2017 storm damage emergency rehabilitation...

2017StormDamage–DWREmergencyRehabilitationOctober27,2017

10/26/2017 Public 1

2017 Storm Damage Emergency Rehabilitation

Program Summary

California Department of Water Resources

(DWR Rehabilitation and USACE PL 84‐99 Information)

October 27, 2017


10/26/2017 Public 2

Introduction:

The storm events of January and February 2017 caused wide‐spread damage to a number of levees in the State Plan of

Flood Control (SPFC). As described in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, local maintaining agencies and DWR, along

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the SPFC levees, bypasses,

and other facilities to continue to protect California’s Central Valley. During the course of the 2017 floods, $5 Million was

immediately expended to repair sites. As the flood waters receded from the Sacramento, and later the San Joaquin Basin,

agencies responsible for maintaining the levees worked with DWR and the USACE to properly assess the recently damaged

sites.

*NOTE: The information below is current as of the date stated above.*

ProgramOverviewBelow is a summary of the 2017 Storm Damage – DWR Emergency Rehabilitation (SDDER) and USACE PL 84‐99 efforts

resulting from this year’s winter storms. NOTE: These numbers are subject to change as USACE is still developing

preliminary investigation reports (PIRs).

Table 1: Summary of USACE PL 84‐99 Sites

Sacramento Area

Delta, San Joaquin, & Other Areas

Total Number of USACE PL 84‐99 Sites 69 295

Priority 1, 2 or 3 USACE PL 84‐99 Sites (16 Sac Basin Sites to be repaired in 2017)

34 16

No Action USACE PL 84‐99 Sites (Re‐evaluated by DWR for inclusion in DWR’s efforts)

18 2

Ineligible USACE PL 84‐99 Sites ( Re‐evaluated by DWR for inclusion in DWR’s efforts)

17 277

Table 2: Summary of DWR Sites (Does not include USACE Priorities 1, 2, or 3 sites)

Number of Sites

Number of DWR Sites 395

Number of DWR Field Rated “Critical” Sites (30 to be repaired in 2017; 10 to be repaired in the future)

40

Number of DWR Field Rated “Serious” Sites 76

Number of DWR Field Rated “Area of Concern” Sites 226

Number of Sites with “No Damage Observable” 53


10/26/2017 Public 3

Table 3: Summary of Construction Efforts to Date

Number of Sites

DWR Sites To Be Repaired in 2017 30

DWR Sites – Under Construction 22

DWR Sites – Construction Completed 8

USACE Sites to be Repaired in 2017 16

USACE Sites – Under Construction 16

USACE Sites – Construction Completed 0

DescriptionofDWR’sPrioritizationProcess

SelectionandScreeningProcess

Sites were compiled for screening for the 2017 Storm Damages DWR Rehabilitation from the following sources: Flood

Operation Center incident reports, LMA‐reported storm damage sites in response to the PL 84‐99 request letter issued by

the CVFPB request in 2017, and critical problems in the Flood System Repair database which includes current inventory of

known levee performance problems.

Screening was focused on repair of storm damages that were critical, with a goal of achieving maximum flood risk

reduction. A two‐step prioritization process was developed. The first step focused solely on specific geotechnical factors

and did not address levee geometry, freeboard, or overtopping deficiencies. For this step, field teams visited the damaged

sites and evaluated those using consistent rating criteria for the three general failure modes: erosion, stability, and

seepage.

The sites were then rated as “critical” or “serious”, using definitions from the DWR Flood System Repair Project (FSRP)

Guidelines from 2012. These definitions are noted below. An additional category, for “areas of concern”, is meant to

capture the remainder of the problematic sites.

Critical:A site, if not repaired, presents a significant possibility of failure when: Due to erosion, a) the site required a flood fight in a past high‐water event to prevent a breach, or

b) erosion has encroached into either the waterside levee prism or extended levee prism, and as a result,

is likely to cause a levee failure in the next high‐water event;

Due to seepage, a) the site required a flood fight in a past high‐water event to prevent a breach, or

b) seepage is known by historical record of past performance to have recurrent piping or boils that carry

material, at a water stage less than design level, and as a result the site is likely to cause a levee failure in

the next high‐water event; or,

For stability, a) due to a slope stability issue, the site required a flood fight in a past high‐water event to

prevent a breach, or b) the levee embankment has slumped such that levee failure in the next high‐water

event is likely.

