Butte County Flood Mitigation Plan

Butte County

January 2006

Prepared by:

BUTTE COUNTY

FLOOD MITIGATION PLA N

January 2006

Prepared by:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ix

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1

BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 Climate ...... 1-1 Physical Features...... 1-1 Population and Economy ...... 1-1 Watersheds ...... 1-1

GOALS OF THE FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ...... 1-3

BUTTE COUNTY WATERSHEDS OVERVIEW ...... 1-4 Big Chico Creek Watershed ...... 1-4 Butte Creek Watershed ...... 1-4 Cherokee Watershed ...... 1-4 Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed ...... 1-4 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed ...... 1-5 Little Chico Creek Watershed ...... 1-5 Pine Creek Watershed...... 1-5

EXISTING BUTTE COUNTY FLOOD REGULATIONS ...... 1-6

SECTION 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS ...... 2-1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 2-1

AGENCY COORDINATION ...... 2-2

LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 2-2

SECTION 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 3-1

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ...... 3-2

BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED ...... 3-4

CHEROKEE WATERSHED ...... 3-5

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED ...... 3-7

LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED ...... 3-9

ii Table of Contents January 2006 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ...... 3-10 PINE CREEK WATERSHED ...... 3-11

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: BRIDGES ...... 3-12

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LAND USE PLANNING ...... 3-13

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LOCAL DRAINAGE ...... 3-15

ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: IDENTIFYING ASSETS ...... 3-16 Critical Facilities ...... 3-16 Improvements Parcel Assets ...... 3-17

ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES ...... 3-48 Flood Insurance Premiums and Claims ...... 3-48 Repetitive Losses ...... 3-48 Damage Survey Reports ...... 3-51 Potential Losses Estimate ...... 3-51

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 3-52

SECTION 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 4-1

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: LINDO CHANNEL DIVERSION ...... 4-2

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SYCAMORE CREEK ...... 4-3

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH SPLIT ...... 4-4

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: CONFLUENCE OF BIG CHICO CREEK AND LINDO CHANNEL 4-5

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK ...... 4-6

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SACRAMENTO RIVER ...... 4-7

BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED: BUTTE CREEK LEVEES ...... 4-8

CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEROKEE CANAL ...... 4-9

CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEMICAL FACILITIES STORAGE IN THE FEMA SFHA ...... 4-10

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: NORTH FORK OF DRY CREEK ...... 4-11

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: DRY CREEK TRIBUTARIES CONFLUENCE ...... 4-12

iii Table of Contents January 2006 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: FEATHER RIVER ...... 4-13

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: CITY OF OROVILLE STORMWATER DRAINAGE ...... 4-14

FEATHE RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: WYMAN RAVINE ...... 4-15

LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED: CONCOW CREEK AND CIRBY CREEK ...... 4-16

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: VEGETATION IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK ...... 4-17

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DEAD HORSE SLOUGH ...... 4-18

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DRAINAGE IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK ...... 4-19

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: UNCERTIFIED LEVEE ...... 4-20

PINE CREEK WATERSHED: PINE CREEK AND SINGER CREEK ...... 4-21

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EVACUATION PLAN ...... 4-22 Flood Threat Recognition ...... 4-22 Flood Response ...... 4-32 Critical Facilities ...... 4-32 Shelters ...... 4-32 Evacuation Routes ...... 4-35 Re-Entry to Evacuated Area ...... 4-35 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation ...... 4-35

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ...... 4-36 Map Information ...... 4-36 Outreach Projects and Educational Programs...... 4-36 Real Estate Disclosure ...... 4-37 Library ...... 4-37 Technical Assistance ...... 4-37

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: LAND USE PLANNING ...... 4-38 Butte County and Incorporated Cities General Plan/Area Plan Update ...... 4-38 Building Elevation ...... 4-39

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: RETROFITTING ...... 4-40 Elevation ...... 4-40 Wet Floodproofing ...... 4-40 Relocation ...... 4-40 Dry Floodproofing ...... 4-41

iv Table of Contents January 2006 Levees and Floodwalls ...... 4-41 Demolition...... 4-41

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: BRIDGE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT ...... 4-42

MITIGATION RESOURCES ...... 4-43

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS ...... 4-45

SECTION 5.0 PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE ...... 5-1

IMPLEMENTING, MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE BUTTE COUNTY FMP ..... 5-1 Implementation through Existing Programs ...... 5-2 Continued Public Involvement ...... 5-2

SECTION 6.0 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 6-1

REFERENCES

ACRONYMS

GLOSSARY

v Table of Contents January 2006 TABLES

Table 2-1 Contributing Agencies and Organizations...... 2-4

Table 2-2 Public Participant Agencies ...... 2-5

Table 2-3 Technical Resources ...... 2-5

Table 2-4 Human Resources ...... 2-6

Table 3-1 Critical Facilities in the Big Chico Creek Watershed* ...... 3-18

Table 3-2 Critical Facilities in the Butte Creek Watershed* ...... 3-24

Table 3-3 Critical Facilities in the Cherokee Watershed* ...... 3-28

Table 3-4 Critical Facilities in the Feather River/ Lower Honcut Creek Watershed* ...... 3-30

Table 3-5 Critical Facilities in the Lake Oroville/ Upper Feather River Watershed* ...... 3-39

Table 3-6 Critical Facilities in the Little Chico Creek Watershed* ...... 3-42

Table 3-7 Critical Facilities in the Pine Creek Watershed ...... 3-47

Table 3-8 Number of Policies and Premiums Paid from July 2003 to July 2004 ...... 3-49

Table 3-9 Watershed Repetitive Loss Claims Paid From 1978 to the End of 2003 ...... 3-49

Table 3-10 Butte County Repetitive Losses ...... 3-50

Table 3-11 Parcel Values in the FEMA SFHA by Watershed and Land Use Type ...... 3-53

Table 3-12 Estimated Values of Structures and Their Contents in the FEMA 100-YEAR SFHA ...... 3-54

Table 3-13 Potential Flood Loss Estimation ...... 3-55

Table 3-14 Potential Flood Loss at Different Depths of Flooding FOR AREAS IN THE 100- YEAR FEMA SFHA ...... 3-56

Table 4-1 Butte County Precipitation and Flow Stations 2004 Index ...... 4-23

Table 4-2 Proposed Flood ALERT Network Stations ...... 4-30

Table 4-3 Butte County Shelters ...... 4-34

Table 4-4 Matrix of Agencies and Mitigation Activities ...... 4-44

Table 6-1 Federal and State Agency Websites ...... 6-3

vi Executive Summary January 2006 FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Watershed Acreage in Butte County ...... 1-2

Figure 3-1 Land Use Zone Percentages ...... 3-14

Figure 3-2 Percentages of Repetitive Loss Claims Within Each Watershed ...... 3-48

Figure 4-1 Flood ALERT Network Communication Chart ...... 4-31

Figure 5-1 Implementation, Monitor, Evaluate, And Update Committee Organization Chart ...... 5-3

MAPS

1 Butte County Topographic Base Map

2 Butte County Population Density

3 Butte County Watersheds

4 Butte County Watersheds and FEMA SFHAs

5 Private and Public Land Ownership

6 Butte County Land Use 1999 and 2005

7 Butte County Historically Flooded Roads and the FEMA Floodplains

8 Big Chico Creek Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA Floodplains

9 Butte Creek Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA Floodplains

10 Cherokee Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA SFHAs

11 Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA

Floodplains

12 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA

Floodplains

vii Executive Summary January 2006 MAPS (CONTINUED)

13 Little Chico Creek Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA Floodplains

14 Pine Creek Watershed Critical Facilities and the FEMA SFHAs

15 Butte County DSR, Repetitive Losses, NFIP Claims and the FEMA Floodplains

16 Butte County Stations

17 Butte County Shelters

D-1 Paradise and Magalia Reservoir Inundation

D-2 Oroville Dam Inundation

D-3 Black Butte Dam Inundation

D-4 Whiskeytown Dam Inundation

D-5 Shasta Dam Inundation

D-6 Wildland Fire History

D-7 Wildland Fire Threat

D-8 Earthquake Vulnerability

D-9 Butte County Earthquake Fault Lines and Epicenter Locations

D-10 Butte County Landslide Potential

D-11 Butte County Liquefaction Potential

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A BUTTE COUNTY CODES

APPENDIX B FEMA AUDIT

APPENDIX C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

APPENDIX D OTHER HAZARDS

viii Executive Summary January 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The preparation of the Butte County Flood Mitigation Plan (Butte County FMP) was facilitated by Butte County Office of Emergency Services (County OES). The overall purpose of the Butte County FMP is to provide guidance to agencies and the public responsible for and interested in protecting life, property, and livestock; involved in land use planning; responsible for administering the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and responsible for responding to flood emergencies within Butte County.

Butte County has proclaimed nine states of emergencies due to flooding since 1950 (OES, 1998) and residents have submitted over $3 million in flood insurance claims since 1978 (FEMA NFIP Statistics, 2004). In an effort to reduce the costs associated with flood hazard mitigation and flood insurance, the Butte County FMP identifies flood hazards within Butte County and proposes potential mitigation measures.

The Butte County FMP provides a forum through which various flood issues affecting each watershed can be addressed and potential solutions proposed. The Butte County FMP primarily addresses the flooding hazards within each watershed, identified by local residents, agencies, organizations, Butte County staff, and, when appropriate, the regulatory floodplain, as identified by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). The FEMA FIRMs do not necessarily reflect an accurate illustration of the flooding hazards within Butte County, and were developed exclusively for flood insurance purposes. For the purposes of the Butte County FMP, the watershed delineation set forth by the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation is used, which includes:

Big Chico Creek Watershed Butte Creek Watershed Cherokee Watershed Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed Little Chico Creek Watershed Pine Creek Watershed

Public involvement was an important component in developing the Butte Creek Watershed FMP. The Butte County FMP was developed with public participation and continued involvement from the Steering Committee, which was comprised of Butte County staff and members from the City of Chico, the City of Oroville, the Town of Paradise, the Town of Biggs, the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, the Cherokee Watershed Group, StreamMinders, the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, and the Butte County Resource Conservation District. The Steering Committee‟s main functions were to ensure the planning and public involvement process, provide data and information, and monitor the progress of the Butte County FMP. Public meetings and presentations were conducted to obtain input from stakeholders on flood-related issues and concerns and public meeting announcements were publicized through local newspapers throughout Butte County. The draft Butte Creek Watershed FMP was made accessible for public input through the BCWC‟s Website and was widely distributed in hard copy and on CD. The Butte County FMP addresses the flooding hazards in Butte County by providing:

ix Executive Summary January 2006

A risk assessment component, which characterizes the flooding hazard within each watershed.

A vulnerability assessment to flooding in each watershed, which includes an inventory of critical facilities and monetary potential loss estimates for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural structures in the FEMA-designated SFHA of each watershed.

Proposed flood hazard mitigation measures to mitigate the source of flooding that cause repetitive losses and flood insurance claims within each watershed and Butte County as a whole.

A Butte County FMP maintenance procedure, which provides a strategy to implement, monitor, evaluate, and update the Butte County FMP, continue public involvement, and implement mitigation measures through existing programs.

The Butte County FMP adheres to the requirements of the FEMA Community Rating System Program (CRS), which provides credit points to eligible communities to receive flood insurance discounts and also qualifies Butte County for FEMA flood mitigation project funding. The Butte County FMP is formatted to integrate into a Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to make Butte County eligible for hazard mitigation planning and project funding.

x Executive Summary January 2006

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

Butte County, located in northern California, was one of the original California counties, founded on February 18, 1850. Its name is derived from the Marysville or Sutter Buttes, which lay within the boundaries of the county.

Climate

Butte County has a Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Precipitation is normally in the form of rain, with snow in the higher elevations, and ranges from approximately 20 to 80 inches per year.

Physical Features

Butte County encompasses just over one million acres of land and is divided almost in half by two topographical features: the foothills and mountainous region of the northern Sierra Nevada and the Southern Cascade Mountains in the northeast and the valley section in the southwest. According to the Butte County General Plan, elevations range from over 7,000 feet in the mountainous region to 60 feet in the valley section (Map 1).

Population and Economy

Butte County currently has a population of just over Cities Population 200,000 and has increased at a rate of 3 percent per Chico 64,600 year since 1970 (Butte County General Plan, 2000). Paradise 26,550 Approximately 54 percent of Butte County‟s Oroville 13,100 population resides in the cities of Chico, Paradise, Gridley 5,550 Oroville, Gridley, and Biggs and 45 percent reside in Biggs 1,810 Unincorporated 94,200 the unincorporated areas of the County (Map 2). Total 205,810 Agriculture, primarily field crops, such as rice, fruit, Source: California Department of Finance, 2001. and nuts, is Butte County‟s largest industry (Butte County General Plan, 2000).

Watersheds

For the purposes of the Butte County Flood Mitigation Plan (FMP), the watershed delineation of seven watersheds is used, as set forth by the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation (Map 3):

1-1 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

Big Chico Creek Watershed Butte Creek Watershed Cherokee Watershed Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed Little Chico Creek Watershed Pine Creek Watershed

The Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River has the largest acreage in Butte County; and Pine Creek watershed comprises the smallest. Figure 1-1 presents the percent acreage of each watershed.

FIGURE 1-1 WATERSHED ACREAGE IN BUTTE COUNTY

Watershed Acreage in Butte County

2% Pine Creek 3% Big Chico Creek 9% 35% Little Chico Creek 16% Butte Creek

Cherokee 18% 17% Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek

Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River

1-2 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

GOALS OF THE FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN

Butte County has proclaimed nine states of emergencies due to flooding since 1950 (OES, 1998). Floods of record occurred in December 1937, December 1955, December 1964, February 1986, January 1995, and January 1997, ranging between 20-year to more than a 100-year storms, and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage.

The Butte County FMP was developed to establish strategies to reduce flood hazards and repetitive losses within the watersheds of the County. Following are the goals to be accomplished by this FMP:

Provide a valuable planning document for use, continual update, and implementation through County programs to reduce threats to life and property and minimize repetitive losses. Assemble and assess flooding hazard information within the County‟s watersheds. The sources of this information include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), available damage survey reports for one time and repetitive losses, local residents, agencies, organizations, and County staff. Underline the understanding that the FEMA FIRMs do not comprehensively reflect all the flooding hazards within the County, and were mainly developed for flood insurance purposes and to guide the elevations of new development within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). Qualify the County to benefit from mitigation projects funding under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program once this FMP is approved by FEMA. Utilize the information and analyses in this FMP to fulfill the flood element requirements of the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). Qualify the County to participate in the FEMA‟s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) program and allow the County‟s residents to be eligible for flood insurance premium reductions. Position the County for receiving funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) for projects designed to reduce local flood damage. The USACOE requires preparing a flood mitigation plan within one year of signing a project cooperation agreement and to implement the floodplain management plan no later than one year after the project is constructed. A floodplain management plan that is approved in the FEMA CRS program is considered sufficient for being considered for funding by the USACOE (USACOE, 1997). Emphasize that Butte County, an NFIP community, will continue to participate in the NFIP and take the necessary steps to join the CRS program.

1-3 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

BUTTE COUNTY WATERSHEDS OVERVIEW

Big Chico Creek Watershed

Big Chico Creek originates from a series of springs that flow off of the Sierra mountains to form a main channel at Butte Meadows. Big Chico Creek flows a distance of 45 miles from its origin, crossing portions of Butte and Tehama counties, to its confluence with the Sacramento River. The Big Chico Creek watershed also encompasses three smaller drainages to the north: Sycamore, Mud, and Rock Creeks. Closest to Big Chico Creek is Sycamore Creek, which originates at approximately 1,600 feet and is a tributary to Mud Creek. Mud and Rock Creek, further north, originate between 3,600-3,800 feet. Mud Creek drains off of Cohasset Ridge to the south, flowing 26 miles to its confluence with Big Chico Creek. Rock Creek drains the north side of Cohasset Ridge and flows 28.5 miles before it joins Mud Creek (Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, 2004).

Butte Creek Watershed

Butte Creek originates in the Lassen National Forest at over 7,000 feet. Butte Creek travels through canyons through the northwestern region of Butte County and through the valley, entering the floor near Chico. The northern Sierra and southern Cascade mountain ranges divide the valley section from the mountainous section of the Butte Creek watershed in Butte County. Once Butte Creek enters the valley section of the watershed near Chico, it travels approximately 45 miles before it enters the Sacramento River (Butte Creek Existing Conditions Report, 2000). Levees were constructed along Butte Creek in the 1950‟s by the USACOE. These levees extend for over 14 miles along the Butte Creek channel.

Cherokee Watershed

Cherokee Canal, which was originally constructed to protect agricultural land from mining debris, now serves as an irrigation drainage canal. Dry Creek becomes Cherokee Canal northeast of Richvale, and Gold Run and Cottonwood Creek join the Cherokee Canal upstream of the Richvale Road crossing. Cherokee Canal eventually enters Butte Creek near the southwestern corner of Butte County, south of Highway 162.

Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed

After the Feather River flows through the Oroville Dam it enters the town of Oroville, and continues south, joining with the Yuba River at Marysville and Yuba City, and eventually the Sacramento River. The Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek watershed also contains a Dry Creek, unrelated to the Dry Creek in the Cherokee Watershed. This Dry Creek is located within the City of Oroville and contains three tributaries that join together and the main channel ends within the City of Oroville. Wyman Ravine, which originates south of the City of Oroville, drains the southern portion of the watershed and flows into Honcut Creek. The north, middle, and south Honcut

1-4 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

creeks drain both the Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River watershed and the Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek watershed. The south fork of Honcut Creek forms the southern border of Butte County.

Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed

The North Fork of the Feather River originates in northern California in the Lassen Volcanic National Park. It flows south into Lake Oroville, where it joins the south and middle forks of the Feather River. Oroville Dam, constructed in 1968, houses six power generation units and four additional units in the Thermalito Power Plant. The Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay are holding reservoirs, located downstream of Lake Oroville, that allow water released from Lake Oroville to generate power during established peak periods and to be pumped back into the lake during off- peak periods. Other smaller creeks in the watershed flow into Lake Oroville, including Cirby and Concow creeks, which initially join to flow into the Concow Reservoir upstream of Lake Oroville.

Little Chico Creek Watershed

Little Chico Creek originates on the northwestern boundary of the Butte Creek watershed and flows through canyons before reaching the City of Chico. Before Little Chico Creek enters the City of Chico urban area, it passes a diversion structure constructed in the 1960‟s, which is intended to divert high flow from Little Chico Creek into Butte Creek. Little Chico Creek flows through the City of Chico before entering the valley, at which point it disperses through numerous waterways within the region (Butte Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report, 2000).

Pine Creek Watershed

The Pine Creek watershed is located in the northeastern section of Butte County. Pine Creek, as well as Rock Creek and Keefer Slough (which are located in the Big Chico Creek watershed), drain part of the northern region of the Big Chico Creek watershed and eventually drain into the Sacramento River.

1-5 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

EXISTING BUTTE COUNTY FLOOD REGULATIONS

Butte County has no authority for the flood control systems within its boundaries. Channel maintenance conducted for the flood control system is funded by the Butte County general fund, projects operated by DWR, and work conducted by private landowners (OES, 1996). In March 1996, the Butte County Office of Emergency Services (OES) drafted a Butte County Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, as required under Section 406 of Butte County Public Law. The 1996 Butte County Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan briefly identifies the flood hazards in Butte County and provides goals, policies, and implementation strategies to address these flood hazards. The Butte County FMP provides a more current and comprehensive evaluation of the flooding hazards within the Butte County watersheds, as well as elements recommended by FEMA for a Flood Mitigation Plan.

Butte County adopted FEMA‟s Flood Insurance Study (FIS), and the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) (Map 4), which are used to delineate the “minimum area of applicability.” FEMA conducts the FIS to examine, evaluate, and determine the flood hazards and, if appropriate, the corresponding water surface elevations. Based upon the results of the FIS, FEMA develops a map with the 100- and 500-year SFHAs, the BFEs, and risk premium zones delineated. These maps are developed to assist insurance agents in issuing accurate flood insurance policies to homeowners in communities that participate in FEMA‟s NFIP (FEMA, 2005).

The Butte County Department of Development Services enforces Flood Ordinance No. 3598, an amendment adopted on April 11, 2000, to Article IV, “Flood Hazard Prevention” in Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code (Chapter 8 and Article IV in Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code is provided in Appendix A). As of May 2005, the Director of Butte County Public Works is appointed as the “Floodplain Administrator.” According to Butte County‟s Flood Ordinance, any new construction, substantial improvements, or other developments in the FEMA-designated flood hazard areas (Map 4) in Butte County must be permitted, elevation certificates obtained, and submitted for review to the Butte County Department of Development Services for compliance with the NFIP. All structures must be built to at least one foot above the BFE. Flood ordinances within the incorporated cities of Butte County may equal or exceed the Butte County requirements.

In October 2003, FEMA conducted a routine audit in Butte County, which consisted of a random sampling of structures to confirm compliance with the Floodplain Management Ordinance and the NFIP. The 2003 audit was limited to structures within the Oroville and Palermo areas within the FEMA-designated SFHA and was found to be compliant with NFIP and the Butte County Floodplain Management Ordinance. The next FEMA audit for the County is scheduled in five years (refer to Appendix B for a copy of the October 2003 FEMA audit). According to the Butte County Department of Public Works, this was the first audit on record that was conducted by FEMA.

1-6 Section 1.0 Introduction January 2006

SECTION 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement and public outreach are important aspects in hazard mitigation planning and provide an opportunity to benefit from local knowledge of these hazards and proposed mitigation, as well as an avenue to improve coordination and communication between public agencies and the community. The Butte County FMP‟s Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures are based upon the public meetings and field trips with the residents of each respective watershed. The Steering Committee included representatives from the following:

Butte County staff and members City of Chico City of Oroville Town of Paradise Town of Biggs Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Cherokee Watershed Group StreamMinders Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance Butte County Resource Conservation District Wood Rodgers, Inc.

The Steering Committee had the following responsibilities:

Ensuring an effective planning process with an emphasis on public involvement. Ensuring the application of a meaningful public involvement process Responsibility, along with the consultant, for publishing newsletters and scheduling, publicizing, and organizing several public meetings.

The Steering Committee had five meetings on the following dates:

January 21, 2005 February 18, 2005 March 7, 2005 April 8, 2005 May 13, 2005

Two public meetings were held on the following dates:

March 2, 2005 June 8, 2005

2-1 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

Meeting agendas, attendance sheets, and public involvement fliers, invitations, and contacts are presented as Appendix C. Below is a summary of the planning process and public involvement of the Butte County FMP:

Conducted monthly Steering Committee meetings to discuss progress, review technical analysis material, and ensure the public involvement process was on track through public meetings.

Organized public meetings to discuss the Butte County FMP development, goals, and progress, and to receive input from stakeholders. Meetings were held on:

March 2, 2005, 5:30 p.m. at the Butte County Board of Supervisors Chamber Room in Oroville, California.

June 8, 2005, 5:30 p.m. at the Butte County Board of Supervisors Chamber Room in Oroville, California.

The public meetings were publicized through the Chico Enterprise Record, the Chico News and Review, the Oroville Mercury Register, the Paradise Post, and the Gridley Herald. Also, interested persons received invitations by e-mail (list provided in Appendix C).

Feedback received from the public was documented and used in identifying current flooding issues in the area, and identifying and prioritizing mitigation measures. The draft Butte County FMP was shared with the public through the Butte County Website with hard copies and CDs available at the Butte County Office of Emergency Services.

AGENCY COORDINATION

The agencies and organizations contacted for information or that provided information developed by their organization during the development of the Butte County FMP are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 lists those agencies or organizations whose representatives participated in one or more public meetings.

LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

Different programs and capabilities within Butte County were assessed and utilized as resources in the development of the Butte County FMP. These resources fall within three primary categories:

Technical resources Human resources Financial resources

Technical Resources: The agencies and respective technical resources used for the Butte County FMP development is listed Table 2-3.

2-2 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

Human Resources: Agencies and organizations that provide services relevant to floodplain management, flood mitigation, and emergency response are included in Table 2-4.

Financial Resources: Current budgetary constraints have limited the availability of funding for various floodplain management programs within Butte County. However, the Butte County FMP and a Butte County LHMP, which is anticipated to be developed within the near future, establishes eligibility for funding under several programs, such as FEMA‟s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Public Assistance (PA) Program, the California Resources Agency‟s Urban Streams Restoration Program, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. Presented below is a brief description of each program.

PDM Program – Authorized by DMA 2000, can provide funding to states, public agencies, communities, and tribes for cost-effective hazard mitigation planning activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program and reduce injuries, loss of life, and property.

FMA Program – Provides funding to assist states and communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other insurable structures. The three types of grants available through the FMA Program are planning, project, and technical assistance grants. Only communities that participate in the NFIP can apply for project and technical assistance grants. Planning grants are available to states and communities that prepare flood mitigation plans.

HMG Program – Provides grants to state, local, and tribal governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration (up to 15 percent of the FEMA disaster funds they receive is for hazard mitigation planning and projects).

PA Program – Provides funding, following a disaster declaration, for repairing, restoring, or replacing damaged facilities belonging to governments and to private nonprofit entities, and for other associated expenses, including emergency protective measures and debris removal. The program also funds mitigation measures related to the repair of damaged public facilities.

