Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 295–319 | Cite as

Wildlife and Safety of Earthen Structures: A Review

  • Ahmed Bayoumi
  • Mohamed A. Meguid


A wide range of nuisance wildlife dwells in proximity to and within earthen dams and levee systems. Burrowing animals often dig tunnels and holes inside earth structures for habitat or grub and flatten the external slopes for maneuvering and in search for food or preys. Other animals and cattle have less invasive effects on earthen structures. Most of these detrimental activities result in altering external and internal geometry of earthen structures. Damage caused by wildlife in earthen hydraulic structures is typically associated with internal and external erosion and sometimes boils. Animal burrows have an adverse impact on the hydraulic performance and structural integrity of the earthen dams. In addition to their direct damage, wildlife activities could have serious influence on human life, public health and safety, agriculture, food chain, environmental balance, and ecology. Several federal, state, and local agencies in the United States and other agencies and organizations worldwide have reported information on observed wildlife activities in earth dams and levee systems. This information, however, is generally incomprehensive and often sparsely published in local periodicals and maintenance reports. The consequences of animal presence and their activities on earthen structures are recognized by some involved agencies; however, they appear to be generally given disproportionate attention. As such, the majority of the pertinent literature addresses wildlife damage to earthen structures as a nuisance issue that require more efficient management plans and proper maintenance procedures. This review article summarizes published articles as well as internet cited material on nuisance wildlife behavior in earth dams and levee systems. More emphasis is placed on the animals that pose imminent threats to the performance and functionality of earthen structures. Common characteristics of animal burrows and intrusions in earthen dams are discussed and summarized. Documented damages and reported failures of earth structures initiated by animal activities are compiled. Current wildlife management techniques are discussed. Available estimates of cost of damages and failures due to wildlife intrusions are also highlighted.


Animal burrows Earthen structures Hydraulic performance Structural integrity 


  1. 1.
    FEMA, Technical Manual for Dam Owners: Impacts of Animals on Earthen Dams, pp: 1–115. Management Agency (FEMA) and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. FEMA 534/September 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tobin, M.E., Michael, W., Fall, M.W.: Pest control: rodents. wildlife damage management, Internet Center for USDA National Wildlife Research Center—Staff Publications. University of Nebraska—Lincoln Year 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blach, M., Jurist, K., Morton, S.: U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Region IX. Anticipating California Levee Failure: Government response strategies for protecting natural resources from freshwater oil spills. Accessed September 20, 2010
  4. 4.
    Marks, D., Tschantz, B.A.: A Technical Manual on the Effects of Tree and Woody Vegetation Root Penetrations on the Safety Of Earthen Dams. Compiled by: Marks Enterprises of NC, Arden, North Carolina 28704, December 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hester, G., Kirby, H.K., Inamine, M., Lee, R., Bartlett, J., Sin, Y., Jimenez, M., Yang, J., Fougeres, D., Ugarte, N.: 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan—Levee Performance Scope Definition—Work Group Summary Report. November 2009. The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, State of California (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berentsen, A.R., Salmon, T.P.: The structure of California ground squirrel burrows: control Implications. Transact. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 37, 66–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harder, L.F.: Testimony Before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment May 19, 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fell, R., Wan, C.F., Cyganiewicz, J., Foster, M.: Time for development of internal erosion and piping in embankment dams. J. Geotechn. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 129(4), 307–314 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCook, D.K.: A comprehensive discussion of piping and internal erosion failure mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Phoenix, Arizona, September 26–30, 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reichman, O.J., Smith, S.C.: Burrows and burrowing behavior by mammals, Chap. 5. In: Genoways, H.H. (ed.) Current Mammalogy, pp. 197–244. Plenum Press, New York, London (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laundre’, J.W., Reynolds, T.D.: Effects of soil structure on burrow characteristics of five small mammal species. Great Basin Nat. 53(4), 358–366 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lawrence, C.S.: Morphology and Incidence of Yabby (Cherax albidus) Burrows in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 129, pp. 1–26 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chamberlain, P.A.: Armadillos: problems and control. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection. Proceedings of the 9th Vertebrate Pest Conference (1980). University of Nebraska—Lincoln Year (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanson, G.J., Tejral, R.D., Hunt, S.L., Temple, O.M.: Internal Erosion and Impact of Erosion Resistance. Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds. Accessed September 22 (2010)
  15. 15.
