View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
CALIFORNIA LEVEE EVALUATIONS PROGRAMSociety of American Military Engineers2009 Water Conference, October 26-28, 2009Presented by Mike InamineCalifornia Department of Water Resources
Central Valley Flood Control System Protects: Over 1/2 million people Over 1.5 million acres of cultivated land 200,000 structures with an estimated value of $56 billion Public trust resources Water supply to two-thirds of the State’s population and industry The system is aging and under-funded
California Central Valley Challenges Early design and construction inadequate by modern standards. The system was successfully designed to protect pioneer farms. Behind many levees are homes, not farms.
Central Valley Challenges (cont’d) Current system has many deficiencies and is aging. Rivers now erode levees in many reaches. Recently, financial burden shifted to the State. State is liable. Every taxpayer is affected by failures. Land use decisions often increase risk.
5 FloodSAFE California--a multi-faceted initiative to improve public safety through integrated flood management Statewide Program 4 Major Activities Primarily funded by Propositions 1E and 84 Emphasis on State-federal system in Central Valley and Delta 5
FloodSAFE Strategic Plan Work Breakdown of FloodSAFE Implementation
Levee Evaluations important component in all functional areas
FloodSAFE Implementation Plan Operations and Maintenance Emergency Operations Projects and Grants Planning Evaluation and Engineering Floodplain Risk Management Administration and Management
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan System Analysis
Levee Evaluations Program Purpose In support of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) and other flood management related programs, evaluate State/Federal project levees and appurtenant non-project levees, to determine if they meet defined geotechnical criteria and, if appropriate, identify remedial measure(s) to meet those criteria.
Goal #1 – Support the CVFPP and CVFED projects, federal and local flood management projects, local FEMA certification efforts and the legislative mandate of urban, 200-year flood protection by 2025. Goal #2 – Support federal & local flood management programs by providing geotechnical data, analysis and remedial alternatives to local, State and federal stakeholders. Goal #3 – Improve geotechnical information exchange methods between State, local and Federal flood management agencies. Goal #4 - Identify critical levee repairs Levee Evaluation Program Goals
Levee Evaluations Work Breakdown Levee Evaluations Technical Review Non-Urban (NULE) Urban (ULE) Technical Policy Central Valley Flood Protection Board Seismic Policy Interim Levee Design Criteria Capital Projects Vegetation Research Corps Projects
Central Valley Levees Project (State-Federal) Appurtenant Non-Project Other Non-Project Urban Project 350 miles Urban Non-Project 100 miles Urban Total 450 Miles Non-Urban Non-Project 400 miles Non-Urban Project 1250 Miles Non-Urban Total 1650 Miles
ULE STUDY AREA Marysville/Yuba City Detail Area
NULE Phased Implementation Phase 2: Exploration, Testing & Analysis Geotechnical Evaluation Report Phase 1: Data Analyses Geotechnical Assessment Report Site Reconnaissance, Data Collection &Geomorphic Studies Phase 1 applied throughout study area Phase 2 contingent on Central Valley Flood Management Planning process
NULE Phase 1 Assess levees with respect to design water surface elevations Levee Assessment Tool (LAT) Categorize levee segments as:
Remedial Alternative Cost Estimate Report (RACER) Phase 2: Exploration, Testing & Analysis Geotechnical Evaluation Report Phase 1: Data Analyses Geotechnical Assessment Report Site Reconnaissance, Data Collection &Geomorphic Studies
Overview of Development ofLevee Assessment Tool (LAT) Modes of levee failure Associated hazard indicators (existing data) Rating scale for each hazard indicator System for compiling the hazard indicators into a Weighted Hazard Indicator Score (WHIS) Methodology for comparing the WHIS to past performance to categorize the levee
DEFICIENT Underseepage Hazard Score NO OBVIOUS DEFICIENCIES Sand Boils Boils Heavy Seepage Light Seepage None Reported Documented Past Performance
NULE Phase 2 Early Phase 2 for levees protecting populations of 5,000 or more (“no regrets”) CVFMP process to identify additional locations, such as:
Independent Consulting Board Christopher Groves Skip Hendron William Marcuson Raymond Seed George Sills
Expert technical oversight with regard to:
Safety Performance State-of-practice Economy
Advise DWR on :
Analyses methods Criteria
Time and Money Schedule: ULE final deliverable: March 2011 NULE final deliverable: August 2011 Interim deliverables available as produced Cost: ULE $113M NULE $ 87M Total $210M
Program Challenges Strategic, tactical differences between ULE and NULE Financial limits Conform analyses with varying geotechnical data Concurrent Partner/Stakeholder process Differing phased approaches “Theory and calculation are not substitutes for judgment, but are the basis for sounder judgment.” Ralph Peck