Urban Streams Restoration Program – Supports activities that minimize property damage caused by flooding and bank erosion, restore the natural value of streams, and promote community stewardship. This program funds projects that have flood management or erosion control as a primary objective and maintain or improve the environmental characteristics of a stream or restore a stream to function naturally.

NRCS EWP Program – Assists sponsors and individuals in implementing emergency measures to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. Activities include providing financial and technical assistance to remove debris from streams, protecting destabilized stream banks, establishing cover on critically eroding lands, implementing conservation practices, and purchasing floodplain easements. The program is designed for recovery measures and it is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared for an area to be eligible for assistance.

2-3 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

TABLE 2-1 CONTRIBUTING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Agency/Organization American Red Cross Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Butte County Department of Public Works Butte County Development Services Butte County Fire Safe Council Butte County Office of Emergency Services Butte County Water and Resource Conservation District Butte County Sheriff Department Butte Environmental Council California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Forestry California Department of Water Resources California Governor‟s Office of Emergency Services California State University at Chico Center for Natural Lands Management City of Chico Department of Public Works City of Chico Fire Department City of Oroville Cherokee Watershed Alliance Ducks Unlimited Federal Emergency Management Agency Friends of Butte Creek Friends of the River National Weather Service Salvation Army The Nature Conservancy Town of Biggs Town of Paradise U.S. Geological Survey U.C. Davis California Rivers Assessment US Army Corps of Engineers Western Canal Water District

2-4 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

TABLE 2-2 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT AGENCIES Agency Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance Butte County Department of Public Works Butte County Office of Emergency Services Butte County Resource Conservation District Butte County Water Commission Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy City of Oroville Cherokee Watershed Alliance Farm Bureau Western Canal Water District

TABLE 2-3 TECHNICAL RESOURCES Agency Resources Butte County Department of Development Services General Plan, FEMA audit, elevation data. Butte County Department of Public Works Road and infrastructure information, road closure information, planning studies, storm water management plan, hydraulic studies, and Butte County municipal codes. Butte County Department of Water Resources Maintenance information for levees and channels, land use data, groundwater and surface water system data. Butte County Office of Emergency Services GIS data, disaster assistance and recovery information, dam failure analyses, Emergency Operations Plan, and hazard analyses. Butte County Sheriff Information for emergency response and management. California Data Exchange Center, National Weather Current and historic precipitation, stream flow, stage, Service, United States Geological Survey, and the reservoir storage, and weather station data. California Irrigation Management Information System California Department of Forestry and Fire – Butte Geographic Information System (GIS) data, Unit emergency management response plans. California State University at Chico Mapping and GIS data. City of Chico Community Development City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment. Department Planning Division City of Chico Department of Public Works City of Chico Storm Drainage Master plan. City of Chico Fire Department Information about emergency response. City of Oroville Storm Drainage Master Plan, detention basin analyses and maps, Dry Creek aerial maps, North Area Flood Study Salvation Army and Red Cross Information about the facilities and staff available for emergency response.

2-5 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

TABLE 2-4 HUMAN RESOURCES Agency/Organization American Red Cross Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance Butte County Department of Development Services Butte County Department of Planning Butte County Department of Public Works Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation Butte County Geographical Information System (GIS) Division, Butte County Office of Emergency Services Butte County Sheriff‟s Office Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Butte Environmental Council California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Water Resources California Rivers Assessment California State Office of Emergency Services California State University at Chico California Waterfowl Association Cherokee Watershed Alliance City of Oroville, Department of Development Services Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Federal Emergency Management Agency Little Chico Creek Watershed Group National Weather Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Paradise Irrigation District Salvation Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Western Canal Water District

2-6 Section 2.0 Planning Process January 2006

SECTION 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment requires reviewing existing data; analyzing input received from the public and several federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the Steering Committee members. This information is compiled, evaluated, and utilized to present the numbers and types of structures that may be threatened by potential flood hazards, estimate potential economic losses, and evaluate land use trends. This section includes a general discussion of the flooding hazards within each watershed of Butte County.

From 1950 through 1997, Butte County has had several California proclaimed state of emergencies including nine floods, two wildland fires, two droughts, and five major storms (OES, 1998). This section includes detailed descriptions of the primary flooding hazards. Factors such as wildland fire and seismic activity may significantly affect flooding in Butte County. These and other hazards, such as liquefaction, subsidence, seiches, and landslides were assessed and are included in Appendix D.

Visits to each watershed by Steering Committee members, watershed group coordinators, interested members of the public, Butte County OES, the Butte County Department of Public Works, and Wood Rodgers, Inc. staff took place in April 2005 to determine and confirm the flood hazards, identify repetitive loss areas and their source, and develop potential mitigation measures within the Butte County watersheds. Factors such as excessive vegetation, sedimentation, inadequate storm drainage, and lack of levee and channel maintenance has become the cause of the current flooding issues and repetitive loss damage within Butte County and, unless addressed, will only increase the existing flooding hazards. The potential monetary losses associated with flooding and past damages suffered by landowners and public works are quite substantial, which will be discussed later in this section under Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Losses. The following discussion outlines the primary flooding hazards within each watershed.

3-1 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED

Flooding hazards within the Big Chico Creek watershed is attributed to potential high flows from Lindo Channel, Sycamore Creek, Rock Creek, Keefer Slough, and Big Chico Creek. The flooding hazards in the Big Chico Creek Watershed are summarized below:

Lindo Channel Diversion: At the Lindo Channel diversion, located at Five-Mile Park (BFE = 260 ft, FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998) levee erosion, lack of freeboard, and the accumulation of large, woody debris has historically resulted in flooding in the area during high flow events.

Sycamore Creek: At the Sycamore Creek diversion near Marigold Avenue (BFE = 208 ft, FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998), the channel and its banks show signs of severe erosion which provides the sediment source for deposition in the downstream reaches that have milder slopes and slower velocities, such as the Cohasset Road Bridge. In addition to sediment deposits, large woody debris plugs the bridge and the levees in this area have Evidence of Channel Erosion in South Sycamore Creek been overtopped during high flow events.

Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Split: Increased accumulation at one side of the fork would send the entire upstream flow down the open side in a high flow event, potentially causing significant damages to areas adjacent to the channel carrying the majority of the flow. Increasing development upstream without adequate storm water storage could potentially exacerbate the vulnerability to flooding hazards at this and downstream areas. Gravel lens west of Garner Land and south of Rock Creek contributes to sheet flow (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998). Inadequate sizing, design, and installation of flood control measures (i.e. flap gates, detention basins) have caused localized flooding in the past.

Gravel Deposits at the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Split

3-2 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

Confluence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel: At the confluence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel(Zone A SHHA, no BFE designated), a private levee near Meridian Road and Grape Way broke during a recent high flow event, leaving the residents vulnerable to flooding.

Levee break near the confluence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel

Rock Creek: The lower reaches of Rock Creek periodically inundate the agricultural areas and leave the Town of Nord vulnerable to flooding (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998).

Sacramento River: The Sacramento River has cut away approximately 65 feet of bank along the stretch of River Road between West Sacramento Avenue and Big Chico Creek. River Road is only approximately four feet away from the Sacramento River(Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998). The Butte County Department of Public Works has placed a temporary concrete barrier along the roadway; however a more permanent solution is necessary to protect the people and the road.

Erosion along River Road

3-3 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED

The regulatory floodplain delineated in the FEMA FIRMs shows significant areas of the watershed in the 100-year SFHA. This is due to the theoretical failing or overtopping of the levees on both sides of Butte Creek because the levees are not certified. The flooding hazards within the Butte Creek Watershed are discussed in more detail in the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy‟s Butte Creek Watershed Floodplain Management Plan. The primary flooding hazards are summarized below:

Butte Creek Levees: According to the FEMA FIS and FIRMs, the water surface elevations under a 100-year and 500-year storm event would encroach on the levee freeboard and overtop part of the levees along Butte Creek. The BFE ranges between approximately 104 ft to 230 ft as indicated on the FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998 and April 20, 2000. The Butte Creek levees were constructed in the 1950‟s and the condition of the levees at this time, with respect to structural integrity or seepage, is not known. Butte Creek contained a flow greater than the 100-year event, as published in the FEMA FIS, in 1997, confirming that the floodplain provided in the FEMA FIRMs from Butte Creek is largely due to theoretical levee failure. This method of floodplain determination near levees is adopted by FEMA for levees that are not certified.

3-4 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

CHEROKEE WATERSHED

The primary flooding hazards within the Cherokee Watershed is caused by sedimentation and structures located within the FEMA SFHA.

Cherokee Canal: According to a 1970 report by DWR entitled, “Debris Deposition in the Cherokee Canal Flood Control Project,” Cherokee Canal experiences flooding due to heavy rains and valley flooding. After several historical attempts to rectify the sediment and debris loading of the channel and in response to the Sacramento River Major and Minor Tributaries Flood Control Act of 1944, the USACOE developed the “Review of Interim Flood Control Survey Report on Sacramento River and Tributaries, Cherokee Canal and Butte Creek, 15 June 1948.” The report recommended building a levee and channel flood control project and the present Cherokee Canal was constructed in 1960 based upon the recommendations in the report.

According to a recent study of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment yield/transport in the Dry Creek and Cherokee Canal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003), Dry Creek contributes the most sediment to Cherokee Canal. According to the report, it is estimated that 103,000 tons of sediment would be delivered to Cherokee Canal in a 100-year event. An example of the affects of sedimentation and debris on constricting the channel was seen clearly at the bridge crossing at Nelson-Shippee Road (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998) during an April 2005 field visit.

Cherokee Canal at Nelson-Shippee Road

3-5 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

Chemical Facilities Storage in the FEMA SFHA: Structures that store fertilizers and chemicals for the Butte County Rice Growers Association (BCRGA) are located in the FEMA-designated SFHA along Cherokee Canal (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rice storage warehouses are also located in the Cherokee Canal FEMA designated 100-year SFHA. The consequences of flooding in these storage warehouses would be extensive, as floodwater would mix with the chemicals stored in these facilities and potentially release chemicals into surface water, groundwater, and surrounding areas. Public health would also be a major concern.

BCRGA Chemical Warehouse in the FEMA- Designated Cherokee Canal 100-Year SFHA

USDA Rice Storage Facilities in the FEMA- Designated Cherokee Canal 100-Year SFHA

3-6 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED

Flooding in the Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek watershed has been attributed North Fork of to several sources: Dry Creek Feather River Dry Creek and its tributaries, stormwater drainage in the City of Middle Fork Oroville, the Feather River, of Dry Creek and Wyman Ravine. The three major forks of Dry

Creek originate and join South Fork of within the City of Oroville Dry Creek urban area. The flood hazards witnessed in this watershed include:

Dry Creek: During high flow events, the northernmost fork of Dry Creek (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998) exceeds channel capacity and inundates the Oroville urban area. There are seven detention basins on the three forks. One of these detention basins is the Argonaut basin, located on the middle fork of Dry Creek, which fills up before all others in the system. Channel erosion in the tributaries of Dry Creek was evident through the developed areas in the City of Oroville.

North Fork of Dry Creek

Argonaut Detention Basin at the Middle Fork of Dry Creek

3-7 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

Dry Creek Tributaries Confluence: Heavy development and excessive erosion near the confluence of the three main forks of Dry Creek (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998), in the City of Oroville urban area, exposes nearby residents to potential flooding.

City of Oroville Stormwater Drainage: The limited capacity of the urban stormwater drainage pipes in the downtown area restrict the volume of water that can be conveyed to the Feather River, leading to local flooding at different locations in the City.

Feather River: During high flows in the Feather River water rises through the gravel deposits in the industrial area near the Feather River Boulevard on the west side of the City of Oroville(Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998). The severity of this problem is proportional to the water surface elevation in the Feather River, which is contained by levees above the adjacent ground, through the industrial area. A boil in the Feather River concrete levee near 4th Street and Safford Street creates a leak during high flow events. This levee is maintained and operated by the City of Oroville.

Wyman Ravine: Wyman Ravine, which is located south of the City of Oroville and runs northeast to southwest in that reach, floods nearby houses and Railroad Avenue in the lower reach (BFE = 149 ft, FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998).

3-8 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED

Although there are no FEMA repetitive loss properties nor FEMA-designated SFHAs within the Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River watershed, flooding hazards occur primarily upstream of the Concow Reservoir at several road crossings at Concow Creek and at Cirby Creek.

Concow Creek: The region near the Concow Reservoir, north of Lake Oroville, has experienced periodic inundation and several crossings are severely deteriorated. In particular, the Hoffman Road Bridge at Concow Creek (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998) Concow has limited capacity and is inundated during Reservoir annual storms. The bridge has severely deteriorated and cannot handle heavy traffic Crossings near the Concow Reservoir that have that would be expected during rescue and Flooded Several Occasions evacuation. The culverts underneath the bridge are severely damaged and large sections of concrete have fallen into the creek and show signs of continuing erosion. The Hoffman Road Bridge serves as the only route out of the area for the close to thirty residents who live on the right bank of Concow Creek.

Cirby Creek: The Camelot Subdivision, just upstream of the Hoffman Road Bridge, contains many privately owned bridges, such as the Cirby Creek Road crossing at Cirby Creek (Zone A SFHA, no BFE designated. FEMA FIRM dated June 8, 1998), that have limited capacity to convey heavy flows and suffer debris blockage in high flow events. Many of the bridges cannot handle the heavy traffic that would be needed for rescue and evacuation purposes.

Cirby Creek Road Bridge Deterioration at Hoffman Road Crossing Crossing at Cirby Creek at Concow Creek

3-9 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED

Flooding in Little Chico Creek has largely affected residents within the City of Chico urban area; however during high flow events the lower section of the watershed has experienced substantial damage. Flooding hazards are primarily excessive vegetation in the Little Chico Creek channel, flooding from Dead Horse Slough, flooding in the lower reaches of Little Chico Creek, and the levees along the Little Chico Creek-Butte Creek Diversion channel.

Vegetation in Little Chico Creek: Excessive invasive vegetation has reduced the channel capacity and accumulating storm drainage from Dead Horse Slough and the Chico urban area has reduced the capacity of the channel. Recent hydraulic analysis of the Little Chico Creek channel that was done as part of the Butte Creek Watershed Floodplain Management Plan, showed that the current channel capacity of Little Chico Creek is approximately 1,800 cfs, compared to the estimated 2,350 cfs used to map the SFHA in the FEMA FIS. Due to the limited channel capacity of Little Chico Creek, the 100-year SFHA along the Chico urban area, as determined by FEMA in the early 1990‟s, would actually be larger if remapped today.

Dead Horse Slough: The Dead Horse Slough crossing at El Monte Avenue experiences periodic inundation and nearby structures have inundated as recently as 1997. In the lower reaches of Little Chico Creek, the Little Chico Creek crossing at Alberton Avenue and at Taffee Avenue has experienced levee overtopping, sheet flow flooding, and levee seepage.

Drainage in Little Chico Creek: Inadequate Storm Drainage System in the City of Chico results in excessive drainage and pollution into Little Chico Creek.

Uncertified Levee: The levees along the Little Chico Creek-Butte Creek Diversion channel were constructed in 1957. The condition of the levees and its foundation are not known and are not certified by the USACOE, thus the floodplain shown on the FEMA FIRM reflects an inadequate levee in relation to the out-of-bank flooding that can occur from Butte Creek upstream.

3-10 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

PINE CREEK WATERSHED

As shown on Map 1, Pine Creek is the smallest watershed in Butte County. Additionally, the Pine Creek Watershed has a very low population density, as shown on Map 2. Flooding in the Pine Creek watershed has been attributed to limited channel capacities due to excessive vegetation and sediment deposits, which occur in both Pine Creek and its main tributary, Singer Creek.

3-11 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: BRIDGES

Bridge damage and collapse due to high velocity flow and excess debris pose a risk to life and can cause damage to property and structures. According to Flood Damage Survey Reports (DSR) conducted by Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) and Butte County for FEMA, the flood event in 1997 caused:

Embankment failure to the Oroville-Chico Highway, 1.1 miles east of Midway Road. The eroded material was replaced with rock fill to the original profile, resulting in $21,000 in repairs.

The Butte Creek Bridge on Nelson Road, eight miles west of Highway 99, had extensive damage to the support columns and embankment, resulting in $68,000 in repairs.

Erosion of the piers and the bank on the north side of the Honey Run Covered Bridge had to be repaired to its original condition, costing $16,000.

Damage to the Butte Creek Bridge at Humboldt road due to excessive rock, trees, and debris carried by floodwaters resulted in over $25,000 in repairs.

The bridge at Humbert Road and Colby Creek sustained damage to the bridge abutment and guardrail and cost over $12,000 in repairs.

The Sycamore Valley Road junction with Cohasset Road at Cohasset Bridge sustained damages behind the bridge wingwall, where floodwaters overtopped the roadway, washing out behind the bridge wingwall and cost over $6,000 in repairs.

The Meridian Road Bridge was overtopped causing pavement deterioration and washout of the riprap, resulting in a portion of a $7,000 repair.

The Pine Creek Bridge on Nord Gianella Road sustained debris damage resulting in almost $6,000 in repairs.

The Skyway Bridge at Butte Creek sustained damages that cost almost $4,000 in repairs.

3-12 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LAND USE PLANNING

Flooding potential and hazard changes as more development takes place in any watershed. Increased encroachment on natural drainages and floodplains, and increased impervious surfaces, could have a cumulative affect to exacerbate flooding and overwhelm existing flood control facilities.

Butte County‟s boundaries became fixed in 1856. Recent population growth continues to increase and was at approximately 11.6 percent from 1990 to 2000, compared 13.6 percent for California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). According to the Butte County General Plan, migration from California‟s metropolitan areas is expected to continue and would represent the largest part of the County population growth in coming years. The City of Chico anticipates that growth in the urban area would move toward the northeast and southeast, as infill opportunities become limited and as Greenline policies restrict growth to the west (Butte County Master Environmental Assessment, 1996).

A small percentage of land in Butte County is devoted to urban uses, while the majority of Butte County‟s land uses include agriculture, timber, and grazing (Map 5 and Map 6). According to the Butte County 2005 land use zoning data, all of the watersheds in Butte County, except for the Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River watershed, have the greatest land use in agriculture (Figure 3-1).

The relatively minimal reported damages and loss of life attributed to flooding over the past 25 years in Butte County indicates that the current land use management practices in Butte County have proven effective. However, increasing development and population growth will require disciplined land use management practices to ensure that urbanization of land protected by levees does not occur and is not allowed to exacerbate the affects of flooding in other areas.

3-13 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

FIGURE 3-1 LAND USE ZONE PERCENTAGES

Land Use Zone Percentages, %

Unclassified Big Chico Creek Butte Creek Cherokee Resource Conservation Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Little Chico Creek Residential Pine Creek

Recreational

Public/Government

Industrial LandZone Use

Forest

Commercial

Agricultural-Residential

Agricultural

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Land Use in the 100-Year Floodplain

3-14 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LOCAL DRAINAGE

Several issues cause drainage problems that lead to flooding in the watershed. Ditches and storm water systems are needed to convey storm water away from developed areas; however, in some areas the topography prevents surface water from draining quickly to a ditch, stream, or storm drain. Typically, storm water systems are designed to handle storm runoff for events smaller than the 100- year event, such as a 10-year event. Older storm water systems typically designed to convey the 10- year storm or less may become inadequate as additional watershed development and associated runoff increases. Storm water systems, ditches, and other waterways can be blocked by debris, resulting in ponding storm water prior to the storm water system clearing. Many roads not in the FEMA-designated floodplain have undergone damage in the past due to flooding (Map 7). The Butte County Storm Drainage criteria have not been updated to account for existing excess flows and future conditions.

Although there are not any FEMA SFHAs in the Town of Paradise, inadequacies in the storm drainage facilities have resulted in areas of recurrent flooding. To solve this issue, the Town of Paradise has developed an “Interim Policy” to comply with FEMA policies and objectives. The areas that have repeatedly inundated during storm events are delineated as “Special Permit Zones.” Any development in these Special Permit Zones requires a certified elevation certificate based on the determination of the 100-year base flood elevation per FEMA guidelines. This policy has proven effective for the residents in the Town of Paradise; however, it has not changed the repeated flooding during storm events.

The 1991 City of Oroville Drainage Master Plan identifies inadequacies in the existing storm drainage system and recommends improvements to upgrade existing facilities to rectify the inadequacies and to accommodate future land uses. In conformance with the Drainage Master Plan, the City of Oroville installed detention basins along Dry Creek to accommodate additional flow from storm water runoff. After the development of the Drainage Master Plan and the installation of the detention basins, FEMA mapped the area and determined the 100-year SFHA without determining the base flood elevations or taking into account the affect of the detention basins on downstream flooding. As a result of ongoing commercial building in the areas subject to FEMA regulations, the City of Oroville developed the “Basin Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis” to determine the base flood elevations in these areas and the affect of the detention basins on downstream flooding.

Due to increased drainage from the City of Chico urban area and Dead Horse Slough and excessive vegetation, the capacity of Little Chico Creek to accept stormwater drainage in addition to high flows in a storm event is limited. The City of Chico Storm Drainage Master Plan has not been updated with criteria to accept these excess flows.

Hazards that may affect flooding in the watersheds of Butte County are provided in the discussion below, however mitigation measures for these are not provided in the Butte County FMP at this time.

3-15 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: IDENTIFYING ASSETS

After flooding hazards are identified and profiled, it is necessary to evaluate how these hazards may affect Butte County‟s structural and nonstructural assets. Identifying these assets in relation to the locations of various flooding hazards is an integral part of the process of estimating potential losses associated with flooding.

Critical Facilities

A critical facility, either in the public or private sectors, provides essential products and services to the general publics which are necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in Butte County or fulfills important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. According to FEMA, critical facilities consist of the following:

Essential Facilities – Medical care facilities, emergency response facilities, schools, shelters, and those vital to emergency response and recovery following a disaster.

Transportation Lifeline Systems – Highways, railways, light rail, bus systems, ports, ferry systems, and airports.

Utility Lifeline Systems – Potable water, electric power, wastewater, communications, and liquid fuels (oil and gas).

Hazardous Materials Facilities – Structures housing industrial/hazardous materials, such as corrosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.

A critical facilities inventory provided by the FEMA HAZUS 99 program was mapped for each watershed in Butte County. The critical facilities provided are current as of 1999, with some minor updated revisions. To improve accuracy, the critical facilities lists should be reviewed updated as part of the Butte County annual review process, which is described in Section 5.0, Plan Maintenance Procedure. Critical facilities in:

The Big Chico Creek Watershed (Table 3-1) are shown on Map 8.

The Butte Creek Watershed (Table 3-2) are shown on Map 9.

The Cherokee Watershed (Table 3-3) are shown on Map 10.

The Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed (Table 3-4) are shown on Map 11.

The Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed (Table 3-5) are shown on Map 12.

The Little Chico Creek Watershed (Table 3-6) are shown on Map 13.

The Pine Creek Watershed (Table 3-7) are shown on Map 14.

3-16 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

Improvements Parcel Assets

An improvements parcel inventory in the Butte County 100-year SFHA was obtained from the Butte County Tax Assessor‟s office and includes residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural parcel value information (Table 3-10). According to this information, the total structural improvement value in Butte County is over $600 million and the total land improvement value is almost $750 million. Note that the improvement values are considered low since it does not include federal, state, and other exempt facilities and due to the requirements of Proposition 13 (as explained in Estimating Potential Losses, later in this section of the Butte County FMP). Land uses within the FEMA SFHAs are primarily agricultural and residential. The largest agricultural improvement values in the FEMA SFHA are located within the Cherokee watershed. The largest residential improvement values are located within the Little Chico Creek watershed.