    Seabloom, E.W., Reichman, O.J.: The effect of hillslope angle on pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrow geometry. Oecologia 125, 26–34 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichman, O.J., Aitchison, S.: Mammal trails on mountain slopes: optimal paths in relation to slope angle and body weight. Am. Nat. 117(3), 416–420 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vleck, D.: Burrow structure and foraging costs in the fossorial rodent (Thomomys bottae). Oecologia 49, 391–396 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    BDOC Staff, Delta Levee and Channel Repair and Maintenance Issues. Assisted by: Frank Wernette, Anna Hegedus, and Ed Littrell. Accessed September 4 (2010)
  19. 19.
    CECW-CE, 2007. Treatment of Vegetation within Local Flood-Damage-Reduction Systems. Prepared 20 April 2007. Accessed September 9 (2010)
  20. 20.
    J. Dunn, Sacramento Levees Challenges for the Future. USACE, South Pacific Division. Accessed Sep 17, 2010 (2007)
  21. 21.
    Reynolds, T.D., Wakkinen, W.L.: Characteristics of burrows of four species of rodents in undisturbed soils in southeastern Idaho. Am. Midl. Nat. 118(2), 245–250 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D Van Troostwijk, W.J.: Muskrat Control in The Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the 8th Vertebrate Pest Conference University of Nebraska—Lincoln Year 1978. Wildlife Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, The Hague, The Netherlands (1978)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clevenger, C.E.: Mississippi Earthen Dams and the Beaver “Beavers and Earthen Dams Don’t Mix.” ASDSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on “Plant and Animal Penetrations of Earthfilled Dams”, November 30–December 2, 1999, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woodward, D.K., Mayfield, S.M.: A Survey of ASDSO/ICODS Representatives on Animal Damage to Earthfilled Dams and Appurtenances. ASDSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on “Plant and Animal Penetrations of Earthfilled Dams”, November 30–December 2, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    New York’s Wildlife Resources Publication, Muskrat. New York’s Wildlife Resources Publication—an extension publication of the department of natural resources. New York state college of agriculture and life sciences. A statutory college of the state university at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Number 19 (1984)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kadlec, R.H., Priesb, J., Mustar, H.: Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) in treatment wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 29, 143–153 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bangerter, L.R.: A Cooperative Approach to Resolving a Marmot Damage Problem in an Urban Recreational Site. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences, 6th Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    USACE, Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankments, and Appurtenant Structures, 43 pp (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    LeBlanc, D.J.: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage—Nutria. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1994Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jojola, S., Witmer, G., Nolte, D., Nutria: an invasive rodent pest or valued resource? In: D.L. Nolte, K.A. Fagerstone (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. 2005, pp. 120–126 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sementelli, A., Smith, H.T., Meshaka, W.E., Engeman, R.M.: Just Green Iguanas? The associated costs and policy implications of exotic invasive wildlife in South Florida. Public Works Manage. Policy 12(4), 599–606 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thayer, D.: Written Testimony on Oversight Hearing “How to Constrict Snakes and Other Invasive Species”. Department of Vegetation and Land Management, South Florida Water Management District. Accessed on July (2010)
  33. 33.
    Witmer, G.W., Engeman, R.M.: Subterranean Rodents as Pests: The Case of the Pocket Gopher. Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for USDA National Wildlife Research Center—Staff Publications. University of Nebraska—Lincoln (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hegdal, P.L., Harbour, A.J.: Prevention and Control of Animal Damage to Hydraulic Structures. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC (1991)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Bell Report—International Edition, 2010. Hollandse Delta protects dikes and tulips from rats with Bell’s TOMCATBLOX. Vol. 13, No. 3, July–September (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Camici, S., Moramarco, T., Brocca, L., Melone, F., Lapenna, V., Perrone, A., Loperte, A.: On mechanisms triggering the levee failure along the Foenna stream on 1st January 2006 and which caused the flooding in the urban area of Sinalunga, Tuscany Region (Italy). A case study. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 12, 12037 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ali, A.M., Hafez, H.: Proceedings of the 7th Vertebrate Pest Conference University of Nebraska—Lincoln Year 1976. Wildlife and Vertebrate Pests, in Egypt, (1976)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fishar, M.R.: Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) In River Nile, Egypt—Case Study. National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, Z., Chen, A., Ning, Z., Huang, X.: In: Singleton, G., Hinds, L., Leirs, H., Zhang, Z (eds.) Ecologically-based management of rodent pests. Section 3 case studies in Asia and Africa. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra 1999. Accessed September 18, 2010 (1999)
  40. 40.
