DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Annex B: Situation/Intelligence 1.0 Situation The Northern California flood scenario is a severe incident that could inundate a great portion of the Sacramento River basin and the Delta region in the Central Valley. Flooding would affect local and state governments along with millions of people requiring widespread evacuations. Infrastructure restoration could take several months. Flooding would also seriously disrupt commerce and cause more than $100 billion in damages. A weather event large enough to cause catastrophic flooding in the Delta will also have far reaching impacts affecting other areas of the state and possibly several other Western States. Exact weather and flood inundation areas are hard to predict for a flood response scenario, as local conditions (e.g. river/stream levels, reservoir conditions, snowpack levels) and storm intensity typically determine the magnitude and location of resulting flooding. However, with the current technology capabilities available to predict weather patterns, enough notice typically precedes severe weather events to allow sufficient preparedness activities to occur to help mitigate some of the damages. This plan is “risk based” versus scenario driven. The standard references for establishing the location of flood hazards are the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) floodplains, part of a national insurance system maintained under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The FIRM maps not only identify the flood hazard zones for insurance and floodplain management purposes, but also provide a statement of probability of future occurrence. To determine the impact of a catastrophic flood, planners used a risk based approach utilizing the FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) 100 and 500 year flood plains in combination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 100 and 500 year comprehensive flood plain study conducted after the 1997 floods. Both 100 year and both 500 year flood plains were combined to create the 100 and 500 year event boundaries. To determine assets at “risk” and to avoid counting assets twice, the 100 and 500 year flood plains were analyzed separately. A 100 year flood event is a flood that has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year, while a 500 year flood event has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. See Figure 1 below for a map of the flood inundation area for the 10 county planning area. Annex B: Situation/Intelligence Annex B-1 Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Figure B-1: Maximum Flood Inundation – 100 Year and 500 Year Flood Event Annex B: Situation/Intelligence Annex B-2 Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Table B-1 below depicts the total acres exposed to flooding in the 10 county planning area. Sutter County (79%) has the largest landmass exposed to flooding in a 500 year event. Table B-1: Acres Exposed to Flooding Area Exposed in Area Exposed in 100 yr Flood Zone 500 yr Flood Zone* County Total Acreage % of Area % of Area Acres Acres Exposed Exposed Butte 1.1 million 198,800 19 271,300 25 Colusa 740,000 175,300 24 229,200 31 Contra Costa 514,000 113,000 22 125,300 24 Glenn 849,100 123,300 15 133,800 16 Sacramento 636,100 119,300 19 273,500 43 San Joaquin 912,600 242,900 27 435,200 48 Solano 582,400 119,200 34 224,400 39 Sutter 389,300 195,000 50 308,400 79 Yolo 653,500 239,900 37 260,600 40 Yuba 412,000 51,800 13 95,400 23 Source: DWR California’s Flood Future Report 2013 *500 Yr Flood Zone includes both 100 and 500 Year statistics Planning Area Demographics There are over 4.3 million people in the 10 counties comprising the region covered by this plan, with over 1.4 million people exposed to flooding. Sutter County has the highest population exposed to flooding (97%) followed by Yuba County (71%), San Joaquin County (59%), Sacramento County (42%), Yolo County (38%), and Glenn County (35%). The remaining counties have less than 30% of their population exposed to flooding. There are five cities with populations over 100,000. Sacramento (466,488) and Stockton (302,389) are the two largest. The daily commuting population in downtown Sacramento can swell to over 110,000. Of the 1.4 million people exposed to flooding, 137,769 (39%) are children under 5 years of age, 171,620 (30%) are over the age of 65, and there are 139,274 (37%) households with one or more disabled persons. Additionally there are 86,916 (44%) households below poverty and 37,925 (43%) that do not speak English. See figure B-2 below for more demographic information regarding the 100 and 500 year flood zones. Specific county demographic information can be found in the Operational Area Annex. Annex B: Situation/Intelligence Annex B-3 Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Table B-2: Population Statistics by County Population Population Total Total Exposed to Exposed to Population Operational Area/County Population Flooding in Flooding in Exposed to 100 Yr Event 500 Yr Event Flooding Branch I Division A – Yolo 206,439 68,614 (33%) 9,587 (5%) 78,201 (38%) Division B – Colusa 22,143 4,210 (19%) 2,106 (10%) 6,316 (29%) Division C – Glenn 28,864 4,517 (16%) 5,532 (19%) 10,049 (35%) Branch II Division D – Butte 223,456 17,327 (8%) 31,620 (14%) 48,947 (22%) Division E – Sutter 95,894 9,479 (10%) 83,757 (87%) 93,236 (97%) Division F – Yuba 74,505 26,594 (36%) 26,229 (35%) 52,823 (71%) Branch III Division G – Sacramento 1,456,424 103,209 (7%) 502,691 (35%) 605,900 (42%) Division H – San Joaquin 711,503 53,524 (8%) 369,064 (52%) 422,588 (59%) Branch IV Division J – Contra Costa 1,089,972 47,069 (4%) 32,932 (3%) 80,001 (7%) Division K – Solano 422,431 39,661 (9%) 21,926 (5%) 61,587 (15%) Totals 4,331,631 374,204 (9%) 1,085,444 (25%) 1,459,648 (34%) Source: 2015 Census Data Table B-3: Demographic Statistics in 100 and 500 Year Flood Zones # Out of % Out of # in 100 % in % in 500 # % All Branches Total # In 500 Yr Flood Flood Yr 100 Yr Yr Exposed Exposed Zone Zone 2015 Total 4,331,631 374,204 8.64% 1,085,444 25.06% 1,459,648 33.70% 2,871,983 66.30% Population 2015 Total 1,489,890 123,342 8.28% 380,329 25.53% 503,671 33.81% 986,219 66.19% Households 2015 Vacant 113,885 9,531 8.37% 38,593 33.89% 48,124 42.26% 65,761 57.74% Households Households 198,987 18,089 9.09% 68,827 34.59% 86,916 43.68% 112,071 56.32% Below Poverty Households with 1+ Disabled 377,852 33,751 8.93% 105,523 27.93% 139,274 36.86% 238,578 63.14% Persons Number of 155,211 11,341 7.31% 50,944 32.82% 62,285 40.13% 92,926 59.87% Businesses Unemployed 164,974 11,565 7.01% 56,535 34.27% 68,100 41.28% 96,874 58.72% (Age 16+) At Risk - 5 and 348,301 24,982 7.17% 112,787 32.38% 137,769 39.55% 210,532 60.45% Under At Risk - Under 876,680 75,838 8.65% 228,836 26.10% 304,674 34.75% 572,006 65.25% 14 At Risk - Over 65 572,645 43,629 7.62% 127,991 22.35% 171,620 29.97% 401,025 70.03% Non-English 88,227 6,953 7.88% 30,972 35.10% 37,925 42.99% 50,302 57.01% Speakers Annex B: Situation/Intelligence Annex B-4 Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan Operational Impacts from a Severe Flood Event (Keep or remove - need to update) Any severe flood event would have operational impacts in the following key areas: Damage to infrastructure – Damage to transportation, water, wastewater, petroleum, power, medical, and housing infrastructure will result in requirements for a full range of support in all core capability areas. Details are contained in appendices of Annex C (Operations). Loss of transportation – Damage to transportation networks could cause large population areas to become isolated and the supply chain serving millions of Bay Area residents to become degraded. Access, which is the center of gravity for all response and recovery activities, will be reduced due to damaged transportation routes. This will affect the deployment of resources and mutual aid, the provision of mass care and sheltering services, and the reconstitution of infrastructure. Loss of water and wastewater services – A severe earthquake will damage water utility pipelines and facilities, resulting in interrupted sources of supply and ultimately loss of service. Major conveyance systems, including the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, EBMUD aqueducts, South Bay aqueduct, and numerous local pipelines, cross the Hayward fault. While seismic improvements have been made to many of these systems at fault crossings, a severe Hayward or San Andreas Fault rupture will cause water system outages. Loss of electrical power – A severe earthquake could damage much of the Bay Area’s electrical power infrastructure. Electrical transmission lines and towers will likely fail as a result of ground shaking; gas pipeline breaks and leaks will occur, creating hazardous conditions and fires; and power could be out to communities for weeks, due to lack of repair parts caused by high demand and manufacturing delays. Loss of communications capabilities – Extensive damage to existing communications infrastructure would result from a severe earthquake—damage that could take several weeks or months to repair.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • The Arkstorm Scenario: California's Other "Big One"
    The San Bernardino County Museum Guest Lecture Series The ARkStorm Scenario: California’s other “Big One” Lucy Jones • U. S. Geological Survey Wednesday, January 25, 2012 • 7:30pm • Free Admission Landslides and debris flows. Coastal innundation and flooding. Infrastructure damage. Pollution. Dr. Lucy Jones will give an overview of the ARkStorm Scenario—catastrophic flooding resulting from a month-long deluge like was seen in 1862, and four larger such events in the past 100 years. This type of storm, resulting from atmospheric rivers of moisture, is plausible, and a smaller version hit San Bernardino in December of 2010 with a week’s worth of rain that impacted Highland and the surrounding communities. The ARkStorm Scenario explores the resulting impacts to our social structure and can be used to understand how California’s “other” Big One can be more expensive than a large San Andreas earthquake. Dr. Lucy Jones has been a seismologist with the US Geological Survey and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. She currently serves as the Science Advisor for the Natural Hazards Mission of the US Geological Survey, leading the long-term science planning for natural hazards research. She also leads the SAFRR Project: Science Application for Risk Reduction to apply USGS science to reduce risk in communities across the nation. Dr. Jones has written more than 90 papers on research seismology with primary interest in the physics of earthquakes, foreshocks, and earthquake hazard assessment, especially in southern California. She serves on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and was a Commissioner of the California Seismic Safety Commission from 2002 to 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
    Water Hyacinth Control Program FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. Copies of this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report in hard copy form, or on computer compact disc (CD), can be obtained from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. To request a report copy, please contact: Ms. Terri Ely Aquatic Weed Program California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95815 (916) 263-8138 [email protected] Cover photo: March 14, 2008, by NewPoint Group, Inc., of the Wheeler Island Duck Club, at Honker Bay. [PARTIAL] Water Hyacinth Control Program Water Hyacinth Control Program A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 Prepared by: The California Department of Boating and Waterways With Technical Assistance from: NewPoint Group, Inc. 2555 Third Street, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95818 (916) 442-0508 www.newpointgroup.com ~----Pei:at f~m.A; _ _,__,..._... AniJru--~- ' --sepat Table of Contents Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... AA-1 Executive Summary.......................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Flooding
    ATM 10 Severe and Unusual Weather Prof. Richard Grotjahn L 18/19 http://canvas.ucdavis.edu Lecture 18 topics: • Hurricanes – what is a hurricane – what conditions favor their formation? – what is the internal hurricane structure? – where do they occur? – why are they important? – when are those conditions met? – what are they called? – What are their life stages? – What does the ranking mean? – What causes the damage? Time lapse of the – (Reading) Some notorious storms 2005 Hurricane Season – How to stay safe? Note the water temperature • Video clips (colors) change behind hurricanes (black tracks) (Hurricane-2005_summer_clouds-SST.mpg) Reading: Notorious Storms • Atlantic hurricanes are referred to by name. – Why? • Notorious storms have their name ‘retired’ © AFP Notorious storms: progress and setbacks • August-September 1900 Galveston, Texas: 8,000 dead, the deadliest in U.S. history. • September 1906 Hong Kong: 10,000 dead. • September 1928 South Florida: 1,836 dead. • September 1959 Central Japan: 4,466 dead. • August 1969 Hurricane Camille, Southeast U.S.: 256 dead. • November 1970 Bangladesh: 300,000 dead. • April 1991 Bangladesh: 70,000 dead. • August 1992 Hurricane Andrew, Florida and Louisiana: 24 dead, $25 billion in damage. • October/November 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Honduras: ~20,000 dead. • August 2005 Hurricane Katrina, FL, AL, MS, LA: >1800 dead, >$133 billion in damage • May 2008 Tropical Cyclone Nargis, Burma (Myanmar): >146,000 dead. Some Notorious (Atlantic) Storms Tracks • Camille • Gilbert • Mitch • Andrew • Not shown: – 2004 season (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) – Katrina (Wilma & Rita) (2005) – Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Florence & Michael (2018) Hurricane Camille • 14-19 August 1969 • Category 5 at landfall – for 24 hours – peak winds 165 kts (190mph @ landfall) – winds >155kts for 18 hrs – min SLP 905 mb (26.73”) – 143 perished along gulf coast, – another 113 in Virginia Hurricane Andrew • 23-26 August 1992 • Category 5 at landfall • first Category 5 to hit US since Camille • affected S.
    [Show full text]
  • Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
    Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Final Report Submitted to: Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 Submitted by: Wesley A. Heim Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 [email protected] (email) 831-771-4459 (voice) Dr. Kenneth Coale Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent studies indicate significant amounts of mercury are transported into the Bay-Delta from the Coastal and Sierra mountain ranges. In response to mercury contamination of the Bay-Delta and potential risks to humans, health advisories have been posted in the estuary, recommending no consumption of large striped bass and limited consumption of other sport fish. The major objective of the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project “Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed” is to reduce mercury levels in fish tissue to levels that do not pose a health threat to humans or wildlife. This report summarizes the accomplishments of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) at Moss Landing as participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project. Specific objectives of MLML and CDF&G include: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    Severe Weather in North America Peter Hoeppe, Head Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre, Munich Re ECSS 2013, Helsinki, June 3, 2013 US Insurance Survey April 2013 Participants: 81 CEOs of US Primary Insurers What are the 3 most critical issues facing the primary insurance industry today? Issue Rank Low interest rates and capital market returns 1st (64%) Natural catastrophes/weather events 2nd (51%) Price competition 3rd (43%) Multiple responses allowed. Does not add to 100%. MR NatCatSERVICE The world‘s largest database on natural catastrophes The Database Today . From 1980 until today all loss events; for USA and selected countries in Europe all loss events since 1970. Retrospectively, all great disasters since 1950. In addition, all major historical events starting from 79 AD – eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (3,000 historical data sets). Currently more than 32,000 data sets 3 NatCatSERVICE Weather catastrophes worldwide 1980 – 2012 Percentage distribution – ordered by continent 18,200 Loss events 1,405,000 Fatalities 4% <1% 1% 8% 25% 11% 30% 41% 6% 43% 9% 22% Overall losses* US$ 2,800bn Insured losses* US$ 855bn 3% 3% 9% 31% 46% 18% 1% 16% 70% 3% *in 2012 values *in 2012 values Africa Asia Australia/Oceania Europe North America, South America incl. Central America and Caribbean © 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE – As at January 2013 Global Natural Catastrophe Update Natural catastrophes worldwide 2012 Insured losses US$ 65bn - Percentage distribution per continent 5% 91% <3% <1% <1% Continent
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing
    Constructing Mimi Hughes (NOAA), Tapash Das (SIO), Dale Cox (USGS) Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project • Fire / Debris Flow 2007 Post Fire Coordination • Earthquake / Tsunami Earthquake Scenario • Winter Storm Winter Storm Scenario • Information Interface Community Interface, Implementation, Tools and Training The Great Southern California ShakeOut • A week-long series of events to inspire southern Californians to improve their earthquake resiliency; >6 million participants • Based on a scenario of a major southern San Andreas earthquake designed by the USGS for California Office of Homeland Security’s Golden Guardian exercise, Nov 2008, Oct 2009, Oct 2010, … • December 24, 1861 through Jan 21, 1862: nearly unbroken rains • Central Valley flooding over about 300 mi long, 12 – 60 mi wide • Most of LA basin reported as “generally inundated” • San Gabriel & San Diego Rivers cut new paths to sea • 420% of normal-January precipitation in Sacramento in Jan 1862 • 300% of normal-January precipitation fell in K Street Sacramento, looking east San Diego in Jan 1862 • No way of knowing how intense the rains were, but they were exceptionally large in total and prolonged. • Implication: Prolonged storm episodes are a plausible mechanism for winter-storm disaster conditions in California • Implication: A combined NorCal+SoCal extreme event is plausible. 12 days separated the flood crest in Sacramento from the crest in Los Angeles in Jan 1862 Generating the scenario details Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) model’s nested grids Mimi Hughes, NOAA/ESRL,V at the helm From James Done, NCAR ARkStorm Precipitation Totals Daily Precipitation at three locations 6” 20” 20” Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing Ratio of VIC-simulated ARkStorm Runoff vs Historical Periods (1969, 1986) Runoff Maximum Daily Runoff Total Runoff Recurrence Intervals of Maximum 3-day Runoff (relative to WY1916-2003 Historical Simulation) Summary of ARkStorm Meteorological Events Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Floods Ir the United States During 1960
    Summary of Floods ir the United States During 1960 By J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1960 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1790-B Prepared in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies CNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE DTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.G. 20402 - Price 45 cents (pap^r cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_--_____-__-____---_--__-______-___-___.____________ Bl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 Determination of flood stages and discharges_________________________ 6 Explanation of data_________________-__-___________________-_____- 11 Summary of floods of 1960_____________________________________ 13 Floods of: February 8-10 in northern California._______________________ 13 March 7-9 in southern Idaho.______,____-__-__-_-_____-____ 18 March 17-April 5 in central Florida.________________________ 20 March-April in the Skunk River and lower Iowa River basins, Iowa_ _________________________________________________ 24 March 29-April 6 in southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois.----.-.-_____________________________-. 27 March-April in eastern Nebraska and adjacent areas._________ 30 March 30-April 6 in New York___-_-_____---_-__-_-_--__-__ 47 April 15^19 in west-central Missouri.________________________ 51 April and May in northern Wisconsin and Michigan Upper Peninsula. ___ ___________-_-______-__-_-_--___-_-_-_-_-__ 53 May 4-6 in northwestern Arkansas and east-central Oklahoma. _ 58 May 5-9 in southern Mississippi.___________________________ 60 May 6 in south-central Missouri.- __________________________ 64 May 19-22 in southwestern Arkansas and southeastern Okla­ homa.
    [Show full text]