100-Year Flood – It’s All About Chance

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 15th, 2010

1969 Floods

Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) | May 9th, 1969

1995 Floods

Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) | December 31st, 1995

1998 Flood Report

Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) | December 31st, 1998

2017 Flood System Status Report

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 10th, 2017

This report is intended to assist flood management planners and engineers in characterizing facilities within the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) and to inform the 201

This report is intended to assist flood management planners and engineers in characterizing facilities within the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) and to inform the 2017 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Update (2017 CVFPP Update). The 2017 FSSR provides a concise repository of the status of SPFC Facilities as noted in related DWR evaluation and inspection efforts, along with the efforts of our local and federal partners. The 2012 CVFPP laid the foundation necessary for compliance with the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 and a new approach to flood management in the Central Valley. As a supporting and informational document to the 2017 CVFPP Update, the 2017 FSSR includes information about inspecting and evaluating SPFC facilities. It also details and quantifies major components of existing flood risk within the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds, and the factors that influence flood risk in relation to the various flood control structures within the SPFC. Additionally, the 2017 FSSR informs and details the current conditions of levees and channels within the SPFC, and includes finalized project information from DWR’s Levee Evaluations Program. Through updating the status of SPFC facilities, the State of California can continue to make informed decisions related to flood risk management. This document is a collaborative effort by DWR, local, and federal partners, signifying a step forward in gaining deeper understanding of the flood system’s current status and condition in the Central Valley.

2022 State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 28th, 2022

A Climatology of Narrow Cold-Frontal Rainbands in Southern California

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 27th, 2022

Narrow cold-frontal rainbands produce short-duration (<1-hr), high-intensity precipitation associated with flash floods and debris flows in Southern California, inclu

Narrow cold-frontal rainbands produce short-duration (<1-hr), high-intensity precipitation associated with flash floods and debris flows in Southern California, including the extremely destructive 2018 Montecito event. Prior research describes development, predictability, and associated hazards of these bands, though no known long-term record of their occurrence and climatological characteristics exists within the United States. This study provides the first known catalog of narrow coldfrontal rainbands during the winter seasons of 1995–2020 in Southern California, and explores characteristics of these features such as frequency, movement, and the large-scale meteorology that drives them. Events were documented manually using rain gauge observations, radar data, and output from atmospheric models. In total, 94 rainbands were documented during the study period, with an average of three landfalling events occurring in Southern California per water year. The intensity and impacts across the recorded events varied, though common weather patterns, including strengthening cyclones near the California coast, were associated with the documented events. This catalog supports weather-forecasting efforts as well as the future development of an automated detection algorithm.

A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | August 14th, 2014

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical cha

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (U.S. Congress 1986). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the OHWM defines the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction in non-tidal waters of the United States (WoUS) in the absence of adjacent wetlands (U.S. Congress 1977). Thus, accurate and consistent OHWM delineation practices are essential for proper implementation of the CWA. The dynamic nature of stream systems and fluvial processes presents challenges for OHWM delineation. Natural sources of variability in river and stream systems (e.g., climate, sediment supply, landscape position, etc.) are compounded by direct and indirect anthropogenic sources of variability (e.g., watershed alteration, dam emplacement and removal, climate change, etc.). Thus, it is challenging to impose a consistent measure of “ordinary” high flow conditions across systems in which the hydrology and geomorphology can vary greatly in both space and time. OHWM delineation in non-perennial (i.e., intermittent and ephemeral) streams can be especially challenging. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines intermittent streams as having “flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Ephemeral streams have “flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream,” and “[r]unoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). In contrast to both intermittent and ephemeral streams, perennial streams have “flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year,” and “[g]roundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Given the less persistent streamflow regimes characteristic of non- perennial streams, particularly ephemeral systems, the characterization of ordinary high water flows is perhaps more challenging than in perennially flowing systems. Moreover, depending on climate, vegetation, and other related factors, the appearance of some OHWM indicators may vary greatly between wet and dry seasons or between relatively infrequent flow events, more so than in many perennial streams. Mountainous terrain can present additional challenges to OHWM delineation. For instance, the relatively steep and confined valleys in which mountain streams commonly flow can restrict the development of some alluvial features (e.g., flood-plains, bankfull benches, etc.) that are typical of low-gradient systems and that may help to identify the OHWM. Thus, in non-perennial mountain streams, it is often difficult to determine what constitutes ordinary high water and to interpret the physical and biological indicators established and maintained by ordinary high water flows. Challenges and inconsistencies pertaining to OHWM delineation practices are becoming increasingly relevant in mountainous parts of the western U.S. in light of expanding development. This increased pressure on fluvial systems highlights the need for accurate, consistent, and repeatable OHWM delineation practices in this region. These factors, combined with the particular challenges of OHWM delineation in non-perennial mountain streams, provided the impetus for developing this delineation guide. This guide presents the concepts, field indicators, and methods for assessing, delineating, and documenting the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Region of the United States (Figure 1). The information presented here is based on the findings of Mersel et al. (2014) (discussed in Section 1.5) and on years of field observations and data gathering in the WMVC Region and in other regions of the U.S. by the authors and other contributing experts. The remainder of Section 1 provides background information regarding the concept of the OHWM and pertaining to stream hydrology and geomorphology in general. Section 2 discusses and provides examples of the specific field indicators used to identify the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region. Section 3 discusses field methods for delineating the OHWM and addresses additional techniques and lines of evidence that may help in problematic delineation scenarios. The information presented here is technical guidance and does not define, amend, or replace any existing regulations, laws, or legal guidance related to the OHWM or to the regulation of WoUS. Furthermore, determining whether any stream is a jurisdictional WoUS is beyond the scope of this document and involves further assessment in accordance with regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. This guide pertains to non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region of the U.S., and while the information presented here may have a wider applicability to other regions or to perennial rivers within the WMVC Region, this has not been tested or validated. This manual serves as a companion to A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008) as these two regions—the WMVC and the Arid West—are interspersed with one another. Best professional judgment is required to determine which manual is most appropriate for any given location within these two regions. The technical guidance presented here aims to provide an informed and consistent approach to OHWM delineation within the WMVC Region; however, OHWM delineation is not a precise practice. The OHWM can take on a variety of appearances and characteristics and may change over time due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Best professional judgment and consideration of the unique characteristics of each project site are always required.

A rationale for effective post-fire debris flow mitigation within forested terrain

Geoenvironmental Disasters (Springer) | May 25th, 2018

Watersheds recently burned by wildfires are recognized as having an increased susceptibility to debris flow occurrence. The great majority occur within the first 2 years

Watersheds recently burned by wildfires are recognized as having an increased susceptibility to debris flow occurrence. The great majority occur within the first 2 years following wildfires. These debris flows are generated primarily through the process of progressive entrainment of material eroded from hillslopes and channels by surface runoff and appears independent of the vegetative community burned. The decreased likelihood of debris flows over time is linked to the restoration of hydrologic function as vegetative cover and soil infiltration functioning return to pre-fire conditions. An exception to this pattern of post-wildfire debris flow susceptibility occurs in burned drainage basins with forest cover. A second, later period of increased debris flow susceptibility due to infiltration-triggered landslides can occur in burned forested basins. This later period of debris flow susceptibility is largely attributable to the fire-induced tree mortality and subsequent decay of tree root networks decreasing soil strength on steep hillslopes which produces an increased likelihood of debris flow occurrence 3 to 10 or more years after the wildfire. Consequently, post-fire mitigation measures in forested terrain must address the risk posed by debris flows caused by progressive entrainment during the 2 years following the wildfire and debris flows due to infiltration-induced debris slides three or more years later. Mitigation for the later debris flows in forested terrain involves identification of areas with infiltration-induced debris slides coincident with concentrations of fire-killed trees. Timely reforestation of these areas after a wildfire limits the loss of soil strength from decaying roots.

A Review of the Hydrologic Response Mechanisms During Mountain Rain-on-Snow

Frontiers in Earth Science (Frontiers) | April 26th, 2022

Mountain rain-on-snow (ROS) generates large flooding events worldwide. Climate warming will enhance the frequency, magnitude, and widespread nature of these events. Past

Mountain rain-on-snow (ROS) generates large flooding events worldwide. Climate warming will enhance the frequency, magnitude, and widespread nature of these events. Past studies indicate rainfall, not snowmelt, typically drives much of the runoff response during ROS. However, there is substantial event-to-event variability—resulting from shifting atmospheric drivers and nuanced physical mechanisms governing water flow through a snowpack. Historically, turbulent fluxes were assumed to dominate the energy balance for snowmelt during ROS. Recent research nonetheless suggests that other components of the energy balance might be larger drivers depending on: 1) the time of year; 2) the elevation; and 3) the aspect of the slope. This mini review summarizes the literature on the physical processes governing ROS and proposes that moving forward we utilize the terms “active” and “passive” to describe a snowpack’s contribution (via snowmelt) to terrestrial water input (TWI) during ROS. Active snowpacks readily contribute meltwater to TWI via the energy balance, bolstering rainfall-runoff totals. Passive snowpacks do not melt, but simply convey rainwater through the snow matrix. In both snowpack cases, preferential flow paths enhance transmissivity. This proposed classification scheme will help researchers and water managers better communicate and interpret past findings, and aid in forecasting discussions of future events.