Lower Sacramento/Delta North RFMP Input for Conservation Strategy Advisory Committee (Draft)

The purpose of this paper is to advance the development and implementation of a program of projects presented in the Lower Sacramento/Delta North Regional Flood Management Plan (RFMP) and subsequently developed through ongoing planning efforts to achieve the goals of the 2017 update to the CVFPP. This purpose is proposed to be achieved through the implantation of a Road Map developed by the RFMP agencies, which include Solano County, Yolo County, West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Reclamation District 2068, and Solano County Water Agency. The Road Map proposes an organizational structure and permitting framework for successful delivery of the program of projects and provides overarching guiding principles and desired outcomes for each participating agency to strive as partners to achieve. The Road Map also outlines common challenges facing many of the individual projects in the program, which can benefit from attention at a program management level.

Approach

The Road Map’s fundamental approach is predicated on better integrating and leveraging existing interagency interaction in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region to:

• Promote the discussion, prioritization, and resolution of policy and other issues critical to the success of the various water management and habitat restoration projects in the Region.

• Improve collaboration, synchronization of efforts, and enhanced outcomes of water management planning and project implementation efforts in the Region.

• Serve as a model for public agency cooperation and achievement.

Guiding Principles

Participants in these interagency interactions will strive to adhere to the five guiding principles established in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memorandum of Understanding signed by a total of fifteen federal, state, and local agencies in 2016.

Desired Outcomes

Participants in these interagency interactions will strive to reconcile and advance multiple and often competing water resource objectives to achieve all the following desired outcomes:

• Implement flood improvements that benefit the system and the region. • Improve sustainability of the agricultural economy. • Protect and improve ecosystem function and habitat quality. • Increase reliability of water supply and drainage infrastructure. • Seek to expand and improve recreational opportunities.

Organization

The Road Map proposes a three-tier organizational model for the delivery of projects in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region. This model seeks to strike a balance between empowering each individual project team to develop and deliver a project with autonomy and ensuring enough awareness at the management-level to address policy issues simultaneously impacting multiple projects. The proposed organizational model’s three distinct tiers include the following:

1. Policy Support and Decision-Making – Utilize the existing Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership formed in 2015 and governed by the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough MOU executed in May 2016. The Partnership is comprised of fifteen (15) federal, state, and local agencies, each with a key interest in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region. Their primary responsibilities are to confirm high-level support for program delivery, assist in interpreting or adapting existing policy, supporting the development of new policy, and serving as a decision maker (individually or collectively), as appropriate.

2. Program Management – Institutionalize interagency collaboration occurring through the recent series of Yolo Bypass/Cache Slough Program Development Workshops. This series of workshops has included participation from the principal local and state agencies with a strong interest in advancing the development and implementation of water resource projects in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region. This tier, to be referred to as the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Program Management Forum, is primary responsibilities for the following:

• Problem solves, shares advocacy, and shares challenges collectively • Sets institutional tone and ensures institutional continuity • Identifies universe of program-level barriers and tools • Establishes and evolves foundational program vision • Develops same-page relationship with federal partners

3. Project Delivery – Leverage existing project teams to continue project development and delivery on an individual project scale. Encourage project teams to identify and elevate specific project issues resulting from conflicts with projects or issues experienced on multiple projects. Seek to formulate multi-benefit project concepts and/or alternatives early in project development.

Projects

The Road Map includes a collection of projects in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region that collectively result in a multi-benefit water management program. This program includes many projects already well under development by local, state, and federal agencies as well as projects recommended for development in the 2017 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. These projects are divided into short-term (1 to 3 years), mid-term (3 to 7 years), and long-term (7+ year) improvement projects. As identified in Attachments A below, the mid-term projects are expected to result in approximately 24,000 acres of habitat restoration and substantial additional restoration acreages would be expected with implementation of the long-term projects as their details are further defined (Attachment B).

Program Management Actions

Many of the individual projects proposed for implementation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Region face similar obstacles. Obstacles that might benefit from elevation beyond the individual project team to the Program Management Forum for awareness, discussion, evaluation and resolution. The agencies participating in the Yolo Bypass/Cache Slough Program Development Workshops have initially identified seven obstacles that may benefit from program management level attention. These seven obstacles include: 1) Sustainability of the Agricultural Economy, 2) Water Infrastructure Assurances, 3) Programmatic 408, 4) Improved Water Quality, 5) Multi-objective Project Development, 6) Joint Program Advocacy, and 7) Operations and Maintenance Sustainability.

