Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 879–900 | Cite as

Application of an extreme winter storm scenario to identify vulnerabilities, mitigation options, and science needs in the Sierra Nevada mountains, USA

  • Christine M. AlbanoEmail author
  • Michael D. Dettinger
  • Maureen I. McCarthy
  • Kevin D. Schaller
  • Toby L. Welborn
  • Dale A. Cox
Original Paper

Abstract

In the Sierra Nevada mountains (USA), and geographically similar areas across the globe where human development is expanding, extreme winter storm and flood risks are expected to increase with changing climate, heightening the need for communities to assess risks and better prepare for such events. In this case study, we demonstrate a novel approach to examining extreme winter storm and flood risks. We incorporated high-resolution atmospheric–hydrologic modeling of the ARkStorm extreme winter storm scenario with multiple modes of engagement with practitioners, including a series of facilitated discussions and a tabletop emergency management exercise, to develop a regional assessment of extreme storm vulnerabilities, mitigation options, and science needs in the greater Lake Tahoe region of Northern Nevada and California, USA. Through this process, practitioners discussed issues of concern across all phases of the emergency management life cycle, including preparation, response, recovery, and mitigation. Interruption of transportation, communications, and interagency coordination were among the most pressing concerns, and specific approaches for addressing these issues were identified, including prepositioning resources, diversifying communications systems, and improving coordination among state, tribal, and public utility practitioners. Science needs included expanding real-time monitoring capabilities to improve the precision of meteorological models and enhance situational awareness, assessing vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure, and conducting cost–benefit analyses to assess opportunities to improve both natural and human-made infrastructure to better withstand extreme storms. Our approach and results can be used to support both land use and emergency planning activities aimed toward increasing community resilience to extreme winter storm hazards in mountainous regions.

Keywords

Winter storm hazards Flood Emergency preparedness Emergency management Scenario ARkStorm 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to our agency partners Aaron Kenneston, Tim Cary, Ed Evans, Madonna Dunbar, and Gina Marotto, who brought their expertise and communities together and shared their facilities for the ARkStorm@Tahoe practitioner meetings and tabletop exercise. Several other individuals contributed to development of technical products, including National Weather Service partners: Chris Smallcomb, Mark Faucette, Alan Haynes, and Gary Barbato, Andre Leamons (Bureau of Reclamation), Desert Research Institute partners: Justin Huntington, Tim Brown, Domagoj Podnar, and Hauss Reinbold, Rich Niswonger (US Geological Survey), and University of California, Davis partners: Geoff Schladow and Galoka Sahoo. This project would not have been possible without the active and engaged participation of over 130 public and private sector organizations represented by over 300 individuals. Their perspective and candid assessment of impacts of an ARkStorm event in the region and discussion of possible mitigation actions formed the basis of the findings presented in this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge funding and support from the US Geological Survey (Science Application Risk Reduction Project), the University of Nevada-Reno Academy for the Environment and the US Department of the Interior Southwest Climate Science Center.

