 4.7 and LM 9.2 to 9.4 on Feather River east levee, Site 7); • 8 ft toe drain and levee raise along 7.2 miles (RD 784 Unit 7 LM 0.9 to 3.6 on Yuba River south levee, Site 6 and RD 784 Unit 2 LM 4.7 to 9.2 on Feather River east levee, Site 7); • Cutoff wall on 2.5 miles (RD 784 Unit 1 LM 0.5 to 1.3 and RD 784 Unit 7 LM 0.0 to 0.9 on Yuba River south levee, Site 6 and RD 784 Unit 2 LM 0.0 to 0.8 on Feather River east levee, Site 6); • Levee raise only on 0.8 miles (RD 784 Unit 3 LM 1.9 to 2.7 on Bear River north levee, Site 13); • Reconstruction will be required to meet project design requirements.

1996–The USACE Sacramento District “Mid–Valley Area (Phase III) Design Memorandum (DM)” documented the evaluation of the results of engineering studies and investigations prior to preparing plans and specification for construction of project levees along the east levee of the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, Dry Creek, and the Bear River. It concluded that no reconstruction sites were found to be required to meet project design requirements in the area evaluated.

1997–The MHM Incorporated “Clark Lateral and Clark Slough, Community of Olivehurst–Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Yuba County, California” applied for funds to improve channel infrastructure. A hydraulic model determined that numerous culverts would need replacement to meet the designed flow of a 100–year event. The application recommended the replacement of selected culverts currently under design and the installation of a new underground conveyance system of the Fourth Avenue/Western Avenue area. Upon completion, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) should be prepared to remove the properties no longer located below the 100–year base Flood Elevation (BFE).

1998–Flood Control Study Group “Report on Phase I, Program Definition for Supplemental Flood Control on the Yuba River” prepared for YCWA determined the YCWA would have to consider: • The level of protection desired from the Supplemental Flood Control Program should be specifically defined; • The Supplemental Flood Control Program should significantly increase flood protection reliability and flexibility; • The Supplemental Flood Control Program should be financially feasible for the YCWA; • The YCWA should consider potential partnerships for the project to help meet regional objectives and to provide a range of potential benefits. A budget was developed for the first three phases.

1998–The USACE “Yuba River Basin Investigation, California, Final Feasibility Report and Appendixes” concluded: • The history of flooding in Marysville and the Linda/Olivehurst area shows that there will continue to be an ongoing flood threat to lives and property from high flows due to intense rainfall and runoff events; • Even with the existing flood protection provided by the Sacramento River Flood control System, the area is still vulnerable to major flooding, as demonstrated by the recent flood in January 1997; • Sediment inflow is important to the continued stability of the Yuba and Feather River channels. Additional upstream storage could upset the erosion/sedimentation process, leading to down cutting or meandering;

Section Two: Planning Process 2-81 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• The levee work proposed for the reconstruction approved under the Phase II of the System Evaluation: o Linda/Olivehurst includes 3.7 miles of new slurry wall, 2.5 miles of increased slurry wall, 1.4 miles of new berm, 4.5 miles of modified berm, and 1.0 mile of raised levee; o Lower RD 784 includes 0.8 miles of toe drain, 0.5 mile of berm, 0.5 mile of increased slurry wall, and 3.0 miles of modified berm; o Marysville includes 5.0 miles of new slurry wall and berm; • The proposed work is similar to the NED plan for the lower RD784. The proposed work for the Linda/Olivehurst and Marysville areas required less slurry wall, toe drain, and berm work than the NED plan. The proposed work is supported by the non–Federal sponsor; • The total investment cost for the proposed work is approximately $28 million, and the net benefit is $3.3 million. This project was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Recent changes in geotechnical evaluation criteria and hydraulics led to identification of additional problems along the Bear River and the Western Interceptor Canal. This would substantially increase the authorized cost of the project which caused the USACE to initiate a general reevaluation study (GRR) in 2003 to determine if the authorized project should be modified. The GRR is currently scheduled for completion in late 2007.

1998–The MHM Incorporated “South Olivehurst Detention Basin and Storm Water Pumping Station, Community of Olivehurst–Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Yuba County, California” defined the facilities to be constructed, appropriate design criteria, and construction cost estimates to increase the level of protection from a 100–year flood event caused by Bear River backup and flooding along the Clark Lateral and Clark Slough. Construction has commenced, with project completion anticipated in October 2006.