Contribution to Conservation Strategy Habitat Objectives

To better understand how implementation of the projects within the region could support the habitat objectives included in the CVFPP Conservation Strategy, the projects with habitat restoration components were identified and their habitat characteristics were defined. Then the habitat characteristics for each project were compared to the Conservation Strategy habitat metrics. Based on this comparison, a table was developed that identifies how each project would contribute to the Conservation Strategy habitat objectives and how the projects as a whole would contribute to achieving, and in most cases exceeding, the identified habitat objectives. This comparison table was updated in August 2018 and is attached below (Attachment C).

As evident from the acreage totals identified in this table, implementation of the projects within the region would substantially exceed the identified Conservation Strategy Objectives with the exception of acres of “Floodplain Inundation: Major River Reaches” and “Riverine Geomorphic Processes: River Meander Potential.” However, the approximately 25,000 acres of “Floodplain Inundation: Bypasses/Transient Storage Areas” that would be created by the identified projects would substantially exceed the floodplain inundation identified in the Conservation Strategy Objectives (i.e., 25,000 acres vs. 15,150 acres). For the acres of Riverine Geomorphic Processes, the projects within the region would only be approximately 13 percent (i.e., 173 acres) below the Conservation Strategy Objective. Because the Road Map approach has the potential to substantially accelerate project implementation within the region, it represents a unique opportunity to achieve the goals of the CVFPP 2017 Update.

Attachment A – Road Map 3 to 7 Year Projects

The Road Map divided projects into short-term (1 to 3 years), mid-term (3 to 7 years), and long-term (7+ years). The mid-term projects listed below include several large-scale and/or complex projects with unique or novel policy issues that will benefit from well-coordinated engagement of stakeholder agencies at the local, state, and federal level. Most of these projects are anticipated to be designed to facilitate natural ecosystem processes, to provide habitat mitigation or creation, and to reduce system stressors (e.g., fish passage barriers, invasive species, etc.). For projects anticipated to include habitat restoration, preliminary estimates of restoration acreages are identified in brackets next to the project name. The combined projects are estimated to include 23,907 total acres of restored habitat. Not all of the projects listed in Attachment C are included in the Road Map. The project numbers identified below correspond to the project numbers included on the attached map.

1. Lower Elkhorn Levee Setback (1,350 acres)

2. Sacramento Bypass Setback (Acres included in Project 1)

8. Lookout Slough Multi-Objective Project (1,200 acres)

9. Step Levee Modification

10. Egbert Tract Multi-Objective Project (650 acres)

11. Sacramento Weir Extension

19. Fremont Weir Enhanced Floodplain and Primary Fish Passage Structure (17,000 acres)

20. Knights Landing Flood Protection

21. West Side Levee Improvements

22. Rio Vista Flood Wall

23. Putah Creek Restoration (430 acres)

24. Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration Project (1,471 acres)

26. Prospect Island Restoration Project (1,528 acres)

27. FEMA Floodplain Relief

28. West Sacramento Rail Relocation – Levee Component

36. Highway 84 Improvements

37. Cache Slough Management Plan

41. Yolo Flood Improvements

42. Yolo Flyway Farms (278 acres)

45. Knaggs Ranch Proposal, Managed Floodplain

46. Elk Slough Fish Passage and Flood Improvement Project

Cache Slough Management Plan (37)

Relief from themost severe FEMA

flood insurance andbuilding restrictions (27)

Lower Yolo RanchRestorationProject (24)

Knights LandingFlood Protection (20)

Sacramento Bypass Setback (2)

Yolo Flyway Farms Project (42)

Prospect IslandRestorationProject (26)

Knaggs RanchProposal, ManagedFloodplain (45)

Yolo FloodImprovements (41)

Little Egbert TractMulit-Objective Project (10)

Rio Vista Floodwall (22)

Lookout SloughMulti-Objective Project (8)

Putah CreekRestoration (23)

West

Side

Leve

e Imp

rove

ments

(21)

Lower Elkhorn Levee Setback (1)

Sacramento Weir Extension (11)

Existing NorthBay Aqueduct

Step Levee Modification (9)

Fremont Weir Enhanced Floodplain andPrimary Fish Passage Structure (19)

West Sacramento Rail Relocation (Levee) (28)

