DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Levee Design Review and Geomorphic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Levee Design Review and Geomorphic Northern Hydrology and Engineering PO Box 2515, McKinleyville, CA 95519 Telephone: (707) 839-2195; email: [email protected] Engineering – Hydrology – Geomorphology – Water Resources TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: 19 August 2010 To: Hank Seemann, Environmental Services Manager County of Humboldt Department of Public Works 1106 Second Street Eureka, CA 95501 From: Bonnie S. Pryor, M.S. Jeffrey K. Anderson, M.S., P.E. Re: Preliminary Design Review and Geomorphic Evaluation of Redwood Creek Flood Control Project, Orick, Humboldt County 1 Introduction The Redwood Creek Flood Control Project, located in the community of Orick in northern Humboldt County, is a levee system composed of two armored earthen embankments confining approximately 3.4 miles of lower Redwood Creek upstream of the mouth at the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). The Flood Control Project was designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the late 1950s and early 1960s (COE, 1966) and constructed by the Corps of Engineers between 1966 and 1968. As a pre-condition of the project, Humboldt County agreed to operate and maintain the levee system in accordance with the project’s Operation and Maintenance Manual (COE, 1969). The intended design of the Flood Control Project was a trapezoidal channel with fixed geometry and flood conveyance capacity; however, sediment deposition has caused a substantial reduction in flood capacity relative to design conditions (COE, 2008; NHE, 2009; NHE 2010). This technical memorandum is a preliminary evaluation of the geomorphic characteristics of the Redwood Creek Flood Control Project and the root causes of the impaired condition. This memorandum includes a review of the intended performance of the levee system as stated in the General Design Memorandum (COE, 1966), assessment of the geomorphic response within the Flood Control Project following channel excavation occurrences as documented by a time-series of topographic surveys, and assessment of long-term sediment transport patterns based on existing monitoring data. The stationing system (the numerical reference system used to designate locations along the channel) used throughout the memorandum is consistent with the original design document for the Flood Control Project, the General Design Memorandum (COE, 1966), and subsequent cross-section surveys. Elevations are referenced to the vertical datum NAVD88. Historical 1 planform maps and topographic surveys referenced to the NGVD29 datum were converted to the NAVD88 datum using the following equation: Elevation in NAVD88 = Elevation in NGVD29 + 3.33 feet. This conversion is identical to that used in COE (2008). Figure 1. Site map of project area. 2 2 Overview of the Flood Control Project Design and Current Flood Control Capacity 2.1 Flood Control Project Design The General Design Memorandum (GDM) (COE, 1966) provides the engineering design basis for the Redwood Creek Flood Control Project. The fundamental engineering components of the Flood Control Project consisted of enlarging the channel and constructing earthen levees on both sides of the channel (COE, 1966, page 4). Key design considerations included alignment, longitudinal profile, and cross-section. According to the GDM: “The channel alignment was selected to closely follow the existing alignment except near the mouth of the creek where the alignment has been changed to cut cross the [most-downstream meander] bend. The flow is directed toward the sand spit to accelerate its removal by erosion during rising flood stages. The invert grade closely follows the existing channel thalweg. Adopted channel cross- sections are the most economical which will meet the hydraulic and stability requirements, preserve the existing highway bridge and hold real estate requirements to a practical minimum.” (COE, 1966, page B-8) The adopted channel cross-sections were trapezoidal with a bottom width of 250 feet throughout the entire length and side slopes at one vertical on three horizontal (COE, 1966, page B-9). By setting the invert grade (the bottom of the flat, trapezoidal channel) at or near the existing channel thalweg (the line of maximum depth along the pre-levee channel), the project required excavation of approximately 463,000 cubic yards of sediment from channel bars to meet the design depth (COE, 1966, Table 1). The combination of building up levee embankments and lowering the channel profile was intended to provide a specific, fixed geometry for the design capacity of 77,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (COE, 1966, page 6). The levee grades were designed to provide this capacity and “to provide at least three feet of freeboard above the maximum water surface resulting from design flood flow meeting the highest estimated tide level in the Pacific Ocean” (COE, 1966, page B-8). The GDM makes reference to the issue of sediment transport, noting that “The stream carries a substantial sediment load during floods” (COE, 1966, page B-7). This issue was well known at the time, as storms in the 1950’s and 1960’s produced widespread landslides, debris flows, bank erosion, and channel aggradation throughout the Redwood Creek basin, including within the Flood Control Project reach (Ricks, 1995). The downstream levee section was extended an additional 2,000 feet toward the ocean beyond the end point in the preliminary design to “provide for better flushing of silt during low flow” (COE, 1966, page 5) and to “cause the bulk of the sediment to deposit in the ocean where the prevailing littoral currents would progressively move it along the coast” (COE, 1966, page B-7). This extension was designed to “provide more comprehensive flood control for the valley, and the indicated high velocities will keep the lower reach of the channel clear of the bulk of debris and silt” (COE, 1966, page 8). However, no specific analysis was included in the GDM to demonstrate that the sediment supplied to the Flood Control Project could be conveyed to the ocean without depositing within the channel and causing a long-term reduction flood control capacity. Rather, the GDM provides more focus on potential erosion and channel bed lowering that could threaten the integrity of the levees. 