Serious:A site, if not repaired, has the potential to become critical when:

Due to erosion, a) erosion has encroached into either the waterside levee prism or extended levee prism

that may not cause a levee failure in the next high‐water event, or b) progressing erosion that is likely to

encroach into either the waterside levee prism or extended levee prism;


10/26/2017 Public 4

Due to stability, the levee embankment has deformed, the site may further deteriorate, may cause levee

failure in a future high‐water event or may require a flood fight in a high water event to prevent a breach;

or

Due to seepage, seepage is known by historical record of past performance to have caused recurrent

piping or boils, and the site may further deteriorate, may cause levee failure in a future high‐water event,

or may require a flood fight in a high‐water event to prevent a breach.

AreasofConcern:Areas of concern sites are the remainder of reported sites that have problems and need

periodic monitoring, but do not rise to the hazard levels of “serious” or “critical”.

The second step of the prioritization considers the hydraulic basins (leveed areas) receiving protection from SPFC

levees. The areas are ranked into three tiers considering factors including: the overall past performance of the

levees, frequency of loading, and the assets behind these levees. There are forty five leveed areas in Sacramento

River Basin and twenty nine leveed areas in San Joaquin River Basin, which were grouped into the three tiers as

follows:


10/26/2017 Public 5

Tier 1 represents the upper one‐third of levees areas with maximum assets combined with poorest

performing levees.

Tier 2 represents the middle third of the levee areas.

Tier 3 represents the least assets behind the levees combined with best performing levees.

EnvironmentalPermitting Coordination with the regulatory agencies is occurring through a Unified Command Group (UCG), comprised of

other State and Federal agencies, conference calls, or with specific agencies for specific permit issues.

Onsite vegetation plantings have followed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “engineering technical letter” (ETL)

standard for vegetation on levees, meaning that woody vegetation was not planted on the levee itself or 15 feet

from the levee toe.

Avoidance of impacts is the primary consideration for managing environmental impacts. Compensatory mitigation

for unavoidable impacts to endangered species will be off‐site.

First 16 critical sites:

o Permits have been issued. (One exception: biological opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service

will be after the fact). A couple of sites had emergency notifications sent to Department of Fish and

Wildlife.

o Environmental Staff are monitoring construction to ensure compliance with permits and work windows.

o Permits are available to LMAs to download.

o Purchasing of mitigation bank credits will begin mid‐October to meet permit conditions.

Next 22 critical sites:

o Emergency permitting processes are being used for the 12 sites going to construction in November; with

emergency notifications to Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional General Permit #8 with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers for Clean Water Act Section 404, and after the fact biological opinions with U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

o Mitigation measures and best management practices will be incorporated into construction for sites

without current issued permits.

Tribal/CulturalUnder DWR’s policy for Tribal Engagement, we have committed to consult with tribal entities to identify and protect Tribal

Cultural Resources (TCR)’s where feasible, and to cooperate in the development of treatment and mitigation plans to

mitigate for impacts on tribal cultural resources and cultural places. We are also working to meet the standards of the CA

Natural Resources Tribal Policy. As such, we are in consultation with six tribes as we undertake construction and repair

under the emergency levee rehabilitation program on all DWR critical and serious sites. These include the Ione Band of

Miwok Indians (IBMI), The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), the Wilton Rancheria, The Yocha DeHe Wintun Nation

(YDWN), the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (SSBMI), and the Upper Lake Pomo Habematolel. Representatives of

select tribes are on site for assessment and monitoring as construction takes place.


10/26/2017 Public 6

DescriptionofUSACE’sSitePrioritizationProcessEvaluation factors used to rank PL84‐99 rehabilitation sites (as provided by USACE):

PL84‐99 rehabilitation sites are ranked based on severity of damages and potential consequences of a levee breech as

outlined in Table 1 and described below.

Table 4: PL84‐99 Rehabilitation Site Ranking

High Consequences

Low to Moderate Consequences

Severe Damage Order 1 Order 2

Moderate Damage Order 2 Order 3

Minor Damage Order 3 Order 4

Order 1: The damages are severe and make it very likely the levee would breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect urban areas where potential consequences are high (there is a significant population at risk and / or there could be a large economic impact).

Order 2: The damages are severe and make it very likely the levee would breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect predominantly rural / agricultural areas where potential consequences are low to moderate. Or, the damages are moderate and the levee may breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect urban areas where potential consequences are high (there is a significant population at risk and / or there could be a large economic impact). Order 3: The damages are moderate and the levee may breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect predominantly rural / agricultural areas where potential consequences are low to moderate. Or, the damages are minor and it is unlikely the levee would breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect urban areas where potential consequences are high (there is a significant population at risk and / or there could be a large economic impact). Order 4: The damages are minor and it is unlikely the levee would breach or need significant / major emergency repairs during the next flood event. These levees protect predominantly rural / agricultural areas where potential consequences are low to moderate. Typical evidence of severe damage for both Order 1 and 2 Sites:

Vertical or horizontal displacement in the levee crest or slopes greater than 3 feet.