Highway 84 Improvements (36)

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

£¤50

¬«12

American River

Sacramento River

Sacra

mento

Deep

Water

Ship

Chan

nel

Galt

Isleton

Elk Grove

Sacramento

RanchoCordova

CitrusHeights

RioVista

Dixon

WestSacramento

Davis

Woodland

Roseville

Yolo Bypass / Cache Slough PartnershipMid-term Improvement Program

Path:

\\PDC

CITR

DSGI

S1\Pr

ojects

_1\SA

FCA\0

0000

_00_

Proje

ctNam

e\map

doc\3

_7_Y

ear_M

ap.m

xd; U

ser: 1

9016

; Date

: 7/2/

2018

LegendYolo BypassRaillinesLevee DegradeNew LeveeCache Slough Management PlanTidal Restoration Projects

!!Water and Drainage InfrastructureImprovements (3-7 Years)

0 31.5Miles´Improvements are Identified as RP-3, RP-4, RP-5, RP-6, RP-9 and RP-11 in the Yolo Bypass Water and Drainage Infastructure Study - Final Report 2

2

1 Lower Elkhorn Levee Setback2 Sacramento Bypass Setback8 Lookout Slough Multi-Objective Project9 Step Levee Modification10 Egbert Tract Multi-Objective Project11 Sacramento Weir Extension

20 Knights Landing Flood Protection21 West Side Levee Improvements22 Rio Vista Floodwall23 Putah Creek Restoration24 Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration Project26 Prospect Island Restoration Project27 FEMA Floodplain Relief28 West Sacramento Rail Relocation (Levee)36 Highway 84 Improvements37 Cache Slough Management Plan41 Yolo Flood Improvements42 Yolo Flyway Farms Project45 Knaggs Ranch Proposal, Managed Floodplain

Fremont Weir Enhanced Floodplain and Primary Fish Passage Structure19

3 to 7-year Projects

Attachment B – Road Map 7 Year Plus Projects

The following long-term projects are of such a scale and complexity that successful delivery is very like unachievable using traditional approaches and tools. These projects will require extensive agency coordination, ongoing stakeholder outreach and creative funding and permitting strategies to be successful. Similar to the 3 to 7 year projects, most of these projects are anticipated to be designed to facilitate natural ecosystem processes, to provide habitat mitigation or creation, and to reduce system stressors (e.g., fish passage barriers, invasive species, etc.). However, because they are only conceptual at this time, estimates of restoration acreages are not currently available. The project numbers identified below correspond to the project numbers included on the attached map.

12. Upper Elkhorn Levee Setback

13. Fremont Weir Extension

28. West Sacramento Rail Relocation – Rail Component

29. Tule Canal Restoration

30. Woodland Flood Protecti9on Project

31. West Side Rail Relocation

32. Cache Creek Settling Basin Material Removal

33. Conaway Ranch Transitory Storage

34. Deep Water Ship Channel Improvements

35. North Bay Aqueduct Alternative Intake

38. West Side Yolo Bypass North of Willow Slough

39. West Side Yolo Bypass North of Putah Creek

40. Lower Yolo Bypass Levee Setback

Conway RanchTransitory Storage (33)

Possible NBAIntake Site

Woodland FloodProtection Project (30)

Fremont WeirExtension (13)

West Sacramento Rail Relocation (Rail) (28)

Upper Elkhorn Levee Setback (12)

West Side RailRelocation (31)

Tule Canal Restoration (29)

North B

ay Aque

duct A

lternat

ive Int

ake (35

)

Deep Water Ship ChannelImprovements (34)

Lower Yolo Bypass Levee Setback (40)

West Side of Yolo BypassNorth of Putah Creek (39)

West Side of Yolo BypassNorth of Willow Slough (38)

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

£¤50

¬«12

American Riv er

Sacramento Ri ver

Sacra

mento

Deep

Water

Ship

Chan

nel

Galt

Isleton

ElkGrove

Sacramento

RanchoCordova

CitrusHeights

RioVista

Dixon

WestSacramento

Davis

Woodland

Roseville

Yolo Bypass / Cache Slough PartnershipLong-term Improvement Program

Path:

K:\Pr

ojects

_1\SA

FCA\0

0000

_00_

Proje

ctNam

e\map

doc\7

_Plus

_Yea

r_Map

.mxd

; Use

r: 190

16; D

ate: 2

/12/20

18

LegendYolo BypassRetained Rail Lines

D D Rail Lines to be RemovedLevee Improvements, 7+ YearsNew RoadNew Rail LineLevee DegradeNew LeveeEvaluate for Levee Setback perSacramento BWFS

0 31.5Miles´

7-year + Projects12 Upper Elkhorn Levee Setback13 Fremont Weir Extension28 West Sacramento Rail Relocation (Rail)29 Tule Canal Restoration30 Woodland Flood Protection Project31 West Side Rail Relocation 32 Cache Creek Settling Basin Material Removal 33 Conaway Ranch Transitory Storage34 Deep Water Ship Channel Improvements35 North Bay Aqueduct Alternative Intake38 West Side of Yolo Bypass North of Willow Slough39 West Side of Yolo Bypass North of Putah Creek40 Lower Yolo Bypass Levee Setback

Atta

chm

ent C

Doug

las E

nviro

nmen

tal

Lo

wer S

acra

mento

/Delt

a Nor

th

Augu

st 20

18

1 Re

giona

l Floo

d Man

agem

ent P

lan

Com

paris

on o

f CVF

PP C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Hab

itat O

bjec

tives

to H

abita

t Res

tora

tion

Proj

ects

In L

S/DN

RFM

P Re

gion

Go

al Ob

jectiv

e: M

etric

Co

nser

vatio

n St

rate

gy

Objec

tive

Proj

ects

in

LS/D

N RF

MP

Regi

on

Proj

ects

Bein

g Im

plem

ente

d*

Habi

tat R

esto

ratio

n Pr

ojec

ts in

LS/

DN R

FMP

Regi

on

Ecos

yste

m P

roce

sses

Flood

plain

Inund

ation

: majo

r rive

r re

ache

s (ac

res)

7,650

1,0

49.2

295.7

So

uthp

ort L

evee

Set

back

(152

ac.),

Am

erica

n Ri

ver R

M 0.5

(3.7

ac.),

De

cker

Islan

d (1

40 ac

.), P

CS-1

(350

ac.),

PCS

-3 (6

.5 ac

.), P

CS-5

(212

ac.),

PC

S-10

(149

ac.),

PCS

-12 (

10 ac

.), B

ees L

akes

(20 a

c.), M

onum

ent B

end (

6 ac

.) Flo

odpla

in inu

ndati

on:

bypa

sses

/tran

sient

stora

ge ar

eas

(acre

s) 7,5

00

25,04

7 -

PCS-

2 (3,1

76 ac

.), P

CS-4

(275

ac.)

, PCS

-6 (4

3 ac.)

, PCS

-7 (1

9.5 a

c.), P

CS-

15 (2

75 ac

.), Lo

wer E

lkhor

n Setb

ack (

1,350

ac.),

Upp

er E

lkhor

n Setb

ack

(2,47

8.5 ac

.), Lo

wer P

utah C

reek

(430

ac.),

Yolo

Byp

ass S

almon

id Bi

Op

(17,0

00 ac

.)

Rive

rine g

eomo

rphic

proc

esse

s: na

tural

bank

(mile

s) 4

36.5

6.8

Sout

hpor

t Lev

ee S

etba

ck (5

m.),

PCS

-14 (

0.6 m

.), A

mer

ican

Rive

r RM

0.5

(0.2

m.),

Dec

ker I

sland

(1 m

.), P

CS -1

(1.6

m.),

PCS-

2 (2.2

5 m.),

PCS

-8 (0

.5 m.

), PC

S-9 (

0.9 m

.), P

CS-1

0 (3 m

.), P

CS-1

2 (0.8

5 m.),

Upp

er P

utah

Cre

ek (9

m.

), Lo

wer P

utah C

reek

(5 m

.), T

witch

ell Is

. S.J.

Rive

r Setb

ack L

evee

(6.6

m.)

Rive

rine g

eomo

rphic

proc

esse

s: riv

er m

eand

er po

tentia

l (acre

s) 1,3

00

1,127

.25

166

Sout

hpor

t Lev

ee S

etba

ck (1

52 ac

.), P

CS-1

4 (14

ac.),

PCS

-2 (1

94 ac

.),

PCS-

8 (12

.5 ac

.), P

CS-9

(15.7

5 ac.)

