the central valley flood protection plan · moving from the 2017 cvfpp update to the 2022 update...

September 6, 2017Floodplain Management Association Annual Conference

The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan: Moving from the 2017 CVFPP Update to the 2022 Update and Beyond

Key Issues 2017 CVFPP Update

Session Overview

2

OPENING REMARKS

Bill EdgarPresident, Central Valley Flood Protection Board

PRESENTERS

Romain Maendly Climate Change Analysis

Christopher Williams Life-Cycle Analysis + Costs

Tony Deus Tracking Progress Over Time

Opening Remarks

The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan

• SPFC = Sao Paulo Futbol Club

• SPFC = Super Puffy Flying Cart

• SPFC = State Plan of Food Control (Lunch or Dinner?)

• SPFC = Salty Pretzels For Communists

What Do You Know?

5

State Plan of Flood Control Key Elements• 1,600 miles of State-federal levees• Extensive system of bypasses and floodways• Several areas of DEEP floodplains (over 20+ feet)• Two completely different river basins, each with 5+ major rivers• Major urban centers, small communities, rural / agricultural areas• Many threatened and endangered species• More than 1.3 million people living in floodplains• Over $80 billion in property / assets at risk

Source: National Geographic Magazine, Oct. 2014: Used with permission.

Yuba City Marysville

Sacramento MercedStocktonChico

Oroville

N

A Comprehensive Plan to Address Flood Risk

• Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 directed DWR and CVFPB to develop the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP)

• CVFPP is a strategic blueprint to improve flood risk management in the Central Valley

• Recommended the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA) to guide near- and longer-term State activities within SPFC floodplains

7

8

The 2017 CVFPP Updaterefines the State Systemwide Investment Approach for flood management improvements in the Central Valley

• Programmatic plan incorporates details about capital and ongoing flood management investment needs, advancement in science and new policy considerations

• Emphasizes urgent need for funding and efficient and effective implementation

• Promotes accountability through performance tracking of outcomes

2017 Update to the CVFPP

9

Major Supporting Efforts

• Draft CVFPP Climate Change Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM)• Draft CVFPP Technical Analysis Summary Report• Draft CVFPP Investment Strategy TM• Draft Flood System Long-Term OMRR&R Cost Evaluation TM• Flood System Status Report • CVFPP Conservation Strategy• Draft Sacramento River Basin-Wide Feasibility Study• Draft San Joaquin River Basin-Wide Feasibility Study• Regional Flood Management Planning Summary• SPFC Descriptive Document Update

Technical Analysis Summary Report & Climate Change

Analysis Technical Memos

Romain Maendly

Today’s Discussion

• Motivation to Study the Delta

• Procedure

• Results

• Recommendations

12

13

Relationship Between Tide and Delta Inflow

• Unregulated flow as surrogate for storm characteristics

• Regulated flow for stage-frequency curve in Delta

Higher High Tide

High Tide

Lower Low Tide

Low Tide

Mean Sea Level 4.18ft

Mean Higher High Sea Level 5.90ft

Flood Risk Evaluation Procedure in the Delta

14END

EF

G H I

START

D

FLOOD RISK

STAGE-FREQUENCY

CURVE

FLOW-FREQUENCY

CURVE

A B C

Central Valley Hydrology Study

(CVHS)

Climate change effects on river

discharge

Sea level rise on Delta stage

(39 cm/15 inches for 2062)

Hydraulic Modeling in the Delta

15

? ?

?

• Central Valley Hydrology Study (CVHS)

• Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program (CVFED)

• RMA Bay Delta Model

RMA Bay Delta Model Boundary

16

Yolo-Bypass

Sacramento River at American River

San Joaquin River at Vernalis

Eastern Tributaries:

Cosumnes River

Mokelumne River

Calaveras River

Golden Gate Bridge

Subset of CVHS Events

• Storm tide components− Predicted tide− Storm surge

• Develop deterministic tide hydrograph1) Base predicted

tide

2) Storm surge − Shape− Magnitude− Timing

Understanding Storm Tide

17

Step 1

Step 2

• Mean higher high water (NOAA) = 5.90 feet• 1-Year exceedance stage above MHHW (NOAA) = 0.92 feet• Predicted tide to occur every year (NOAA) = 6.82 feetUse NOAA 2011 predicted tide peak = 6.78 feet

Step One: Develop Base Predicted Tide

18

0.28m = 0.92ft-1.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0

1/14/2011 1/16/2011 1/18/2011 1/20/2011 1/22/2011 1/24/2011

WSE

(ft. N

AVD

88)

NOAA 2011 Predicted Tide at Golden GateTide Peak

19

Step Two: Develop Storm Surge

ShapeMagnitude

Timing

20


SHAPE

21


TIMING75 hours

Storm Surge Phased to Delta Inflow (hrs)

22


MAGNITUDE

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Peak

Sto

rm S

urge

(fee

t)

Peak Unregulated Delta Inflow (cfs)

Peak Unregulated Delta Inflow Vs Peak Storm Surge

Peak Flow +/-1DayLocal Regression

Created Deterministic Tide Hydrograph

Timing – 75hrs

Magnitude – 1.39ft.

