Inamine Final Sess4 102709


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Inamine Final Sess4 102709

  1. 1. CALIFORNIA LEVEE EVALUATIONS PROGRAMSociety of American Military Engineers2009 Water Conference, October 26-28, 2009Presented by Mike InamineCalifornia Department of Water Resources<br />
  2. 2. Central Valley <br />Flood Control <br />System Protects:<br />Over 1/2 million people<br />Over 1.5 million acres of cultivated land<br />200,000 structures with an<br />estimated value of $56 billion<br />Public trust resources<br />Water supply to two-thirds of the<br />State’s population and industry<br />The system is aging and under-funded<br />
  3. 3. California Central Valley Challenges<br />Early design and construction inadequate by modern standards.<br />The system was successfully designed to protect pioneer farms. Behind many levees are homes, not farms.<br />
  4. 4. Central Valley Challenges (cont’d)<br />Current system has many deficiencies and is aging.<br />Rivers now erode levees in many reaches.<br />Recently, financial burden shifted to the State.<br />State is liable. Every taxpayer is affected by failures.<br />Land use decisions often increase risk.<br />
  5. 5. 5<br />FloodSAFE California--a multi-faceted initiative to improve<br /> public safety through integrated flood management <br />Statewide Program<br />4 Major Activities<br />Primarily funded by Propositions 1E and 84<br />Emphasis on State-federal system in Central Valley and Delta<br />5<br />
  6. 6. FloodSAFE Strategic Plan<br />Work Breakdown of FloodSAFE Implementation<br /><ul><li>Evaluations and Engineering functional area
  7. 7. CVFPP key planning document
  8. 8. Levee Evaluations important component in all functional areas</li></ul>FloodSAFE Implementation Plan<br />Operations and Maintenance<br />Emergency Operations<br />Projects and Grants<br />Planning<br />Evaluation and Engineering<br />Floodplain Risk Management<br />Administration and Management<br />
  9. 9. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan System Analysis<br />
  10. 10. Levee Evaluations Program Purpose<br />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.<br />
  11. 11. 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.<br />Goal #2 – Support federal & local flood management programs by providing geotechnical data, analysis and remedial alternatives to local, State and federal stakeholders.<br />Goal #3 – Improve geotechnical information exchange methods between State, local and Federal flood management agencies.<br />Goal #4 - Identify critical levee repairs<br />Levee Evaluation Program Goals<br />
  12. 12. Levee Evaluations Work Breakdown<br />Levee Evaluations <br />Technical Review<br />Non-Urban <br />(NULE)<br />Urban <br />(ULE)<br />Technical Policy<br />Central Valley Flood <br />Protection Board<br />Seismic Policy<br />Interim Levee<br />Design Criteria<br />Capital Projects<br />Vegetation <br />Research<br />Corps Projects<br />
  13. 13. Central Valley Levees <br />Project (State-Federal)<br />Appurtenant Non-Project<br />Other Non-Project<br />Urban Project 350 miles<br />Urban Non-Project 100 miles<br />Urban Total 450 Miles<br />Non-Urban Non-Project 400 miles<br />Non-Urban Project 1250 Miles<br />Non-Urban Total 1650 Miles<br />
  14. 14. ULE STUDY AREA<br />Marysville/Yuba City<br />Detail<br /> Area<br />
  15. 15. NULE STUDY AREA<br />
  16. 16. Overview of ULE and NULE<br /><ul><li>Supports Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, Federal and Local Efforts
  17. 17. Urban Levee Evaluations</li></ul>Populations of 10,000 or more<br />200-year legal mandate helps define deliverable<br />Geotechnical Data Report<br />Geotechnical Evaluation Report<br /><ul><li>Non-Urban Levee Evaluations</li></ul>Populations less than 10,000 <br />Partners/stakeholder driven<br />Ongoing CVFMP planning process defines deliverable<br />Geotechnical Data Report<br />Geotechnical Assessment Report<br />Geotechnical Evaluation Report<br />