, PCS

-10 (

149 a

c.), P

CS-1

2 (10

ac.),

Up

per P

utah C

reek

(110

ac.),

Lowe

r Puta

h Cre

ek (4

30 ac

.), T

witch

ell Is

. S.J.

Ri

ver S

etbac

k Lev

ee (4

0 ac.)

Ha

bitat

s

SRA

cove

r: na

tural

bank

(mile

s) 4

35.55

0.8

PC

S-14

(0.6

m.),

Am

erica

n Ri

ver R

M 0.5

(0.2

m.),

PCS

-1 (4

.6 m.

), PC

S-3

(0.4

m.),

PCS-

4 (2.1

m.),

PCS

-5 (2

.7 m.

), PC

S-6 (

1.4 m

.), P

CS-8

(0.5

m.),

PCS-

10 (2

.7 m.

), PC

S-11

(0.65

m.),

PCS

-12 (

0.85 m

.), P

CS-1

3 (11

m.),

PCS

-15

(2.25

m.),

Lowe

r Elkh

orn S

etbac

k (5.6

m.)

SRA

cove

r: rip

arian

-lined

bank

(m

iles)

3 29

.05

6.2

Sout

hpor

t Lev

ee S

etba

ck (5

m.),

Am

erica

n Ri

ver R

M 0.5

(0.2

m.),

Dec

ker

Islan

d (1

m.),

SAF

CA LA

P Sa

crame

nto R

iver R

iparia

n Mitig

ation

(0.2

m.),

SAFC

A LA

P Sa

crame

nto R

iver E

rosio

n Rep

air (0

.7 m.

), CP

S-2 (

2.7 m

.),

PCS-

9 (0.6

5 m.),

PCS

-10 (

0.3 m

.), P

CS-1

3 (11

m.),

Bee

s Lak

es (0

.5 m.

), Tw

itche

ll Is.

S.J.

Rive

r Setb

ack L

evee

(6.6

m.),

Monu

ment

Bend

(0.2

m.)

Ripa

rian h

abita

t (ac

res)

1,900

2,

097.2

17

5.7

Sout

hpor

t Lev

ee S

etba

ck (9

4 ac.)

, Twi

tche

ll Is.

East

End

Wet

land

Rest

orat

ion

(50 a

c.), P

CS-1

4 (14

ac.),

Am

erica

n Ri

ver R

M 0.5

(3.7

ac.),

SA

FCA

LAP

Robl

a Cre

ek R

ipar

ian E

nhan

cem

ent (

2 ac.)

, Dec

ker I

sland

(1

2 ac.)

, SAF

CA L

AP B

uffer

lands

Mitig

ation

(38 a

c.), S

AFCA

LAP

Sa

crame

nto R

iver R

iparia

n Mitig

ation

(10 a

c.), S

AFCA

LAP

Sacra

mento

Ri

ver E

rosio

n Rep

air (5

ac.),

USA

CE N

LIP

Mitig

ation

(100

ac.),

PCS

-1 (3

66.5

Atta

chm

ent C

Doug

las E

nviro

nmen

tal

Lo

wer S

acra

mento

/Delt

a Nor

th

Augu

st 20

18

2 Re

giona

l Floo

d Man

agem

ent P

lan

ac.),

PCS

-2 (4

69.5

ac.),

PCS

-4 (3

93 ac

.), P

CS-5

(85 a

c.), P

CS-6

(43 a

c.),

PCS-

8 (12

.5 ac

.), P

CS-9

(12 a

c.), P

CS-1

0 (14

9 ac.)

, PCS

-11 (

8 ac.)

, PCS

-12

(10 a

c.), P

CS-1

3 (13

3 ac.)

, PCS

-15 (

275 a

c.), L

ower

Elkh

orn S

etbac

k (30

6 ac

.), U

pper

Elkh

orn S

etbac

k (52

ac.),

Bee

s Lak

es (2

0 ac.)

, Twi

tchell

Is. S

.J.

Rive

r Setb

ack L

evee

(40 a

c.), M

onum

ent B

end (

6 ac.)

Marsh

/othe

r wetl

and h

abita

t (ac

res)

3,500

15

,398

2,133

Sout

hpor

t Lev

ee S

etba

ck (5

8 ac.)

, She

rman

Is. W

hales

Mou

th (6

00 ac

.),

Sher

man

Is. M

aybe

rry F

arm

s Wet

lands

(307

ac.),

Twi

tche

ll Is.