1999–The California Reclamation Board and USACE “Sacramento–San Joaquin Basins comprehensive Study, Phase I Documentation Report” accomplished: • The initiation of public outreach and agency coordination program; o Established communication strategy emphasizing focus groups; o Involved agencies and stakeholders in problem and potential solution identification; o Identified opportunities for coordination with existing programs; o Held nine technical support group meetings, four policy focus group meetings, and 11 local support group meetings; • Identified the following existing problems: o Flooding problems; o Environmental problems related to flooding and flood management; o Policy issues, institutional barriers, and potential changes; • Established a framework for the study: o Established study objectives; o Developed a framework for formulation of the master plan; o Developed an implementation strategy; • Prepared for the analysis: o Developed hydrologic and hydraulic models for system–wide evaluations; o Conducted extensive topographic and bathymetric surveys for both river basins; o Developed an ecosystem functions model; o Assembled extensive GIS to support study and other projects; • Developed an implementation strategy: o Established process to sign–off projects to existing authorities; o Identified process for early implementation; o Defined full program implementation requirements;

Section Two: Planning Process 2-82 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Identified Phase II tasks: o Expanded public involvement; o Plan formulation and evaluation; o Environmental, socioeconomic, engineering, real estate analyses; o Programmatic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA documents. In addition, a history of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Flood Management Systems, a description of the factors influencing uses of the floodplains, a description of existing conditions in both basins, and a description of future trends were presented.

2001–Flood Control Study Team “Report on Phase II, formulation and Analyses of Alternatives for Supplemental Flood Control Program on the Yuba River” prepared for YCWA recommended to retain the following alternatives and continue to a Phase III Study to refine the primary alternatives: A. Increased flood storage space: o without capacity enlargement for Thermalito (45,000 acre feet (AF)); o with outlet capacity enlargement for New Bullards Bar (100,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for Oroville (75,000 AF); reservoir enlargement for New Bullards Bar (50,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for Thermalito (45,000 AF); B. Increased flood storage space: o without capacity enlargement for Thermalito (45,000 AF); o with outlet capacity enlargement for New Bullards Bar (300,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for Oroville (75,000 AF); C. Increased flood storage space: o Parks Bar detention basin (365,000 AF); D. Increased flood storage space: o without capacity enlargement for Thermalito (45,000 AF); o with outlet capacity enlargement for New Bullards Bar (100,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for Oroville (75,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for New Bullards Bar (50,000 AF); o Freemans multi–purpose reservoir (345,000 AF); E. Increased flood storage space: o with outlet capacity enlargement for New Bullards Bar (100,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for Oroville (75,000 AF); o reservoir enlargement for New Bullards Bar (50,000 AF); o Edwards multi–purpose reservoir (450,000 AF) F. Increased flood storage space: o Lower Narrows multi–purpose reservoir (640,000 AF); G. Increased flood storage space: o Parks Bar & Dry Creek multi–purpose reservoir (640,000 AF); H. Increased flood storage space: o Reeds Creek flood bypass (120,000 cfs); I. Increased flood storage space: o Levee setback channel enlargement (120,000 cfs). The following three events occurred that impacted the study results: 1. Wild and Scenic River Designation for the South Yuba River eliminated alternatives E & F from further consideration; 2. Water Act of 2000 authorized $90 million for a Yuba–Feather River flood protection program that would enable early implementation of some projects, affecting the selection and schedule of others; 3. Change in Flood Hydrology due to the Corps analysis which changed the magnitude of flood events and frequency for the Feather and Yuba Watersheds. The Corps new analysis indicated that a 1 in 500 year event was closer to a 1 in 200 year event.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-83 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2001–The State Water Resources Control Board issued Decision 1644, which required the YCWA to relinquish hundreds of thousands of acre–feet of water for higher fishery flows in the lower Yuba River. This regulatory action would prevent the YCWA from participation in water transfers, depriving the community of the revenues it has relied on for the local costs of flood control projects.

2002–Mead & Hunt “Reclamation District No. 784, Drainage Master Plan, Yuba County, California” is a comprehensive drainage plan for the entire 784 district to insure the implementation of drainage facilities in an area of approximately 17,000 acres, and to protect existing and future property owners from unnecessary property damage arising from new development. Reclamation District 784 has the following three major drainage basins: • Drainage Basin A in the southern portion of the district is comprised of approximately 4,900 acres. Runoff from drainage basin A is conveyed with Lateral 5, Lateral 16, and the lower Clark Slough to Pump Station No. 2 then to the Feather River. Pump Station No. 2 constructed with four pump bays, two were installed–no redundancy; • Drainage Basin B in the north–central portion of the district is comprised of approximately 6,900 acres. Runoff is carried by Lateral 13, Lateral 14m, and the Plumas Canal to Pump Station No. 3 then pumped into the Feather River. Pump Station No. 3 continues to experience seepage and structural issues–no redundancy. Pump Station No. 1, the oldest of RD 784’s pump stations, used only during major storm events after Algodon Canal has lowered has no redundancy. Redundancy for Pump Station No. 1 is provided by Pump Station No. 3; • Drainage Basin C includes approximately 5,200 acres in the northeast as well as the entire eastern portion of the district. Runoff is conveyed by the Lateral 15, Bingham Canal, and Algodon Canal to Pump Station No. 9 to the Feather River and Pump Station No. 6 to the Bear River. All projects approved to date within the drainage basin are required to retain all water onsite until required improvements are completed. Pump Station No. 9, the newest of RD 784’s pump stations–no redundancy.