3 Channel degradation was prevented by the construction of a control sill (concrete grade-control structure) at the downstream end of the Flood Control Project (COE, 1966, page 5). In addition to providing the design basis for construction of the levee system, the GDM specifies the level of operation and maintenance that will be required by the local agency (County of Humboldt) following construction. According to the GDM: “The Redwood Creek Flood Control Project has been designed to require only moderate operations by local interests. It is estimated that necessary operations, including inspection of flapgates, will average about $1,000 a year. “It is anticipated that yearly maintenance will be required on Redwood Creek. Minor displacement of riprap, minor restoration of levee slopes during early years of the project, small siltation problems in the lower reaches of the project, clearing of flapgates, maintenance and minor repair of access roads, and restoring effectiveness of the relief wells are anticipated. Average annual maintenance will cost an estimated $18,000” (COE, 1966, page 23). The GDM includes a budget breakdown for the annual maintenance cost estimate, which focuses on repairs of the embankments and riprap with minimal work within the channel. Neither the budget breakdown nor the narrative description of the annual maintenance requirements identifies removal or re-shaping of channel bed material as a requirement for maintaining the Flood Control Project. 2.2 Current Flood Control Capacity In December 2008, the Corps of Engineers issued a technical memorandum (COE, 2008) that analyzed the capacity of the Redwood Creek levee system, assessed the relative contribution of gravel and vegetation to capacity reduction, and estimated the quantity of gravel that would need to be removed to achieve certain thresholds. According to this report, capacity is highest at the upstream extent of the levee system and decreases progressively downstream. By dividing the levee system into three reaches, the Corps of Engineers determined that the upper reach (Reach 3) provides protection for a 250-year flood, the middle reach (Reach 2) provides protection for a 53-year flood, and the lower reach (Reach 1) provides protection for a 13-year flood. COE (2008) concluded that excess sediment is the chief reason for decreased channel capacity from the Flood Control Project design levels. NHE (2009) provided a technical review of COE (2008). NHE (2009) identified a number of interpolation cross-section errors in the lower section of the COE Final HEC-RAS Model. The interpolation errors resulted in reduced cross-section areas of the channel cross-sections that are not representative of the actual physical channel. NHE (2009) provided a revised HEC-RAS model (NHE 2007 Model) that corrected the interpolation errors in the COE Final HEC-RAS Model, and also developed another model (NHE 2008 Model) based on the County 2008 post- extraction channel surveys. The County 2008 channel surveys contain more cross sections than the 2007 surveys (30 vs. 20), which require less cross section interpolation in the HEC-RAS model. For this reason, NHE (2009) recommended that the NHE 2008 Model be used for making flood predictions. 4 NHE (2010) reassessed the flood capacity by reach using the NHE 2008 Model. Flow frequencies were estimated from COE (2008). Reach lengths were adjusted to delineate the target flow thresholds (e.g., the 500-yr and 100-yr flow capacities). The updated analysis demonstrates that Reach 3 provides protection for a 500-year flood, Reach 2 provides protection for a 100-year flood, and Reach 3 provides protection for a 33-year flood (Table 2). The new analysis demonstrates that only the approximate lower 2,250 feet of the Redwood Creek Project fails to provide three feet of levee freeboard at the 100-yr flood flow. Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Final Draft
    FINAL DRAFT Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Supplement to the Dayton Valley Area Drainage Master Plan prepared for August Lyon County | Storey County | 2019 Carson Water Subconservancy District i FINAL DRAFT Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 More Frequent Flooding ....................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Larger Flood Peaks ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.3 Scour and Erosion ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.4 Flow Diversion ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.5 Flow Concentration ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1.6 Expanded Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 3 1.1.7 Reduced Surface Storage ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.8 Decreased Ground Water Recharge ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study
    Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Upper Susquehanna Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Study Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office Cortland, New York Preparers: Anne Secord & Andy Lowell New York Field Office Supervisor: David Stilwell February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flooding in the Upper Susquehanna watershed of New York State frequently causes damage to infrastructure that has been built within flood-prone areas. This report identifies a suite of watershed activities, such as urban development, wetland elimination, stream alterations, and certain agricultural practices that have contributed to flooding of developed areas. Structural flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and floodwalls have been constructed, but are insufficient to address all floodwater-human conflicts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a number of new structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the “local sponsor” for this study and provides half of the study funding. New structural flood control measures that USACE is evaluating for the watershed largely consist of new levees/floodwalls, rebuilding levees/floodwalls, snagging and clearing of woody material from rivers and removing riverine shoals. Non-structural measures being evaluated include elevating structures, acquisition of structures and property, relocating at-risk structures, developing land use plans and flood proofing. Some of the proposed structural measures, if implemented as proposed, have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. In addition to the alternatives currently being considered by the USACE, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stop Log Flood Barriers