East

End

W

etlan

d Re

stor

atio

n (7

50 ac

.), Y

olo

Flyw

ay F

arm

s (27

8 ac.)

, Dec

ker

Islan

d (1

40 ac

.), U

SACE

NLIP

Mitig

ation

(70 a

c.), P

CS -2

(332

ac. s

eas.

wet.,

158 a

c. se

as. m

arsh

), PC

S-4 (

55 ac

.), P

CS-6

(55 a

c.), P

CS-7

(19.5

ac.),

PC

S-15

(27.5

ac.),

Pro

spec

t Islan

d (1,5

28 ac

.), Lo

wer P

utah C

reek

(90 a

c.),

Lowe

r Yolo

Ran

ch (1

,471 a

c.), Y

BWA

Habit

at Im

prov

emen

ts (2

70 a

c.),

Sher

man I

s. Be

lly W

etlan

d Re

stora

tion (

1,500

ac.),

She

rman

Is. F

uture

Pr

ojects

(3,90

0 ac.)

, Twi

tchell

Is. W

est E

nd W

etlan

d Res

torati

on (1

,250 a

c.),

Twitc

hell I

s. S.

J. Ri

ver S

etbac

k Lev

ee (1

00 ac

.), Li

ttle E

gber

t Tra

ct (6

50 ac

.),

Look

out S

lough

(1,20

0 ac.)

, Wint

er Is

land (

589 a

c.)

Stre

ssor

s

Fish p

assa

ge ba

rrier

s: ch

anne

l-wi

de st

ructu

res

4 13

5

Frem

ont W

eir A

dult

Fish

Pas

sage

and

Tule

Cana

l Ag.

Cro

ssin

gs #2

+ #3

, W

allac

e Weir

, Kni

ghts

Lan

ding

Out

fall G

ates

, Yolo

Byp

ass S

almon

id Bi

Op, T

ule C

anal

Ag. C

ross

ings #

1 + #4

, Sac

rame

nto W

eir, L

isbon

Weir

, PC

S-7,

Putah

Cre

ek R

estor

ation

, Elk

Slou

gh F

ish P

assa

ge R

estor

ation

Invas

ive pl

ants:

prior

itized

spec

ies

(infes

ted ac

res)

363

363

- As

sume

s DW

R co

ntrol

of inf

ested

Cha

nnel

Maint

enan

ce A

reas

or w

ill fun

d LM

As. G

iant R

eed (

18 ac

.), S

altce

dar (

70 ac

.), H

imala

yan B

lackb

erry

(276

ac

.) (C

VFPP

Con

serva

tion

Stra

tegy

App

. E, T

able

3-3)

*A

ssum

es th

e CE

QA/

NEP

A pr

oces

s has

bee

n co

mpl

eted

and

con

stru

ctio

n w

ill c

omm

ence

prio

r to

or d

urin

g 20

18. A

lso in

clud

es a

ny c

ompl

eted

pro

ject

s ide

ntifi

ed in

Eco

Rest

ore.

Pr

ojec

ts b

eing

impl

emen

ted

are

liste

d in

Bol

d in

the

LS/D

N R

FMP

Opp

ortu

nitie

s/Pr

ojec

t col

umn.

U

SACE

= U

.S. A

rmy

Corp

s of E

ngin

eers

DW

R =

Calif

orni

a De

part

men

t of W

ater

Res

ourc

es

SAFC

A =

Sacr

amen

to A

rea

Floo

d Co

ntro

l Age

ncy

LMAs

= L

ocal

Mai

ntai

ning

Age

ncie

s CV

FPP

= Ce

ntra

l Val

ley

Floo

d Pr

otec

tion

Plan

LS

/DN

RFM

P =

Low

er S

acra

men

to/D

elta

Nor

th R

egio

nal F

lood

Man

agem

ent P

lan

NLI

P =

Nat

omas

Lev

ee Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

LA

P =

Leve

e Ac

cred

itatio

n Pr

ojec

t PC

S =

Pote

ntia

l Con

serv

atio

n Si

tes (

Doug

las E

nviro

nmen

tal e

t al.,

July

201

4)

SRA

= Sh

aded

Riv

erin

e Aq

uatic

YB

WA

= Yo

lo B

ypas

s Wild

life

Area

RM

= R

iver

Mile

m

. = m

iles,

ac.

= a

cres