21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES FOR FEMA LEVEE

CERTIFICATION IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Daniela Todesco, P.E.1
Dragoslav Stefanovic, P.E., Ph.D.2
Darren Bertrand3
Mark Seits, P.E.4
Yunjing Zhang, P.E. 5
ABSTRACT
This paper summarizes hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed for the San
Bernardino County Levee Certification Project (Project) and the challenges encountered
during the course of the study. The Project included forty-three non-Federal levees on
the national levee inventory list, currently mapped by FEMA as Provisionally Accredited
Levees (PALs). WEST Consultants performed detailed hydrologic/hydraulic analyses for
thirty-five Category 2 levees in order to determine whether they are in compliance with
FEMAs regulatory requirements for certification as identified in Title 44 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10). In most cases, a complete
hydrologic model (HEC-HMS) was built for the contributing watershed to
determine/verify the 100-year base flood. Detailed hydraulic models (HEC-RAS) were
built for the majority of the levees, some of them with split flow components, lateral spill
structures, and unsteady routing. Each levee presented its own challenge in terms of data
availability and modeling approach. The results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
were eventually used to verify levee freeboard, evaluate sedimentation and potential
scour problems at the levee toes, and address any interior flooding issues.
INTRODUCTION
WEST Consultants, Inc. (WEST) has conducted hydrologic, hydraulic, and scour
analyses for the San Bernardino County Levee Certification Project (Project) in
cooperation with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District (SBCFCD). The Project includes forty-three non-Federal levees on the
national levee inventory list, currently mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) as Provisionally Accredited Levees (PALs). The Project was divided
into three phases. Phase I classified levees into three categories based on their
certification status: Category 1 - levees meet 44 CFR 65.10 and all data and complete
documentation for certification is available; Category 2 levees may meet 44 CFR 65.10,
but additional data or documentation is needed; Category 3 levees do not currently meet
44 CFR 65.10 without remediation measures. Category 3 also includes structures that are
not classified as levees (such as side ditches) or levees that are entrenched (i.e. when
1

Senior Engineer, WEST Consultants, Inc., 503-946-8536, dtodesco@westconsultants.com

Project Manager, WEST Consultants, Inc., 858-487-9378, dstefan@westconsultants.com
3
Hydrologist, WEST Consultants, Inc., 858-487-9378,dbertrand@westconsultants.com
4
Project Manager, HDR, 858-712-8312, Mark.Seits@hdrinc.com
5
Senior Engineer, HDR, 858-712-8355, Vicky.Zhang @hdrinc.com
2

FEMA Levee Certification

1247

the landside toe of the levee is above the 100-year water surface elevation). Ten levees
were found to be Uncertifiable (Category 3) and nineteen did not meet the FEMAs
definition of a levee (part of Category 3 as well). The remaining fourteen levees had
adequate freeboard, but additional geotechnical analyses are needed to confirm that they
meet stability and/or seepage requirements (and therefore are part of Category 2). If a
levee is deemed certifiable, FEMA will remove the PAL status on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). If the levee is not certifiable, the area behind the levee will be
mapped as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). During Phase II, WEST closely worked
with SBCFCD to collect topographic, hydrologic, and hydraulic information for all
levees in order to determine whether they are in compliance with the regulations 44 CFR
65.10. The study results aided in preparing a certification package (which included
hydrologic, hydraulic, and geotechnical analyses, as-built plans, and Operation and
Maintenance manual) for the levees found in compliance. For those levees not in
compliance, San Bernardino County (County) will determine whether it is feasible to
upgrade the levees into compliance and/or provide an outreach program (especially
regarding flood insurance) for the residents and business owners behind the levees. The
County will upgrade the selected levees during Phase III (design and construction).
Table 1 presents a summary of the levees analyzed during the Project.
Table 1. List of Levees and Methods.
LEVEE
/SYSTEM
Donnell Basin
(86a, 86b, 86c,
87)
Day Creek
(107b)
Ely Basins
(29a, 29b, 29c)

FEMA flow available. SBCFCD

flow used and verified performing
Unit Hydrograph (UH) analysis
FEMA flow not available. Flow from
UH analysis
FEMA flow available and used

HYDRAULIC
ANALYSIS
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model. Split flow

Cable Creek
(61,69)

