Hydrology and Flooding

Similar documents
LECTURE #19: Floods & Flooding Hazards

Hackensack River Flood Reduction Study Update

DRAFT. Technical Memorandum. Whitney Road Drainage & Safety Enhancements Phase III Hydraulic Update. Prepared For:

APPENDIX A. Hydraulic Investigations: Cascade Mall at Burlington

Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study PLAN FORMULATION ADDENDUM

Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study

The Nature Conservancy Cosumnes River Preserve Franklin Boulevard Galt CA 95632

Technical Memorandum No River Geometry

TOWN LINE BROOK URBAN WATERSHED STUDY MODELING INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

New Castle County, DE. Floodplain Regulations

Chehalis Basin Strategy Programmatic SEPA Draft EIS

Appendix Q Draft Location Hydraulic Study Report For the State Route 32 Widening Between Fir Street and Yosemite Drive at Dead Horse Slough and South

APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

4. Present Activities and Roles

Modeling the Hydrologic Impacts of Control Structures Utilizing LiDAR, ICPR, and GIS Technologies

Flood Mitigation Plan

Freight Street Development Strategy

Nehalem River Watershed Assessment 1

Calleguas Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration Plan. David L. Magney. David Magney Environmental Consulting

THE EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON THE MINGO CREEK WATERSHED

SWAP Risk Informed Methods for Stormwater Assessment and Prioritization

WASA Quiz Review. Chapter 2

PA of NY&NJ - TETERBORO AIRPORT RUNWAY 6-24 Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) UNSTEADY-STATE FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS

Flood Risk Management on the Elwha: Case Study of the Federal Levee Modification Project

No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management

Appendix B Stormwater Site Plan Submittal Requirements Checklist

Appendix A Stormwater Site Plan Report Short Form

Appendix M Part 1. Wetland Reserve Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District

ENGINEERING ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Holly Swartz and Jason Shirey

Reservoir on the Rio Boba

STREAM EROSION. The Activity

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES AND RESTORATION PLAN - UPDATE. Update to Chesapeake Bay Program STAR January 25, 2018

AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE

Prepared for: City of Jeffersonville. November Prepared by

Section 6: Stormwater Improvements

Thinking Outside the Box Culvert Eco Systems Marketing Workshop

Water Rights And Summer Stream Conditions

Tribal Partnership Program Jamestown S Klallam Tribe and USACE Dungeness River in Washington State

Chapter 6 Erosion & Stormwater Study Team

EFFECT OF UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT ON THE CLEAR CREEK AREA

AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE

Westminster East Garden Grove, California Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study

LAKE COUNTY HYDROLOGY DESIGN STANDARDS

4/28/17. Size of Floods - Hydrograph Depicts flood data from gaging station; Hydrographs usually show Q vs. time

4. FISH PASSAGE CONCEPTS

Sea Level Rise Impacts on Municipal Stormwater Systems in Hampton Roads

Appendix D - Evaluation of Interim Solutions

Distribution Restriction Statement Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF BLOOMING GROVE AND VILLAGES OF WASHINGTONVILLE AND SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE

Environmental Check List Georgia Environmental Policy Act

Title Advanced Hydraulic Modeling to Support Emergency Action Plans

Project Alternatives: The Parsons Sill Project History

USACE - Upper Trinity Basin Program Project Overview

SECTION III: WATERSHED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Good morning, Chairman Yaw, Chairman Yudichak, Chairman Vulakovich, Chairman Costa,

Appendix E Part 4 Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Alternatives for the St. Johns Bayou Basin and New Madrid Floodway Project

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS,

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Rahway River Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study

A Tale of Two Dams and a dry river. November 1, 2011 Planning, Resources and Technology Committee Mojave Water Agency

Jacksonville City Council Candidate Survey 2019

Preliminary Feasibility Study for South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Economic Impact Areas 1-10 Executive Summary

From: John Runyon, Cascade Environmental Group and Barbara Wyse, Highland Economics, Steve Faust, Cogan Owens Greene

Programmatic General Permit Army Corps of Engineers Connecticut Addendum

Red River Flooding. June 2015 Caddo and Bossier Parishes. Presented by: Richard Brontoli RRVA, Executive Director

The Lower Watershed Ecosystem Services in Coastal Areas with a focus on the Courtenay River Floodplain

7/11/2018. Floodplain Management Association - June 14, 2018 luncheon

7.9 Lake Whitney Reallocation

ATTACHMENT 1 GEPA CHECKLIST & Historical Archeological & Natural Heritage Preservation Documents

Klickitat County Shoreline Master Plan Update. Open House November 15, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1.0 Background Watershed Description Hydrology - HEC-HMS Models Hydraulics - HEC-RAS Models...

Municipal Stormwater Management Plan Prepared For The Borough of Cape May Point By Van Note-Harvey Associates VNH File No.

Stream Reaches and Hydrologic Units

Training on Roads for Water and Resilience

APPENDIX M MITIGATION STRATEGY For WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY

PEARCE CREEK CONFINED DISPOSAL AREA MODIFICATION

SECTION IV WATERSHED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

FINDINGS: Olsson used a three-step analysis strategy to develop a benefit cost ratio that would indicate the relative feasibility of this project.

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 5E

Estuarine Restoration in San Francisco Bay: Design and Adaptive Management. Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas

CHAPTER 7. San Dieguito River Flooding Adaptation

REPLACING CULVERTS FOR FLOOD RESILIENCY AND AQUATIC CONNECTIVITY. Cheryl Bondi and Lori Sommer NHDES Aquatic Resource Mitigation Program

NEPA Scoping Meeting Rahway River Basin, New Jersey Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT

CHAPTER 3 FLOOD RELATED STUDIES

GENERAL OVERVIEW MEETING JANUARY 10, 2019

R I Freshwater Wetlands Buffer Zones

Project Information. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344), notice is hereby given that

What is an ecosystem?

Model Riparian Buffer Ordinance.

Project Information. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344), notice is hereby given that

Environmental Information Worksheet

Discuss. With the members of your table, discuss these two questions and come up with a list:

Cokato Lake (86-263) Wright County. Hydrologic Investigation

WHETSTONE RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT - ADDENDUM

SR 202 Stream and Wetland Mitigation:

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE and CASE STUDY for INEFFECTIVE FLOW and CONVEYANCE SHADOW AREAS

NWI 2007 NEW TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES. Ralph Tiner Wetland Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Program

RE: Recommendations for Staged Implementation of Alternative 3a

Transcription:

Hydrology and Flooding Background The 1996 flood Between February 4, 1996 and February 9, 1996 the Nehalem reporting station received 28.9 inches of rain. Approximately 14 inches fell in one 48 hour period. By 1:30 in the afternoon of February 8, the stage hydrograph at Foss on the Nehalem river read 29.56 and overtopped the recorder. Best estimates are that the river crested at 31.5 feet, some 17.5 feet above the 14.0 flood stage 1. River flow at Foss was estimated to exceed 69,000 cubic feet per second. This produced a crest at over 12.25 feet in the city of Nehalem. The total damage in Tillamook County from this flood event was estimated at over $53 million dollars 2. Losses to the Nehalem Business District were severe. The flood had a very significant impact on the Sunset Drainage District 3 and all of its members. The Nehalem Sewage Treatment Plant ponds and most of the facility were flooded. The city of Wheeler lost its drinking water supply. Damage estimates in the Nehalem 4 area included : Port of Nehalem $1,571,571 City of Wheeler $120,545 Nehalem bay Wastewater Agency $94,226 1 19,600 cu ft per second at flood level. 2 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. Appendix pp. 15. 3 The district encompasses nearly 1000 acres, most of which is agricultural land supporting six dairy farms, 4 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. Appendix pp 20

Flood History Flooding along the rivers and streams is a fact of life in Tillamook County. We will never totally control it, and attempting to do so is risky, extremely expensive and can be environmentally harmful. We can, however, try to minimize the damage resulting from flooding by learning to live in ways that are more compatible with the river's natural processes 5. Most rivers in Tillamook County rise to flood stage or above at least once each winter. Major coastal flooding has occurred in 1939, 1967, 1976, 1990, 1992, 1996 and 1999. Coastal streams quickly reflect the rainfall on the steep slopes above them. Streams are normally above flood stage for less than 2 days. High tides combine with storm surges (produced by strong winds) to aggravate coastal flooding. The damage to agricultural lands account for the most substantial dollar damages. Much of the lowland area around the bay is pasture for dairy cows (see Figure 1 for land zoning in the 100 year flood plain). Flood Damage Control 6 Methods ordinarily used to reduce flood damage are: individual flood proofing measures, restriction of development in flood plains maintaining a flood warning system flood control storage reservoirs building levees, and channel modifications (making the channels wider, deeper, or straighter) In most cases, the flood proofing of individual homes and businesses can be achieved by setting 5 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. pp. 11

foundations elevations one to three feet above the 100 - year flood level. This strategy was used extensively after the 1996 flood. Major flood protection in the Nehalem Basin depends on restriction of development through flood plain Zoning. The federal and local government establishes a 100-year flood plain which is divided into two Zones: a "floodway" and a "flood fringe". Zoning regulations controls construction in these areas. Flood warning systems allow some time to prepare for the rising waters. The flood warning system in the Tillamook basin has been one of the most successful aspects of the emergency management program 6. However, flood-warning systems are primarily useful in saving lives. They do little to reduce major structural damage, since options for protecting structures and their contents are very limited during the flood event. David Godsey of Nehalem has discovered that river levels in the North Fork of the Nehalem respond to rain events more quickly than in the main stem. It is his belief that this rise in river level can be used to predict when the slower responding and higher water levels from the main stem of the river will occur. Flood control storage reservoirs are not considered to be cost effective. Environmental considerations, including blocking of fish passage also argue against using such structure 7. The debate concerning flood mitigation in the Nehalem basin centers on the remaining two alternatives. 6 Adapted from Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. pp. 25 7 Nehalem Wetlands Review; U.S. Army Engineer Distract, Portland; 1977.