Large slumps or shallow landslides on the waterside or landside levee slope close to the levee crest that may lead to progressive failure of the levee.

Evidence of sand boils indicating a significant volume of soil was removed from the levee foundation, (i.e. internal erosion was in progress).

Evidence of large deposits of soil in land side ditches or canals indicating significant material was removed from the levee foundation (i.e. internal erosion was in progress).

Significant water side erosion that threatens levee integrity / stability.

Wave wash erosion high on the levee near the crest with vertical scarps greater than 5 ft.

Widespread bulging or slumping of the levee toe due to through levee seepage. Typical evidence of moderate damage for Order 2 and 3 Sites:

Small slumps and slides with vertical or horizontal displacement of the levee slope less than 3 feet.

Waterside bank erosion that does not yet affect levee integrity, but is close.

Wave wash erosion on the upper half of the levee slope with vertical scarp less than 3 ft.


10/26/2017 Public 7

Widespread under seepage of moderate to high volume, with pervasive pin (small diameter) boils.

Isolated bulging or slumping of the levee toe due to through levee seepage Typical evidence of minor damage for Order 3 and 4 Sites:

Lateral or longitudinal tension cracks with minimal displacement indicating marginal slope stability.

Wave wash erosion on the lower half of the levee slope with vertical scarps less than 3 ft.

Localized low volume seepage with clear water not carrying material from the levee foundation or levee embankment.

Damages (rutting and loss of aggregate) to the levee patrol road that impacts access / trafficability in bad weather.

Small slides or slumps in the vicinity of the levee toe.

ContingencyPlanAs a result of many factors such as funding limitations, timing of when damaged sites were identified, and permitting

requirements not all DWR Critical sites will be rehabilitated prior to start of flood season (November 1) in 2017. Similarly,

several of the USACE PL 84‐99 Priority 2 and 3 sites will also not be repaired prior to the 2017/2018 flood season.

As part of this year’s preparation for the upcoming flood season, DWR has reached out to each of the LMAs with unrepaired

sites that have either been designated by DWR as Critical or Serious, or by the USACE as Priority 2 or 3. DWR and LMAs will

jointly develop contingency plans to assist and expedite emergency repairs during high water events. These contingency

plans could include pre‐determining quantities needed for repairs, stockpiling flood fighting materials nearby, and more.

Although detailed contingency plans will be in place, LMAs are still required to follow the Standardized Emergency

Management System (SEMS) process outlined in the letters sent to the LMAs in mid‐September 2017 (i.e., the flood fighting

effort should begin with the LMAs, and then elevate to the County Office of Emergency Services (OES), and then to theState

Flood Operations Center (FOC). For the remainder of the DWR critical sites that were not repaired in 2017, DWR will re‐

assess any potential emergency repairs completed during the 2017‐18 flood season to see what additional repairs will be

needed in future years.Note: The chart below represents the process for determining site ranking and contingency planning

for all damaged sites.


10/26/2017 Public 8

Figure 1: Contingency Planning Flow Chart

2018 Rehabilitation

(After 2017/2018 Flood Season)

Contract Flood Fight Final Repair

Done 2018 Monitor Site Performance

2017/2018 FloodSeason

Action Needed/Contingency Plan

Final RepairDone 2017 –Monitor Site Performance

Yes No

MonitorNo

Traditional Flood Fight (Flood Threat Mitigation Process)

DWR Critical or USACE PL84‐99,P1, P2 & P3

DWR SeriousSites

Repair to be completed in2017

Action Needed/Contingency Plan

Yes

Yes No

Evaluation of Known & Reported Sites Damaged in 2016/2017 Flood Season

Sites Determined to Fail next Flood Season


10/26/2017 9

SiteListBelow is a table of the sites that will be repaired in 2017 or are part of DWR’s Contingency Planning Efforts.

