1. CALIFORNIA LEVEE EVALUATIONS PROGRAMSociety of American Military Engineers2009 Water Conference, October 26-28, 2009Presented by Mike InamineCalifornia Department of Water Resources

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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. 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

7. CVFPP key planning document

8. Levee Evaluations important component in all functional areasFloodSAFE Implementation Plan Operations and Maintenance Emergency Operations Projects and Grants Planning Evaluation and Engineering Floodplain Risk Management Administration and Management

9. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan System Analysis

10. 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.

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. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. ULE STUDY AREA Marysville/Yuba City Detail Area

15. NULE STUDY AREA

18. 2 ULE Phased Implementation

19. 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

21. No obvious deficiencies

22. Insufficient informationRemedial 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

23. 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

24. DEFICIENT Underseepage Hazard Score NO OBVIOUS DEFICIENCIES Sand Boils Boils Heavy Seepage Light Seepage None Reported Documented Past Performance

26. Levees with critical damage sites

28. Top of levee checkUpdate RACER Phase 2: Exploration, Testing & Analysis Geotechnical Evaluation Report Phase 1: Data Analyses Geotechnical Assessment Report Site Reconnaissance, Data Collection &Geomorphic Studies

30. Simplified risk assessment

31. Geomorphology

32. Surveying

33. Geophysics

34. Exploration

35. Testing

36. Analyses

37. Problem Identification

38. Remedial alternatives and costs2

40. 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

42. Concurrent design and construction projectsState budget complications Unprecedented scope

43. Questions?