  18. 18. 2<br />ULE Phased Implementation<br />
  19. 19. NULE Phased Implementation<br /> Phase 2:<br /> Exploration, Testing<br /> & Analysis<br />Geotechnical <br /> Evaluation Report<br /> Phase 1:<br /> Data Analyses <br />Geotechnical <br /> Assessment<br />Report<br />Site Reconnaissance,<br />Data Collection<br />&Geomorphic Studies<br />Phase 1 applied throughout study area<br />Phase 2 contingent on Central Valley Flood Management Planning process<br />
  20. 20. NULE Phase 1<br />Assess levees with respect to design water surface elevations<br />Levee Assessment Tool (LAT)<br />Categorize levee segments as: <br /><ul><li>Deficient
  21. 21. No obvious deficiencies
  22. 22. Insufficient information</li></ul>Remedial Alternative Cost Estimate Report (RACER)<br />Phase 2:<br /> Exploration, Testing<br /> & Analysis<br />Geotechnical <br /> Evaluation Report<br />Phase 1:<br /> Data Analyses <br />Geotechnical <br /> Assessment<br />Report<br />Site Reconnaissance,<br />Data Collection<br />&Geomorphic Studies<br />
  23. 23. Overview of Development ofLevee Assessment Tool (LAT)<br />Modes of levee failure<br />Associated hazard indicators (existing data)<br />Rating scale for each hazard indicator<br />System for compiling the hazard indicators into a Weighted Hazard Indicator Score (WHIS)<br />Methodology for comparing the WHIS to past performance to categorize the levee<br />
  24. 24. DEFICIENT<br />Underseepage Hazard Score<br />NO OBVIOUS<br />DEFICIENCIES<br /> Sand Boils Boils Heavy Seepage Light Seepage None Reported Documented Past Performance <br />
  25. 25. NULE Phase 2<br />Early Phase 2 for levees protecting populations of 5,000 or more (“no regrets”)<br />CVFMP process to identify additional locations, such as:<br /><ul><li>Levees that protect critical infrastructure
  26. 26. Levees with critical damage sites
  27. 27. Levees protecting small and legacy communities</li></ul>Analyses<br /><ul><li>Design water surface elevation
  28. 28. Top of levee check</li></ul>Update RACER<br />Phase 2:<br /> Exploration, Testing<br /> & Analysis<br />Geotechnical <br /> Evaluation Report<br />Phase 1:<br /> Data Analyses <br />Geotechnical <br /> Assessment<br />Report<br />Site Reconnaissance,<br />Data Collection<br />&Geomorphic Studies<br />
  29. 29. Technical Activities<br /><ul><li>Research, inspections, interviews
  30. 30. Simplified risk assessment
  31. 31. Geomorphology
  32. 32. Surveying
  33. 33. Geophysics
  34. 34. Exploration
  35. 35. Testing
  36. 36. Analyses
  37. 37. Problem Identification
  38. 38. Remedial alternatives and costs</li></ul>2<br />
  39. 39. Independent Consulting Board<br />Christopher Groves<br />Skip Hendron<br />William Marcuson<br />Raymond Seed<br />George Sills<br /><ul><li>Expert technical oversight with regard to:</li></ul> Safety<br /> Performance<br /> State-of-practice<br /> Economy<br /><ul><li>Advise DWR on :</li></ul> Analyses methods<br />Criteria <br />
  40. 40. Time and Money<br />Schedule:<br />ULE final deliverable: March 2011<br />NULE final deliverable: August 2011<br />Interim deliverables available as produced<br />Cost:<br />ULE $113M<br />NULE $ 87M<br />Total $210M<br />
  41. 41. Program Challenges<br />Strategic, tactical differences between ULE and NULE<br />Financial limits<br />Conform analyses with varying geotechnical data<br />Concurrent Partner/Stakeholder process<br />Differing phased approaches<br />“Theory and calculation are not substitutes for judgment, but are the basis for sounder judgment.” Ralph Peck<br /><ul><li>200-year urban mandate
  42. 42. Concurrent design and construction projects</li></ul>State budget complications<br />Unprecedented scope<br />
  43. 43. Questions?<br />