DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 East Bay Municipal Utility District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan EBMUD – 2016 Executive Summary Hazard Mitigation is commonly defined as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to human life and property from hazards.” A hazard mitigation plan identifies the hazards a community or region faces, assesses their vulnerability to the hazards, and identifies mitigation actions that can be taken to reduce the risk. A hazard mitigation plan is most effective when it is developed before a disaster occurs and formulated through a systematic process centered on the participation of citizens, businesses, public officials, and other community stakeholders. The East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2016 LHMP) is an update to its 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011 LHMP) and reflects EBMUD’s most current system upgrades, improvements, and mitigation measures to reduce the community’s exposure to hazards and to improve the reliability of its services to the public. The 2016 LHMP is organized as follows: Chapter 2 – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Overview – details the process EBMUD used to assess and analyze the hazards to which EBMUD is most vulnerable, including its participation in regional and local meetings and forums for mitigation planning and information sharing. This section identifies how the public and other stakeholders were involved and includes a detailed summary of the key meetings held with associated outcomes. Chapter 3 – EBMUD Goals and Objectives – provides a brief profile of EBMUD, including its service area, mission, goals, and priorities. Chapter 4 – EBMUD Facilities – provides an overview of EBMUD’s Water Supply and Wastewater Facilities, including its dams, reservoir tanks, pumping plants, transmission/distribution pipelines, water and wastewater treatment facilities, regulators, and rate control stations, Mokelumne Aqueduct, and Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs. Chapter 5 – The Identified Hazards – builds on available historical data and establishes detailed profiles for each of the primary hazards impacting EBMUD’s service area – five related to earthquakes (faulting, shaking, earthquake induced landslides, liquefaction, and tsunami), and four related to weather (flooding, landslides, wildfires, and drought). The 2016 LHMP updates the 2011 LHMP by adding climate change, terrorism, and fires. Chapter 6 – Vulnerability Assessment – summarizes the risks to each facility type listed in Chapter 4. In particular, it assesses the exposure and vulnerability of the identified hazards and summarizes the impact and estimated loss by facility type. These risk assessments collectively contribute to the development, adoption, and implementation of a meaningful and functional mitigation strategy based on accurate background information. i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan EBMUD – 2016 Chapter 7 – Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions – describes the specific mitigation actions, capital improvements, and other measures EBMUD has undertaken and/or will undertake to address the identified risks for each facility type. Chapter 8 – The 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – includes the measures that EBMUD will take to monitor, evaluate, and update the 2016 LHMP to ensure continuous long-term implementation and to regularly evaluate and update the 2016 LHMP to remain a current and meaningful planning document. Chapter 9 – Mitigation Plan Point of Contact – provides EBMUD staff contact information for the 2016 LHMP. A draft copy of this plan will be published on our webpage for public comments in advance of the October 11 EBMUD Planning Committee meeting and will be considered for approval by the EBMUD Board of Directors on October 25, 2016. ii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan EBMUD – 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Overview............................................................................. 2 2.1. Purpose of the 2016 LHMP .......................................................................................... 2 2.2. Plan Overview ............................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Integration of Local and State/County Mitigation Efforts ............................................ 3 2.4. Integration with EBMUD Master Plans ........................................................................ 4 2.5. Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 5 2.5.1. The Regional Planning Process ........................................................................... 5 2.5.2. The Local Planning Process ................................................................................. 8 2.6. Public Involvement ....................................................................................................... 8 3. EBMUD Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. 9 3.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 9 3.2. EBMUD Profile ............................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Vision and Mission ..................................................................................................... 10 3.4. Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 10 3.5. EBMUD Capital Improvement Program .................................................................... 11 3.6. EBMUD Priorities ...................................................................................................... 11 4. EBMUD Facilities ................................................................................................................ 12 4.1. Water Supply and Distribution Facilities .................................................................... 12 4.1.1. EBMUD Facilities within the Bay Area ............................................................ 12 4.1.1.1. Dams ......................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1.2. Reservoir Tanks ........................................................................................ 14 4.1.1.3. Pumping Plants ......................................................................................... 15 4.1.1.4. Transmission/Distribution Pipelines ......................................................... 15 4.1.1.5. Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................ 15 4.1.1.6. Regulators and Rate Control Stations ....................................................... 16 4.1.2. EBMUD Facilities Outside the Bay Area .......................................................... 17 iii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan EBMUD – 2016 4.1.2.1. Mokelumne Aqueducts ............................................................................. 17 4.1.2.2. Pardee Reservoir ....................................................................................... 18 4.1.2.3. Camanche Reservoir ................................................................................. 20 4.2. Wastewater Facilities .................................................................................................. 20 4.2.1. Main Wastewater Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 21 4.2.2. Wet Weather Facilities ....................................................................................... 21 4.2.3. Interceptor Pipelines .......................................................................................... 22 4.2.4. Pump Stations .................................................................................................... 22 5. Identified Hazards ............................................................................................................... 22 5.1. Hazard Identification Background .............................................................................. 22 5.2. Earthquake Hazard ...................................................................................................... 23 5.2.1. Earthquake Hazard Background ........................................................................ 23 5.2.1.1. Surface Fault Rupture Hazard ................................................................... 24 5.2.1.2. Strong Ground Shaking............................................................................. 25 5.2.1.3. Earthquake Induced Liquefaction ............................................................. 26 5.2.1.4. Earthquake Induced Landslides ................................................................ 27 5.2.1.5. Tsunami..................................................................................................... 27 5.2.2. Earthquake Event History .................................................................................. 28 5.2.3. Earthquake Event Future Potential .................................................................... 29 5.3. Flood Hazard ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report
    Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report July 2013 Prepared by: Jacobs Associates 465 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Distribution To: Bilgin Atalay East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, CA 94607 From: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Todd Crampton, CEG AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Reviewed By: Michael T. McRae, DEng, PE, GE Jacobs Associates Jacobs Associates -ii- Rev. No. 1 / July 2013 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Tunnel Inspections and Evaluation of Seepage .............................................................................. 7 4.1 Previous Tunnel Inspections ............................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Tunnel Inspection, 1962 ......................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Tunnel Inspection, 1982 (from the EBMUD 2003 Seepage Report) ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Walter R. Mclean Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7779n9g3 No online items Walter R. McLean papers Processed by the Water Resources Collections and Archives staff. Special Collections & University Archives The UCR Library P.O. Box 5900 University of California Riverside, California 92517-5900 Phone: 951-827-3233 Fax: 951-827-4673 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/libraries/special-collections-university-archives © 2008 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Walter R. McLean papers WRCA 077 1 Descriptive Summary Title: Walter R. McLean papers Date (bulk): bulk 1930-1968 Collection Number: WRCA 077 Extent: 19 linear feet40 boxes Repository: Rivera Library. Special Collections Department. Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Languages: English. Access Collection is open for research. Publication Rights Copyright has not been assigned to the Water Resources Collections and Archives. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Director of Distinctive Collections. Permission for publication is given on behalf of the Water Resources Collections and Archives as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the reader. Preferred Citation [identification of item], [date if possible]. Walter R. McLean papers (WRCA 077). Water Resources Collections and Archives. Special Collections & University Archives, University of California, Riverside. Biographical Information Walter Reginald McLean, the son of Walter Reginald and Sarah Jane (Patterson) McLean, was born on July 16, 1903 in the town of Broderick in Yolo County, California. His distinguished career embraces fifty-three years of service to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, plus fifteen years as a consultant to water-related projects in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2018 Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct Sara Chalian San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Chalian, Sara, "Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct" (2018). Master's Theses. 4895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.a7y5-fy24 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4895 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Sara Chalian May 2018 © 2018 Sara Chalian ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY May 2018 Laura Sullivan-Green, Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Manny Gabet, Ph.D. Geology Department Yogesh Prashar, P.E., G.E. Associate Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian The East Bay Municipal Utility District provides water to the eastern region of the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area
    Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area NPS California Science Project The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves ~1.3 million people in a 332 square mile region. The population is the service area is expected to increase to ~1.6 million by 2030. EBMUD is a publicly owned utility established in 1921 by the California Legislature to provide EBMUD water service. EBMUD serves 20 cities and unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. 90% of EBMUD water comes from the protected Mokelumne River watershed. This 627 square mile watershed is located NE of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on the western slopes of the Sierra. EBMUD Snowmelt and runoff from parts of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties contribute to the Mokelumne watershed. EBMUD Most of the watershed is protected and undeveloped - consists of open space and forest land. EBMUD The waters of the Mokelumne River are collected in the Pardee Reservoir by the Pardee Dam (38 miles NE of Stockton). Its capacity is equivalent to a 10- month supply for 1.3 million customers. This reservoir has a maximum capacity of 10 months water supply for EBMUD EBMUD Drinking water supplied to the East Bay is transferred from the Pardee Reservoir by the 2.2 mile Pardee tunnel to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The Mokelumne Aqueducts transport water 82 miles to the East Bay. The Aqueducts consist of 3 steel pipelines ranging in diameter from 5 feet 5 inches to 7 feet 3 inches in diameter. The Aqueducts carry 200 million gallons/day (MGD) by gravity flow but can be increased to 325 MGD with pumping.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology, Water Supply, and Power Chapter 3 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Power
    Chapter 3 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Power Chapter 3 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Power Affected Environment California’s flood control, water supply, and hydropower generation systems are intricately linked together through physical and institutional arrangements. Water supply diversions, as proposed for this project, have effects throughout the system of river, reservoir, groundwater, and water quality management operations. The State Water Project (SWP) and CVP provide a majority of the water storage and conveyance capacity of the system in combination with a numerous smaller systems that are operated by water supply and agricultural entities. Therefore, forecasting and planning for annual water supply, demand, and delivery functions are influenced with each additional project that serves to use water from the system. Consequently, the following section provides an overview of the major northern California water storage and conveyance facilities. The “Affected Environment” section describes the hydrologic and water supply conditions in the Sacramento and Mokelumne River basins and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Each of the project alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) under consideration has the potential to change the timing, location, and volume of water diverted from the CVP system. To determine the probable magnitude and effect of these changes and to evaluate the ability of the alternatives to meet FRWA’s project objectives, FRWA and Reclamation have used available technology to extensively model hydrologic conditions. This section also includes a description of the hydrologic modeling and related assumptions used for the analysis. This chapter provides information on the evaluation of river and reservoir hydrology conducted for this EIR/EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California
    Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle Abstract Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) formerly were highly abundant and widely distributed in virtually all the major streams of California’s Central Valley drainage—encompassing the Sacramento River basin in the north and San Joaquin River basin in the south. We used information from historical narratives and ethnographic accounts, fishery records and locations of in-stream natural barriers to determine the historical distributional limits and, secondarily, to describe at least qualitatively the abundances of chinook salmon within the major salmon-producing Central Valley watersheds. Indi- vidual synopses are given for each of the larger streams that histori- cally supported or currently support salmon runs. In the concluding section, we compare the historical distributional limits of chinook salmon in Central Valley streams with present-day distributions to estimate the reduction of in-stream salmon habitat that has resulted from human activities—namely, primarily the con- struction of dams and other barriers and dewatering of stream reaches. We estimated that at least 1,057 mi (or 48%) of the stream lengths historically available to salmon have been lost from the origi- nal total of 2,183 mi in the Central Valley drainage. We included in these assessments all lengths of stream that were occupied by salmon, whether for spawning and holding or only as migration cor- ridors. In considering only spawning and holding habitat (in other words, excluding migration corridors in the lower rivers), the propor- tionate reduction of the historical habitat range was far more than 48% and probably exceeded 72% because most of the former spawn- ing and holding habitat was located in upstream reaches that are now inaccessible for salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Adopted June 18, 2012
    Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Adopted June 18, 2012 Calaveras Agency Formation Commission By Burr, Stephenson and Benoit TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. VIII 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEWS ........................................................................................... 7 LAFCO OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 7 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES ............................................................................................................................ 11 3. GROWTH .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 RECENT GROWTH .................................................................................................................................................... 14 PROJECTED GROWTH ............................................................................................................................................... 16 4. WATER .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Population Trends and Escapement Estimation of Mokelumne River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha)
    Population Trends and Escapement Estimation of Mokelumne River Fall-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Joseph J. Miyamoto and Roger D. Hartwell Abstract In 1990 the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) began a pro- gram to monitor the fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshaw- ytscha) populations in the lower Mokelumne River using video and trapping at Woodbridge Dam and weekly redd surveys. Over the eight years of this monitoring program, the Mokelumne River fall-run chinook salmon escapement showed a trend of increased abundance of both hatchery and natural spawners. The 1997 estimated total spawning escapement (combined hatchery and natural run) was 10,175 compared to a spawning escapement of 497 in 1990 and the 57-year average escapement of 3,434 fish. The esti- mated natural spawning population fluctuated from a low of 369 in 1991 to a high of 3,892 fish (1,739.3 ± 1,384.9) in 1996. The percentage of natural spawners ranged between 31% to 90% (52.3 ± 19.9) of the total spawning escapement during the 1991–1997 period. Significant correlations were observed between the number of redds and total escapement (R2 = 0.941, P < 0.0001) and the hatchery returns and total spawning escapement (R2 = 0.972, P < 0.001). The later cor- relation was used to determine the accuracy of past spawning escape- ment estimates based upon a similar correlation using a narrower dataset. These results suggest accurate total spawning escapement estimates can be obtained from hatchery returns and from redd counts. Escape- ment estimates calculated from redd counts and compared with known estimates were accurate in the mid-range while those calcu- lated from hatchery returns were accurate throughout the range of run sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wsmp 2040 Water Supply Management Program 2040
    VOLUME II FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SCH # 2008052006 WSMP 2040 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2040 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OCTOBER 2009 Table of Contents Volume I 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the Response to Comments Document 1.2. Environmental Review Process 1.3. Report Organization 2. Comments and Responses 2.1. Master Responses 2.1.1 WSMP 2040 2.1.2 Program-level EIR Analysis 2.1.3 Demand Study 2.1.4 Enlarge Pardee Reservoir Component 2.2. Individual Comments and Responses 2.2.1 Federal Agencies 2.2.2 State Agencies 2.2.3 Local Agencies and Utilities 2.2.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Volume II 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Individual Letters 2.3 Comments from Public Meetings and Responses 2.3.1 Lodi 2.3.2 Sutter Creek 2.3.3 Oakland 2.3.4 Walnut Creek 2.3.5 San Andreas 2.4 Late Comments Submitted After Close of Public Review Period 2.4.1 Federal Agencies 2.4.2 State Agencies 2.4.3 Local Agencies, Utilities and Elected Officials 2.4.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Individual Letters EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments Volume III 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Handwritten Letters 2.4.6 Comments from EBMUD Board Workshop 12 3. Revisions to the WSMP 2040 Draft PEIR EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper on Restoration Needs
    WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIONS TO DOUBLE NATURAL PRODUCTION OF ANADROMOUS FISH IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA Volume 2 Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group May 9, 1995 ORGANIZATION OF THIS WORKING PAPER This is Volume 2 of three volumes that comprise the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Working Paper (AFRP) on Restoration Needs. The contents of the three volumes are as follows: Volume 1 describes how the WORKING PAPER was developed, explains the process envisioned for completing a final Restoration Plan, and summarizes the production goals, limiting factors, and restoration actions sections developed by the AFRP technical teams. Interested parties should read the letter from Dale Hall and Wayne White that appears at the beginning of Volume 1. Volume 2 provides descriptions of Central Valley rivers and streams, summarizes information on historic and existing conditions for anadromous fish, identifies the problems that have led to the decline of anadromous fish populations, and identifies roles and responsibilities of state and federal agencies in managing anadromous fish. It also includes two key documents that were used by the AFRP Core Group and technical teams to develop the WORKING PAPER. Volume 3 includes the complete production goals, limiting factors, and restoration actions sections as submitted by the AFRP technical teams and edited by USFWS staff. Volume 3 also includes citations for all three volumes of the WORKING PAPER. To request copies of this working paper, call the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program=s information line at (800) 742-9474 or (916) 979-2330 and dial extension 542 after the recorded message begins.
    [Show full text]
  • CAMP Implementation Plan Organization
    Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP) Implementation Plan A Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Effectiveness of CVPIA Actions in Restoring Anadromous Fish Production Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Central Valley Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program Ofice 33 10 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95821 Contacts: James McKevitt, CVPIA Program Manager Larry Puckett, CAMP Program Manager Prepared by: Montgomery Watson 777 Campus Commons Road, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95825 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2600 V Street, Suite 100 Sacramento. CA 958 18 CH2M HILL 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95833 March 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .......................................................... ii Executive Summary ....................................................... S- 1 Glossary ................................................................ G-1 Section 1. Introduction Background .............................................................. 1-1 CVPIA Actions ............................ .,. ..................... 1-1 Anadromous Fish Restoration Program ................................... 1-2 Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program .............................. 1-3 CAMP Assumptions .................................................. 1-4 The First Five Years of CAMP Implementation ............................. 1-4 TechnicalReview .................................................... 1-5 CAMP Implementation Plan Organization ....................................... 1-5
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Flood Storage Space at Reservoirs: a Benefit Cost Analysis for the Mokelumne River System, California
    Reducing Flood Storage Space at Reservoirs: A Benefit Cost Analysis for the Mokelumne River System, California By NATHAN ROBERT BURLEY B.A. (Pacific Lutheran University) 2007 B.S. (Washington State University) 2007 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: ___________________________ Jay R. Lund, Ph.D., Chair ___________________________ Fabian A. Bombardelli, Ph.D. ___________________________ Jeffrey F. Mount, Ph.D. Committee in Charge 2011 -i- ABSTRACT Reservoir operations are increasingly being challenged to serve the diverse and growing demand for water as hydrologic, ecologic and climatic conditions change. With the recognition of environmental benefits for reservoir-floodplain connectivity and the emergence of society’s awareness of water resource degradation, significant opportunities exist to update reservoir operations. In the past, limited benefits and the comprehensive analysis required to update these operations have hindered progress. This thesis provides an evaluation framework for new operating rules that integrates flood damage, water supply, hydropower and environmental releases for a pair of central California reservoirs. Transfer of various amounts of flood storage space to other purposes is used to increase overall net benefits in a benefit cost analysis. For small to moderate reductions in flood storage space – less than 50%, revenues from water supply and hydropower offset flood damages. Transfers of 25% and 50% improve net benefits ($380,000 /yr and $620,000 /yr) while providing increased environmental releases (17 and 45 additional releases over 81 years). Transfer of 75% of flood storage space results in decreased net benefits due to elevated flood damages (-$2.7 M/yr), but provides additional environmental releases (59 releases).
    [Show full text]