DOCSLIB.ORG

North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup NRD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup NRD North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup NRD May 2020 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup Natural Resources District Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv Table of Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.01 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.02 Project Area .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.03 Scope Of Work .............................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 2. Background ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.01 Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 3 2.02 Historic Flooding ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.03 Interior Drainage ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.04 Existing Studies and Plans ........................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3. Hydrology and Hydrogeologic Assessment ......................................................................... 11 3.01 Surface Water Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 11 3.02 Surface Water Hydraulics ............................................................................................................ 11 3.03 Study Area Geology ..................................................................................................................... 12 3.04 Groundwater Assessment ........................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 4. Hydrologic Alternative Identification .................................................................................. 13 4.01 Initial Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.02 Alternative Summaries ................................................................................................................ 13 No Action ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Channel Cleanout ................................................................................................................................ 15 Berm on South Side of Mira Creek ...................................................................................................... 15 Watershed Flood Control Structures .................................................................................................. 16 Mira Creek Bypass Channel ................................................................................................................. 18 Detention Basin ................................................................................................................................... 19 Ord – North Loup Canal Bypass .......................................................................................................... 20 Interior Drainage, Drainage Structures/Improvements...................................................................... 21 4.03 Groundwater Recharge ............................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 5. Alternative Summary .......................................................................................................... 23 JEO CONSULTING GROUP INC i North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup Natural Resources District 5.01 Alternative Performance ............................................................................................................. 23 5.02 Permitting Discussion .................................................................................................................. 23 5.03 Opinion of Cost ........................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 6. Preferred Alternative and Recommendations .................................................................... 25 6.01 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 25 Channel Cleanout ................................................................................................................................ 25 Large Dam ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Berm .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Combination ........................................................................................................................................ 26 6.02 Interior Drainage Improvements ................................................................................................ 30 6.03 Groundwater Data Gaps ............................................................................................................. 31 6.04 Funding Options .......................................................................................................................... 31 6.05 Action Items ................................................................................................................................ 34 6.06 Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 7. Community Engagement..................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 8. References .......................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix A: Mira Creek Hydrogeologic Assessment .................................................................................. 39 LRE Water Memorandum - April 13th, 2020........................................................................................ 39 Appendix B: Detailed Cost Opinions ........................................................................................................... 40 Small Dam 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Small Dam 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Small Dam 6 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Large Dam 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Large Dam 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Mira Creek Berm ................................................................................................................................. 40 Small Bypass Channel .......................................................................................................................... 40 Large Bypass Channel.......................................................................................................................... 40 Detention Basin ................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix C: Public Outreach Materials ...................................................................................................... 41 Meeting Items ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Project Handouts ................................................................................................................................ 41 JEO CONSULTING GROUP INC ii North Loup Flood Reduction Study Lower Loup Natural Resources District TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Area Location ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Mira Creek
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maintaining Your Detention Basin: a Guidebook for Private Owners in Clermont County
    Maintaining Your Detention Basin: A Guidebook for Private Owners in Clermont County A well maintained detention basin BASINS Your detention basin is a storm water best management practice (BMP) designed to tempo- INTRODUCTION rarily capture and hold storm water runoff during periods of heavy rain, and slowly release this flow over a period of one or two days so it minimizes flooding and streambank erosion problems downstream. They also help remove sediments from storm water runoff, which helps improve the quality of local streams. Like most other things, a detention basin may not function properly or it may fail prematurely if not properly maintained. Once a detention basin fails, it is often very expensive to correct. Many detention basins are located on private property, including parcels of land owned and maintained by a homeowners association (HOA). Local governments do not have the au- thority to maintain components of the storm sewer system on private property, including detention basins. Rather, these are the responsibility of the lot owner to maintain. Whether you are an individual property owner, a homeowner’s association representative, or a residential/commercial property manager, this Guidebook will help answer questions and provide you with instructions for basin maintenance activities. Routine maintenance will prolong the life of your detention basin, improve its appearance, help prevent flooding and property damage, and enhance local streams and lakes. WHAT ARE DETENTION BASINS AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT? When land is altered to build homes and other developments, the natural system of trees and plants over relatively spongy soil is replaced with harder surfaces like sidewalks, streets, decks, roofs, driveways and even lawns over compacted soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 23: Detention Basin Standards
    CHAPTER 23: DETENTION BASIN STANDARDS 23.00 Introduction and Goals 23.01 Administration 23.02 Standards 23.03 Standard Attachments 23.1 City of Champaign Manual of Practice March 2002 Chapter 23: Detention Basin Standards 23.00 INTRODUCTION AND GOALS A. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the City’s policy regarding the ownership, design, construction, and maintenance responsibility for detention basins. Detention basins are used to collect and hold stormwater runoff for a period of time to compensate for increases in stormwater runoff caused by reduced ground surface perviousness due to activities such as paving or building construction. B. Detention basins historically range in size from backyard detention provided by swales, to large regional detention ponds. Detention basins may be wet or dry bottomed. Residential backyard or sideyard single lot detention is not allowed. Construction of detention for individual lots of less than 5 acres is not recommended; alternate methods such as payment in lieu of detention or one basin for the entire subdivision or development are preferred. 23.01 ADMINISTRATION A. This chapter applies to detention basins within the City limits and the 1-1/2 mile extra territorial jurisdiction. B. Detention basin construction is required for certain conditions by the City of Champaign Stormwater Management Regulations. C. Detention basin design shall be reviewed by the City of Champaign through either of the following: 1. Subdivision plan review 2. Grading and drainage plan review 3. Alternate construction plan review (typically public improvements) 23.02 STANDARDS The following standards apply to detention basins: A. Referenced Standards: Design standards for detention basin design and construction shall comply with the provisions of the following, unless otherwise stated by this manual.
    [Show full text]
  • Location & Design Manual, Volume 2
    Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office • 1980 West Broad Street • Columbus, OH 43223 John Kasich, Governor • Jerry Wray, Director Date: January 20, 2017 To: All Current Holders of the Location and Design Manual, Volume 2 Re: Location and Design Manual, Volume Two Revisions Transmitted herewith are revisions to the Location and Design Manual, Volume 2. The following revisions have been made: • Revisions / Additions in Red • Preface – Added clarification to Purpose • 1002.2.4 – Updated last sentence of last paragraph • 1005.1.4 – Updated guidance for documentation requirements in FEMA Zones • 1104.1– Added paragraph noting the availability of Sample Plan Sheets • 1105.1– Added paragraph noting the availability of Sample Plan Sheets • 1115.3 – Clarified language on which projects are exempt from water quantity treatment • 1115.3 – Moved stream protection BMP to 1117.8 as a stand-alone BMP • 1115.6.1 – Changed “pavement” to “impervious area” • 1115.6.2 – Changed language for consistency with other sections. • 1115.6.3 – Added new section Pedestrian Facilities and Shared Use Paths • 1115.7 – Clarified language for “Aix” and “Ain” with no changes to requirements • 1116, 1117 – Added “EDA treatment credit” for consistency with L&D Vol. 3 requirements for the Project Site Plan throughout the sections • 1116.2 – Added reference to BMP design resources on ODOT’s website • 1117.2 – Changed “vegetated” to “grassed” across the section • 1117.2.1 – Removed prohibition of discharging an underdrain outlet to a Vegetated Filter Strip. • 1117.2.1 – Added new section for narrow Vegetated Filter Strips for pedestrian facilities and shared use paths. • 1117.2.2 – Clarified treatment credit for Vegetated Biofilters.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan
    Appendix A - Glossary A Acre: A measure of land equating to 43,560 square feet. Average Land Cover Conditions: The average percent of impervious area within the county, as set forth in the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual. B Benthic Macroinvertebrate: An aquatic animal lacking a backbone and generally visible to the unaided eye. Best Management Practice (BMP): A structural or nonstructural practice that is designed to minimize the impacts of changes in land use on surface and groundwater systems. Struc- tural best management practices refer to basins or facilities engineered for the purpose of reducing the pollutant load in stormwater runoff, such as bioretention, constructed stormwater wetlands, etc. Nonstructural best management practices refer to land use or development practices that are determined to be effective in minimizing the impact on receiv- ing stream systems such as the preservation of open space and stream buffers, disconnection of impervious surfaces, etc. Bioretention Basin: A water quality best management practice engineered to filter the water quality volume through an engineered planting bed, consisting of a vegetated surface layer (vegetation, mulch, ground cover), planting soil, and sand bed (optional), and into the in-situ material. Also called rain gardens. Bioretention Filter: A bioretention basin with the addition of a sand layer and collector pipe system beneath the planting bed. Buffer: An area of natural or established vegetation managed to protect other components of a resource protection area and state waters from significant degradation due to land disturbances. See also resource protection area and riparian buffer. C Capacity: The amount of water that a channel can accommodate up to its bank full condi- tion, which is dependent on its slope, roughness characteristics, and geometric shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Standards Manual Final
    Design Standards Manual ________________________________________________ City of Bettendorf Design Standards Manual Revised June 2016 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. General Information 3 2. Drainage Report 5 3. Rainfall and Runoff Analysis 6 4. Time of Concentration 7 5. Storm Sewer System Design 9 6. Storm Sewer Intakes 14 7. Culvert Design 16 8. Outlet Rip Rap Protection 17 9. Subdrain System Design 19 10. Stormwater Detention Practices 20 11. Channel and Storage (Reservoir) Routing 26 12. Inlet Sediment Forebays 27 Appendix A: Drainage Report Format 28 Chapter 1 – Stormwater Management – Revised June 2016 Page 2 Section 1: General Information 1.1 Concept This section contains storm water management criteria. Emphasis should be placed on detention and storage of rainfall to mitigate increased runoff due to development. This should result in a reduction of increased development runoff and related damage to downstream properties. 1.2 Conditions 1. The design provided by the Project Engineer should demonstrate: A. The streets function as part of the storm water system. The computed amount of runoff in streets should not exceed the requirements set forth herein. B. Gutters and intakes are adequately designed to prevent excessive flooding of streets and parking. C. Culverts and storm pipes are designed to accommodate the design storm. D. Adequate overland relief is present for storms larger than the design storm. Channels and respective easements are adequately sized. E. Street grades are coordinated with lot drainage. Lot drainage slopes should not be less than 1.5 percent. 1) Where such slopes are not possible in rear and side yards, spot elevations and flow arrows should be included at each rear lot corner and at the midpoint of the side yard line.
    [Show full text]
  • Presented Below Are Water Quality Standards That Are in Effect for Clean Water Act Purposes
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. I Stormwater Management Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Handbook March 1997 Prepared by: MA Department of Environmental Protection C2:M MA Office of Coastal Zone Management Stormwater Management Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Handbook March 1997 Funding for this document was provided by: · Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, · Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, and · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The document also was partially funded by a grant from the Office of Ocean and ) ' Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric - Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William F. Weld, Governor Argeo Paul Cellucci, Lieutenant Governor Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Tmdy Coxe, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection David B. Struhs, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Arleen O' Donnell, Assistant Commissioner This information is available in alternate formats upon request. ) Prinled on recycled paper .' Table of Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Tamiami Canal (C-4) Flood Protection Project
    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Tamiami Canal (C-4) Flood Protection Project FEBRUARY 2013 The South Florida Water he South Florida Water Management The original drainage system within the Manage ment District District will begin construction of flood Tamiami Canal Basin was not designed to is a regional, governmental Tprotection walls located in sections of accommodate the population that currently agency that oversees the unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the resides in this low-lying area. Water water resources in the City of Sweetwater. This effort is part of the managers recognized a need for major system southern half of the state. Tamiami Canal Flood Protection Project. The improvements. It is the oldest and largest District will construct a combination of flood of the state’s five water The Tamiami Canal Flood Protection Project protection walls and berms on the north management districts. was launched in response to local flooding bank of the Tamiami Canal between Palmetto from Hurricane Irene in 1999 and the “No Our Mission is to manage Expressway and 107th Avenue and the other Name Storm” in 2000. It is a multi-phase and protect water resources on the north bank between Florida’s Turnpike project and includes the completed 900-acre of the region by balancing and 132nd Avenue. The flood protection walls Emergency Detention Basin in West Miami and improving water and berms will contain canal waters at a uniform Dade, the Sweetwater Linear Park Flood quality, flood control, elevation of 8 feet above mean sea level along natural systems, and water Protection Improvements, the S-25B Forward the Tamiami Canal, providing residents of the supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Design Manual
    Waterway Management Plan VOLUME III Drainage Design Manual City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works Flood Control District - Zone 9 955 Morro Street 1050 Monterey Street, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 93408 San Luis Obispo Creek Waterway Management Plan VOLUME III Drainage Design Manual City of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 and County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control District - Zone 9 1050 Monterey Street, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, California 93408 February 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS USER’S GUIDE ...........................................................................................................i FOREWORD .......................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1.0 DRAINAGE MANUAL OBJECTIVES....................................... 2 SECTION 2.0 PROJECTS REQUIRING HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS AND DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN REVIEW ........................................................ 3 2.1 Drainage Master Plan..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Drainage Design Review............................................................................... 4 2.3 Submittal Requirements................................................................................. 5 2.3.1 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report............................................. 5 SECTION 3.0 CORE REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Wet Detention Basin
    NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 09-22-16 10. Wet Detention Basin Description A wet detention basin is a stormwater management facility that includes a permanent pool of water for removing pollutants and additional capacity above the permanent pool for detaining stormwater runoff. Regulatory Credits Feasibility Considerations Pollutant Removal 85% Total Suspended Solids Med-Large Land Requirement 30% Total Nitrogen Med Cost of Construction 40% Total Phosphorus Med Maintenance Burden Water Quantity Med-Large Treatable Drainage Basin Size Med Possible Site Constraints yes Peak Runoff Attenuation Med Community Acceptance no Runoff Volume Reduction Advantages Disadvantages Can be aesthetically pleasing and can be Sometimes create problems such as sited in both low- and high-visibility areas. nuisance odors, algae blooms, and Can provide wildlife habitat and a focal rotting debris when not properly point for recreation. maintained. Provides good water quantity control for Local regulations may impose reducing the frequency of flooding events unappealing features such as fencing that cause bank erosion. around basins to reduce safety hazards. May attract excessive waterfowl, which can be a nuisance and can increase fecal coliform levels. May contribute to thermal pollution so may not be appropriate in areas where sensitive aquatic species live. Wet Detention Basin 10-1 September 2016 NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 09-22-16 Major Design Elements* Required by the NC Administrative Rules of the Environmental Management Commission. Other specifications may be necessary to meet the stated pollutant removal requirements. 1 Sizing shall take into account all runoff at ultimate build-out, including off-site drainage. 2 Vegetated slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1.
    [Show full text]
  • Instream Sediment Detention Basins
    INSTREAM SEDIMENT DETENTION BASINS 1 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE This technique describes the design and construction of instream sediment detention basins, or gravel traps, to capture excess sediment within the stream and store it for later removal. The user of this manual should have arrived at this technique only after developing a thorough understanding of sediment sources and depositional patterns, and only after exhausting all other alternatives to deal with an undesirable abundance of sediment in a particular reach. This technique addresses only the symptom of excessive sediment accumulation, not the root cause, and should be used only as a last resort to provide a short-term solution while a long-term solution is being implemented. Sediment detention basins can provide an alternative to chronic widespread dredging. This discussion of in-channel sediment detention is intended to supplement the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines’ Freshwater Gravel Mining and Dredging Issues white paper1. Stream sediments range from very fine-grained materials carried in suspension as turbidity, to large boulders. In-channel sediments may come from mass wasting directly into the stream (colluvial sources), they may mobilize from the bed and banks of the stream as the channel migrates in response to high flows (alluvial sources), or they may wash into the stream from the uplands and tributary streams. A river in equilibrium can be viewed conceptually as a conveyor belt moving sediment downstream. All stream systems transport a characteristic range of sediment sizes as a natural geomorphic function. These sediments make up the streambed and bar forms, define much of the channel morphology, and provide many aquatic habitat elements2 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Sediment Traps and Basins
    4.7 Sediment Traps and Basins General Information The purpose of a temporary trap or basin is to provide an area where muddy runoff is allowed to pond, so sediment will settle out. Sediment traps and basins should be installed in selected drainage areas before excavation or fill work begins. Do not depend on sediment traps and basins alone to control sediment loss from your construction site. Sediment basins and traps should fill with muddy runoff during and immediately after a rain storm and drain down slowly over the next 1–2 days. Containment for the ponding area can be provided by an excavation or a dike made of earth or stone. Low-lying sites on the downhill side of bare soil areas are ideal places to install temporary sediment traps and basins. In general, sediment traps are designed to treat runoff from about 1 to 5 acres. Sediment basins are larger, and serve areas larger than 5 acres. Basins draining areas larger than 10 acres require an engineered design and are often designed to function as a permanent stormwater treatment pond after construction is complete. If feasible, do not put sediment traps or basins in or next to flowing streams or other waterways. Make sure pooled water does not flood buildings, roadways, utilities, or other structures. Construction of a permanent, stable outlet is key to long-term performance. Temporary Sediment Traps Any depression, swale, or low-lying place that receives muddy flows from exposed soil areas can serve as a sediment trap site. Installing several small traps at strategic locations is often better than building one large basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Structural Stormwater Controls
    SECTION 3.4 DETENTION STRUCTURAL STORMWATER CONTROLS 3.4.1 Dry Detention / Dry ED Basins ......................................3.4-2 3.4.2 Multi-Purpose Detention Areas ....................................3.4-7 3.4.3 Underground Detention ...............................................3.4-10 Chapter 3 Section 3.4 Columbia County Stormwater Management Design Manual 3.4-1 Detention 3.4.1 Dry Detention / Dry ED Basins Structural Stormwater Control Description: A surface storage basin or facility designed to provide water quantity control through detention and/or extended detention of stormwater runoff. REASONS FOR LIMITED USE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Controls for stormwater quantity only – not intended to SUITABILITY provide water quality treatment Water Quality Channel / Flood Protection KEY CONSIDERATIONS Applicable for drainage areas up to 75 acres SPECIAL APPLICATIONS Typically less costly than stormwater (wet) ponds for Pretreatment equivalent flood storage, as less excavation is required High Density / Ultra-Urban Used in conjunction with water quality structural control Provides recreational and other open space opportunities Other: between storm runoff events Residential Subdivision Use: Yes 3.4.1.1 General Description Dry detention and dry extended detention (ED) basins are surface facilities intended to provide for the temporary storage of stormwater runoff to reduce downstream water quantity impacts. These facilities temporarily detain stormwater runoff, releasing the flow over a period of time. They are designed to completely drain following a storm event and are normally dry between rain events. Dry detention basins are intended to provide overbank flood protection (peak flow reduction of the 50- year storm, Qp50) and can be designed to control the extreme flood (100-year, Qf) storm event.
    [Show full text]