DOCSLIB.ORG

West Sacramento Levee Evaluation Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West Sacramento Levee Evaluation Project WEST SACRAMENTO LEVEE EVALUATION PROJECT DRAFT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION REPORT April 2008 2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300 Folsom, CA 95630 DRAFT Problem Identification Report 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Goals and Report Objectives ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Study Area Description....................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Background and History ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Interagency Coordination ................................................................................................................... 8 1.7 Previous Studies................................................................................................................................. 8 2. General Levee Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 9 2.1 USACE Levee Design Criteria............................................................................................................ 9 2.2 The Reclamation Board.................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Requirements for FEMA Certification ............................................................................................... 10 2.4 Site-Specific Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 12 3. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................13 3.1 General Levee Layout ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Levee Performance .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................. 17 3.4 Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 17 3.4.1 Utility Inventory.......................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.2 Utility Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Environmental Resources ................................................................................................................ 20 3.5.1 Land Cover Description............................................................................................................. 20 3.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................................... 21 3.5.3 USACE Vegetation Policy ......................................................................................................... 21 4. Levee Deficiency Analysis .................................................................................................23 4.1 Types of Deficiency .......................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 Seepage .................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.2 Slope Stability............................................................................................................................ 23 4.1.3 Seismic Vulnerability ................................................................................................................. 23 4.1.4 Erosion ...................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.5 Freeboard .................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1.6 Geometry................................................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation............................................................................................... 24 4.2.1 Levee Seepage Analysis........................................................................................................... 24 4.2.2 Levee Slope Stability Assessment ............................................................................................ 27 4.2.3 Seismic Vulnerability ................................................................................................................. 29 4.3 Erosion Assessment......................................................................................................................... 32 4.4 Levee Height Evaluation................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1 Freeboard Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.2 Wind-Wave Analysis ................................................................................................................. 43 4.5 Levee Geometry Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 44 5. Summary .............................................................................................................................46 5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 46 5.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 53 6. References...........................................................................................................................54 XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report TABLES TABLE 1.4.1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS REACH NAMES TABLE 2.1.1 – USACE LEVEE DESIGN CRITERIA TABLE 3.2.1 – P.L. 84-99 SITES TABLE 3.4.1.1 – UTILITY COMPANY CONTACT INFORMATION TABLE 4.2.1.1 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.2 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.3 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.4 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.5 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.6 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.1.7 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.1.8 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.9 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.1 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.2 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.3 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.4 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.5 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.6 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.2.7 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.2.8 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.9 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.1 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.2 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.3 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.4 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.5 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.6 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.3.7 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.3.8 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.9 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.3.1 – EROSION SITE IDENTIFICATION TABLE 5.1.1 – REACH SUMMARY XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report FIGURES FIGURE 1 – STUDY AREA FIGURE 2 – WEST SACRAMENTO BASIN LEVEE REACHES FIGURE 3 – RECENT LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION FIGURE 4 – SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FIGURE 5 – WEST SACRAMENTO NORTHERN BASIN – LEVEE REACH STATIONING FIGURE 6 – WEST SACRAMENTO SOUTHERN BASIN – LEVEE REACH STATIONING FIGURE 7 – TYPICAL LEVEE CROSS SECTION FIGURE 8 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE FIGURE 9 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO BYPASS AND YOLO BYPASS LEVEES FIGURE 10 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON PORT NORTH AND PORT SOUTH LEVEES FIGURE 11 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON DWSC WEST, DWSC EAST, AND SOUTH CROSS LEVEE FIGURE 12 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE GRAPHS GRAPH 1 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE GRAPH 2 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE GRAPH 3 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF YOLO
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Classification of Rivers
    9.36 Geomorphic Classification of Rivers JM Buffington, U.S. Forest Service, Boise, ID, USA DR Montgomery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Published by Elsevier Inc. 9.36.1 Introduction 730 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification 730 9.36.3 Types of Channel Classification 731 9.36.3.1 Stream Order 731 9.36.3.2 Process Domains 732 9.36.3.3 Channel Pattern 732 9.36.3.4 Channel–Floodplain Interactions 735 9.36.3.5 Bed Material and Mobility 737 9.36.3.6 Channel Units 739 9.36.3.7 Hierarchical Classifications 739 9.36.3.8 Statistical Classifications 745 9.36.4 Use and Compatibility of Channel Classifications 745 9.36.5 The Rise and Fall of Classifications: Why Are Some Channel Classifications More Used Than Others? 747 9.36.6 Future Needs and Directions 753 9.36.6.1 Standardization and Sample Size 753 9.36.6.2 Remote Sensing 754 9.36.7 Conclusion 755 Acknowledgements 756 References 756 Appendix 762 9.36.1 Introduction 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification Over the last several decades, environmental legislation and a A basic tenet in geomorphology is that ‘form implies process.’As growing awareness of historical human disturbance to rivers such, numerous geomorphic classifications have been de- worldwide (Schumm, 1977; Collins et al., 2003; Surian and veloped for landscapes (Davis, 1899), hillslopes (Varnes, 1958), Rinaldi, 2003; Nilsson et al., 2005; Chin, 2006; Walter and and rivers (Section 9.36.3). The form–process paradigm is a Merritts, 2008) have fostered unprecedented collaboration potentially powerful tool for conducting quantitative geo- among scientists, land managers, and stakeholders to better morphic investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Linktm Gabions and Mattresses Design Booklet
    LinkTM Gabions and Mattresses Design Booklet www.globalsynthetics.com.au Australian Company - Global Expertise Contents 1. Introduction to Link Gabions and Mattresses ................................................... 1 1.1 Brief history ...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Applications ..............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Features of woven mesh Link Gabion and Mattress structures ...............................................2 1.4 Product characteristics of Link Gabions and Mattresses .........................................................2 2. Link Gabions and Mattresses .............................................................................. 4 2.1 Types of Link Gabions and Mattresses .....................................................................................4 2.2 General specification for Link Gabions, Link Mattresses and Link netting...............................4 2.3 Standard sizes of Link Gabions, Mattresses and Netting ........................................................6 2.4 Durability of Link Gabions, Link Mattresses and Link Netting ..................................................7 2.5 Geotextile filter specification ....................................................................................................7 2.6 Rock infill specification .............................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage Into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water
    Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water Reinhard Hesse*, Ingo Klaucke, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada William B. F. Ryan, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964-8000 Margo B. Edwards, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 David J. W. Piper, Geological Survey of Canada—Atlantic, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2, Canada NAMOC Study Group† ABSTRACT the western Atlantic, some 5000 to 6000 State-of-the-art sidescan-sonar imagery provides a bird’s-eye view of the giant km from their source. submarine drainage system of the Northwest Atlantic Mid-Ocean Channel Drainage of the ice sheet involved (NAMOC) in the Labrador Sea and reveals the far-reaching effects of drainage of the repeated collapse of the ice dome over Pleistocene Laurentide Ice Sheet into the deep sea. Two large-scale depositional Hudson Bay, releasing vast numbers of ice- systems resulting from this drainage, one mud dominated and the other sand bergs from the Hudson Strait ice stream in dominated, are juxtaposed. The mud-dominated system is associated with the short time spans. The repeat interval was meandering NAMOC, whereas the sand-dominated one forms a giant submarine on the order of 104 yr. These dramatic ice- braid plain, which onlaps the eastern NAMOC levee. This dichotomy is the result of rafting events, named Heinrich events grain-size separation on an enormous scale, induced by ice-margin sifting off the (Broecker et al., 1992), occurred through- Hudson Strait outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Variability of Levees As Measured Using the CPT