3-17 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 1 Hospital N T Enloe Memorial W Fifth Ave and Hospital Esplanade 2 Hospital Enloe Prompt Care 560 Cohasset Rd

3 Radio KCHO FM 91.1

4 Radio KFMF FM 93.7

5 Radio KPAY FM 95.1

6 Red Cross Shelter First Baptist Church 850 Palmetto Ave

7 Red Cross Shelter Pleasant Valley High 1475 East Ave

8 Red Cross Shelter Craig and Gordon Halls 1400 West 3rd St

9 Red Cross Shelter CSUC Gym 531 Warner St

10 Red Cross Shelter Whitney Hall - Kitchen 545 Legion Ave

11 Red Cross Shelter Bidwell Junior High 2376 North Ave

12 Red Cross Shelter Neal Dow Elementary 1420 Neal Dow Ave

13* Red Cross Shelter Nord Elementary 5554 California St

14 Red Cross Shelter Marigold Elementary 2446 Marigold Ave

15 Red Cross Shelter Hooker Oak Elementary 1238 Arbutus Ave

16 Red Cross Shelter Sierra View Elementary 1598 Hooker Oak Ave

17 Red Cross Shelter Chico Junior High 280 Memorial Way

18 Red Cross Shelter Chico Senior High 901 Esplanade

19 Red Cross Shelter Citrus Elementary 1350 Citrus Ave

20 Red Cross Shelter John McManus Elementary 988 East Ave

21 Red Cross Shelter Jay Partridge Elementary 290 East Ave

22 Red Cross Shelter Parkview Elementary 1770 E 8th St

23 Red Cross Shelter Rosedale Elementary 100 Oak St

24 Red Cross Shelter Shasta Elementary 169 Leora Ct

25 Red Cross Shelter Emma Wilson Elementary 1530 W 8th Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-18 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 26 Red Cross Shelter First Christian Church 295 E Washington Ave

27 Red Cross Shelter Neighborhood Church 10155 Cohasset Rd

28 Red Cross Shelter Cohasset Community 11 Maple Creek Ranch Rd Association 29 Red Cross Shelter Cohasset Elementary 9932 Cohasset Rd

30 Salvation Army Salvation Army 1358 East Avenue

31 School Champion Christian School 1184 East Ave

32 School Chico Oaks Adventist 1859 Hooker Oak Ave School 33 School Chico Unified School 9932 Cohasset Rd District 34 Hazardous Materials Chico Aviation 109 Convair Ave

35 Hazardous Materials A & A Concrete Supply, 3578 Esplanade Inc. 36 Hazardous Materials Anderson Brothers Corp 13636 HWY 99

37 Hazardous Materials AT&T Chico Tower Radio 1206 W 8th Ave

38 Hazardous Materials B & B Auto 2610 HWY 32

39 Hazardous Materials Butte County Fire-Chico 13871 HWY 99

40 Hazardous Materials California Dept. of Parks 12105 River Rd

41 Hazardous Materials Gager Distributing 2575 HWY 32

42 Hazardous Materials Lamberts Masonry Supply, 13620 HWY 99 Inc 43 Hazardous Materials Larsen's Auto Repair 3150 HWY 32

44 Hazardous Materials Med Mart/Pacific 2961 HWY 32 Pulmonary Services 45 Hazardous Materials P.J.'S Muffler Service 2961 HWY 32

46 Hazardous Materials Pettersen Morotsports 2961 HWY 32

47 Hazardous Materials US Army National Guard 2415 Tom Polk Ave Armory 48 Hazardous Materials A C Industrial Services 1111 Marauder St Corp 49 Hazardous Materials ACT Dry Cleaners 236 W East Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-19 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 50 Hazardous Materials Aero Union 108 Boeing Ave

51 Hazardous Materials Aero Union - Maint 165 Ryan Ave

52 Hazardous Materials Aero Union Corp 100 Lockheed Ave

53 Hazardous Materials Alliance Environmental 4191 Stone Valley Ct Service 54 Hazardous Materials Anderson Automotive 420 Todd Ct

55 Hazardous Materials Apria Healthcare 3028 Esplanade

56 Hazardous Materials Auto Zone 136 East Ave

57 Hazardous Materials B & J Enterprises 168 Commercial Ave

58 Hazardous Materials Bidwell Junior High 2376 North Ave

59 Hazardous Materials Bidwell Park Golf course 3199 Golf Course Rd

60 Hazardous Materials Big 'O' Tires 2246 Esplanade

61 Hazardous Materials Butte Rentals DBA All Start 3291 Esplanade Rentals 62 Hazardous Materials C and M Automotive 1388 Longfellow Ave

63 Hazardous Materials CA Department of Parks & 525 Esplanade Rec 64 Hazardous Materials CDF - Air Attack Base 1335 Fortress St

65 Hazardous Materials CDF - Station 22 9868 Cohasset Rd

66 Hazardous Materials Chico Aerial Applicators 1325 Fortress St

67 Hazardous Materials Chico Airport 150 Airpark Blvd

68 Hazardous Materials Chico Bean Growers 4936 Bell Rd

69 Hazardous Materials Chico High School 901 Esplanade

70 Hazardous Materials Chico Iron Works 1298 Nord Ave

71 Hazardous Materials Chico Junior High 280 Memorial Way

72 Hazardous Materials Chico Nissan Hyundai, Inc 575 Manzanita Ave

73 Hazardous Materials Chico Unified S. D. - Admin 1163 E 7th St

74 Hazardous Materials Chico Unified S. D. - Nord 5554 California St

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-20 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 75 Hazardous Materials Chuck Patterson Cars 200 East Ave

76 Hazardous Materials Citrus Elemenary School 1350 Citrus Ave

77 Hazardous Materials Cohasset School 9932 Cohasset Rd

78 Hazardous Materials Concourse Elite 2267 Esplanade

79 Hazardous Materials Courtesy Motors 2520 Cohasset Rd

80 Hazardous Materials CSU Chico 400 W 1st St

81 Hazardous Materials Dan Gamels RV Service 3268 Esplanade

82 Hazardous Materials Dave's Machine 2823 Northgate Dr

83 Hazardous Materials DCY Limited AKA Coit 275 Fairchild Ave Services 84 Hazardous Materials Dee Jay Motors 2399 Esplanade

85 Hazardous Materials Don Young Automotive 2844 Northgate Dr

86 Hazardous Materials Emma Wilson School 1530 W 8th Ave

87 Hazardous Materials Enloe Homecare/Hospice 1390 E Lassen Ave

88 Hazardous Materials Enloe Hospital 1531 Esplanade

89 Hazardous Materials Enloe Medical Center - 560 Cohasset Rd Cohasset 90 Hazardous Materials Eric's Car Wash 1625 Mangrove Ave

91 Hazardous Materials Esplanade Cleaners 164 E 2nd Ave

92 Hazardous Materials Federal Aviation Admin 140 Airpark Blvd (CIC VOR) 93 Hazardous Materials Fire-Trol Holdings, L.L.C. 1335 Fortress St

94 Hazardous Materials Flair Custom Cleaners 660 Mangrove Ave

95 Hazardous Materials Dan Gamels RV Service 180 Eaton Rd

96 Hazardous Materials Gene M. Jesse, Inc. 1627 Nord Ave

97 Hazardous Materials George's Pest Control, Inc 2849 Northgate Dr

98 Hazardous Materials Golden West Stairs, Inc. 13291 Contractors Dr

99 Hazardous Materials Guy Rents, Inc 1720 Nord Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-21 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 100 Hazardous Materials Hamre Equipment 3930 Esplanade

101 Hazardous Materials Helena Chemical Company 68 Transit Way

102 Hazardous Materials Hooker Oak Elementary 1238 Arbutus Ave

103 Hazardous Materials Jay Partridge Elementary 290 East Ave

104 Hazardous Materials Jessee Machine Works 1733 Nord Ave

105 Hazardous Materials Jiffy Lube 1218 Mangrove Ave

106 Hazardous Materials John McManus Elementary 988 East Ave

107 Hazardous Materials Koret of California 1100 Marauder St

108 Hazardous Materials Kragen Auto Parts #1448 1618 Mangrove Ave

109 Hazardous Materials Lares Research, Inc 295 Lockheed Ave

110 Hazardous Materials Lifetouch National School 3060 Thorntree Dr Studios 111 Hazardous Materials Lube Express 2354 Esplanade

112 Hazardous Materials Mangrove Medical Lab & 1040 Mangrove Ave X-Ray 113 Hazardous Materials Marigold Elementary 2446 Marigold Ave

114 Hazardous Materials Marketplace Cleaners 1354 East Ave

115 Hazardous Materials Miller Buick/Oldsmobile 2303 Esplanade

116 Hazardous Materials Monarch Lab, Inc 563 Lindo Ave

117 Hazardous Materials Neal Dow Elementary 1420 Neal Dow Ave

118 Hazardous Materials North Valley Ready Mix 11 Three Sevens Rd

119 Hazardous Materials Orchard Supply Hardware 231 W East Ave #381 120 Hazardous Materials P.V. High School 1475 East Ave

121 Hazardous Materials Pacific Supply 3505 Hicks Ln

122 Hazardous Materials Parkview Elementary 1770 E 8th St

123 Hazardous Materials Pathology Sciences 1600 Esplanade Medical Group 124 Hazardous Materials Payless Shoes 770 Mangrove Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-22 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 125 Hazardous Materials Pep Boys #980 1555 Mangrove Ave

126 Hazardous Materials Rosedale Elementary 100 Oak St

127 Hazardous Materials Rutland Auto Repair 175 E 9th Ave

128 Hazardous Materials Safeway 1366 East Ave

129 Hazardous Materials Shasta Elementary 169 Leora Ct

130 Hazardous Materials Sherwin-Williams 2412 Cohasset Rd

131 Hazardous Materials Sierra View Elementary 1598 Hooker Oak Ave

132 Hazardous Materials Spath Automotive & 1905 Nord Ave Machine 133 Hazardous Materials Sunset Hills Golf Course 13301 Garner Ln Snack Bar 134 Hazardous Materials Superior Auto Clinic 2862 Esplanade

135 Hazardous Materials Thomas Welding & 1308 W 8th Ave Machine, Inc 136 Hazardous Materials Transfer Flow, Inc 1444 Fortress St

137 Hazardous Materials Warner Petroleum, Inc 310 Nord Ave

138 Hazardous Materials Warren's Drive Thru Lube 557 Nord Ave

139 Hazardous Materials Butte Steel & Fabrication 3674 Esplanade

140 Transportation - Cohasset Store W Fifth Ave and Heliport Esplanade

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-23 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-2 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 200 Emergency Paradise Police Dept. 5595 Black Olive Dr

201 Emergency D W Stuermer Landscape and Fire 202 Emergency De Sabla Fire Station PO Box 73

203 Emergency Paradise Fire Dept. 767 Birch St

204 Radio KRIJ FM 92.7

205 Radio 92.7 MHZ FM

206 Red Cross Shelter Richvale Elementary 5236 Church St

207 Red Cross Shelter Durham Elementary 9421 Putney Dr

208 Red Cross Shelter Durham High 9455 Putney Dr

209 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Pines Community 14211 Wycliff Way Center 210 Red Cross Shelter Cedarwood Elementary 6400 Columbine Rd

211 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Pines Elementary 13878 Compton Dr

212 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Adventist 5699 Academy Dr Academy 213 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Lutheran Church 780 Luther Dr

214 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Intermediate 5657 Recreation Dr

215 Red Cross Shelter Paradise High 5911 Maxwell Dr

216 Red Cross Shelter Paradise Ridge Senior 877 Nunneley Rd Center 217 School Durham Unified School Putney Dr District 218 School Paradise Adventist School 5699 Academy Dr

219 School (Closed) Stirling City Elementary Gypsum Stirling City School 220 School Paradise Intermediate 5665 Recreation Dr (PUSD) 221 School Paradise High School 5911 Maxwell Dr (PUSD) 222 School Paradise Elementary 610 Pearson Rd School (PUSD) 223 School Saint Thomas Catholic 771 Elliott Rd Church

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-24 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-2 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 224 School (Closed) Stirling City Elementary Gypsum Stirling City School 225 Hazardous Materials Avag Inc. 1778 Richvale Highway

226 Hazardous Materials CDF - Station 11 7288 Humboldt Rd

227 Hazardous Materials Durham Grange 9420 Putney Dr

228 Hazardous Materials Steel Mill Supply, Co 786 Oroville Chico Hwy

229 Hazardous Materials Richvale Irrigation District 1193 Richvale Hwy

230 Hazardous Materials Forks of Butte Desabla Powerhouse Rd Hydroelectric 231 Hazardous Materials Paradise Irrigation District 5640 Black Olive Dr – Yard 232 Hazardous Materials Auto Zone 7542 Skyway

233 Hazardous Materials Baldwin Contracting Shop 1764 Skyway

234 Hazardous Materials Big O Tires 5995 Skyway

235 Hazardous Materials Bill's Auto Repair 6000 Almond Ave

236 Hazardous Materials Builder's Supply 7015 Skyway

237 Hazardous Materials Butte County Rice Growers 1193 Richvale Hwy Association 238 Hazardous Materials Butte County Public Works 5912 Almond St

239 Hazardous Materials Butte County Rice Growers 1121 Richvale Hwy Association 240 Hazardous Materials Butte Creek Country Club 175 Estates Dr

241 Hazardous Materials CDF - Butte Fire Center 6640 Steiffer Rd

242 Hazardous Materials CDF - Sawmill Peak 1464 Forest Service Rd Lookout 243 Hazardous Materials Chico Scrap Metal 766 Oroville Chico Hwy

244 Hazardous Materials Danielson Company, The 435 Southgate Ct

245 Hazardous Materials Durham Metaltech, Inc. 9195 Midway

246 Hazardous Materials Durham-Pentz Truck 22 Pepsi Way Center 247 Hazardous Materials FEDEX Freight West 700 Keenan Ct

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-25 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-2 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 248 Hazardous Materials Fuller O'Brien Paints 175 Pearson Rd

249 Hazardous Materials Gold Nugget Auto 8229 Skyway

250 Hazardous Materials Helena Chemical Company 3155 Southgate Ln

251 Hazardous Materials Lundberg Rice Products 5370 Church St.

252 Hazardous Materials Lyon's Express Lube and 5605 Almond St Oil 253 Hazardous Materials MCI 9785 Roble Rd

254 Hazardous Materials Paradise High School 5911 Maxwell Dr (PUSD) 255 Hazardous Materials Paradise Irrigation District 13888 Pine Needle Dr

256 Hazardous Materials Paradise Printing Company 657 Pearson Rd

257 Hazardous Materials Paradise Union School 610 Pearson Rd Dist. - Transportation 258 Hazardous Materials Pepsi-Cola of Butte County 15 Pepsi Way

259 Hazardous Materials Propacific Fresh 70 Pepsi Way

260 Hazardous Materials Quality Cleaners 5933 Skyway

261 Hazardous Materials Skyway Towing & Auto 5440 Skyway

262 Hazardous Materials Spray Chem Chemical 705 Keenan Ct Company 263 Hazardous Materials Sprint Communications 7935 Midway Co., L.P. 264 Hazardous Materials Sunset Moulding 1856 Skyway Company, Inc. 265 Hazardous Materials Vaccaro Seed 446 Southgate Ct

266 Hazardous Materials American Tower Corp. 2003 Nelson Rd #82603 267* Transportation - Oroville County Airport Airport 268 Transportation - DeSabla Powerhouse Heliport 269 Transportation - Butte Fire Center Ball Field Heliport 270 Transportation - Mountain Ridge Middle Heliport School 271 Transportation - Paradise Dam Heliport

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-26 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-2 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 272 Transportation - Lomo, Hwy.32 at Humboldt Heliport Road 273 Transportation - Platt East Mountain Heliport 274 Transportation - Community of Durham Heliport 275 Transportation - Richvale School Heliport 276 Transportation - Butte County Rice Growers Heliport Associate 277 Transportation - Richvale Airport Heliport 278 Transportation - Nelson Park Heliport 279 Powerhouse Forks of the Butte

280 Powerhouse DeSabla P.H

281 Powerhouse Centerville P.H

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-27 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-3 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE CHEROKEE WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 300 Emergency Biggs Police Dept 3019 Eighth

301 Hospital Feather River Hospital 5974 Pentz Road 302 Hospital Urgent Care Center 900 Oro Dam Blvd

303 Red Cross Shelter Biggs Elementary 300 B St

304 Red Cross Shelter Biggs High 3046 2nd St

305 Red Cross Shelter Butte College 3536 Butte Campus Dr

306 Red Cross Shelter First Baptist Church 6500 Clark Rd

307 Red Cross Shelter Ponderosa Elementary 6593 Pentz Rd

308 Red Cross Shelter Tall Pines Entertainment 5445 Clark Rd Center 309 Red Cross Shelter Spring Valley Elementary 2771 Pentz Rd

310* School Biggs Elementary School 300 B St District 311 School Richvale School (Biggs School & Church USD) 312* School Biggs Unified School 3046 Second St District 313 School Butte Community College 3536 Butte Campus Dr

314 School Golden Feather Pentz Cherokee Rd Elementary School 315 School Nelson Avenue Elementary Nelson Ave & 6th School 316 School Paradise Christian School 5850 Clark Rd

317 School Richvale Elementary PO Box 8 School 318 Hazardous Materials 360Networks Amplification 3951 Farris Rd Facility 319 Hazardous Materials California Classics 9315 Skyway

320* Hazardous Materials Chuck Jones Flying 216 W Hamilton Rd Service 321 Hazardous Materials Cleaning Connection, The 6032 Clark Rd

322 Hazardous Materials Franklin Construction 1879 Clark Rd

323 Hazardous Materials Jiffy Lube Store #728 6420 Clark Rd

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-28 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-3 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE CHEROKEE WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 324 Hazardous Materials Ken's Paradise Hitch & 919 Easy St

325 Hazardous Materials K-Mart 6600 Clark Rd

326 Hazardous Materials Kragen Auto Parts #4123 6640 Clark Rd

327 Hazardous Materials North State Rendering 15 Shippee Rd

328 Hazardous Materials Paradise Airport/Franklin 4405 Airport Rd Construction 329 Hazardous Materials Paradise Auto 5990 Clark Rd

330 Hazardous Materials Paradise Auto Body 1122 Elliott Rd

331 Hazardous Materials Paradise Solid Waste 951 American Way Systems 332 Hazardous Materials Table Mountain Quarry 2216 Table Mountain Blvd

333 Hazardous Materials Wild Goose Storage 2780 W Liberty Rd

334 Hazardous Materials Baldwin Contracting 2645 Wheelock Rd Company 335 Transportation - Paradise Skypark Airport 336 Transportation - Butte College Fire Training Heliport Ground

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-29 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 400 Emergency Butte County Sheriff- 33 County Center Drive Coroner 401 Emergency Gridley Police Dept 685 Kentucky St

402 Emergency Oroville Police and Fire 2055 Lincoln Blvd Dept 403 Emergency Butte County Fire Dept – 176 Nelson Ave CDF 404 Emergency El Medio Fire Dept 3515 Myers St

405 Emergency Gridley Fire Dept 47 E Gridley Rd

406 Hospital Biggs-Gridley Memorial 240 Spruce St Hospital 407 Hospital Oroville Hospital 2767 Olive HWY

408 Hospital La Paloma Health Center 1574 Kirk Rd

409 Hospital Community 1611 Feather River Blvd, Comprehensive Care Suite 10 410 Radio KEWE FM 97.7

411 Radio KEWQ AM 930

412 Radio KORV AM 1340

413 Red Cross Shelters Oroville Church of the 2238 Monte Vista Ave Nazarene 414 Red Cross Shelters Las Plumas High School 2380 Las Plumas Ave

415 Red Cross Shelters Oakdale Heights 2255 Las Plumas Ave Elementary 416 Red Cross Shelters Wyandotte Avenue 2800 Wyandotte Ave Elementary 417 Red Cross Shelters Central Middle School 25675 Mesa Ave

418 Red Cross Shelters Oroville High 1535 Bridge St

419 Red Cross Shelters Eastside Elementary 2775 Yard St

420 Red Cross Shelters Stanford Elementary 1801 Stanford Ave

421 Red Cross Shelters Ophir Elementary 210 Oakvale Ave

422 Red Cross Shelters Bird Street Elementary 1421 Bird St

423 Red Cross Shelters First United Methodist 45 Acacia Ave Church *All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-30 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 424 Red Cross Shelters Palermo School 7350 Bulldog Way

425 Red Cross Shelters Palermo Grange/Patron's 7600 Irwin Ave Hall 426 Red Cross Shelters Helen M Wilcox School 5737 Autrey Ln

427 Red Cross Shelters Nelson Ave Middle School 2255 6th St

428 Red Cross Shelters Sierra Ave Elementary 1050 Sierra Ave

429 Red Cross Shelters Poplar Ave Elementary 2075 Poplar Ave

430 Salvation Army Salvation Army 2357 Meyers Street

431 School Bangor Union Elementary 7549 Oroville-Bangor HWY School 432 School Bird Street Elementary 1421 Bird St

433 School Central Middle School 2565 Mesa Ave

434 School Feather Fall Union School Feather Falls Rd

435* School Feather River Adventist 27 Cox Ln School 436 School Foothill Intermediate Fruitland Rd School 437 School Gateway Christian School 200 Haskell St

438 School Gridley School 1125 Sycamore St

439 School Gridley School 429 Magnolia

440 School Gridley High School 300 E Spruce St

441 School Gridley Schools 245 Haskell St Maintenance 442 School McKinley School 1045 Sycamore St

443 School Wilson School 409 Magnolia

444 School Helen M Wilcox School 5737 Autrey Ln

445 School Honcut School 68 School St

446 School Las Plumas High School 2380 Las Plumas Ave

447 School Loma Rica School 5150 Fruitland Rd

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-31 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 448 School Manzanita School District 627 E Evans Reimer Rd

449 School Oakdale Heights 2255 Las Plumas Ave Elementary 450 School Ophir Elementary 210 Oakvale Ave

451 School Oroville Christian School 3785 Olive HWY

452 School Oroville Elementary School 2795 Yard St District Office 453 School Stanford Avenue School 1801 Stanford Ave (OESD) 454 School Wyandotte Avenue 2800 Wyandotte Ave Elementary (OESD) 455 School Central Middle School 2565 Mesa Ave (OESD) 456 School Sierra Del Oro School 2858 Wyandotte Ave (OESD) 457 School Oroville Gymnastics 2745 Oro Dam Blvd Academy (MOVED) 458 School Oroville High School 1535 Bridge St Administration 459 School Oroville Union High School 2139 Washington Ave District 460 School Prospect High School 2060 Second Administration 461 School Sierra Avenue Elementary 1050 Sierra Ave

462 School St Thomas Catholic School 1380 Bird St

463 School Thermalito School District 400 Grand Ave

464 School Nelson Ave Middle School 2255 6th St (TSD) 465 Hazardous Materials Amerigas 2885 Simpco Ln

466 Hazardous Materials Feather River Concrete 675 State Box Rd Product 467 Hazardous Materials South Feather Water & 2310 Oroville Quincy HWY Power 468 Hazardous Materials Tri Flame Propane 5911 Baggett Palermo Rd

469 Hazardous Materials Big Valley Ag Services, Inc. 954 HWY 99

470 Hazardous Materials Cherokee Rd - Thermalito Cherokee Rd Diversion Dam

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-32 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 471 Hazardous Materials DWR Grand Avenue Annex 20th at Grand Ave

472 Hazardous Materials Amerigas Gridley 1434 HWY 99

473 Hazardous Materials Comcast Corporation 1 Lariat Loop

474 Hazardous Materials Eagle Aggrigates 1000 Dunstone Dr

475 Hazardous Materials Feather River Fish 5 Table Mountain Blvd Hatchery 476 Hazardous Materials Gridley Country Cars 1709 HWY 99

477 Hazardous Materials Howard Dryer Company 1900 HWY 99

478 Hazardous Materials Kragen Auto #4140 1590 HWY 99

479 Hazardous Materials McConnell Chevrolet 1646 HWY 99 Pontiac 480 Hazardous Materials MJB 2013 Lincoln St

481 Hazardous Materials Oroville Cemetery Dist 2600 Feather River Blvd

482 Hazardous Materials Oroville Public Scales 2915 Feather River Blvd

483 Hazardous Materials Shade Tree Garage 1635 Kofford Rd

484 Hazardous Materials Shifflet Bros. Inc 1267 HWY 99

485 Hazardous Materials 5th Ave Body Shop 2535 S 5th Ave

486 Hazardous Materials A. M. King Industries, Inc 2875 Feather River Blvd

487 Hazardous Materials Auto Zone #5307 1970 Oroville Dam Blvd

488 Hazardous Materials Avery's Lube & Oil 3034 Olive HWY

489 Hazardous Materials B & E Auto Wrecking 3301 Feather River Blvd

490 Hazardous Materials B & S Automobile & Truck 2765 Feather River Blvd Repair 491 Hazardous Materials Bartel Welding & Machine 4629 Pacific Heights Rd

492 Hazardous Materials BC Public Works Gridley 860 Cedar St Yard 493 Hazardous Materials Ben's Toilet Rentals 720 Colusa HWY

494 Hazardous Materials Big "O" Tires 3008 Olive HWY

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-33 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 495 Hazardous Materials Bowers Trucking, Inc 6111 Lincoln Blvd

496 Hazardous Materials Briggs Firestone, Inc 1600 Feather River Blvd

497 Hazardous Materials Butte County Agricultural 316 Nelson Ave Commissioner 498 Hazardous Materials Butte County Buildings & 2279 Del Oro Ave Grounds 499 Hazardous Materials Butte County Fire - Bangor 7540 Oro Bangor HWY

500 Hazardous Materials Butte County Mosquito 5117 Larkin Rd Abatement 501 Hazardous Materials Butte County Print Shop 2279 Del Oro Ave

502 Hazardous Materials Butte County Public Works 9 County Center Dr

503 Hazardous Materials CA Dept of Water 460 Glen Dr Resources 504 Hazardous Materials CA Dept of Parks & 400 Glen Ave Recreation 505 Hazardous Materials California Highway Patrol 2072 3rd St

506 Hazardous Materials CALTRANS District 3 2060 3rd St Office (OROVILLE) 507 Hazardous Materials CDF - Robinson Mill 10 Robinson Mill Rd

508 Hazardous Materials CDF - Station Gridley 47 E Gridley Rd

509 Hazardous Materials CDF - Sunset Lookout 10 Robinson Mill Rd

510 Hazardous Materials CDF Fire 176 Nelson Ave

511 Hazardous Materials Chico Metal Finishing Inc 3151 Richter Ave

512 Hazardous Materials City Body Repair & Powder 2842 Feather River Blvd

513 Hazardous Materials City of Gridley 685 Kentucky St

514 Hazardous Materials Compass Equipment, Inc 4688 Pacific Heights Rd

515 Hazardous Materials Dingerville Golf Course 5813 Pacific Heights Rd

516 Hazardous Materials Dirks Transmission Service 2160 Montgomery St

517 Hazardous Materials Ehmann Olive Company 1800 Idora St

518 Hazardous Materials F & M Machine & Mfg Co 2680 S 5th Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-34 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 519 Hazardous Materials Feather River Auto 2815 Feather River Blvd Wrecking 520 Hazardous Materials Feather River Tractor 2810 Feather River Blvd

