DOCSLIB.ORG

8B.6 Advantages of Adding “Basin Upstream Rainfall” (Bur) to the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (Ffmp) Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
8B.6 Advantages of Adding “Basin Upstream Rainfall” (Bur) to the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (Ffmp) Program 8B.6 ADVANTAGES OF ADDING “BASIN UPSTREAM RAINFALL” (BUR) TO THE FLASH FLOOD MONITORING AND PREDICTION (FFMP) PROGRAM Robert S. Davis, T. A. Green, and C. S. Strager NOAA/NWSFO, Pittsburgh, PA 1. INTRODUCTION easily inundated with heavy rainfall, in short time periods of two hours or less, from a The National Basin Delineation (NBD) single slow-moving thunderstorm. Larger (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/basins/) watersheds have slower hydrologic Project by the National Severe Storms response times, and are much more difficult Laboratory (NSSL) created the small stream to flood. These larger watersheds require database used by FFMP at all National numerous showers to train over their larger Weather Service (NWS) offices in the basin areas, for longer time periods of 3 to 6 continental United States. While the basin hours or more. Because of these differences boundaries of the NBD small stream in hydrologic response and mesoscale database are routinely used by FFMP, mechanisms needed to create the required several other parameters created by the rainfall, watershed area has a direct impact NBD have not been operationally on the forecaster’s situational awareness of implemented for use in FFMP. Two of these any stream flood threat. unused parameters include the area and the The FFMP program was based on the flow accumulation for each FFMP basin Areal Mean Basin Estimated Rainfall segment. (AMBER) program started at the Pittsburgh The NBD also created hydrologic National Weather Service Forecast Office connectivity between each of the defined (NWSFO) in 1985. AMBER was designed to stream basins. FFMP does use this answer two questions. What stream will be hydrologic connectivity to create the impacted by the heavy rainfall? Has enough upstream/downstream trace functionality as rain fallen to cause the stream to flood? A described in the FFMP OB9 Guide for Users database of stream watershed boundaries is (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/mdl/ffmp/FFMPA_ needed to answer these questions. The Guide_Users_OB9.pdf). The hydrologic initial 1985 AMBER minimum basin size was connectivity is provided by several NBD an area of 10 mi2 (25.9 km2) for basins parameters, specifically Basin_ID, terminating in a major river. Fig.1 shows the Parent_ID, and upstream(1-9) data fields. AMBER stream database for Allegheny These NBD parameters would also allow the County in Pennsylvania. computation of “Basin Upstream Rainfall” (BUR). This paper will describe the potential Beaver Butler 17 Allegheny operational value of adding area, flow 13 River accumulation, and BUR to FFMP for Ohio River 19 16 Westmoreland 6 21 1 10 15 improving the detection of flash flood threat 4 3 8 12 on larger watersheds. 14 Allegheny 2 20 11 2. IMPORTANCE OF BASIN AREA 22 7 9 18 Washington Youghiogheny Area of a watershed is an important River 5 parameter for determining flash flood risk. 1 Killbuck Run 5.2 12 Plum Cr 20.2 2 Ninemile Run 6.0 13 Big Sewickley Cr 30.3 Small watersheds have rapid hydrologic 3 Glade Run 8.5 Monongahela 14 Montour Run 36.5 4 Flaugherty Run 8.8 River 15 Pucketa Cr 36.6 5 Gillespie Run 9.0 16 Deer Cr 49.5 response times, especially in areas of steep 6 L Sewickley Cr 9.8 17 Bull Cr 49.6 7 Streets Run 10.0 Stream Watersheds 1985 18 Peters Cr 51.2 8 Girtys Run 13.2 19 Pine Cr 67.5 terrain. These small watersheds can be 2 2 2 9 Long Run 13.3 Area(mi ) >10mi [25.9km ] 20 Turtle Cr 147.4 10 Lowries Run 17.0 21 Raccoon Cr 184.0 ___________________________________ 11 Saw Mill Run 19.3 Allegheny County, PA 22 Chartiers Cr 276.5 *Corresponding author address: Robert S. Fig. 1. Black number streams show the Davis, National Weather Service, 192 AMBER database for Allegheny County, PA Shafer Road, Moon Township, PA, 15108. in 1985. Red number streams added in 1987 E-mail:[email protected] for a minimum basin area of 5 mi2. After the Etna, PA flash flood of 1986, Tropical Z/R ABR (in) WSR-88D 2 o when nine people died in the 6 mi (15.5 0012 to 0148 UTC 1 X 1km Polar grid km2) Little Pine Creek watershed (a small 15 June 1990 tributary of Pine Creek, stream 19 in Fig. 1), the AMBER “minimum basin area” (MBA) 2 2 Wegee Creek was reduced to 5 mi (13 km ) in 1987. 12.8 mi2 Pipe In the years from 1985 to 1989 the 2.36 AMBER program consisted of digitized map Creek backgrounds (like the display of Fig. 1) for 12.7 mi2 each county in the Pittsburgh NWSFO 2.04 warning area, that were displayed on a RADAP-II graphic display called ICRAD (Davis and Rossi 1986). Radar rainfall AMBER WSR-88D based 1-hour FFG estimates of 1-hour, 3-hour and storm total ABR began May 1996 1.30 in through 24 hours could be displayed. The computer graphic display for the polar Fig. 3. Tropical Z/R ABR for Shadyside, rainfall data grid of RADAP-II was so slow OH flash flood based on RADAP-II radar that almost 60 seconds were needed to rainfall estimates using the WSR-88d grid. display the rainfall for Allegheny County. The slow display speed limited the utility of Two primary factors led to the apparent the software. The comparison of Flash Flood underestimation of rainfall in Pipe and Guidance (FFG) with the RADAP-II rainfall Wegee Creek. First this was a tropical Z/R required Average Basin Rainfall (ABR) for event, not related to any tropical storm each stream watershed. So the lead author (Davis, 2004b). Recalculating the ABR for wrote the initial AMBER software that let the the tropical Z/R relationship produces the computer calculate ABR for each stream results in Fig. 3. The Tropical ABR increases and then print out basins approaching FFG. to about an inch over FFG for both creeks. With the first version of the AMBER software The second major factor that impacted completed by May of 1990, the computation the detection of the severe flash flooding of ABR from radar rainfall estimates began. that occurred near Shadyside, was the size The very first event using the AMBER of the watershed area. If the Pipe and was the Shadyside, OH flash flood of 1990 Wegee watersheds are subdivided into where 26 people died. AMBER’s first smaller watershed segments, a very attempt could hardly be called a success as different ABR picture unfolds in Fig. 4. shown in Fig. 2. The ABR was less than FFG and the program seemed a total failure. Shadyside, Ohio AMBER ABR 0012 to 0248 UTC Standard Z/R ABR (in) RADAP-II Flash Flood 15 June 1990 0012 to 0148 UTC 2o X 1nm Cumberland Polar Grid 2 15 June 1990 2 Run 2.45 mi Wegee Creek Shadyside 12.8 mi2 11 Pipe 1.10 Creek Wegee Creek 12.79 mi2 12.7 mi2 1.00 in=25.4 mm ABR (in) 4 1.18 0.01-0.50 9 Ohio 0.51-1.00 1.01-2.00 River 2.01-3.00 Pipe Creek 3.01-4.00 2 4.01-5.00 12.67 mi 5.01-6.00 1-hour FFG 1.30 AMBER RADAP-II based 1-hour FFG ABR began May 1990 1.30 in Fig. 4. Tropical Z/R ABR for Shadyside, OH flash flood on subdivided watersheds, Fig. 2. Standard Z/R ABR for Shadyside, based on RADAP-II radar rainfall estimates OH flash flood based on RADAP-II radar using the WSR-88d grid. Bold black rainfall estimates. numbers show location of flood fatalities. Dividing both Pipe and Wegee Creek watersheds into seven basin segments, results in a much better depiction of the tremendous variation in rainfall that occurred across these two basins, both about 13 mi2 2 1 (33.7 km ) in area. By dividing these 8 streams into 7 different stream segments, 2 2 averaging less than 2 mi (5 km ), the ability 2 of AMBER to detect the severe flash flood 7 potential was greatly increased. The Shadyside flood was a real FFMP basins from watershed event in the development of NSSL (2002) Minimum: 1.77 mi2 AMBER. First tropical rainfall rates do occur Average: 3.91 mi2 in mid-latitudes without the presence of Maximum: 14.77 mi2 tropical storms. Using the tropical Z/R relationship about doubles the estimated Fig. 5. FFMP NBD basins for Allegheny ABR based on standard convective Z/R. County PA in 2002. Black numbers identify Notice in Fig. 3 the ABR in Wegee Creek undivided basins from Fig. 1. is now larger than the ABR in Pipe Creek unlike the ABR in Fig. 2. This occurs 13 mi2 (34 km2) remain as a single basin? In because of the increased resolution of the order for a stream to be subdivided by NBD, WSR-88D rainfall grid compared to the grid the stream must have a tributary larger than of the RADAP-II rainfall (Davis and Drzal, the MBA of 1.78 mi2. Fig. 6 shows the 1991). The increased spatial resolution of stream channels in the Girtys Run the WSR-88D grid also allows for the watershed. Notice that the largest tributary computation of ABR in the small basin in Girtys Run is Rochester Run, only 1.5 mi2 segments of Fig. 4. The coarser radar grid of (3.9 km2) in area. Since no tributaries are the RADAP-II could not support ABR larger than the MBA, Girtys run is delivered computations in these small watersheds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania: Local Flood Protection Project
    GIRTYS RUN MiLLVALE. PENNSYLVANIA iloCAL FLOOD'PROTECTION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. PITTSBURGH CORPS OF ENGINEERS PITTSBURGH. PA. FEBRUARY 1975 SUMMARY GIRTYS RUN MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, (Ul2)6I*U-6800 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Local protection project consisting of lower­ ing the existing channel of Girtys Run an average of four feet within the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Concrete underpin­ ning and repair of existing channel walls would be provided where neces­ sary. 3. a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Borough of Millvale would be protected against a 25 year frequency flood, enhancing the socio-economic conditions of the community. Aesthetic quality of stream would be improved by removal of debris from stream bed. New habitats for stream communities to develop would be provided. Possibly the population out-migration trend in Millvale would be reversed. b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Construction activity would result in temporary increases in traffic, noise, dust, exhaust emissions, erosion, stream turbidity and sedimentation, and temporary removal of all stream life. Present negligible aquatic life in Girtys Run would be eliminated during construction. k. ALTERNATIVES: Channel lowering of greater design capacity, channel widening, flood walls or dikes, combination channel lowering and walls, diversion tunnels, a multiple purpose reservoir, a headwater reservoir system, flood forecasting and warning system, flood plain management, flood insurance, flood proofing, rehabilitation, relocation or no action. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Forest Service U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009
    Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Environmental Council 22 Terminal Way Pittsburgh, PA 15219 www.pecpa.org Funding was provided by the PA Department of Environmental Protection through Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: Watershed Background ………………………………….3 Chapter 2: Water Quality Characteristics …………………………...8 Chapter 3: Modeling Nonpoint Source Pollution Using AVGWLF and RUNQUAL ……………………………………..…19 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Pollution Load Reductions …….34 Chapter 5: Public Participation …………………………………….64 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implementation Schedule …………….67 Appendices …………………………………………………………69 y Appendix 1 - Modeling Results: Natural Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 2 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 3 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Sub-basins y Appendix 4 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix B: Defining Retrofit Pollutant Load Reductions y Appendix 5 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix D: Retrofit Pollutant Removal Rates y Appendix 6 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix E: Derivation of Unit Costs for Stormwater Retrofits and New Stormwater Treatment Construction y Appendix 7 – Stormwater Management Pond Evaluation Data Dictionary Executive Summary Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan The goal of this plan is to determine how best to reduce the nonpoint source pollutant loads in the Pine Creek Watershed (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania). Pine Creek is a 22.8 mile long tributary to the Allegheny River. Its watershed is 67.3 square miles in area and contains approximately 128 stream miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
    Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Koryak Environmental and Health Consultants for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District October 2003 3 Rivers 2nd Nature STUDIO for Creative Inquiry Press in association with Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Introduction Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Abstract The fish communities of fifty-three small urban/suburban streams with little or no available baseline fish data were sampled by backpack electrofishing in 2002 and 2003. All are tribu- taries of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. A total of 3,026 fish of 37 species, weighing 95.3 pounds, were collected at stations located near the mouths of these 53 urban/suburban streams (electrofishing effort-547 minutes). Fish were present in 12 of 18 Ohio River tributaries. Of the 18 streams sampled within the Allegheny River drainage, only four did not support some fish. Fish were present in 15 of 17 of the Monongahela River tributaries. A total of 28 species of fish were collected in the tributaries of the Ohio River, 29 species in the Allegheny River tributaries, and16 species in the tributaries of the Monongahela River. Blacknose dace were the numerically dominant species collected in these small streams, and showed the widest distribution of any fish. Blacknose dace were present in 34 of the study streams, creek chub in 30, and white suckers in 16. Generally sensitive sculpin and darter species were present in 18 of the streams, and a Pennsylvania Endangered species (river shiner) was found in Bailey Run.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone Housing Study TABLE of CONTENTS
    October 10, 2014 allegheny river towns enterprise zone housing study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. I A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... i B. Key Issues: Demographic Profile .................................................................................................................................. i C. Key Issues: Residential Market Analysis ..................................................................................................................... ii D. Key Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................iv II. DEMOGRAPHIC & ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1 A. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Population History ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Recreation, Park, & Open Space Plan
    BRC-TAG-13.6-605 September 2012 This project was fi nanced in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund under administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. ROSS TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Grant Montgomery, President David J. Mikec, Vice President Daniel L. DeMarco Chris Rand Eyster John Sponcer Lana Mazur Grace Stanko Gerald R. O’Brian Peter A. Ferraro PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF Pete Geis, Parks and Recreation Director Vickey Trader, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director COMPREHENSIVE RECREATION, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STUDY GROUP Betty Ardery, Volunteer representing the senior population Tim Burnett, North Hills School District board Dan Cardone, North Hills School District Athletic Director Chris R. Eystrer, Ross Township Commissioner Sally Hergenroeder, Volunteer representing the senior population Karla Maruca, Representing civic association and forest sustainability Lana Mazur, Ross Township Commissioner Dave Mikec, Ross Township Commissioner and outdoor recreationalist cknowledgements Scott Schomaker, Active in community activities Barb Traynor, North hills Soccer Association Beth Wisnewski, Volunteer with parks and recreation A PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Monica Hoffman, Recreation and Parks Advisor, Partnerships Division Kathy Frankel, Natural Resource Program Supervisor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal-Indicator Centration, and Turbidity
    Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal- Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Occurrence and Trends in the Concen- trations of Fecal-Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 By John W. Fulton, Edward H. Koerkle, Jamie L. McCoy, and Linda F. Zarr Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States
    School of Geography and the Environment MSc Elective Essay Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States Andrew Tabas ______________________________________________________________ Abstract: The National Flood Insurance Program in the United States is in billions of dollars of debt and does not provide adequate flood insurance. The case of Millvale, Pennsylvania shows gaps in the program and community efforts to fill them. The National Flood Insurance Program should be replaced with a universal flood insurance program to solve these problems. Introduction The U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is drowning. The program reached $30.4 billion in debt in September 2017 (Lehmann 2018). The NFIP’s debt decreased after Congress forgave $16 billion, but climbed again to $20.5 billion in July 2018 (Lehmann 2018). The debt increases with each major catastrophe. Meanwhile, there is uncertainty about the future of the program, demonstrated by Congress’s passage of multiple short-term NFIP extensions in 2018 (FEMA 2018a). Why is this problem occurring? Well-developed insurance programs balance risk and solidarity (Lehtonen and Liukko 2012). Risk is “the possibility of loss” (OED 2018a). Likelihood and consequences determine risk (Perseus 2012). Solidarity is “the fact...of being perfectly united...in interests” (OED 2018b). Insurance programs bring people together as a community to share the burden of flooding. The NFIP is not financially sound because it has not struck the correct balance between risk and solidarity. Because of this imbalance, the NFIP fails to fulfill Arnell’s three “roles” of insurance: reimbursement, cost-sharing, and mitigation (Arnell 2000). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) argues that it is time “for Congress to take bold steps to reduce the complexity of the program and strengthen the NFIP’s financial framework” (FEMA 2018a).
    [Show full text]