Description
Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat
Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Phase 1
Risk Analysis Report Final
Prepared by: URS Corporation/Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
December 2008
December 5, 2008 Sean Bagheban Senior Engineer Delta Risk Management Strategy Project Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street, Suite 1601 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Delta Risk Management Strategy Phase 1 Final Risk Analysis Report
Dear Mr. Bagheban: We are enclosing the final Phase 1 Risk Analysis Report for the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) project. Members of the Steering Committee and agency staff reviewed the draft DRMS technical memoranda and the April 24, 2007, draft of the Risk Analysis Report. After their comments were incorporated, the CALFED Science Program Independent Review Panel (IRP) reviewed the June 26, 2007, draft of the report and provided comments in August 2007. These IRP comments were incorporated and then the July 2008 revised draft was provided to the IRP so that its members could verify that their comments had been addressed. The IRP provided a second round of comments on the Risk Analysis Report in October 2008. This final Risk Analysis Report incorporates the editorial comments provided in Appendix 3 of the October 2008 IRP comments. Please note that these comments conclude that the DRMS Phase 1 Risk Analysis Report is “appropriate for use in DRMS Phase 2 and serves as a useful tool to inform policymakers and others concerning possible resource allocations and strategies for addressing risks in the Delta” (transmittal letter for October IRP comments from Cliff Dahm, Lead Scientist, CALFED Science Program [see Appendix B]). This report was prepared by the undersigned and the DRMS team members listed in Section 1.4. Internal peer review was provided in accordance with URS’ quality assurance program, as outlined in the DRMS project management plan. Sincerely,
URS Corporation Said Salah-Mars, Ph.D., P.E. URS Engineering Division Manager DRMS Project Manager 1333 Broadway Ave, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Ph. 510-874-3051 Fax: 510-874-3268
Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. Martin W. McCann, Jr., Ph.D. President JBA DRMS Technical Manager 530 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 202 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph. 650-473-9955
URS Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612-1924 Tel: 510.893-3600 Fax: 510.874.3268 www.urscorp.com
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
Preamble
In response to Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 (Laird, chaptered, September 2005), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) authorized the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) project to perform a Risk Analysis of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun Marsh (Phase 1) and to develop a set of improvement strategies to manage those risks (Phase 2). AB 1200 amends Section 139.2 of the Water Code to read: “The department shall evaluate the potential impacts on water supplies derived from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta based on 50-, 100-, and 200-year projections for each of the following possible impacts on the Delta: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Subsidence Earthquakes Floods Changes in precipitation, temperature, and ocean levels A combination of the impacts specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) inclusive.”
AB 1200 also amended Section 139.4 to read: “(a) The Department and the Department of Fish and Game shall determine the principal options for the Delta. (b) The Department shall evaluate and comparatively rate each option determined in subdivision (a) for its ability to do the following: 1. Prevent the disruption of water supplies derived from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. 2. Improve the quality of drinking water supplies derived from the Delta. 3. Reduce the amount of salts contained in Delta water and delivered to, and often retained in, our agricultural areas. 4. Maintain Delta water quality for Delta users. 5. Assist in preserving Delta lands. 6. Protect water rights of the ‘area of origin’ and protect the environments of the Sacramento–San Joaquin river systems. 7. Protect highways, utility facilities, and other infrastructure located within the Delta. 8. Preserve, protect, and improve Delta levees.…” To meet the requirements of AB 1200, the DRMS project has been divided into two parts. Phase 1 involves the development and implementation of a Risk Analysis to evaluate the impacts of various stressing events on the Delta. Phase 2 evaluates the risk reduction potential of alternative options and develops risk management strategies for the long-term management of the Delta. As part of the Phase 1 work, 12 technical memoranda (TMs), which address individual topical areas, and one risk report have been prepared. The TMs and the topical areas covered in the Phase 1 Risk Analysis are as follows: 1. Geomorphology of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 2. Subsidence of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 3. Seismology of the Delta and Suisun Marsh
Risk Report Section 0 Final
i
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
4. Climate Change in the Delta and Suisun Marsh 5. Flood Hazard of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 6. Wind-Wave Hazard of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 7. Levee Vulnerability of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 8. Emergency Response and Repair of the Delta and Suisun Marsh Levees 9. Hydrodynamics, Water Quality, and Management and Operation of the Delta and Suisun Marsh (Water Analysis Module)* 10. Ecosystem Impacts to the Delta and Suisun Marsh 11. Impact to Infrastructure of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 12. Economic Consequences to the Delta and Suisun Marsh
*Two separate topical areas—the Hydrodynamics topical area and the Water Management topical area—were combined into one TM because of the strong interaction between them. The resulting TM is referred to as the Water Analysis Module (WAM).