FEMA flow not available. Base

Flood Elevations (BFEs) available.
SBCFCD flow used

Steady HEC-RAS
model

Mill Basin (59)

FEMA flow available and used

Steady HEC-RAS
model

Patton Basin
(12)
East Badger
Basin (57a)
Daley Basin
(58)
MacQuiddySeverance
Channel (57b)
Macy Basin
(3)
Reche Canyon
(7)

1248

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

FEMA flow available. SBCFCD

flow available. Flow from UH
analysis
FEMA flow available and verified
performing UH analysis
FEMA flow not available. Flow from
UH analysis

Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model

FEMA flow available. Flow from

UH analysis

Steady HEC-RAS
model

FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD

flow used
FEMA flow available. SBCFCD
flow used

Broad crested weir

calculations
Steady HEC-RAS
model

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

LEVEE
/SYSTEM

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

HYDRAULIC
ANALYSIS

South Badger
Basin (63)

FEMA flow not available. BFEs

available. Flow from UH analysis

Steady HEC-RAS
model

29th Street
Basins (81a)
Lynwood
Basins (55, 56,
81b)
Plunge Creek
(13a, 13c, 14)

FEMA flow not available. Flow from

SBCFCD used
FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD
flow available. Flow from Rational
Method analysis
FEMA flow not available. Flow from
SBCFCD

Steady HEC-RAS
Model

Wilson Basins
(90)

FEMA flow available. Flow from

UH analysis

Mojave River
(88,100,118)
Mojave River
(1a/104)
Mojave River
(98)
Chris Basin
(28c)

FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD

flow used

Banana Basin
(103)

FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD

flow used

Rich Basin
(93, 94)
Devil Creek
(79)
Mill Creek
(44b)
Santa Ana
River (111)
San Sevaine
Basins (34)
City Creek
(20)

FEMA flow used

FEMA flow used
FEMA flow used

FEMA flow available. SBCFCD

flow available. Flow from UH
analysis
FEMA flow available. Flow from
UH analysis
FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD
flow used
FEMA flow not available. SBCFCD
flow used
FEMA flow available. Flow from
UH analysis
FEMA flow used

Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady and
unsteady RAS
models
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model with split
flow and lateral
structures
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model
Steady HEC-RAS
model

DATA COLLECTION
The layout and location of the levees, as well as the flooding sources, are shown in the
FIRM Panels for San Bernardino County. Discharge information, as well as flood
profiles and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) when available, were found in the Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) for San Bernardino County (FEMA, 2008). Additional flow
information was provided by SBCFCD in the form of hydrologic studies, as-built plans,
master plan of drainage for the study area, comprehensive storm drain plans, or hand
calculations.

FEMA Levee Certification

1249

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for the contributing watersheds were downloaded from
the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) National Map Seamless Server
(http://seamless.usgs.gov/) as National Elevation Dataset (NED) in digital format.
Survey data for the levees and/or basins were provided by David Evans & Associates
(DEA) in digital format. SBCFCD also provided as-built plans for the levees and nearby
basins and, when available, aerial survey data. Additional topographic data in the
vicinity of some levees were obtained from Intermap Technologies, Inc. in digital format.
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES
In some cases, the hydrologic data found in FEMA FIS studies or provided by the
SBCFCD were acceptable such that further hydrologic analysis was not deemed
necessary. In many cases (where no flow information was available or the existing
information was questionable), a complete hydrologic model was built for the watershed
contributing to the basin/levee to determine the 100-year (base) flow. The modeling
approach followed the SBCFCD Hydrology Manual (1986) procedures for the Rational
Method (for Lynwood Basin No.1) or the Unit Hydrograph Method (for all other cases).
When the Unit Hydrograph Method was used, the contributing subbasins were delineated
using the ArcGIS Hydrologic Engineer Center (HEC) Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling
Extension (GeoHMS) based on the USGS DEM. Gridded precipitation data was
obtained from an online version of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Atlas 14 (http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov) and an average precipitation value for each
subbasin was calculated. NOAAs 25-year precipitation data was used to estimate the
100-year peak flow. The reason for using the 25-year rainfall rather than the 100-year
rainfall is because the SBCFCD found that NOAAs 25-year precipitation data at the 85percent confidence level corresponds to FEMAs 100-year 50-percent confidence level
for estimating the 100-year peak flow. The lag was estimated for each subbasin based on
stream lengths, centroidal stream lengths, and drainage slopes using the empirical
formula presented in the Manual. Hydrologic soil maps were downloaded from the
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The soil cover was estimated based
on aerial photographs and the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data. The
percent impervious for each subbasin was determined based on the 2001 NLCD Percent
Impervious data and aerial maps. Curve numbers and maximum loss rates (calculated for
each soil group and land cover type) were based on the Hydrology Manual. Antecedent
Moisture Conditions (AMC) II were generally assumed. Initial abstractions were omitted
for conservative purposes. S-graphs based on the watershed location and conditions
(Desert, Valley, Mountain, or Foothill) were chosen per the Manual guidelines.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show two characteristic examples of drainage area delineation.
The watershed contributing to Wilson Basins is fairly undeveloped and the computed
HEC-GeoHMS watershed boundaries were found to be acceptable. In the case of Patton
Basin, the storm drain master plan contributing areas needed to be incorporated into the
preliminary subbasin boundaries generated by HEC-GeoHMS to correctly identify the
flow contributing area.

