HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.13.22 Board Correspondence - FW_ 2022 CVFPP Update - Technical Analysis Summary Report
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:BOS
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: 2022 CVFPP Update - Technical Analysis Summary Report
Date:Friday, May 13, 2022 3:41:12 PM
Attachments:Public Draft 2022 CVFPP Technical Analysis Summary Report May 2022.pdf
2022CVFPPUpdate_TechAnalysisReport_ElectronicComment_Form.xlsx
Please see Board Correspondence.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: DWR Flood Management Planning <CVFMP@water.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 3:28 PM
To: steven_schoenberg@FWS.GOV; swinkler@SJGOV.ORG; sutterbasincorp@GMAIL.COM;
segreco@UCDAVIS.EDU; Sunding, Steven@DWR <Steven.Sunding@water.ca.gov>;
stu@CREEKSIDESCIENCE.COM; Sudhakar.Talanki@WATER.CA.GOV; Swang@BRWNCALD.COM;
suresh.venukanthan@WATER.CA.GOV; susan.s.clark@USACE.ARMY.MIL;
sdellosso@CAMBAYGROUP.COM; Naramore, Susan@HCD <Susan.Naramore@hcd.ca.gov>;
sjsutton@FRONTIERNET.NET; tgardner@DFG.CA.GOV; Ted.Frink@WATER.CA.GOV;
teresa.kinney@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV; teririe@COMCAST.NET; Tiffany Phan <phan@npalobby.com>;
tim.busch@CITYOFWOODLAND.ORG; tyoumans@EPSSAC.COM; tbartlett@DFG.CA.GOV;
tcooper@WOODRODGERS.COM; lunt@MBKENGINEERS.COM; tbruce@DUTRAGROUP.COM; Todd
Manley <tmanley@norcalwater.org>; F Thomas Biglione <ftbiglione@gmail.com>;
tflinn@SJGOV.ORG; tgriggs@RIVERPARTNERS.ORG; Tom.D.Karvonen@USACE.ARMY.MIL;
tmoreland@MALCOLMDRILLING.COM; takel@AKELENG.COM; lindavls@CITLINK.NET;
tovey@GIEZENTANNER.COM; Tyler.M.Stalker@USACE.ARMY.MIL; Howard, Vance
<vhoward@geiconsultants.com>; Vanessa.A.Nishikawa@US.MWHGLOBAL.COM;
vcampbell@UCANR.EDU; Vicky.Whitney@WATERBOARDS.CA.GOV; Rodriguez, Vincent@DWR
<Vincent.Rodriguez@water.ca.gov>; vhawkins@SIERRAHOLDINGS.COM;
whartman@CO.YUBA.CA.US; Ward.Tabor@WATER.CA.GOV; wfujitani@LODI.GOV;
William.O'Leary@WATER.CA.GOV; williamwallacejr@HOTMAIL.COM; Yogeswaran (Yogi),
Pirathapan@DWR <Pirathapan.Yogeswaran@water.ca.gov>; Sun, Yung-Hsin <yung-
hsin.sun@stantec.com>; cwhite@sjrecwa.net; Aysha Massell <amassell@americanrivers.org>;
bencarter@succeed.net; bmanning@dnlc.net; eric.butler@water.ca.gov; Esparza, Jesus@DWR
<Jesus.Esparza@water.ca.gov>; gailnadal612@comcast.net; gerald.e.mills@gmail.com; Prasad,
Glenn \[PW\] <gprasad@sjgov.org>; Katy Kennedy <kkennedy@kearnswest.com>;
lwells@co.yuba.ca.us; mark.e.cowan@usace.army.mil; MConnelly@kleinfelder.com;
mermurf@yahoo.com; mrossiter@rfengineeringinc.com; Omar.Al-Hindi@stocktonca.gov;
paulewingschultz@gmail.com; Mohammad.Porbaha@usace.army.mil; rbirdee@yahoo.com;
rbogle@boglewinery.com; Haile-Selassie, Samson@DWR <Samson.Haile-Selassie@water.ca.gov>;
Seapy, Briana@Wildlife <Briana.Seapy@Wildlife.ca.gov>; slightst@comcast.net;
stuarthanson@jps.net; Tom Gardali <tgardali@pointblue.org>; womcclendon@gmail.com;
Williamson, Nicole@Waterboards <Nicole.Williamson@waterboards.ca.gov>; lyraceburu@bhfs.com;
Agudo, Toni@CVFPB <Toni.Agudo@cvflood.ca.gov>; Bartolome, Dennis@CVFPB
<Dennis.Bartolome@cvflood.ca.gov>; Bhattarai@cvflood.ca.gov; Biswas, Debabrata@CVFPB
<Debabrata.Biswas@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Caliso, Angeles@CVFPB <Angeles.Caliso@cvflood.ca.gov>;
Castro, Karina@CVFPB <Karina.Castro@cvflood.ca.gov>; D'Augustine, Chavez@CVFPB
<Chavez.DAugustine@cvflood.ca.gov>; deLamare, Priscilla@CVFPB
<Priscilla.deLamare@cvflood.ca.gov>; Dosu, Zubair@CVFPB <Zubair.Dosu@cvflood.ca.gov>;
Garofalo, Diana@CVFPB <Diana.Garofalo@cvflood.ca.gov>; Hoang, Jacqueline@CVFPB
<Jacqueline.Hoang@cvflood.ca.gov>; Hunt, Detta@CVFPB <Detta.Hunt@cvflood.ca.gov>; Ismailyan,
David@CVFPB <David.Ismailyan@cvflood.ca.gov>; Kennedy, Doug@CVFPB
<Doug.Kennedy@cvflood.ca.gov>; Lamb, Steven@CVFPB <Steven.Lamb@cvflood.ca.gov>; Miao,
Eric@CVFPB <Eric.Miao@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Nandi, Sharod@CVFPB <Sharod.Nandi@cvflood.ca.gov>;
Kibret, Natnael@CVFPB <Natnael.Kibret@cvflood.ca.gov>; Negrete, Humberto@CVFPB
<Humberto.Negrete@cvflood.ca.gov>; Nguyen-Tan, Angela@CVFPB <Angela.Nguyen-
Tan@cvflood.ca.gov>; Pendlebury, Lorraine@CVFPB <Lorraine.Pendlebury@CVFlood.ca.gov>;
Ramsey, Zachary@CVFPB <Zachary.Ramsey@cvflood.ca.gov>; Roberts, Melissa@CVFPB
<Melissa.Roberts@cvflood.ca.gov>; Selvamohan, Selvaratnam@CVFPB
<Selvaratnam.Selvamohan@cvflood.ca.gov>; Sharma, Kaushal@CVFPB
<Kaushal.Sharma@cvflood.ca.gov>; Shopbell, Preston@CVFPB <Preston.Shopbell@CVFlood.ca.gov>;
Silva, Jamie@CVFPB <Jamie.Silva@cvflood.ca.gov>; Tice, Jon@CVFPB <Jon.Tice@CVFlood.ca.gov>;
Tu, Jenny@CVFPB <Jenny.Tu@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Valdez, Wendy@CVFPB
<Wendy.Valdez@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Van Skike, Kristyne@CVFPB <Kristyne.VanSkike@cvflood.ca.gov>;
Vang, Tia@CVFPB <Tia.Vang@cvflood.ca.gov>; Woertink, Amber@CVFPB
<Amber.Woertink@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Zelazo, Michael@CVFPB <Michael.Zelazo@cvflood.ca.gov>;
hertelmeghan@gmail.com; andrea.jones@audubon.org; dan.devine@audubon.org;
jsmekofske@ci.manteca.ca.us; Danielle Blacet <dblacet@cmua.org>; Tom Gardali
<tgardali@pointblue.org>; Nat Seavy <nseavy@pointblue.org>; conniemillarGBNH@gmail.com;
gcboard@countyofglenn.net; Stehl, Alexandra@Parks <Alexandra.Stehl@parks.ca.gov>; Connelly,
Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Lucero, Debra <DLucero@buttecounty.net>; Kimmelshue, Tod
<TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Jack Bessette <m.bessette@sutterbutteflood.org>; Cook, Robin
<RCook@buttecounty.net>; Cook, Holly <HCook@buttecounty.net>; Hironimus, Patrizia
<PHironimus@buttecounty.net>; dkalfsbeeksmith@countyofcolusa.com;
dcarter@countyofcolusa.com; mjazevedo@countyofcolusa.com; wtyler@countyofcolusa.com; Lewis
Bair <lbair@rd108.org>; Nagy, Meegan@rd108.org <mnagy@rd108.org>;
mbenjamin@fresnocountyca.gov; vday@fresnocountyca.gov; bmendes@fresnocounty.ca.gov;
stwhite@fresnocountyca.gov; WKettler@fresnocountyca.gov; tmtunga@fresnocountyca.gov;
peters@fresnofloodcontrol.org; Nicholas.Salinas@maderacounty.com;
Karla.Estupinian@maderacounty.com; Robert.Poythress@maderacounty.com;
leticia.gonzalez@maderacounty.com; Stephanie Anagnoson
<stephanie.anagnoson@maderacounty.com>; Tamra.Williams@countyofmerced.com;
Oscar.Ortiz@countyofmerced.com; patrick@patrick-kennedy.com; jsharris@cityofsacramento.org;
johnsonr@SacCounty.net; campbellj@saccounty.net; Bardini. Gary <BardiniG@saccounty.net>; Chris
Elias <chris.elias@stocktonca.gov>; Matt Zidar <mzidar@sjgov.org>; fbuchman@sjgov.org;
JLHamilton@SolanoCounty.com; ADSharp@SolanoCounty.com; jmvasquez@solanocounty.com;
MHMashburn@SolanoCounty.com; Kaltreider, Misty C. <mkaltreider@solanocounty.com>;
mconant@co.sutter.ca.us; mziegenmeyer@co.sutter.ca.us; nhay@co.sutter.ca.us;
nramos@co.sutter.ca.us; dtomm@co.sutter.ca.us; sratner@co.sutter.ca.us;
gary.sandy@yolocounty.org; jim.provenza@yolocounty.org; richard.reed@yolocounty.org;
dotty.pritchard@yolocounty.org; sandra.rodriguez@yolocounty.org; gbradford@co.yuba.ca.us;
avasquez@co.yuba.ca.us; kmallen@co.yuba.ca.us; dpeterson@co.yuba.ca.us; Ryan McNally
<rmcnally@yubawater.org>; John James <jjames@yubawater.org>; mmize@co.yuba.ca.us;
rferris@co.yuba.ca.us; Saucier. Melanie <saucierm@saccounty.net>; cgallock@krcd.org;
pbowen@krcd.org; denise@yolofarmbureau.org; shonharris@yubacity.net;
gespindola@yubacity.net; Leamond@stancounty.com; CLARKF@stancounty.com;
brintonm@stancounty.com; daniel.f.artho@usace.army.mil; brian.dela-barre@usace.army.mil;
Tonya.L.Dutra@usace.army.mil; thomas.j.ehrke@usace.army.mil; calvin.foster@usace.army.mil;
michael.s.jewell@usace.army.mil; jessica.j.ludy@usace.army.mil; erin.c.maloney@usace.army.mil;
andrea.j.meier@usace.army.mil; Zeferina J. Ruvalcaba <Zeferina.J.Ruvalcaba@usace.army.mil>;
mohammad.ali.porbaha@usace.army.mil; brooke.e.schlenker@usace.army.mil;
Corrine.M.Stetzel@usace.army.mil; cindy.l.tejeda@usace.army.mil; tanis.j.toland@usace.army.mil;
guy.k.romine@usace.army.mil; david.a.kaulfers@usace.army.mil; Tori.K.White@usace.army.mil;
Marshall.K.Harper@usace.army.mil; peck.ha@usace.army.mil; jessica.l.phelps@usace.army.mil;
joanne.e.goodsell@usace.army.mil; mariah.m.brumbaugh@usace.army.mil; Fischer, Jessica@USACE
<Jessica.D.Fischer@usace.army.mil>; carolyn.a.alexander@usace.army.mil;
Pamela.G.Castens@usace.army.mil; Elizabeth.A.Salyers@usace.army.mil;
Gregory.A.Kukas@usace.army.mil; Jesse.J.Schlunegger@usace.army.mil;
Rick.L.Poeppelman@usace.army.mil; Lynn.N.Moquette@usace.army.mil;
Steven.E.Gladwell@usace.army.mil; SDeMoss@countyofglenn.net; DRust@countyofglenn.net;
apopper@countyofglenn.net; trichardson@countyofglenn.net; dmiller@countyofglenn.net;
mthomas@countyofglenn.net; lhunter@countyofglenn.net; oscar.villegas@yolocounty.org;
don.saylor@yolocounty.org; Angel.Barajas@yolocounty.org; marianne.estes@yolocounty.org;
Monica.Rivera@yolocounty.org; Marina.Deligiannis@lakecountyca.gov;
Scott.Deleon@lakecountyca.gov; Yuliya.Osetrova@lakecountyca.gov; kbains@co.sutter.ca.us;
dflores@co.sutter.ca.us; nmicheli@co.sutter.ca.us; djohnston@co.sutter.ca.us;
ggraham@co.sutter.ca.us; jjenson@tcpw.ca.gov; Nichole Bethurem <nbethurem@tcpw.ca.gov>;
byron@conawayranch.com; Schimke, Kasey@DWR <Kasey.Schimke@water.ca.gov>; Blackburn,
Gregor@FEMA.DHS <Gregor.Blackburn@fema.dhs.gov>; frank.mansell@fema.dhs.gov;
serena.cheung@fema.dhs.gov; Sudbeck, Ramona <ramona.sudbeck@fema.dhs.gov>;
patricipa.rippe@fema.dhs.gov; michael.j.bishop@fema.dhs.gov; Kit, Kasmira@CalOES
<Kasmira.Kit@CalOES.ca.gov>; Lara, Jose@CALOES <jose.lara@caloes.ca.gov>;
Rachael.Orellana@usace.army.mil; Joseph Forbis <Joseph.C.Forbis@usace.army.mil>; Lancaster,
Jeremy@DOC <Jeremy.Lancaster@conservation.ca.gov>; Casey, Ashlee
<acasey@geiconsultants.com>; Smith, Christopher <CSmith@geiconsultants.com>; Thomas,
Jeremy/SAC <jeremy.thomas@jacobs.com>; lmessano@mbakerintl.com;
Patrick.Hayes@airbornesnowoberservatories.com; asenter@balancehydro.com;
carolynlott@sbcglobal.net; DRMaldonald@bakersfieldcity.us; ksherfey@cityofsacramento.org;
mpatil@ccwater.com; pangburnl@co.monterey.ca.us; constance.perkinsgutonsky@cvflood.ca.gov;
fcannon@ucsd.edu; Brandt, William <wbrandt@ucsd.edu>; David.Hansen@ebmud.com; John
Pritchard <JPritchard@esassoc.com>; Eric Ginney <EGinney@esassoc.com>; Betty Andrews
<bandrews@esassoc.com>; pmrobinson@hazenandsawyer.com; Pingel, Nathan
<nathan.pingel@hdrinc.com>; Susanne.Zechiel@jfwmail.com; Steve Haugen
<shaugen@kingsriverwater.org>; Vicki Grabert <vkretsinger@lsce.com>; Marco Bell
<mbell@mercedid.org>; Javad.Shiva@mottmac.com; Peter.Fickeuscher@noaa.gov;
riger@ppeng.com; Booth, George@SacCounty <boothg@SacCounty.net>; Chris Graham
<cgraham@sfwater.org>; VGin@valleywater.org; dmunu@swid.org; Covich, Brittany@SNC
<Brittany.Covich@sierranevada.ca.gov>; kmkoczot@usgs.gov; mralph@ucsd.edu;
alexhall@atmos.ucla.edu; clerk@solanocounty.com; ClerkBOS@fresnocountyca.gov;
publiccomments@countyofmerced.com; rdebord@sjgov.org; BOS@maderacounty.com;
clerkoftheboard@co.yuba.ca.us; clerkoftheboard@yolocounty.org; BoardClerk@co.sutter.ca.us;
BoardClerk@saccounty.net; boardclerk@countyofcolusa.org; Clerk of the Board
<clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; rhonda@buenavistatribe.com; Ivan Senock
<ivan@bvtribe.com>; emily@buenavistatribe.com; sara@ionemiwok.net; dramirez@mechoopda-
nsn.gov; sshope@middletownrancheria.com; benjamin.clark@mooretown.org;
matthew.hatcher@mooretown.org; canutes@verizon.net; huskanam@gmail.com; Spowers@tachi-
yokut-nsn.gov; samijodif@yahoo.com; rcuellar@ssband.org; dfonseca@ssband.org; Kara Perry
<KPerry@ssband.org>; bguth@auburnrancheria.com; mmoore <mmoore@auburnrancheria.com>;
rallen@auburnrancheria.com; cashmead@auburnrancheria.com; Steven Hutchason
<shutchason@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; jtarango@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov; hgriffin
<hgriffin@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; dbrown@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov; thpo@yochadehe-nsn.gov;
lbill@yochadehe-nsn.gov; ibojorquez@yochadehe-nsn.gov; aroberts@yochadehe-nsn.gov;
vlopez@amahmutsun.org; fsteele@berrycreekrancheria.com; lkipp@bsrnation.com; Mgomez@big-
valley.net; vballente@big-valley.net; l.ewilson@yahoo.com; lmathiesen@crtribal.com;
csrepa@netptc.net; coldsprgstribe@netptc.net; cmota@colusa-nsn.gov; dgomez@colusa-nsn.gov;
info@kletseldehe.org; ledgerrobert@ymail.com; a.garcia@elemindiancolony.org;
a.popaditch@elemindiancolony.org; info@enterpriserancheria.org; kself@greenvillerancheria.com;
ronaldkirk1963@gmail.com; admin@guidiville.net; streppa@hpultribe-nsn.gov;
Aarroyosr@hpultribe-nsn.gov; robs_norcal@yahoo.com; kn@koination.com;
jessica@konkowmaidu.org; THPO@middletownrancheria.com; scottg@mishewalwappotribe.com;
valdezcome@comcast.net; rwgoode911@hotmail.com; efink@nfr-nsn.gov; office@paskenta.org;
hairey@chukchansi-nsn.gov; cgonzales@chukchansitribe.net; Mwynn@chukchansi-nsn.gov;
webmaster@pinoleville-nsn.gov; melodieh@redding-rancheria.com; tavilabasket@yahoo.com;
shawn.davis@sv-nsn.gov; shastanation@hotmail.com; achuchumimt@yahoo.com;
tinagoodwin@washoetanf.org; cjabbs@sir-nsn.gov; rlwenya@sir-nsn.gov; rpennell@tmr.org;
davealvarez@sbcglobal.net; tsi-akim-maidu@att.net; tsnungweofcalifornia@gmail.com;
william.garfield@tulerivertribe-nsn.gov; neil.peyron@tulerivertribe-nsn.gov;
carly.gomez@tulerivertribe-nsn.gov; kcantrell@mewuk.com; darrel.cruz@washoetribe.us;
kwood8934@aol.com; cvltribe@gmail.com; pcubbler@colfaxrancheria.com;
miwokmaidu@yahoo.com; Reggie Hill <lsjld@elite.net>; mblankinship@riverpartners.org; Julie
Rentner <jrentner@riverpartners.org>; John Cain <jcain@riverpartners.org>; Dirksen, Paul
<pauld@cityofwestsacramento.org>; Fabun, Greg <gregf@cityofwestsacramento.org>;
leanne.randall@stocktonca.gov; Wu, Aaron@DWR <Aaron.Wu@water.ca.gov>; Andrea Clark
<aclark@downeybrand.com>; Henderson, Adam@DWR <Adam.Henderson@water.ca.gov>;
alicia.e.kirchner@usace.army.mil; Bindra, Amarjot@DWR <Amarjot.Bindra@water.ca.gov>; Amy
Merrill <amerrill@americanrivers.org>; Buckley, Andrea@CVFPB
<Andrea.Buckley@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Metzger, Annalise@Wildlife
<Annalise.Metzger@wildlife.ca.gov>; astevens@somachlaw.com; astresser@co.sutter.ca.us; Bill
Edgar <bedgar@edgarandassociates.com>; Bill Eisenstein <BEisenstein@esassoc.com>; Benjamin
Gettleman <bgettleman@kearnswest.com>; bob.nichols@wsp.com; B Oregan
<boregan@ksninc.com>; brad@sutterbasinwater.com; Johnson, Brian@CVFPB
<Brian.Johnson@cvflood.ca.gov>; Buck, Peter@ SacCounty <buckp@SacCounty.NET>;
busch@rd2068.com; Musto, Cassandra@DWR <Cassandra.Musto@water.ca.gov>; cferrari@tu.org;
Black-Davis, Christi@Edelman <Christi.Black@edelman.com>; Williams, Christopher@DWR
<Christopher.Williams@water.ca.gov>; cindy@floodassociation.net; Ingram, Campbell@SSJDC
<Campbell.Ingram@deltaconservancy.ca.gov>; clee@yolocounty.org; Chris Neudeck
<cneudeck@ksninc.com>; Lasso, Corey@DWR <Corey.Lasso@water.ca.gov>; gcosio@river-
deltaconsulting.com; crhoppin@hotmail.com; Suen, Darren@CVFPB <Darren.Suen@cvflood.ca.gov>;
Wheeldon, Dave@DWR <Dave.Wheeldon@water.ca.gov>; Arrate, David@DWR
<David.Arrate@water.ca.gov>; Martasian, David@DWR <David.Martasian@water.ca.gov>;
Pesavento, David@DWR <David.Pesavento@water.ca.gov>; derek@larsenwurzel.com;
dpeterson@pbieng.com; Griego, Mary@COMCAST <dukesdiner@comcast.net>; Jones,
Dustin@DeltaCouncil <Dustin.Jones@deltacouncil.ca.gov>; Elisa Sabatini
<Elisa.Sabatini@yolocounty.org>; elisabet@larsenwurzel.com; Thomas Engler
<engler@mbkengineers.com>; eric.koch@water.ca.gov; Nichol, Eric@DWR
<Eric.Nichol@water.ca.gov>; Tsai, Eric@DWR <Eric.Tsai@water.ca.gov>; Eric Nagy
<eric@larsenwurzel.com>; Mullin, Erin@DeltaCouncil <Erin.Mullin@deltacouncil.ca.gov>;
felix.s.yeung@usace.army.mil; Nurmi, Francesca@DWR <Francesca.Nurmi@water.ca.gov>; Qualley,
George@DWR <George.Qualley@water.ca.gov>; gerard.l.slattery@usace.army.mil;
ggebhardt@ci.lathrop.ca.us; ghelfip@saccounty.net; Harvey, Greg@CVFlood
<greg.harvey@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Hall, Heidi@DWR <Heidi.Hall@water.ca.gov>; Nate Hershey
<hershey@mbkengineers.com>; Mann, Hilary@DWR <Hilary.Mann@water.ca.gov>; Lin,
Hong@DWR <Hong.Lin@water.ca.gov>; ira.artz@tetratech.com; Rivera, Itzia@DWR
<Itzia.Rivera@water.ca.gov>; Shulters, Jacqueline <jacqueline.shulters@aecom.com>;
james.herota@cvflood.ca.gov; Jane Dolan <jdolan@sbcglobal.net>; Justin Fredrickson
<JEF@CFBF.com>; Calles, Jennifer@CVFPB <jennifer.calles@cvflood.ca.gov>; Marr, Jennifer@DWR
<Jennifer.Marr@water.ca.gov>; jennifer.stewart@cvflood.ca.gov; Hobbs, Jennifer
<jennifer_hobbs@fws.gov>; Arrich, Jeremy@DWR <Jeremy.Arrich@water.ca.gov>;
jfredrickson@cfbf.com; Dua, Jit@CVFPB <Jit.Dua@CVFlood.ca.gov>; jlorenzen@ksninc.com; Leu,
Joanna <joanna.leu@hdrinc.com>; Kleinfelter, John@Wildlife <John.Kleinfelter@wildlife.ca.gov>;
Ericson, Jon@DWR <Jon.Ericson@water.ca.gov>; Joseph Countryman <joseph@jdcpe.net>; Brown,
Josh@DWR <Josh.Brown@water.ca.gov>; Jay Punia <jpunia@woodrodgers.com>; Joseph Thomas
<jthomas@ksninc.com>; Gonzalez, Juan M CIV USARMY CESPK (USA)
<Juan.M.Gonzalez@usace.army.mil>; jvolberg@calwaterfowl.org; karen.enstrom@water.ca.gov;
Asante, Kwabena <kasante@geiconsultants.com>; Baines, Kathryn@CVFPB
<Kathryn.Baines@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Barker, Kelley@Wildlife <Kelley.Barker@wildlife.ca.gov>; Briggs,
Kelly@DWR <Kelly.Briggs@water.ca.gov>; Soule, Kelly@DWR <Kelly.Soule@water.ca.gov>;
kenneth.leep@atkinsglobal.com; Kim Floyd <kim@floydcommunications.com>;
kimberly.m.carsell@usace.army.mil; kking@rd1000.org; Bickler, Kyle R.@DWR
<Kyle.Bickler@water.ca.gov>; Ito, Larry@DWR <Larry.Ito@water.ca.gov>; Byrd, Laura/SAC
<Laura.Byrd@jacobs.com>; Hollender, Laura@DWR <Laura.Hollender@water.ca.gov>; Mulloy,
Lauren@Wildlife <Lauren.Mulloy@wildlife.ca.gov>; Gallagher, Leslie@CVFPB
<Leslie.Gallagher@CVFlood.ca.gov>; Clamurro-Chew, Lori E.@DWR <Lori.E.Clamurro-
Chew@water.ca.gov>; Price, Lori@DWR <Lori.Price@water.ca.gov>; Madeline Baker
<madeline@larsenwurzel.com>; Sabbaghian, Mahyar (Michael)@DWR
<Mahyar.Sabbaghian@water.ca.gov>; maninder.bahia@water.ca.gov; mark.e.salmon@wsp.com;
Leu, Mark/SAC <Mark.Leu@jacobs.com>; List, Mark@DWR <Mark.List@water.ca.gov>; Mark Cowan
<mark@larsenwurzel.com>; Jimenez, Mary@DWR <Mary.Jimenez@water.ca.gov>; Notley,
Matt@Edelman <Matt.Notley@edelman.com>
Subject: 2022 CVFPP Update - Technical Analysis Summary Report
ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
..
attachments, clicking on links, or replying.
Hello,
On behalf of my colleagues at the Department of Water Resources, I’m sending this email to invite
you to review and comment on the attached 2022 CVFPP Update – Technical Analysis Summary
Report. This report explains the technical analysis approach, tools used, and information that
supported the development of the 2022 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) Update.
This report also summarizes the scope, extent, process, analyses and results that were
conducted to assess Central Valley flood system performance under a range of evaluation
scenarios.
The purpose of this report is as follows:
Describe the application of updated tools for the CVFPP Update that leverage
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) investments from other programs.
Describe the methodology and results to characterize the State Plan of Flood
Control’s (SPFC) performance for current (2022) and future (2072) conditions using the
following:
o Climate change trend analysis
o Climate change volume-frequency analysis
o Flood risk analysis, utilizing revised levee fragility curves, updated structure
inventory, and enhanced life risk analysis
o Reservoir vulnerability analysis
o Regional economic analysis
There are nine detailed appendices covering these topics highlighted above that are available
upon request.
Please use the attached excel comment form to provide any comments and send via e-mail to
th
cvfmp@water.ca.gov by 5:00pm PDT June 30, 2022.
Thank you for your interest and involvement in the 2022 CVFPP Update. We look forward to
receiving your comments.
Jason Sidley, P.E.
Supervising Engineer, W.R.
Central Valley Flood Planning and Project Feasibility Section
Division of Multi-Benefit Initiatives
Department of Water Resources
CVFPP
2022 UPDATE TECHNICAL SERIES
Public Draft
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses
Summary Report
May 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
ŷźƭ ƦğŭĻ ƌĻŅƷ ĬƌğƓƉ źƓƷĻƓƷźƚƓğƌƌǤ͵
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
This Document Prepared by:
Management Review Preparation Team Technical Support
MD Haque Chong Vang Satya Gala
DWR DFM DWR DFM GEI
Jason Sidley Darren Bonfantine Kwabana Asante
DWR DMI DWR DFM GEI
Michael Mierzwa Marill Jacobsen Azad Heidari
DWR DFM DWR DFM GEI
Mary Jimenez Shivcharan Sandhu Sydney Nye
DWR DMI DWR DMI GEI
Jesus Esparza Katie Laird
DWR DMI GEI
Steve Cowdin Nathan Pingel
DWR DMI HDR
Romain Maendly Joanna Leu
DWR DOP HDR
Daya Muralidharan Ric McCallan
DWR DOP HDR
Salma Kibrya Paul Risher
DWR DOP HDR
Jennifer Marr Michael Konieczki
DWR DOP HDR
Alejandro Perez William Sicke
DWR DOP HDR
Jamie Lubeck
HDR
Laura Byrd
Jacobs
Tapash Das
Jacobs
Rich Millet
AECOM
Nagesh Malyala
AECOM
i PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
ŷźƭ ƦğŭĻ ƌĻŅƷ ĬƌğƓƉ źƓƷĻƓƷźƚƓğƌƌǤ͵
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 ii
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 1-3
Overview of Technical Analyses .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 CVFPP Overview Graphic ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Overview of CVFPP Scenarios Analyzed ........................................................................... 2-6
Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Flood Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Reservoir Operations Analysis ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Riverine Hydraulics .......................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Floodplain Hydraulics ....................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.1 Impact Areas and Index Points ........................................................................... 3-4
3.4.2 Interior and Exterior Areas ............................................................................... 3-10
3.5 Hydraulic Results ............................................................................................................ 3-11
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update ............................................................... 4-1
4.1 Climate Change Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 General Circulation Model Archive and Dataset ................................................ 4-2
4.1.2 Climate Change Scenarios ................................................................................... 4-4
4.1.3 VIC Modeling ....................................................................................................... 4-5
4.2 Climate Change Volume-Frequency Analysis ................................................................ 4-10
4.3 Estuary Evaluations ........................................................................................................ 4-12
4.3.1 RMA Bay-Delta Model Adapted for 2017 CVFPP Update ................................. 4-14
4.3.2 Enhancements for 2022 CVFPP Update ............................................................ 4-16
4.4 Geotechnical Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-26
4.5 Risk Analysis Inventory Update ...................................................................................... 4-27
4.5.1 Life Risk Inventory ............................................................................................. 4-28
4.5.2 Flood Damage Inventory................................................................................... 4-29
4.6 Life Risk Input Development .......................................................................................... 4-30
4.7 Flood Risk Analyses ........................................................................................................ 4-31
4.7.1 Components of Risk Analyses ........................................................................... 4-31
4.7.2 Damage Categories and Occupancy Types ....................................................... 4-32
iii PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
4.7.3 Growth Factors ................................................................................................. 4-33
4.7.4 Role of HEC-FDA in Risk Analyses ..................................................................... 4-33
4.7.5 Flood Damage Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-34
4.7.6 Life Risk Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-36
4.7.7 Results of the Flood Risk Analyses .................................................................... 4-36
4.8 Reservoir Vulnerability Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-41
4.8.1 Current System Operations .............................................................................. 4-42
4.8.2 Climate Change Effect on the Overall System .................................................. 4-48
4.8.3 Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................ 4-48
4.9 Regional Economic Analysis ........................................................................................... 4-50
4.10 Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas ............................................................................... 4-53
References ................................................................................................................................... 5-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 6-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Climate Change Analysis
Appendix B: Climate Change Volume Frequency Analysis
Appendix C: Flood Risk Analysis
Appendix D: Risk Analysis Summary by Index Point
Appendix E: Risk Analysis Inventory Update
Appendix F: Life Risk Input Development
Appendix G: Reservoir Vulnerability Analysis
Appendix H: Regional Economic Analysis
Appendix I: Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 iv
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
Tables
Table 1. Modeling Tools Used in the 2022 CVFPP Update ........................................................................ 2-4
Table 2. 2022 CVFPP Scenarios .................................................................................................................. 2-6
Table 3. Elements for Sacramento River Basin Scenarios ........................................................................ 2-13
Table 4. Elements for San Joaquin River Basin Scenarios ........................................................................ 2-16
Table 5. GCMs Developed under CMIP Phase 5 to Inform the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report ............... 4-3
Table 6. VIC Model Simulations Used in 2022 CVFPP Update Analysis ..................................................... 4-7
Table 7: CVHS Flood Events used to Develop Bay-Delta Stage-Discharge Relationships ........................ 4-17
Table 8. Index Points with Updated Levee Fragility Curves ..................................................................... 4-26
Table 9. Inputs Required for the Risk Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-34
Table 10. Selected Reservoirs Within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Considered for the
RVA ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-43
Figures
Figure 1. Overview of Technical Analyses and Tools Used for the 2022 CVFPP Update ........................... 2-3
Figure 2. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the Sacramento River Basin .............................. 2-9
Figure 3. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the Sacramento River Basin (continued) ........ 2-10
Figure 4. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the San Joaquin River Basin ............................ 2-11
Figure 5. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the San Joaquin River Basin (continued) ........ 2-12
Figure 6. Incorporation of Hydrologic Results ........................................................................................... 3-1
Figure 7. Example Index Point/Impact Area for Flood Risk Computation ................................................. 3-5
Figure 8. Sacramento River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas ............................................................ 3-6
Figure 9. Sacramento River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas (continued) ......................................... 3-7
Figure 10. San Joaquin River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas ........................................................... 3-8
Figure 11. San Joaquin River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas (continued) ....................................... 3-9
Figure 12. Interior and Exterior Areas ...................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 13. Simplified Interior-Exterior Relationship ................................................................................ 3-10
Figure 14. Climate Change Analyses in the CVFPP, 2012 Through 2022 ................................................... 4-2
Figure 15. Absolute Change in Average Annual Temperature and Percent Change of Average Annual
Temperature at one Future Thirty-Year Period Centered on 2072 ........................................................... 4-5
Figure 16. 2022 CVFPP VIC Model Domain and Grid (DWR, 2016b) .......................................................... 4-6
Figure 17. Percent Change in Annual Precipitation Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios .............. 4-8
Figure 18. Percent Change in Annual Runoff Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios ........................ 4-9
Figure 19. Percent Change in Annual Baseflow Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios .................... 4-9
Figure 20. Example curve fitting, consistent curves where the durations do not cross for rare events, and
inconsistent curves where the 1-day curve cross the 3-day curve near the p=0.005 (200-year) AEP .... 4-12
Figure 21. Extent of the State Plan of Flood Control Planning Area, the Resource Management
Associates, Inc. (RMA) Bay-Delta Model, and HEC-RAS Downstream Boundaries .................................. 4-14
Figure 22. RMA Bay-Delta Model Used for 2017 and 2022 CVFPP Updates ........................................... 4-16
Figure 23. The Inverse of AEP or Annual Return Period for Peak Total Sacramento River Flow Rate At-
latitude of the City of Sacramento for Selected CVHS Flood Events ....................................................... 4-17
v PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
Figure 24. The Inverse of AEP or Annual Return Period for Peak Total San Joaquin River Flow Rate At-
latitude of Vernalis for Selected CVHS Flood Events ............................................................................... 4-18
Figure 25. Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet) for San Francisco ............................................................... 4-19
Figure 26. Stage Discharge Rating Curves for Conditions With and Without Sea Level Rise for Six Index
Points (IP) along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers ....................................................................... 4-21
Figure 27. Stage-Frequency Curves for Current Hydrology, Current Hydrology with Sea Level Rise and
Climate Change Hydrology with Sea Level Rise for 8 Index Points (IP) along the Sacramento River (right
graphs) and the San Joaquin River (left graphs) ...................................................................................... 4-22
Figure 28. Sacramento River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return Period
Flood for Current Hydrology and Current Hydrology with 3.68 and 6 feet of Sea Level Rise ................. 4-24
Figure 29. San Joaquin River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return Period
Flood for Current Hydrology and Current Hydrology with 3.68 and 6 feet of Sea Level Rise ................. 4-24
Figure 30. Sacramento River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return Period
Flood for Three Climate Change Hydrology and Two Sea Level Rise Conditions 3.68 and 6 feet ........... 4-25
Figure 31. San Joaquin River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return Period
Flood for Three Climate Change Hydrology and Two Sea Level Rise Conditions 3.68 and 6 feet ........... 4-25
Figure 32. Flowchart Depicting How Three Unique Structure Inventories Were Developed for Use in the
2022 CVFPP Update ................................................................................................................................. 4-28
Figure 33. 2022 CVFPP Life Risk Analysis Processes ................................................................................ 4-31
Figure 34. Relationships of Flood Risk Analysis Components .................................................................. 4-32
Figure 35. EAD Computation .................................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 36. Sacramento River Basin EAD (millions of dollars) ................................................................... 4-37
Figure 37. Sacramento River Basin EALL (number of persons) ................................................................ 4-38
Figure 38. San Joaquin River Basin EAD (millions of dollars) ................................................................... 4-39
Figure 39. San Joaquin River Basin EALL (number of persons) ................................................................ 4-40
Figure 40. Selected Sacramento River Basin Reservoirs Included in this Phase of the RVA .................... 4-46
Figure 41. Selected San Joaquin River Basin Reservoirs Included in this Phase of the RVA .................... 4-47
Figure 42. Estimated Regional Total Annual Industry Output Generated by 2022 SSIA Portfolio
Investment ............................................................................................................................................... 4-52
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 vi
1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Document
This report explains the technical analysis approach, tools used, and information that supported
the development of the 2022 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) Update.