    Fall, M.W., Jackson, W.B.: A new era of vertebrate pest control? An introduction. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 42(3), 85–91 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Feldhamer, G.A., Thompson, B.C., Chapman, J.A.: Wild mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, 2nd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hill, E.P.: Beaver. In: Chapman, J.A., Feldhamer, G.A. (eds.) Wild Mammals of North America, pp. 256–281. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London (1982)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller, J.E., Yarrow, G.K.: Beavers. In: Timm, R.M. (ed.) Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee and Nebraska Cooperation Extension Services, pp. B1–B11. University of Nebraska, Lincoln (1994)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller, J.E.: Beaver damage control. In: Proceedings Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Work. 2, pp. 23–27 (1975)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fitzgerald, W.S., Thompson, R.A.: Problems Associated With Beaver In Stream Or Floodway Management. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Collection. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp. 190–195 (1988)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hammerson, G.A.: Beaver (Caster canadensis) ecosystem alterations, management and monitoring. Nat. Areas J. 14, 44–57 (1994)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jensen, P.G., Curtis, P.D., Hamelin, D.L. Managing Nuisance Beavers Along Roadsides. A Guide for Highway Department, Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1999Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Olson, R., Hubert, W.A.: Beaver: water resources and riparian habitat manager, p. 48. University of Wyoming Press, Laramie (1994)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buech, R.R.: Beaver in water impoundments: Understanding a problem of water level management. In: Knighton, M.D. (ed.) Proceedings, Water Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat Management Workshop, pp. 95–105. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, General Technical Report NC-100 (1985)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Basey, J.M.: Foraging behavior of beaver (Castor Canadensis), plant secondary compounds, and management concerns. In: Busher, P.E., Dzieciolowski, R.M. (eds.) Beaver Potection, Management, and Utilization in Europe and North America, pp. 129–146. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kieth, J.O., Hansen, R.M., Ward, A.L.: Changes in abundance and food habits of pocket gophers following treatment of range with 2, 4-D. J. Wildl. Manage. 23(2), 14–137 (1959)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tietjen, H.P., Halvorsen, C.H., Hegdal, P.L., Johnson, A.M.: 2,4-D herbicide, vegetation, and pocket gopher relationships Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology 48, 634–643 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Witmer, G.W., Matschke, G.H., Campbell, D.L.: Field trials of pocket gopher control with cholecalciferol. Crop Prot. 14, 307–309 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    O’Neil, T.: The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes, 152 pp. Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fishery, New Orleans (1949)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Errington, P.L.: Muskrats and Marsh Management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1961)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    eXtension, Muskrat damage management, 2008. Accessed June 1, 2010
  57. 57.
    Wilson, K.: Investigation on the effects of controlled water levels upon muskrat production. In: Proceedings of the Southeastern Association Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 3–7 (1949)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wilson, K.: Fur production on southeastern coastal marshes. In: J.D. Newsom (ed.) Proceedings of the Marsh and Estuary management symposium, pp. 149–162. Division of Continuing Educ., Louisiana State University, 1968Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Clark, W.R.: Habitat selection by muskrats in experimental marshes undergoing succession. Can. J. Zool. 72, 675–680 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Friend, M., Cummings, G.E., Morse, J.S.: Effects of changes in winter water levels on muskrat weights and harvest at the Monte- zuma National Wildlife Refuge. N.Y. Fish Game J. 11, 125–131 (1964)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Proulx, G., McDonnell, J.A., Gilbert, F.F.: The effect of water level fluctuations on muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus, predation by mink, Mustela vison. Can. Field Nat. 101, 89–92 (1987)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Virgil, J.A., Messier, F.: Population structure, distribution, and demography of muskrats during the ice-free period under contrasting water fluctuations. Ecoscience 3, 54–62 (1996)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Van Vuren, D., Kuenzi, A.J., Leoredo, I., Leider, A.L., Morrison, M.L.: Translocation as a nonlethal alternative for managing California ground squirrels. J. Wildl. Manage. 61, 351–359 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stroud, D.C.: An Evaluation of Burrow Destruction as a Ground Squirrel Control Method. Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings (1983)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    DWR, How a Delta Earthquake Could Devastate California’s Economy. Department of Water Resources. November (2005)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Olkowski, W., Olkwski, H., Daar, S.: Making the transition to an integrated pest management program for ground squirrel on DWR Levees. Report to Division of Planning, p. 125. Department of Water Resources, Berkley, CA (1978)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fitzgerald, W.S., Marsh, R.E.: Potential of Vegetation Management for Ground Squirrel Control. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Collection, Proceedings of the 12th Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp. 102–107 (1986)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    McKinstry, M.C., Anderson, S.H.: Using snares to live-capture beaver, Castor canadensis. Can. Field Nat. 112, 469–473 (1998)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Proulx, G.: Evaluation of strychnine and zinc phosphide baits to control northern pocket gophers, Thomomys talpoides. Canadian Field-Naturalist 11, 640–643 (1998)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Barnes, V.G., Martin, P., Tietjen, H.P.: Pocket gopher control on ponderosa pine plantations. J. For. 68, 433–435 (1970)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tickes, B.R., Cheatheam, L.K., Stair, J.L.: A comparison of selected rodenticides for the control of the common Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). In: Marsh, R.E. (ed.) Proceedings Tenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp. 201–204. University of California, Davis, CA (1982)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Marsh, R.E.: Reflections on current (1992) pocket gopher control in California. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 15, 289–295 (1992)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Deems, E.F., Pursley, D. (eds.) North American furbearers: their management, research and harvest status in 1976: International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Administration: College Park, University of Maryland, University Press, 165 p (1978)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Miller, J.E.: Muskrat damage control. In: Proceedings Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Work. 2, pp. 17–22 (1975)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Marsh, R.E.: Historical review of ground squirrel corp damage in California. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 42, 93–99 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    El Hani, A., Mason, J.R., Nolte, D.L., Schmidt, R.H.: Flavor avoidance learning and its implications in reducing strychnine baiting hazards to non-target animals. Physiol. Behav. 64, 585–589 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hegdal, P.L., Fagerstone, K.A., Gatz, T.A., Glahn, J.F., Matschkf, G.H.: Hazards to wildlife associated with 1080 baiting for California ground squirrels. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14, 11–21 (1986)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Marsh, R.E.: Current ground squirrel control practices in California. In: Halverson, W.S., Crabb, A.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Vertebrate Pest Conference, vol. 16, pp. 61–65, 1–3 March, Santa Clara, California, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Matschke, G.H., Marsh, M.P., Otis, D.L.: Efficacy of zinc phosphide broadcast baiting for controlling Richardson’s ground squirrel on rangeland. J. Range Manag. 36, 504–506 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Anderson, N., Ismail, A.: A generalized protocol for selecting appropriate geophysical techniques. Geophysical Technologies for Detecting Underground Coal Mine Voids Forum, July 28–30, 2003—Lexington, Kentucky (2003)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Benson, R.C., Yuhr, L., Kaufmann, R.D.: Some considerations for selection and successful application of surface geophysical methods. In the 3rd International Conference on Applied Geophysics, Hotel Royal Plaza, Orlando, Florida, December 8–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Butler, D.K.: Microgravimetric and gravity gradient techniques for the detection of subsurface cavities. Geophysics 49, 1084–1096 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lagabrielle, R.: Sciences de la terre et exploration archéologique. In: Marinos, Koukis (eds.) Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments and Historical Sites, pp. 1909–1914. Balkema, Rotterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Roth Jr., M.J.S., Mackey, J.R., Mackey, C., Nyquist, J.E.: A case study of the reliability of multielectrode earth resistivity testing for geotechnical investigations in karst terrains. Eng. Geol. 65, 225–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Branham, K.L., Steeples, D.W.: Cavity detection using high-resolution seismic reflection methods. Min. Eng. 40(2), 115–119 (1988)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bachrach, R., Nur, A.: High resolution shallow seismic experiments in sand: Part I—water table, fluid flow and saturation. Geophysics 63, 1225–1233 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fullagar, P.K., Livleybrooks, D.: Trial of tunnel radar for cavity and ore detection in the Sudbury mining camp. Ontario. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, pp. 883–894. Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research: Waterloo, Canada (1994)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Szynkiewicz, A.: GPR monitoring of earthen flood banks/levees. In: Eighth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4084, pp. 85–90 (2000)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kinlaw, A.E., Conyers, L., Zajac, W.: Use Of ground penetrating radar to image burrows of the Gopher Tortoise (Gopher polyphemus). Herpetol. Rev. 38(1), 50–55 (2007)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Di Prinzio, M., Bittelli, M., Castellarin, A., Pisa, P.R.: Application of GPR to the monitoring of river embankments. J. Appl. Geophys. 71, 53–61 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Agri-Facts Government of Alberta, Accessed on July 15 (2002)
  92. 92.
