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
Step Two: Develop Storm Surge
SHAPE
21
Step Two: Develop Storm Surge
TIMING75 hours
Storm Surge Phased to Delta Inflow (hrs)
22
Step Two: Develop Storm Surge
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
Present AssessmentPresent Outflow w/ SLRClimate Change: Future Outflow w/ SLRTOL
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
0.0010.0100.1001.000
Stag
e (ft
)
AEP
IP SJ50a - RD17
Present AssessmentPresent Outflow w/ SLRClimate Change: Future Outflow w/ SLRTOL
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
Q&A
Life Cycle Analysis of Flood Control Facilities
Christopher Williams
Today’s Discussion
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
Q&A
Flood System Status Report:A Path Forward
Tony Deus
Today’s Discussion
• 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
2022 and Future Updates
57
• Support funding requests−Inform adaptive management
2022 and Future Updates
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
Q&A