Lower Sacramento/Delta North RFMP Input for...
Transcript of Lower Sacramento/Delta North RFMP Input for...
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