    Rocque Jr., A.J.: Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of Dams. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Available at Accessed September 23, 2010 (2001)
  93. 93.
    Texas Commission on Environment Quality (TCEQ) Guidelines for operation and maintenance of dams in Texas, pp. 65–72 (2006)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Resio, D., Boc, S., Maynord, S., Ward, D., Abraham, D., Dudeck, W., Welsh, B.: Development and Demonstration of Rapid Repair of Levee Breaching Technology, p. 124. Report to Development of Homeland Security (2009)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Moss, R.E.S., Eller, J.M.: Estimating the Probability of Failure and Associated Risk of the California Bay Delta Levee System. GeoDenver, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 170, Special Issue on Probabilistic Application in Geotechnical Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Suddeth, R.J., Mount, J., Lund, J.R.: Levee decisions and sustainability for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Slogar, B.: Animal Penetrations Into Earthen Embankments. ASDSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on “Plant and Animal Penetrations of Earthfilled Dams”, pp. 189–193, November 30–December 2, 1999, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    CBS News, 2008. Missouri Citizens Scramble As Levee Breaks. Accessed September 19 (2010)
  99. 99.
    Schnabel, D.L.: Comments of The California Department of Food and Agriculture on The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Document Titled “Analysis of Rodenticide Bait Use”. In Response to: Federal Register Vol. 69, Number 183, pages 56756-56758 Rodenticides; Availability of Revised Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment. Submitted to: Docket OPP-2004-0033, January 14, 2005Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Schmutte, C., Porterfield, R., Forsythe, W., Yomogida, S.: Delta Levee and Channel Management Issues - General Issues Related to the Physical Integrity of Delta Levees. California Department of water resources, division of planning, Delta Planning Branch. Accessed August 13 (2010)
  101. 101.
    County of San Joaquin, Jones Tract flooding update. County of San Joaquin, Office of Emergency Services. Accessed September 28 (2010)
  102. 102.
    Souza, C.: Levee break floods San Joaquin County farms. California Farm Bureau Federation. Issued June 9, 2004. Accessed September 19, 2010 (2004)
  103. 103.
    Gillam, C.: Missouri Levee Breaks at U.S. Flooding Continues. Accessed July 15, 2010 (2008)
  104. 104.
    Harder, L.F.: Inspection of Levee Distress and Breaches During the Spring 2008 Midwest Flood. The Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) presentation on Nov 10, 2009Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Department of Ecology—State of Washington Iowa Beef Processors Waste Pond. Accessed August 19 (2010)
  106. 106.
    Kolo, T.V.: Hundreds of Homes Flooded by Ruptured Levee. Accessed July 19, 2010 (2008)
  107. 107.
    USA Today, Nev. Levee Break Floods Hundreds of Homes. Accessed July 19, 2010 (2008)
  108. 108.
    Benjamin, J.R.: Preliminary Seismic Risk Analysis Associated with Levee Failures in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc., in association with Resource Management Associates and Economic Insights June (2005)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Lund, J., Hanak, E., Fleenor, W., Howitt, R., Mount, J., Moyle, P.: The Future of the Delta as an Aquatic Ecosystem - Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Public Policy Institute of California. ISBN: 978-1-58213-126-9. TD225.D29E58 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    URS Corporation, Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Phase 1—Risk Analysis Report, prepared by URS and Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. For California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Summary of Section 9, Sunny-Day Risk Analysis corporation, Posted—March 2009. Accessed September 15, 2010 (2008)
  111. 111.
    Morris, D.: Special Report: Dam Disaster Ahead. Accessed August 10, 2010
  112. 112.
    Mullins, C.K.: Sludge Spill Stirs Concerns in Kentucky. Accessed July 18, 2010 (2008)
  113. 113.
    Shrum, P., Madsen, M.: Catastrophic Failure of the Bonneville Dam. Accessed September 23, 2010 (2009)
  114. 114.