521 Hazardous Materials FILCO 355 Oroville Dam Blvd

522 Hazardous Materials Fox Company 3995 Olive HWY

523 Hazardous Materials Golden State Auto Body 1450 Oroville Dam Blvd

524 Hazardous Materials Granite Construction 4714 Pacific Heights Rd Company 525 Hazardous Materials Gridley Growers, Inc 700 Hazel St

526 Hazardous Materials Heat Tech Industries 867 HWY 99

527 Hazardous Materials Hobbie Auto Center 1250 Oroville Dam Blvd

528 Hazardous Materials Jiffy Lube #2645 1450 Oroville Dam Blvd

529 Hazardous Materials John's Marine Service 3380 Olive HWY

530 Hazardous Materials J-Tech Automotive 2232 Montgomery St

531 Hazardous Materials Kelly Ridge Golf Course 5131 Royal Oaks Dr

532 Hazardous Materials Kragan Auto Parts #1275 2525 Oroville Dam Blvd

533 Hazardous Materials Lake Oroville Area PUD 1960 Elgin St

534 Hazardous Materials Longs Drug Stores #158 1074 Oroville Dam Blvd

535 Hazardous Materials Manzanita School District 589 E Evans Reimer Rd

536 Hazardous Materials Mathews Readymix, Inc 4290 Pacific Heights Rd

537 Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources, LLC 4801 Feather River Blvd

538 Hazardous Materials Mr. Wizard's Printed 2547 S 7th Ave Circuits 539 Hazardous Materials Nolind's Pioneer Auto Body 673 Safford St

540 Hazardous Materials NORCAL Waste Systems 1855 Kusel Rd of Butte County 541 Hazardous Materials NORCAL Waste Systems 2720 S 5th Ave of Butte County 542 Hazardous Materials ORO-CAL Manufacturing, 1720 Bird St Inc

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-35 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 543 Hazardous Materials Oroville Airport 225 Chuck Yeager Way

544 Hazardous Materials Oroville Cable & Equipment 3150 Harms Ave Co., Inc 545 Hazardous Materials Oroville Cemetery Dist 5646 Lincoln Blvd

546 Hazardous Materials Oroville Cogeneration LP 695 Cal Oak Rd

547 Hazardous Materials Oroville Hospital 2767 Olive HWY

548 Hazardous Materials Oroville Motors, Inc 2700 Lincoln Blvd

549 Hazardous Materials Oroville Sewerage 2880 S 5th Ave Commission 550 Hazardous Materials Oroville Solid Waste 2720 S 5th Ave Disposal 551 Hazardous Materials Pacific Coast Producers 1601 Mitchell Ave

552 Hazardous Materials Pacific Coast Producers 2095 Alice Ave Ranch 553 Hazardous Materials Pacific Oroville Power, Inc 3050 S 5th Ave

554 Hazardous Materials Pahl-Goodhue Ford- 1726 Montgomery St Lincoln-Mercury 555 Hazardous Materials Raleys (OROVILLE) 2325 Myers St

556 Hazardous Materials RCBS Operation 605 Oroville Dam Blvd

557 Hazardous Materials Roplast Industries 3155 S 5th Ave

558 Hazardous Materials S.C.O.R. 2880 S 5th Ave

559 Hazardous Materials Setzer Forest Products, 1980 Kussel Ave Inc. 560 Hazardous Materials Sherwood, Duke 495 Stimpson Rd Contracting, Inc. 561 Hazardous Materials Sierra Energy 1801 Idora St

562 Hazardous Materials Sierra Pacific Industries 3025 S 5th Ave

563 Hazardous Materials Sierra Pacific Packaging, 525 Airport Pkwy Inc. 564 Hazardous Materials Sprint Communications 2405 Bird St Company, LP 565 Hazardous Materials Sprocket Specialists 6251 Lincoln Blvd

566 Hazardous Materials Sunsweet Dryers 26 E Evans Reimer Rd

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-36 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 567 Hazardous Materials Table Mountain Golf 2700 W Oroville Dam Blvd Course 568 Hazardous Materials Teagues Auto Repair 822 Washington St

569 Hazardous Materials Thermalito Union 400 Grand Ave Elementary School District 570 Hazardous Materials Thiara Ranches 885 Township Rd

571 Hazardous Materials Tom's Sierra Company 1801 Idora St

572 Hazardous Materials Tower Mart #172 2970 Olive HWY

573 Hazardous Materials Tri Valley Growers 100 Virginia St

574 Hazardous Materials US Army National Guard 1125 Pomona Ave Armory 575 Hazardous Materials USDA Forest Service 875 Mitchell Ave Ranger District 576 Hazardous Materials Feather River Diesel 5015 Feather River Blvd

577 Hazardous Materials WREX Products, Inc. 2985 S 5th Ave

578 Hazardous Materials Ord Ranch Transfer Station 119 Ord Ranch Rd

579 Transportation - Hurleton Swedes Flat Heliport 580 Transportation - Bangor Park Heliport 581 Transportation - Lemon Hill Drive Heliport 582 Transportation - Thermalito Forebay Boat Heliport Launch 583 Transportation - Nelson Avenue at Del Oro Heliport 584 Transportation - Miners Ranch Heliport 585 Transportation - Old Olive Highway Heliport 586 Transportation - Mission Olive South of Heliport Misty View 587 Transportation - Bethridge Road South of Heliport Bryden Way 588 Transportation - Mt. Ida Road East of Heliport Foothill 589 Transportation - Feather Falls Casino Heliport

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-37 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-4 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE FEATHER RIVER/ LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 590 Bus Station Greyhound Bus Station 2243 Feather River Blvd (MOVED) 591 Power Facility PIT 7

592 Sewage Facility Oroville Sewage Treatment 7638 S 5th Ave

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-38 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-5 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LAKE OROVILLE/ UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 600 Emergency Pioneer Volunteeer Fire 297 Rockerfeller Rd Dept 601 Emergency Pioneer Volunteeer Fire Oroville-Quincy HWY Dept 602 Hospital Berry Creek Health Center 10 Town Hill Way PO Box 40 603 Red Cross Shelter Berry Creek Elementary 286 Rockerfeller Rd

604 Red Cross Shelter Charles Lynds Community 19114 New York Flat Rd Center 605 Red Cross Shelter Berry Creek Grange Hall 1477 Bald Rock Rd

606 Red Cross Shelter Feather FallsUnion School 2651 Lumpkin Rd

607 Red Cross Shelter Church of the Wildwood 19082 New York Flat Rd

608 Red Cross Shelter Magalia Community 13700 Old Skyway Church 609 Red Cross Shelter Concow Elementary 11679 Nelson Bar Rd

610 Schools Berry Creek School Rockerfeller Rd

611 Schools Christian Church of 6933 Pentz Rd Paradise 612 Schools Golden Feather 11679 Nelson Bar Rd Elementary School 613 Schools Golden Feather 11696 Nelson Bar Rd Elementary School 614 Schools Mountain Christian School 66 Rockerfeller Rd

615 Schools Pioneer Union School 286 Rockerfeller Rd District 616 Hazardous Materials CDF - Stirling City 16999 Skyway

617 Hazardous Materials CDF - Bald Mountain Top of Bald Mountain Lookout 618 Hazardous Materials CDF - Bloomer Lookout Bloomer Hill Encina

619 Hazardous Materials Spring Communications Pulga/HWY 70 Company, LLP 620 Hazardous Materials California Department of 11375 HWY 70 Transportation-Pulga 621 Hazardous Materials CDF - Jarbo Gap 11972 HWY 70

622 Hazardous Materials California Department of 917 Kelly Ridge Rd Parks

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-39 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-5 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LAKE OROVILLE/ UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 623 Hazardous Materials CDF - Feather Falls Station 2845 Lumpkin Rd

624 Hazardous Materials CDF - Station 62 9476 Oro-Quincy HWY

625 Hazardous Materials Golden Feather School 11679 Nelson Bar Rd District 626 Hazardous Materials Lake Oroville Marina, LLC 3428 Pentz Rd

627 Hazardous Materials Yankee Video & Mini Mart 11300 Miller Flat Rd

628 Transportation - Old Magalia Church Heliport 629 Transportation - Jarbo Gap Helispot Heliport 630 Transportation - Old Crane Mill Site Heliport 631 Transportation - Crane Park Heliport 632 Transportation - Camelot Meadow Heliport 633 Transportation - Flea Valley Heliport 634 Transportation - Moak Ranch Heliport 635 Transportation - Community of Feather Heliport Falls 636 Transportation - Mill Road Heliport 637 Transportation - Foreman Creek Recreation Heliport Area 638 Transportation - Milsap Bar Heliport 639 Transportation - Campbell Flat Heliport 640 Transportation - Oroville Dam Boat Launch Heliport 641 Transportation - Old Oroville Dam Overlook Heliport 642 Transportation - Loafer Creek Campground Heliport 643 Power Facilities Donnels

644 Power Facilities Pit 6

645 Power Facilities Big Creek 8

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-40 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-5 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LAKE OROVILLE/ UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 646 Power Facilities North Island

647 Powerhouse Lime Saddle P.H.

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-41 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 700 Emergency Chico Police Department 1460 Humboldt Rd

701 Emergency Chico Fire Department 842 Salem St

702 Hazardous Silver Dollar Fair 2357 Fair St Materials 703 Hazardous Byrne Memorial Farm, 311 Nicholas Schouten Materials University Farm Ln 704 Hazardous CA Department of 2535 Notre Dame Blvd Materials Transportation 705 Hazardous CALTRANS District 3 Office 2535 Notre Dame Blvd Materials (CHICO) 706 Hazardous CDF – Station 23 5362 Platt Mountain Rd Materials 707 Hazardous COMCAST Corporation 4157 Altatina Dr Materials 708 Hazardous WREX Products, Inc 25 WREX Ct Materials 709 Hazardous Auto Zone 1843 Park Ave Materials 710 Hazardous Smucker Quality Beverages 127 Speedway Ave Materials 711 Hazardous Butte County Public Works 20th at Locust St. Materials 712 Hazardous Chapman Elementary 1071 E 10th St Materials 713 Hazardous MCI Worldcom 4439 HWY 32 Materials 714 Hazardous A & E Automotive 3880 Benatar Way Materials 715 Hazardous AA Dales Chico Transmissions 2540 Dominic Dr Materials 716 Hazardous Airgas 709 Orange Ave Materials 717 Hazardous Alernative Materials Tech-Amt 311 Otterson Dr Materials 718 Hazardous Asbury Environmental Services 2549 Scott Ave Materials 719 Hazardous ATC/VANCOM 326 Huss Dr Materials 720 Hazardous Auto Doctor 2144 Park Ave Materials 721 Hazardous Bi-Rite Steel & Fabrication 2209 Park Ave Materials 722* Hazardous Blue Diamond Growers 703 Miller Ave Materials

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-42 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 723 Hazardous Boradori Automotive 287 Humboldt Ave Materials 724 Hazardous California Highway Patrol 995 Fir St Materials 725 Hazardous Canyon Oaks Country Club 999 Yosemite Dr Materials 726 Hazardous Chamber's Oil B/P #0089 501 Miller Ave Materials 727 Hazardous Chico Auto Parts, Inc 175 E 20th St Materials 728 Hazardous Chico Collision Center 275 E Park Ave Materials 729 Hazardous Chico Drain Oil Service 1618 W 5th St Materials 730 Hazardous Chico Enterprise Record 400 Park Ave Materials 731 Hazardous Chico Express Cleaners 641 Walnut Ave Materials 732 Hazardous Chico Imports Auto Service 3870 Benatar Way Materials 733 Hazardous Chico Independent Auto 2360 Park Ave Materials 734 Hazardous Chico Mobile A/C & Radiator 2565 S Whitman Pl Materials 735 Hazardous Chico Scrap Metal 878 E 20th St Materials 736 Hazardous Chico Self Serve 381 E Park Ave Materials 737 Hazardous Chico Unified School Dist/ Corp 2455 Carmichael Dr Materials Yd 738 Hazardous Chico Volkswagen 902 Main St Materials 739 Hazardous City of Chico Fire Training 1466 Humboldt Rd Materials Center 740 Hazardous Corlin Paint 46 Loren Ave Materials 741 Hazardous Cornerstone L.P. 2469 Valine Ln Materials 742 Hazardous COSTCO 2100 Whitman Ave Materials 743 Hazardous Cruces Classic Cars 720 Main St. Materials 744 Hazardous Dandl Mfg Co, Inc 8562 Aguas-Frias Rd Materials 745 Hazardous Dubug #7 Inc. 2600 Notre Dame Blvd Materials

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-43 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 746 Hazardous Duckback Products Co, Inc 2644 Hegan Ln Materials 747 Hazardous Econo Lube N Tune #219 1957 E 20th St Materials 748 Hazardous Engines Only! LLC 3880 Benatar Way Materials 749 Hazardous Enloe Outpatient Center 888 Lakeside Village Materials Comm 750 Hazardous European Motorsport 2520 Dominic Dr Materials 751 Hazardous Fairview High 102 W 11th St Materials 752 Hazardous First Gear Transmission 247 Meyers St Materials 753 Hazardous Forest Ranch School 15815 Cedar Creek Rd Materials 754 Hazardous Gary Younie Truck & Auto 3871 Benatar Way Materials Repair 755 Hazardous Geer Auto Service 195 Humboldt Ave Materials 756 Hazardous Genetic Resource Center 2741 Cramer Ln Materials 757 Hazardous Jessee Heating & Air 3025 Southgate Ln Materials Conditioning 758 Hazardous JP's Paint & Body Works 1840 Park Ave Materials 759 Hazardous Kinder Morgan 2570 Hegan Ln Materials 760 Hazardous Kragan Auto Parts #1009 2485 Notre Dame Blvd Materials 761 Hazardous Lifetouch National School 2860 Fair St Materials Studios 762 Hazardous Little Chico Creek School 2090 Almanda Way Materials 763 Hazardous Lobdell Cleaners 1000 Main St Materials 764 Hazardous Lube Depot 2485 Notre Dame Blvd Materials 765 Hazardous Mathews Readymix, Inc 1619 Skyway Materials 766 Hazardous Metal Air Ironworks, Inc 2260 Park Ave Materials 767* Hazardous Miracle Auto Painting & Body 2560 Dominic Dr Materials Repair 768 Hazardous Mission Linen & Uniform Service 1340 W 7th St Materials

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-44 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 769 Hazardous MJB Welding Supply 357 E Park Ave Materials 770 Hazardous Norfield Industries 725 Entler ave Materials 771 Hazardous North State Auto Parts 1814 Park Ave Materials 772 Hazardous North Valley Disposal 2569 Scott Ave Materials 773 Hazardous North Valley Iron Works, Inc 11254 Midway Materials 774 Hazardous Northgate Petroleum Co 2549 Scott Ave Materials 775 Hazardous PBM Supply & Mfg, Inc 324 Meyers St Materials 776 Hazardous Peterson Tractor Company 425 Southgate Ave Materials 777 Hazardous Petroleum Tank Line 11196 Midway Materials 778 Hazardous PM Dusters 8562 Aguas-Frias Rd Materials 779 Hazardous Quadco Printing, Inc 2535 Zanella Way Materials 780 Hazardous QWEST Communications - CHI 402 Otterson Dr Materials POP 781 Hazardous QWEST Communications Co 901 Dayton Cir Materials 782 Hazardous Raleys (CHICO) 2485 Notre Dame Blvd Materials 783 Hazardous Schwan's Home Service, Inc 16 Bellarmine Ct Materials 784 Hazardous Sears, Roebuck & Co 1982 E 20th St Materials 785 Hazardous Seven-Up / RC of Chico 306 Otterson Dr Materials 786 Hazardous SFPP, L.P. 2570 Hegan Ln Materials 787 Hazardous Sierra Nevada Brewing 1075 E 20th St Materials Company 788 Hazardous Skyway Park LLC 1 Longest Dr Materials 789 Hazardous Slakey Brothers 2301 Park Ave Materials 790 Hazardous Smyth Tire Service 624 Broadway Materials 791 Hazardous Suburban Propane 46 Norfield Ave Materials

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-45 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 792 Hazardous The Graphic Fox, Inc 313 Walnut Ave Materials 793 Hazardous Transamatic Auto Transmission 2140 Fair St Materials Repair 794 Hazardous U-Haul Chico 600 Country Dr Materials 795 Hazardous United Parcel Service 401 Otterson Dr Materials 796 Hazardous United Rentals 2855 Fair St Materials 797 Hazardous USDA Forest Service 2741 Cramer Ln Materials Mendocino National Forest 798 Hazardous Valley Tractor, Inc 489 Country Dr Materials 799 Hazardous Wal Mart Discount Cities 2044 Forest Ave Materials 800 Hazardous Weiss/MC Nair, Inc 531 Country Dr Materials 801 Hazardous West Valley Construction 11276 Midway Materials Company 802 Hazardous Whitchurch & Sons Trucking 1239 Bruce St Materials 803 Hazardous Witmeier Auto Center 2288 Forest Ave Materials 804 Hazardous Wittmeier Chevrolet/Geo 2292 Forest Ave Materials 805 Hazardous Wittmeier Collision Center 1070 E 20th St Materials 806 Hazardous Union Pacific Railroad Dayton Rd Materials 807 Radio KHSL AM 1290

808 Radio KNVR FM 96.7

809* Radio KPAY AM 1060

810* Radio 1060 KHZ AM, CHICO CA

811* Red Cross Shelters Fairview High 102 W 11th St

812 Red Cross Shelters Chapman Elementary 1071 E 16th St

813 Red Cross Shelters Little Chico Creek Elementary 2090 Amanda Way

814* Red Cross Shelters Neighborhood Church 2801 Notre Dame Blvd

815 Red Cross Shelters Forest Ranch Community 15807 Forest Ranch Rd Center

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-46 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED* Index No. Type Name Address 816 Red Cross Shelters Forest Ranch Elementary 15815 Cedar Creek Rd

817* Salvation Army Salvation Army 1054 Broadway

818 Salvation Army Salvation Army 700 Broadway

819 Schools Butte County Schools Special 326 Huss Dr Ed 820* Schools Notre Dame School 435 Hazel St

821* Schools St. John's Parish School 435 Hazel St

822 Transportation - Enloe Hospital Heliport 823 Tankfarms Shell/Texaco/Unocal

824 Tankfarms Southern Pacific P/L

TABLE 3-7 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE PINE CREEK WATERSHED Index No. Type Name Address

*All highlighted Critical Facilities are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

3-47 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES

Flood Insurance Premiums and Claims

Between July 2003 and July 2004, the annual dollars paid in flood insurance premiums for all of Butte County greatly exceeds the average annual total dollars paid in claims since 1978 (Table 3-8). Although it is understood that averaging annual values does not account for spikes in claim payments, such as in 1997, it does emphasize the volume of monetary losses as a result of flooding and the imbalance between flood insurance premiums paid annually to the flood insurance claims made.

Repetitive Losses

FEMA states that a “repetitive loss property” has received two or more flood insurance claim payments for at least $1,000 each within 10 years. FEMA began recording repetitive losses in 1978 on a national scale. These properties are important to the NFIP because they account for one-third of the Country‟s flood insurance claim payments. A substantially large portion of repetitive loss claims was from properties within the Big Chico Creek watershed (Table 3-9) and account for almost 85% of the total repetitive loss claims in Butte County since 1978 (Figure 3-2). Table 3-10 lists all the repetitive loss properties within the County along with the flooding source and references to the sections of the plan that discuss the proposed mitigation measures. Map 15 illustrates the locations of the repetitive and one-time losses in Butte County.

FIGURE 3-2: REPETITIVE LOSS CLAIMS FOR EACH WATERSHED

Big Chico Creek Watershed 0% Little Chico Creek Watershed 0% 4% 4% 7% 0% Butte Creek Watershed

Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed Cherokee Watershed

Lake Oroville/Upper Feather 85% River Watershed Pine Creek Watershed

3-48 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-8 NUMBER OF POLICIES AND PREMIUMS PAID FROM JULY 2003 TO JULY 2004 Location Number of Policies Total Premiums Paid Average Annual Paid in (July 2003-July 2004) (July 2003-July 2004), Claims (From 1978 to 2004), $ $ City of Chico 406 226,164 54,066 City of Biggs 21 5,958 260 Gridley 34 10,958 2,563 City of Oroville 56 21,339 31,363 Paradise 1 137 499 Butte County 1362 716,408 86,188 (Unincorporated) TOTAL 1,880 980,964 174,939 Note: 2003 dollars Source: FEMA

TABLE 3-9 WATERSHED REPETITIVE LOSS CLAIMS PAID FROM 1978 TO THE END OF 2003 Watershed Percent of Total Paid in Total Paid in Total Paid in Repetitive Repetitive Loss One-Time Loss Claims (1978- Loss Claims, Claims (1978- Claims (1978- 2004), $ % 2004), $ 2004), $ Pine Creek 0 0 11,300 11,300 Big Chico Creek 84.94 2,865,234 269,634 3,134,868 Little Chico Creek 6.72 226,625 375,157 601,782 Butte Creek 4.10 138,196 234,505 372,701 Cherokee 0.00 0 90,474 90,474 Feather River/Lower Honcut 143,281 864,130 1,007,411 Creek 4.25 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather 0 40 40 River 0.00 TOTAL 100% 3,373,336 1,845,240 5,218,576 Source: FEMA Note: 2003 dollars

3-49 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-10 BUTTE COUNTY REPETITIVE LOSSES 1

Primary Alternative Repetitive Loss Flooding Source Watershed Flood Zone Address City APN Number Structure Type Date of Losses Potential Potential ID# on Map 15 Mitigation Mitigation2 1 Keefer Slough Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 13898 HWY 99 Chico 047-260-026-000 Single Family 3/9/1995 2/5/1996 12/31/1996 2/4/1998 Page 4-4 Section 4-43 2 Big Chico Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 14350 HWY 99E Chico 047-330-030-000 Single Family 1/1/1997 2/2/1998 Page 4-5 Section 4-43 3 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 13011 Carmen Ln Chico 047-490-011-000 Single Family 1/9/1995 1/1/1997 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 4 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 13025 Carmen Ln Chico 047-490-010-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 1/1/1997 2/2/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 5 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 13045 Carmen Ln Chico 047-490-008-000 Single Family 1/1/1997 2/2/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 6 Comanche Creek3 Little Chico Creek AE 2654 Fair St. Chico 040-330-003-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 2/2/1998 Page 4-8 Section 4-43 7 Big Chico Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 3255 Foothill Blvd. Oroville 036-710-012-000 Single Family 2/7/2003 12/29/2003 Page 4-5 Section 4-43 8 Comanche Creek3 Little Chico Creek Not Mapped 1087 Honey Run Rd. Chico 017-220-007-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 12/30/1996 Page 4-8 Section 4-43 9 Big Chico Creek Big Chico Creek Not Mapped 45 Kirk Way Chico 002-630-020-000 Single Family 2/3/1998 12/14/2002 Page 4-5 Section 4-43 10 Wyman Ravine Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Not Mapped 6850 Melvina Ave. Palermo 026-050-026-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 2/9/1998 Page 4-15 Section 4-43 11 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 5414 Nord Hwy Chico 047-049-018-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 1/1/1997 2/2/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 12 Wyman Ravine Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek AE 7673 Occidental Palermo 026-241-010-000 Single Family 1/9/1995 2/21/1996 1/22/1997 Page 4-15 Section 4-43 13 Comanche Creek3 Little Chico Creek AE 408 Paseo Companeros Chico 040-330-002-000 Single Family 2/16/1992 1/10/1995 2/2/1998 Page 4-8 Section 4-43 14 Sacramento River Big Chico Creek A 12102 River Rd. Chico 039-610-012-000 Single Family 1/9/1995 12/31/1996 2/5/1998 Page 4-15 Section 4-43 15 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 35 Rain Tree Ct. Chico 047-330-050-000 Single Family 1/10/1995 1/2/1997 2/3/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 16 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 13231 Taylor St. Chico 047-160-030-000 Single Family 12/31/1996 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 17 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 13018 Victor Dr. Chico 047-490-017-000 Single Family 1/9/1995 3/9/1995 1/1/1997 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 18 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 13026 Victor Dr. Chico 047-490-014-000 Single Family 1/1/1997 2/3/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 19 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 13045 Victor Dr. Chico 047-490-002-000 Single Family 1/9/1995 1/1/1997 2/4/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 20 Rock Creek Big Chico Creek A 13046 Victor Dr. Chico 047-490-012-000 Single Family 1/1/1997 2/3/1998 Page 4-6 Section 4-43 21 Keefer Slough Big Chico Creek A 143 Wild Rose Cir. Chico 047-640-006-000 Single Family 3/9/1995 12/31/1996 Page 4-4 Section 4-43 22 Keefer Slough Big Chico Creek A 169 Wild Rose Cir. Chico 047-640-008-000 Single Family 2/2/1998 1/1/1997 Page 4-4 Section 4-43 23 Keefer Slough Big Chico Creek A 185 Wild Rose Cir. Chico 047-640-009-000 Single Family 12/31/1996 1/25/1997 2/2/1998 Page 4-4 Section 4-43 24 Butte Creek Butte Creek AE-F 1834 Arroyo Canyon Dr. Chico 011-060-068-000 Single Family 2/17/1986 1/1/1997 Page 4-8 Section 4-43 25 Butte Creek Butte Creek Not Mapped 4524 Jason Ct. Chico 011-280-119-000 Single Family 2/17/1986 12/31/1996 1/2/1997 Page 4-8 Section 4-43 26 Comanche Creek3 Little Chico Creek AE 93 Horse Run Ln. Chico 011-380-038-000 Single Family 12/31/1996 1/25/1997 Page 4-8 Section 4-43

1Source: FEMA, 2000 and NRCS, 1998-1999 2Alternate potential mitigation could be in the form of elevating the lowest floor elevation 1-foot above the BFE, acquisition of the property, or relocating it. 3During the high flow events in Butte Creek, a portion of the flow enters Comanche Creek. Comanche Creek (also known as Crouch Ditch or Edgar Slough) diverts water from Butte Creek to Dayton Mutual Water Company, M&T Chico Ranch, Parrott Ranch, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Genetic Tree Improvement Center, and to several property owners.

3-50 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

Damage Survey Reports

Flood damage surveys were conducted and reported in Butte County in 1995, 1997, and 1998 by NRCS and Butte County to itemize known physical damage from recent flood events and estimate monetary flood damage. All flood damage survey reports with estimated repair costs over $10,000 are included on Map 15, however many damage survey reports reflected repair costs that fell below this dollar amount. The total estimated cost for repairs, reported by Butte County and NRCS, from damage caused by flooding reached over $400,000 in 1995, over $700,000 in 1997, and over $1.3 million in 1998 (Butte County and NRCS Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 1995, 1997, and 1998).

Potential Losses Estimate

FEMA published a series of How-To Guides for state and local mitigation planning that addresses the different elements necessary for hazard mitigation planning, including a process for estimating losses associated with potential flooding hazards. This guidance was utilized to estimate the potential losses due to flooding in the Butte County FMP.

To estimate the potential economic loss associated with the threat of flooding, an improvements parcel inventory in the 100-year SFHA was obtained from the Butte County Tax Assessor‟s office in May of 2004 and the parcels were separated by watershed (Table 3-10). The parcel data collected from the Butte County Tax Assessor has inaccuracies inherent to the provisions in Proposition 13. Proposition 13, passed by the California voters in 1978, reduced property taxes by 57 percent. Under the tax cut measure, property tax valuation was set at the 1976 assessed value. Property tax increase on any given property was limited to no more than two percent a year as long as the property was not sold. Once sold, the property is reassessed at one percent of the new market value with the two percent yearly cap placed on this new assessment. As a result, the parcel value information that was obtained from the Butte County Tax Assessor contains taxable value information for properties that have not changed hands over the last few years, thus that property has not been re-evaluated for the current taxable value. The value for many of the properties in Butte County do not reflect the current true market value; instead it is the market value at the time it was last assessed, which for many properties was over 20 years ago. This information must be taken into account when noting the estimated monetary losses due to flooding.

Improvements parcel data from the Butte County Tax Assessor was obtained for parcels in the 100- year FEMA SFHA to estimate potential losses in each watershed. The improvements parcel data does not specify whether a structure is one-story, two-story, or a manufactured home or what structures contained basements. Based on communications with the Assessor‟s office it was difficult to ascertain an overall percentage of each type of structure in Butte County. For the Butte County FMP, it was estimated that 60 percent of the total structure value are portioned to one-story and two-story structures (30 percent each) and 40 percent of the structure total value is portioned to manufactured homes. At this time, these values are based on the best available data. As new data becomes available, these percentages should be adjusted accordingly. The total structural value of each watershed were distributed based on the assumed percentages of one-story, two-story, and manufactured homes and is provided in Table 3-11.

3-51 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

To obtain a contents value for structures, FEMA provides a table in the State and Local Hazard Mitigation Planning How-To Guides that assists in calculating a contents value as a percentage of structure value; however, the percent of the structure value is determined by the land use type. Due to the fact that the parcel data is not distributed by land use type, for the purposes of the Butte County FMP, the median percentage of 75 percent of the structure value was used in all cases to estimate the contents value of each structure type.

Once the values of the structures and contents within each watershed have been tabulated (Table 3- 11), the potential losses at different flood depths can be calculated (the results are presented in Table 3-14).

For example, the total structural value of one-story buildings (with no basement) in the Pine Creek watershed is approximately $5.9 million (Table 3-12). To obtain the total building loss for one-story buildings (with no basements) after one foot depth of flooding, the total structural value of one- story buildings is multiplied by the FEMA percent structure damage to a one-story building (with no basement) for one foot of flooding, 14 percent (given in Table 3-13), and the resultant value of approximately $0.8 million (Table 3-13). Based upon this loss estimate, manufactured homes are at the greatest monetary risk and one-story structures are at a greater risk than two-story structures. The elevation of a structure substantially reduces the loss in an event that produces three feet of flooding, by an average of approximately $10 million, if all one-story and two-story structures are compared.

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Although Butte County has incorporated cities, for the purposes of the Butte County FMP, this FMP is presented for Butte County as a single jurisdiction.

3-52 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-11 PARCEL VALUES IN THE FEMA 100-YEAR SFHA BY WATERSHED AND LAND USE TYPE % of Total Land Values in Structure Improvement No. of Watershed Land Use Acres Watershed the FEMA Values in the FEMA Structures Area1 SFHA, $ SFHA, $ Big Chico Creek Agriculture 232 19,571 18 48,977,482 23,708,875 Commercial 24 167 0 2,385,837 7,379,919 Industrial 17 171 0 3,508,266 8,001,083 Residential 562 2,952 3 41,320,399 71,666,371 Other2 48 2,460 2 3,125,463 209,690 Butte Creek Agriculture 716 81,517 50 141,119,117 36,773,851 Commercial 11 352 0 720,801 3,401,103 Industrial 19 441 0 3,443,512 11,628,264 Residential 1,210 6,052 4 76,826,558 118,674,275 Other2 59 2,532 2 4,140,182 329,517 Cherokee Agriculture 388 41,842 25 76,925,144 12,045,374 Commercial 2 101 0 271,201 130,906 Industrial 2 103 0 384,343 4,542,192 Residential 110 3,538 2 5,871,048 7,287,875 Other2 53 4,638 3 67,262 22,503 Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Agriculture 283 27,261 15 43,003,408 11,406,877 Commercial 121 1,315 1 10,738,890 17,790,218 Industrial 37 447 0 1,710,437 3,593,065 Residential 827 9,701 5 21,439,932 32,240,334 Other2 156 9,698 5 854,564 1,097,224 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Agriculture 8 4,218 1 399,666 10,404 Commercial 1 1 0 40,000 65,000 Industrial 5 108 0 0 0 Residential 145 16,485 5 1,087,836 1,559,106 Other2 85 13,539 4 80,172 0 Little Chico Creek Agriculture 243 40,969 47 75,147,317 35,168,589 Commercial 168 404 0 29,440,771 40,916,464 Industrial 59 371 0 7,944,318 12,697,452 Residential 1,385 1,662 2 78,370,772 149,518,886 Other2 40 2,934 3 3,481,696 100,918 Pine Creek Agriculture 121 20,087 67 41,614,360 19,040,857 Commercial 4 7 0 43,596 123,150 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 16 204 1 502,121 340,222 Other2 8 303 1 361,634 143,670 TOTAL 7,165 316,152 269 725,348,105 631,614,234

1Percent of area within the designated land use that falls within each watershed. 2Other land uses include city, county, state, government, utility, water, and sanitary districts and agencies, etc.

3-53 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-12 ESTIMATED VALUES OF STRUCTURES AND THEIR CONTENTS IN THE FEMA 100-YEAR SFHA Watershed Total Structure One Story Structure (30 percent), $ Two Story Structure (30 percent), $ Manufactured Home (40 percent), Value, $ $

Structure Contents Value Structure Contents Value Structure Value Contents Value Value (75 percent of Value (75 percent of (75 percent of Structure Value) Structure Value) Structure Value)

Pine Creek 19,647,899 5,894,370 4,420,777 5,894,370 4,420,777 7,859,160 5,894,370 Big Chico Creek 110,965,938 33,289,781 24,967,336 33,289,781 24,967,336 44,386,375 33,289,781 Little Chico Creek 238,402,309 71,520,693 53,640,520 71,520,693 53,640,520 95,360,924 71,520,693 Butte Creek 170,807,010 51,242,103 38,431,577 51,242,103 38,431,577 68,322,804 51,242,103 Cherokee 24,028,850 7,208,655 5,406,491 7,208,655 5,406,491 9,611,540 7,208,655 Feather River/Lower Honcut 66,127,718 19,838,315 14,878,737 19,838,315 14,878,737 26,451,087 19,838,315 Creek Lake Oroville/Upper Feather 1,634,510 490,353 367,765 490,353 367,765 653,804 490,353 River

3-54 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-13 POTENTIAL FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATION Flood Type of Flooding Loss Depth (ft) One-Story – No Two-Story – No Manufactured Home Basement Basement % Building % % % % Building % Contents Damage Contents Building Contents Damage Damage Damage Damage Damage 1 14 21 9 13.5 44 66 2 22 33 13 19.5 63 90 3 27 40.5 18 27 73 90 Source: FEMA

3-55 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-14 POTENTIAL FLOOD LOSS AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS OF FLOODING FOR AREAS IN THE 100- YEAR FEMA SFHA

One Story Structure (30 Two Story Structure (30 Manufactured Home (40 percent), $ percent), $ percent), $ Total Flood Depth Contents Contents Contents Potential Value (75 Value (75 Value (75 Structure Structure Structure Building percent of percent of percent of Value, $ Value, $ Value, $ and Structure Structure Structure Contents Value), $ Value), $ Value), $ Loss, $

Pine Creek 5,894,370 4,420,777 5,894,370 4,420,777 7,859,160 5,894,370 34,383,823 1 825,212 928,363 530,493 596,805 3,458,030 3,890,284 10,229,187 2 1,296,761 1,458,857 766,268 862,052 4,951,271 5,304,933 14,640,141 3 1,591,480 1,790,415 1,060,987 1,193,610 5,737,187 5,304,933 16,678,610 Big Chico Creek 33,289,781 24,967,336 33,289,781 24,967,336 44,386,375 33,289,781 194,190,392 1 4,660,569 5,243,141 2,996,080 3,370,590 19,530,005 21,971,256 57,771,641 2 7,323,752 8,239,221 4,327,672 4,868,631 27,963,416 29,960,803 82,683,495 3 8,988,241 10,111,771 5,992,161 6,741,181 32,402,054 29,960,803 94,196,211 Little Chico Creek 71,520,693 53,640,520 71,520,693 53,640,520 95,360,924 71,520,693 417,204,041 1 10,012,897 11,264,509 6,436,862 7,241,470 41,958,806 47,203,657 124,118,202 2 15,734,552 17,701,371 9,297,690 10,459,901 60,077,382 64,368,623 177,639,520 3 19,310,587 21,724,410 12,873,725 14,482,940 69,613,474 64,368,623 202,373,760 Butte Creek 51,242,103 38,431,577 51,242,103 38,431,577 68,322,804 51,242,103 298,912,268 1 7,173,894 8,070,631 4,611,789 5,188,263 30,062,034 33,819,788 88,926,400 2 11,273,263 12,682,420 6,661,473 7,494,158 43,043,367 46,117,893 127,272,573 3 13,835,368 15,564,789 9,223,579 10,376,526 49,875,647 46,117,893 144,993,801 Cherokee 7,208,655 5,406,491 7,208,655 5,406,491 9,611,540 7,208,655 42,050,488 1 1,009,212 1,135,363 648,779 729,876 4,229,078 4,757,712 12,510,020 2 1,585,904 1,784,142 937,125 1,054,266 6,055,270 6,487,790 17,904,497 3 1,946,337 2,189,629 1,297,558 1,459,753 7,016,424 6,487,790 20,397,490

3-56 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

TABLE 3-14 POTENTIAL FLOOD LOSS AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS OF FLOODING FOR AREAS IN THE 100- YEAR FEMA SFHA

One Story Structure (30 Two Story Structure (30 Manufactured Home (40 percent), $ percent), $ percent), $ Total Flood Depth Contents Contents Contents Potential Value (75 Value (75 Value (75 Structure Structure Structure Building percent of percent of percent of Value, $ Value, $ Value, $ and Structure Structure Structure Contents Value), $ Value), $ Value), $ Loss, $

Feather River/Lower Honcut 19,838,315 14,878,737 19,838,315 14,878,737 26,451,087 19,838,315 115,723,507 Creek 1 2,777,364 3,124,535 1,785,448 2,008,629 11,638,478 13,093,288 34,427,743 2 4,364,429 4,909,983 2,578,981 2,901,354 16,664,185 17,854,484 49,273,416 3 5,356,345 6,025,888 3,570,897 4,017,259 19,309,294 17,854,484 56,134,167 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather 490,353 367,765 490,353 367,765 653,804 490,353 2,860,393 River 1 68,649 77,231 44,132 49,648 287,674 323,633 850,967 2 107,878 121,362 63,746 71,714 411,897 441,318 1,217,914 3 132,395 148,945 88,264 99,296 477,277 441,318 1,387,495

Note: This table includes all types of structures that fall within the FEMA SFHA

3-57 Section 3.0 Risk Assessment January 2006

SECTION 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

Butte County is unique in that many concerned citizens have joined together to form watershed groups and partnerships to support, enhance, and ensure the health of their local watershed. Although there are many regulatory agencies involved in flood management in Butte County, the direct involvement and coordination of the local watershed groups within Butte County is very important in ensuring the implementation of multi-objective solutions to reduce repetitive losses and damage caused by flooding.

For the identified flood hazards in each watershed, as discussed in Section 3.0, the respective potential mitigation measures are provided in this section. In order to mitigate for repetitive losses within Butte County, the flooding hazard must be addressed at the source to the extent possible. In the event that a recommended mitigation measure is not feasible or affordable, structural retrofitting measures suggested by FEMA, such as structure elevation, wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, demolition, relocation, or installation of a levee or floodwall, are options for eliminating or reducing the number of repetitive loss properties. This is described in more detail later in this section.

For each potential mitigation measure, the lead agency or individual responsible for implementation is identified, potential sources of funding and/or general cost estimates is provided, and an implementation schedule for each action is designated (short-term is two years or less, and long- term is two years or more). Detailed cost estimates and schedules for each action required should be completed at the time of implementing the mitigation measures.

4-1 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: LINDO CHANNEL DIVERSION

Flood Hazard: Lindo Channel Diversion

Levee erosion, debris accumulation, and lack of freeboard at, and downstream of, the Lindo Channel Diversion at Five-Mile Park.

Mitigation: Gravel Management Program

A long-term gravel management program should be developed and implemented, to include habitat rehabilitation (i.e. gravel re-introduction downstream of the diversion), protecting the levee from erosion while maintaining capacity of the channel, and allow for safe and relatively easy debris removal and temporary storage on the right bank during high flow events. The gravel management program should also include the installation of debris deflectors on the bridge located downstream on Sycamore Creek. The development of the long-term gravel management program should include the input of local residents, watershed groups, and agencies.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The debris management program could be incorporated as part of the current channel maintenance programs within Butte County, or DWR‟s levee maintenance program.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

The cost for debris load control method depends on the technique adopted and the deflectors. A detailed cost estimate will be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-2 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SYCAMORE CREEK

Flood Hazard: Sycamore Creek

Channel bank erosion, sedimentation, headcutting, and debris accumulation at the Sycamore Creek Diversion near Marigold Road and debris and sediment accumulation at the Sycamore Creek Diversion crossing at the Cohasset Road Bridge.

Mitigation: Detailed Study, Energy Dissipation Mitigation, Erosion Control Mitigation; Sediment and Debris Removal

The erosion sites throughout the channel should be inventoried and surveyed and followed by hydraulic modeling to evaluate channel capacity and rate of erosion and sediment transport. Once complete, specific energy dissipation and erosion control measures should be recommended in the Butte County General Plan and implemented through FEMA funding, Butte County‟s current channel maintenance programs and DWR‟s local levee maintenance program.

Sediment loads from upstream sources, such as Sycamore Canyon, should be addressed to minimize need for sediment removal and wetland disturbance. The removal of sediment from upstream sources should be incorporated into Butte County‟s channel maintenance programs. Regular debris removal is needed at this crossing; however, bridge modification or replacement to accommodate high flows and debris load would reduce the need for this practice. Adjacent open areas should be utilized for water storage during high flow events. To allow water to flow back to the main channel, a bypass under Cohasset Road should be established. Such improvements could be integrated into the Cohasset Road widening project.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Butte County Department of Public Works, City of Chico, and DWR‟s Levee Maintenance Program.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

Cost would be dependent on the results of the initial inventory collected and the hydraulic modeling. A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule: This project is short-term.

4-3 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH SPLIT

Flood Hazard: Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Split

Gravel deposition at the Rock-Creek Keefer Slough Split and gravel lens west of Garner Land and south of Rock Creek.

Mitigation: Flow Regulation and Channel Maintenance

A flow regulating structure, as well as a channel maintenance program, is needed to prevent large flows from being distributed to one channel, which threatens the urban and downstream areas.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance should coordinate the development of the channel maintenance program and Butte County could assist in the implementation of the channel maintenance program recommendations. The participation of private landowners would be required to implement this mitigation. If cooperation does not become feasible, then an alternative mitigation measure for this flood hazard would need to be considered.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is short-term.

4-4 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: CONFLUENCE OF BIG CHICO CREEK AND LINDO CHANNEL

Flood Hazard: Confluence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel

Levee break near the confluence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel.

Mitigation: Setback Levees and Increasing Capacity of Lindo Channel

Mitigation for flood hazards in this area should be part of the overall mitigation of the system. Upstream mitigation measures, once adopted, would affect the level of mitigation and design at this location. At this stage, it is recommended that setback levees on both sides of Lindo Channel near its confluence with Big Chico Creek be considered, along with increasing the channel capacity and creating a high flow terrace through excavation.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Private landowners and Butte County.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-5 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK

Flood Hazard: Rock Creek

The lower reaches of Rock Creek periodically inundate agricultural areas and leave the Town of Nord vulnerable to flooding.

Mitigation:

Mitigation for flood hazards in this area should part of the overall mitigation of the system. Upstream mitigation measures, once adopted, would affect the level of mitigation and design at this location. At this stage it is recommended that setback levees should be constructed for the length of the channel that starts within the Paiva property line to Highway 32, on the left bank. The feasibility of constructing a ring levee around the town of Nord should also be evaluated.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Private landowners, Butte County, the Town of Nord, and the USACOE.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-6 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SACRAMENTO RIVER

Flood Hazard: Sacramento River

Erosion of River Road in the stretch between West Sacramento Avenue and Big Chico Creek.

Mitigation:

Upstream of the eroded spot in River Road, erosion in the Sacramento River is stabilized by riprap. The erosion begins at the end of the riprap. As a temporary solution, a concrete barrier has been constructed to prevent shoulder parking. Riprap upstream of the Sacramento River should continue downstream. To extend the riprap, permits and involvement from the Bureau of Land Management, USACOE, CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Butte County Department of Public Works.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-7 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED: BUTTE CREEK LEVEES

Flood Hazard: Butte Creek Levees

According to the FEMA FIS and FIRMs, the water surface elevations under a 100-year and 500-year storm event would encroach on the levee freeboard and overtop part of the levees along Butte Creek. The Butte Creek levees were constructed in the 1950‟s and the condition of the levees at this time, with respect to structural integrity or seepage, is not known. Butte Creek contained a flow greater than the 100-year event, as published in the FEMA FIS, in 1997, confirming that the floodplain provided in the FEMA FIRMs from Butte Creek is largely due to theoretical levee failure. This method of floodplain determination near levees is adopted by FEMA for levees that are not certified.

Mitigation: Conduct a Geotechnical Investigation and Update Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses

To ensure the continuation of public safety and to determine the feasibility of certifying the Butte Creek levees, it is essential to determine the condition of the existing levees and foundations in the Butte Creek system. The condition of the levees can influence the method by which certification is ultimately achieved. Conduct a geotechnical study on the Butte Creek levee system to determine the extent to which reconstruction or modification would be made to obtain certification for the levees. Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should be conducted on the Butte Creek levee system with new hydrographic surveys. This would be equivalent to an updated FEMA FIS.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy and Butte County Department of Public Works.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

The cost for conducting a geotechnical study for the entire levee system is estimated to be approximately $700,000. This cost for the surveys and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses is estimated to be approximately $600,000. The costs for this work could be funded through FEMA‟s NFIP or a combination of local funds for cost sharing. A more detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This work could be performed as early as funding permits to provide a basis for reevaluating the costs associated with ensuring the structural integrity of the levees system and removing the freeboard deficiencies to achieve levee certification. This project is long-term.

4-8 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEROKEE CANAL

Flood Hazard: Cherokee Canal

Excessive sedimentation and debris accumulation in the Cherokee Canal clogs the channel and results in channel bank overtopping in high flow events.

Mitigation:

A regular channel maintenance and sedimentation removal program should be established.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The maintenance and sediment removal program should be developed in coordination with Butte County, DWR, CDFG, and the local watershed groups. Enlisting the assistance of the California Conservation Corps could significantly reduce the cost of maintenance.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

Cost of this project would be dependant on the process of the development of the sediment removal program. Project funding for maintenance could be shared between the state and local agencies. A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-9 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEMICAL FACILITIES STORAGE IN THE FEMA SFHA

Flood Hazard: Storage in the FEMA SFHA

Butte County Rice Grower‟s Association Chemical Warehouse and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rice Storage Building in the FEMA SFHA.

Mitigation:

A floodwall or ring levee could be constructed around the building, to prevent inundation during high flows. The structure could also be elevated or flood proofed to prevent water seepage.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The project could be funded by the BCRGA, Butte County, and state or federal agencies.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

According to the USCOE National Floodproofing Committee, floodwalls built two, four, and six feet above ground level cost $77, $113, and $169, per linear foot respectively, to construct (USCOE, 1993). A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is short-term.

4-10 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: NORTH FORK OF DRY CREEK

Flood Hazard: Dry Creek

High flows on the North and Middle Forks of Dry Creek exceed the channel capacity in the Oroville urban area. The Argonaut Detention Basin on the Middle Fork of Dry Creek fills up before the others in the system. Channel erosion in the tributaries of Dry Creek was evident through the developed areas in the City of Oroville.

Mitigation: Detention Basin and Channel Inspection and Repair

Increase the storage capacity of the Argonaut detention basin on the middle fork of Dry Creek and incorporate multi-objective management, such as converting the area to a recreational area.

Install an additional detention basin south of Oro-Quincy Highway, for the North Fork of Dry Creek.

Apply bank stabilization measures in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The City of Oroville.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

Cost for the construction of the detention basin could be covered by the drainage impact fees adopted by the City of Oroville. The cost of the channel repair is dependent upon the extent of damage determined upon further investigation. A more detailed cost estimate for repair would be following further investigation. The cost for bank stabilization measures implemented would be dependent upon method adopted by the City of Oroville.

Schedule:

This project is short-term.

4-11 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: DRY CREEK TRIBUTARIES CONFLUENCE

Flood Hazard: Dry Creek Tributaries Confluence

Heavy development and excessive erosion near the confluence of the three main forks of Dry Creek, in the City of Oroville urban area.

Mitigation: Detention Basin Installation and Expansion

Install a detention basin near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Oro-Quincy Highway to control high flow and reduce the water volume and velocity.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The City of Oroville.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

Cost for the construction of the detention basin could be covered by the drainage impact fees adopted by the City of Oroville. A more detailed cost estimate for repair would be following further investigation. A more detailed discussion of these alternatives is provided in the Drainage Master Plan.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-12 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: FEATHER RIVER

Flood Hazard: Feather River

Water rises through the gravel deposits in the Feather River Boulevard area, from Oro-Dam Boulevard to Georgia Pacific, to create equilibrium with the water surface elevation in the Feather River. Seepage from the Feather River concrete channel adjacent to 4th Street and Safford Street.

Mitigation: Floodwall

Install a floodwall along the Feather River in the section adjacent to Feather River Blvd.

The Feather River concrete channel, maintained and operated by the City of Oroville, should be inspected and repaired to prevent deterioration of the channel and potential losses due to significant seepage and flooding of the surrounding areas.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

This mitigation should be coordinated between the City of Oroville, Butte County, DWR, and the USACOE.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

According to the USCOE National Floodproofing Committee, floodwalls built two, four, and six feet above ground level cost $77, $113, and $169, per linear foot respectively, to construct (USCOE, 1993). Based on this information, the cost for approximately four miles of floodwall two feet in height would be approximately $1.6 million. This value should be adjusted to the dollars in the year in which construction would take place. Further investigation would be necessary to determine a more precise cost estimate.

The cost of the channel repair is dependent upon the extent of damage determined upon further investigation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-13 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: CITY OF OROVILLE STORMWATER DRAINAGE

Flood Hazard: City of Oroville Stormwater Drainage

Flooding in the urban area between the Feather River and the North Fork of the Dry Creek.

Mitigation: Adjust Capacity and Operation of Pump Station, Increase Existing Storm Drain Lines, Increase Capacity of Outflow Lines, Install Pipe, and Adopt Regulations

Increase the capacity and adjust the operation of the Huntoon Street pump station; increase the size of the existing storm drain lines in the Downtown area and increase capacity of outflow lines at the levee; install pipe under Highway 70 to the Feather River from the area west of Feather River Boulevard between Mitchell Avenue and Oro Dam Boulevard; and the City of Oroville should adopt regulations that requires no net increase and onsite storage by new development for storm events including and up to a 100-year event.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The City of Oroville.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

This project is long-term.

4-14 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FEATHE RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: WYMAN RAVINE

Flood Hazard: Wyman Ravine

Houses flood near Wyman Ravine. Flooding occurs along Railroad Avenue due to overflow from the lower reach of Wyman Ravine.

Mitigation: Detention Basin

Add a detention basin on the Middle Fork of Wyman Ravine. Add detention basin on Wyman Ravine near Palermo.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Butte County.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

Cost could be shared between the cities and Pacific Coast Producers, since Pacific Coast Producers would like to set up a detention basin for their excess effluent water. Cost for the construction of the detention basin could be covered by the drainage impact fees adopted by the City of Oroville. A more detailed cost estimate for repair would be following further investigation. A more detailed discussion of these alternatives is provided in the Drainage Master Plan.

Schedule:

The project is long-term.

4-15 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED: CONCOW CREEK AND CIRBY CREEK

Flood Hazard: Concow Creek and Cirby Creek

Several crossings in the watershed do not have enough capacity to convey the flows, have signs of severe deterioration, and cannot handle heavy traffic, which would be expected during rescue and evacuation.

Mitigation: Re-Build Road Crossings

Increase conveyance capacity of existing structures or rebuild severely deteriorated flow structures to convey flow, deflect debris, and have the capacity for potential heavy traffic. Structures of concern are: Concow Creek at Hoffman Road Bridge; Cirby Creek crossing at Cirby creek road; and the bridges in the Camelot subdivision, after Cirby Creek and Concow Creek join.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Butte County and the local landowners.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

The cost could be shared between Butte County, or a federal or state grant, and the local residents.

Schedule: This project is short-term.

4-16 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: VEGETATION IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK

Flood Hazard: Vegetation in Little Chico Creek

Reduced Little Chico Creek channel capacity due to excessive vegetation.

Mitigation: Channel Maintenance Program

The current channel capacity of Little Chico Creek is estimated at 1,800 cfs with the current vegetation levels, compared to 2,350 cfs in the FEMA FIS. Reducing the density of the vegetation would result in an increase in channel conveyance capacity. Channel maintenance responsibilities for the Butte Creek levee system and the Little Chico Creek channels are currently distributed between DWR‟s Maintenance Area No. 5, the City of Chico, and Butte County. A vegetation clearing and channel maintenance program would increase the channel capacity of Little Chico Creek, facilitate interagency coordination, and initiate active participation from the public. The maintenance program could be developed with continued involvement from other local agencies, organizations, watershed groups, and the public.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

DWR, NRCS, Butte County, and the City of Chico.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

The estimated cost for clearing vegetation is approximately $38,000 per stream mile. The estimated miles of the Little Chico Creek channel through the City of Chico is approximately four miles, resulting in an estimated $152,000 for the initial clearing. Maintenance would be required on an on-going basis following the initial clearing. Enlisting the assistance of the California Conservation Corps could significantly reduce the cost of initial clearing and maintenance. Project funding for maintenance could be shared between the state and local agencies.

Schedule:

The initial level of effort to clear the Little Chico Creek channel that runs through the City of Chico would require approximately three months. The development of the Little Chico Creek Maintenance Program should be initiated as soon as possible and should include the schedule. The ongoing maintenance and Little Chico Creek Maintenance Program schedule would be determined once it has been developed. This project is short-term.

4-17 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DEAD HORSE SLOUGH

Flood Hazard: Dead Horse Slough

Inundation occurs at the Dead Horse Slough crossing at El Monte Avenue. The lower reach of Little Chico Creek has experienced levee seepage and overflow.

Mitigation: Floodwall and Geotechnical Investigations

A floodwall could be built on the left channel bank to protect the structures at the Music Camp, Bed and Breakfast.

A geotechnical investigation should be conducted to determine the extent of damage, needed repairs, and cost for raising the levees in the sections near the Little Chico Creek crossings at Taffee Avenue and at Alberton Avenue.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

Private landowners, the City of Chico, and Butte County.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

According to the USCOE National Flood proofing Committee, floodwalls built two, four, and six feet above ground level cost $77, $113, and $169, per linear foot respectively, to construct (USCOE, 1993). Based on this information, the cost for a quarter of a mile of floodwall two feet in height would be approximately $102,000, which should be adjusted to the dollars for the year in which the wall is to be constructed. Further investigation would be necessary to determine a more precise cost estimate.

Schedule:

This project is short-term.

4-18 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DRAINAGE IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK

Flood Hazard: Drainage in Little Chico Creek

Inadequate Storm Drainage System in the City of Chico results in excessive drainage and pollution into Little Chico Creek.

Mitigation: Revised Drainage Criteria

The City of Chico Storm Drainage Master Plan should be revised with drainage criteria that accounts for new and future development and to accommodate the routing of flow greater than the storm drain capacity to locations other than Little Chico Creek.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

The Butte County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division, would be responsible for coordinating, scheduling, and performing the required study and modeling to reconfigure and update the drainage criteria for Butte County. The City of Chico Department of Department of Public Works would be responsible for coordinating, scheduling, and performing the required study and modeling to reconfigure and update the drainage criteria for the City of Chico.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

A detailed cost estimate would be developed at the time of project implementation.

Schedule:

Short-term: The Butte County drainage criteria could be studied and revised. Following the Butte County drainage criteria update, the City of Chico Storm Drainage Master Plan could be updated.

4-19 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: UNCERTIFIED LEVEE

Flood Hazard: Uncertified Levee

The levee along the Little Chico Creek-Butte Creek Diversion channel was constructed in 1957. The condition of the levee and its foundation are not known and it is not certified by the USACOE, thus the floodplain shown on the FEMA FIRM reflects an inadequate levee in relation to the out-of-bank flooding that can occur from Butte Creek.

Mitigation: Conduct a Geotechnical Investigation/Levee Certification

This mitigation measure is similar to that identified for the Butte Creek levees. The cost of levee certification depends upon the findings of the initial geotechnical investigations. The proposed mitigation is to conduct a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the levee for close to one mile of one bank. A prerequisite to pursuing this mitigation measure is the completion of an updated hydrologic and hydraulic analysis identified for Butte Creek, which includes the entire system (Butte Creek, Little Chico Creek-Butte Creek Diversion channel, and Little Chico Creek). Pending the results of this analysis and the above-mentioned structural integrity analysis of the levees, constructing or raising the existing levees could be considered.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

City of Chico and Butte County.

Cost Estimate/Resources:

The cost for the geotechnical investigation is estimated at $50,000 as a stand-alone effort (as estimated in the Butte Creek Watershed Floodplain Management Plan). If included as part of the geotechnical investigation for the Butte Creek levees, the cost would be less. The cost to raise and strengthen the levee may be in the order of $ 1 million.

Schedule:

This project is short-term.

4-20 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

PINE CREEK WATERSHED: PINE CREEK AND SINGER CREEK

Flood Hazard: Pine Creek and Singer Creek

Excessive vegetation and sedimentation reduces channel capacity in Pine Creek and Singer Creek.

Mitigation: Channel Maintenance and Sediment Removal Program

A channel maintenance and sediment removal program should be developed and implemented to reduce the density of vegetation in the Pine Creek and Singer Creek channels. Channel maintenance responsibilities for the Pine Creek and Singer Creek channels are distributed among Butte County, DWR, and private landowners. A vegetation clearing and channel maintenance program should be implemented to increase the channel capacity of Pine Creek and Singer Creek. A state or local agency, such as DWR, NRCS, or Butte County, should sponsor the establishment and implementation of a channel maintenance program for Pine Creek and Singer Creek, which would include sediment removal. The maintenance and removal program should be developed with continued involvement from other local agencies, organizations, watershed groups, and the public.

Responsible Agency/Organization:

DWR, NRCS, Butte County, and private landowners.

Cost Estimate/Resource:

Enlisting the assistance of the California Conservation Corps could significantly reduce the cost of initial clearing and maintenance. Project funding for maintenance could be shared between the state and local agencies.

Schedule: Short-term.

4-21 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EVACUATION PLAN

For the purpose of understanding the evacuation process, it is important to distinguish between catastrophic and non-catastrophic flooding. Catastrophic flooding occurs with very little or no warning, as in the case of an unexpected levee breaks. Non-catastrophic flooding provides advance warning, such as during storm events when floodwater rises over hours or days.

An effective evacuation plan is a tool for preventing the loss of life in a flood event. For determining responsibilities in a flood emergency, a distinction of time is made between a rescue effort and an evacuation effort. An area where people would be endangered within a couple of hours from the time an event occurs would be targeted for a rescue effort. An area where people would be endangered more than two hours after a flood event would be targeted for an evacuation effort. Elements of the evacuation plan include Flood Threat Recognition, Flood Response, and Post- Disaster Flood Mitigation.

Flood Threat Recognition

Planning, early warning, and decision-making are important components of an effective evacuation plan. Ample advance warning to Butte County and city agencies provides communities time for evacuation and rescue. A flood forecasting/monitoring system, called an ALERT System (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time), would give occupants of the flood hazard areas within Butte County advance warning of pending floods. A similar system is used in Sacramento County and Santa Barbara County.

The Flood ALERT Network could be established, monitored, maintained, and operated by the Butte County OES and the Butte County Department of Public Works. The Flood ALERT Network would be a network of remote sensors that record and remotely transmit data such as rainfall, stream flow, reservoir elevations, dam gate openings, and wind speed. It is possible to use the climate and stream gaging stations currently in use in Butte County (the index number provided with each station listed in Table 4-1 matches the station numbers on Map 16) as well as a few additional gaging stations in well-placed locations within the watershed to achieve the goal of early warning and safe evacuation.

4-22 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 1 USGS 11384000 BIG CHICO C NR CHICO CA 39°46'35" 121°45'10" 1930-1997 14447062 1990853 2 USGS 11384350 MUD C NR CHICO CA 39°47'02" 121°53'06" 1965-1974 14449303 1953667 3 USGS 11389720 BUTTE C BL DIV DAM NR STIRLING 39°58'53" 121°35'15" 1986-2002 14522402 2036113 CITY 4 USGS 11389740 BUTTE C BL FKS OF BUTTE DIV DAM 39°54'05" 121°37'24" 1992-Present 14493113 2026524 NR DE SALBA CA 5 USGS 11389747 FORKS OF BUTTE PP NR PARADISE 39°52'17" 121°37'57" 1992-Present 14482149 2024120 CA 6 USGS 11389750 DE SABLA PH NR PARADISE CA 39°52'10" 121°37'51" 1979-Present 14481448 2024599 7 USGS 11389775 CENTERVILLE PH NR PARADISE CA 39°47'20" 121°39'23" 1979-Present 14452006 2017869

8 USGS 11389780 BUTTE C BL CENTERVILLE DIV DAM 39°52'01" 121°37'58" 1985-Present 14480529 2024067 NR PARADISE CA 9 USGS 11389800 TOADTOWN CN AB BUTTE CAN NR 39°53'09" 121°36'35" 1984-Present 14487507 2030430 STIRLING CITY CA 10 USGS 11389950 LITTLE BUTTE C NR MAGALIA CA 39°48'38" 121°35'00" 1968-1985 14460212 2038268 11 USGS 11390000 BUTTE C NR CHICO CA 39°43'34" 121°42'28" 1930-Present 14428933 2003762 13 USGS 11390200 GOLD RUN TRIB NR NELSON CA 39°35'21" 121°41'15" 1960-1973 14379151 2010193 14 USGS 11390210 DRY CR N NELSON CA 39°34'54" 121°41'54" 1970-1974 14376375 2007180 15 USGS 11396000 LOST C NR CLIPPER MILLS CA 39°34'25" 121°08'26" 1927-Present 14376205 2164411 16 USGS 11406910 SUTTER BUTTE CN A INTAKE NR 39°27'02" 121°39'26" 1967-Present 14328805 2019476 OROVILLE CA 17 USGS 11394500 MF FEATHER R NR MERRIMAC CA 39°42'30" 121°16'10" 1937-1986 14424538 2127143 18 USGS 11395500 OROVILLE WYANDOTTE CN NR 39°33'15" 121°11'31" 1927-Present 14368829 2150071 CLIPPER MILLS CA 19 USGS 11396090 WOODLEAF PH NR WOODLEAF CA 39°33'18" 121°12'11" 1972-Present 14369070 2146933

20 USGS 11396200 SF FEATHER R BL FORBESTOWN 39°33'05" 121°12'30" 1962-Present 14367726 2145472 DAM CA 21 USGS 11396290 FORBESTOWN PH NR FORBESTOWN 39°33'00" 121°16'36" 1972-Present 14366843 2126218 CA 22 USGS 11396300 SF FEATHER R NR FORBESTOWN CA 39°33'08" 121°16'49" 1957-1961 14367633 2125184

4-23 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 23 USGS 11396310 MINERS RANCH CN BL PONDEROSA 39°33'00" 121°18'20" 1962-Present 14366689 2118073 DAM NR FORBESTOWN CA

24 USGS 11396329 KELLY RIDGE PH NR OROVILLE CA 39°31'56" 121°29'25" 1972-Present 14359288 2066107

25 USGS 11396330 BANGOR CN BL MINERS RANCH RES 39°30'17" 121°27'17" 1963-Present 14349444 2076305 NR OROVILLE CA 26 USGS 11396350 SF FEATHER R A PONDEROSA DAM 39°32'52" 121°18'11" 1962-1997 14365893 2118793 CA 27 USGS 11396395 SUCKER RUN A KANAKA DIV NR 39°33'44" 121°16'46" 1989-Present 14371279 2125349 FEATHER FALLS CA 30 USGS 11396400 SUCKER RUN NR FORBESTOWN CA 39°33'12" 121°18'04" 1965-2001 14367926 2119303

31 USGS 11396500 PALERMO CN A ENTERPRISE CA 39°32'05" 121°20'40" 1911-1965 14360921 2107213 32 USGS 11397000 SF FEATHER R A ENTERPRISE CA 39°32'15" 121°20'45" 1911-1966 14361926 2106802 33 USGS 11397500 FEATHER R A BIDWELL BAR CA 39°33'15" 121°26'15" 1911-1964 14367533 2080851 34 USGS 11404330 NF FEATHER R BL GRIZZLY C CA 39°51'09" 121°23'29" 1981-Present 14476397 2091900 35 USGS 11404360 CRESTA PH NR PULGA CA 39°49'35" 121°24'30" 1980-Present 14466804 2087313 36 USGS 11404380 CAMP C NR PULGA CA 39°49'46" 121°25'23" 1992-Present 14467843 2083160 37 USGS 11404400 NF FEATHER R BL POE DAM CA 39°48'25" 121°26'05" 1975-1998 14459592 2080028 38 USGS 11404500 NF FEATHER R A PULGA CA 39°47'39" 121°27'03" 1911-Present 14454861 2075583 39 USGS 11404900 POE PH BL POE DAM NR JARBO GAP 39°43'23" 121°28'06" 1967-Present 14428881 2071110 CA 41 USGS 11405000 NF FEATHER R A BIG BEND CA 39°42'52" 121°28'05" 1905-1910 14425747 2071242 42 USGS 11405085 WB FEATHER R BL SNAG LK NR 40°04'24" 121°27'08" 1993-Present 14556513 2073430 JONESVILLE CA 43 USGS 11405120 PHILBROOK C BL PHILBROOK DAM 40°01'48" 121°28'36" 1989-Present 14540615 2066861 NR BUTTE MEADOWS CA 44 USGS 11405200 WB FEATHER R BL HENDRICKS DIV 39°56'03" 121°31'43" 1986-Present 14505473 2052895 DAM CA 45 USGS 11405220 LONG RAVINE BL DIV DAM A 39°54'25" 121°32'28" 1995-Present 14495502 2049553 STIRLING CITY CA

4-24 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 46 USGS 11405300 WB FEATHER R NR PARADISE CA 39°47'12" 121°33'42" 1957-1986 14451610 2044492 47 USGS 11405500 SPRING VALLEY D NR YANKEE HILL 39°45'48" 121°31'42" 1925-1952 14443266 2053997 CA 48 USGS 11406000 CONCOW C NR YANKEE HILL CA 39°45'45" 121°31'35" 1927-1952 14442971 2054548 49 USGS 11406500 WB FEATHER R NR YANKEE HILL CA 39°41'55" 121°33'38" 1930-1963 14419551 2045320

50 USGS 11406799 COMPUTED INFLOW TO LK 39°32'06" 121°28'26" 1967-1974 14360377 2070711 OROVILLE CA 51 USGS 11406810 PALERMO CN A OROVILLE DAM CA 39°31'59" 121°28'55" 1968-Present 14359631 2068452

52 USGS 11406818 HYATT PH POWER RELEASE NR 39°32'08" 121°28'27" 1974-Present 14360578 2070630 OROVILLE 53 USGS 11406819 HYATT PH PUMPBACK NR 39°32'08" 121°28'27" 1974-Present 14360578 2070630 OROVILLE CA 54 USGS 11406820 HYATT PH NR OROVILLE CA 39°32'08" 121°28'27" 1970-Present 14360578 2070630 55 USGS 11406848 THERMALITO POWER RELEASE NR 39°30'53" 121°37'43" 1974-Present 14352291 2027197 OROVILLE CA 56 USGS 11406849 THERMALITO PH PUMPBACK NR 39°30'53" 121°37'43" 1974-Present 14352291 2027197 OROVILLE CA 57 USGS 11406850 THERMALITO PH NR OROVILLE CA 39°30'53" 121°37'43" 1970-Present 14352291 2027197

59 USGS 11406890 RICHVALE CN A INTAKE NR 39°30'19" 121°41'06" 1968-Present 14348615 2011343 OROVILLE CA 60 USGS 11406900 PG&E LATERAL A INTAKE NR 39°29'22" 121°41'12" 1968-Present 14342843 2010957 OROVILLE CA 61 USGS 11406920 THERMALITO AFTERBAY RELEASE 39°27'23" 121°38'10" 1967-Present 14331019 2025404 TO FEATHER R CA 62 USGS 11406930 DIV TO FEATHER R FISH HATCHERY 39°31'13" 121°32'48" 1973-Present 14354677 2050277 NR OROVILLE CA 63 USGS 11406999 FEATHER R A OROVILLE R ONLY CA 39°31'13" 121°32'48" 1973-Present 14354677 2050277

66 USGS 11407300 N HONCUT C NR BANGOR CA 39°20'32" 121°29'25" 1960-1981 14290104 2067265 67 USGS 11407500 S HONCUT C NR BANGOR CA 39°22'04" 121°22'16" 1950-1997 14299995 2100792

4-25 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 68 USGS 11411500 N YUBA R A GOODYEARS BAR CA 39°32'28" 120°53'06" 1911-1931 14365962 2236712

69 USGS 392144121492301 MAIN DRAINAGE CANAL A GRIDLEY 39°21'44" 121°49'23" 2002-2002 14295988 1973080 RD NR GRIDLEY CA 70 CA DWR BBD BUTTE CREEK NEAR DE SABLA 39.9010°N 121.6230°W 1999-Present 14492973 2026620 71 CA DWR BBW BW-12 IMPORT TO BUTTE CREEK 39.8850°N 121.5970°W 1997-Present 14487260 2034004 72 CA DWR BCD BUTTE CREEK NR DURHAM 39.6780°N 121.7770°W 1997-Present 14411142 1984536 73 CA DWR BCG BUTTE CREEK NEAR GRIDLEY 39.3620°N 121.8920°W 1997-Present 14295661 1953594 74 USGS BCK BIG CHICO CREEK NEAR CHICO 39.7680°N 121.7770°W 1997-Present 14443913 1984089 75 CA DWR BPD PARROT DIV FROM BUTTE CREEK 39.7090°N 121.7550°W 1997-Present 14422515 1990570 76 CA DWR BWC BUTTE CREEK NR WESTERN CANAL 39.5580°N 121.8330°W 1997-Present 14367237 1969346

77 South Feather Water BNG BANGOR CANAL 39.5040°N 121.4540°W 1985-Present 14349185 2076513 and Power Agency 78 CA DWR CHC CHEROKEE CANAL NR RICHVALE 39.4650°N 121.7420°W 1997-Present 14333720 1995470 79 South Feather Water FBD FORBESTOWN DITCH (OROV-WYAN 39.5500°N 121.1800°W 1995-Present 14367380 2153469 and Power Agency CANAL) 80 Pacific Gas & FPL FEATHER NF AT PULGA 39.7940°N 121.4510°W 1911-2002 14454799 2075537 Electric 81 CA DWR FTM FEATHER MF NR MERRIMAC 39.7080°N 121.2690°W 1907-1970 14424419 2127270 82 CA DWR FTO FEATHER RIVER AT OROVILLE 39.5220°N 121.5470°W 1905-Present 14355302 2050173 83 NONE FTP FEATHER SF AT PONDEROSA 39.5480°N 121.3030°W 1900-1992 14365974 2118808 84 CA Dept of Water GRL FEATHER RIVER NEAR GRIDLEY 39.3670°N 121.6460°W 1984-Present 14298429 2023101 Resources/O & M 85 CA Dept of Water MER FEATHER RIVER AT MERRIMAC 39.7090°N 121.2700°W 1984-Present 14424778 2126982 Resources/O & M 86 Pacific Gas & MIC MIOCENE CANAL 39.6900°N 121.5600°W 1985-Present 14416417 2045526 Electric 87 CA Dept of Water ORO OROVILLE DAM 39.5400°N 121.4930°W 1967-Present 14362107 2065292 Resources/O & M 88 CA DWR PLC PALERMO CANAL 39.5330°N 121.4820°W 1979-Present 14359610 2068437 89 Pacific Gas & PLG NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER AT 39.7940°N 121.4510°W 1998-Present 14454799 2075537 Electric PULGA

4-26 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 90 South Feather Water SLC SLY CREEK 39.5840°N 121.1160°W 1961-Present 14380132 2171252 and Power Agency 91 CA DWR TAB THERMALITO AFTERBAY 39.4500°N 121.6330°W 1967-Present 14328706 2026317 92 CA DWR TFR THERMALITO FOREBAY 39.5190°N 121.6290°W 1969-Present 14353847 2027064 93 CA DWR THA TOTAL RELEASE-FEATHER R BLW 39.4500°N 121.6330°W 1998-Present 14328706 2026317 THERMALITO 94 CA DWR THD THERMALITO DIVERS POOL 39.5280°N 121.5430°W 1969-Present 14357505 2051266 95 CA DWR TMT THERMALITO TOTAL 39.4580°N 121.6380°W 1969-Present 14331597 2024862 96 National Weather PRD PARADISE FIRE STATION 39.7500°N 121.6170°W 1925-Present 14438013 2029153 Service 98 CA Dept of Water DES DE SABLA (DWR) 39.8720°N 121.6100°W 1984-Present 14482469 2030430 Resource 99 CA Dept of Forestry CHI CHICO 39.7120°N 121.7830°W 1988-Present 14423499 1982680 100 CA Dept of Forestry CAR CARPENTER RIDGE 40.0690°N 121.5820°W 2000-Present 14554330 2037146 101 CA Dept of Water BCM BRUSH CREEK (DWR-2) 39.6940°N 121.3400°W 1995-Present 14418944 2107394 Resource 102 US Forest Service BCR BRUSH CREEK RS 39.6900°N 121.3400°W 1935-Present 14417487 2107421 103 CA Dept of Forestry BGR BANGOR 39.3820°N 121.3830°W 1984-Present 14305113 2097339 104 CA Dept of Water BRS BRUSH CREEK (DWR) 39.6920°N 121.3390°W 1986-Present 14418221 2107689 Resource 105 CA Dept of Forestry BTM BUTTE MEADOWS 40.1000°N 121.5000°W 1984-2000 14565995 2059899 106 National Weather CES CHICO UNIV FARM 39.7000°N 121.8170°W 1982-Present 14419002 1973175 Service 107 CA Dept of Water CHR CHEROKEE CANAL 39.6520°N 121.6430°W 1999-2001 14402216 2022385 Resource 108 CA Dept of Forestry CST COHASSET 39.9000°N 121.7000°W 1984-Present 14492285 2005029 109 Pacific Gas & FBS FORBESTOWN 39.5170°N 121.2660°W 1999-Present 14354885 2129456 Electric 110 CA Dept of Forestry JAR JARBO GAP 39.7360°N 121.4890°W 2003-Present 14433496 2065219 111 South Feather Water KLL KELLY RIDGE POWER PLANT 39.5330°N 121.4830°W 1993-Present 14359606 2068155 112 National Weather ORF OROVILLE FISH HATCH. 39.5170°N 121.5500°W 1989-1994 14353468 2049356 Service 113 CIMIS #12 DURHAM 39o36'32"N 121o49'22"W 1982-Present 14385804 1971985

4-27 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-1 BUTTE COUNTY PRECIPITATION AND FLOW STATIONS 2004 INDEX *Highlighted Stations are Discontinued

Number On Map Agency Site Number Site Name Latitude Longitude Period Of Record Northing Easting 114 USGS 11390045 LITTLE CHICO C TRIB A FOREST 39o52'40"N 121o40'25"W 1962-1973 14484302 2012550 RANCH CA 115 USGS 11406910 SUTTER BUTTE CN A INTAKE NR 39°27'02" 121°39'26" 1967-Present 14328805 2019476 OROVILLE CA 116 USGS 11407400 WYMAN RAVINE TRIB NR PALERMO 39°22'57" 121°34'43" 1960-1973 14304365 2042059 CA

4-28 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Streamflow and precipitation stations that are presently operating and would be appropriate for a Flood ALERT Network and are presented in Table 4-2 below and on Map 16). In the process of updating the Butte County FMP, additional stations should be considered to improve the network and ensure preliminary notice of severe storm event.

The remotely transmitted information from the Flood ALERT Network stations could be compiled in a central computer system, located either in the Butte County OES or Department of Public Works office. Data could be accessed, analyzed, and evaluated and used for flood warning and for input into a flood warning computer model to forecast river flow.

Access to the Flood ALERT Network could also be added as an expansion to the Butte County website as part of the Flood Information Link, which currently directs the user to the stream gage stations in the California Data Exchange website.

During the installation of the Flood ALERT Network, all buildings within the 100-year SFHA within Butte County could be checked and new information added to the Butte County FMP. Elevation data and owner contact information for these structures, which could be obtained from Butte County and city planning departments, could be used to create a database that lists the structures in the order of flood vulnerability. Residents vulnerable to damage in a flood event could be alerted prior to flooding.

Notification of a flood emergency should occur through Butte County‟s Emergency Operations Center, located at the Butte County OES. The USACOE requires that the federal flood control project levees along Butte Creek, considered part of Maintenance Area No. 5 by DWR, be patrolled when river stages exceed warning levels. The superintendent of the levee system could prepare a comprehensive patrol schedule and a plan that is coordinated with the central computer system for the Flood ALERT Network. With the implementation of a Flood ALERT Network and DWR‟s levee patrols and the National Weather Service (NWS) warnings, advance warning of flood hazards could be provided. Once a flood threat has been recognized, the Butte County Emergency Services Officer (ESO) could disseminate flood warnings as noted on Figure 4-1. The Butte County ESO, the police, and fire personnel would notify people in the endangered area through a combination of press briefings, emergency briefings, local radio, television stations, and door-to-door communication. Emergency response to flood threat could also be coordinated with the efforts of the CDF Butte Unit Emergency Command Center, located in Oroville. This Command Center is “…responsible for mutual aid coordination and coordinates all fire mutual aid requests for all jurisdictions within Butte County” (Fire Management Plan, 2003).

The cities of Chico, Oroville, Durham, the towns of Biggs, Nelson, Richvale, Paradise, and Gridley could prepare flood response plans that are coordinated with the central computer system of the Flood ALERT Network and with the Butte County ESO.

4-29 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-2 PROPOSED FLOOD ALERT NETWORK STATIONS

Map Number Agency Site Number Site Name Station Type U.S. Geological Butte Creek Near 11 11390000 Streamflow Survey Chico, CA North Fork U.S. Geological Feather River 34 11404330 Streamflow Survey Below Grizzly Creek, CA California Butte Creek Near 70 Department of Water BBD Streamflow DeSabla, CA Resources California Butte Creek Near 72 Department of Water BCD Streamflow Durham, CA Resources California Cherokee Canal

78 Department of Water Near Richvale, Streamflow CHC Resources CA National Weather Paradise Fire 96 PRD Precipitation Service Station California 98 Department of Water DES De Sabla (DWR) Precipitation Resources California 99 Department of CHI Chico Precipitation Forestry 100 CA Dept of Forestry CAR Carpenter Ridge Precipitation

108 CA Dept of Forestry CST Cohasset Precipitation

4-30 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

FIGURE 4-1 FLOOD ALERT NETWORK COMMUNICATION CHART

FLOOD ALERT

Flood Alert Network DWR Maintenance Area No.3 and No.5, Superintendent. (530) 751-8360 National Weather Service, http://weather.gov/alerts/ca.html California Department of Forestry And Fire Protection, Butte Unit, (530) 538-6234

CENTRAL COORDINATION

Emergency Services Officer Butte County Office of Emergency Services (530) 538-7373

FLOOD RESPONSE

INFORMATIO N RESPONSE AND EVACUATION SHELTERS AND CRITICAL FEDERAL AND STATE ASSISTANCE DISSEMINATION FACILITIES

BUTTE COUNTY CITY OR TOWN SHELTERS CRITICAL FACILITIES1 TV Station – KCRA California Governor‟s Office of Emergency Services, Emergency DEPARTMENTS Channel 3 FIRE DEPARTMENTS Alert System (916) 444-7316 Red Cross Essential Facilities (916) 845-8610 Information Line (530) 673-1460 Lifeline Systems TV Station – KHSL Fire Department POLICE DEPARTMENTS (916) 845-8911 Warning Center (530) 538-7111 Salvation Army Hazardous Materials Facilities Channel 12 (530) 342-1871 Utility Systems (530)343-1212 Public Works EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES California Department of Water Resources, Hydrology and Flood Transportation Lifeline Systems 2 Radio Stations (530) 538-7681 Operations Center Sheriff‟s Department Newspapers LOCAL VOLUNTEER FIRE (916) 574-2605 (530) 538-7321 DEPARTMENTS (800) 952-5530 Water and Resource

Conservation California Department of Transportation RESIDENT DEPUTY SHERIFF http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/do3map.htm (530)-538-6265

City of Chico California Highway Patrol3 City of Oroville Chico Dispatch Office Town of Durham (530) 879-1900 Town of Biggs Truckee Dispatch Office Town of Nelson (530) 538-2700 Town of Richvale Town of Paradise U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Town of Gridley Sacramento District, Emergency Response Mission2 (916) 557-6919 (916) 452-1535 Emergency Operations Center

1Listed in Section 4.0 and shown on Map 8 - Map 14. 2Technical assistance from DWR and the USACOE must be requested through the State OES. 3The State and County OES should directly notify the appropriate California Highway Patrol Office.

4-31 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Flood Response

According to the 1998 Butte County Sandbag Plan, imminent threat is considered the period of up to four days prior to a predicted severe storm that may cause flooding, and is determined by the County OES. The Butte County ESO will be advised by DWR, NWS, and State OES of a predicted storm event. The ESO, upon receiving notification of a probable storm event, will determine the severity of the threat, the potential impact of the storm on Butte County, and the storm time line, such as time of impact and duration. The ESO will communicate his findings to the Butte County Administrative Officer, the Butte County Chair of Supervisors, the Sheriff, the Public Works Director, and the Butte County Fire Duty Chief. After consultation with these departments, the ESO will request permission to make public notification of the imminent threat from the County Administrative Officer, and begin the distribution of the sandbags to the public. The following locations are Sandbag Distribution Points:

Butte County Fire Department, Station No. 63 in Oroville – 35,000 bags with sand. Silver Dollar Fair Grounds – 40,000 bags with sand. Butte County Fire Department, Station No.41 in Nord – 5,000 bags with sand. Butte County Fire Department, Station No.71 in Richvale – 5,000 bags with sand. Butte County Fire Department, Station No.72 in Richvale – 5,000 bags with sand. Butte County Fire Department, Station No.26, Honeyrun Road – 5,000 bags with sand. Butte County Department of Public Works in Gridley – 5,000 bags with sand.

Sand and bags will be delivered to the Butte County Fire Department Station No.63 and the Silver Dollar Fair Grounds first. The other locations have the sandbags in place and immediate available. Private trucking firms will be used to deliver sand to each distribution site. Every attempt will be made to have the sand in place before public notifications are made.

Critical Facilities

Critical facilities comprise essential facilities and systems that include transportation systems, lifeline utility systems, high potential loss facilities, and hazardous material facilities (FEMA, 2001). Protecting critical facilities during a flood is a vital part of the emergency services effort and recognizing the location of the critical facilities in Butte County assists the Butte County ESO in coordinating a comprehensive emergency response. Critical facilities within Butte County are listed in Tables 3-1 through Table 3-7 (critical facility locations are provided on Map 8 through Map 14). The critical facilities list also includes the locations of helicopter landing zones designated by CDF, which could be used during the rescue and evacuation effort.

Shelters

The American Red Cross Chapter that includes Butte County also includes Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, Sutter, and Yuba counties, as well as Beale Air Force Base. In the event of a disaster, the Disaster Director (or the Disaster Chairman) of the Red Cross deploys the approximate number of needed trained personnel to provide service and/or requests additional support. If shelters are required, the

4-32 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

State OES deploys trained Red Cross Social Services teams to open and staff the shelters until replaced by Red Cross Mass Care personnel. In the event of a disaster in Butte County, the Chapter would initially open an operations center at the Chico office (American Red Cross, 2003).

Shelters outside of endangered areas would be established in coordination with the Butte County ESO and determined at the time of the evacuation and rescue process. For a rescue effort, a temporary assembly area for people coming out of the danger area would be established and then transported to a shelter. In an evacuation effort, the locations of shelters are established before they are announced through the information dissemination process. The shelters in Butte County are provided in Table 4-3 and shown with the FEMA-designated SFHAs on Map 17. The Red Cross is responsible for operating, staffing, and managing the shelters and their efforts would be coordinated with the Salvation Army, if necessary (American Red Cross, 2003).

In the case of a flood disaster, the Red Cross tracks all evacuees by computer so that families and relatives are able to ascertain their locations. The Red Cross publishes a telephone number for people to call to locate their relocated relatives (American Red Cross, 2003).

4-33 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-3 BUTTE COUNTY SHELTERS* Map Phone Shelter Shelter Address City Number Number Type 1 Berry Creek Elementary 286 Rockefeller Rd Berry Creek 589-1633 School 2 Biggs Elementary 300 B St Biggs 868-1281 School 3 Charles Lynds Community Center 19114 New York Flat Rd Forbestown 675-0194 Grange 4 Richvale Elementary 5236 Church St Richvale 882-4273 School 5 Biggs High 3046 2nd St Biggs 868-5825 School 6 Berry Creek Grange Hall 1477 Bald Rock Rd Berry Creek 589-2695 Grange 7 First Baptist Church 850 Palmetto Ave Chico 343-3446 Church 8 Pleasant Valley High 1475 East Ave Chico 879-5100 School 9 Craig and Gordon Halls 1400 West 3rd St Chico 345-1393 Dormitory 10 CSUC Gym 531 Warner St Chico 898-5372 School Gym 11 Whitney Hall - KITCHEN 545 Legion Ave Chico 898-6325 Dormitory 12 Bidwell Junior High 2376 North Ave Chico 891-3080 School 13 Neal Dow Elementary 1420 Neal Dow Ave Chico 891-3110 School 14 Fairview High 102 W 11th St Chico 891-3092 School 15 Nord Elementary 5554 California St Chico 891-3138 School 16 Marigold Elementary 2446 Marigold Ave Chico 891-3121 School 17 Hooker Oak Elementary 1238 Arbutus Ave Chico 891-3119 School 18 Sierra View Elementary 1598 Hooker Oak Ave Chico 891-3117 School 19 Chapman Elementary 1071 E 16th St Chico 891-3100 School 20 Chico Junior High 280 Memorial Way Chico 891-3066 School 21 Chico Senior High 901 Esplanade Chico 891-3026 School 22 Citrus Elementary 1350 Citrus Ave Chico 891-3107 School 23 John McManus Elementary 988 East Ave Chico 891-3128 School 24 Jay Partridge Elementary 290 East Ave Chico 891-3124 School 25 Little Chico Creek Elementary 2090 Amanda Way Chico 891-3285 School 26 Parkview Elementary 1770 E 8th St Chico 891-3114 School 27 Rosedale Elementary 100 Oak St Chico 891-3104 School 28 Shasta Elementary 169 Leora Ct Chico 891-3141 School 29 Emma Wilson Elementary 1530 W 8th Ave Chico 891-3297 School 30 Neighborhood Church 2801 Notre Dame Blvd Chico 343-6006 Church 31 First Christian Church 295 E Washington Ave Chico 343-3727 Church 32 Neighborhood Church 10155 Cohasset Rd Cohasset 342-9369 Church 33 Cohasset Community Association 11 Maple Creek Ranch Rd Cohasset 343-1479 Other 34 Cohasset Elementary 9932 Cohasset Rd Cohasset 891-3223 School 35 Durham Elementary 9421 Putney Dr Durham 895-4675 School 36 Durham High 9455 Putney Dr Durham 895-4680 School 37 Feather FallsUnion School 2651 Lumpkin Rd Feather Falls 589-1810 School 38 Church of the Wildwood 19082 New York Flat Rd Forbestown 675-2824 Church 39 Forest Ranch Community Center 15807 Forest Ranch Rd Forest Ranch 892-2478 Other 40 Forest Ranch Elementary 15815 Cedar Creek Rd Forest Ranch 891-3154 School 41 Paradise Pines Community Center 14211 Wycliff Way Magalia 873-1114 Other 42 Magalia Community Church 13700 Old Skyway Magalia 877-7963 Church 43 Cedarwood Elementary 6400 Columbine Rd Magalia 873-3785 School 44 Oroville Church of the Nazarene 2238 Monte Vista Ave Oroville 533-7464 Church 45 Las Plumas High School 2380 Las Plumas Ave Oroville 538-2310 School 46 Oakdale Heights Elementary 2255 Las Plumas Ave Oroville 532-3004 School 47 Wyandotte Avenue Elementary 2800 Wyandotte Ave Oroville 532-3007 School 48 Central Middle School 25675 Mesa Ave Oroville 532-3002 School 49 Oroville High 1535 Bridge St Oroville 538-2320 School 50 Eastside Elementary 2775 Yard St Oroville 532-3003 School 51 Stanford Elementary 1801 Stanford Ave Oroville 532-3006 School 52 Ophir Elementary 210 Oakvale Ave Oroville 532-3005 School 53 Bird Street Elementary 1421 Bird St Oroville 532-3001 School 54 Butte College 3536 Butte Campus Dr Oroville 895-2351 School 55 First United Methodist Church 45 Acacia Ave Oroville 534-9455 Church 56 Palermo School 7350 Bulldog Way Palermo 533-4708 School 57 Palermo Grange/Patron's Hall 7600 Irwin Ave Palermo 532-9211 Grange 58 Helen M Wilcox School 5737 Autrey Ln Palermo 533-7626 School 59 Paradise Pines Elementary 13878 Compton Dr Paradise 873-3800 School 60 Paradise Adventist Academy 5699 Academy Dr Paradise 877-6540 School 61 Paradise Lutheran Church 780 Luther Dr Paradise 877-3549 Church 62 First Baptist Church 6500 Clark Rd Paradise 877-3532 Church 63 Paradise Intermediate 5657 Recreation Dr Paradise 872-6465 School 64 Paradise High 5911 Maxwell Dr Paradise 872-6425 School 65 Ponderosa Elementary 6593 Pentz Rd Paradise 872-6470 School 66 Paradise Ridge Senior Center 877 Nunneley Rd Paradise 877-1733 Other 67 Tall Pines Entertainment Center 5445 Clark Rd Paradise 872-2695 Other 68 Nelson Ave Middle School 2255 6th St Thermalito 538-2940 School 69 Sierra Ave Elementary 1050 Sierra Ave Thermalito 538-2920 School 70 Poplar Ave Elementary 2075 Poplar Ave Thermalito 538-2910 School 71 Concow Elementary 11679 Nelson Bar Rd Oroville 533-6033 School 72 Spring Valley Elementary 2771 Pentz Rd Oroville 533-3258 School 73 Salvation Army 1054 Broadway Chico 530-342-2078 Shelter 74 Salvation Army 700 Broadway Chico 530-342-2195 Shelter 75 Salvation Army 1358 East Avenue Chico 530-343-1086 Shelter 76 Salvation Army 6410 Clark Road Paradise 530-877-6720 Shelter 77 Salvation Army 2357 Meyers Street Oroville 530-534-9556 Shelter *All highlighted shelters are located in the FEMA 100-year SFHA.

4-34 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Evacuation Routes

Although evacuation routes can be determined at the time of the preparation for disaster it is highly recommended that such routes are identified and evaluated for different potential hazards and threats by the Sheriff and fire departments in coordination with the Butte County OES. Map 17 illustrates the locations of the Red Cross and Salvation Army Shelters, with an accompanying table for shelter location information located on the map.

Re-Entry to Evacuated Area

The Butte County law enforcement agencies are responsible for securing an evacuated area and controlling access. Mass care facilities and the media would notify the public when evacuated areas are safe again (American Red Cross, 2003).

Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation

Post-disaster reconstruction regulation and mitigation planning procedures should be coordinated as part of the post-flood response planning. Preliminary damage assessments should be conducted immediately following a flood to evaluate conditions and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. The federal, state, and local mitigation efforts should evaluate the warning and response activities that were implemented during the disaster.

Measures that could be coordinated and delegated by the Butte County ESO to assist in the repair and recovery process after a disaster include: Regulating reconstruction to ensure that it meets all code requirements, including the NFIP‟s substantial damage regulations; disseminate public information to advise residents about mitigation measures they could incorporate into their reconstruction work, for example, elevating structures, using waterproof or fireproof materials, elevating utilities above flood level; evaluating damaged public facilities to identify mitigation measures that could be included during repairs; acquiring substantially or repeatedly damaged properties from willing sellers; planning for long-term mitigation activities; and applying for post- disaster mitigation funds.

4-35 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

Public information activities and publications advise property owners, potential property owners, and visitors about the flooding hazards, strategies to protect people and property from flooding, and the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. It is important to increase public awareness and education through providing updated flood-related mapping and materials (through the internet or local library), initiating outreach and educational programs, providing real estate disclosure, providing technical assistance, and increasing awareness related to flood emergency preparedness and evacuation. The Butte County Department of Development Services GIS department database organized and updated to include a range of land use information in determining flood hazard vulnerability areas, such as elevation certificates, repetitive loss property information, and public infrastructure and critical facilities. All GIS data obtained for the Butte County FMP could be provided to the Butte County GIS Department to add to the existing database of Butte County.

Map Information

To increase public awareness, Butte County could post FEMA FIRMs and related flood information on their websites. This activity would qualify Butte County for CRS credit.

GIS data obtained in the process of developing the Butte County FMP could be developed into a database organized by the Butte County Department of Development Services and updated regularly as new data is acquired. The Butte County Floodplain Administrator and the Butte County ESO could be liaisons for providing the Butte County Department of Development Services, GIS Division, updated data periodically.

Outreach Projects and Educational Programs

Schools, park and recreation departments, conservation associations, and youth organizations, such as Boy Scouts and summer camps, could undertake education programs that address flood hazards, flooding causes, and the significance of adopting multi-objective management approaches to flood control that would keep people and structures out of harm‟s way while protecting the natural and beneficial functions of watersheds and floodplains. The Butte County Floodplain Administrator or the Butte County ESO could also coordinate with schools and organizations for these outreach activities. The Butte County Floodplain Administrator or the Butte County ESO could coordinate with local television channels to televise FEMA‟s educational videos and/or local floodplain videos.

CRS provides credit for public information and outreach projects. To receive credit under this activity, a person designated by the Butte County Floodplain Administrator, or the Butte County ESO, could do one or more of the following types of projects:

Provide flooding and floodplain management information to all properties in Butte County through a newsletter, utility bill, or other widely distributed document.

4-36 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Provide a “Flood Safety” section in the Yellow Pages that outlines what a family could do in the event of a flood emergency. Direct flood prone residents to a step-by-step checklist of action to reduce or prevent flood damage (FEMA‟s website, http://www.fema.gov/rrr/displan.shtm).

Send an annual notice to property owners in flood-prone areas, properties in the SFHA, and other areas that may be susceptible to flooding. The brochure or notice should discuss the local flood hazard, safety measures, property protection measures, and flood insurance information.

Insert flyers in local newspapers announcing recent flood news.

Provide flood information brochures at County, city, and public utility offices.

Real Estate Disclosure

The Butte County Floodplain Administrator or the Butte County ESO could coordinate to offer training classes to local realtors on FEMA FIRMs, the NFIP process, and flood hazard disclosure requirements, and conduct a mailing to the members of the Board of Realtors publicizing the map information services provided by Butte County.

Library

The Butte County Library should be provided with a current list of flood protection references, government publications, relevant Internet websites, and instructions on how to order flood hazard documents. Butte County libraries are located in Biggs, Chico, Durham, Gridley, and Paradise, and the administrative office is in Oroville. To receive credit under the CRS, publications must be kept and distributed by public libraries. The Butte County Floodplain Administrator or the Butte County ESO could be designated to coordinate with the library to maintain updated flood hazard and flood insurance materials. The Oroville branch of the Butte County Library, located at 1820 Mitchell Avenue, would be a good location for the flood hazard material due to its close proximity to other Butte County offices.

Technical Assistance

Butte County could set up a 24-hour telephone line, answered by the Butte County Floodplain Administrator or the Butte County ESO during business hours. This service would offer technical assistance to flood-prone residents and businesses and allows public inquirers to call with questions or concerns. Flood safety and hazard information recordings would be available during evenings and on weekends. Credit towards flood insurance reductions is awarded for providing inquirers with information from the Butte County FIRMs, including whether a property is in a SFHA and providing BFE information. Credit depends upon publicizing this service and advising inquirers about the flood insurance purchase requirement.

4-37 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: LAND USE PLANNING

Butte County and Incorporated Cities General Plan/Area Plan Update

Although a General Plan or Area Plan has limited authority, its central purpose as a land use planning document assists County and city planners in guiding land use and development patterns and in determining capital improvement programs, zoning ordinances, and other land use controls. As a part of the planning process, local flood hazard mitigation planning will be incorporated.

To expand the use of the Butte County General Plan and Area Plans of incorporated cities, and to determine future drainage and flood control needs, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling could be conducted to evaluate discharges that result from future development levels anticipated in the Butte Creek watershed and Butte County, as well as projects that may have an impact upon the floodplains. Many floodplain management tools, including standard NFIP maps and hydraulic modeling, are based on existing hydrologic discharges and existing projects located in the SFHA. If future drainage conditions are not considered, floodplain projects built with adequate flood protection for existing conditions may sustain flood damage in the future watersheds continue to develop and stormwater discharges increase. Hydraulic and hydrologic modeling that evaluates future build-out conditions and incorporates permitted projects ensures that projects built in the floodplain are designed from the outset to accommodate flood elevations that would be expected as the watershed and floodplain develops.

To address the areas of repeated flooding in the Town of Paradise, the Town of Paradise should continue to implement the recommended projects provided in the Town of Paradise Master Storm Drainage Study and Facilities Plan (McCain Associates, 1980).

To address the inadequacies of the current drainage system in the City of Oroville, the City should implement the recommendations outlined in the “Basin Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis” report (NorthStar, 2002).

Levees can evoke a false sense of security from flooding and development behind them only increases what is at risk to flooding during a high flow event or levee failure. The Butte County General Plan and City Area Plans‟ should include guidance for not developing behind existing levees within their Land Use elements.

4-38 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Building Elevation

Although current flood protection standards currently exceed the NFIP standards for all improved, repaired, or new buildings (one foot above the BFE), additional standards could be incorporated into the building code. For example, setting the lowest floor elevation at 2-4 feet above the BFE in flood prone areas. Exceeding NFIP building improvement standards would prevent future losses and earn Butte County increased points in the FEMA CRS program, resulting in reduced flood insurance premium rates.

4-39 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: RETROFITTING

Retrofitting is changing an existing structure to protect it from hazards, such as flooding. To ensure additional protection of structures located in areas susceptible to flooding, retrofitting measures such as structure elevation, wet floodproofing, relocation, dry floodproofing, levees and floodwalls, and demolition could be incorporated into the Butte County General Plan or the Area Plans of incorporated cities. FEMA prepared the Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding, which provides detailed descriptions of different retrofitting methods, specific construction guidance, and detailed cost estimates. This document can be found on the FEMA Website at:

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/rfit.shtm

The following discussion provides a brief overview of the retrofitting methods described in more detail in FEMA‟s report.

Elevation

A structure or home could be elevated so that the lowest floor is above the determined base flood elevation. Elevating a structure could be done by elevating the entire structure, including the floor, or by constructing a new, elevated floor within the structure. The method depends on the foundation type, flooding conditions, and the construction type of the structure. The elevation process includes separating the structure from its foundation by hydraulic jacks and held by temporary supports while the new or extended foundation is constructed (FEMA, 1998).

Wet Floodproofing

Wet floodproofing allows floodwaters to enter a building to minimize the pressure on the structure. Allowing water into portions of the house is to ensure that the interior and exterior hydrostatic pressures become equal. This technique could range from moving a few items out of the flood- prone area or rebuilding the flooded area, to allow flow through. Wet floodproofing is often used when all other retrofitting methods are not feasible (FEMA, 1998).

Relocation

Moving a structure vulnerable to flooding outside of the flood hazard area is an effective measure to reduce the potential for losses. Relocating a structure involves jacking the structure up and placing it on a wheeled vehicle to be delivered to a new location. This requires rebuilding a foundation in the new location and the old foundation is demolished. Relocation is considered appropriate in severe flood hazard areas and flooding conditions are characterized by:

4-40 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

Deep flooding High rates of rise and fall Wave action High debris potential Long duration High flow velocity Short warning time

Dry Floodproofing

In dry floodproofing, a building is sealed against floodwaters. All areas below the flood protection level are made watertight. Walls are coated with waterproofing compounds or plastic sheeting. Doors, windows, sewer lines, and vents, are closed, either permanently with removable shields, or temporarily with sandbags. Flood depth, flood duration, flow velocity, and potential for wave action and flood-borne debris affect the success of dry floodproofing (FEMA, 1998).