    2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, May 2010 Spatial Variability of Levees as Measured Using the CPT R.E.S. Moss Assistant Professor, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo J. C. Hollenback Graduate Researcher, U.C. Berkeley J. Ng Undergraduate Researcher, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo ABSTRACT: The spatial variability of a soil deposit is something that is commonly discussed but difficult to quantify. The heterogeneity as a function of lateral distance can be critical to the design of long engineered structures such as highways, bridges, levees, and other lifelines. This paper presents a methodology for using CPT mea- surements to quantifying the spatial variability of cone tip resistance along a levee in the California Bay Delta. The results, presented in the form of a general relative va- riogram, identify the distance at which the maximum spatial variability is achieved for a given soil strata. This information helps define minimally correlated stretches of levee for proper failure and risk analysis. Presented herein are methods of interpret- ing, calculating, and analyzing CPT data to arrive at the quantified spatial variability with respect to different static and seismic failure modes common to levee systems. 1 INTRODUCTION Spatial variability of engineering properties in soil strata is inherent to the nature of soil. Spatial variability is controlled primarily by the depositional environment where high energy systems usually deposit materials with high spatial variability (e.g. al- luvial gravels) and low energy systems usually deposit materials with low spatial va- riability (e.g. lacustrine clays). This spatial variability is generally taken into account in geotechnical design in a qualitative empirical manner through appropriately spaced borings to assess the changing subsurface conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad Beach Restoration Project Coastal Development Permit
    Broad Beach Restoration Project Coastal Development Permit Project Description FINAL PREPARED FOR: TRANCAS PROPERTY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION PREPARED BY: 3780 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 600, LONG BEACH, CA 90806 JANUARY 2011 JOB NO. 6935 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Broad Beach is located in the northwest portion of the County of Los Angeles and within the City of Malibu. The project area is comprised of the shoreline area fronting approximately 80 homes spanning approximately from Lechuza Point to Trancas Creek. Broad beach has been suffering shoreline erosion over the past 30 plus years, resulting in an almost complete loss of recreation and public access. Public access through dedicated public access ways from Broad Beach Rd. to the beach was rendered impossible during the most severe storms and tidal action over the past few years. The severe erosion problem now threatens private property and dune fields along this stretch of beach. The Trancas Property Owner’s Association (TPOA), representing almost all of the property owners along the Broad Beach shoreline, has elected to address the extensive erosion by privately funding a beach and sand dune restoration project which will not only protect their homes but also restore the beach to its historic grandeur not only for their benefit but for the benefit of the public at large. The Broad Beach restoration project seeks to design, permit, and implement a shoreline restoration program that provides erosion control, property protection, improved recreation and public access opportunities, aesthetics, and dune habitat. Broad Beach Restoration – Project Description FINAL The vicinity and location of the project site are shown below in figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version
    Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version Welcome to HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment. Table of Contents Preface Tech Doc U.S. - SI Conversions DISCLAIMER: During the editing of this manual for conversion to an electronic format, the intent has been to convert the publication to the metric system while keeping the document as close to the original as possible. The document has undergone editorial update during the conversion process. Archived Table of Contents for HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) List of Figures List of Tables List of Charts & Forms List of Equations Cover Page : HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) Chapter 1 : HEC 11 Introduction 1.1 Scope 1.2 Recognition of Erosion Potential 1.3 Erosion Mechanisms and Riprap Failure Modes Chapter 2 : HEC 11 Revetment Types 2.1 Riprap 2.1.1 Rock Riprap 2.1.2 Rubble Riprap 2.2 Wire-Enclosed Rock 2.3 Pre-Cast Concrete Block 2.4 Grouted Rock 2.5 Paved Lining Chapter 3 : HEC 11 Design Concepts 3.1 Design Discharge 3.2 Flow Types 3.3 Section Geometry 3.4 Flow in Channel Bends 3.5 Flow Resistance 3.6 Extent of Protection 3.6.1 Longitudinal Extent 3.6.2 Vertical Extent 3.6.2.1 Design Height 3.6.2.2 Toe Depth Chapter 4 : HEC 11 Design Guidelines for Rock Riprap 4.1 Rock Size Archived 4.1.1 Particle Erosion 4.1.1.1 Design Relationship 4.1.1.2 Application 4.1.2 Wave Erosion 4.1.3 Ice Damage 4.2 Rock Gradation 4.3 Layer Thickness 4.4 Filter Design 4.4.1 Granular Filters 4.4.2 Fabric Filters 4.5 Material Quality 4.6 Edge Treatment 4.7 Construction Chapter 5 : HEC 11 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation of Design Deficiencies Santa Clara River Levee System (Scr-1) 1
    DOCUMENTATION OF DESIGN DEFICIENCIES SANTA CLARA RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM (SCR-1) 1. Project Description and Watershed Characteristics The Santa Clara River Levee (SCR-1) system is located in the city of Oxnard, in Ventura County, California. It is approximately 4.72 miles long, extending along the southeast bank of the Santa Clara River from Highway 101, at its downstream terminus, to the community of Saticoy, at its upstream terminus (see Figure 1). SCR-1 was originally designed in 1958 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to control the Corps’ predicted Standard Project Flood peak discharge of 225,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), a peak emanating from a partially regulated 1,600-square-mile Santa Clara River watershed. The height of SCR-1 varies from approximately 4 feet to 13 feet. The compacted fill embankment that forms SCR-1 has a top width of 18 feet. The levee embankment slopes are 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V), on both the landward side and the riverward side. The riverward side of the embankment has a 1.5- to 2- foot-thick rock revetment, with a concrete facing at and near highway bridges. The rock revetment extends from the top of the embankment to varying depths. The lowest depth of the rock revetment is hereinafter referred to as the “toedown.” Construction of the SCR-1 project was completed in 1961. The levee was constructed adjacent to the active channel of the Santa Clara River. A review of historical aerial photography, dating as far back as 1927, indicates that before construction of the SCR-1, there were numerous locations along the project reach where the primary braid of the Santa Clara River impinged directly on the east and west banks of the river at rather abrupt flow angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2. Summary of Key Project Metrics for Setback Levee Alternatives
    TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF KEY PROJECT METRICS FOR SETBACK LEVEE ALTERNATIVES Existing Metric Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Conditions CARBON RIVER, LEVEE, AND FLOODPLAIN Reach River Miles River Miles RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 3.9 Reach Length River Miles 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 New Levee Overall 1.1, plus Miles 1.43 1.61 1.69 1.84 Length 0.3 stub levee New Levee Overall Feet 7600 8500 8900 9700 7400 Length Floodwall Length Feet 0 0 500 0 0 Ties into accredited levee or high ground Yes/No No No No No No upstream? Ties into accredited levee or high ground Yes/No No No No No No downstream? Potential Channel Migration Area (area Acres 0.0 60 122 124 43 between existing levee and setback levee) Reconnected Floodplain Area within Acres 0 45 74 70 23 100-year Inundation Area Reconnected Floodplain Area within Acres 0 34 49 46 20 2-year Inundation Area Carbon River Potential Active Channel Width at RM 3.8 Pinch Point Feet 260 540 540 850 380 (assuming right bank side remains fixed) HABITAT Side channel created Lineal Feet 0.0 3500 3500 3600 600 Existing Metric Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Conditions 26 multi-log jams and 583 individual Wood added to active Number key logs 700 750 750 300 channel pieces (Per analysis of 2018 aerial photograph) Wood added to Number key Not 200 250 250 100 floodplain pieces measured Wetlands Impacted by Acres 0.0 7 5 5 4 Levee Footprint Floodplain Riparian and Wetland Acres 0.0 45 61 60 25 Establishment or Enhancement VOIGHTS CREEK Voights Creek Reach Length in Same as Reconnected Miles 0.00 0.16 0.57 0.39 existing Floodplain (Setback condition Levee to Existing Levee) Voights Creek Length Same as SR162 to Setback Miles 0.57 0.41 0.0 0.18 existing Levee condition Crossing at New Crossing New Crossing existing at Setback at Setback levee No new Retains Fish passable Levee Levee -- appears to crossing existing crossings replaces replaces meet WDFW required.
    [Show full text]
  • Corte Madera
    CORTE MADERA Community Profile: Corte Madera Corte Madera is a primarily residential community IMPACTS AT-A-GLANCE: SCENARIO 6 with several large commercial areas that take advantage of the highway corridor. These 1,500+ living units 9,500+ people commercial areas serve the entire region and include outdoor malls, auto dealerships, restaurants, 994 acres exposed 79 commercial and other local business. In the near-term, 230 16 miles of roads parcels acres could be exposed to sea level rise. By the long-term, 906 acres could be exposed to sea level Storm, tidal, and Corte Madera rise and 994 acres could be exposed with an subsidence impacts Caltrans additional 100-year storm surge. Key vulnerabilities already occur Central Marin PD in Corte Madera include: Corte Madera Fire $1.4 billion worth of CHP Homes along the tributaries to Corte Madera assessed property value; Larkspur-Corte Creek may be vulnerable in the near-term. assets vulnerable; $1.5 Madera School Commercial areas on Paradise Drive may be billion in single family District vulnerable to sea level rise in the near-term, and market value189 HOAs storm surges sooner. Property Owners Segments of the 101 could be vulnerable to seasonal storm surges in the near-term, and sea level rise in the medium to long-terms. Access to the community from the US Highway 101 Map 77. Corte Madera Sea Level Rise and corridor may become increasingly difficult with 100-year Storm Surge Scenarios chronic flooding. Marin Country Day School, Marin Montessori, Cove Elementary, and Neil Cummins elementary could be vulnerable across the scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Strategic Plan April 2018 1.0
    Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Strategic Plan April 2018 1.0 Introduction The Sutter-Butte Basin (Basin) covers 300 square miles bordered by the Cherokee Canal to the north, the Sutter Buttes to the west, the Sutter Bypass to the southwest and the 44-mile long Feather River to the east—see Figure 1. The Basin is home to 95,000 residents and encompasses $7 billion of damageable assets (as estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE). The region has sustained numerous floods, including the 1955 levee failure on the Feather River, which resulted in the deaths of at least 38 people. The personal safety and economic stability of large segments of the population are reliant on flood management systems that, until recent efforts, did not begin to meet modern engineering standards. Numerous projects and programs have been implemented in the Basin over the years to reduce flood risk, including the Feather River West Levee Project, which is nearing completion. The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) leads the planning and implementation efforts in the Basin to reduce the risk of catastrophic, riverine flooding. In this role, SBFCA collaborates with local, regional, state, tribal and federal agencies and organizations. On January 13, 2016 the SBFCA Board of Directors adopted the Strategic Plan to guide these efforts. This version is the first update to the Strategic Plan. 2.0 Purpose of the Strategic Plan The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to help formulate and articulate a vision for flood management within the Basin and to describe an approach to achieve this vision.
    [Show full text]