Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br />Improving Amerkan River Flood Frequency Anary,es <br /> <br /> <br />previously thought Based on the newly estimated IOO-year flood discharge, the <br />levees protecting Sacramento no longer provide protection against the IOO-year <br />flood. The revised flow frequency relationships have immediate policy implications <br />(e.g., "decertification" of levees by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, <br />resulting in building restrictions and higher flood insurance rates) and also reduce the <br />estimated level of protection provided by the flood control alternatives that are <br />currently being considered for Sacramento. <br />Perhaps not smprisingly, recalculation of the flow frequency relationships <br />has proven controversial. Occurrence of the 1997 flood has also brought into <br />question many issues of technical methodology that bear on decisions about flood <br />risk management in Sacramento. <br />Shortly after their release, the results of the USACE flood frequency analysis <br />prompted a number of questions, comments, and criticisms from representatives of <br />local, state, and federal government agencies, public interest groups, private citizens, <br />as well as from the Coil'S itself In response, the USACE requested the assistance of <br />the NRC to extend the work of the former Committee on Flood Control Alternatives <br />in the American River Basin. This report is a product of NRC's Committee on <br />American River Flood Frequencies, which was organized to assist the USACE by <br />providing an independent scientific assessment of flood frequency relationships for <br />the American River at Sacramento. <br /> <br />DATA SOURCES AND NON-STATIONARITY <br /> <br />A variety of data types can be used in estimating flood quantiles or <br />exceedance probabilities for the American River. These include systematic <br />streamflow and precipitation data, historical and paleoflood data, and regional <br />hydrometeorological information on extreme events. Flood frequency analysis <br />traditionally has been based on systematic streamflow or precipitation records, where <br />use of the latter requires the application of precipitation runoff modeling. <br />Flood frequency analysis is commonly based on the assumption that flood <br />flows are independent and identically distributed random variables. In reality, the <br />probability distribution of floods can change in time (i.e., exhibit non-stationarity) as <br />a result oflocal human activities, such as land use changes or reservoir operations, or <br />regional or global climate change. As noted in NRC (1998a), there are many <br />intrinsic modes of climatic variability at decadal to centennial time scales that may be <br />independent of global warming effects or may confound them. Thus non-stationarity <br />in the American River flood frequency due to climatic factors cannot be <br />unambiguously attributed to changes in atmospheric composition over the last <br />century. For example, there are relatively few gaged streams on watersheds that have <br />not been affected by human activities. Unfortunately, there are also relatively few <br />cases where human impacts on flood magnitude and frequency have been carefully <br />documented. There is evidence of significant changes in land use and surface <br />attributes of the American River basin over the last two centuries. <br />Furthermore, the assumption that floods are independent and identically <br />distributed in time is at odds with the recognition that climate naturally varies at all <br />scales, and that climate additionally may be responding to human activities, such as <br />- <br />