Levees and Floodwalls

Levees and floodwalls provide a barrier to protect areas from flooding. A levee is generally a compacted earthen structure and a floodwall is typically built of masonry, concrete, or a combination of both. According to FEMA, the practical heights of the levees and floodwalls are limited to six feet and four feet, respectively. FEMA suggests that levees and floodwalls provided, at minimum, one foot of freeboard (FEMA, 1998).

Demolition

Structures that have sustained severe damage due to flooding would be considered for demolition and reconstruction in a more safe location. Demolition also includes site restoration, such as filling in a basement, grading, or landscaping. All connected utilities must also be stopped and capped and conducted in accordance with the local regulatory and permit requirements. Most demolition activities are conducted through a demolition contractor (FEMA, 1998).

4-41 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: BRIDGE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT

During high flow events, bridges over waterways are particularly vulnerable to damage and blockage due to high velocity water and debris flow. Bridge replacement should provide adequate clearance, proper design, and debris walls, where needed, to reduce damage caused by tree logs and excessive debris accumulation.

The Butte County Department of Development Public Works, or the Butte County Office of Emergency Services should conduct an inventory of bridges needing repair/replacement; redesign and reconstruct Butte County bridges to accommodate reasonably anticipated water depths and flow, and provide planning, design, and cost analysis and guidance in the Butte County General Plan This information could also be made available on the Butte County website for public and private access. The Butte Creek Watershed Floodplain Management Plan provides more detailed analyses of a few bridges within Butte County. These bridge analyses could be used for reference on design and cost estimates.

4-42 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

MITIGATION RESOURCES

The following table (Table 4-4) provides a summary of local, state, and federal agencies and organizations that could assist in the development and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures provided in this section, and the capacity in which their resources could be utilized.

4-43 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

TABLE 4-4

MATRIX OF AGENCIES AND MITIGATION ACTIVITIES

ps

Agency

Flood Flood

Public

Projects

Hazard Hazard

Natural Natural

Services

Property Property

Planning

Resource Resource

Structural

Assistance

Protection Protection

Prevention

Emergency Emergency Information

Data/Ma

Key: F = Agency provides financial assistance. R = Agency regulates or sets regulatory standards. S = Agency performs service directly with its own staff. T = Agency provides technical assistance, information, or reference materials. Federal Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency FST FST FRST FT T FST ST ST National Weather Service T ST T Natural Resources Conservation Service FST T T ST FST FST FT T U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ST T FT FT ST ST FT T U.S. Bureau of Reclamation TF TF R TF T U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T ST T U.S. Geological Survey T T State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game T TSFR TS California Department of Forestry TS T T T T T T California Department of Water Resources TSFR TS TSFR RTF TR TS STF TS California Office of Emergency Services FST T FSRT T FSRT ST California Rivers Assessment TS T T Butte County Agencies Butte County Sheriff TS TS Butte County Fire Department TSF TS TS TS Butte County Department of Development Services, TS T GIS Division Butte County Department of Planning TS TR T T Butte County Department of Public Works TS TSF T S TS Butte County Office of Emergency Services TSF T TSFR T TSFR TS Butte County Resource Conservation District TSFR TS Butte County Department of Water and Resource T T TSF T Conservation City Agencies City of Chico Fire Department TSF TSF TS City of Oroville Fire Department TSF TSF TS City of Paradise Fire Department TSF TSF TS Local Associations/Organizations/Chapters American Red Cross – Local Chapter TS ST Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance TS TS T T TS TS Butte County Fire Safe Council TS TS T T TS TS Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy TS TS T T TS TS Butte Environmental Council TS TS T T TS TS California State University at Chico TSF TS California Waterfowl Association TSF TS Cherokee Watershed Group TS TS T T TS TS Ducks Unlimited, Inc. TSF TS Little Chico Creek Watershed Group TS TS T T TS TS Paradise Irrigation District TS S TS Salvation Army – Local Chapter S ST Western Canal Water District TS TS T T TS TS

4-44 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

The mitigation goals, objectives, and actions appropriate to the flooding hazards have been established and identified and should be prioritized to provide better focus in the process of mitigation planning and implementation. The prioritization process in the Butte County FMP stems from an evaluation of the following categories:

Social Economic Environmental Political Technical Administrative Legal

Questions to address in prioritizing the recommended mitigation strategies include:

Would the mitigation measure adversely affect different groups and different generations?

Is it technically feasible?

What is the administrative capacity to implement and maintain the project?

What are the political implications?

Who has the authority to design, implement, and manage the project?

Is the project beneficial to the community‟s economy?

What is the long-term cost associated with the project and how does it compare to the benefits?

Does it comply with environmental regulations and fulfill the environmental goals of the community?

4-45 Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures January 2006

SECTION 5.0 PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTING, MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE BUTTE COUNTY FMP

The FEMA How-To Guide states: “Communities can bring the plan to life in a variety of ways ranging from implementing specific mitigation projects to changes in the day-to-day operation of the local government. To ensure the success of an on-going program, it is critical that the plan remains relevant. Thus, it is important to conduct periodic evaluations and make revisions as needed.”

A Plan Implementation, Monitor, Evaluate, and Update Committee (IMEUC) will be organized and held responsible for the Butte County FMP. The membership for this group will be coordinated between the watershed groups and Butte County and will assist in improving coordination efforts among other groups and agencies to address floodplain management in Butte County. A recommended organization chart for the IMEUC is provided on Figure 5-1.

The IMEUC will meet at least annually to review progress toward implementing the mitigation strategies. The committee will review each mitigation measure to determine its relevance to changing situations in Butte County, as well as changes in the federal and state policy, and to ensure that they are addressing current and expected conditions. The committee will also evaluate the risk assessment portion of the Butte County FMP to ensure that it reflects the most current risk assessment for Butte County and the potential loss estimates are calculated with the most current and accurate available data. The IMEUC will also coordinate the implementation of the Butte County FMP, monitor the progress in implementing the Butte County FMP, and set priorities among competing mitigation strategies.

The IMEUC will be responsible for various implementation actions and will report on the status of its projects. This will include describing which processes worked well, difficulties encountered, the progress of coordination efforts, and which strategies to revise. Butte County staff will have three months to update and make changes to the Butte County FMP before submitting it to the IMEUC. On the 5th anniversary date of the Butte County FMP, the IMEUC will prepare a 5-year progress report. The report will include:

Review of the original Butte County FMP.

Review of flood events and impacts that occurred during the past five years.

Summary of important mitigation activities accomplished by participating agencies or communities.

Review of the mitigation strategies, including how much was accomplished during the previous 5 years. Discuss mitigation strategies that were not completed or why implementation is behind schedule.

5-1 Section 5.0 Plan Maintenance Procedure January 2006

Include new and/or revised mitigation strategies.

Include other planning efforts and studies that may affect the original Butte County FMP.

The 5-year progress report will be forwarded and distributed by Butte County to State OES Mitigation Section, watershed groups, and local entities, as well as members of the public. All status reports will be tracked and become a part of documenting, evaluating, and updating the Butte County FMP.

Following any flood hazard event that may occur before the 5-year anniversary, the IMEUC should meet to discuss what was learned during and after the event, and the Butte County FMP should be evaluated, updated, and revised accordingly.

Implementation through Existing Programs

Butte County currently uses land use planning and building codes to guide and control development in Butte County and its floodplains. After the Butte County officially adopts the Butte County FMP, these existing mechanisms should incorporate the flood hazard mitigation strategies. The Butte County Planning Department will conduct periodic reviews of Butte County‟s land use policies, analyze the Butte County FMP amendments, and provide technical assistance to other local municipalities in implementing these requirements.

Continued Public Involvement

The IMEUC is responsible for the annual review and update of the Butte County FMP. Although the IMEUC represents the public to some extent, the public should be invited to directly comment on and provide feedback about the Butte County FMP. Copies of the Butte County FMP and any proposed changes will be posted on the Butte County website. This site will also provide mailing and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers for the public.

A public meeting should be held after each annual IMEUC meeting. This meeting will provide the public with the opportunity to express concerns, opinions, or share ideas about the Butte County FMP. Butte County will be responsible for publicizing and hosting this meeting.

5-2 Section 5.0 Plan Maintenance Procedure January 2006

FIGURE 5-1 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITOR, EVALUATE, AND UPDATE COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION CHART

5-3 Section 5.0 Plan Maintenance Procedure January 2006

SECTION 6.0 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS

Environmental compliance and historic preservation are essential components of the mitigation project planning and approval process. These requirements apply to projects that affect streams and rivers, land development, land use, public works, or other programs. The following are some of the federal, state, and local laws and executive orders that may apply to the proposed mitigation projects included in this Butte County FMP.

Federal:

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404) Endangered Species Act Executive Order 1190 Wetland Protection Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice Farmland Protection Act Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 National Historic Preservation Act River and Harbors Act of 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 from the USACOE

State:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 California Riparian Habitat Conservation Act of 1992 California Water Code Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver from the California Decree No. 19817, Superior Court of the State of California (1942 Adjudicated Rights) Efficient Water Management Practices Act of 1990 Fish and Game Code 1606 – Plans for Timber Harvesting Fish and Game Code 5650 – Water Pollution Groundwater Management Act of 1992 Lake/Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and 1603) Natural Community Conservation Act of 1991 Regional Water Quality Control Boards State Lands Commission Public Trust Doctrine The State Reclamation Board

6-1 Section 6.0 Federal, State, and Local Requirements January 2006

Local:

Butte County Code, Chapter 9 Butte County Code, Chapter 26, Article IV

Potential Permits Requirements:

Air quality permits from the Air Resources Control Board Clean Water Act 404 permit from the USACOE Encroachment permits from CALTRANS Encroachment permits from The State Reclamation Board Leases and permits from the California Lands Commission

Additional information on relevant federal and state laws can be found on the websites listed in Table 6-1.

6-2 Section 6.0 Federal, State, and Local Requirements January 2006

TABLE 6-1 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY WEBSITES Agency Website Federal Emergency Management Agency www.fema.gov

Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov

United States Fire Administration www.usfa.fema.gov

National Fire Protection Association www.nfpa.org

United States Army Corps of Engineers www.usace.army.mil

United States Geological Survey www.usgs.gov

United States Department of Agriculture Natural www.nrcs.usda.gov Resources Conservation Service ESRI/FEMA Hazards Awareness Site www.esri.com/hazards

California Department of Fish and Game www.dfg.ca.gov

California Law www.leginfo.ca.gov

California Governor‟s Office of Planning and www.opr.ca.gov Research California Governor‟s Office of Emergency www.oes.ca.gov Services California Department of Water Resources www.dwr.ca.gov

California Department of Forestry-Fire and http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/ Resource Assessment Program

6-3 Section 6.0 Federal, State, and Local Requirements January 2006

REFERENCES

1. American Geological Institute. “Glossary of Geology, “, Washington, D.C. 1972. 2. American Red Cross, “Hazard Response Plan for Yuba, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Glenn, and Yolo,” 2003. 3. Association of State Flood Plain Managers, “Mitigation Success Stories,” December, 2000. 4. Association of State Flood Plain Managers, “Mitigation Success Stories”, Edition 4, January, 2002. 5. Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, “Big Chico Creek Existing Conditions Report,” 2004. 6. Butte Basin Water Users Association, “2003 Groundwater Status Report”, February 2004. 7. Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, “Watershed Management Strategy,” 2000. 8. Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, “Butte Creek Watershed Floodplain Management Plan,” 2004. 9. Butte County Official Website, http://www.buttecounty.net/, May 2005. 10. Butte County Department of Development Services, “Flood Damage Survey Reports, 1995, 1997, 1998”. 11. Butte County Department of Public Works, “Butte County General Plan, Land Use Element,” 2000. 12. Butte County Department of Public Works, “Butte County Master Environmental Assessment,” May 20, 1996. 13. Butte County Department of Public Works, Butte County Road Closures, 1993 and 2004. 14. Butte County Water Commission, “Groundwater Bulletin, Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, East Butte Sub-Basin and West Butte Sub-Basin,” October, 2003. 15. California Department of Finance, Demographic Division, 2001. 16. California Department of Forestry, “Fire Management Plan,” 2003. 17. California Department of Forestry, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, 2003. 18. California Department of Water Resources Division of Flood Management, “Superintendents Guide to Operation and Maintenance of California‟s Flood Control Projects,” 1965. 19. California Department of Water Resources, California Data Exchange Center web data information for Butte Creek near Durham in 1997, 2004. 20. California Department of Water Resources, “Debris Deposition in the Cherokee Canal Flood Control Project,” February, 1970. 21. California Governor‟s Office of Emergency Services, Butte County Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, 1996. 22. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), website, http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp, 2004. 23. California State University at Chico, Geographic Information Center for Watershed Projects, 1999. 24. City of Chico Community Development Department Planning Division, “City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment,” November, 1999. 25. City of Chico Department of Public Works, “Storm Drainage Master Plan,” 2000. 26. City of Chico Department of Public Works, “Draft Teichert Pond Restoration and Management Plan,”

References January 2006

27. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), “Engineering Aspects of the Oroville- Palermo, California Earthquake of August 1, 1975 Reconnaissance Report,” 1975. 28. Federal Emergency Management Agency, HAZUS 99 data, 1999. 29. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Homeowner‟s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding,” June 1998. 30. Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Statistics for Region IX, 2004. 31. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage: Principles and Practices for the Design and Construction of Flood Resistant Utility Systems, First Edition, publication #348,” November, 1999. 32. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Flood Insurance Study Butte County, California and Incorporated Areas, Revision April 2000”. 33. Federal Emergency Management Agency‟s National Flood Insurance website, http://www.fema.gov/nfip/intnfip.shtm, 2004. 34. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “How-To Guide for Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, Version 1.0,” August, 2001. 35. McCain Associates, “Master Storm Drainage Study and Facilities Plan, Paradise, California,” 1980. 36. Natural Resource and Conservation Service, “Flood Damage Survey Reports, 1995, 1997, and 1998.” 37. NorthStar Engineering, “Basin Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis for „Drainage Basin A,‟ City of Oroville,” July 2002. 38. Office of Watershed Projects and Chico State University, Chico Research Foundation. “Butte Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report,” April, 2000. 39. Psomas and Associates, “Master Drainage Plan for the City of Oroville,” August 1991. 40. Quinn, Rebecca, RCQuinn Consulting, Inc. for the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. News & Views “Mitigation Planning and the November Deadline” Vol. 16, No.1, February 2004. 41. Sacramento Valley Flood Control System Estimated Channel Capacity (in cubic feet per second) Reclamation and Levee Districts, November 2003. 42. Schoonover, Steve, “Rip-rap May be Sought to Protect River Road,” Chico Enterprise Record, May 2005. 43. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Floodproofing – How to Evaluate Your Options,” 1993. 44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Memorandum For Major Subordinate Commands And District Commands: Policy Guidance Letter (PGL) No. 52, Flood Plain Management Plans,” December, 1997. 45. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Cherokee Canal, Butte County, California: Section 1135 Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Sediment Yield/Transport Study,” January 2003. 46. U.S. Census Bureau, Population and Housing Data, 2000. 47. U.S. Geological Survey, NWIS web data information for Butte Creek near Chico in 1997, 2004.

References January 2006

ACRONYMS

BCFD Butte County Fire Department BCWC Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy BFE Base Flood Elevation BLM Bureau of Land Management CDF California Department of Forestry CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CFS Cubic Feet Per Second CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CRS Community Rating System CSUC California State University, Chico DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 DSR Damage Survey Report DSOD Division of Safety of Dams ESO Emergency Services Officer FBFM Flood Boundary and Floodway Map FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Maps FIS Flood Insurance Study FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance FMP Flood Mitigation Plan GIS Geographic Information System HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LOMR Letter of Map Revision NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NWS National Weather Service PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Watershed Advisory Committee WCWD Western Canal Water District

Acronyms January 2006

GLOSSARY

A-Zones – See “Special Flood Hazard Area,”

Active Fault – A fault that has moved in recent geologic time and which is likely to move again soon. (For geologic purposes, there are no precise limits to recency of movement or probable future movement that define an "active fault." Definitions for planning purposes extend on the order of 10,000 years or more back and 100 years or more forward. The exact time limits for planning purposes are usually defined in relation to contemplated uses and structures).

Alluvial – Pertaining to or composed of alluvium, or deposited by a stream or running water (AGI, 1972).

Alluvial Fan – Area of deposition where steep mountain drainages empty into valley floors, usually in arid regions. Flooding in these areas often includes characteristics that differ from those in riverine or coastal areas (FEMA, 1999).

Alluvial Fan Flooding – Flooding that occurs on the surface of an alluvial fan (or similar landform) that originates at the apex of the fan and is characterized by high-velocity flows; active processes of erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths (FEMA, 1999).

Alluvium – A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel or similar unconsolidated detrital material deposited during comparatively recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water as a sorted or semi-sorted sediment in the bed of the stream or on its flood plain or delta, or as a cone or fan at the base of a mountain slope (AGI, 1972).

Base Flood – Flood that has a one percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also known as the 100-year flood (FEMA, 1999).

Base Flood Elevation (BFE) – Elevation of the 100-year flood. The BFE is determined by statistical analysis for each local area and is designated on the FIRMs. This elevation is the basis of the insurance and floodplain management requirements of the NFIP (FEMA, 1999).

Community – As defined for the NFIP's purposes, is any state, area, or political subdivision; any Indian tribe, authorized tribal organization, or Alaska native village, or authorized native organization that has the authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances for the area under its jurisdiction. In most cases, a community is an incorporated city, town, township, borough, or village, or an unincorporated area of a County or parish. However, some states have statutory authorities that vary from this description (FEMA website, 2004).

Critical Facilities – Comprise essential facilities, transportation systems, lifeline utility systems, high potential loss facilities, and hazardous material facilities. Definitions of these are listed in this glossary (FEMA, 2001).

Glossary January 2006

Essential Facilities – Critical facilities that are essential to the health and welfare of the whole population and are especially important following hazard events. The potential consequences of losing them are so great, that they should be carefully inventoried. Be sure to consider not only the structural integrity and content value, but also the effects on the interruption of their functions because the vulnerability is based on the service they provide rather than simply their physical aspects. Essential facilities include hospitals and other medical facilities, police and fires stations, emergency operations centers and evacuation shelters, and schools (FEMA, 2001).

Debris – Materials carried by floodwater, including objects of various sizes and suspended soils (FEMA, 1999).

Development – Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading (except grading in any A- 10, A-15, A-20, A-40, A-160 or AI zone for agricultural purposes and which does not increase flood levels upstream or downstream), paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. (44 CFR Ch.1, Subch.B, NFIP, Part 59, Subpart A).

Fault – A surface or zone of rock fracture where there has been displacement, from a few centimeters to a few kilometers in scale (AGI, 1972).

Fault Surface – In a fault, the surface where displacement has occurred (AGI, 1972).

Fault System – Two or more interconnecting fault sets (AGI, 1972).

Fault Zone – A fault zone is expressed as a zone of numerous small fractures or of breccia or fault gouge. A fault zone may be as wide as hundreds of meters (AGI, 1972).

Federal Emergency Management Agency – Independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. FEMA administers NFIP (FEMA, 1999).

Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) – Component of FEMA directly responsible for administering the flood insurance aspects of the NFIP (FEMA, 1999).

Flash Flood – Flood that rises very quickly and usually is characterized by high flow velocities. Flash floods often result from intense rainfall over a small area (FEMA, 1999).

Flood – Under the NFIP, a partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (1) the overland flow of a lake, river, stream, ditch, etc.; (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters; and (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land (FEMA, 1999).

Glossary January 2006

Flood Frequency – Probability, expressed as a percentage, that a flood of a given size will be equaled or exceeded in any given year. The flood that has a one percent probability (1 in 100) of being equaled or exceeded in any given year is often referred to as the 100-year flood. Similarly, the floods that have a two percent probability (1 in 50) and a 0.2 percent (1 in 500) of being equaled or exceeded in any year are referred to as the 50-year flood and the 500-year flood, respectively (FEMA, 1999).

Flood Fringe – That portion of the floodplain that lies beyond the floodway and serves as a temporary storage area for floodwater during a flood. This section receives water that is more shallow and of lower velocity than floodway water (FEMA, 1999).

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) – The official map of a community prepared by FEMA that shows the BFE, along with the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones for flood insurance purposes. Once it has been accepted, the community is part of the regular phase of the NFIP (FEMA, 1999).

Flood Insurance Study (FIS) – A study performed by any of a variety of agencies and consultants to delineate the special flood hazard areas, base flood elevations, and risk premium zones. The study is funded by FEMA and is based on detailed site surveys and analysis of the site-specific hydrologic characteristics (FEMA, 1999).

Floodplain – An area susceptible to inundation by water from any source (FEMA, 1999).

Floodplain Management – Program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including flood control projects, floodplain land use regulations, floodproofing or retrofitting of buildings, and emergency preparedness plans (FEMA, 1999).

Floodproofing – Structural or nonstructural changes or adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that reduce damage to the building and its contents from flooding and erosion (FEMA, 1999).

Floodway – Portion of the regulatory floodplain that must be kept free of development so that flood elevations will not increase beyond a set limit – a maximum of 1 foot according to NFIP guidelines. The floodway usually consist of the stream channel and land along its sides. Also known as a regulatory floodway (FEMA, 1999).

Freeboard – Additional amount of height incorporated into the design flood elevation to account for uncertainties in the determination of flood elevations (FEMA, 1999).

Hazard Mitigation – Action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and fires (FEMA, 1999).

Hazardous Material Facilities – Facilities housing industrial/hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins (FEMA, 2001).

Glossary January 2006

High Potential Loss Facilities – Critical facilities that have a high loss associated with them, such as nuclear power plants, dams, and military installations (FEMA, 2001).

Historic Earthquake – An earthquake, which occurred within the recorded history of man. Approximately 200 years maximum in California for large earthquakes.

Impervious Surfaces – Land surface that resist penetration by water (FEMA, 1999).

Intensity (Earthquake) – A measure of the effects of an earthquake at a particular place on humans and/or structures. The intensity at a point depends not only upon the strength of the earthquake, or the earthquake magnitude, but also upon the distance from the point to the epicenter and the local geology at the point (AGI, 1972).

Levee – Flood barrier constructed of compacted soil (FEMA, 1999).

Lifeline Utility Systems – Critical facilities such as potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power and communication systems (FEMA, 2001).

Liquefaction – Change of water saturated cohesionless soil to liquid, usually from intense ground shaking; soil loses all strength (AGI, 1972).

Lowest Floor – Flood of the lowest enclosed area within the building, including the basement (FEMA, 1999).

Magnitude (Earthquake) – A measure of the strength of an earthquake or the strain energy released by it, as determined by seismographic observations. As defined by Richter, it is the logarithm, to the base 10, of the amplitude in microns of the largest trace deflection that would be observed on a standard torsion seismograph (static magnification = 2800; period = 0.8 sec; damping constant = 0.9) at a distance of 100 kilometers from the epicenter (AGI, 1972).

100-year Flood – The flood that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. It is also known as the Base Flood (FEMA, 1999).

Regulatory Floodplain – Flood hazard area within which a community regulates development, including new construction, the repair of substantially damaged buildings, and substantial improvements to existing buildings. In communities participating in the NFIP, the regulatory floodplain must include at least the area inundated by the base flood, also referred to as the SFHA (FEMA, 1999).

Repetitive Loss Structures – Include any currently insured building with two or more flood losses (occurring more than ten days apart) greater than $1,000 in any 10-year period since 1978 (FEMA, 2001).

Retrofitting – Making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards such as high winds and earthquakes (FEMA, 1998).

Glossary January 2006

Scour – Process by which floodwater removes soil around objects that obstruct flow, such as the foundation walls of a house (FEMA, 1999).

Seiche – A wave that oscillates in lakes, bays, or gulfs as a result of seismic or atmospheric disturbances.

Special Flood Hazard Area – Portion of the floodplain subject to inundation by the base flood, designated Zone A, AE, A1-A30, AH, AO, AR, V, VE, or V1-V30 on a FIRM (FEMA, 1999).

Storm Surge – Rise in the level of the ocean that results from the decrease in atmospheric pressure associated with hurricanes and other storms (FEMA, 1999).

Strike-Slip Fault – A fault, the actual movement of which is parallel to the strike (trend) of the fault (AGI, 1972).

Subsidence – The gradual settling or sinking of an area of land with little or no horizontal motion, due to the decomposition of organic material in the soil, or the withdrawal of groundwater or oil.

Substantial improvement – Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction.” This term includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (1) any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum necessary to ensure safe living conditions, or (2) any alteration of a “historic structure” provided that the alteration would not preclude the structure‟s continued designation as a “historic structure” (FEMA, 1999).

Transportation Systems – Critical facilities that include airways such as airports, heliports; highways such as bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, transfer centers; railways such as trackage, tunnels, bridges, rail yards, depots; and waterways such as canals, locks, seaports, ferries harbors, drydocks, piers (FEMA, 2001).

Glossary January 2006