1250

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Wilson
Basins

Figure 1. Wilson Basins Watershed Map.

Patton
Basin

Figure 2. Patton Basin Watershed Map.

FEMA Levee Certification

1251

For flow routing purposes, either the Lag or the Muskingum-Cunge methods were
chosen. The velocity, cross section, slope, and roughness data were obtained from the
HEC River Analysis System (RAS) hydraulic model of the analyzed stream. The input
data were entered into the HEC Hydrologic Modeling System (HMS) model (Version
3.3) to obtain the 100-year peak discharges at key locations. In cases where the system
was composed of several basins in series (such as Badger Basins and Lynwood Basins),
the basins were incorporated into the HEC-HMS model to account for routing effects.
The elevation-discharge curves for the basins were obtained from the HEC-RAS model
of the system, while the elevation-area data was obtained from ArcGIS. The HEC-HMS
model was also used to evaluate the storage capacity of the basins for different
configurations of gates and/or culverts present in the system.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
HEC-RAS steady-state models were built for most of the levees analyzed. Some levees
required more complicated split-flow models (e.g., Ely Basins), lateral spill structures
(e.g., Banana Basin), and unsteady flow models (e.g., Wilson Basins). One levee (Macy
Basin) required only simple weir calculations to determine the available freeboard. Table
1 contains a summary of the hydraulic analyses performed for each system. Three
systems (Ely Basins, Wilson Basins, and Banana Basin) were chosen as characteristic
examples in this paper.
WEST utilized the ArcGIS program (Version 9.1) to extract the cross section profiles
from the survey data in order to develop the hydraulic model of each stream/basin. Cross
sections were cut from the Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) generated from the
topographic data and then imported into HEC-RAS, Version 4.0. Model parameters such
as roughness values, inline/lateral structure data, discharge coefficients, ineffective flow
limits, and levee locations were obtained from field reconnaissance and/or as-built plans.
A subcritical flow regime was set for all hydraulic analyses. The downstream boundary
condition was set at the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) obtained from the current FIS when
available, or set as the normal depth. Levees were introduced in the model cross sections
in order to evaluate available freeboard or to identify entrenchment (entrenchment refers
to the channel condition where the landside toe of the levee is above the 100-year water
surface elevation). The landside toe elevation was selected as the lowest ground
elevation within approximately 50 feet of the levee landside hinge point.
Ely Basins
Ely Basins are located near the intersection of South Vineyard Avenue and Pomona
Freeway in Ontario, California. The three basins in a series are connected by box
culverts and spillways. The inflow comes from the West Cucamonga Channel at the
northwest corner of the first basin. The most downstream basin (Basin 3) features a
lateral spillway and an outlet box culvert which discharge into two separate rectangular
concrete channels that merge about 700 ft downstream of the outlet box. Figure 3 shows
a layout of the outlet and spillway configuration for Basin 3. Because the lateral spillway
for Basin 3 and the box culvert under Philadelphia Street were modeled as separate

1252

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

reaches, a junction was introduced to connect the main reach (labeled Ely Basins in the
model) with the lateral reach (labeled Spillway in the model).