Table 5: 2017 Storm Damage – DWR Emergency Rehabilitation Repair Site Status

Site Designation LMA Waterway Damage Latitude Longitude Constructing

AgencyConstruction

Status

LMA‐21 RD 1001 Bear River Erosion 38.946751 ‐121.563825 DWR Construction Complete

USACE_CESPK_FAIR_ 2010_p_0044

RD 787 Colusa Basin Drain

Stability 38.80101 ‐121.74838 DWR Construction In Process

LMA‐71 Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Deer Creek – Unit 1

Erosion 39.9469 ‐122.0515 DWR Construction Complete

LMA‐3 Lake County Watershed Protection District

Middle Creek Erosion 39.179715 ‐122.896926 DWR Construction Complete

LMA‐53 Sacramento Bypass Sacramento Bypass





Erosion 38.59683065 ‐121.5792158 DWR Construction In Process

RD 827‐03 RD827 ‐ Elkhorn Sacramento River


ST20‐01 RD2098 ‐ Cache & Haas Slough

Shag Slough Erosion 39.171211 ‐121.730135 DWR Construction Complete

ST11‐U4‐01 West Levee Yolo Bypass Yolo Bypass Erosion 38.53598014 ‐121.63143 DWR Construction Complete

LMA‐74 SBFCA Feather River Seepage 39.15594 ‐121.61664 SBFCA Construction In Process

313‐14 RD2098 ‐ Cache & Haas Slough

Cache Slough Stability 38.28303742 ‐121.7110735 DWR Construction In Process

386‐32 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.391054 ‐121.539214 DWR Construction In Process

LMA‐73 RD2098 ‐ Cache & Haas Slough

Hass Slough Erosion 38.29297 ‐121.72317 DWR Construction Complete


10/26/2017 10



AgencyConstruction

Status

DWR_RD2098_01_s_2012_12

RD2098 ‐ Cache & Haas Slough

Shag Slough Erosion 38.283868 ‐121.693627 DWR Construction Complete

LMA – 245 RD2098 ‐ Cache & Haas Slough

Shag Slough Erosion 38.2965 ‐121.6935 DWR Construction In Process














Cache Slough Erosion 38.2837 ‐121.7134 DWR Construction In Process


Cache Slough Erosion 38.2872 ‐121.716 DWR Construction In Process

LMA – 132 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Stability 38.35623056 ‐121.5619167 DWR Construction In Process

LMA – 133 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.37511389 ‐121.5446917 DWR Construction In Process

LMA – 134 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.37721667 ‐121.5420583 DWR Construction In Process

DWR_RD2101_01_s_2012_1

RD2101 ‐ Blewett San Joaquin River


DWR_RD2085_01_R_2012_01

RD2085 ‐ Kasson San Joaquin River


DWR_RD0524_01_s_2012_21

RD524 ‐ Middle Robert's Island

San Joaquin River

Erosion 37.93186 ‐121.32831 DWR Construction Complete


10/26/2017 11



AgencyConstruction

Status

MA16‐01 Maintenance Area 16 Feather River Waterside Erosion

39.258105 ‐121.636314 USACE Construction In Process

MA12‐01 Maintenance Area 12 Colusa Basin Drain

Waterside Slope Slip


RD1001‐01 RD 1001 Feather River Boils 38.78383 ‐121.61224 USACE Construction In Process

RD1001‐02 RD 1001 Natomas Cross Canal

Boils 38.81141 ‐121.56291 USACE Construction In Process

RD 108‐01 RD 108 Colusa Basin Drain

Landside Slope Slip



Landside Slope Slip



Landside Slope Slip








RD 2035‐01 RD 2035 Yolo Bypass Landside Slope Slip















10/26/2017 12



AgencyConstruction

Status

SRWLD‐01 Sacramento River West Side Levee District

Sacramento River

Seepage 38.85186944 ‐121.7255694 N/A Contingency Plan

RD 2035‐08 RD2035 ‐ Conway Yolo Bypass Erosion 38.59284 ‐121.63134 N/A Contingency Plan

SCDU‐03 City of Sacramento Sacramento River

Erosion 38.571397 ‐121.513797 N/A Contingency Plan

MA9‐01 Maintenance Area 9 Sacramento River


MA9‐03 Maintenance Area 9 Sacramento River


LD1‐S‐02 Levee District 1 ‐ Sutter County

Feather River Erosion 39.018322 ‐121.610275 N/A Contingency Plan

RD 70‐01 RD70 ‐ Meridian Sacramento River





Sacramento River



Sacramento River



Sacramento River



Sacramento River


RD 2035‐09 RD2035 ‐ Conway Yolo Bypass Erosion 38.647061 ‐121.666439 N/A Contingency Plan

ST11‐U1‐01 West Levee Yolo Bypass Yolo Bypass Erosion 38.72724961 ‐121.660234 N/A Contingency Plan

RD 1001‐03 RD1001 ‐ Nicolaus Natomas Cross Canal


LMA‐119 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.34814167 ‐121.5723194 N/A Contingency Plan


10/26/2017 13



AgencyConstruction

Status

LMA‐122 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Stability 38.35623056 ‐121.5619167 N/A Contingency Plan