    Logan, T.: State Legislators Don’t Give A Dam About The Ct River Valley—Ban on Trapping Threatens Integrity of Connecticut River Flood Protection Dikes.,%202009.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2010 (2009)
  115. 115.
    McClelland, D.E.: Wildlife Damage to Earthen Dams, Dikes, Levees, and Related Structures. ASSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on “Animal Borrows and Vegetation on USDA Forest Service Dams”, November 30–December 3, 1999, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Bjugstad, A.J.: Rodent Management on the Northern High Plains. Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings at University of Nebraska—Lincoln Year (1983)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Notle, D.L., Owens, R.D.: Wildlife Services Activities to Prevent Animal Penetration to Earthen Dams. In: Miller, J.E. (ed.) Wildlife Damage to Earthen Dams, Dikes, Levees, and Related Structures. ASDSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on “Plant and Animal Penetrations of Earth-filled Dams,” pp. 124–141, November 30–December 3, 1999, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Bishop, L., Styles, P., Emsley, S.J., Ferguson, N.S.: The detection of cavities using the microgravity technique: case histories from mining and karstic environments. In: McCann, D.M., Fenning, P.J., Reeves, G.M. (eds.) Modern Geophysics in Engineering Geology. Geological Society, London (1997)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Linford, N.T.: Geophysical survey at Boden Vean, Cornwall, including an assessment of the microgravity technique for the location of suspected archaeological void features. Archaeometry 40, 187–216 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Mickus, K.: The gravity method in engineering and environmental applications. In: 3rd International Conference on Applied Geophysics, Hotel Royal Plaza, Orlando, Florida, December 8–12, 2003Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Smith, D.L., Smith, G.L.: Use of vertical gravity gradient analyses to detect near-surface dissolution voids in karst terrains. In: Beck, B.F., Wilson, W.L. (eds.) Karst Hydrology: Engineering and Environmental Applications, pp. 205–210. Rotterdam, Balkema (1987)Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Manzanilla, L., Barba, L., Cha′vez, R., Tejero, A., Cifuentes, G., Peralta, N.: Caves and geophysics: an approximation to the underworld of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Archaeometry 36, 141–157 (1994)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Noel, M., Xu, B.: Cave detection using electrical resistivity tomography. Cave Sci. 19, 91–94 (1992)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Inazaki, T., Yamanaka, Y., Kawamura, S., Tazawa, O.: High-resolution seismic reflection survey using Land Streamers for near-surface cavity detection. In: Proceedings of 7th SEGJ International Symposium, pp. 475–480. November 24–26, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan (2004)Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Miller, R.D., Steeples, D.W.: Detecting voids in a 0.6-m coal seam, 7 m deep, using seismic reflection. Geoexploration 28, 109–119 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Washington Dept. of Ecology. Accessed September 13, 2010
  127. 127.
    Hansen, D.T.: Risk Analysis, GIS and Arc Schematics: California Delta Levees. Presented by David T. Hansen at the ESRI User Conference, 2008, San Diego California, August 6, 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Ohio Emergency Management Agency. Accessed August 23 (2010)
  129. 129.
    Washington Dept. of Ecology. Accessed September 21, 2010
  130. 130.
    McCann, M.W.: Plant and Animal Penetrations of Dams Incidents. ASSO/FEMA Specialty Workshop on Plant & animal Penetrations of EarthFilled Dams on USDA Forest Service Dams, November 30–December 3, 1999, University of Tennessee Conference Center, Knoxville, TN (1999)Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Mierzwa, M., Suits, B.: Jones Tract, Levee Break DSM2 Simulation. Methodology for Flow and Salinity Estimates in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. 26th Annual Progress Report, October 2005. (2005)
  132. 132.
    Hensley, P.J., Delp, J.L.: Truckee Canal Issue Evaluation. Truckee Canal Headworks and Derby Diversion Dam. Design, Estimating and Construction Review. Newlands Project, Nevada. Mid-Pacific Region. Accessed September 6, 2010 (2008)
  133. 133.
    Fishar, M.R.: Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) In River Nile, Egypt—Case Study. The Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed September 17 (2010)
  134. 134.
    Howard, W.E., Childs, H.E.: Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae mewa. Hilgardia 29, 277–358 (1959)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    NAFSMA, National Levee Safety Issues-Testimony of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agency, 8 pp. Available at: Accessed September 10, 2010 (2007)

Copyright information

© ASM International 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ardaman and Associates, IncJeffersonUSA
  2. 2.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations