DOCSLIB.ORG

Jones Creek Debris Flow Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jones Creek Debris Flow Study Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Jones Creek Debris Flow Study Final Report March 2004 Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Jones Creek Debris Flow Study Final Report March 2004 KWL File No. 2039.002 JONES CREEK DEBRIS FLOW STUDY FINAL REPORT MARCH 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Limited (KWL) for the exclusive use and benefit of Whatcom County Public Works Department. No other party is entitled to rely on any of the conclusions, data, opinions, or any other information contained in this document. This document represents KWL’s best professional judgement based on the information available at the time of its completion and as appropriate for the project scope of work. Services performed in developing the content of this document have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering profession currently practising under similar conditions. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD. Consulting Engineers 2039.001 JONES CREEK DEBRIS FLOW STUDY FINAL REPORT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT MARCH 2004 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CREEK HAZARDS .......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 WORK PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 PROJECT TEAM............................................................................................................. 1-5 2. JONES CREEK BACKGROUND........................................................... 2-1 2.1 JONES CREEK FAN........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 1983 DEBRIS FLOW ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 OTHER CREEK EVENTS.................................................................................................. 2-6 2.4 REGULATION OF FAN HAZARDS...................................................................................... 2-6 2.5 JONES CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 2-9 2.6 ACME WATERSHED ANALYSIS (1999)........................................................................... 2-12 3. DEBRIS FLOW RISK ANALYSIS.......................................................... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOOD HAZARDS .............................................................................. 3-1 3.3 DEBRIS FLOW MODELLING ............................................................................................. 3-5 3.4 POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE............................................................................................ 3-8 3.5 POTENTIAL DEBRIS FLOW RISKS .................................................................................... 3-9 4. RISK MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 4-2 4.3 WARNING SYSTEMS....................................................................................................... 4-4 4.4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS.............................................................................. 4-6 4.5 DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION STRUCTURES ......................................................................... 4-7 4.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION MEASURES ................................. 4-10 4.7 CREEK MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................. 4-12 4.8 PREFERRED RISK MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES................................................................ 4-13 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 5-1 5.1 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 REPORT SUBMISSION..................................................................................................... 5-5 BIBLIOGRAPHY KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD. Consulting Engineers 2039.002 JONES CREEK DEBRIS FLOW STUDY FINAL REPORT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT MARCH 2004 FIGURES 1-1 Location Map 1-2 Overview Map of Jones Creek Watershed 1-3 Jones Creek Fan 2-1 Geomorphic Map of Lower Watershed 2-2 2001 Aerial Photograph of Jones Creek Fan 2-3 Jones Creek Watershed Following 1983 Debris Flow 2-4 Fan Hazard Zones of Raines et al. (1996) 3-1 Jones Creek Debris Flow Modelling Results for the Design Event 3-2 Jones Creek Debris Flow Hazard Zones 4-1 Concept Plan for Debris basin and Debris Barrier 4-2 Concept Plan for Deflection Berm 4-3 Possible Channel Realignment of Jones Creek TABLES 1-1 Work Program for Jones Creek 2-1 Hazard Zones of Raines et al. (1996) 2-2 Recommended Allowable Uses in Hazard Zones – Raines et al. (1996) 4-1 Land Use Regulations for Existing and New Developments in Switzerland 4-2 Debris Flow Mitigation Alternatives at Jones Creek APPENDICES A Background Information on Debris Floods and Debris Flows B Photographs C Watershed Description D Mass Movement Processes E Hydrologic Analysis F Debris Flow Probability and Magnitude G Fan Trench Stratigraphy KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD. Consulting Engineers 2039.002 JONES CREEK DEBRIS FLOW STUDY FINAL REPORT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT MARCH 2004 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... i 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 CREEK HAZARDS.....................................................................................................1-2 1.3 WORK PROGRAM ....................................................................................................1-3 1.4 PROJECT TEAM .......................................................................................................1-5 2. JONES CREEK BACKGROUND.................................................................2-1 2.1 JONES CREEK FAN ..................................................................................................2-1 2.2 1983 DEBRIS FLOW.................................................................................................2-2 2.3 OTHER CREEK EVENTS.............................................................................................2-6 2.4 REGULATION OF FAN HAZARDS..................................................................................2-6 2.5 JONES CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN ASSESSMENT.................................................................2-9 2.6 ACME WATERSHED ANALYSIS (1999) ....................................................................... 2-12 3. DEBRIS FLOW RISK ANALYSIS................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3-1 3.2 DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOOD HAZARDS ..........................................................................3-1 3.3 DEBRIS FLOW MODELLING ........................................................................................3-5 3.4 POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE .......................................................................................3-8 3.5 POTENTIAL DEBRIS FLOW RISKS ................................................................................3-9 4. RISK MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................4-1 4.2 LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT....................................................................4-2 4.3 WARNING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................4-4 4.4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .........................................................................4-6 4.5 DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION STRUCTURES .....................................................................4-7 4.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION MEASURES................................ 4-10 4.7 CREEK MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................ 4-12 4.8 PREFERRED RISK MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 4-14 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................5-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Overview of Landslide Hydrology
    water Editorial Overview of Landslide Hydrology Roy C. Sidle 1,2,* , Roberto Greco 3 and Thom Bogaard 4 1 Mountain Societies Research Institute, University of Central Asia, Khorog GBAO 736000, Tajikistan 2 Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr., Sippy Downs 4556, Queensland, Australia 3 Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi della Campania ‘L. Vanvitelli’, via Roma 9, 81031 Aversa (CE), Italy; [email protected] 4 Department of Water Management, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +996-770-822-144 Received: 11 January 2019; Accepted: 15 January 2019; Published: 16 January 2019 Most landslides and debris flows worldwide occur during or following periods of rainfall, and many of these have been associated with major disasters causing extensive property damage and loss of life [1–9]. Given concerns about the effects of climate change on precipitation regime, in the future, some mountainous areas may likely experience more landslides with a faster response to rainfall; however, most such projections are weakly based and remain untested [10,11]. Subsurface hydrology is usually the main triggering mechanism of these landslides and associated debris flows. While the effects of hillslope hydrology on runoff generation have been thoroughly studied, much less attention has been paid to these effects on landslide and debris flow initiation. Recent syntheses demonstrate that it is no longer appropriate to view the subsurface as a static media which facilitates the transit of subsurface water, rather a variety of factors affecting the dynamics of subsurface hydrology need to be considered [12,13].
    [Show full text]
  • XS1 Riffle STA 0+27 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 26.9 Dbkf = 1.46 Abkf = 39.4 105
    XS1 Riffle STA 0+27 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 26.9 Dbkf = 1.46 Abkf = 39.4 105 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 102030405060 Horizontal Distance (ft) Team 1 Riffle STA 133 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 23.4 Dbkf = 1.48 Abkf = 34.6 105 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 1020304050 Horizontal Distance (ft) XS3 Lateral Scour Pool STA 0+80.9 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Inner Berm Indicators Wbkf = 25.9 Dbkf = 1.73 Abkf = 44.7 105 Wib = 14 Dib = .93 Aib = 13.1 Elevation (ft) 90 0 90 Horizontal Distance (ft) Team 1 Lateral Scour Pool STA 211 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Inner Berm Indicators Wbkf = 26.8 Dbkf = 1.86 Abkf = 49.7 105 Wib = 15.2 Dib = .91 Aib = 13.7 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 1020304050 Horizontal Distance (ft) XS2 Run STA 0+44.1 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 22.6 Dbkf = 1.96 Abkf = 44.4 105 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 102030405060 Horizontal Distance (ft) Team 1 Run STA 151 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 24.2 Dbkf = 1.69 Abkf = 40.9 105 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 1020304050 Horizontal Distance (ft) XS4 Glide STA 104.2 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Wbkf = 25.9 Dbkf = 1.62 Abkf = 42 106 Elevation (ft) 95 0 70 Horizontal Distance (ft) Team 1 Glide STA 236 Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points Inner Berm Indicators Wbkf = 20.8 Dbkf = 1.75 Abkf = 36.3 105 Wib = 15.7 Dib = .85 Aib = 13.3 100 Elevation (ft) 95 90 0 1020304050
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design
    Stream Restoration Prep8AICI by the North Carolina Stream Restonltlon Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant INC STATE UNIVERSITY I North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. Contents Introduction to Fluvial Processes 1 Stream Assessment and Survey Procedures 2 Rosgen Stream-Classification Systems/ Channel Assessment and Validation Procedures 3 Bankfull Verification and Gage Station Analyses 4 Priority Options for Restoring Incised Streams 5 Reference Reach Survey 6 Design Procedures 7 Structures 8 Vegetation Stabilization and Riparian-Buffer Re-establishment 9 Erosion and Sediment-Control Plan 10 Flood Studies 11 Restoration Evaluation and Monitoring 12 References and Resources 13 Appendices Preface Streams and rivers serve many purposes, including water supply, The authors would like to thank the following people for reviewing wildlife habitat, energy generation, transportation and recreation. the document: A stream is a dynamic, complex system that includes not only Micky Clemmons the active channel but also the floodplain and the vegetation Rockie English, Ph.D. along its edges. A natural stream system remains stable while Chris Estes transporting a wide range of flows and sediment produced in its Angela Jessup, P.E. watershed, maintaining a state of "dynamic equilibrium." When Joseph Mickey changes to the channel, floodplain, vegetation, flow or sediment David Penrose supply significantly affect this equilibrium, the stream may Todd St. John become unstable and start adjusting toward a new equilibrium state.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Flooding
    Designed for safer living® Focus on Types of flooding Designed for safer living® is a program endorsed by Canada’s insurers to promote disaster-resilient homes. About the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR), established in 1997, is a world-class centre for multidisciplinary disaster prevention research and communication. ICLR is an independent, not-for-profit research institute founded by the insurance industry and affiliated with Western University, London, Ontario. The Institute’s mission is to reduce the loss of life and property caused by severe weather and earthquakes through the identification and support of sustained actions that improve society’s capacity to adapt to, anticipate, mitigate, withstand and recover from natural disasters. ICLR’s mandate is to confront the alarming increase in losses caused by natural disasters and to work to reduce deaths, injuries and property damage. Disaster damage has been doubling every five to seven years since the 1960s, an alarming trend. The greatest tragedy is that many disaster losses are preventable. ICLR is committed to the development and communication of disaster prevention knowledge. For the individual homeowner, this translates into the identification of natural hazards that threaten them and their home. The Institute further informs individual homeowners about steps that can be taken to better protect their family and their homes. Waiver The content of this publication is to be used as general information only. This publication does not replace advice from professionals. Contact a professional if you have questions about specific issues. Also contact your municipal government for information specific to your area.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Sediment Pulses on Channel Morphology in a Gravel-Bed River
    Effects of sediment pulses on channel morphology in a gravel-bed river Daniel F. Hoffman† Emmanuel J. Gabet‡ Department of Geosciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59802, USA ABSTRACT available to it. The delivery of sediment to riv- channel widening, braiding, and fi ning of bed ers and streams in mountain drainage basins material, followed by coarsening, construction Sediment delivery to stream channels in often comes in large, infrequent pulses from of coarse grained terraces, and formation of mountainous basins is strongly episodic, landslides and debris fl ows (Benda and Dunne, new side channels. After the sediment wave had with large pulses of sediment typically 1997; Gabet and Dunne, 2003). This sediment passed, they observed channel incision down to delivered by infrequent landslides and debris supply regime differs from that of channels an immobile bed and bedrock. Cui et al. (2003) fl ows. Identifying the role of large but rare in lowland environments with a more regular conducted fl ume experiments to investigate sed- sediment delivery events in the evolution of sediment supply and is refl ected in the form iment pulses and found that in a channel with channel morphology and fl uvial sediment and textural composition of the channel and alternate bars, the bed relief decreased with the transport is crucial to an understanding of fl oodplain. Processing large pulses of sediment arrival of the downstream edge of the sediment the development of mountain basins. In July can be slow and leave a lasting legacy on the wave, and increased as the upstream edge of the 2001, intense rainfall triggered numerous valley fl oor.
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Flood in the Himalayas for June 5.Indd
    Information on the Occasion of World Environment Day, June 2007 Flash Floods in the Himalayas The Himalayas are one of the youngest mountain ranges on earth and represent a high energy environment very much prone to natural disasters. High relief, steep slopes, complex geological structures with active tectonic processes and continued seismic activities, and a climate characterised by great seasonality in rainfall, all combine to make natural disasters, especially water-induced hazards, common phenomena. Flash fl oods are among the more devastating types of hazard as they occur rapidly with little Figure 1: a. types of water-related disasters; b. distribution of water related lead time for warning, and transport tremendous disasters by continents; c. different types of fl oods (data source: Jonkman 2005) amounts of water and debris at high velocity (Fig. 1). Flash fl oods affect thousands of people in the Himalayan region every year – their lives, homes, and livelihoods – along with expensive infrastructure Figure 2: Different types of fl ash fl oods in the HKH region There are several different types of fl ash fl ood. The most common include intense rainfall fl oods (IRF); glacial lake outburst fl oods (GLOFs), landslide dam outburst fl oods (LDOF), and fl ash fl oods caused by rapid snowmelt (RSM) and ice (Fig. 2). Failure of dams and other hydraulic structures can also lead to fl ash fl oods. Intense rainfall Intense rainfall is the most common cause of fl ash fl oods in the Himalayan region. These events may last from several minutes to several days. Such events may happen anywhere but are more common to mountain catchments.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedload Transport and Large Organic Debris in Steep Mountain Streams in Forested Watersheds on the Olympic Penisula, Washington
    77 TFW-SH7-94-001 Bedload Transport and Large Organic Debris in Steep Mountain Streams in Forested Watersheds on the Olympic Penisula, Washington Final Report By Matthew O’Connor and R. Dennis Harr October 1994 BEDLOAD TRANSPORT AND LARGE ORGANIC DEBRIS IN STEEP MOUNTAIN STREAMS IN FORESTED WATERSHEDS ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA, WASHINGTON FINAL REPORT Submitted by Matthew O’Connor College of Forest Resources, AR-10 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 and R. Dennis Harr Research Hydrologist USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Professor, College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 to Timber/Fish/Wildlife Sediment, Hydrology and Mass Wasting Steering Committee and State of Washington Department of Natural Resources October 31, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 3 Sediment Routing in Low-Order Channels 3 Timber/Fish/Wildlife Literature Review of Sediment Dynamics in Low-order Streams 5 Conceptual Model of Bedload Routing 6 Effects of Timber Harvest on LOD Accumulation Rates 8 MONITORING SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN LOW-ORDER CHANNELS 11 Monitoring Objectives 11 Field Sites for Monitoring Program 12 BEDLOAD TRANSPORT MODEL 16 Model Overview 16 Stochastic Model Outputs from Predictive Relationships 17 24-Hour Precipitation 17 Synthesis of Frequency of Threshold 24-Hour Precipitation 18 Peak Discharge as a Function of 24-Hour Precipitation 21 Excess Unit Stream Power as a Function of Peak Discharge 28 Mean Scour
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Dam Lakes and Glacial Lakes
    Chapter 3: Landslide Dam Lakes and Glacial Lakes Chapter 3: Landslide Dam Lakes and Glacial Lakes The triggers of flash floods in the Hindu Kush Himalayas include catastrophic failure of landslide dams that retain landslide dam lakes, and of moraine or ice dams that retain glacial lakes. Flash flooding caused by landslide dam failure is a significant hazard in the region and is particularly common in the high rugged mountain areas of China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan (Zhu and Li 2000). The previous chapter looked at ways of preventing the formation of landslide dams by reducing the prevalence of landslides and debris flows. Another important approach to mitigating flash floods is to reduce the likelihood of dam failure, and/or to put in place warning and avoidance mechanisms to reduce the risk in the case of failure. In order to design appropriate measures, it is important first to understand the formation process, failure mechanism, and risk mitigation techniques for both types of lake. Landslide Dam Lakes Formation Landslide dam lakes can be created as a result of a broad range of mass movements in different geomorphological settings. Dams form most frequently as a result of rock and earth slumps and slides, debris and mudflows, and rock and debris avalanches in areas where narrow river valleys are bordered by steep and rugged mountain slopes (Zhu and Li 2000). A lake then forms behind the dam as a result of the continuous inflow of water from the river (Figure 4). Only a small amount of material is needed to form a dam in a narrow valley, and even a small mass movement can be sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Severe Weather Safety Guide Flash Flooding
    What causes River Flooding? Stay informed! • Persistent storms over the same area for long Listen to NOAA Weather Radio, local radio or Severe periods of time. television for the latest weather and river forecasts. • Combined rainfall and snowmelt • Ice jams Weather • Releases from man made lakes • Excessive rain from tropical systems making Safety landfall. How does the NWS issue To check out the latest river forecast information Guide and current stages on our area rivers, visit: Flood/Flash Flood Warnings? http://weather.gov/pah/ahps Flash Check out the National Weather Service Paducah website for the latest information at Flooding weather.gov/paducah Call for the latest forecast from the National Weather Service’s Weather Information Now number: Paducah, KY: 270-744-6331 Evansville, IN: 812-425-5549 National Weather Service forecasters rely on a A reference guide from your network of almost 10,000 gages to monitor the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration height of rivers and streams across the Nation. National Weather Service National Weather Service This gage data is only one of many different 8250 Kentucky Highway 3520 Paducah, Kentucky sources for data. Forecasters use data from the Doppler Radar, surface weather observations, West Paducah, KY 42086 snow melt/cover information and many other 270-744-6440 different data sources in order to monitor the threat for flooding. FLOODS KILL MORE PEOPLE FACT: Almost half of all flash flood Flooding PER YEAR THAN ANY OTHER fatalities occur in vehicles. WEATHER PHENOMENAN. fatalities occur in vehicles. Safety • As little as 6 inches of water may cause you to lose What are Flash Floods ? control of your vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslides, and Affected the Eruption Patterns of Some Geysers
    Earthquake Annex I Colorado State Emergency Operations Plan LEAD AGENCY: Dept. of Local Affairs, Office of Emergency Management SUPPORTING AGENCIES: Governor's Office, Personnel & Administration, Corrections, Labor & Employment, Military Affairs, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Transportation, Education, Human Services, Red Cross, Salvation Army, COVOAD I. PURPOSE This annex has been prepared to ensure a coordinated response by state agencies to requests from local jurisdictions to reduce potential loss of life and to ensure we maintain or quickly restore essential services following an earthquake. It is designed to supplement the operational strategy outlined in the Basic Plan. II. SITUATION The Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains extend from the mountainous parts of central and western Wyoming and northeastern Utah, through the rugged mountains of central Colorado, southward into extreme north-central New Mexico. Large, damaging earthquakes in this region are uncommon, but significant historical earthquakes have caused damage. The largest earthquake in the Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains occurred on November 8, 1882, and, although poorly located, probably was in north-central Colorado, west of Fort Collins and northwest of Denver. The earthquake occurred before the development of seismometers, but it had an estimated magnitude of 6.6 and was felt throughout most of Colorado and in adjacent parts of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska. The most seismically active part of the Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains is in northwestern Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park, where ongoing volcanic activity is responsible for the spectacular geysers and other unique geologic features in the park. On June 30, 1975, a magnitude 6.4 earthquake shook the park, caused rockfalls and landslides, and affected the eruption patterns of some geysers.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Canal Corporation Flood Warning and Optimization System
    K19-10283720JGM New York State Canal Corporation Flood Warning and Optimization System SCOPE OF SERVICES K19-10283720JGM Contents 1 Background of the Project........................................................................................................... 3 2 Existing FWOS features ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Data Import Interfaces ............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Numeric Models ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Hydrologic Model............................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Hydraulic Model .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Data Dissemination Interfaces .................................................................................................. 6 3 Technical Landscape ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Software ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Systems......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 FWOS Software ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canal and River Bank Stabilisation for Protection Against Flash Flood and Sea Water Intrusion in Central Vietnam
    CANAL AND RIVER BANK STABILISATION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST FLASH FLOOD AND SEA WATER INTRUSION IN CENTRAL VIETNAM V. Thuy1, I. Sobey2 and P. Truong3 1 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Quang Ngai, Vietnam 2Kellog Brown Roots, Quang Ngai Natural Disaster Mitigation Project [email protected] 3 TVN Director and East Asia and South Pacific Representative, 23 Kimba St, Chapel Hill, Brisbane 4069, Australia [email protected] Abstract Quang Ngai, a coastal province in central Vietnam, is prone to flash flood caused by high annual rainfall, with 70% (2300mm/yr) falling over three months and steep terrain resulting in high velocity water flows. This often leads to flash floods in mountainous areas and large scale flooding in low-lying areas. The high velocity flows and flooding cause severe erosion on dike, canal and river banks built to protect farm land from flooding in the rain season and sea water intrusion in the dry season. Therefore the stability of these measures provides the local community a protection against flash flood and sea water intrusion at the same time. Both vegetative measures and hard structures such as rock and concrete have been used in the past to protect these banks, but they are ineffective partly due to the local sandy soils used to build them and partly to the strong current. Although vetiver grass has been used very successfully for flood erosion control in the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam, where flow velocity is relatively slow, it has not been used under very strong current. As a last resort, vetiver grass was tested for its effectiveness in protecting the banks of these rivers and canals.
    [Show full text]