Ely Basins Reach

Vineyard Avenue Culverts

Philadelphia Street
Spillway Reach

Figure 3. Ely Basins HEC-RAS Model Layout (Basin 3 and Outlet Channel).
The basins are leveed along three sides (eastern, western, and southern). The northern
side of the basins was found to be entrenched because the terrain behind them is higher
than the water surface elevation in the basins. Based on the hydraulic analysis, the 100year flow is contained within the basins providing a minimum freeboard of 3 ft above the
computed water surface elevations (4 feet within 100 ft of structures or constrictions,
tapering to 3.5 ft at the upstream end of the levees), therefore satisfying FEMAs
regulatory requirements for certification.
Banana Basin
Banana Basin is located near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Interstate 15 in
the City of Fontana, California. The basin is situated just north of the California
Speedway and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (formerly Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe)
Railway, between Cherry Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. The major source of inflow is
the West Fontana Channel. Additional inflow comes from three storm drain outlets
located on the north side of the basin, collecting flow from the residential and
commercial areas to the north. The basin outlet structure on the western side features a
100 feet wide concrete spillway. Banana Basin is leveed along the southern, eastern, and
northern sides.
WEST evaluated the capacity of the West Fontana Channel (whose nominal flow is 5,542
cfs) upstream of Banana Basin using the Hydraulic Design Uniform Flow module in
HEC-RAS. The maximum flow that the channel is able to convey without spilling into
FEMA Levee Certification

1253

the overbanks is around 400 cfs. Flow spilling in the left (south) overbank would run
west towards Banana Basin in the low area between the West Fontana Channel and the
railroad tracks (just south of the basin levee, see Figure 4), potentially affecting the
landward toe of the levee.

Flow
Spilling

Banana Basin Reach

(West Fontana Channel)

Railroad
Tracks

Split Reach

Figure 4. Schematic of Split Flow for Banana Basin.

A spilt flow reach (see Figure 4) was created parallel to the Banana Basin reach to
evaluate the hydraulics of the area. Several lateral structures were added to the model to
connect the two reaches and to simulate flow spilling in the overbanks. A layout of the
HEC-RAS model with cross section locations is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

1254

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Cherry
Avenue

Figure 5. HEC-RAS Model Layout (Upstream of Banana Basin).

Calabash
Avenue

Figure 6. HEC-RAS Model Layout (Banana Basin and Downstream of the Basin).
WEST assumed that the total inflow of 5,542 cfs is reaching the West Fontana Channel
downstream of Cherry Avenue. A series of lateral weirs were added (from Sta. 4493 to
Sta. 3723) to evaluate how much of this flow would spill into the left overbank and leave
the system downstream of Cherry Avenue.

FEMA Levee Certification

1255

The split reach starts about 1,000 ft downstream of Cherry Avenue, where the topography
shows the beginning of a defined depression sloping west towards the basin. The reach
ends 600 ft upstream of Calabash Avenue, where the SBCFCD 2001 topographic data
ends. The reach rejoins the West Fontana Channel just upstream of Calabash Avenue via
three pipe culverts.
The 100-year peak flow of 5,542 cfs was used in the HEC-RAS model at the upstream
boundary of the Banana Basin reach (Sta. 4493). The flow was increased by 176 cfs at
Sta. 2419 to account for additional inflow from the local storm drain system. An
additional increase of 825 cfs (reaching a total flow of 6,543 cfs) was applied to Sta. 872
to account for the contributing flow from the split reach.
Based on topographic and aerial data, WEST estimated that flow from the lateral
structures at Sta. 4492 and Sta. 4012 would run south and would not rejoin the main flow
from the West Fontana Channel. Out of 5,542 cfs reaching the West Fontana Channel
downstream of Cherry Avenue, only 418 cfs remains in the channel (equal to the current
capacity of the channel) and ultimately reaches Banana Basin. The majority of the inflow
(4,297 cfs) would spill over the left channel bank towards the railroad and would not
return into the system. A portion of the flow (827 cfs) would flank the levee on its south
side. Table 2 shows a summary of the computed flows for the system.
Table 2. Summary of Flows for Banana Basin.
Location

Flow at the upstream end of West Fontana Channel

Flow in West Fontana Channel reaching Banana Basin
Flow in Banana Basin from storm drain system
Flow in Split Channel behind the levee
Flow spilled south (leaving the system)
Flow in Banana Basin (including storm drains)

Flow (cfs)

5,542
418
176
827
4,297
594

The HEC-RAS model showed that the portion of the south levee that surrounds Banana
Basin (from Sta. 2475 to Sta. 1515) and the entire north levee are entrenched. The model
also showed that the 100-year flow currently reaching Banana Basin is contained within
the basin, providing minimum freeboard of 3 feet above the computed water surface
elevations for the south levee. The flow depths in the split channel (behind the levee)
vary from 1.2 ft to 3.8 ft, while velocities range from 3.8 ft/s to 8.1 ft/s. The levee
sections upstream and downstream of the basin were not certified.
Wilson Basins
Wilson Basins are a series of five recharge basins connected by culverts (the fifth basin is
a spreading grounds area). The basins are located adjacent to Wilson Creek in the City of
Yucaipa (see Figure 7 ). They are bounded by Fremont Street on the eastern, Bryant
Street on the western, and by a residential development on the northern and southern

1256

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

sides. The basins are leveed on the north side (north levee, red line) and on the south
side (south levee, blue line).
Inlet
Structure to
Basins

Fremont
Street

Basin
No. 4
Basin
No. 3

Bryant
Street

Basin
No. 2

Basin
No. 1

Wilson
Creek

Basin No 5
- Spreading
Grounds

Figure 7. Wilson Basins Layout.

The five basins are connected by arch culverts and reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs).
The spreading grounds are connected to Wilson Creek by a corrugated metal pipe (CMP).
Wilson Creek flows under Bryant Street in a 12-ft by 10-ft reinforced concrete box
(RCB). The system also features 3 concrete pipes with flap gates that allow flow from
Wilson Creek to discharge into Basins No. 2, 3, and 4. The crown elevation of each inline
levee (that separates the basins) is constant (the levees are horizontal). The south levee
and north levee slope downstream, connecting the inline levees.
Due to the size of the basins and the absence of uncontrolled spillways between them, the
effect of routing needed to be taken into account to correctly model the maximum water
surface elevations in the basins and corresponding levee freeboard. Therefore, an
unsteady flow model (HEC-RAS, Version 4.0) was developed to perform hydraulic
routing (flood propagation) in the basins along the levees, as well as to quantify the
diversion of flow from Wilson Creek into the basins. The model is comprised of two
reaches: the Wilson Basins reach and the Wilson Creek reach (see Figure 8).

FEMA Levee Certification

1257

Wilson Creek
reach

Wilson
Basins reach

Figure 8. HEC-RAS Model Overview of Wilson Basins.

The Wilson Creek reach starts about 250 ft upstream of Fremont Street and it ends about
400 ft downstream of Bryant Street. The Wilson Basins reach starts at the inlet structure
from Wilson Creek (connecting with the Wilson Basins reach by means of a lateral
structure) and it ends just downstream of Bryant Street. The two reaches reconnect at
Bryant Street by a lateral culvert. The model features a series of inline and lateral
structures. The creek is connected with the basins at the downstream ends of Basin No.
2, Basin No. 3, and Basin No. 4 by 3-ft RCPs with flap gates that only allow flow from
Wilson Creek into Wilson Basins (reversed flow is prevented).
The four basins (No. 1 through No. 4) were modeled using cross section geometry and
inline structures. The spreading grounds (Basin No. 5) were modeled using a set of inline
weirs. The spreading grounds are connected to Wilson Creek by a circular pipe in the
northwestern corner (the pipe was represented by a lateral structure just upstream of
Bryant Street). It was assumed that this pipe was functional to ensure model stability.
However, an intentionally high Mannings n coefficient of 0.5 was specified inside the
pipe to suppress its flow because the pipe was found filled with sediment during field
reconnaissance. The most downstream portion of the spreading grounds was modeled as
a bridge with a very small culvert opening (0.1 feet in diameter).
To promote model convergence, the downstream boundary condition for the Wilson
Basins reach was set at a low constant elevation representing sheet flow towards Bryant
Street. This condition did not affect the computed water surface elevations either in the
spreading grounds or the upstream basins. The upstream boundary condition in the
Wilson Basins reach was an inflow of 5 cfs to add computational stability during low
flows.

