Mutually Inclusive Flood Foresight, Hydropower, Restoration

Transcription

1 Mutually Inclusive Flood Foresight, Hydropower, Restoration Colin Thorne, Nottingham University, it UK Pete Dickerson, USACE-NWP River Restoration ti Northwest t 2012 Symposium US Army Corps of Engineers

2 Overview The Columbia River Basin UK Flood Foresight Project Columbia River Treaty Review CRT 2014 Team 2

3 Columbia River Basin 258,000 sq. miles 2 countries 7 states CRT 2014 Team 3

4 87 Large Dams and Reservoirs CRT 2014 Team 4

5 Existing Cou Columbia ba River Treaty Provisions so s Canada must construct and operate 3 large dams for power generation and flood risk management in Canada and U.S. The Treaty allowed the U.S. to construct and operate Libby dam. U.S. paid Canada US$64.4 million for 50% of expected flood damage reduction benefits from 1964 to US U.S. and dcanada agreed dto share downstream power benefits produced in the U.S from the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Duncan Mica Libby CRT 2014 Team 5

6 Why CRT 2014/2024 Review? The Columbia River treaty has no specified end date In 2024 flood risk operations change The earliest either the U.S. or Canada could withdraw from the treaty is years prior written notice is required for either country to terminate t the treaty t CRT 2014 Team 6

7 Context UK Flood Foresight Project Foresight Project aims Methodology Flood Risk Drivers Flood Foresight Project Future Risks (business as usual) Need to Align Flood Risk and Environmental 2004 Management (updated 2008) Stakeholder Uptake and Impact of Flood Foresight on FRM Policy and Practice

8 The Flood Cycle Courtesy, HR Wallingford

9 Project Aims Provide long-term vision for future flood risks and their management. Cover all aspects, looking years ahead. Involve relevant Stakeholders. Provide a reliable evidence-base for decision makers. Supply the underpinning science for new policies

10 Catchment and coastal flooding system

11 Urban flooding system

12 Foresight socio-economic futures and climate change scenarios Medium-high emissions Medium-low emissions High emissions and Low emissions Low emissions

13 Drivers Processes that change the state of the system Change in risk System state variables Sources rainfall sea level storm surges wave. heights etc. Pathways urban surfaces fields, drains channels flood storage flood defences floodplains Receptors communities homes industries Infrastructure resources ecosystems System analysis Risk Probability x consequences (economic, risk to life, social, natural environment etc) Responses Interventions that change the state of the system Change in risk

14 g Driver group Driver SPR classification Climate change Catchment runoff Fluvial Systems and Processes Precipitation Temperature Urbanisation Rural land management Agricultural impacts Environmental regulation River morphology and sediment supply Source Drivers Source of Pathway Future Flood Pathway Risk Receptor Pathway Pathway Coastal processes Human behaviour Socioeconomics River vegetation and conveyance Waves Surges Relative sea level rise Coastal morphology and sediment supply Stakeholder behaviour Public attitudes and expectations Buildings and contents Urban impacts Infrastructure impacts Social impacts Science, engineering and technology Pathway anything Source Source that changes the Source state of the Pathway Pathway flooding system Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor

15 2080 Expected Annual Damages: millions (currently ~ 1billion)

16 Baseline Conclusions: unless we act now:- Future flooding and coastal erosion are very serious threats. They represent a major challenge to government and society. B i l i Business as usual is no longer an option

17 aa clash between FRM and environmental objectives could lead to a 3-fold increase in flood risk in the 2050s, rising to a 4-fold increase in the 2080s River Vegetation and Conveyance Environmental Regulation River Morphology and Sediment Supply

18 Valuing Ecosystems Ecosystem Services Supporting Provisioning Regulating g Cultural Ecosystem services - including provision of natural flood management depend on:- Stocks of natural capital and flows of materials and organisms across the landscape and through the fluvial system. Landscapes and riverscapes that affect these stocks and flows. Changes in land use and river management that affect multiple ecosystem services.

19 Stakeholder Involvement Project champion: Chief Scientific Advisor to H M Government; Project steering panel: appointed by the Cabinet Office. Foresight team: government administrators and scientists plus leading academics, practitioners and professional consultants. Key stakeholders: national, regional and local levels. Independent experts and stakeholders: debated and accepted methods and findings at Buy-in Workshops.

20 IMAPCT: Scientific Evidence into Policy into Practice Taihu Basin

21 Government Review of the 2007 floods Several fatalities, i 48,000 households, 7,000 businesses flooded and billions of damage Foresight report updated to provide scientific foundation and evidence base for the Government s Pitt Review. It led to several key recommendations It helped ensure that Pitt Review s recommendations were credible and accepted. RECOMMENDATION 27: Defra, the Environment Agency and Natural England should work with partners to establish a programme to achieve greater working with natural processes. ES.51 One flood defence measure which has proved to be increasingly successful u is use of natural processes such as using farmland to hold water and so create washlands and wetlands.

22 What Flood Foresight findings are relevant to the Columbia River Treaty Review? Predicted that flood risk could rise twentyfold. Drivers: climate, land use and socio-economic change. Failure to align future flood risk management with environmental legislation added to the problem. Business as usual is no longer an option - accepted through effective stakeholder Buy-in. Government policy makers rethought FRM. Generated a paradigm shift in FRM policy & practice.

23 Why might lessons learned from Flood Foresight be relevant and beneficial to the CRT Review? 1. Foresight gives CRT Review scientists and engineers confidence that Politicians, Policy Makers, and Practitioners will listen and act provided that the messages are clear and are supported by the best science available. 2. Treaty Review merits the best possible science base and requires stakeholder Buy-in. 3. CRT Review is vital to the sustainable use of one of the world s great trans-national rivers. 4. CRT is a model for many other treaties around the world the significance of the Review is global.

24 Why might lessons learned from Flood Foresight be relevant and beneficial to the CRT Review? 1. Foresight gives CRT Review scientists and engineers ee confidence ce that Politicians, tca Policy Makers, and Practitioners will listen and act provided that the messages are clear and are supported by the best science available. 2. Treaty Review merits the best possible science base and requires stakeholder Buy- in. 3. CRT Review is vital to the sustainable use of one of the world s great trans-national rivers. 4. CRT is a model for many other treaties around the world the significance of the Review is global. CRT 2014 Team 24

25 Treaty Review Approach Primary operational driving purposes flood risk hydropower ecosystem based function Recommendation to U.S. State Department from U.S. Entity (Corps, BPA), Sept 2013 CRT 2014 Team 25

26 Stakeholder Engagement Sovereign integration States: OR, WA, ID, MT NW Tribes: 5 representatives (USRT, CRITFC, UCUT, Cowlitz, CSKT Federal Agencies: NMFS, USFWS, BOR, USACE, BPA, BLM, EPA, USFS, USGS, BIA, NPS Sovereign Review Team Sovereign Technical Team Regional listening sessions Targeted risk communication: FPM, EM, Op. CRT 2014 Team 26

27 Alternative Formulation and Evaluation Modeling Iterations CRT 2014 Team 27

28 Flood Risk Analysis Flood Risk Assessment Risk Management Risk Communication CRT 2014 Team 28

29 3000 sq. miles 4 states 42 counties 180,000 structures 160 levee systems 1600 river miles 8 points per sq. meter Consequence Boundary (LiDAR, Hydraulics, Economics and Levee) CRT 2014 Team 29

30 Technical Teams Data management Hydrology Reservoir modeling Hydraulic modeling Levee analysis Economics Climate change Environmental Planning CRT 2014 Team 30

31 Hydrologic Analysis Headwater Location Headwater Location In nflow Q i Time Q i In nflow Q i Time Q i Natural Lake Historic years and synthetics Q L Inflow Local Inflow 1972 Time Q o Q i Inflow Q i Headwater Location 1972 Time Outflow Q o C.D. Flow 60 day Curve (critical duration). Time Vol syn CRT 2014 Team 31 Frequency

32 HEC-ResSim CRT 2014 Team 32

33 Geospatial data management LiDAR data available for distribution USGS Oregon LiDAR Consortium t.htm Available for viewing CRT 2014 Team 33

34 Levee Analysis Fragility Curves With and without t flood fighting Breach Characteristics Most likely breach elevation CRT 2014 Team 34

35 Hydraulic Models CRT 2014 Team 35

36 Economic Structure Inventory CRT 2014 Team 36

37 Climate Change Datasets Characterize Future Climate Impact Studies Adjust Scale to Study Area Historical Observed Climate & Transient Climate Projection COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE DALLES (10-year Moving Mean, plotted on end year) ccsm3a1b cgcm3.1t47a1b cnrmcm3a1b echam5a1b Operations Modeling Rainfall Runoff (Hydrology) 1400 echoga1b hadcma1b 1000 ac-f ft 1200 pcm1a1b ccsm3b1 cgcm3.1t47b1 cnrmcm3b echam5b1 echogb1 hadcmb1 800 pcm1b1 Ensemble Mean Historic Mean Distribution of Seasonal Runoff Volume by Location for HD-2040(MF-0) Runoff Volu ume, MAF CRT 2014 Team 37 0 'MICAA' 'ARROW' 'DUNCA' 'DWORS' 'LIBBY' 'FLASF' 'GCOUL' 'LGRAN' 'DALLE'

38 Flood Risk Assessment In nflow Q i In nflow Q i Time Time Q i Q b How does all this come Reservoir 1 together to calculate risk? Sta age (ft) Probability of Levee Failure L i ow Q o Outflo Q o Reservoir 2 Inflow Q i Time Time CRT 2014 Team 38

39 HEC-WAT Structure HEC-WAT Hydrologic Data HEC-ResSim Plug-In HEC-RAS Plug-In HEC-FIA Plug-In 2000 Modified HMS Flows/ Model Synthetic Events HEC-ResSim Models HEC-RAS Model Flow HEC-FIA Model WAT Simulation With Default Program Order Hydrographs Damages Hydrographs Hydrographs Simulation.dss CRT 2014 Team 39

40 Event Consequence CRT 2014 Team 40

41 HEC-WAT Structure - FRA HEC-WAT with FRA option Freq Sampler Frequency Forecast Sampler Hydrograph Sets Spreading Depths, Velocities per Grid Breach What Fragility about Hydrographs uncertainty? Model Sampler HEC-RAS HEC-FIA Mean Forecast HEC- ResSim Unregulated Hydrographs Model Regulated Hydrographs Simulation.dss Damage Sets RAS Mapper Depth Grids Damages Model Model Convergence? Yes Net Benefit Sampler Benefits CSRA Expected Net Benefit, CDF No CRT 2014 Team 41

42 Depth Grid with Structures and Levees CRT 2014 Team 42

43 Structures with Damage CRT 2014 Team 43

44 1894 Flood: Structures with Damage CRT 2014 Team 44

45 1894 Flood: Longview, WA CRT 2014 Team 45

46 1894 Flood: Downtown Portland CRT 2014 Team 46

47 Why does this matter to you? Functional takeaway Big picture takeaway Data Models Power bill? Site selection Efficient use of resources More projects More successful projects No more vacuum Sound science Buy in CRT 2014 Team 47

48 Questions? Colin Thorne Nottingham University, it UK Pete Dickerson, P.E. USACE-NWP usace.army.mil Questions? US Army Corps of Engineers CRT 2014 Team 48