Observations of Climate Change … Increasing Sea Level

24

Mean Sea Level Trend for San Francisco (NOAA 2016)

Linear trend = 1.94 mm/yr (~ 0.64 ft/100yr)

CVFPP Projected Sea Level Rise

Low Mean High2030 4.3 cm 14.4 cm 29.7 cm

2050 12.3 cm 28.0 cm 60.8 cm

2062*18.5 cm

0.61 feet

38.8 cm

1.27 feet

83.1 cm

2.73 feet

2100 42.4 cm 91.9 cm 166.4 cm

Estimates of Future Sea Level Rise in California, National Research Council Report: “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington” (2012)

Not so much “if,” but “when.”

Stage Frequency Curve Development in the Delta

26

RMA, 2014

• CVFED Models- Boundary Conditions:

• Downstream: Dynamic tides from RMA Bay Delta model

• Upstream: CVHS regulated flow

• CVHS- Developed at-latitude

flow frequency curve from CVFED model

Results: Delta Stage-Frequency Curves

27

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

12.5

13.5

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

Stag

e El

evat

ion

(ft N

AVD

88)

At-Latitude Flow at Vernalis (cfs)

San Joaquin Existing-SLR-Climate Change @ Burns Cutofff

Stage ExistingSLR

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

12.5

13.5

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Stag

e El

evat

ion

(ft N

AVD

88)

Return Period (Year)

Existing

SLR

CC+SLR

Results: Delta Stage-Frequency Curves

28

6

8

10

12

14

0.0010.0100.1001.000

Stag

e (ft

)

AEP

IP SJ52 – Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel

Present AssessmentPresent Outflow w/ SLRClimate Change: Future Outflow w/ SLRTOL

20

23

26

29

32

35

38

41

0.0010.0100.1001.000

Stag

e (ft

)

AEP

IP SJ28 - Vernalis


7

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

0.0010.0100.1001.000

Stag

e (ft

)

AEP

IP SJ50a - RD17


Results: Sacramento River Hydraulic Profiles

29

8

13

18

23

28

33

38

43

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

in N

AVD

88)

Sacramento River Station (feet)

Top of Levee, Left Bank~200 Year Flood (1997 140%) Breach~200 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise (1997 140%) Breach~200 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise and Climate Change (1997 160%) Breach~10 Year Flood (1986 60%) Breach~10 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise (1986 60%) Breach~10 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise and Climate Change (1956 120%) Breach

SACRAMEN

TO R AT CO

LINSVILLE

RIOVISTA

ISELTON

WALN

UT G

ROVE

DEEP WATER SHIP CHAN

NEL

CLARKSBURG

Confluence with Am

erican River

Results: San Joaquin River Hydraulic Profiles

30

8

13

18

23

28

33

38

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000

Peak

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

in N

AVD

88)

San Joaquin River Station (feet)

Top of Levee; Right Bank~200 Year Flood (1997 115%)~200 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise (1997 115%)~200 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise and Climate Change (1997 200%)~10 Year Flood (1986 60%)~10 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise (1986 60%)~10 Year Flood with Sea Level Rise and Climate Change (1986 100%)

WalthallSlough

Old R

iver Junction

Rough

& R

eady Island

French Cam

pSlough

STK –

Deepw

ater Ship Channel

Paradise Cut

Recommendation for Future Studies

31

• Use total at-latitude flow coming into the Delta (SJR+SAC) to develop stage frequency curves - Use approximately 130 CVHS scale events in the Delta

instead of current 10 scale events• Use consistent climate change projection for inland and SLR

- Hourly SLR projections for CA 4th Climate Assessment• Hydrodynamic Model

- RMA Bay Delta Model, DWR Bay Delta SCHISM Model, HEC-RAS 2D Model, others.

• Need to take in consideration- Levee breach- Adaptability of the model; capacity to modify the model

geometry- Availability of the software and models to stakeholder

Life Cycle Analysis of Flood Control Facilities

Christopher Williams


34

• Understanding Life Cycle Costs and Investment Prioritization Through Efforts to Date

• Highlights of Two CVFPP Related Efforts−Investment Strategy analysis−OMRR&R Workgroup analysis

• The Path Forward

Bringing Life Cycle/Resiliency into CVFPP

35

Life Cycle/Resiliency

Well-Known Costs Estimated Costs

One-Time Costs Capital Investment Retirement and Replacement

Annual Costs

Routine Operations and Maintenance

Unusual/Unanticipated Repairs, Rehabilitation and

Recovery

36

CVFPP Life Cycle Approach

37

Investment Strategy

• Portfolio of actions• Intended

Outcomes• Phasing • Prioritizing• Cost• Funding

Mechanisms• Funding Scenarios• Programs

Sustainable Funding is Absolutely Key

38

Funding and Implementation Necessities:

