Current Methods for Water
Resources Planning
J. Rolf Olsen,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Institute for Water Resources
Alexandria, Virginia
Building Strong
Purpose
Describe U.S. water resources planning
requirements
How is hydrologic frequency information
and climate information used in decision
making process
How may current laws and regulations
influence how we use climate
information?
Building Strong
USGS Circular 1331
The four major US water
resources agencies:
USACE, U.S. Geological Survey,
Bureau of Reclamation, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Mission:
To evaluate practices of federal
agencies to incorporate climate
change considerations into
activities related to Nation's
water resources
Provide foundation for future
policies
Report released as USGS Circular
1331 February 2009
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/
Building Strong
Outline
Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land
Resources Implementation Studies (P&G)
Other Hydrologic Design Standards
Standard Project Flood
Probable Maximum Flood
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
National Flood Insurance Program
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Proposed National Objectives, Principles and
Standards for Water and Related Resources
Implementation Studies (December 2009)
Building Strong
Although from a U.S. Federal perspective,
these laws and regulations represent issues
faced by water managers everywhere:
Balance multiple competing objectives including
economic costs;
Environmental constraints;
Standards-based approaches to risk.
Building Strong
Federal Water Resources Objectives
Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies:
The Federal objective of water and related
land resources project planning is to
contribute to national economic development
consistent with protecting the Nation's
environment, pursuant to national
environmental statutes, applicable executive
orders, and other Federal planning
requirements.
March 1983
Building Strong
National Economic Development
Plan Selection
A plan recommending Federal action is
to be the alternative plan with the
greatest net economic benefit consistent
with protecting the Nation's environment
(the NED plan)
Exceptions may be made when there are
overriding reasons for recommending
another plan, based on other Federal,
State, local and international concerns.
Building Strong
Proposed Principles and Standards
Revised Objectives
The National Objective for water resources
planning is to develop water resources projects
based on sound science that maximize net
national economic, environmental, and social
benefits.
Select and recommend the plan that ... provides
the greatest net overall contribution to the National
Water Resources Planning Objectives considering
both monetary and non-monetary effects.
December 2009
Building Strong
Use of Hydrologic Frequency Information
Estimated probability of future
hydrologic events are used to calculate
future benefits of alternative action
plans.
Expected benefits and costs provide
economic justification for alternative
management actions.
Building Strong
Standard Project Flood (SPF)
The standard project flood (SPF) is a flood
that may be expected from the most
severe combination of meteorologic and
hydrologic conditions that are reasonably
characteristic of the geographical region
involved, excluding extremely rare
combinations.
SPF was often used as a design standard
in mid-20th century when flow records
were considered to be too short for
adequate statistical analysis.
Building Strong
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
For a major project, the conservative
practice in the United States is to base
spillway design flood on the probable
maximum precipitation (PMP).
PMP is based on maximum conceivable
combination of unfavorable meteorological
events.
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) inflow
hydrograph is developed by centering PMP
over the watershed to produce a maximum
flood response.
Building Strong
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA Environmental Impact Statements
Insure that NEPA policies and goals are
infused into programs and actions of the
Federal Government
Provide discussion of significant
environmental impacts
Shall inform decision makers and public of
reasonable alternatives which would avoid or
minimize adverse impacts or enhance the
quality of the human environment.
Building Strong
NEPA
NEPA process requires agencies to
determine if their actions will have
significant environmental effects.
The NEPA process does not require a
multiobjective tradeoff analysis of
alternative plans like the Principles &
Guidelines.
Building Strong
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA):
Area of land that would be inundated by a flood
having a 1% chance of occurring in any given
year (also referred to as the base flood or the
100-year flood).
Regulations
Purchase of flood insurance is mandatory if
federal loans or grants were used to acquire or
build structures or if mortgages are made by
lending institutions regulated by the federal
government.
Local communities must regulate floodplain
development as a condition for participation in
NFIP.
Building Strong
NFIP
Why is it necessary to consider the
National Flood Insurance Program when
discussing Federal water resources
planning?
Local communities must regulate
floodplain development as a condition for
participation.
Local communities would like to avoid
flood insurance costs and regulation.