The work products described in all of the TMs are integrated in the DRMS Risk Analysis. The results of the Risk Analysis are presented in the attached technical report, which is referred to as: 13. Risk Analysis Report Taken together, the Phase 1 TMs and the Risk Analysis Report constitute the full documentation of the DRMS Risk Analysis.
The Business-as-Usual Delta and Suisun Marsh: Assumptions and Definitions
To carry out the DRMS Phase 1 analysis, it was important to establish some assumptions about the future “look” of the Delta. To address the challenge of predicting the impacts of stressing events on the Delta and Suisun Marsh under changing future conditions, DRMS adopted the approach of evaluating impacts absent major future project implementation in the Delta as a baseline. Thus, the Phase 1 work did not incorporate or examine proposals for Delta improvements. Rather, Phase 1 identified the characteristics and problems of the current Delta (as of 2005), with its practices and uses. This approach, which allows for consideration of preexisting agreements, policies, funded projects, and practices, is referred to as the “business-asusual” (BAU) scenario. Defining a BAU Delta is necessary because one of the objectives of this project is to estimate whether the current practices of managing the Delta (i.e., BAU) are sustainable for the foreseeable future. The results of the Phase 1 Risk Analysis based on the BAU assumption not only maintained continuity with the existing Delta, but also served as the baseline for evaluating the risk reduction measures considered in Phase 2. The existing procedures and policies developed to address “standard” emergencies in the Delta, as covered in the BAU scenario, do not cover some of the major (unprecedented) events in the Delta that are evaluated in the Risk Analysis. In these instances, prioritization of actions is based on (1) existing and expected future response resources and (2) the highest value of recovery/restoration given available resources. This study relied solely on available data. In other words, the effects of stressing events (changing future earthquake frequencies, future rates of subsidence given continued farming
Risk Report Section 0 Final
ii
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
practices, the change in the magnitude and frequency of storm events, and the potential effects of global warming) on the Delta and Suisun Marsh levees were estimated using readily available engineering and scientific tools or based on a broad and current consensus among practitioners. Using the current state of knowledge, the DRMS project team made estimates of the future magnitude and frequency of occurrence of the stressing events 50, 100, and 200 years from now to evaluate the change in Delta risks into the future. Because of the limited time available to complete this work, no investigation or research was conducted to supplement the current state of knowledge.
Perspective
The analysis results presented in the individual TMs do not represent the full estimate of risk for the Delta and Suisun Marsh. The full estimate of risk is the probable outcome of the hazards (earthquake, floods, climate change, subsidence, wind waves, and sunny day failures) combined with the conditional probability of the subject outcomes (levee failures, emergency response, water management, hydrodynamic response of the Delta and Suisun Marsh, ecosystem response, and economic consequences) given the stressing events. The attached Risk Analysis Report presents a full characterization of risk for the Delta and Suisun Marsh. The Risk Analysis Report integrates the initiating (stressing) events, the conditional probable response of the Delta levee system, and the expected probable consequences to develop a complete assessment of risk to the Delta and Suisun Marsh.
Risk Report Section 0 Final
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9
ONE
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh ..................................................... 2-1 DRMS Risk Analysis Scope ........................................................................................... 3-1 Risk Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................... 4-1 2005 State of the State and the Delta............................................................................ 5-1 Seismic Risk Analysis.................................................................................................... 6-1 Flood Risk Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7-1 Wind and Wave Risk Analysis....................................................................................... 8-1 Sunny-Day Risk Analysis............................................................................................... 9-1 Responding to Levee Breaches .................................................................................. 10-1 Salinity Impacts ............................................................................................................ 11-1 Consequences Modeling ............................................................................................. 12-1 Risk Analysis 2005 Base Year Results ....................................................................... 13-1 Risk Analysis for Future Years.................................................................................... 14-1 Assumptions and Limitations ..................................................................................... 15-1 References .................................................................................................................... 16-1
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE
Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16
TEN
ELEVEN
TWELVE
THIRTEEN
FOURTEEN
FIFTEEN
SIXTEEN
Risk Report Section 0 Final
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices A Comments of the Steering Committee Members and Member Agencies on the April 24, 2007, Draft of the Risk Analysis Report and the Technical Memoranda (Various Dates) and the Responses of the Consulting Team Comments of the Independent Review Panel on the June 26, 2007, Draft of the Risk Analysis Report and the Responses of the Consulting Team and Comments of the Independent Review Panel on the July 2008 Draft of the Risk Analysis Report
B
Risk Report Section 0 Final
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AB ARS BAU Bay Modeling BDCP BNSF BPT CALFED CCWD CDEC CDFG CEM cfs CIMIS cm cm/s CPT CSR CVP CVPM Delta DRMS DSM2 DWR EBMUD EC EI ENSO ER&R FC feet/sec Assembly Bill acceleration response spectrum business as usual Bay Modeling-Hydrodynamics Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Brownian Passage Time California Bay-Delta Authority Program Contra Costa Water District California Data Exchange Center California Department of Fish and Game Coastal Engineering Manual cubic feet per second California Irrigation Management Information System centimeter(s) centimeter(s) per second cone penetrometer test cyclic stress ratio Central Valley Project Central Valley Production Model Sacramento?San Joaquin River Delta Delta Risk Management Strategy Delta Simulation Model 2 California Department of Water Resources East Bay Municipal Utility District electrical conductivity Economic Insights El Nino Southern Oscillation Emergency Response and Repair fines content feet per second
Risk Report Section 0 Final
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FEMA Geomatrix GIS HD HEI HTE IFB I-O IPCC IRP JBA km KMEP kV LPIII M mg/l MHHW MNE m/s m /s MSL NAVD88 NDAL NGA NOAA NWS OD PE&A PGA PG&E PL PMF
2
Federal Emergency Management Agency Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. geographic information system Hydrodynamics submodel Hanson Environmental, Inc. Hultgren & Tillis Engineers initial freeboard input-output (United Nations) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Independent Review Panel Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. kilometer Kinder Morgan Energy Partners kilovolt(s) Log Pearson Type III magnitude milligrams per liter mean high higher water Moffatt & Nichol Engineers meter(s) per second square meters per second mean sea level North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Net Delta Area Losses Next Generation of Attenuation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service outside diameter Pacific Engineering & Analysis peak ground acceleration Pacific Gas and Electric Company Public Law probability mass function
Risk Report Section 0 Final
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POD psf PSHA PSHRP PWA RG RMA RMSE ROD RPC SA SAIC SF SFBR SPT SRP SRRQ SWP TAC TDI TM TOC URS USACE USGS UWMP VC VS WAM WE WGCEP WGNCEP WOCSS pelagic organism decline pounds per square foot probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Review Panel Phillip Williams Associates Redars Group Resource Management Associates root mean square error Record of Decision regional purchase coefficient spectral acceleration Science Applications International Corporation scaling factor San Francisco Bay Region standard penetration test Levee Seismic Vulnerability Review Panel San Rafael Rock Quarry State Water Project Technical Advisory Committee Total Delta Inflow technical memorandum total organic carbon URS Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey Urban Water Management Plan Vulnerability Class shear-wave velocity Water Analysis Module Watercourse Engineering, Inc. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential Winds on Critical Streamline Surfaces (model)
Risk Report Section 0 Final
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WR Economics Western Resource Economics WSE WY water surface elevation Water Year
Risk Report Section 0 Final
ix
doc_705849698.pdf
Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat
Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Phase 1
Risk Analysis Report Final
Prepared by: URS Corporation/Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
December 2008
December 5, 2008 Sean Bagheban Senior Engineer Delta Risk Management Strategy Project Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street, Suite 1601 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Delta Risk Management Strategy Phase 1 Final Risk Analysis Report
Dear Mr. Bagheban: We are enclosing the final Phase 1 Risk Analysis Report for the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) project. Members of the Steering Committee and agency staff reviewed the draft DRMS technical memoranda and the April 24, 2007, draft of the Risk Analysis Report. After their comments were incorporated, the CALFED Science Program Independent Review Panel (IRP) reviewed the June 26, 2007, draft of the report and provided comments in August 2007. These IRP comments were incorporated and then the July 2008 revised draft was provided to the IRP so that its members could verify that their comments had been addressed. The IRP provided a second round of comments on the Risk Analysis Report in October 2008. This final Risk Analysis Report incorporates the editorial comments provided in Appendix 3 of the October 2008 IRP comments. Please note that these comments conclude that the DRMS Phase 1 Risk Analysis Report is “appropriate for use in DRMS Phase 2 and serves as a useful tool to inform policymakers and others concerning possible resource allocations and strategies for addressing risks in the Delta” (transmittal letter for October IRP comments from Cliff Dahm, Lead Scientist, CALFED Science Program [see Appendix B]). This report was prepared by the undersigned and the DRMS team members listed in Section 1.4. Internal peer review was provided in accordance with URS’ quality assurance program, as outlined in the DRMS project management plan. Sincerely,
URS Corporation Said Salah-Mars, Ph.D., P.E. URS Engineering Division Manager DRMS Project Manager 1333 Broadway Ave, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Ph. 510-874-3051 Fax: 510-874-3268
Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. Martin W. McCann, Jr., Ph.D. President JBA DRMS Technical Manager 530 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 202 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph. 650-473-9955
URS Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612-1924 Tel: 510.893-3600 Fax: 510.874.3268 www.urscorp.com
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
Preamble
In response to Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 (Laird, chaptered, September 2005), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) authorized the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) project to perform a Risk Analysis of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun Marsh (Phase 1) and to develop a set of improvement strategies to manage those risks (Phase 2). AB 1200 amends Section 139.2 of the Water Code to read: “The department shall evaluate the potential impacts on water supplies derived from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta based on 50-, 100-, and 200-year projections for each of the following possible impacts on the Delta: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Subsidence Earthquakes Floods Changes in precipitation, temperature, and ocean levels A combination of the impacts specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) inclusive.”
AB 1200 also amended Section 139.4 to read: “(a) The Department and the Department of Fish and Game shall determine the principal options for the Delta. (b) The Department shall evaluate and comparatively rate each option determined in subdivision (a) for its ability to do the following: 1. Prevent the disruption of water supplies derived from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. 2. Improve the quality of drinking water supplies derived from the Delta. 3. Reduce the amount of salts contained in Delta water and delivered to, and often retained in, our agricultural areas. 4. Maintain Delta water quality for Delta users. 5. Assist in preserving Delta lands. 6. Protect water rights of the ‘area of origin’ and protect the environments of the Sacramento–San Joaquin river systems. 7. Protect highways, utility facilities, and other infrastructure located within the Delta. 8. Preserve, protect, and improve Delta levees.…” To meet the requirements of AB 1200, the DRMS project has been divided into two parts. Phase 1 involves the development and implementation of a Risk Analysis to evaluate the impacts of various stressing events on the Delta. Phase 2 evaluates the risk reduction potential of alternative options and develops risk management strategies for the long-term management of the Delta. As part of the Phase 1 work, 12 technical memoranda (TMs), which address individual topical areas, and one risk report have been prepared. The TMs and the topical areas covered in the Phase 1 Risk Analysis are as follows: 1. Geomorphology of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 2. Subsidence of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 3. Seismology of the Delta and Suisun Marsh
Risk Report Section 0 Final
i
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
4. Climate Change in the Delta and Suisun Marsh 5. Flood Hazard of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 6. Wind-Wave Hazard of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 7. Levee Vulnerability of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 8. Emergency Response and Repair of the Delta and Suisun Marsh Levees 9. Hydrodynamics, Water Quality, and Management and Operation of the Delta and Suisun Marsh (Water Analysis Module)* 10. Ecosystem Impacts to the Delta and Suisun Marsh 11. Impact to Infrastructure of the Delta and Suisun Marsh 12. Economic Consequences to the Delta and Suisun Marsh
*Two separate topical areas—the Hydrodynamics topical area and the Water Management topical area—were combined into one TM because of the strong interaction between them. The resulting TM is referred to as the Water Analysis Module (WAM).
The work products described in all of the TMs are integrated in the DRMS Risk Analysis. The results of the Risk Analysis are presented in the attached technical report, which is referred to as: 13. Risk Analysis Report Taken together, the Phase 1 TMs and the Risk Analysis Report constitute the full documentation of the DRMS Risk Analysis.
The Business-as-Usual Delta and Suisun Marsh: Assumptions and Definitions
To carry out the DRMS Phase 1 analysis, it was important to establish some assumptions about the future “look” of the Delta. To address the challenge of predicting the impacts of stressing events on the Delta and Suisun Marsh under changing future conditions, DRMS adopted the approach of evaluating impacts absent major future project implementation in the Delta as a baseline. Thus, the Phase 1 work did not incorporate or examine proposals for Delta improvements. Rather, Phase 1 identified the characteristics and problems of the current Delta (as of 2005), with its practices and uses. This approach, which allows for consideration of preexisting agreements, policies, funded projects, and practices, is referred to as the “business-asusual” (BAU) scenario. Defining a BAU Delta is necessary because one of the objectives of this project is to estimate whether the current practices of managing the Delta (i.e., BAU) are sustainable for the foreseeable future. The results of the Phase 1 Risk Analysis based on the BAU assumption not only maintained continuity with the existing Delta, but also served as the baseline for evaluating the risk reduction measures considered in Phase 2. The existing procedures and policies developed to address “standard” emergencies in the Delta, as covered in the BAU scenario, do not cover some of the major (unprecedented) events in the Delta that are evaluated in the Risk Analysis. In these instances, prioritization of actions is based on (1) existing and expected future response resources and (2) the highest value of recovery/restoration given available resources. This study relied solely on available data. In other words, the effects of stressing events (changing future earthquake frequencies, future rates of subsidence given continued farming
Risk Report Section 0 Final
ii
Topical Area: Risk Analysis
practices, the change in the magnitude and frequency of storm events, and the potential effects of global warming) on the Delta and Suisun Marsh levees were estimated using readily available engineering and scientific tools or based on a broad and current consensus among practitioners. Using the current state of knowledge, the DRMS project team made estimates of the future magnitude and frequency of occurrence of the stressing events 50, 100, and 200 years from now to evaluate the change in Delta risks into the future. Because of the limited time available to complete this work, no investigation or research was conducted to supplement the current state of knowledge.
Perspective
The analysis results presented in the individual TMs do not represent the full estimate of risk for the Delta and Suisun Marsh. The full estimate of risk is the probable outcome of the hazards (earthquake, floods, climate change, subsidence, wind waves, and sunny day failures) combined with the conditional probability of the subject outcomes (levee failures, emergency response, water management, hydrodynamic response of the Delta and Suisun Marsh, ecosystem response, and economic consequences) given the stressing events. The attached Risk Analysis Report presents a full characterization of risk for the Delta and Suisun Marsh. The Risk Analysis Report integrates the initiating (stressing) events, the conditional probable response of the Delta levee system, and the expected probable consequences to develop a complete assessment of risk to the Delta and Suisun Marsh.
Risk Report Section 0 Final
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9
ONE
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh ..................................................... 2-1 DRMS Risk Analysis Scope ........................................................................................... 3-1 Risk Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................... 4-1 2005 State of the State and the Delta............................................................................ 5-1 Seismic Risk Analysis.................................................................................................... 6-1 Flood Risk Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7-1 Wind and Wave Risk Analysis....................................................................................... 8-1 Sunny-Day Risk Analysis............................................................................................... 9-1 Responding to Levee Breaches .................................................................................. 10-1 Salinity Impacts ............................................................................................................ 11-1 Consequences Modeling ............................................................................................. 12-1 Risk Analysis 2005 Base Year Results ....................................................................... 13-1 Risk Analysis for Future Years.................................................................................... 14-1 Assumptions and Limitations ..................................................................................... 15-1 References .................................................................................................................... 16-1
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE
Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16
TEN
ELEVEN
TWELVE
THIRTEEN
FOURTEEN
FIFTEEN
SIXTEEN
Risk Report Section 0 Final
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices A Comments of the Steering Committee Members and Member Agencies on the April 24, 2007, Draft of the Risk Analysis Report and the Technical Memoranda (Various Dates) and the Responses of the Consulting Team Comments of the Independent Review Panel on the June 26, 2007, Draft of the Risk Analysis Report and the Responses of the Consulting Team and Comments of the Independent Review Panel on the July 2008 Draft of the Risk Analysis Report
B
Risk Report Section 0 Final
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AB ARS BAU Bay Modeling BDCP BNSF BPT CALFED CCWD CDEC CDFG CEM cfs CIMIS cm cm/s CPT CSR CVP CVPM Delta DRMS DSM2 DWR EBMUD EC EI ENSO ER&R FC feet/sec Assembly Bill acceleration response spectrum business as usual Bay Modeling-Hydrodynamics Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Brownian Passage Time California Bay-Delta Authority Program Contra Costa Water District California Data Exchange Center California Department of Fish and Game Coastal Engineering Manual cubic feet per second California Irrigation Management Information System centimeter(s) centimeter(s) per second cone penetrometer test cyclic stress ratio Central Valley Project Central Valley Production Model Sacramento?San Joaquin River Delta Delta Risk Management Strategy Delta Simulation Model 2 California Department of Water Resources East Bay Municipal Utility District electrical conductivity Economic Insights El Nino Southern Oscillation Emergency Response and Repair fines content feet per second
Risk Report Section 0 Final
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FEMA Geomatrix GIS HD HEI HTE IFB I-O IPCC IRP JBA km KMEP kV LPIII M mg/l MHHW MNE m/s m /s MSL NAVD88 NDAL NGA NOAA NWS OD PE&A PGA PG&E PL PMF
2
Federal Emergency Management Agency Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. geographic information system Hydrodynamics submodel Hanson Environmental, Inc. Hultgren & Tillis Engineers initial freeboard input-output (United Nations) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Independent Review Panel Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. kilometer Kinder Morgan Energy Partners kilovolt(s) Log Pearson Type III magnitude milligrams per liter mean high higher water Moffatt & Nichol Engineers meter(s) per second square meters per second mean sea level North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Net Delta Area Losses Next Generation of Attenuation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service outside diameter Pacific Engineering & Analysis peak ground acceleration Pacific Gas and Electric Company Public Law probability mass function
Risk Report Section 0 Final
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POD psf PSHA PSHRP PWA RG RMA RMSE ROD RPC SA SAIC SF SFBR SPT SRP SRRQ SWP TAC TDI TM TOC URS USACE USGS UWMP VC VS WAM WE WGCEP WGNCEP WOCSS pelagic organism decline pounds per square foot probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Review Panel Phillip Williams Associates Redars Group Resource Management Associates root mean square error Record of Decision regional purchase coefficient spectral acceleration Science Applications International Corporation scaling factor San Francisco Bay Region standard penetration test Levee Seismic Vulnerability Review Panel San Rafael Rock Quarry State Water Project Technical Advisory Committee Total Delta Inflow technical memorandum total organic carbon URS Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey Urban Water Management Plan Vulnerability Class shear-wave velocity Water Analysis Module Watercourse Engineering, Inc. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential Winds on Critical Streamline Surfaces (model)
Risk Report Section 0 Final
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WR Economics Western Resource Economics WSE WY water surface elevation Water Year
Risk Report Section 0 Final
ix
doc_705849698.pdf