• Consistent and stable funding for $17 to $21 billion over the next 30 years

• Consistent and stable funding for both Capital and Ongoing investments

• Partnership and collaboration from all cost share partners

OMRR&R Workgroup

39

• Itemize maintenance practices on:−Levees−Channels −Structures

• Develop defensible approach to estimate cost• Identify all cost categories• Solicit input from regional planning leads and

levee maintaining agencies• Include transactional costs (permitting, etc.)• Consider life cycle of facilities• Estimate deferred maintenance• Apply unit costs over entire SPFC inventory to

estimate “true” annual maintenance funding needed

OMRR&R Workgroup Effort

40

Anticipated Proportion of Needed Annual Cost

41

$18 million(14%)

$55 million(42%)

$7 million

$5.4 million

$605,600

$651,100

$43 million (33%)

Urban Levee O&M Non-urban Levee O&M

Channel Sediment Removal Channel Vegetation/Debris Removal

Small Structures O&M Large Structures O&M

RR&R

Estimated Need: $130M /year

Current Expenditures: $30M /year

Adequate Maintenance Delays the 3Rs

42

Let’s Not Keep Filling the Deferred Maintenance Buckets

43

Learning from 2017 Storms

44

Well-Known Costs Estimated Costs

One-Time Costs

Capital Investment Retirement and Replacement

Annual Costs

Routine Operations and Maintenance

Unusual/Unanticipated Repairs, Rehabilitation

and Recovery

• Record precipitation across entire Central Valley• Prior investments in flood system performed well• Over 500 identified damaged sites • Estimated $800 million in damages

Continue to refine analysis:• Move from estimated to better known costs

−RR&R, multi-benefit projects, operations • Historical patterns/trends – understand asset

condition evolution • Account for complete life-cycle costs

−Construction, maintenance, replacement • Evolve funding and prioritization approach• Track progress

Moving Toward 2022 CVFPP Update:What’s Next?

45

Flood System Status Report:A Path Forward

Tony Deus


• Flood System Status Report Purpose and History

• Path Forward and Performance Tracking- Value of $ Spent- Similar Efforts Outside of California

• CVFPP Goal / Outcome Relationships• DWR Informational Use & Takeaways

48

Flood System Status Report Purpose and History

49

Purpose and History

50

• Completed in 2011 as “Flood Control System Status Report” to inform 2012 CVFPP

• Describes physical condition of SPFC facilities; includes information about SPFC facility inspections and evaluations

• Guides future inspections, evaluations, reconstruction and improvements

• To be updated every 5 years per SB 5 (2007)

51

2016 SPFCFacilities

52

• Supporting attachment to the 2017 CVFPP Update; adopted in August 2017

• Includes refined physical conditions for levees, channels and flood control structures

• Updated SPFC facility status allows DWR to continue to make informed flood risk management decisions

2017 FSSR Purpose

53

• DWR considered variety of factors that could influence performance of SPFC:

−Urban and Non-urban Levees

−Channels

−Flood Control Structures

Categories Currently Evaluated

FSSR – The Path Forward & Performance Tracking

55

• Next steps – FSSR development −Additional function of the FSSR

2022 and Future Updates

56

• Expanded performance tracking−Demonstrate value of State Investments in flood

management−Incorporate CVFPP goals & societal values−Investment prioritization−Consistency with SSIA & Investment Strategy−Alignment: CA Water Action Plan, CA Climate Change

Adaptation, and Statewide Flood Management Planning, Federal projects & programs


57

• Support funding requests−Inform adaptive management


58

CVFPP Goals & Societal Values

59

• Targets & Measurements−Establishing data sets−Identify appropriate baselines

• Measure Progress−Measure level of outcome to CVFPP goals,

societal values

Technical Aspects & Performance Tracking

60

• Scoping−Form & Function−Measures

− Levee inspection ratings− Tracking of routine & deferred maintenance−Completed capital improvements−Contributions to Conservation Strategy goals

• Audiences – Users – Beneficiaries −CA DWR −Legislature −Stakeholders−Flood management agencies

Performance Tracking & Current Efforts

61

Example Performance Tracking & User Interface

63

• Functional summary of flood system components

• Tracking of ecosystem outcomes, system management actions, funding

• Support funding requests to:−State Legislature, Federal government, project partners

Informational Use & Takeaways

64

• Currently available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/cvfmp/2017-cvfpp-docs.cfm

• Direct questions to: [email protected]

Further Information on the FSSR

65

mailto:[email protected]

the central valley flood protection plan · moving from the 2017 cvfpp update to the 2022 update...

Documents