This report also summarizes the scope, extent, process, analyses and results that were
conducted to assess Central Valley flood system performance under a range of evaluation
scenarios. The purpose of this report is as follows:
Describe the application of updated tools for the CVFPP Update that leverage California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) investments from other programs.
Describe the methodology and results to characterize the
(SPFC) performance for current (2022) and future (2072) conditions using the following:
Climate change trend analysis
Climate change volume-frequency analysis
Flood risk analysis, utilizing revised levee fragility curves, updated structure inventory,
and enhanced life risk analysis
Reservoir vulnerability analysis
Regional economic analysis
Detailed appendices covering these topics are included with this report.
1.2 Background
As required by Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), also known as the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of
2008, DWR prepared the CVFPP, which was adopted by the Central Valley Flood Protection
Board in 2012. The 2012 CVFPP recommended a systemwide approach to improve flood risk
management and associated ecosystem and multiple benefits for lands protected and affected
by existing facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC).
1-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
1 Introduction
In 2012, DWR formulated and evaluated three significantly different preliminary approaches to
address the CVFPP goals (See Appendix A to the Public Draft 2022 CVFPP Update). The
approaches focused mainly on physical changes to the existing flood management system and
examined the need for policy and other management actions. The 2012 CVFPP recommended
the preferred approach, referred to as the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA).
Physical changes included improvements to urban, small community, and rural-agricultural
areas to collectively benefit the entire flood system while achieving local and regional benefits
in a cost effective manner. Additionally, the physical changes included system improvements
that largely focused on modifications to the SPFC. Beyond the physical changes, DWR also
included flood management elements to address residual flood risk in the SSIA.
With implementation of the SSIA components, flood risk will decrease over time; however
residual risk within the Central Valley will remain. Residual risk is the level of flood risk for
people and assets located in a floodplain that remains after implementation of flood risk
reduction actions (Shabman et al. 2014). As a result, nonstructural flood management elements
that included enhanced flood emergency response, enhanced operations and maintenance,
and floodplain management were evaluated and included as part of the 2017 CVFPP Update.
The refined SSIA maintained the same categories as in 2012, namely systemwide physical
improvements and operational elements, in addition to residual risk management actions. The
residual risk management actions focused on enhanced flood response and emergency
management (EFREM). Specifically, the EFREM actions included:
Increased data collection and enhancement of forecasting tools, and expanded use of
forecast-based operation to increase reservoir management flexibility and increased
forecast lead times
Enhancements to emergency preparedness plans and ability to respond in flood
emergencies and decreased notification and decision-making times
SB 5 requires that the CVFPP is updated every five years; the 2022 CVFPP Update fulfills this
requirement. The 2022 CVFPP Update used studies, tools, products, procedures, and
information developed through projects and programs completed since 2012. These include the
2017 CVFPP Update, the Central Valley Hydrology Study (CVHS) (DWR, 2015a), the Central
Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED) Program (DWR, 2013), and the Non-
Urban and Urban Levee Evaluations (NULE and ULE) (DWR, 2016a).
In accordance with State and federal policy and technical guidance, the 2022 CVFPP Update
used the latest climate science and understanding. CVFPP inland climate change analyses were
founded on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 5 climate model data,
which are the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment
Report (IPCC, 2013). The analyses specifically tailored to the Central Valley are presented in
Appendix A Climate Change Analysis. Future sea-level rise projections incorporated into the
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 1-2
1 Introduction
analyses are based on the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update (State of
California, 2018).
1.3 Report Organization
The 2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analysis Summary Report is organized as follows:
Section 1 - Introduction: Presents and describes the purpose of this report; provides
background information.
Section 2 - Overview of CVFPP Technical Analyses: Provides an overview of the analysis tools
and methods and describes the scenarios analyzed for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
Section 3 - Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update: Summarizes the technical analyses
from the 2017 CVFPP Update carried forward for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
Section 4 - Enhanced Technical Analyses -2022 CVFPP Update: Summarizes the enhanced
technical analyses for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
Section 5 - References: Lists references for the sources cited in this document.
Section 6 - Acronyms and Abbreviations: Provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations used
in this document.
1-3 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
CHAPTER 2
Overview of Technical Analyses
The CVFPP uses a 50-year planning horizon to understand how flood risk is expected to change
and to assess climate resiliency over the long-term. As part of the 2022 CVFPP Update, a series
of scenarios representing different points in time through the 50-year evaluation period (2022
to 2072) were analyzed. Although system components formulated as part of SSIA and modeled
for the 2017 CVFPP Update were unchanged for the 2022 CVFPP Update, updates were made
to account for the effects of completed projects with the best available information at the time
of the analyses. Informaiton was collected from the DWR Flood Projects Section and the CVFPP
For example, geotechnical
information for levee performance was updated in the analyzed scenarios, to reflect levee
improvements with completed and implemented projects since 2017 and by 2022.
The CVFPP updates focus on use of updated techniques to refine the evaluation of the SSIA and
to estimate flood risk with time. The 2017 CVFPP Update included technical analyses focused
on enhancing the flood hazard aspect of flood risk, specifically this included the integration of
CVHS hydrological tools, and the hydraulic models developed by CVFED. This 2022 CVFPP
Update focuses on describing the uncertainties of the climate change projections and on an
enhanced analysis of the vulnerability and consequence aspects of flood risk. The vulnerability
aspect was refined by updating the structure inventory and population information. The
consequence aspect of the analysis was refined by using more detailed life risk assessment
tools and models. Index points and impact areas remain unchanged from the 2017 CVFPP
Update.
The analyses include estimates of flood risk in terms of potential economic damages and life
loss, thus informing an understanding of how the SSIA reduces flood risk in the future.
2.1 CVFPP Overview Graphic
For the 2022 CVFPP Update, tools from the 2017 CVFPP Update were used and updated
including the CVHS, CVFED Program, and NULE/ULE Program. Figure 1 shows the overall
process and various tools and models that have been used for flood risk analysis in the Central
Valley for the 2022 CVFPP Update with data/tools from previous CVFPP updates shown in grey.
Table 1 provides a summary of these modeling tools. Descriptions of these tools and
2-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
methodology enhancements are described in the following sections of this report and are fully
detailed in the technical appendices of this report.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-2
lyses
index
index
31
updated at
The remaining
and
Overview of Technical Ana
2
were reviewed
gility curves
the levee fra
e
t
a
2017 or are planned to be completed shortly after 2022.
d-
p
U
P
P
F
unchanged from those used in the 2017 CVFPP Update.
V
C
. For the 2022 CVFPP Update,
2
2
0
2
e
.
h
t
r
o
f
d
2022
e
s
U
MAY
s
l
(noted in the dark gray boxes) are
s
o
o
T
DRAFT
d
analyse
n
developed during the 2017 CVFPP Update
a
s
PUBLIC
e
s were
y
l
a
n
A
l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T
curves consistent with those used in the 2017 CVFPP Update
f
previously completed studies and
o
(noted in the light gray box)
w agility
fr
e
i
v
r
from these
e
v
O
used levee
.
fragility curves
1
e
evee
r
InformationLpoints where existing conditions have been reevaluated or recent levee improvements had been completed postpoints
u
g
3
i
-
F 1.2.2
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Table 1. Modeling Tools Used in the 2022 CVFPP Update
Tool Version Description Purpose
Variable 4.2 Based on precipitation and
Hydrologic model used to simulate
Infiltration temperature forcings, and a
the full water and energy balance
Capacity (VIC) representation of the
by estimating land-surface
Model watershed response and
interactions and flow routing.
losses to compute flow
runoff. This model also
represents snow
accumulation and melting.
HEC-ResSim 3.2 The model includes a
The HEC-ResSim model used for
representation of the
the CVFPP was developed as part
physical features and
of CVHS. For the 2017 CVFPP
operational rules of the
Update, the model was configured
reservoir system. Physical
for the various evaluation
features include the capacity
conditions and a range of
of the reservoirs and outlets
hydrographs of different size and
to store and release water.
shape, routed through the system.
Given a set of inflows and
The 2022 CVFPP Update relies on
initial conditions, the model
the reservoir simulations
simulates reservoir operation
completed for the 2017 CVFPP
and routes releases through
Update.
the defined channel network.
Sacramento Central Valley systemwide
HEC-RAS
Hydraulic model originally
Basin: v4.2 hydraulic analysis of channels
and floodplains.
Central Valley Floodplain
San Joaquin
Evaluation and Delineation
Basin: v5.0.1
(CVFED) Program.
The HEC-RAS model used for the
CVFPP was developed as part of
the 2017 CVFPP Update. The 2022
CVFPP Update technical analysis
relies on the HEC-RAS runs
completed for the 2017 CVFPP
Update.
FLO-2D 2009.06 Based on CVFED. This model was Floodplain evaluation
used in the 2017 and 2022 CVFPP including flood depths,
Updates. extents, and timing.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-4
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Tool Version Description Purpose
IPAST 2.2.0.16 IPAST extracts data from HEC-DSS IPAST processes extracted
files generated from the HEC-RAS HEC-ResSim and HEC-RAS
and HEC-ResSim programs. data and creates unregulated
flow (volume) frequency
curves and unregulated-to-
regulated flow transforms.
Additionally, this tool
supports the climate change
ratio development.
LifeSim 2.0 Beta Tool to estimate life loss from a Given Floodplain depths and
single flood event. timing of the flood due to a
levee breach, structure
inventory, estimates of flood
preparedness and willingness
to evacuate, life loss is
estimated
Life loss for a single event
given a channel stage and
levee breach. A LifeSim
model was run to develop a
stage-life loss relationship.
Flood damage analysis tool to This model integrates the
HEC-FDA 1.4.2
estimate flood damages and costs flood hazard, system
and life loss at an index point. performance, and
vulnerability and
consequences input to
complete flood risk. Key
inputs include Regulated
flow-frequency functions,
flow-stage relationships,
levee performance, structure
inventory, stage-life loss
relationships, and depth-
damage relationships.
The program computes
economic and life risk,
measured by expected
annual damage (EAD),
expected annual life loss
(EALL), and annual
exceedance probability
(AEP).
2-5 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
2.2 Overview of CVFPP Scenarios Analyzed
The CVFPP planning horizon is 30 years for investment planning purposes. However, the
physical elements studied in the Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies (BWFSs) (DWR, 2016c; DWR,
2016d) and the CVFPP are assessed over a longer horizon (50 years). The CVFPP is updated
every five years, which allows for a revised understanding of how the flood risk and resiliency of
elements change over time. The modeling and technical analyses presented in this report
assess system performance in terms of flood risk over a 50-year period, from 2022 to 2072.
The scenarios are based on the assumptions of the state of the study area at a set point in time,
namely 2022 (current) and 2072 (future), for both without-project and with-project conditions.
For the future 2072 point in time, three climate change projections were used including a low,
median, and high estimate. In this Technical Analysis Summary Report and in the 2022 CVFPP
Update Public Draft, median (or medium, or central tendency) scenario represent the scenario
in between the low and high estimates. The eight scenarios analyzed as part of the 2022 CVFPP
Update are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. 2022 CVFPP Scenarios
Analysis Year Climate Project Condition Project Description
Condition
2022 Current Without-project Existing state of the system
Existing state of the system + SSIA
2022 Current With-project
(EFREM only)
2072 Future low Without-project Existing state of the system +
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes
2072 Future medium Without-project Existing state of the system +
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes
Future high Existing state of the system +
2072 Without-project
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes
Future low Existing state of the system +
2072 With-project
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes + SSIA (structural + EFREM)
2072 Future medium With-project Existing state of the system +
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes + SSIA (structural + EFREM)
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-6
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Climate
Analysis Year Project Condition Project Description
Condition
2072 Future high With-project Existing state of the system +
climate change increased population and land use
projection changes + SSIA (structural + EFREM)
A detailed description of each scenario is provided below.
2022 Current Without-Project Scenario. This scenario includes the existing conditions of flood
management systems in the Central Valley and includes projects that have been authorized and
funded, or that have started construction or implementation as listed in Table 3 and Table 4.
Known projects underway or otherwise refined through further study post-2017 CVFPP Update,
but are not included in the without-project condition include:
Lower Elkhorn Expansion (Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project)
Sacramento Bypass and Weir Expansions
Little Egbert Multi-benefit Project (including levee degrade)
Paradise Cut Multi-benefit Bypass Expansion
Lower Yolo Bypass Expansion: levee setback south of RD 2068 (Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat
Restoration and Flood Improvement Project)
2022 Current With-Project Scenario. This scenario is the same as the 2022 Without-Project
Scenario with the addition of EFREM that includes nonstructural features. As a result, there is
no change in the flood hazard between the two 2022 scenarios (Without-Project and With-
Project). This scenario is intended to show the benefits of high-priority, nonstructural
systemwide actions, primarily emergency response and reservoir operation actions, that could
be implemented in the short term and includes all the projects in the 2022 Without-Project
Scenario plus EFREM.
2072 Future Low, Medium, and High Climate Change Project Without-Project Scenario. These
scenarios have all the same features as the 2022 Without-Project Scenario. However, the
effects of inland climate change, sea level rise, and population and land use changes at the end
of the planning horizon of 50 years are included. The inland climate change effects applied
include a low, medium, and high estimate to provide a range of potential climate change
outcomes. To account for future growth, projections of population are included. Growth factors
for urban areas were only applied if urban level of protection (LOP) criterion were met under
the SSIA, consistent with SB 5.
2072 Future Low, Medium, and High Climate Change Projection With-Project Scenario. These
scenarios include all the features in the 2072 Without-Project Scenario plus the systemwide and
larger-scale actions as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the Sacramento River basin and Figure
2-7 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
4 and Figure 5 for the San Joaquin River basin. Project features are further detailed in Table 3
and Table 4.
The 2072 scenarios do not include potential for deterioration of flood management assets in
the future. If these assets are allowed to deteriorate, perhaps through shortfalls in operations,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement, then the flood risk in the 2072 Without-
Project Scenario may be greater than indicated in the analyses presented in this document.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-8
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Figure 2. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the Sacramento River Basin
2-9 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Figure 3. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the Sacramento River Basin (continued)
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-10
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Figure 4. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the San Joaquin River Basin
2-11 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2 Overview of Technical Analyses
Figure 5. Without-Project and With-Project Features in the San Joaquin River Basin (continued)
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 2-12
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
High
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Overview of Technical Analyses Projection
2
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Low
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXXXXXXX
High
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
-
XXXXXXXXXXX
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Without
Projection
2022
-
MAY
out
XXXXXXXXXXX
Low
2072
Project
Change
Climate
With
Projection
DRAFT
-
PUBLIC
XXXXXXXXXXX
s
2022
With
o
Project
i
r
a
n
e
-
c
S
n
XXXXXXXXXXX
i
s
2022
a
Project
Without
B
r
e
v
i
R
o
t
n
e
m
a
r
c
a
S
r
Improvements
o
f
s
t
CO
Levee
Element-
n
e
m
Ring
e
l
E
.
Feather F
3
-
e
l
b
13
a Folsom Joint Federal Project spillway and reoperationYubaFeather River Levee Bear River Levee ImprovementsStar Bend Levee ImprovementsMarysville Knights Landing ERR Natomas Levee Improvement
ProjectHamilton City Phase 1 ImprovementsWest Sacramento Levee ProjectAmerican River Common Features GRR ProjectFolsom Dam RaiseNew Bullards Bar Lower Outlet
-
T 2
14
-
2
-
XXXXXXX
High
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXXX
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Overview of Technical Analyses Projection
2
-
XXXXXXX
Low
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
High
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
-
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Without
Projection
2022
-
MAY
out
Low
2072
Project
Change
Climate
With
Projection
DRAFT
-
PUBLIC
2022
With
Project
-
2022
Project
Without
-
-
-
500
levee
mile
foot
mile
-
-
: 3,000
-
5
foot
5
-
asin
B
asin
Element
B
Levee Setback
Expansion: 1.
80
-
levee setback for Yolo Bypass expansionexpansion
Fremont Weir expansion of Fremont WeirUpper Elkhorn Expansion: 1.expansion of Yolo Bypass within the Upper Elkhorn Lower Elkhorn footwithin the Lower Elkhorn Sacramento Weir Expansion:
1,500footSacramento Bypass Expansion: 1,footWillow Slough Setback: 4,000levee setback on the west side of Yolo Bypass north of Willow Slough and south of IPutah Creek Setback: 4,000setback
on the west side of Yolo Bypass north of Putah Creek
-
XXXXXX
High
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXX
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Overview of Technical Analyses Projection
2
-
XXXXXX
Low
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
High
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
-
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Without
Projection
2022
-
MAY
out
Low
2072
Project
Change
Climate
With
Projection
DRAFT
-
PUBLIC
X
2022
With
Project
-
2022
Project
Without
GRR = General Reevaluation ReportRD = Reclamation District
(Lookout
Project
Element
Egbert Tract (RD 2084)
Coordinated Operations
-
Tidal Habitat Restoration and
Little
weir to tie the Yolo Bypass into
Egbert Tract: degrade portions
:
15
CO = Forecast
Deep Water Ship Channel Tie In: a gated the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship ChannelDegrade Step Levees: degrade remaining step levee segments in the lower Yolo BypassLower Yolo Bypass
Expansion: levee setback south of RD 2068Slough Flood Improvement Project)Prospect Island Levees: degrade portions of the Prospect Island west leveeLittle of the leveesEnhanced flood
response and emergency management
-
ey
-
KERR = Economic Reevaluation ReportFFSRP = Flood System Repair 2
16
-
2
-
XXXXXXXXXXX
High
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXXXXXXX
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Overview of Technical Analyses Projection
2
-
XXXXXXXXXXX
Low
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XX
High
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
-
XX
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Without
Projection
2022
-
MAY
XX
Low
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
DRAFT
-
PUBLIC
XX
s
2022
With
Project
o
i
r
a
n
-
e
c
S
n
XX
i
s
2022
a
Project
Without
B
r
e
v
i
R
n
i
O and
u
I
q
r LOP
a
ea
o
J
y
year LOP
-
-
n
r LOP
a
S
200
ea
r
y
-
o
f
year LOP
-
s
t
200
Element
n
contain 25,000 cfs
year LOP levee raise on
e
-
m
e
l
E
.
4
e
l
CO)
b
-
a Stewart Tract (RD 2062) and RD 2107 levee improvementsFrench Camp Slough (RD 404) levee improvementsIncreased Flood Storage Capacity at New Hogan ReservoirReservoir Actions for New
Don Pedro Reservoir on Tuolumne River (FFLevee raise to release from New Don Pedro Reservoir on Tuolumne RiverStockton 200San Joaquin and Calaveras riversSmith Canal ClosureFourteen
Mile Slough Thirteen Mile Slough 200Mosher Slough Pixley Slough 200
T
-
XXXXXXXXX
High
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
XXXXXXXXX
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Overview of Technical Analyses Projection
2
-
XXXXXXXXX
Low
2072
With
Project
Change
Climate
Projection
-
High
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
-
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Medium
Without
Projection
2022
-
MAY
Low
2072
Project
Change
Climate
Without
Projection
DRAFT
-
PUBLIC
X
2022
With
Project
-
2022
Project
Without
-
LOP = level of protectionRD = Reclamation DistrictRM = river mile
year LOP
-
year LOP with
-
year LOP
-
Setback
200
Element
year LOP and eco
200
-
Coordinated Operations
100
-
Informed Operations
-
65 Levee
-
Mossdale
:
17
CO = Forecast
RD 17 ecosystem habitatFrench Camp Slough 200Walker Slough Dos Rios Transitory StorageThree Amigos Transitory StorageFirebaugh storageParadise Cut Bypass Expansion with levee raises,
levee setbacks, and bench removalRM 60Enhanced flood response and emergency management
-
ey
-
Kcfs = cubic feet per secondFFIO = Forecast 2
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
CHAPTER 3
Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
As noted, one of the intents of the CVFPP update is to integrate updated hazard, performance,
and consequences information into the computation of flood risk. This current update relies on
the enhanced flood hazard analysis that coupled with part of the 2017 CVFPP update. Note that
the changing flood hazard due to climate change was updated as part of this current analysis.
These areas of analysis included the flood hydrology, reservoir operations, riverine, and
floodplain hydraulics as shown previously in Figure 1.
Figure 6. Incorporation of Hydrologic Results
3.1 Flood Hydrology
For the 2017 CVFPP Update, regulated
flow-frequency curves were developed at
Climate Change
key locations in the system, referred to as
CVFPP index points, for the evaluation
Riverine
scenarios. The methodology for
Hydraulics
development of these curves follows CVHS
methods and is described in detail in the
Floodplain
Hydrology
Hyraulics
2017 CVFPP Technical Analyses Summary
Expanded Report (DWR, 2017). These
regulated flow-frequency curves were also
Flood Risk
used in the 2022 CVFPP Update for both
the 2022 Without-Project and With-Project
Life Risk
scenarios.
For the 2017 CVFPP Update, projected inland climate change discharge was incorporated into
-frequency curves
using climate change ratios. The future condition volume frequency curves were revised for this
analysis to reflect improved downscaling techniques of information from global climate models
and a representation of the range of changes in precipitation and temperature trends. A
summary of how these ratios were developed for the 2022 CVFPP Update is provided in Section
4.2 and explained in additional detail in Appendix B Climate Change Volume-Frequency
3-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Analysis. Results from this flood hydrology task were used in subsequent analyses to compute
hydraulic results, flood damage estimates, and life risk estimates (Figure 6).
3.2 Reservoir Operations Analysis
In the 2017 CVFPP Update, system hydrographs based on historical or scaled historical inflows
taken from CVHS were simulated through models of the reservoir systems with prescribed
reservoir operating rules for each scenario. Reservoir operations analysis were completed using
the HEC-ResSim model from CVHS, which combined different representations of recently
implemented reservoir operation management agreements, future planned reservoir
improvements, and with-project reservoir-related options within the SSIA. Results from these
reservoir simulation models were used as input for the system-regulated channel routing
model, at selected handoff locations.
Reservoir operations and storage components included in the evaluation scenarios are listed
below:
Yuba-Feather Forecast-Coordinated Operations (F-CO) (LƓĭƌǒķĻķ źƓ ğƌƌ ĻǝğƌǒğƷźƚƓ
ƭĭĻƓğƩźƚƭ): Oroville Reservoir along the Feather River and New Bullards Bar along the Yuba
River share a common downstream operating point. Releases from both reservoirs are
influenced by the total flow at the Yuba-Feather river confluence near the cities of Yuba and
Marysville. F-CO is a multi-agency partnership and program to exchange information on
reservoir inflow forecasts and anticipated releases from the reservoirs. The F-CO was
reflected in the HEC-ResSim model by the addition of a specific rule to each reservoir that
looks at the total flow at the downstream confluence. Release decisions were then made to
balance the use of the flood storage between the reservoirs.
Expansion of New Bullards Bar Outlet capabilities (CǒƷǒƩĻ ǞźƷŷΏƦƩƚƆĻĭƷ ƭĭĻƓğƩźƚƭ):
Proposed construction of a new outlet at New Bullards Bar Reservoir is currently under
evaluation to increase the maximum release from the reservoir at a given water level. This
expanded capacity is expected to add reservoir management flexibility and would evacuate
flood waters from the flood control pool in advance of large flood events.
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (Included in all evaluation scenarios): This project, which
was implemented by USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation, includes the construction of an
auxiliary -year level. In
addition, the project required modifications to the Folsom Water Control Manual (USACE,
2016), which dictates how flood storage, and subsequent releases are made. The
Sacramento District revised set of operating rules are based on directly forecasted volumes
the Water Control Manual update (USACE, 2017).
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 3-2
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Folsom Dam Raise (Future with-project scenarios): This is an authorized project; USACE
Sacramento District would raise Folsom Dam by approximately 3.5 feet. Design of the raise
and how the additional storage would be used to meet flood management objectives is
currently being refined. This raise is part of the SSIA. To represent the raise, the modeling
reservoir
simulations.
Increased Storage on the Calaveras River (Future with-project scenarios): In the
San Joaquin BWFS, significant analysis focused on the best use of additional storage on the
San Joaquin River system. Storage on the Calaveras River was determined to be beneficial
for downstream flood management. The SSIA with-project condition includes 42,000 acre-
feet of upper watershed flood storage in the Calaveras River watershed to reduce
systemwide stages and provide climate change resiliency. Upper watershed flood storage
could include a wide portfolio of actions, including upstream transitory storage, off-stream
storage, reservoir re-operation to increase flood storage space in existing reservoirs,
conjunctive use opportunities that increase flood storage space, forecast-informed
operations (FIO), increased reservoir objective release, or any combination of these.
Reservoir Actions for New Don Pedro Reservoir on Tuolumne River (Future with-project
scenarios): This is an increase in objective release from 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to
25,000 cfs to allow greater use of the channels and allow greater flexibility in flood storage.
For the 2022 CVFPP Update, HEC-ResSim simulations from the 2017 CVFPP Update were used
to provide input to the riverine channel hydraulics.
3.3 Riverine Hydraulics
The 2017 CVFPP Update established flow-frequency and channel stage-discharge relationships
at each index point in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins for input to the risk
analysis. The riverine model used the reservoir releases as input and dynamically routed flow
through the channel system, accounting for levee overtopping and levee breaches. Riverine
analysis was completed with the most updated systemwide HEC-RAS models from the CVFED
program modified to reflect the 2022 CVFPP Update evaluation scenarios.
Two HEC-RAS geometries were used for the evaluation scenarios for the Sacramento River
basin as follows:
Existing Conditions: This reflects with-out project conditions used for the 2022 and 2072
scenarios. As mentioned earlier, there is no hydraulic difference between with-out project
and with-project conditions for 2022. So, this was also used for 2022 with-project
conditions.
3-3 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
With-Project: This reflects with-project conditions and is used for the 2072 With-Project
Scenarios.
Similarly, two HEC-RAS geometries were assembled for the evaluation scenarios for the
San Joaquin River basin as follows:
Existing Conditions: This reflects with-out project conditions used for the 2022 and 2072
scenarios, as well as 2022 with-project conditions.
With SSIA: This reflects with-project conditions and is used for the 2072 With-Project
Scenarios.
3.4 Floodplain Hydraulics
To estimate flood damage when a levee fails (breaches) or overtops, a relationship between
channel water surface elevations and floodplain elevations is needed at each index point in the
system.
3.4.1 Impact Areas and Index Points
Impact areas and index points form the basic framework for the flood risk assessment. Flood
risk is computed at an index point, which is a location that represents the interface between an
impact area and the channel, as shown on Figure 7. In this context, an index point is a specific
location that is representative of a river reach (referred to as a damage reach) with consistent
hydrologic, hydraulic, and geotechnical characteristics. The 2022 CVFPP Update used the same
impact areas and index points used in the 2017 CVFPP Update. The index points and impact
areas for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9
(Sacramento), Figure 10 and Figure 11 (San Joaquin).
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 3-4
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Figure 7. Example Index Point/Impact Area for Flood Risk Computation
3-5 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Figure 8. Sacramento River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 3-6
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Figure 9. Sacramento River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas (continued)
3-7 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Figure 10. San Joaquin River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 3-8
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
Figure 11. San Joaquin River Basin Index Points and Impact Areas (continued)
3-9 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
3.4.2 Interior and Exterior Areas
The floodplain is often referred to as the interior area, and the channel is referred to as the
exterior area as illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Interior and Exterior Areas
This interior-exterior relationship does not involve probabilities.
Rather, it is a physical relationship based on simulation of levee
Figure 13. Simplified
failures and floodplain evaluation. The shape of the relationship is
Interior-Exterior
a function of the levee breach model parameters, the water in the
Relationship
channel that spills into the floodplain, and the floodplain
topography.
Such a relationship for a simple case is illustrated on Figure 13.
Here while flow is contained within the channel, the channel
stage increases and floodplain stage is zero, as shown by the
horizontal line along the Channel Stage axis. Once the channel
stage is exceeded or the levee fails, the floodplain stage
increases vertically until the channel stage and floodplain stage
are equal. This type of interior-exterior relationship would be
representative of a basin where the floodplain fills li
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 3-10
3 Analyses Used from 2017 CVFPP Update
However, in cases where the floodplain is sloped and there is a significant amount of overland
flow, such as in the Central Valley, the floodplain evaluation is typically completed with an
advanced two-dimensional floodplain routing model such as FLO-2D. For these cases, a channel
elevation to floodplain surface is then developed.
An interior-exterior relationship was developed for each defined index point and impact area
pair within the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins using CVFED Program FLO-2D
and HEC-RAS models, based on CVHS flow hydrographs during the 2017 CVFPP Update. These
relationships were also used for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
3.5 Hydraulic Results
The stage- and flow-frequency curves at each index point are presented in Appendix D Risk
Analysis Summary by Index Point. As mentioned earlier, the 2022 With-Project Scenario is not
hydraulically different from the 2022 Without-Project Scenario; however, the flood damage and
life risk estimates are different because of the changes in how the EFREM improves the public
response to the hazard. The 2022 Without-Project and 2022 With-Project Scenarios were
completed assuming present-day sea levels.
3-11 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
CHAPTER 4
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022
CVFPP Update
Several components of the technical analyses required to estimate flood risk within the Central
Valley were enhanced for the 2022 CVFPP Update. These include:
Climate change analysis
Climate change volume-frequency analysis
Estuarine evaluations
Geotechnical analysis
Risk analysis inventory update
Life risk input development
Flood risk analyses
4.1 Climate Change Analysis
The 2012 CVFPP assessed the system vulnerabilities for climate change by assuming a 30
percent increase in flood size. The 2017 CVFPP Update built an evaluation framework with a
chain of models to assess late-century flood vulnerabilities for medium projections. Following
adoption of the 2017 CVFPP Update and in response to public comments regarding
uncertainties in the climate change analysis, the 2022 CVFPP Update includes a broader range
of potential climate conditions in the future.
Projected climate conditions were extended to include low, medium, and high projected
magnitude of change and associated impact for a planning horizon of 50 years from the 2022
CVFPP Update. The range represents a wider available sample, given available downscaled
climate models and analytical tools, of plausible future changes in flood risk due to climate
change in the Central Valley expected by 2072. Figure 14 shows the evolution of the climate
change analyses presented in this document from 2012 to present.
4-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 14. Climate Change Analyses in the CVFPP, 2012 Through 2022
Evolution of Climate Change Analyses in CVFPP
2012 CVFPP: Assessed system vulnerabilities assuming 30
percent increase in flood size.
2017 CVFPP: Built a framework with a chain of models
to assess late-century flood vulnerabilities for medium projections.
2022 CVFPP: Updated chain of models to assess flood vulnerabilities
for 2072 under a range of future climate scenarios.
While the overall climate change analysis procedure follows the 2017 CVFPP Update, two
significant enhancements were made:
1. The Locally Constructed Analogs (LOCA) statistically downscaled dataset has replaced the
Bias Correction with median Spatial Disaggregation (BCSD) method.
2. The low, and high projections use 10 General Circulation Model (GCM) scenario members,
herein referred to as "model-RCPs," to represent a drier, lesser warming condition (low),
and a wetter, more warming condition (high), as well as a medium condition.
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) represent the combined climate impacts of
sets of internally consistent assumptions about future changes in the global economy,
technology, demographics, policy, and institutional arrangements. A model-RCP refers to
the combination of a GCM and a RCP.
4.1.1 General Circulation Model Archive and Dataset
The CMIP Phase 5 multi-model dataset informed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report and was released in 2013. The CMIP Phase 5 global
projections of future climate conditions use four RCPs (RCP-2.6, -4.5, -6.0, and -8.5), which
reflect different potential climate outcomes as a result of the total additional radiative forcing
at the end of the 21st century relative to pre-industrial times. Radiative forcing refers to the
difference between incoming and outgoing radiation of the planet. Overall, 38 GCMs use one or
multiple RCPs to represent potential future conditions.
Of the 38 GCMs, 31 were explored in 2015 by the Climate Change Technical Advisory Group
(CCTAG), from which 10 GCMs were identified to perform "better" for developing assessments
and plans for California water resource issues as well as to develop a more manageable climate
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-2
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
change ensemble. Since then, a few additional GCMs became available but were not considered
in the post-CCTAG effort.
Currently, the best available dataset of statistically downscaled GCM products for California is
th
the LOCA archive of 32 GCMs from the CMIP Phase 5 archive at 1/16 degree spatial resolution
(Pierce et al., 2014). The LOCA method is a statistical scheme that uses future climate
projections combined with historical analog events to produce daily downscaled precipitation
and temperature time series. The use of spatial and temporal analogs from historical events
likely produces a more realistic storm pattern than the BCSD method used in the 2017 CVFPP
Update. The LOCA dataset used in the 2022 CVFPP Update includes 32 GCMs under two RCPs
(RCP 4.5 and 8.5) which brings the total number of model-RCPs to 64. The low, medium, and
high scenarios used in climate change analysis are created from subsets of these 64 model-RCPs
members. Table 5 shows the complete list of 38 GCMs, the 10 GCMs selected by the CCTAG,
and the 32 GCMs downscaled using LOCA.
Table 5. GCMs Developed under CMIP Phase 5 to Inform the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report
38 CMIP5 GCMs GCMs screened by 10 GCMs selected 32 GCMs downscaled
CCTAG by CCTAG using LOCA
ACCESS1-0 X X X
ACCESS1-3 X X
BCC-CSM1-1 X X
BCC-CSM1-1-M X X
BNU-ESM X
CANESM2 X X X
CCSM4 X X X
CESM1-BGC X X X
CESM1-CAM5 X X
CMCC-CM X X
CMCC-CMS X X X
CNRM-CM5 X X X
CSIRO-MK3-6-0 X X
EC-EARTH X X
FGOALS-G2 X X
FGOALS-S2
4-3 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
GCMs screened by 10 GCMs selected 32 GCMs downscaled
38 CMIP5 GCMs
CCTAG by CCTAG using LOCA
FIO-ESM
GFDL-CM3 X X X
GFDL-ESM2G X X
GFDL-ESM2M X X
GISS-E2-H X
GISS-E2-R X
GISS-E2-R-CC
HADGEM2-AO X
HADGEM2-CC X X X
HADGEM2-ES X X X
INMCM4 X X
IPSL-CM5A-LR X X
IPSL-CM5A-MR X X
IPSL-CM5B-LR X
MIROC-ESM X X
MIROC-ESM-CHEM X X
MIROC5 X X X
MPI-ESM-LR X X
MPI-ESM-MR X X
MRI-CGCM3 X X
NORESM1-M X X
NORESM1-ME
4.1.2 Climate Change Scenarios
As discussed above, projected climate conditions were extended to include low, medium, and
high projected magnitude of change and associated impact for a planning horizon extending 50
years beyond 2022. Similar to the 2017 CVFPP Update, the medium projection is derived from
the model-RCP scenarios falling within the inner quartile (25th to 75th percentile) of the 64
model-RCPs ensemble. The low and high projected conditions were derived using a nearest-
neighbor approach to sample 10 model-RCPs closest to the maximum (and minimum) projected
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-4
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
change (Figure 15) across the 64-member archive. The 10-nearest neighbor approach is meant
to adequately represent the extreme range of climate projections without biasing the projected
scenario to a single model-
Figure 15. Absolute Change in Average Annual Temperature and Percent Change of Average
Annual Temperature at one Future Thirty-Year Period Centered on 2072
4.1.3 VIC Modeling
The Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model is a macro-scale, semi-distributed hydrologic
model that solves water and energy balances and simulates land surface-atmosphere fluxes of
moisture and energy. The 2017 CVFPP Update used VIC version 4.1, whereas the 2022 CVFPP
Update used version 4.2, an updated version which increases accuracy and reduces
unnecessary complexities, thereby improving model output.
The VIC model domain and grid, which remain unchanged from the 2017 CVFPP Update, are
th
shown in Figure 16. The VIC model domain consists of 8,419 grid cells at a 1/16 (~6km) (~3.75
miles) spatial resolution.
4-5 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 16. 2022 CVFPP VIC Model Domain and Grid (DWR, 2016b)
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-6
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
The VIC model contains several optional algorithms (modes) for performing various
computations. Some of these options were developed for better understanding of hydrologic
processes while others were developed to enhance model performance in different geographic
settings. For the 2022 CVFPP Update, two major simulation modes were considered:
The water balance mode computes a daily soil water balance, but avoids computationally
intensive surface energy balance calculations by assuming that soil surface temperature is
equal to air temperature. In the water balance mode, VIC also solves the energy balance
within the snowpack to compute snowmelt fluxes and maintain snow water equivalent.
The energy balance mode performs iterative computations to solve the complete water
balance while also minimizing the surface energy balance error. The surface energy balance
computations close when a surface temperature is found, making the sum of sensible heat,
ground heat, ground heat storage, outgoing longwave and indirectly latent heat equal to
the sum of incoming solar and longwave radiation fluxes. In cold regions such as snow-
capped mountains, a frozen soil algorithm is available for computing thermal fluxes within
soil ice, which can restrict infiltration and soil moisture drainage.
The VIC model used for the 2017 CVFPP Update included full water balance computations and
the frozen soil algorithm. Full energy balance algorithms were not utilized (i.e., the energy
balance was turned off) for the 2017 CVFPP Update VIC model for computational efficiency. The
iterative nature of energy balance computations significantly increases the computation time
required to complete each model run. For the 2022 CVFPP Update, the VIC model was used to
calculate annual precipitation, runoff, and baseflow for the 8,419 unique grid cells. Three VIC
model simulations were developed as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. VIC Model Simulations Used in 2022 CVFPP Update Analysis
VIC Model Software Simulation Energy Notes
Simulation Version Period Balance
1 4.1 January 1, OFF This model simulation was performed for the
1915-2022 CVFPP Update to ensure the model was
December consistent with the 2017 CVFPP Update, with no
31, 2011 need for further calibration or additional
specification in the parameter files
January 1, Improvement from the 2017 CVFPP. Enabled the
2 4.2 ON
1915-already refined model to run the energy-related
December portions of the model, thereby producing more
31, 2011 reliable output variables.
Utilized the same model features as VIC Model 2,
3 4.2 2070 ON
but rather than operating on the historical years
of 1915 to 2011, the historical data were used to
project values for the year 2072.
4-7 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
The VIC model simulation described above was used to calculate annual precipitation, runoff,
and baseflow in the year 2072 for each of the 8,419 grid cells under each of the three climate
change scenarios and the scenario. Figure 17 through Figure 19 show the
percent change in annual precipitation, annual runoff, and annual baseflow, respectively, as
compared against the no climate change scenario for the three future climate scenarios.
Precipitation is projected to increase from the warmer, drier scenario (low), to the central
tendency (medium) scenario, to the hotter, wetter (high) scenario, with the highest percent
increase in precipitation observed along the coastal range and eastern slopes. Increase in
annual runoff in the Central Valley was observed primarily under the hotter, wetter scenario. It
was also observed that there is loss of baseflow under the warmer, drier and medium scenarios
and baseflow increases only under the hotter, wetter scenario.
Figure 17. Percent Change in Annual Precipitation Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-8
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 18. Percent Change in Annual Runoff Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios
Figure 19. Percent Change in Annual Baseflow Under the Three Future Climate Scenarios
(low) (high)
4-9 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.2 Climate Change Volume-Frequency Analysis
For the 2017 CVFPP Update climate change analysis, a detailed analysis was completed to
evaluate how the CVHS volume-frequency curve could change under a climate change scenario.
For this, watershed response using the VIC rainfall-runoff model was completed for historical
conditions as well as a modified conditions using climate change projections. The times series at
key CVHS-defined locations, called CVHS analysis points, were then used as the basis of a flow-
frequency analysis. Note that for the 2017 CVFPP analysis, CVHS analysis points were associated
with CVFPP index points and this same pairing was kept for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
Incorporating climate change projections into the analyses for the 2022 CVFPP Update required
the development of climate change ratios. This basic procedure is the same as used in the
previous update. Climate change ratios are applied to scale unregulated volume-frequency
curves. These curves, along with unregulated-to-regulated flow transforms, were used to
develop regulated flow-frequency information which correspond to future climate projections
in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins. This regulated flow-frequency information was
then used in the system-wide risk analysis for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
Specifically, for each condition, a simulated period of record is created with the rainfall runs
made then, the annual maximum volumes were extracted for each water year between
October 1 and May 31 and a statistical distribution was fit to the values.
Ratiohe ratio of the flow-frequency curves of with and without the
projected climate change conditions. The climate change ratios were computed by dividing
specific volumes developed using VIC simulation results for a given future climate condition by
the volumes developed using VIC simulation results for historical conditions. The volumes used,
and corresponding ratios developed were based on various durations and annual exceedance
probabilities. Subsequently, these climate change ratios were applied to the CVHS flow-
frequency curves and used in the analysis as this provided a means to "normalize" the results
and apply them to the volume-frequency curves derived from the Central Valley hydrology
study, which used measured and synthesized historical flows.
Development of the 2022 CVFPP Update climate change ratios was consistent with the 2017
CVFPP Update climate change analysis with the following refinements:
New analytical methods for flood frequency analysis. Flood frequency analysis guidelines
have been published in the United States since 1967 and have undergone periodic revisions.
The current version of these flood frequency guidelines, Bulletin 17C, is an update to the
Bulletin 17B procedures used in the 2017 CVFPP Update. The new guidelines include an
adoption of a generalized representation that allows for interval and censored data; a new
method, called the Expected Moments Algorithm, which extends the Method of Moments;
a generalized approach to identification of low outliers in flood data, called Multiple
Grubbs-Beck; and an improved method for computing confidence intervals. The current
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-10
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
standard of practice is to use Bulletin 17C in planning activities involving water and related
land resources.
Expanded capabilities in Information Processing and Synthesis Tool (IPAST). IPAST is a
stand-alone software application that extracts data generated by computer programs such
as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) and Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir System Simulation (HEC-ResSim).
IPAST processes the data and creates unregulated flow (volume) frequency curves and
unregulated-to-regulated flow transforms among other functionalities. Consistent with the
2017 CVFPP Update, IPAST was used for the 2022 CVFPP Update climate change analysis for
the application of the climate change analysis modeling results. However, IPAST capabilities
were expanded to include the ability to compute climate change ratios between two sets of
volume-frequency curves, publish the ratios to a comma delimited (.csv) file, and publish
plots of the ratios versus probability by duration. Additionally, IPAST was modified to
i
The new capabilities added
do not change the analysis outcome, but formalize the analysis steps and help with the
transparency of the analysis and intermediate results.
To develop the climate change ratios, Log-Pearson Type III statistical distributions were fit to
the annual maximums extracted from the VIC modeling results to estimate annual exceedance
volume quantiles using Bulletin 17C procedures. The climate change projection quantiles were
then compared to those of the baseline to develop climate change ratios at each of the 46
analysis points. Fit and review of the statistical fits and computed climate change ratios
included a 3-phased approach as follows:
Phase 1: In the first phase 1, volume-frequency curves were fit using Bulletin 17C
procedures for each analysis point followed by review of 1-, 3-, 7-, 15-, and 30-day volume-
-Figure 20 shows
examples of consistent and inconsistent curve fits. Review also included adjusting and
documenting statistics and low outlier threshold values for each analysis point as needed.
Subsequently climate change ratios were computed at each analysis point using IPAST.
Phase 2: In the second phase, 1-, 3-, 7-, 15-, and 30-day volume-frequency curves and
statistics were reviewed by scenario to check for internal consistency. This review included
ensuring that each of the low, medium, and high curves do not cross for a given duration.
Event-based climate change ratios were computed by dividing the ranked values for a given
duration and compared to those computed using the fitted volume-frequency curves. For
example, the largest 3-day high climate change scenario volume was divided by the largest
3-day baseline volume. Review also included identifying analysis points and climate change
4-11 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
scenarios that were considered inconsistent for further possible adjustment and
documented these inconsistencies.
Phase 3: The last phase included review of spatial consistency of climate change ratios.
Specifically, the 1-day and 3-day climate change ratios were reviewed for the p=0.1, 0.02,
0.01, and 0.005 AEPs. This phase also included further review of the volume-duration curves
and computed climate change ratios to ensure that the results were consistent to changes
seen in the VIC model runoff hydrographs for each climate change scenario.
Figure 20. Example curve fitting, consistent curves where the durations do not cross for rare
events, and inconsistent curves where the 1-day curve cross the 3-day curve near the p=0.005
(200-year) AEP
Consistent
Inconsistent
curves
curves
In general, the medium climate change ratios for the San Joaquin River basin were observed to
be greater than those in the Sacramento River basin. For example, the San Joaquin River basin
3-day p=0.01 (100-year) ratios range from 1.07 to 1.86, whereas the Sacramento River basin 3-
day p=0.01 (100-year) ratios range from 0.99 to 1.35. Detailed results of the climate change
ratios are included in Attachment A through Attachment C of Appendix B Climate Change
Volume-Frequency Analysis. Plots of regulated stage-frequency curves, the ultimate application
of the climate change ratios, at each index point is included in Appendix D Risk Analysis
Summary by Index Point.
4.3 Estuary Evaluations
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) poses inherent hydraulic complexity due to the
contribution of flows from the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Eastern tributaries and
tidal effects from the Pacific Ocean traveling through the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary (Bay-
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-12
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Delta). Due to this complexity, regions in the Delta require a different approach to develop
flow-stage relationships than the rest of the SPFC planning area.
Here, a detailed hydraulic model of the Bay-Delta was utilized to represent the impacts of tidal
conditions and riverine flows. This model was developed using Resource Management
Associates, Inc. (RMA) Bay-Delta model. Figure 21 shows the RMA Bay-Delta model extents and
handoff points to the HEC-RAS downstream boundaries. The following steps were used to
develop Delta flow-stage relationships:
1. Utilized at-latitude flow-frequency curves for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River
using CVHS procedures.
2. Selected representative flood events, scaled from historical events, to encompass the range
of annual exceedance probability of flood from 99% to 0.025% to minimize the
computational expense of the RMA Bay-Delta model and CVFED hydraulic models. In the
2017 analysis, 10 flood events were used.
3. Utilized climate change factors as described in Section 4.2 to adjust unregulated volume-
frequency curves to represent future climate conditions.
4. Defined the upstream boundary flow handoff locations from the CVFED hydraulic models to
the RMA Bay-Delta model for Sacramento River and San Joaquin River.
5. Developed deterministic time-varying Golden Gate Bridge tidal conditions for the 10
selected flood-scaled event patterns.
6. Incorporated sea level rise, medium projection value, for year 2062 from National Research
Council Report (NRC, 2012) estimated at 1.26 feet.
7. Ran RMA Bay-Delta model with the 10 selected flood-scaled event patterns and
deterministic tides with and without sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge, and created a
new set of tidal-influenced boundary conditions.
8. Ran the CVFED hydraulic models with the 10 CVHS selected flood-scaled event patterns and
the RMA Bay-Delta model's tidal influenced boundary conditions to determine each index
point's stage-discharge rating curves.
9. Created stage-frequency curves following CVHS hydrology procedures using the CVFED
hydraulic models stage-discharge rating curves and at-latitude flow frequency curves.
Additional details on this procedure can be found in Maendly (2018).
4-13 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 21. Extent of the State Plan of Flood Control Planning Area, the Resource Management
Associates, Inc. (RMA) Bay-Delta Model, and HEC-RAS Downstream Boundaries
4.3.1 RMA Bay-Delta Model Adapted for 2017 CVFPP Update
For the 2017 CVFPP Update, a numerical model of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Figure 22) developed by RMA was utilized to develop tidal-influenced boundary
conditions at the downstream end of the CVFED hydraulic models. The RMA Bay-Delta model
1
stage hydrographs were then applied to the HEC-RAS models as downstream boundaries to
reflect tidal influence better and simulate potential sea-level rise.
The RMA Bay-Delta model is a combined one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D)
hourly time step model that simulates velocities and water levels throughout the Bay-Delta
using the RMA2 computational engine. The RMA2 engine combines 2-D depth-averaged
computational elements and 1-D cross-sectionally averaged elements in a single mesh and
solves the shallow-water equations to provide temporal and spatial descriptions of velocities
and water depths. The RMA Bay-Delta model extends from the confluence of the American and
1
For the San Joaquin River, the HEC-RAS downstream boundary locations are the intersection of Grant Line Canal and Old River, near the
intersection of Middle River and Victoria Canal, San Joaquin River downstream of Stockton, and the San Joaquin River at Burns Cutoff. For the
Sacramento River, the HEC-RAS downstream boundary locations are Georgiana Slough at Mokelumne River, Sacramento River at Collinsville
and Threemile Slough at San Joaquin River.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-14
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Sacramento Rivers and Vernalis on the San Joaquin River to the Golden Gate Bridge, as shown
in Figure 22.
The RMA Bay-Delta model includes the Central Valley Project and State Water Project exports
and other control structure operations in the Delta that affect water discharge and water levels
(including Suisun Marsh Salinity Control gate, Delta Cross Channel, Old River near Tracy barrier,
temporary barrier at the head of Old River, Middle River temporary barrier, Clifton Court
Forebay Gates, Grant Line Canal barrier, and Rock Slough tide gate). The RMA Bay-Delta model
provides multiple advantages over other Delta models regarding flood risk assessment,
including but not limited to:
2-D representation for floodplains along the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and
tributaries based on the latest geometry data from CVFED Program.
Simulation of levee overtopping flow and floodplain inundation.
Downstream boundary conditions extended to the Golden Gate Bridge, minimizing adverse
boundary effects on upstream water surface elevation.
4-15 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 22. RMA Bay-Delta Model Used for 2017 and 2022 CVFPP Updates
4.3.2 Enhancements for 2022 CVFPP Update
Two enhancements were made to the RMA Bay-Delta model for the 2022 CVFPP Update. First,
the stage-discharge relationships in the Delta were improved by doubling the number of events
simulated with the RMA model and development of the flow-stage relationship. Second, the
sea level rise projection was changed based on the Ocean Protection Council 2018 guideline.
The subsections below provide an overview of these improvements and resulting outcomes.
4.3.2.1 Additional Flood Events Representation for Stage-Discharge Relationship
Simulating the full range of scaled events through the RMA Bay-Delta model would require a
high computational expense because of the complexity of this 2-D model. To accelerate the
modeling process without sacrificing representation of a full range of hydrology, 10 CVHS flood-
scaled event patterns were selected for the 2017 CVFPP Update. For this update, ten additional
events were added.
Table 7 presents the 20 CVHS flood-scaled events used in the 2022 CVFPP Update. The 10 new
scaled events are shown in red bold font.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-16
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Table 7: CVHS Flood Events used to Develop Bay-Delta Stage-Discharge Relationships
1956 10% scaled event 1986 40% scaled event 1986 100% scaled event 1997 135% scaled event
1986 10% scaled event 1956 60% scaled event 1997 105% scaled event 1997 140% scaled event
1986 20% scaled event 1986 60% scaled event 1986 115% scaled event 1997 160% scaled event
1997 20% scaled event 1997 60% scaled event 1997 115% scaled event 1997 200% scaled event
1956 40% scaled event 1956 100% scaled event 1956 120% scaled event 1997 240% scaled event
The red bold font represents the ten new events used for the 2022 CVFPP Update.
This expanded set of flood-scaled events encompass the frequency range from one year to
roughly 10,000 years of current hydrology in both Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins (Figure
23 and Figure 24). In the Sacramento Basin, these events cover approximately the same range
as current hydrology under climate change. In the San Joaquin Basin, these events cover the
range of climate change projection up to roughly a 1,000-year return period.
Figure 23. The Inverse of AEP or Annual Return Period for Peak Total Sacramento River Flow Rate
At-latitude of the City of Sacramento for Selected CVHS Flood Events
4-17 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 24. The Inverse of AEP or Annual Return Period for Peak Total San Joaquin River Flow Rate
At-latitude of Vernalis for Selected CVHS Flood Events
4.3.2.2 Sea Level Rise
Global and regional sea levels have been increasing over the past century and are expected to
rise at an increasing rate throughout this century as the warming effects of climate change
continue. Coastal sea levels impact Delta communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems as water
levels and water quality conditions (i.e., salinity) propagate upstream. Severe precipitation
events (particularly from atmospheric rivers) and increased regulated flows and stages will
further exacerbate flood risk throughout the Delta; including tidally-influenced areas of the
lower Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins that are included in the CVFPP.
The 2017 CVFPP Update used the 2012 National Research Council (NRC) sea level rise
projection. The projection was established using the late-century low bound projection and
corresponded to 1.26 feet at the Golden Gate Bridge. This projection also corresponded
approximately to a mid-century mean projection at 2062.
The 2022 CVFPP Update projection for sea level rise was made with a planning horizon of 50
years from 2022 to 2072, and uses the medium-high risk, high emissions scenario from the
State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update, as shown in Figure 25 (State of
California, 2018). The sea level projection for the San Francisco tide gauge was interpolated
using a third order polynomial regression line. The sea level rise projection for 2072 (i.e., the
boundary condition at the Golden Gate Bridge) was determined to be 3.68 feet. The projected
3.68 feet of sea level rise was added to the deterministic tide hydrographs of the Golden Gate
Bridge as the downstream boundary conditions for the RMA Bay-Delta model. This sea level rise
projection was carried on to the flood risk analysis. In addition, some sensitivity analyses were
conducted with a range of sea level rise from 0 to 6 feet to capture the range of uncertainties.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-18
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 25. Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet) for San Francisco
4.3.2.3 Hydraulic Results
By routing flood-scaled event patterns listed in Table 7 and tidal conditions at the Golden Gate
Bridge with and without sea level rise through the RMA Bay-Delta model, stage hydrographs
locations. A trimmed version of the CVFED model was used to focus on the Bay-Delta domain
and shorten simulation times. The CVFED trimmed hydraulic models were then run with these
updated boundary conditions to develop tidal-influenced stage hydrographs at the index point
locations. Here, the stage hydrographs were used instead of the RMA Bay-Delta model results
to be consistent with the 2022 CVFPP Update flood risk analysis. The upstream boundary
conditions of the CVFED trimmed hydraulic models match the CVFED systemwide hydraulic
models' output.
The stage-discharge rating curves at each index point location were created by matching the
peak stage from the CVFED trimmed hydraulic models to the peak flow for each of the 20
selected flood-scaled event patterns and smoothed using a Locally Weighted Scatterplot
Smoothing regression method. The matches were done with and without sea level rise. Eighty-
four stage-discharge rating curves were created for 54 index point locations in the study area of
the Delta. Twelve index points being situated at the same geo-location.
Figure 26 shows six stage-discharge rating curves for index points along the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers, starting upstream in each basin and moving downstream. The locations of
4-19 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
these curves can be found in Figure 26 and Figure 27. At the entry of the Delta (index points
SAC42 and SJ28), sea level rise has no or little effect on the curves due to higher ground. Sea
level rise has a more significant effect on the curves at locations closer to the center of the
Delta. Even for the largest flows, 3.86 feet of sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge
corresponds to more than 1.5 foot of sea level rise at index points SAC58 and SJ54-55.
Stage-frequency curves for current hydrology, current hydrology with sea level rise, and climate
change hydrology with sea level rise were developed for the index points located in the Delta
considering a planning horizon from 2022 to 2072. Figure 27 shows how stage-frequency curves
for current hydrology, current hydrology with sea level rise, and climate change hydrology with
sea level rise changes while going downstream of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. At the
highest elevation of the Delta (index point locations SAC41 and SJ29), the current hydrology,
and current hydrology with sea level rise stage-frequency curves, match one another. Sea level
rise has little effect on the upstream index point locations, while climate change hydrology has
the biggest effect. Moving downstream, toward the center of the Delta, sea level rise has a
larger impact on the stage-frequency curves (index point locations SAC58 and SJ54-SJ55).
The stage increases to 3.1 feet at index point location SJ54-55 in Stockton and 3.3 feet at index
point location SAC58 on Sherman Island, for an AEP of 0.1, or a 10-year return period flood.
These stage increases reflect the 3.86 feet of sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge. For an
AEP of 0.005, or 200-year return period flood, the same sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge
at those locations produced a 2.2-foot stage increase at index point location SJ54-55 and a 2.7
foot increase in stage at index point location SAC58. The effect of sea level rise diminishes with
more significant flood events because the flood flow drives the water surface elevation.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-20
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 26. Stage Discharge Rating Curves for Conditions With and Without Sea Level Rise for Six
Index Points (IP) along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
4-21 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 27. Stage-Frequency Curves for Current Hydrology, Current Hydrology with Sea Level Rise
and Climate Change Hydrology with Sea Level Rise for 8 Index Points (IP) along the Sacramento
River (right graphs) and the San Joaquin River (left graphs)
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-22
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
The stage-frequency curves at each index point in the Delta, along with hydraulic modeling
results , were used to choose scaled event patterns close to the depths and flows of key return
periods. Figure 28 and Figure 29 show water surface elevation profiles of scaled events meant
to represent the 100-year flood events, without and with 3.68 feet and 6 feet of the sea level
rise assumptions at the downstream boundaries. Similar long profiles graphics were created
with the three climate change hydrology scenarios described in Section 4.1.2 and with three
tidal conditions: No sea level rise and with sea level rise of 3.68 feet and 6 feet, respectively
(Figure 28 and Figure 29).
The stage frequency curves and long profiles show that sea level rise has a more significant
effect on water surface elevation in locations closer to the center of the Delta toward the San
Francisco Bay. The two principal reasons for this phenomenon are the decrease in the gradient
ude increase. In the Sacramento River, under the
100-year return period flood without climate change hydrology, water surface elevation
increased by 3.1 feet and 5.1 feet, respectively, for 3.68 feet and 6 feet of sea level rise at
Collinsville (Figure 28). The same sea level rise projections near Clarksburg correspond to 0.3
feet and 0.5 feet. On the San Joaquin River, for the 100-year return period flood, sea level rise is
projected to increase the water surface elevation by 2.4 feet and 3.5 feet at Stockton
Deepwater Ship Channel (at River Station 0 feet in Figure 29). The same sea level rise projection
at the Junction of the San Joaquin River with Old River corresponds to 0.2 feet and 0.3 feet.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin river profiles under 100-year return period flood induced by
the three climate change hydrology scenarios also show a change in water surface elevation
(Figure 30 and Figure 31) compared to the current hydrology. In the Sacramento River near
Clarksburg, the difference in water surface elevation corresponds to 0.6 feet for the medium
climate change scenario with 3.68 feet of sea level rise (0.3 1.3 feet for the low and high
climate change scenario). Near Collinsville, this change corresponds to 3.3 feet (3.1 3.4 feet).
In the San Joaquin River near the junction with Old River, the difference in water surface
elevation correspond to 3.3 feet (0.9 4.4 feet) for the medium climate change scenario and
3.68 feet of sea level rise. In Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, the change in water surface
elevation is about 3.1 feet (2.7 4.6 feet).
Even without sea level rise, the medium climate change hydrology results in more than 5 feet of
increase in water surface elevation above existing conditions upstream of the confluence with
French Camp Slough. Under the medium and high climate change scenario, the system is
exacerbated by climate change, which impacts the flood-flow routing between the floodplain
and the channel.
4-23 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 28. Sacramento River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return
Period Flood for Current Hydrology and Current Hydrology with 3.68 and 6 feet of Sea Level Rise
Figure 29. San Joaquin River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return
Period Flood for Current Hydrology and Current Hydrology with 3.68 and 6 feet of Sea Level Rise
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-24
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 30. Sacramento River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return
Period Flood for Three Climate Change Hydrology and Two Sea Level Rise Conditions 3.68 and 6
feet
Figure 31. San Joaquin River Profiles of Scaled Events Meant to Represent the 100-Year Return
Period Flood for Three Climate Change Hydrology and Two Sea Level Rise Conditions 3.68 and 6
feet
4-25 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.4 Geotechnical Analysis
Performance of a flood control system leveeparticularly the uncertainty about future
performance of that leveeis described in the risk analysis with a site-specific levee fragility
curve. This curve estimates the probability that the levee will fail to prevent inundation of the
interior floodplain area if water rises to a specified elevation in the channel. In this application,
uncontrolled manner to the landside of the levee, potentially resulting in loss of life and/or
economic loss.
Levee fragility curves provide relationships between river water surface elevation (stage) and
the probability that the levee segment will fail when exposed to that water surface elevation
without human intervention (flood fighting). Development of a fragility curve by a geotechnical
engineer considers the physical properties of the levee and underlying foundation, manner of
and history of maintenance and repairs of the levee, and history of observed performance.
For the 2017 CVFPP Update, levee fragility curves were developed at each index point for
existing conditions and with-project conditions. For the 2022 CVFPP Update, the project team
reviewed these fragility curves to ensure that they accurately represent the physical state of
the system for each of the evaluation scenarios. Levee fragility curves were updated at index
points where existing conditions were reevaluated or recent levee improvements were
completed post-2017, or planned to be completed shortly after 2022, or different assumptions
made for future conditions as compared to the 2017 CVFPP Update.
Updated levee fragility curves were applied to 31 index points in the Sacramento River basin
and 9 index points in the San Joaquin River basin. These index points are listed in Table 8. All
other index points used levee fragility curves from the 2017 CVFPP Update. Once the project
team determined which levee fragility curves should be applied for each evaluation scenario,
HEC-FDA models were configured with levee fragility curves (where necessary) for existing and
future conditions. Plots of levee fragility curves used in the risk analyses are included in
Appendix D Risk Analysis Summary by Index Point.
Table 8. Index Points with Updated Levee Fragility Curves
Sacramento River Basin Sacramento River Basin San Joaquin River Basin
Index Points Index Points (continued) Index Points
SAC21 SAC38 SJ31
SAC22 SAC39 SJ31a
SAC24a SAC40a SJ31b
SAC25 SAC44 SJ31c
SAC25a SAC45 SJ36
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-26
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Sacramento River Basin Sacramento River Basin San Joaquin River Basin
Index Points Index Points (continued) Index Points
SAC26 SAC47 SJ37
SAC26a SAC48 SJ50a
SAC27 SAC50 SJ50b
SAC27a SAC50a SJ50c
SAC28 SAC51
SAC28a SAC52
SAC28b SAC53
SAC35 SAC54
SAC36 SAC54a
SAC36a SAC63a
SAC37
4.5 Risk Analysis Inventory Update
As part of this update, the flood risk analyses incorporated a new inventory for damage and life
risk computations. The new inventory included structures along with other elements needed to
compute flood-related damages and costs, in addition to population estimates for life risk
computations, herein referred to as a risk analysis inventory. To estimate structural damage as
well as costs associated with flooding, several attributes about a structure within an area of
flood risk are needed. Such as elevation, type, and values.
To estimate life risk, the population within a structure is needed. As discussed in Appendix F
Life Risk Input Development, two methodologies were used to estimate life risk in the Central
Valley: 1) the Life Risk Simulation (LRS) method and 2) the Life Risk Calculation (LRC) method.
The LRS method requires total population estimates, while the LRC method requires the
population remaining after those that are able and willing, have evacuated.
Two inventories were developed for the 2022 CVFPP Update, they are:
1. Life Risk Inventory. The life risk inventory was used as an input to the USACE computer
program LifeSim to simulate flooding, warning and evacuation timeline, and estimate life
loss from individual flood events.
2. Flood Damage Inventory. The flood damage inventory was used as an input into the
-FDA computer program to estimate economic losses from flooding expressed
in the form of expected annual damages (EAD), in addition to estimating life risk expressed
4-27 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
as expected annual lives lost (EALL). This inventory includes an economic damage inventory,
which includes structures and costs associated with flooding of those structures. In
addition, the economic damage inventory also includes the LRC method population
inventory.
New LRS and LRC population inventories were developed using the California structure
inventory (CSI). The CSI was developed by the USACE Modeling Mapping and Consequences
(MMC) Center based on the USACE National Structure Inventory (NSI) 2.0 protocol, using the
same methods and data types. However, the underlying parcel data set for the CSI is LandVision
parcel data, a different parcel data set than used by the NSI 2.0. The CSI covers the state of
California and includes structures, structure values, and population estimates. The process of
developing the two risk assessment inventories used for the 2022 CVFPP Update are shown in
Figure 32.
Figure 32. Flowchart Depicting How Three Unique Structure Inventories Were Developed for Use
in the 2022 CVFPP Update
4.5.1 Life Risk Inventory
The LRS method is an enhanced life risk methodology that was not used in previous CVFPP
efforts. This method relies on LifeSim, which simulates both the
flood wave and warning and evacuation timeline within the software. Because the evacuation is
simulated within LifeSim, the structure inventory is needed only for initial population location
and distribution within structures.
Additional information on the LRS inventory development is included in Appendix E Risk
Analysis Inventory Update.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-28
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.5.2 Flood Damage Inventory
The development of the flood damage inventory involved developing an adjusted population,
referred to as the LRC population. The LRC population inventory accounts for the evacuation of
people from the study responses to a flood warning will
vary based on where they are located and what they are doing when the warning is issued. A
flood warning efficiency factor is used to reduce the population exposed because of the
popu responses to flood warnings. This factor is then combined with the population
inventory to develop the adjusted population inventory representing the population remaining,
still at risk to flooding. The following sections describe the population inventory used, the
efficiency factor development, and the method used to develop the LRC inventory for use in
HEC-FDA.
The flood damage inventory used in the 2017 CVFPP Update placed people in residential
structures based on a basin-wide average persons per structure (PPS) and included a separation
by age, those over and under 65. The benefit of the CSI is an enhanced geographic distribution
routine for population. The population is based on 2010 census data with updates for
population growth and development through 2017. People are placed in residential, public,
industrial, and commercial structures, with estimates divided by daytime and nighttime,
considering movements between home and work or other activities, and by age, either over 65
or under 65 years. The flood damage inventory is a representation of the number of PPS
divided into two categories, those under 65 (PPS) and those over 65 (PPS). The CSI
U65O65
includes PPS estimates for day (PPS and PPS) and night (PPS and PPS) to account
U65DO65DU65NO65N
for the shift in populations during the day.
Additional quality control was completed per USACE guidance (USACE RMC, 2020 and USACE
MMC, 2019) to correct for known issues with the CSI/NSI protocol including:
1. Structures with high population count.
2. Structures located outside of parcel boundaries or near channels.
3. Structures with a high number of stories.
4. Structure foundation height errors.
In addition to an adjusted population, the flood damage inventory also includes the economic
damage inventory, an inventory of structures and their contents. Additionally, categories other
than structural are included to capture damageable items and costs associated with flood
damage. Specifically, the economic damage inventory includes:
Structures and their Contents: Includes structure type (residential, commercial, industrial,
public), structure and content value, and first floor elevation.
4-29 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Crops: 2016 d and Water use Section in addition to
damage per acre estimates.
Roads: Highway and street inventories from U.S. Geological Survey National Transportation
Dataset.
Vehicles: Developed as part of the CSI and reduced based on warning time.
Business Loss: Flooded businesses will be forced to temporarily close, resulting in decline in
business production. Estimated for all commercial, industrial, and public structures.
Emergency Costs: Includes losses from disruption of normal economic and social activities
that arise as a consequence of the physical impact of a flood.
4.6 Life Risk Input Development
Life risk is the long-term average consequence of inundation within an identified area given a
specified climate condition, land use condition, population, warning system, and flood
management system. The consequences are fatalities which may occur in a building or vehicle
during evacuation from the floodplain. To better understand the lives at risk due to flooding in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, a risk assessment focusing on the potential life
loss (LL) due to floodplain inundation is needed. Life risk is a critical augmentation to the
economic risks associated with Central Valley flooding. The EALL and life risk results inform
decision makers to invest in projects benefitting public safety as well as economic
development.
As mentioned above, for the 2022 CVFPP Update, life risk was assessed in two ways: 1) the
procedure used in the 2017 CVFPP Update, referred to herein as the LRC method, and 2) the
revised procedure using the computer program LifeSim, or LRS method. LifeSim utilizes a flood
hazard and consequence simulation that accounts for various sources of uncertainty in the
analysis.
The process of analyzing life risk using the two methods and how they integrate with the HEC-
FDA modeling is shown in Figure 33. Both methods rely on the HEC-FDA model and inputs, as
discussed in Appendix C Flood Risk Analysis, and shown within the gray dashed box for
computing EALL. For the LRC method, a population remaining after evacuation is entered
directly into HEC-FDA and a stage-LL function computed. The LRS method that includes a
detailed analysis of the dynamic evacuation process and flood hazard estimates a stage-LL
function that is entered directly in HEC-FDA.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-30
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 33. 2022 CVFPP Life Risk Analysis Processes
4.7 Flood Risk Analyses
4.7.1 Components of Risk Analyses
Flood risk is a description of likelihood of adverse consequences from flooding for a given
impact area with a specified climate condition, land use condition, and flood risk management
system (existing or planned) in place. Flood risk is a function of (1) hazard, which is the
frequency and magnitude of flood flows; (2) performance of flood risk reduction measures; (3)
exposure of people and property in the floodplain; and (4) vulnerability of people and property
in the floodplain. Consequence is the harm that results from a single occurrence of the hazard.
Flood risk is not the damage or loss of life incurred by a single catastrophic event. Rather, it is
the probability of each of many outcomes that is expressed as a consequence-probability
function. The consequence-probability function can be integrated to compute an expected or
most likely value of the consequence. If the probabilities are annual values, this most likely
value is called the expected annual value. The reduction in value of consequence is often used
as a standard for measuring the effectiveness of proposed flood risk management measures.
The consequence of flood inundation may be measured in terms of economic damage, loss of
life, environmental impact, or other specified measure of flood risk.
Flood risk reduction (i.e., benefit) is achieved by altering the hazard, performance, exposure,
and/or vulnerability to reduce consequences, defined as follows:
Hazard (also known as loading): The hazard is what causes the harmin this case, hazard is
a flood. The flood hazard is described in terms of probability of stage, velocity, extent,
depth, and other flood properties.
4-31 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Performance:
described for engineered systems (such as levees or reservoirs) that directly affect the
hazard. Performance can also be described for nonengineered systems, such as flood
warning systems and , in terms of the efficiency of
activities when the warning is received.
Exposure: Exposure is a measure of who and what may be harmed by the flood hazard. It
incorporates a description of where the flooding occurs at a given frequency and what
exists in that area. Tools such as flood inundation maps provide information on the extent
and depth of flooding; and structure inventories, crop data, habitat acreage, and population
data provide information on the people and property that may be affected by the flood
hazard.
Vulnerability: Vulnerability is the susceptibility to harm of people, property, and the
environment exposed to the hazard. Depth-percent damage functions, depth-percent
mortality functions, and other similar relationships describe vulnerability.
Consequence: Consequence is the harm that results from a single occurrence of the hazard.
It is measured in terms of indices such as structure damage, acreage of habitat lost, crops
damaged, and lives lost.
The relationships of the flood risk components are conceptually illustrated on Figure 34.
Figure 34. Relationships of Flood Risk Analysis Components
4.7.2 Damage Categories and Occupancy Types
Economic damage computations are dependent on characteristics unique to the structure, such
as structure type, first-floor elevation, and height of the structure. The general classification of
structures is the damage category, such as residential or commercial. The occupancy type is a
more specific definition of the structure, which includes details on:
The flood depth to percent damage functions for the structure and contents.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-32
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
The content to structure value ratio.
The uncertainty about the first-floor stage, the structure value, and the content to structure
value ratio.
The 2012 CVFPP and the 2017 CVFPP Update used ParcelQuest to identify structures for each
impact area. For the 2022 CVFPP Update, LandVision parcel data from Fall 2019 was used to
identify structures for each impact area. Using the land use description field within LandVision,
structures were categorized using a broader damage category (residential, commercial, public,
and industrial), as well as a more refined occupancy type attribute. Appendix E Risk Analysis
Inventory Update lists the LandVision land use descriptions and associated damage categories
and occupancy type subcategories used during the development of the flood damage
inventory.
4.7.3 Growth Factors
For the 2072 With-Project and Without-Project Scenarios, growth factors were applied in the
flood damage and life risk calculations to reflect projected changes in land use and population.
The future growth factors were based on the California Water Plan 2018 Update (CWP) 2010-
2050 projections of population by impact area (DWR, 2019). Growth factors for urban areas
were only applied if urban level of protection (LOP), 200-yr LOP, criteria were assumed met
under the SSIA, consistent with SB 5. Growth factors were applied to small communities with a
population of 10,000 and outside the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year
floodplain.
4.7.4 Role of HEC-FDA in Risk Analyses
EAD is calculated as the integral of the damage-probability function, which weights the damage
for each event by the probability of that event happening in any given year, and then sums
across all possible events. The damage-probability function is commonly derived by the
transformation of available hydrologic, hydraulic, and economic information, as illustrated in
Figure 35.
Figure 35. EAD Computation
Part of the flood risk analysis is development of the elevation-damage relationship (Part C of
Figure 35) which is defined as the flood damage associated with a certain set of floodplain
depths. This relationship is computed within HEC-FDA through input of a detailed structure
4-33 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
inventory (parcel by parcel) as well as properties such as structure and content value, structure
elevation, and type. Relationships of depth-to-percent damage by structure type are also
entered into HEC-FDA.
To compute EAD, HEC-FDA requires inputs representative of all the risk analysis components:
hazard, performance, exposure, and vulnerability. A description of these inputs along with key
enhancements and updates from the 2017 CVFPP Update are provided in Table 9.
HEC-FDA incorporates uncertainty into the discharge-exceedance probability, stage-discharge,
and elevation-damage functions shown in Figure 35. A Monte Carlo simulation is used to
compute EAD, sampling between uncertainty bands of each input function.
4.7.5 Flood Damage Analysis
The flood damage risk analysis was completed using HEC-FDA, version 1.4.2. Damage and
damage reduction are reported in annualized terms as EAD. To compute EAD, HEC--FDA
requires inputs representative of all the risk analysis components: hazard, performance,
exposure, and vulnerability. Table 9 summarizes the information used and describes key
enhancements and updates from the 2017 CVFPP Update (DWR, 2017).
Table 9. Inputs Required for the Risk Analysis
Required Information Description
Hazard
Regulated flow-frequency Existing climate condition scenarios (2022), unchanged from the
functions* 2017 CVFPP Update, but updated for future year climate change
scenarios (2072).
Flow-stage transforms* Existing climate condition scenarios (2022), unchanged from the
2017 CVFPP Update, but updated for future year climate change
scenarios (2072).
Stage-frequency relationships* Existing climate condition scenarios (2022), unchanged from the
2017 CVFPP Update, but updated for future year climate change
scenarios (2072).
Interior (floodplain)-exterior Unchanged from the 2017 CVFPP Update.
(channel) relationships*
Performance
Levee performance functions* Updated where new geotechnical information was available, new
flood control improvement projects have been constructed since
2017 or are planned for completion by 2022, or different
assumptions were made for future conditions (e.g., whether or not
planned improvements would be in place by 2072).
Flood warning system
Updated based on interviews with emergency managers.
effectiveness*
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-34
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Required Information Description
Exposure
Structure inventories* Enhanced from the 2017 CVFPP Update. The 2022 CVFPP Update
uses LandVision parcel data for all of California to create an
inventory of structures, the CSI. Other adjustments from the 2017
CVFPP Update include: updates to structure geolocation,
refinements to structure damage categories and occupancy types,
and updates to structure values using RSMeans Quarter 1 2020.
Vehicle inventories Enhanced from the 2017 CVFPP Update. Vehicle data was sourced
directly from the CSI using structure attribute data. A single vehicle
was assigned a value of $9,000 in 2020 dollars. For the Sacramento
and San Joaquin River basins, the total number of vehicles and
total vehicle value were estimated, along with the estimated
number of vehicles remaining and associated value after
evacuation.
Crop inventories Enhanced from the 2017 CVFPP Update. The 2022 CVFPP Update
uses the latest (as of July 2016) DWR geographic information
system (GIS) statewide land use databases to develop the impact
area irrigated crop acreage information.
Highway and street inventories Enhanced from the 2017 CVFPP Update. The 2022 CVFPP Update
uses the U.S. Geological Survey National Transportation Dataset to
estimate the total length of streets and highways in the San
Joaquin and Sacramento River basins. Maximum-flood-damage-
per-mile estimates were updated to January 2020 dollars and used
for damage computations.
Representation of emergency Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update. Costs were updated to January
costs 2020 dollars.
Vulnerability
Depth-percent damage function Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update.
(DDF) structure/contents
DDF crop damage Enhanced from the 2017 CVFPP Update. Average annual crop
damage per acre estimates from the 2017 CVFPP Update were
reviewed and updated by DWR with best available data.
Depth-business interruption Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update.
days function
DDF emergency costs Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update.
DDF road damage Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update.
DDF vehicle damage Same as the 2017 CVFPP Update.
Note: * These inputs are also used for the life risk analysis described in Section 4.7.7.
4-35 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.7.6 Life Risk Analysis
Life risk is measured by EALL. The 2012 CVFPP and 2017 CVFPP Update computed EALL using
the LRC method. For the 2022 CVFPP Update, DWR used the LRC method in conjunction with a
flood wave timing and depth, evacuation effectiveness, and conditions encountered by people
either in a flooded structure or vehicle. This enhanced analysis method is called the LRS
method. Together, life loss estimates from these two methods were used as input to compute
the EALL to enhance the life risk assessment from the 2017 CVFPP Update.
The LRC method that was developed and applied for the 2017 CVFPP Update (DWR, 2017) was
followed for the 2022 CVFPP Update with refinements to the structure and population
inventories. These same structure and population inventories were also used for the LRS
method. Enhancements to the structure and population inventories for the 2022 CVFPP Update
are described above in Table 9.
For the LRS method, LifeSim, released in 2018 by USACE Risk Management Center (RMC), was
used to develop life loss estimates for a suite of flood events. Models were developed using
LifeSim to represent the potential life loss for select impact areas, including 14 impact areas
from the Sacramento River watershed and seven impact areas from the San Joaquin River
watershed. When an impact area had multiple breach locations, the life risk was based on the
highest consequences to the impact area. LifeSim results were used to develop a channel stage-
life loss function for each study area. This information was used as input to HEC-FDA v1.4.2 to
compute EALL.
As with the flood damage analysis, uncertainty is incorporated into the key inputs for the life
risk analysis.
4.7.7 Results of the Flood Risk Analyses
Flood and life risk results, measured by EAD, EALL, and project performance statistics (i.e., AEP)
were computed for all index points for current and future conditions. Figure 36 through Figure
39 show flood damage and life risk results for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins.
AEP is reported in Appendix C Flood Risk Analysis.
Future conditions are shown with uncertainty due to future climate conditions. EALL results
reported are a combination of the two analysis methods (LRC and LRS methods). For impact
areas where LifeSim models were developed (LRS method), those results supersede results
from the LRC method. While all risk analysis inputs were developed using January 2020 dollars,
all resulting damages and costs were updated to be reported in January 2021 dollars. Detailed
findings for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins by index point are in Attachment B of
Appendix C Flood Risk Analysis. Appendix C Flood Risk Analysis provides details on the flood and
life risk inputs, methodologies, and results.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-36
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
)
s
r
a
l
l
o
d
f
o
s
n
o
i
l
l
i
m
(
D
A
E
n
i
s
a
B
r
e
v
i
R
o
t
n
e
m
a
r
c
a
S
.
6
3
e
r
u
g
37
i
-
F 4
38
-
4
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
)
s
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
n
o
s
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
(
L
L
A
E
n
i
s
a
B
r
e
v
i
R
o
t
n
e
m
a
r
c
a
S
.
7
3
e
r
u
g
i
F
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
)
s
r
a
l
l
o
d
f
o
s
n
o
i
l
l
i
m
(
D
A
E
n
i
s
a
B
r
e
v
i
R
n
i
u
q
a
o
J
n
a
S
.
8
3
e
r
u
g
39
i
-
F 4
40
-
4
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
)
s
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
n
o
s
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
(
L
L
A
E
n
i
s
a
B
r
e
v
i
R
n
i
u
q
a
o
J
n
a
S
.
9
3
e
r
u
g
i
F
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.8 Reservoir Vulnerability Analysis
Assessing flood risk now and into the future is a key component of the 2022 CVFPP Update. To
do this, an assessment of the performance of the flood management system is needed.
Reservoir operations and release decisions control and impact flow downstream throughout
the flood management system and are thus a vital component in overall flood control planning
for the future. As such, the 2022 CVFPP Update includes a reservoir vulnerability analysis (RVA)
to further describe the reservoir operation aspects of the flood management system.
The RVA summarizes current system operations, demonstrates how increased runoff volume
impacts the SPFC, and discusses potential solutions to mitigating additional flood risk due to
climate change. The role of the RVA is to provide information focused more on the current
reservoir operation portion of the system evaluation and note how specific simulated events
are routed through each basin. Efforts presented include a deeper investigation into reservoir
vulnerability by determining the quantity of increased flood runoff volume into each reservoir
under future climate conditions. The analysis focuses on the climatological and watershed
conditions that contribute to the causes of increased runoff upstream of the reservoirs, how
the increases will affect reservoir operations, and how the increases will impact the
downstream system. In addition, the RVA provides insights into how the primary flood
operation priority can change with increased runoff volume. This is an important step in
understanding how downstream peaks and flows change under the climate change
assumptions.
The main objective of the RVA is to assess how the selected reservoirs function as integral parts
of the overall flood management system, by comparing regulated outflows under current and
future climate conditions using existing reservoir operation rules. This information will be used
to assess how regulated flows change within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins with
increased runoff volume in the face of climate change. Additional objectives of the RVA include:
Demonstrating changes to system performance due to predicted changes in precipitation
and temperature in the Central Valley. The focus of this demonstration is the reservoir
system specifically, and how changes in runoff volume can push the reservoirs beyond their
ability to regulate downstream flows, thus illustrating their vulnerability.
Documenting how flood damage mitigation measures are currently being implemented and
how they improve the flood management system performance.
The strategy for meeting these objectives includes:
1. Presenting different aspects of the HEC-ResSim simulation results than previously reported
in the 2017 CVFPP Update technical appendix.
2. Documenting and illustrating the operation of each reservoir individually in the system.
4-41 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
3. Showing how increased volumes based on climate change projections can change the
operating priority of reservoir releases.
4. Showing how the full-system performance can change with climate changed increase in
volumes, specifically how tributary peak flows combine and thus increase flows and stages
in the main reaches within the levee system.
5. Describing ongoing activities to reduce flood damages due to high flows.
The intended use of the RVA is to gain a common understanding of the Central Valley flood
management system, specifically current storage capacity, how reservoirs are
operated, and how operations affect downstream flows. With increases in precipitation and
ultimately unregulated runoff volume into reservoirs in the future, the
vulnerability will increase. Next steps in the RVA that have not been conducted to date, would
include evaluating how potential changes in flood risk management above, at, and below the
reservoirs could reduce vulnerability and overall flood risk.
4.8.1 Current System Operations
Sixteen flood control reservoirs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins were included for
the RVA. The selected reservoirs represent a mix of reservoirs of different sizes and purposes
within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins. The 16 flood control reservoirs selected
for the RVA are summarized below in Table 10 and shown on Figure 40 and Figure 41 for the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, respectively.
For each of these reservoirs, detailed information regarding the contributing area, stated
purpose, physical description of the facilities, operating rules, downstream flow requirements
and release rules, climate change effects, and other pertinent reservoir information were
gathered and summarized into a reservoir-specific information packet. The reservoir-specific
information packets provide baseline information on reservoir operations for a range of inflow
volumes, and how the probability of these volumes may change with the climate change
scenarios.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-42
and
n, water
,
purpose, with the
-
is multi
A
Purpose
s available.
V
ng areas below New Hogan Dam
R
e
h
Reservoir
t
r
operated for flood control, power, and
is operated for flood control, irrigation,
o
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
f
4
d
e
r
e
d
feet when water i
i
-
s
n
o
Shasta Lake is conservation.Lake Orovillemunicipal and industrial water supply, and power generationNew Bullards Bar Dam was constructed for flood control, conservation, power generatiosupply,
and recreation.The Folsom Dam and Lake is operated for flood control; domestic, municipal, industrialagricultural water supply; recreation and hydroelectric power generation; and water
quality in support of downstream fisheries.The New Hogan objectives of protectiwith a high degree of protection from floods; providing a conservation yield for irrigation and a municipal
and industrial supply including an annual firm yield; and maintaining an inactive pool of 15,000 acre
C
s
n
i
t
s
a
ee
B F
-
r
t Gross
re
e a
v
i
R
n
Reservoir
i
u
Pool, Ac
q
Capacity 4,552,0003,538,000960,000967,000317,100
a
o
J
n
a
S PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
d
n
a
o
t
n
e
m
a
Owner/Operator
r
c
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)DWRYuba Water AgencyUSBRUSACE
a
S
e
h
t
n
i
h
t
i
W
River Basin
SacramentoSacramentoSacramentoSacramentoSan Joaquin
s
r
i
o
v
r
e
s
e
R
d
e
t
c
e
l
Reservoir
e
S
.
0
1
Shasta LakeLake OrovilleNew Bullards Bar ReservoirFolsom LakeNew Hogan Reservoir
e
l
b
43
ID
a 12345
-
T 4
44
-
is
4
g the safety of
and industrial
,
Flood Control Basin
n
damaging levels
-
and recreation. It also
,
Purpose
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
eservoir operates as one unit in a system of
R
The purpose of the Farmingtoto restrict flood flows to nonthroughout the network of channels downstream from the reservoir, without endangerinthe structure.New Melones Dam is operated
for flood control, power generation, irrigation supply, water quality control, fishery enhancement, and recreation.Don Pedro Reservoir is operated for flood control, irrigation, municipal,
agriculturalwater supply, power generation, fishery enhancement, and recreationNew Exchequer Dam was constructed for flood control, irrigation, powerprovides water for downstream fish
and wildlife.Burns four foothills reservoirs, known as the Merced Streams Group, and two interstream valley floor diversion channels used for the purpose of flood control.
t
ee
F
-
t Gross
re
a
Reservoir
Pool, Ac
Capacity 52,0002,420,0002,030,0001,024,6006,800
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
Owner/Operator
USACEUSBRTurlock and Modesto Irrigation DistrictsMerced Irrigation DistrictUSACE
Joaquin
River Basin
San JoaquinSan JoaquinSan JoaquinSan JoaquinSan
Reservoir
ure
Reservoir
Farmington Flood Control BasinNew Melones ReservoirDon Pedro Lake McCl(New Exchequer Dam) Burns Reservoir
ID
678910
including irrigation.
Purpose
Hensley Lake Project was
and
.
Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4
eservoir operates as one unit in a system of
R
eservoir operates as one unit in a system of
R
asin that provide flood protection to adjacent urban
he Hidden Dam
Bear four foothills reservoirs, known as the Merced Streams Group, and two interstream valley floor diversion channels used for the purpose of flood control.Owens four foothills reservoirs,
known as the Merced Streams Group, and two interstream valley floor diversion channels used for the purpose of flood control.Buchanan Dam and H.V. Eastman Lake function as part of a
system of reservoirs in the San Joaquin River band rural areas.Tauthorized the purposes of flood control, irrigation, and recreationFriant Dam is operated for flood control and conservation
purposes, Pine Flat Dam is operated for flood control and conservation purposes, including irrigation
t
ee
F
-
t Gross
re
a
Reservoir
Pool, Ac
Capacity 7,7003,600150,00090,000520,5001,000,000
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
Owner/Operator
USACEUSACEUSACEUSACEUSBRUSACE
an Joaquin
River Basin
San JoaquinSan JoaquinSSan JoaquinSan JoaquinSan Joaquin
Reservoir
Bear Reservoir Owens ReservoirH.V. Eastman Lake (Buchanan Dam)Hensley Lake (Hidden Dam)Millerton Lake (Friant Dam)Pine Flat Reservoir
45
ID
111213141516
-
4
Figure 40. Selected Sacramento River Basin Reservoirs Included in this Phase of the RVA
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-46
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
Figure 41. Selected San Joaquin River Basin Reservoirs Included in this Phase of the RVA
4-47 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4.8.2 Climate Change Effect on the Overall System
Changes in unregulated inflow volumes and peak reservoir releases due to climate change for
each of the 16 reservoirs were assessed as part of the RVA. For the Sacramento River basin, the
Sacramento River at latitude of Sacramento (analysis point SAC-42 as identified by CVHS)
unregulated volume-frequency curves were used for current and future climate scenarios.
Events matching the 3-day 100-year (p = 0.01) and 200-year (p = 0.005) unregulated volumes at
that location were identified and extracted from the HEC-ResSim simulation dataset. Events
were selected using the 1986 and the 1997 event patterns. For the San Joaquin River basin, the
San Joaquin River downstream of Stanislaus River (near Vernalis) (analysis point SJR-75 as
identified by CVHS) unregulated volume-frequency curves were used for current and future
climate conditions. Similarly, events matching the 50-year (p = 0.02) and 100-year (p = 0.01) 3-
day unregulated flow at that location were identified and extracted from the simulation dataset
and events were selected using the 1986 and 1997 event patterns.
The changes in unregulated inflow volumes and peak releases were analyzed for each reservoir
based on a single simulated event. Each simulated event was based on a scaled historic event
simulated through the reservoir (HEC-ResSim) and channel (HEC-RAS) models. These historic
events were scaled using various factors to represent low, medium, and high climate change
projections for the 50-year and 100-year unregulated events at SJR-75, and for the 100-year
and 200-year unregulated events at SAC-42. This scaling was performed for the 1986 and 1997
patterns.
For the 1986 scaled events, unregulated inflow volumes for reservoirs in the Sacramento River
basin increased on average about 20 percent when comparing the current to the medium
climate change scenarios, whereas unregulated inflow volumes for reservoirs in the San Joaquin
River basin increased about 55 percent. For the same climate change scenario, peak releases
from the reservoirs in each basin increased by varying amounts. For example, although
unregulated volume increased by 37,000 cfs over three days at Folsom, the Folsom peak
release did not increase. Shasta unregulated inflow volume increased 23,000 cfs average over
three days but the Shasta peak release increased by about 54,000 cfs. In the San Joaquin River
basin, peak releases at Bear, Burns, New Hogan, Buchanan, Hidden, and Owens reservoirs
increased at most by a few hundred cfs, and peak releases at New Melones did not increase,
while the Don Pedro peak release increased by about 64,000 cfs and the Friant peak release
increased by about 66,000 cfs. A complete summary of the unregulated inflow volumes and
peak releases associated with each of the climate change projections for each of the reservoirs
in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins is provided in Appendix G Reservoir
Vulnerability Analysis.
4.8.3 Mitigation Strategies
Results from the RVA demonstrate that the projected trends of changing precipitation and
temperature within the watershed can change the runoff volume-frequency relationships, and
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-48
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
more significantly, the downstream peak regulated flow-frequency curves. The higher peak in-
channel flows more often will increase flood risk. The majority of increased runoff comes from
portions of the watershed upstream of the flood control reservoirs. Therefore, opportunities to
decrease flood risk and/or mitigate future increases in flood risk, exist above the reservoirs, at
the reservoirs, and below the reservoirs.
Flood risk is mitigated through both structural and non-structural measures. Structural
measures change the hazardthat is, the frequency and/or hydraulic characteristicsof flood
waters. Structural measures include dams, reservoirs, levees, floodwalls, large-scale
channelization projects, levee setbacks, and bypasses. Non-structural measures improve flood
system performance and reduce exposure, vulnerability, and consequences of flooding by
adapting to the natural floodplain or inherent features of the floodplain without changing the
characteristics of the flood hazard (DWR, 2017). Examples of non-structural measures include
enhancements to flood warning systems, flood emergency preparedness plans, and evacuation
plans.
Above or upstream of reservoirs, flood risk can be mitigated through non-structural measures
which restore properly functioning hydrological processes in the watershed. These include but
are not limited to increased monitoring, erosion control, wildfire fuel reduction, riparian habitat
rehabilitation, and policy changes to protect upper watersheds. Structural measures which
reduce inflow to reservoirs, through upstream detention, storage, or other means, can also be
used to mitigate flood risk.
At a reservoir, non-structural opportunities to mitigate flood risk include but are not limited to
reservoir operations and reoperation plans to mitigate reservoir releases for climate change
flood storage by revising the flood control diagram, without any physical changes to the dam.
Structural opportunities at a reservoir involve physical changes to the dam to reduce flood risk,
such as changing the outlet capacity, increasing the spillway capacity, or raising the dam.
Downstream of reservoirs, non-structural flood management elements that focus on enhanced
flood emergency response and emergency management, enhanced operations and
maintenance, and floodplain management can be used to reduce flood risk. Structural
measures implemented downstream of reservoirs that can reduce flood risk focus on
improvements to the levee system, such as levee strengthening, repairs, or improvements;
bypass construction and existing bypass expansion; and infrastructure improvements such as
raising and waterproofing structures and building berms.
An overview of the completed, ongoing, and planned activities/projects that DWR has
implemented or is actively investigating and potentially implementing which incorporate both
structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood risk is provided in Appendix G Reservoir
Vulnerability Analysis. Additionally, DWR is developing a climate change adaptation strategy.
This strategy is described in the Climate Change Adaptation Measures Report (forthcoming).
4-49 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
4.9 Regional Economic Analysis
A regional economic analysis evaluates the effects of changes in production or expenditures in
. The 2012 CVFPP estimated two SSIA regional economic effects within the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins: (1) SSIA project investment and (2) flood damage
focusing on business production losses. A regional economic analysis was not done for the 2017
CVFPP Update.
The 2022 CVFPP Update includes a regional economic analysis that evaluated the primary
(direct) and secondary (indirect and induced) economic effects of (1) proposed SSIA investment
expenditures to improve flood protection facilities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins and (2) the reduction of business and crop production losses expected with SSIA
investments. SSIA investments are expected to occur over a 30-year period; therefore, the 2022
CVFPP Update regional economic analysis uses future 2072 medium climate change business
and crop production losses as input, as reported in Appendix C Flood Risk Analysis. Other
potential regional economic effects from flood damage were qualitatively described, such as
those related to structure and contents physical damages, property value impacts, municipal
fiscal impacts, and regional economic competitiveness and diversity.
how implementation of the
proposed 2022 SSIA portfolio will:
Improve flood management thus potentially resulting in reduced flood damages, including
business and crop income losses. Avoided direct business and crop losses may result in
avoided indirect losses on industry output and employment, both regionally and statewide.
Result in SSIA construction secondary industry output and employment effects, which will
stimulate regional and statewide economies. For example, construction of a setback levee
project could bring new employers and employees into the local area and generate sales
revenue for businesses that supply materials or goods.
IMPLAN, an economic input-output (I-O) modeling application, was used to estimate effects on
the regional economy using SSIA construction costs and results from the 2022 CVFPP Update
flood risk analysis. I-O analysis measures the flow of commodities and services among
industries, institutions, and final consumers within an economy. An I-O model uses a matrix
representation of a re
have on others as well as consumers, government, and foreign suppliers in the economy.
I-O models capture all monetary market transactions in an economy, accounting for inter-
industry linkages and availability of regionally produced goods and services. The resulting
mathematical formulas allow I-O models to simulate or predict the economic impacts of a
change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy. It is a static linear model of
all purchases and sales, or linkages, among sectors of an economy.
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-50
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
IMPLAN estimates changes in the regional economy as direct, indirect, and induced economic
effects for affected industries within the study area, where:
Total Output Effects = Direct Effects + Indirect Effects + Induced Effects
Direct Economic Effects refer to the response of a given industry (i.e., changes in output,
Indirect Economic Effects refer to changes in output, labor income, value added, and
employment resulting from the iterations of industries purchasing from other industries
caused by the direct economic effects.
Induced Economic Effects refer to changes in output, labor income, value added, and
employment caused by the expenditures associated with changes in household income
generated by direct and indirect economic effects.
For the 2022 CVFPP Update regional economic analysis, the 2019 California State IMPLAN
dataset was used.
Estimated stimulus from the SSIA construction regional economic analysis is summarized for
total annual industry output by basin in Figure 42. The 2022 SSIA portfolio is estimated to
annually bring approximately $400 million to the regional economy within the Sacramento
Basin and approximately $180 million to the regional economy within the San Joaquin Basin.
Additional information and results of the 2022 CVF
provided in Appendix H Regional Economic Analysis.
4-51 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
Figure 42. Estimated Regional Total Annual Industry Output Generated by 2022 SSIA Portfolio
Investment
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 4-52
4 Enhanced Technical Analyses for 2022 CVFPP Update
4.10 Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas
DWR is involved in or leads multiple study efforts of different objectives and scales. However,
information from one study can often lead to valuable information for another. In the interest
of sharing information across studies, the Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas (Appendix I) has
been created and is intended
existing information revised.
Appendix I Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas documents the many distinctive overlapping
study areas used for the 2022 CVFPP Update interrelated analyses, such as the Flood Risk
Analysis, Conservation Strategy, and Investment Strategy. Relevant CVFPP flood planning maps,
such as for the many Central Valley local maintaining agencies (LMAs), are also provided, in
addition to some of the underlying critical data for assumed future projects and land use.
Finally, because the various 2022 CVFPP Update study areas overlap those being used for the
2023 CA Water Plan (i.e., planning areas/hydrologic regions), these study areas are also
provided for comparison.
4-53 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
CHAPTER 5
References
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013. Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation
and Delineation (CVFED), Task Order 32, Senate Bill 1278 / Assembly Bill 1965.
Sacramento, California. February.
DWR. 2015a. Central Valley Hydrology Study. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, and David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sacramento, California.
November.
DWR. 2016a. Levee Evaluation Program. Available at:
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/webapp/home.jsp
DWR. 2016b. Climate Change Analysis Phase IIB Technical Memorandum.
DWR. 2016c. Draft Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies: Sacramento River Basin. Sacramento,
California. November.
DWR. 2016d. Draft Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies: San Joaquin River Basin. Sacramento,
California. October.
DWR. 2017. 2017 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Expanded Report. Prepared by
DWR, CH2M, and David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sacramento, California. July.
DWR. 2017. CVFPP Climate Change Analysis Technical Memorandum. Sacramento, California.
March.
f the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 1535.
Maendly, Romain. (California Department of Water Resources). 2018. Development of Stage
Frequency Curves in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta for Climate Change and Sea
A4-
EXT-2018-011.
5-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
National Research Council. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
Pierce, D.W., D.R. Cayan, and B.L. Thrasher. 2014, Statistical downscaling using localized
constructed analogs (LOCA). J Hydrometeorol 15(6):25582585.
Shabman, L., Scodari P., Woolley, D. and C. Kousky (2014). Vocabulary of Flood Risk
Management Terms, In Shabman, L. and P. Scodari (Eds.) From Flood Damage Reduction
to Flood Risk Management: Implications for USACE Policy and Programs. (Appendix A,
pp. 1-10). USACE Institute for Water Resources.
State of California. 2018. Sea Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update. Sacramento, California.
https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-
A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 5-2
2022 CVFPP Update Technical Analyses Summary Report
CHAPTER 6
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Definition
AEP annual exceedance probability
BCSD Bias Correction with Spatial Disaggregation
BWFS Basin-Wide Feasibility Study
CCTAG Climate Change Technical Advisory Group
CEN central tendency
cfs cubic feet per second
CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
CSI California Structure Inventory
CVFED Program Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program
CVFPP Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
CVHS Central Valley Hydrology Study
CWP California Water Plan
DDF depth-percent damage function
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EAD expected annual damage
EALL expected annual lives lost
EFREM enhanced flood response and emergency management
ERR Economic Reevaluation Report
F-CO forecast-coordinated operations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIO forecast-informed operations
FSRP Flood System Repair Project
ft feet
GCM General circulation model
6-1 PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022
Acronym Definition
GIS geographic information system
GRR General Reevaluation Report
HEC-FDA Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Damage Reduction Analysis
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
HEC-ResSim Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir System Simulation
IPAST Information Processing and Synthesis Tool
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LMA local maintaining agencies
LOCA Locally Constructed Analogs
LOP level of protection
LRC Life Risk Calculation
LRS Life Risk Simulation
MMC Modeling Mapping and Consequences
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
NSI National Structure Inventory
NULE Non-Urban Levee Evaluations Project
NWS National Weather Service
RCP Representative Concentration Pathways
RD Reclamation District
RM River Mile
RMC Risk Management Center
RVA reservoir vulnerability analysis
SB 5 Senate Bill 5
SPFC State Plan of Flood Control
SSIA State Systemwide Investment Approach
ULE Urban Levee Evaluations Project
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
VIC Variable Infiltration Capacity
PUBLIC DRAFT MAY 2022 6-2
Appendix A: Climate Change Analysis
Appendix B: Climate Change Volume Frequency Analysis
Appendix C: Flood Risk Analysis
Appendix D: Risk Analysis Summary by Index Point
Appendix E: Risk Analysis Inventory Update
Appendix F: Life Risk Input Development
Appendix G: Reservoir Vulnerability Analysis
Appendix H: Regional Economic Analysis
Appendix I: Central Valley Flood Planning Atlas
Reviewer NameReviewer OrganizationComment #Appendix & Section #Page #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Paragraph or Figure #Comment: ImportanceComment: IssueComment: Solution