References

  1. Algermissen ST, Rinehart WA, Dewey J et al (1972) A study of earthquake losses in the San Francisco Bay area; data and analysis. A report prepared for the Office of Emergency Preparedness. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories, p 220Google Scholar
  2. Boin A, ’t Hart P (2010) Organising for effective emergency management: lessons from research1. Aust J Public Adm 69:357–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00694.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Department of Water Resources (2014) California Department of Water Resources Best Available Maps. http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/best_available_maps/
  4. Changnon SA, Pielke RA Jr, Changnon D et al (2000) Human factors explain the increased losses from weather and climate extremes*. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi O, Fisher A (2003) The impacts of socioeconomic development and climate change on severe weather catastrophe losses—Mid-Atlantic region (MAR) and the US. Clim Change 58:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cottam M, Preston T (1997) Introduction to the special issue: an overview of the value and use of simulations in the academic, business and policy communities. J Conting Crisis Manag 5:195–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford N, Linsley R (1966) Digital simulation in hydrology, Stanford Watershed Model IV. Technical Report No. 39, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, p 210Google Scholar
  8. Das T, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Hidalgo HG (2011) Potential increase in floods in California’s Sierra Nevada under future climate projections. Clim Change 109:71–94. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0298-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das T, Maurer EP, Pierce DW et al (2013) Increases in flood magnitudes in California under warming climates. J Hydrol 501:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Homeland Security (2013) Homeland security exercise and evaluation program. Office for Domestic Preparedness. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-8890/hseep_apr13_.pdf
  11. Dettinger M (2011) Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California—a multimodel analysis of storm frequency and magnitude changes. J Am Water Resour As 47:514–523. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dettinger MD, Ingram L (2013) The coming megafloods. Sci Am 308:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dettinger MD, Martin Ralph F, Hughes M et al (2011) Design and quantification of an extreme winter storm scenario for emergency preparedness and planning exercises in California. Nat Hazards 60:1085–1111. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9894-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004) Hurricane pam exercise concludes. http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2004/07/23/hurricane-pam-exercise-concludes
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2010) Digital flood insurance rate maps. http://www.msc.fema.gov
  16. Florsheim JL, Dettinger MD (2015) Promoting atmospheric–river and snowmelt fueled biogeomorphic processes by restoring river-floodplain connectivity in California’s Central Valley. In: Hudson P, Middelkoop H (eds) Geomorphology and management of embanked floodplains: North American and European fluvial systems in a era of global environmental change. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  17. Gijsbers P, Cajina L, Dietz C et al (2009) CHPS—an NWS development to enter the interoperability era. In: AGU Fall Meeting, San Fr, December 2009Google Scholar
  18. Holguín-Veras J, Pérez N, Ukkusuri S et al (2007) Emergency logistics issues impacting the response to Katrina: a synthesis and preliminary suggestions for improvement. Transp Res Rec 2022:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseinipour E, Truchinski B, Yunshen S (2013) ARkStorm II—a hydraulic modeling and flood inundation mapping effort on Santa Clara River for emergency planning exercises by local responders in Ventura County, CA. World environmental and water resources congress. doi: 10.1061/9780784412947.164
  20. Huntington JL, Niswonger RG (2012) Role of surface-water and groundwater interactions on projected summertime streamflow in snow dominated regions: an integrated modeling approach. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1029/2012WR012319 Google Scholar
  21. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kapucu N, Garayev V, Wang X (2013) Sustaining networks in emergency management: a study of counties in the United States. Public Perform Manag Rev 37:104–133. doi: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576370105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markstrom SL, Niswonger RG, Regan RS, et al (2008) GSFLOW-coupled ground-water and surface-water FLOW model based on the integration of the precipitation-runoff modeling system (PRMS) and the modular ground-water flow model (MODFLOW-2005). US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-D1Google Scholar
  24. Miao X, Banister D, Tang Y (2013) Embedding resilience in emergency resource management to cope with natural hazards. Nat Hazards 69:1389–1404. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0753-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2013) United States flood loss report—water year 2011. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/summaries/WY2011.pdf
  26. Neiman PJ, Schick LJ, Ralph FM et al (2011) Flooding in Western Washington: the connection to atmospheric rivers*. J Hydrometeorol 12:1337–1358. doi: 10.1175/2011JHM1358.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neiman PJ, Gottas DJ, White AB et al (2014a) The use of snow-level observations derived from vertically profiling radars to assess hydrometeorological characteristics and forecasts over Washington’s Green River Basin. J Hydrometeorol 15:2522–2541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neiman PJ, Wick GA, Moore BJ et al (2014b) An airborne study of an atmospheric river over the subtropical Pacific during WISPAR: dropsonde budget-box diagnostics and precipitation impacts in Hawaii. Mon Weather Rev 142:3199–3223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niswonger RG, Huntington JL, Dettinger MD, Rajagopal S (2013) Multi-scale simulations of past and future projections of hydrology in the Tahoe basin, California—Nevada. In: AGU Fall Meeting, San Fr, December 2013Google Scholar
  30. Porter K, Wein A, Alpers C et al (2010) Overview of the ARkStorm Scenario. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1312 and appendicesGoogle Scholar
  31. PRISM (2012) United States Average Annual Precipitation, 1981–2010 (800 m). PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. http://prism.oregonstate.edu
  32. Ralph F, Dettinger MD (2011) Storms, floods and the science of atmospheric rivers. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 92:265–266. doi: 10.1029/2011EO320001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ralph MF, Dettinger MD (2012) Historical and national perspectives on extreme west coast precipitation associated with atmospheric rivers during December 2010. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:783–790. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00188.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA et al (2006) Flooding on California’s Russian river: role of atmospheric rivers. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2006GL026689
  35. Ralph FM, Dettinger MD, White A et al (2014) A vision of future observations for western US extreme precipitation and flooding. J Contemp Water Resour Res Educ 153:16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rigby JG, Crompton EJ, Berry KA, et al (1998) The 1997 New Year’s floods in Western Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 23Google Scholar
  37. Sahoo GB, Schladow SG, Reuter JE (2010) Effect of sediment and nutrient loading on Lake Tahoe (CA-NV) optical conditions and restoration opportunities using a newly developed lake clarity model. Water Resour Res 46:W10505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scawthorn C, Blais N, Seligson H et al (2006) HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. I: overview and flood hazard. Nat Hazards Rev 7:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sene K (2008) Flood warning, forecasting, and emergency response. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J et al (2008) Description of the advanced research WRF Version 3. NCAR Technical Note, NCAR/TN-475 + STRGoogle Scholar
  41. Steinbrugge KV, Lagorio HJ, Davis JF et al (1987) Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Department of Conservation Special Publication 78Google Scholar
  42. Stern P, Ebi K, Leichenko R et al (2013) Managing risk with climate vulnerability. Nat Clim Change 3:607–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turnbull M, Sterrett CL, Hilleboe A (2013) Towards resilience: a guide to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Practical Action Publishing, WarwickshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vermeulen S, Challinor A, Thornton P et al (2013) Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:8357–8362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White AB, Gottas DJ, Henkel AF et al (2010) Developing a performance measure for snow-level forecasts. J Hydrometeorol 11:739–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wick GA, Neiman PJ, Ralph FM, Hamill TM (2013) Evaluation of forecasts of the water vapor signature of atmospheric rivers in operational numerical weather prediction models. Weather Forecast 28:1337–1352. doi: 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00025.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine M. Albano
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael D. Dettinger
    • 3
  • Maureen I. McCarthy
    • 4
  • Kevin D. Schaller
    • 5
  • Toby L. Welborn
    • 6
  • Dale A. Cox
    • 7
  1. 1.John Muir Institute of the EnvironmentUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Conservation Science PartnersTruckeeUSA
  3. 3.National Research ProgramUS Geological Survey and Scripps Institution of OceanographyLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.Tahoe Science Consortium and Academy for the EnvironmentUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  5. 5.Resiliency PartnersRenoUSA
  6. 6.Nevada Water Science CenterUS Geological SurveyCarson CityUSA
  7. 7.Science Application for Risk ReductionUS Geological SurveySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations