Composite Risk Assessment for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Levee System
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 140, Issue 5
Abstract
The objectives of this project were to analyze available Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California, levee risk information in a Composite Risk Management matrix and examine the results for management decision support. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance documents define risk as the “probability and severity of loss linked to hazards” and prescribe a composite risk assessment method. The Delta Risk Management Strategy performed for a group of state and federal partners provided analyses of the relative probability of hazards and severity of risks in the Delta and provide the information needed for a risk analysis compliant with USACE requirements. Composite Risk assessment provides rank-ordered lists of the highest risk zones–those with the greatest probability of failure combined with the most severe consequences–for several hundred protected areas in the Delta. Although uncertainties in the absolute magnitude of the results make them most useful for comparisons, the actual values of the probabilities and consequences are alarming. For example, Sargent Barnhart Tract, northwest of Stockton, has a mean annual failure rate of 0.07, or an expected levee failure every 14 years, with a probable 96 fatalities for a nighttime seismic-induced failure. Adjacent tracts with only slightly lower failure probabilities put another 500 lives at risk. An area of the Suisun Marsh has a projected failure rate of 0.5, or once every two years, with maximum possible damages exceeding $250 million. The Sacramento Pocket Area, with a mean annual failure rate of 0.006, has over $9 billion at risk. Although refinements to these risk estimates are possible, this paper and the Delta Risk Management Strategy analyses provide more than sufficient evidence that flooding in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta presents significant risks to California and the nation. Hundreds of lives and billions of dollar damages are at risk. Urgent action is necessary to manage those risks.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The work on which the paper is based was prepared for the USACE, Sacramento District, by Dynamic Solutions, LLC. The authors express their appreciation to Dr. Said Salah-Mars of URS and Dr. Sean Bagheban of California Department of Water Resources for their expert advice and assistance.
References
Aboelata, M., Bowles, D. S., and McClelland, D. M. (2003). “A model for estimating dam failure life loss.” Proc., the Australian Committee on Large Dams Risk Workshop, Australian National Committee on Large Dams, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
CALFED Science Program Independent Review Panel. (2008). “Review of the Delta risk management strategy phase 1 report (draft 4).” 〈http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/dsmo/sab/drmsp/docs/IRP_DRMS_Review-main_plus_appendices.pdf〉 (Nov. 15, 2011).
Dynamic Solutions. (2012). “CALFED/Delta islands & levees feasibility study hydrodynamic models of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta.” Composite Risk Assessment for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Levee System, Knoxville, TN.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). “Frequently asked questions on mortality risk valuation.” 〈http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/MortalityRiskValuation.html#whatisvsl〉 (Sep. 21, 2011).
Hacker, Andrew. (2012). “Is algebra necessary?” New York Times, 〈http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html?pagewanted=all&r=0〉 (Nov. 28, 2012).
ISO. (2009). Risk management—Principles and guidelines, ISO 31000:2009, Int. Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA, Board on Environmental Studies, and Toxicology, Division on Earth, and Life Studies. (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. (2007). Scientific review of the proposed risk assessment bulletin from the office of management and budget, National Academies Press, 〈http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11811.html〉 (Nov. 3, 2011).
Seed, R. B., et al. (2006). “Investigation of the performance of the New Orleans flood protection systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005.” 〈http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/projects/neworleans/〉 (Nov. 10, 2012).
URS/JBA. (2008). “Delta risk management strategy (DRMS), phase 1, draft 4.” Risk Analysis Rep., URS Corporation.
URS/JBA. (2011). “Delta risk management strategy (DRMS).” Phase 2 Rep., URS Corporation.
U.S. Army. (2006). Composite risk management, field manual No. 5-19 (100-14), Headquarters Dept. of the Army, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1996). “Risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction studies.”, Washington, DC.
USACE. (2002). “Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, California, comprehensive study.” Interim Rep., Reclamation Board of State of California and USACE, Sacramento District, CA.
USACE. (2010). “Process for the national flood insurance program (NFIP) levee system evaluation.”, Washington, DC.
USACE. (2011a). “Introduction to risk analysis, risk analysis gateway.” 〈http://corpsriskanalysisgateway.us/lms/ch2-Risks.cfm〉 (Aug. 15, 2011).
USACE. (2011b). “Risk and reliability engineering for major rehabilitation studies.”, Washington, DC.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 140 • Issue 5 • May 2014
Pages: 734 - 743
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 31, 2012
Accepted: Feb 19, 2013
Published online: Feb 21, 2013
Discussion open until: Jul 21, 2013
Published in print: May 1, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.