Building levees 8 : Levees are most cost effective where numerous and/or highly valuable properties are protected. New levees, for example can cost $3 to $6 million dollars per mile. In addition these structures usually require recurrent, expensive maintenance. Levees have tended to degrade habitat for salmon and trout. They tend to reduce vegetative cover in the stream. This in turn increases water temperatures, reduces the complexity of the stream channel, and lowers the population of insects and macro-organisms. Newer setback levees (see Figure 2), on the other hand allow for trees and other vegetation along the stream bank that can enhance the habitat for fish. Channel Modifications: The 1997 Army Corp. assessment 9 of the Nehalem bay and river concluded, "Channel clearing and enlargement could be expected to provide only slight reduction in flood heights." It is uncertain whether any system of levees or channel modifications designed to control floods like the 1996 flood would be cost effective. Hydraulic Models 10 8 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. pp. 23-24 9 Nehalem Wetlands Review; U.S. Army Engineer Distract, Portland; 1977. 10 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. pp 78-80

A hydrologic computer model simulates what would happen if a given flow had to travel through a particular cross section of channel and over bank (i.e. flood plain) area. Flows are typically routed through the hydraulic model to determine the width and depth of inundation under a range of flow events. The first step in creating a hydraulic model is collecting data on the physical characteristics of the stream channel and its over bank areas. Cross-sections of the channel, topographic maps of the flood plain, detailed survey of the bridge and culvert crossings, and the roughness of the channel are used to set up the hydraulic model. The information readily available in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Digital Elevations Models (DEM) can be used to reduce the need to collect new data. The model converts these data plots of the channel and valley cross-section. Different flows are input to the model hydraulic, which in turn, predicts water surface elevations under the different flows. The flood plain areas around the bay are also affected by tidal and storm surges. Hydraulic models are very important in evaluating the benefits and impacts of channel changes such as dredging, installing setback levees, and installing flood bypass systems. The cross section of the channel can be altered on the computer to simulate the impacts of these changes on water levels and sediment aggregation. If set up and applied properly, computer models are valuable analytical tools. However, the models are simplified views of actual conditions and rely heavily on the quality of the input data. Inadequate data collection can have serious repercussions later when actual flood depths vary significantly from model predictions. The 1996 Tillamook County Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (pp. 82) recommended that hydraulic models be developed for the main stems of the major rivers in Tillamook County. Currently the Army Corps of Engineers is working with the county to undertake a 3.3 million dollar hydraulic study of the Tillamook basin. Flood Control Alternatives for Nehalem Basin Individuals and groups within the lower Nehalem basin have proposed a number of different channel modification and leveeing strategies to reduce flood damage. These strategies include: Dredging the river channel between Mohler and Wheeler. Constructing a floodwater bypass channel through Gallagher slough between Mohler and Highway 101. (See Figure 3) Dredging the mouth of the Nehalem River. Setting back levees along the river to widen the channel. Installing flood gates in the levee south of the wastewater facility and north of the bridge crossing to allow floodwaters to more quickly leave the flooded inland area. (See figure 4).

There are strong advocates for some of these alternatives. There is also much concern that some of the strategies may do little to solve the flooding problem while costing a great deal of money and having severe environmental consequences. Concern about the consequences of making structural changes in the lower Nehalem are high. A proposal to construct a levee at Mohler was opposed by the Sunset Drainage District because of concern over its effect on flooding in surrounding area. A Ducks Unlimited proposal to convert land around Gallagher Slough to a wetlands area has also raised concerns about its possible effect on flooding.

Criteria for Evaluating Alternative Flood Control Projects The 1996 Tillamook County Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan 11 suggest the following criteria for evaluating the utility of flood mitigation projects. Risks to life and public health: The effect of the project on Public health and safety should be evaluated both upstream and downstream of the proposed project site. The project should have a beneficial or negligible impact on public health. Benefits vs. Costs: Benefits are measured as the effect on flood damages over the entire river system; costs are measured as public and private costs for implementing and maintaining the solution over the long term. Flood damage reduction benefits over the entire river system should exceed long-term costs. Environmental impacts: The environmental impacts of the project include its effect on fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, water quality, and other elements protected by law. Impacts should be evaluated both above and downstream of the proposed site. The net environmental impacts of the project (plus any mitigation measures) over the long term should be positive or negligible. Consistency with applicable land-use plans and regulations: The project should be consistent with land use plans for the area and should not conflict with regulations governing activities in the flood plain and riparian corridor (e.g. from stream buffers), unless the project benefits justify seeking an exception from applicable regulations. 11 Tillamook County Flood Mitigation Plan; Final Report; Tillamook County; November 1996. pp. 40