Levee Safety Program

1. Levee Safety Program

2. USACE Levee Safety Program USACE Levee Safety Program Activities Levee System Eval / Cert for NFIP Mods to Federal Projects (408 Process) System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) Policy Open Discussion

3. Inspected based on ownership. Public safety and risk management must play more prominently in how we make infrastructure decisions and investments. Some of the consequences are great for us not to. Needed information to answer basic questions: Size of the national Inventory Risk associated with those levees Adequacy of design Current ConditionInspected based on ownership. Public safety and risk management must play more prominently in how we make infrastructure decisions and investments. Some of the consequences are great for us not to. Needed information to answer basic questions: Size of the national Inventory Risk associated with those levees Adequacy of design Current Condition

4. USACE Levee Safety Program Vision Be safe and reliable Have risk communicated effectively Be assessed in a comprehensive and continuing program This illustrates the program�s vision. The ultimate goal is that all risk management systems will be safe and reliable. In order to achieve that goal, the current NLSP activities revolve around communicating risk to the protected public and assessing existing flood risk reduction systems to better define that risk.This illustrates the program�s vision. The ultimate goal is that all risk management systems will be safe and reliable. In order to achieve that goal, the current NLSP activities revolve around communicating risk to the protected public and assessing existing flood risk reduction systems to better define that risk.

5. Levee Safety Program Principles Public safety is the primary focus. Part of broader flood risk management. Communicate accurate and timely information to drive action � Transparency. It�s a shared responsibility. Must be applied on a system basis.

6. 6

7. Quantifying Residual Risk This slide quantifies the �Hazard� portion of risk, assuming that the flood risk reduction works perform as designed, this slide shows the probability that the levee will overtop because it is subjected to a flood greater than it�s design. Shows the likelihood of the design event being exceeded during the life of the average mortgage, or we could say during any 30 year period. MR&T project design flood is greater than 200 years, so the likelihood of overtopping is between 10% and 14% during any 30 year period.This slide quantifies the �Hazard� portion of risk, assuming that the flood risk reduction works perform as designed, this slide shows the probability that the levee will overtop because it is subjected to a flood greater than it�s design. Shows the likelihood of the design event being exceeded during the life of the average mortgage, or we could say during any 30 year period. MR&T project design flood is greater than 200 years, so the likelihood of overtopping is between 10% and 14% during any 30 year period.

8. Organization USACE HQ Levee Safety Officer (LSO) � Mr. Dalton Special Assistant � Eric Halpin Levee Safety Program Manager (LSPM) Tammy Conforti National Levee Safety Policy and Procedures Team Levee Senior Oversight Group MVD HQ Levee Safety Officer (LSO) � Bob Fitzgerald Levee Safety Program Manager (LSPM) Pete Montalbano (Professional Registration/Qualification Requirements)

9. Organization (cont) Rock Island District LSO � Denny Lundberg LSPM � Alan Tamm St. Louis District LSO � Dave Busse LSPM � Jamie McVicker (Professional Registration/Qualification Requirements)

10. Completed an initial survey to identify all levees in a USACE program (categories 1, 2, and 3) More than 14,000 miles of levees were identified. Developed a levee database model for the National Levee Database (NLD). The database will includes all necessary attributes of levees/floodwalls relevant to design, construction, operations, maintenance, repair, and inspections. Serve as a living database and national resource. We need to start getting our model out there to states in conjunction with the other side of the Act. Tim Pangburn will cover the details of the NLD and automated inspection tool.Completed an initial survey to identify all levees in a USACE program (categories 1, 2, and 3) More than 14,000 miles of levees were identified. Developed a levee database model for the National Levee Database (NLD). The database will includes all necessary attributes of levees/floodwalls relevant to design, construction, operations, maintenance, repair, and inspections. Serve as a living database and national resource. We need to start getting our model out there to states in conjunction with the other side of the Act. Tim Pangburn will cover the details of the NLD and automated inspection tool.

11. Levee Segments and Systems Levee Segment: A separable section of levee with a single sponsor. Levee System: A group of levee segments and flood control structures that have features in common and protect the same area from the same waters so that they function as one homogeneous unit. Due to the complexities of the MR&T project ( it has main line levees, backwater levees, tributary levees, floodways, and reservoirs) The traditional definition of system did not work well. MVD developed a slightly different definition for an MR&T system that allowed us to divide up the MR&T project into reasonable units. This definition also prevented us from having to group mainline levee with tributary levee, which greatly simplifies the assessment and analysis procedures.Due to the complexities of the MR&T project ( it has main line levees, backwater levees, tributary levees, floodways, and reservoirs) The traditional definition of system did not work well. MVD developed a slightly different definition for an MR&T system that allowed us to divide up the MR&T project into reasonable units. This definition also prevented us from having to group mainline levee with tributary levee, which greatly simplifies the assessment and analysis procedures.

13. National Levee Database Inventory of Levees Inspection Tool Database of Risk Assessments (Event + Performance + Consequence) Web tool for searching/sorting Corpsmap

14. Levee Safety Assessment Features Segment-based inspections In the past, levee sponsors received only inspection reports for their flood risk reduction projects from the respective USACE district. System-based inspections Current and future reports for flood risk reduction works are grouped by levee system to better ascertain cumulative risk. Segment-based inspections In the past, levee sponsors received only inspection reports for their flood risk reduction projects from the respective USACE district. System-based inspections Current and future reports for flood risk reduction works are grouped by levee system to better ascertain cumulative risk.

15. Routine Inspections New more rigorous reporting standards has created some controversy. Input/ratings from routine inspections incorporated into more thorough periodic inspections.

16. Periodic Inspection of Levees are new and will be performed on a 5 year schedule. - Periodic Inspection are a more detailed inspection. System Documentation includes things like design calculations, as built drawing, and construction records. The design criteria review looks at the compiled documentation to ensure that the levee or structure meets current design standards. - The periodic inspection fully addresses that second aspect of risk, the system performance. Deficiencies contributing to �U� rating in order are: seepage, culverts, animal burrows, vegetation MR&T Inspections include: MVM � Three St. Francis levee systems and Cairo, IL, all U MVK � S. Bank Arkansas River � MA MVN � Inspections underway but several reports being prepared or reviewed Periodic Inspection of Levees are new and will be performed on a 5 year schedule. - Periodic Inspection are a more detailed inspection. System Documentation includes things like design calculations, as built drawing, and construction records. The design criteria review looks at the compiled documentation to ensure that the levee or structure meets current design standards. - The periodic inspection fully addresses that second aspect of risk, the system performance. Deficiencies contributing to �U� rating in order are: seepage, culverts, animal burrows, vegetation MR&T Inspections include: MVM � Three St. Francis levee systems and Cairo, IL, all U MVK � S. Bank Arkansas River � MA MVN � Inspections underway but several reports being prepared or reviewed

17. Levee Screening Purpose Identify relative risk within portfolio of levees Function of: Population at risk Economic factors (infrastructure) Past and expected performance Set priorities for Nat�l Levee Safety Activities Help develop Interim Risk Reduction Measures LSAC rating includes performance and consequences Supports remediation for worst first scenario.Supports remediation for worst first scenario.

18. 18

19. Levee Screening for Risk Classification Local/Regional Team Perform Screening using web-based Levee Screening Tool National Cadre Conducts �roll-up� for consistency Prepares presentation to LSOG Levee Senior Oversight Group Reviews and recommends LSAC Classification to USACE LSO

20. Levee Evaluation for NFIP (aka Levee Certification)

21. Levee System Evaluation for NFIP National Flood Insurance Program FEMA Program Levee Owner Evaluates/Certifies FEMA Accreditation 1% (100 yr) for insurance purpose Not a Safety Standard

22. Levee Certification Who certifies Licensed Professional Engineer Federal Agency responsible for levee design Levee Owner responsibility

23. Modification of Federal Projects (408 Process)

24. Purpose of 408 Reviews Ensure project function is not impaired by the modification Ensure that federal interest is maintained Ensure scope of authorized purposes is not changed

25. Determination of Approval Level Dependent on several factors Type of modification Foundation & embankment materials Intrusive nature of modification Potential for damaging levee Adequate documentation is necessary for a proper determination This is not a clear cut line. What in one place is a minor modification, in another it could be a major.This is not a clear cut line. What in one place is a minor modification, in another it could be a major.

26. Minor Modifications Maintain purpose and function of project Low impact alterations/modifications Limited to restoring/maintaining authorized level Improving structural stability w/o changing the authorized geometry or hydraulics Does not pose a threat to the integrity of the structure Includes much O&M related work Geologic conditions or hydraulic conditions can make a new pump station at one levee a minor and yet at another levee a major. A fast rising stream can impact the ability to construct and presence of the levee is critical. If landward or along the line of protection. Permitting of encroachments such as power poles, buildings, etc are generally considered minor, but the rational has to be clearly documented.Geologic conditions or hydraulic conditions can make a new pump station at one levee a minor and yet at another levee a major. A fast rising stream can impact the ability to construct and presence of the levee is critical. If landward or along the line of protection. Permitting of encroachments such as power poles, buildings, etc are generally considered minor, but the rational has to be clearly documented.

27. Minor modifications examples Closure structure replacement Culvert replacement Pump house replacement Seepage / stability berms foundation in-tact Encroachments power poles, buildings, etc Closure structure that increased the protected area or the level of protection is a major modification. Notes: - Designed to current criteria - Replaces 33 USC 208.10 district permitting with 408 authority Closure structure that increased the protected area or the level of protection is a major modification. Notes: - Designed to current criteria - Replaces 33 USC 208.10 district permitting with 408 authority

28. Major Modifications Go beyond normal O&M Changes in levee alignment Cutoff walls Bridge piers that impact seepage Requires compliance with current USACE review policy

29. Documentation Requirement Sponsor submits request for 408 review Sponsor provides documentation for review and approval Level of engineering documentation varies with complexity of proposed modification HQ USACE approval required if deemed major modification Section 214 � June 2010 guidance states it is appropriate for districts and MSC�s to accept funds by non-federal public entities for processing of 408 permit application packages including technical, risk real estate data acquisition and other specific related review activities. The host district can also use 214 applicable funds to perform ATR for major modifications for the respective sponsor..Section 214 � June 2010 guidance states it is appropriate for districts and MSC�s to accept funds by non-federal public entities for processing of 408 permit application packages including technical, risk real estate data acquisition and other specific related review activities. The host district can also use 214 applicable funds to perform ATR for major modifications for the respective sponsor..

30. What�s in a Section 408 Request Description of modification Purpose and need for modification Any required NEPA documentation Technical analysis Changes in water profile Upstream & downstream impacts Discussion of residual risk Assessment of local impacts 30

31. System-wide Improvement Framework SWIF This program is a result of the public voice. We have listened to your requests for additional time to improve your levees. This program is a result of the public voice. We have listened to your requests for additional time to improve your levees.

33. SWIF Basics Sponsors maintain eligibility while improving levees Incorporates "worst first� to optimize risk reduction Incorporates intergovernmental collaboration Incorporates regional differences Two phase process � Letter of Intent followed by SWIF package MVS has produced brochures summarizing the application process and requirements.MVS has produced brochures summarizing the application process and requirements.

34. Questions?