1258

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

The unsteady model experienced difficulties during low flows. This was overcome by
creating a hot-start file with an artificially high initial water surface elevation at the
downstream boundary of the Wilson Creek reach. As the simulation progressed, the
boundary water surface elevation was gradually reduced to obtain a stable initial
condition (hot-start).
It was found that only 710 cfs (out of 4,250 cfs in Wilson) is diverted into the basins
during the 100-year flood. Results from the unsteady HEC-RAS model of the Wilson
Basins reach show that this portion of the total 100-year flow is contained within the
basins providing freeboard of minimum 3 ft for the entire south levee. Therefore, the
Wilson Basins south levee in Basins No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 satisfies FEMAs regulatory
requirements. The model also showed overtopping of Bryant Street during the 100-year
flood event. Sufficient freeboard was not found available near the downstream end of the
spreading grounds (Basin No. 5), which therefore does not qualify for certification.
Figure 9 shows the maximum water surface elevation in the basins during the unsteady
flow simulation.
Wilson Basins

Plan: Unsteady Flow 100-yr Hydrograph

Wils on Bas ins Basins
Legend

2920

WS Max WS
Crit Max WS

2900

Ground
Left Levee

Elevation (ft)

2880

2860

2840

2820

500

1000

1500

2000

2335
2388
2468
2544
2615

2100
2246

1600
1746
1807
1869
1939
2007

1486

1405

1272

1100

869
945
1003

759

2780

650

59
132
200
250
300
370
450
500
550

2800

2500

Main Channel Dis tance (ft)

Figure 9. Maximum Water Surface Elevations in the Wilson Basins Reach.

It is important to note that all the inline culverts (through the inline levees) between the
basins were assumed fully functional in order to provide minimum freeboard. Therefore,
these culverts need to be inspected regularly to ensure their unobstructed operation.
Also, the inline levees were found necessary for the peak flow attenuation (routing)
between the basins.

FEMA Levee Certification

1259

CONCLUSION
WEST Consultants, Inc. has conducted hydrologic, hydraulic, and scour analyses for the
San Bernardino County Levee Certification Project. Each levee presented its own
challenge in terms of data availability and study approach. A detailed hydrologic
analysis (using HEC-HMS) of the watershed contributing to each watercourse along the
levee was in most cases necessary to estimate the 100-year (base) flow and/or to verify
existing flow information. The hydraulic analyses (performed using HEC-RAS) were
important to verify levee freeboard or identify levees that are entrenched. The results of
the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were also used to evaluate sedimentation and
potential scour problems at the levee toes, address any interior flooding issues, and
provide necessary input for geotechnical stability analyses (depth and duration of flow
against the levee). All the analyses were required to identify levees that are in
compliance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.10 in order to
remove their Provisionally Accredited Status (PAL). The levees that did not meet
FEMAs regulations will be either repaired or decertified. The consequences of levee
decertification include mandatory flood insurance, floodplain management requirements,
and change in property value and tax bases for properties behind the levee.
REFERENCES
Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Study, San
Bernardino County, California, and Incorporated Areas. January 17, 1997.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling Extension
HEC-GeoHMS Users Manual. Version 1.1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, December 2003.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-GeoRAS GIS Tools for support of HECRAS using ArcGIS Users Manual. Version 4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, September 2005.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-HMS Hydrologic Modeling System
Users Manual. Version 3.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, California, September 2008.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-RAS River Analysis System Users
Manual. Version 4.0, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center,
Davis, California, March 2008.
National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44
Emergency Management and Assistance. Revised October 1, 2003.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200344
San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). Hydrology Manual. August
1986.

1260

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

WEST Consultants (2009). San Bernardino County FEMA Levee Certification NonFederal Levees Phase II, Hydraulic Report, Banana Basin Levee ID 103, prepared for
HDR Engineering, August 2009.
WEST Consultants (2009). San Bernardino County FEMA Levee Certification NonFederal Levees Phase II, Hydraulic Report, Ely Basins Levee IDs 29a, 29b, and 29c,
prepared for HDR Engineering, August 2009.
WEST Consultants (2009). San Bernardino County FEMA Levee Certification NonFederal Levees Phase II, Hydraulic Report, Wilson Basins Levee ID 90, prepared for
HDR Engineering, August 2009.

FEMA Levee Certification

1261