All drainage improvements were completed in Drainage Basin A except the redundant pump and backup generator for Pump Station No. 2. The Bear setback levee project eliminated a large amount of storage volume on adjacent agricultural lands that were flooded during power outages and pump malfunctions increasing the criticality of the redundant capacity. In addition the Plan recommended: • the reconstruction and relocation of Pump Station No. 3 to include a redundant pump, backup generator, and a motor control system with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA); • new motor control system with SCADA and backup generator for Pump Station No. 1; • Drainage Basin C North Regional Detention Pond and Pump Station at Ella Rd. to direct water to the Feather River; • North Regional Pump Station at Ella Road, with redundant pump, backup generator, and SCADA system; • Pump Station No. 10, capable of pumping 60 cfs, to remove water from the north regional detention pond and protect facilities at the Airport and Butterfly/Buttercup Lanes. Runoff to be pumped into the Feather river in the vicinity of Pump Station No. 9; • Pump Station No. 9 backup generator and SCADA system; • Pump Station No. 5 to be removed and reconstructed to include a backup generator, redundant pump, and SCADA system capable of pumping 15 cfs; • Pump Station No. 7 new motor control system with SCADA, and a backup generator, however, redundant pump eliminated by the recent construction of an overflow pipe at Lateral 15; • Pump Station No. 4 to be removed and reconstructed with redundant pump, backup generator, and SCADA system capable of pumping 40 cfs; • Improvements in the upstream portion of Bingham Canal/Lateral 15.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-84 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2003–YCWA Flood Control Study Team “Report of Feasibility of Yuba–Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project” presented detailed descriptions, their cost–benefits, and implementation plans of the following economically viable alternatives: • Controlled surcharge of Lake Oroville for additional flood control would suspend the use of the Emergency Spillway Release Diagram and would rely only on the Flood Control Diagram. This alternative would result in higher and more frequent surcharge above the emergency spillway and greater control in downstream releases for larger storms, and increased risk of erosion below the emergency spillway. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) could implement this alternative under its existing authority; • Thermalito Afterbay Emergency Reoperation for Flood Control could release storage prior to a forecasted storm to provide an additional 45,000 AF of storage for flood management which would reduce downstream releases. This alternative could be implemented under existing DWR authority after reviews of dam stability and possible impacts on power production and fisheries; • New Bullards Bar Reservoir Outlet Capacity Increase would increase the release capacity by 20,000 cfs at pool elevation 1,918 to evacuate storage ahead of the peak inflow from a major storm. This would be accomplished by constructing a new outlet works just east of the existing spillway. The outlet works would have a three slide gate intake structure discharging into a horseshoe-shaped conveyance tunnel connected to a flip bucket outlet structure; • New Colgate Powerhouse Tailwater Depression would allow higher releases, increased peak flood storage capacity, and significant power generation benefits from New Bullards Bar Reservoir by adding compressed air near the turbine runners. This element was proposed for advance approval and implementation; • Feather River Setback Levees (in Yuba County) would provide safer, more reliable levees, and lower the peak flood stages upstream through the potential to pass higher flows downstream. Lands between the river and the new levees could be developed for environmental restoration benefits in addition to the flood mitigation; • Forecast–Coordinated Operation for Yuba and Feather Rivers could accomplish more efficient and reliable flood operation of reservoirs and flood way capacity with the addition of key reporting precipitation, stream flow, and snow gauges in the watershed as well as the implementation of real–time operations software.

2003–YCWA “Basis of Design for Tailwater Depression at New Colgate Powerhouse” provided: • detailed description of the existing Colgate Powerhouse, • the proposed Tailwater depression system and operation criteria, • design criteria for the civil/structural design, • design criteria for the mechanical/piping design, • design criteria for the electrical design of the flood control element, • permits and agreement required for implementation, • an implementation plan. The YCWA chose to focus its limited resources on securing levees for flood control with levee improvements. The Tailwater Depression Project has been deferred until additional funding is identified.