LMA‐147 RD349 ‐ Sutter Island Steamboat Slough


LMA‐191 RD2060 ‐ Hastings Lindsey Slough


LMA‐216 RD2060 ‐ Hastings Cache Slough Erosion 38.29053889 ‐121.7316028 N/A Contingency Plan

LMA‐304 San Joaquin County Flood Control District

Mormon Slough


LMA‐417 RD2089 ‐ Stark Old River Erosion 37.8056 ‐121.4019 N/A Contingency Plan

LMA‐439 RD524 ‐ Middle Robert's Island

San Joaquin Erosion 37.9317 ‐121.3283 N/A Contingency Plan

DWR_NA0016_01_s_2012_2

Sacramento River West Side Levee District

Sacramento River


DWR_LD0003_01_s_2012_52

Levee District 3 Sacramento River


DWR_RD0003_01_R_2012_03

RD3 ‐ Grand Island Steamboat Slough


LMA‐34 RD2075 ‐ McMullin San Joaquin River


FSRP‐13‐55 RD2085 ‐ Kasson San Joaquin River


LMA‐15 RD1001 ‐ Nicolaus Yankee Slough


LMA‐20 RD1001 ‐ Nicolaus Feather River Seepage 38.838 ‐121.633051 N/A Contingency Plan


10/26/2017 14



AgencyConstruction

Status


Seepage (B) 39.15748 ‐121.87925 N/A Contingency Plan

DWR_NA0019_04_s_2012_9

Tehema County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Elder Creek Erosion 40.05159551 ‐122.1641788 N/A Contingency Plan

RD 900‐01 RD900 ‐ West Sacramento

Deep Water Shipping Canal


ST11‐U4‐02 West Levee Yolo Bypass Yolo Bypass Erosion 38.56328942 ‐121.6383671 N/A Contingency Plan

LMA‐29 Marysville Levee Commission

Feather River Erosion 39.129715 ‐121.596819 N/A Contingency Plan

MA5‐N‐01 Maintenance Area 5 Butte Creek Erosion 39.676298 ‐121.778272 N/A

Contingency Plan

LMA‐72

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Deer Creek ‐ Unit 1


LMA‐100 RD3 ‐ Grand Island Steamboat Slough


LMA‐101 RD3 ‐ Grand Island Steamboat Slough


LMA‐113 RD150 ‐ Merrit IslandSacramento River


LMA‐130 RD150 ‐ Merrit IslandElk Slough Erosion 38.37427778 ‐121.5491667 N/A

Contingency Plan

LMA‐131 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.37431389 ‐121.5477528 N/A

Contingency Plan

LMA‐136 RD150 ‐ Merrit Island Elk Slough Erosion 38.38216944 ‐121.5445972 N/A

Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan


10/26/2017 15



AgencyConstruction

Status

LMA‐151 RD349 ‐ Sutter Island Steamboat Slough


LMA‐156 RD755 ‐ Randall Sacramento River


LMA‐169 RD551 ‐ Pearson Sacramento River


LMA‐178 RD551 ‐ Pearson Sacramento River


LMA‐184 RD999 ‐ Netherlands Sacramento River














LMA‐220 RD2060 ‐ Hastings Cache Slough Erosion 38.28733611 ‐121.7243639 N/A

Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan




10/26/2017 16



AgencyConstruction

Status





Shag Slough Erosion 38.2971 ‐121.6933 N/A Contingency Plan












Cache Slough Erosion 38.2913 ‐121.7161 N/A Contingency Plan

LMA‐281 RD2068 ‐ Yolano Shag Slough Stability 38.36234 ‐121.69406 N/A

Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan


Contingency Plan

LMA‐289 RD2068 ‐ Yolano Shag Slough Stability 38.3545 ‐121.694 N/A Contingency Plan




10/26/2017 17



AgencyConstruction

Status


San Joaquin River


LMA‐296 RD2095 ‐ Paradise Cut San Joaquin River


LMA‐328 West Levee Yolo Bypass Sacramento River


SCDU‐07 City of Sacramento Sacramento River


LMA‐407 RD307 ‐ Lisbon Sacramento River



















LMA‐457 RD544 ‐ Upper Robert's Island

Old River Erosion 37.8203 ‐121.3457 N/A Contingency Plan


10/26/2017 18



AgencyConstruction

Status









LMA‐488 RD2064 ‐ River Junction San Joaquin River


LMA‐500 Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Deer Creek ‐ Unit 1



10/26/2017 19

Figure 2: Site Location Map – Sacramento Basin


10/26/2017 20

Figure 3: Site Location Map – San Joaquin Basin

2017 storm damage emergency rehabilitation...

Documents