Structural flood risk reduction projects are
one means.
Building Strong
Decision Methods
Multiobjective optimization (P&G) /
optimize National Economic Development
(NED)
Requires hydrologic frequency estimates to
calculate benefits and costs of alternatives.
Standards based
NFIP 1% chance flood based on hydrologic
frequency analysis.
Standard Project Flood (SPF) and Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) a hydrometerological
approach for identifying a design flood
Building Strong
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Planners shall identify areas of risk and
uncertainty in their analysis and describe
them clearly.
Can use probability distribution if there is
reasonably firm data, such as hydrologic
risk.
May characterize a set of outcomes with
subjective probability estimates.
Range of outcomes can be described by
using sensitivity analysis.
Building Strong
Incorporating Climate Change Risk
Several have argued that Principles and
Guidelines are flexible enough to
accommodate planning for climate
change, since sensitivity analysis can be
used to test assumptions.
However, P&G says formulation and
evaluation of alternative plans should be
based on the most likely conditions
expected to exist in the future with and
without the plan.
Decision methodology tends to favor an
optimization approach.
Building Strong
Proposed National Objectives,
Principles and Standards for
Water and Related Resources
Implementation Studies
December 2009
Building Strong
Old Planning Process
Six step planning process:
1) Specification of the water and related land resources
problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning
setting) associated with the Federal objective and
specific State and local concerns.
2) Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related
land resource conditions within the planning area
relevant to the identified problems and
opportunities.
3) Formulation of alternative plans.
4) Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans.
5) Comparison of alternative plans.
6) Selection of a recommended plan based upon the
comparison of alternative plans.
March 1983
Building Strong
Revised Planning Process
Proposed Revision
1) Identify the study objectives and ensure that Federal
participation in the study is warranted;
2) Identify and assess the water and related resources
problems, needs, and opportunities relevant to the
planning setting associated with the study objectives;
3) Inventory, analyze, and determine the existing and most
likely future water and related resources conditions
within the study area relevant to the identified problems
and opportunities;
4) Formulate alternatives, including identifying the No
Action alternative, as well as nonstructural and
structural alternatives, and combinations;
Building Strong
Revised Planning Process
Proposed Revision (continued)
5) Evaluate the potential effects of all reasonable and
viable alternatives;
a) Evaluate the potential effects, positive and
negative, on the significant resources relative to
the most likely conditions without action, and
b) Evaluate and display the potential effects of
alternatives in a systematic manner.
6) Compare alternatives; and
7) Select and recommend the plan.
Building Strong
Climate Change
Climate change represents persistent uncertainty
that should be addressed in the planning process.
The increased variability in temporal and spatial
patterns of precipitation and water availability will
challenge water systems serving all human needs.
From specification of existing problems and
opportunities to the formulation, evaluation and
selection of plans, the accelerating changes in
aquatic systems caused by a changing climate
should inform our understanding of what our water
resource needs are and how we can realistically
respond to those needs.
Building Strong
Proposed Risk and Uncertainty
Even with the best available engineering
and science, risk and uncertainty will
always remain.
When uncertainties are about an
alternatives ability to function as desired
and/or to produce the desired outputs or
other potential undesired outputs, and
thus potentially affect the justification,
selection, and/or acceptability of the
alternative, improved data, models, and
analyses should be pursued.
Building Strong
Use of Scenarios
Because the future is uncertain, alternative
without-plan future conditions may be identified
as separate scenarios.
The scenarios shall only be used as sensitivity
tests to assess the robustness of competing
alternatives, inform the plan selection, and more
fully depict the potential performance of the
selected plan.
Probability or likelihood of each future condition
and its affects (sic) shall be presented.
Key uncertainties for both existing and future
conditions shall also be disclosed.
Building Strong
Conclusion
Two approaches influencing current U.S.
water resources planning
Multiobjective optimization assuming a most
likely future condition and characterizing future
hydrologic events with a probability distribution.
Delineation of a flood hazard area based on flood
frequency estimates (that currently assume
stationarity).
Are there approaches that would be more
robust for dealing with hydrologic
uncertainty?
Building Strong