2003–After the Yuba County Superior Court remanded the decision back to the State Board, directing it to reconsider pertinent new information, the State Board reissued essentially the same decision (renamed Revised Decision 1644). For the first 5 years, the decision required essentially the instream flows proposed by the Agency, but ignored the YCWA’s request to retain control for transfer purposes over the additional water that would be needed to maintain these flows. In 2006, Revised Decision 1644 would require significantly higher instream flows, which

Section Two: Planning Process 2-85 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______would completely eliminate the YCWA’s ability to make future water transfers and would reduce water supplies for local water users.

After Revised Decision 1644 was issued, the Agency initiated the “Yuba River Accord Process”. The process, with science–based, collaborative discussions with environmental and fishing groups, state and federal agencies, its member water districts, and others developed a comprehensive proposal to protect the lower Yuba’s salmon and steelhead while a source of revenue for flood–control projects was preserved.

2004–The Kleinfelder Engineering “Problem Identification Report (PIR), Yuba River Left Bank Levee, Highway 70 to SPRR, (Approximately PLM 0.32 to 0.91), Reclamation district 784, Yuba County, California” used past geotechnical information developed by the USACE and CalTrans in addition to three geotechnical explorations to conclude that sand and sand lenses in the levee embankment caused a through seepage problem. It was determined that the toe drain constructed as a part of the 1986 remediation should not be relied upon to mitigate seepage gradients along the levee toe. Shallow permeable sand and gravel lenses overlain by a thin natural blanket were present in the upstream half of the study reach which result in underseepage problems. Factors of safety for stability during a rapid drawdown condition were less than accepted criteria. The PIR recommended as soon as possible, preferably prior to the next wet season: • an impermeable waterside barrier, • a cutoff wall through the levee, or • a landside stability berm. This report led to the construction of Phase I of the TRLIA Program.

2004–YCWA Flood Control Team “Report of Feasibility of RD 784 Supplemental Flood Control Improvements of the Yuba–Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project” developed solutions to the levee problems on the Yuba River, Bear River, and the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC), which were found in previous studies to be not high enough nor structurally sound against a 100–year flood event. • North Levee of the Lower Bear River underseepage and lack of reliable freeboard to the 200–year flood event. The recommended solution consisted of a southern setback levee due to lower cost and less impact to land and infrastructure. The southern setback levee along with walnut orchard removal will reduce flood stages along the WPIC and at the confluence of the Bear and Feather Rivers. • Northern Levee of the Upper Bear River and the Levee along the WPIC lack of reliable freeboard above the 100–year flood event water surface, underseepage, and through seepage. The recommended mitigation consisted of: o Landside ditch filling, o Set back pump station No. 6, o Raise the levee crown, erosion protection on waterside levee slope, o Add landside levee fill, o Centerline cutoff slurry wall. • South Levee of the Yuba River under seepage and through seepage due to shallow permeable layers and historic geomorphic features. The recommended mitigation consisted of: o A 50 ft. deep centerline slurry wall, o Seepage berms. The report found that the projects’ benefits exceeded their costs, and included an implementation plan that described the permits and environmental laws to be addressed, and a construction schedule, in addition to a financing plan.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-86 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2004–Buehler & Buehler “Yuba County Courthouse Structural Evaluation” reviewed, verified, and evaluated the findings of previous seismic evaluations and to provide recommendations to the County in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 1732.

2005–The USACE “Lower Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study” identified the floodplains that may result from a 100–year flood event along the Feather River, Yuba River, Bear River, Dry Creek, Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, and Yankee Slough in Yuba and Sutter Counties; and identified the following levee problem areas: • Left Bank Feather River (Bear to Yuba River) will be considered geotechnically stable at the 100–year water surface after the proposed seepage berm and relief well at Site 7 Extension are completed (completed in 2004); • Right Bank Bear River downstream of Union Pacific (UP) Interceptor Canal had insufficient subsurface data to determine levee geotechnical performance during a 100– year flood event. (RD 784 performed additional geotechnical explorations and evaluations May 2004); • Left and Right Bank Dry Creek had insufficient subsurface data available to perform a FEMA certification evaluation of the Dry Creek levees; • Left and Right Bank UP Interceptor Canal (WPIC) had insufficient subsurface data available for a FEMA certification evaluation. (RD 784 performed additional geotechnical explorations and evaluation in May 2004); • Left Bank Yuba River between Highway 70 and the Union Pacific railroad did not meet minimum geotechnical stability criteria at the 100–year water surface. Slope stability and through–seepage were the mechanism of failure, and repairs are required to certify this portion of the levee. The remaining left bank of the Yuba River levee from the confluence of the Feather River to Highway 70 and from UP railroad to the Goldfields was geotechnically stable at the 100–year water surface.

An addendum “Yuba River Basin Investigation General Re–evaluation Report, Geotechnical Evaluation of Existing Levee Conditions” provided by USACE Sacramento District Soil Design Section concluded four levee sites may not satisfy minimum geotechnical criteria at the 100–year water surface. The addendum recommended a detailed geotechnical evaluation of the entire length of the left bank Feather River and left bank Yuba River to ensure geotechnical criteria for FEMA certification. The four sites are: • Feather River Unit 2 levee mile 0.95 to 5.77 (Island Ave to Broadway); • Feather River Unit 2 levee mile 8.95 to 9.46 (Star Bend); • Feather River Unit 2 levee mile 12.8 to 13.64 (Pump Station No. 2 to Bear River); • Yuba River Unit 1 levee mile 0 to 1.3 (UPRR to Simpson Lane); TRLIA conducted a detailed investigation “Problem Identification Report, TRLIA Phase 4, Feather River and Yuba River Left Bank Levees, Reclamation District 784, Yuba County, California” of the entire length of the left bank Feather River and left bank Yuba River in 2005.

2005–Kleinfelder Engineering “Problem Identification Report (PIR), Yuba River Left Bank Levee SPRR to Simpson Lane (Approx PLM 0.9 to 2.2), Reclamation District 784” explored and evaluated levee and subsurface geotechnical conditions in accordance with FEMA guidelines for seepage and stability. The report concluded that the toe of the left bank levee within the low–flow channel appeared erodible, however, the levee will meet slope stability acceptance criteria. The report recommended: • a seepage cutoff barrier which completely penetrates underlying permeable strata; • additional subsurface exploration prior to final design due to the presence of coarse grain foundation soils that impact the penetration resistance and slurry retention to determine the method to most effectively complete the barrier; • relief wells in the limited area of the existing development.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-87 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Design for remediation of this levee reach was initiated January 2006, an invitation for bids was issued in June 2006, and construction scheduled for August through October 2006 as initial Phase 4 work of the TRLIA Construction Program.

2005–The Mead & Hunt “External Source Flood Protection Plan, City of Wheatland” evaluated flooding from external sources in the City of Wheatland and surrounding areas and presented mitigations for future potential flooding from the Bear River, the San Joaquin Drainage Ditch, and Dry Creek. The report indicated: • Improve Oakley Lane Cross Levee between north Bear River levee and south Dry Creek levee; • Improve existing Dry Creek south levee; • Improve existing San Joaquin Ditch west levee.

Alternative provided FEMA certifiable flood protection, minimized internal drainage at the lowest cost ($8.5 million) with the impact of high future development cost west of the cross levee, disruption to farming, right of way issues, and the exacerbation of potential flooding downstream of the cross levee.

2005–The Brookman–Edmonston Engineering/GEI “Bear River Setback Levee, Design Report in 4 Volumes” to replace the lower north levee of the Bear River identified the following: • applicable federal, state, and local codes and standards, • criteria for levee alignment and longitudinal profile, • criteria for levee cross–section, crown details, and camber, • criteria, methods, and results of analyses for foundation settlement, underseepage control, and embankment stability, • criteria for and identification of levee embankment materials borrow area, • criteria for and evaluation of wind–driven waves, wave runup, and erosion protection, • assumptions on abandonment and/or relocation of affected facilities and utilities, • basis and proposed features for hydraulic mitigation for RD 784, • proposed mitigation for fish stranding in the levee setback area, • required permits and agreements for project implementation, • construction plan summary. Specific project features included: • setback levee embankment, • setback area walnut orchard removal, • relief wells with drainage ditches, • two detention basins, • waterside spoil berm, • setback area contouring and floodplain swale, • existing levee degradation. The project (Phase III of the TRLIA construction program) was initiated in September 2005 to be completed October 2006.

2005–The Mead & Hunt “Yuba County Drainage Master Plan–Yuba County Airport, Reclamation District No. 784, Yuba County, California” evaluated the existing drainage at the airport as well as identification of both existing drainage issues and potential drainage issues associated with future development. The plan identified the Yuba County airport as a major source of runoff in Drainage Basin C of RD 784, and a major source of the flooding in downstream areas as Buttercup and Butterfly residential subdivision. The plan recommended the construction of detention ponds on the airport property: • Design alternative 4 plan consists of 1,650 feet of 48 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), 1,650 feet of 84 inch RCP, two detention ponds, and channel improvements to 6,800 feet of existing ditch by widening to 10 feet with 2H:1V side slopes.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-88 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2005–The Civil Solutions Incorporated “Wheatland General Plan Update–Internal Drainage Report, City of Wheatland, Yuba County, California” addressed the existing infrastructure (detention basin with a storage capacity of 109 af and pumping station with a pumping capacity of 41 cfs at elevation 68.2, west of Hwy 65 along Dry Creek). Channels in the Wheatland General Plan study area do not have adequate capacity to convey the existing runoff flows. Without mitigation, development will result in increased runoff flows and widening the existing floodplains, exacerbating the existing internal drainage problem.

The plan recommended the replacement of existing culverts to larger culverts at: • State Route 65 at South Grasshopper Slough; • Malone Ave at Grasshopper Slough; • Bishop Railroad at Grasshopper Slough; • Oakley Lane at Grasshopper Slough.

2006–The MBK Engineers “Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Phase IV Erosion Investigation evaluated the Feather River levee from the confluence with the Bear River to the confluence with the Yuba (Feather River river mile (RM) 12–27) and Yuba River from the confluence with the Feather River to the Goldfields (Yuba River RM 0–6) and concluded corrective action should be taken on the following erosion problems: • Site 1 (Approx RM 6.0), • Site 3 (RM 23.5), • Site 4 (RM 22.9), • Site 5 (RM 22.2), • Site 6 (RM 21.2), • Site 7 (RM 19.6); In addition, the following sites should be monitored but corrective action was not recommended: • Site 2 (RM 27), • Feather River RM 17, • Feather River RM 19.

2006–The Kleinfelder Engineering “Problem Identification Report (PIR) (Final), TRLIA Phase IV Feather and Yuba Rivers Left Bank Levees, RD 784, Yuba County” explored subsurface conditions and performed a feasibility level evaluation of the following levee sites and subsurface geotechnical conditions in accordance with FEMA requirements for seepage and stability: • Feather River left bank levee from approx project levee mile (PLM) 13.3 near Pump Station No. 2 to the Yuba River left bank levee at approx. PLM 26.1, • Yuba River left bank levee from PLM 0.0 at the Feather River left bank levee to Highway 70 at approx. PLM 0.3, • Yuba River left bank levee from Simpson Lane at approx. PLM 2.2 to the Yuba Gold Fields at approx. PLM 6.1.

The report recommended additional work to meet FEMA requirements for seepage and stability on: • Feather River PLM 13.3 to 14.1 slurry cutoff wall or raise the existing stability berm, perform test pumping on existing relief wells, • Feather River PLM 14.1 to 15.1 shallow cutoff wall or stability berm, • Feather River PLM 15.1 to 16.0 slurry cutoff wall or stability berm, and relief wells, • Feather River PLM 16.0 to 16.6 shallow slurry wall, raising stability berm, or construction of a seepage berm, • Feather River PLM 16.6 to 17.1 slurry cutoff wall, • Feather River PLM 20.3 to 23.6 slurry cutoff wall, raising stability berm, or seepage berm,

Section Two: Planning Process 2-89 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

• Feather River PLM 23.6 to 25.1 slurry cutoff wall, stability berm, or seepage berm, • Yuba River PLM 0.9 to 2.2 was previously evaluated as TRLIA Yuba River Phase. 2B. The report documented these conclusions for the following locations: • Feather River PLM 17.1 to 20.3 has been mitigated, • Feather River PLM 25.1 to 26.1 and Yuba River PLM 0.0 to 0.3 has been mitigated, • Yuba River PLM 0.3 to 0.9 has been mitigated, • Yuba River PLM 2.2 to 3.0 has been mitigated, • Yuba River PLM 3.0 to 4.0 has been mitigated, • Yuba River PLM 4.0 to 6.1 meets seepage requirements for a 100–year certification. Design of the Feather River levee remediation was initiated March 2006.

2006–The HDR “Bear River, WPIC, and Yuba River Levees Repair Project, Basis of Design” supported the plans and specification for the construction of the Upper Bear River, WPIC, and Yuba River levee repair project for levees reaches that have significant underseepage, stability, and freeboard issues. The report identified the following information: • Levee repair design criteria including applicable federal, state, and local codes and standards; • Description of existing conditions; • An alternatives analysis; • A preferred alternative; • A preferred alternative cost estimate.

2006–The Kleinfelder “Problem Identification Report (PIR), Bear River North Levee, Reclamation District 2103, Yuba, Placer, and Sutter Counties evaluated 5.5 miles of levee and concluded that stability and underseepage problems existed along several of the levee reaches. The report concluded that cutoff walls would be required to achieve 100–year and 200–year water surface levels.

This remediation work is scheduled for construction August 2006.

2006–The MHM Incorporated “Upper Lateral 15/Bingham Canal Study, Reclamation District No. 784, Yuba County, California” defined the drainage area upstream of Island Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 9) and the historic drainage problems due to lack of or undersized infrastructure: • Drainage Area 1, the community of west Linda has a drainage pond within a park with no outlet. There is a connection to the Bingham Canal system via an underground pipe to increase pond capacity. o Edgewater Detention Pond Improvements and Pump Station drains into the Linda Drain system with an overflow spillway into the Bingham Canal. To free capacity in the Bingham Canal the upper portion of the Canal to be diverted into the Edgewater Detention Pond. Edgewater Detention Pond to be excavated to elevation 46 (United States Geological Survey (USGS)). Pump Station No. 4 to be relocated to Edgewater Detention Pond, with a 72 inch storm drainage pipe to be extended from its current location to the detention pond. Pump Station No. 4 to consist of a 10 cfs pump with redundant pump, motor control system with SCADA, and backup generator. Detention Pond outfall line to be directed toward the Feather River near Pump Station No. 9 or the Linda Drain system at historic flows; o Culvert replacement at Bingham Canal under Feather River Blvd. with a 9 ft by 6 ft box culvert to pass the 100–year storm event. • Drainage Area 2, serviced by the Chestnut Pump Station, has experienced the development of the Wal–Mart Super Store and two motels without improvement to the pump station, detention pond system, or culverts under State Route 70 to handle the increased runoff. The recommended mitigation is to increase the detention pond

Section Two: Planning Process 2-90 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

capacity and culverts under State Route 70. The recent development did not pay any drainage fees to either the County or RD 784 with the result that no funds are available to make the necessary improvements. o Pump Station No. 5 mitigation to remove and reconstruct to allow a 15 cfs pump, backup generator, redundant pump, and motor control center with SCADA system; o Chestnut Detention Pond mitigation included a size increase to 10 acre–feet; o Hwy 65/70 Culvert originally sized to handle the runoff from the Peach Tree Mall and existing conditions on the east side of Feather River Blvd. need an upgrade to handle the recent construction of the Super Wal–Mart and other improvements on the east side of North Beale Rd. Existing culvert capacity to be increased with an additional culvert 30 inches by 200 ft. starting at the mall canal to flow directly into the Chestnut Detention Pond. • Drainage Area 3, is drained via County facilities to the Pump Station No. 4 (Avondale Pump Station) which lifts the water into the headworks of the Bingham Canal which flows west to Pump Station No. 9 (Island Road Pump Station) is compromised due to the age of the structure and the Bingham Canal’s limited capacity. The report recommended the utilization of the Edgewater Detention Pond eliminating Pump Station No. 4 (Avondale Pump Station). A new pump station would pump water back into the Bingham Canal after peak flows had passed and/or direct water into the Linda Drain freeing up capacity within the Bingham Canal system to achieve 100–year flow capacity with enlargement of the system. o Underground conveyance system from the Edgewater Detention Pond east along Hammonton–Smartville Rd to near Simpson Ln. to provide drainage to the community of East Linda. Another trunk line system will be required to run north along Avondale Ave to North Beale Rd. then east to Hammonton–Smartville Rd.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-91 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.1.9 Plan Review Process The plan review process occurred throughout the life of the project, providing stakeholders and the public the opportunity to participate in development of the plan on an ongoing basis.

Copies of the plan were presented at the Stakeholder meetings for review by those in attendance. This allowed stakeholders and other participants the opportunity to review the plan as it was being developed and provide comments throughout the planning process. These comments were then incorporated into the plan as it was being developed. Additionally, stakeholders regularly met with hazard mitigation staff to provide input into the plan regarding their areas of concern.

The public was also provided an opportunity to review the plan while still in draft form. Draft copies of the plan were made available at every community meeting. Attendees at these meetings were afforded an opportunity to review the drafts and provide comments. Attendees were also given the option of requesting a copy of the plan in hard copy or electronically to allow for more time to review the plan. Copies of the draft plans were provided to many residents throughout Yuba County, and their comments were received and incorporated into the plan as part of the ongoing documentation and writing process.

Public review and comment was also received during Board of Supervisor meetings when the Plan was listed as an agenda item. As with previous meetings, copies of the plan were available, and time was given to any member of the public that wished to provide comments and input. These meetings were held on • July 27, 2004 • December 19, 2006 • June 12, 2007 • July 10, 2007 • August/September 2007 • December 18, 2007

Section Two: Planning Process 2-92 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.2 Adoption by Yuba County Jurisdiction DMA 2000 Requirements – Prerequisites Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). FMA Requirement §78.5 (f): Documentation of formal plan adoption by the legal entity submitting the plan (e.g., Governor, Mayor, County Executive, etc.) Element A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included?

2.2.1 Documentation of Yuba County Jurisdictions’ adoption of the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) The County of Yuba formally adopted the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Jurisdictional Annexes, The Yuba County Water Agency Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Dobbins-Oregon House Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as its local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) on September 18, 2007. Resolution 2007-126, adopting the Yuba County Plan was passed by a 5-0 vote with 0 abstentions at the regular meeting of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. The meeting was publicly noticed and the public was given the opportunity to comment on the agenda item prior to adoption.

Section Two: Planning Process 2-93 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-1 Yuba County Board of Supervisors Agenda - September 18, 2007

Section Two: Planning Process 2-94 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-95 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-96 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-2 County of Yuba Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-97 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-98 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

2.2.2 Documentation of Participating Jurisdictions’ Adoption DMA 2000 Requirements – Prerequisites Multi-Jurisdiction Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted FMA Requirement §78.5 (f): Documentation of formal plan adoption by the legal entity submitting the plan (e.g., Governor, Mayor, County Executive) Element B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body adopted the plan? C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included for each participating jurisdiction?

Each participating jurisdiction adopted the Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and their respective annex as an official local hazard mitigation plan for their district. The following agencies adopted the Yuba County Plan, with their corresponding annexes: Table 2–6 Jurisdictional Adoption of the Yuba County Plan Jurisdiction Date Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District September 06, 2007 City of Marysville September 11, 2007 City of Wheatland September 11, 2007 Reclamation District 784 September 11, 2007 Linda Fire Protection District September 13, 2007 Browns Valley Irrigation District September 13, 2007 Camptonville Community Services District September 17, 2007 Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District September 17, 2007 County of Yuba September 18, 2007 Reclamation District 2103 September 20, 2007 Smartville Fire Protection District September 20, 2007 Yuba County Water Agency September 25, 2007 Marysville Joint Unified School District September 25, 2007 Wheatland Elementary School District September 27, 2007 Reclamation District 10 October 04, 2007 Foothill Fire Protection District October 08, 2007 Linda County Water District October 08, 2007 Camptonville Union Elementary School District October 10, 2007 Plumas Lake School District October 10, 2007 District 10-Hallwood Community Services District October 17, 2007 Marysville Levee Commission December 11, 2007 Yuba County Office of Education December 12, 2007 Peoria Cemetery District December 13, 2007 Reclamation District 817 December 14, 2007 River Highlands Community Services District December 17, 2007 Olivehurst Public Utilities District December 20, 2007 North Yuba Water District December 20, 2007 Yuba Community College District February 2008

Section Two: Planning Process 2-99 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-3 YCWA Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-100 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-4 City of Marysville Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-101 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-102 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-5 Marysville Levee Commission Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-103 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-104 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-6 City of Wheatland Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-105 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-7 Reclamation District 2103 Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-106 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-8 Reclamation District 817 Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-107 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-9 Camptonville Community Services District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-108 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-10 Camptonville Union Elementary School District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-109 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-11 District 10-Hallwood Community Services District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-110 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-12 Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-111 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-112 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-13 River Highlands Community Services District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-113 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-14 Olivehurst Public Utilities District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-114 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-115 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-116 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-15 Reclamation District 10 - Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-117 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-16 Reclamation District 784 Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-118 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-119 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-17 Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-120 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-18 Foothill Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-121 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-19 Linda Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-122 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-20 Smartville Fire Protection District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-123 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-21 Marysville Joint Unified School District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-124 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-22 Plumas Lake School District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-125 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-23 Wheatland Elementary School District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-126 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-24 Yuba County Office of Education Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-127 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-25 Browns Valley Irrigation District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-128 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-26 Linda County Water District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-129 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-27 North Yuba Water District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-130 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-28 Peoria Cemetery District Resolution of Adoption

Section Two: Planning Process 2-131 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-29 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions - GIS Meetings

Section Two: Planning Process 2-132 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-133 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-134 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-135 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-136 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-137 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-138 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-139 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-140 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-141 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-142 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-143 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-144 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-145 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-30 GIS Assistance to Jurisdictions - Map Distribution List

Section Two: Planning Process 2-146 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-147 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-148 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-149 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-150 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-151 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-152 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-31 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey

Section Two: Planning Process 2-153 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-32 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey for Schools

Section Two: Planning Process 2-154 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-155 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-33 Agency Fact and Information Sheet

Section Two: Planning Process 2-156 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-34 Hazard Survey #1

Section Two: Planning Process 2-157 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-158 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Section Two: Planning Process 2-159 Yuba County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ______

Document 2-35 Hazard Survey #2

Section Two: Planning Process 2-160