    PRODUCT STOP LOG FLOOD BARRIERS Flood Control International Incorporated offers removable stop log barriers that are engineered to provide similar levels of protection to permanent flood defenses, but with the distinct advantage of being fully removable when not required. They comprise aluminum panels that are inserted into steel channels. Custom made clamps compress specialist gaskets to create a reliable barrier against flood water. These stop log barriers can be supplied for virtually any configuration including arcs, closed rectangles or circles and straight runs of any length. The system can be used on slopes up to 20° and can be stepped for steeper gradients. USES Each system is load calculated based on application and the prevailing flood • Single building openings. conditions and can be configured for flood depths up to 13 feet. A four-sided • Openings in flood walls. detail is available for openings that may become fully submerged. • Stainless / aluminum system for marine environments. To facilitate installation in new builds, we can supply preformed ground plates • Fully removable perimeter defense to with integral anchors for the demountable supports. The systems can be buildings. also retrospectively fitted to suitable existing foundations in which case load • A ‘usually stored’ system for erection certified, chemically fixed sleeve anchors are used to attach the demountable when flood warnings received. supports. This leaves only stainless steel bolt blanks at each post BENEFITS location. Due to the strength of our beams, this can • Low cost system. be at 10 feet spacing. • Lightweight - sections allow safe lifting of 10ft beams by one person for rapid Purpose designed gaskets that resist silt clogging and reform even after deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Umbrella Empr: Flood Control and Drainage
    I. COVERSHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PLAN & REPORT (UMBRELLA EMPR: FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE) USAID MISSION SO # and Title: __________________________________ Title of IP Activity: __________________________________________________ IP Name: __ __________________________________________________ Funding Period: FY______ - FY______ Resource Levels (US$): ______________________ Report Prepared by: Name:__________________________ Date: ____________ Date of Previous EMPR: _________________ (if any) Status of Fulfilling Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: _____ Initial EMPR describing mitigation plan is attached (Yes or No). _____ Annual EMPR describing status of mitigation measures is established and attached (Yes or No). _____ Certain mitigation conditions could not be satisfied and remedial action has been provided within the EMPR (Yes or No). USAID Mission Clearance of EMPR: Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative:__________ Date: ______________ Mission Environmental Officer: _______________________ Date: ______________ ( ) Regional Environmental Advisor: _______________________ Date: ______________ ( ) List of CHF Haiti projects covered in this UEMPR (Flood Control and Drainage) 1 2 1. Background, Rationale and Outputs/Results Expected: According to Richard Haggerty’s country study on Haiti from 1989, in 1925, 60% of Haiti’s original forests covered the country. Since then, the population has cut down all but an estimated 2% of its original forest cover. The fact that many of Haiti’s hillsides have been deforested has caused several flooding problems for cities and other communities located in critical watershed and flood-plain areas during recent hurricane seasons. The 2008 hurricane season was particularly devastating for Haiti, where over 800 people were killed by four consecutive tropical storms or hurricanes (Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike) which also destroyed infrastructure and caused severe crop losses. In 2004, tropical storm Jeanne killed an estimated 3,000 people, most in Gonaives.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Water to Fight Water
    Use Water to Fight Water QUALITY IS REMEMBERED LONG AFTER PRICE IS FORGOTTEN... www.internationalfloodcontrol.com | www.usfloodcontrol.com THE TIGER DAMTM SYSTEM Due to an ever increasing demand for an innovative alternative to sandbags, U.S. Flood Control Corp. developed a simple rapid deployment system designed to act as a temporary emergency diversion dam suitable for use in a wide variety of situations. The Tiger Dam™ is the only engineered flood control solution on the market. The Tiger Dam™ is the ONLY system that is patented to join together to form a dam of any length and is the ONLY system that is stackable, from 19” to 32’ in height. The Tiger Dam™ can be filled in minutes, with minimal man power and no heavy equipment. The Tiger Dam™ System is a UV rated re-usable system that leaves NO environmental foot print behind. The Tiger Dam™ is used to create temporary dykes, protect critical infrastructure, divert river flow, keep roads open and protect essential utilities…..among a host of other applications. The rapid deployment system is both labor and energy efficient You will find, as have other Emergency Managers that the as well as environmentally friendly when compared Tiger Dam™ of any size will be a valuable tool to your teams to sandbags. flood fighting efforts and as part of your long term mitigation planning. In all Government and independent engineering Thanks to applying the principle “water against water”, it is no tests, when anchored with our patented anchoring system, the longer necessary to build sandbag dams. The Tiger Dam™ can Tiger Dam™ proved to be the most stable product in the flood be a great help for all rescue units as they may be deployed control business.
    [Show full text]
  • River Island Park to Manville Dam – Beginner Tour, Rhode Island
    BLACKSTONE RIVER & CANAL GUIDE River Island Park to Manville Dam – Beginner Tour, Rhode Island [Map: USGS Pawtucket] Level . Beginner Start . River Island Park, Woonsocket, RI R iv End . Manville Dam, Cumberland, RI e r River Miles . 4.2 one way S t r Social St Time . 1-2 hours e reet e Ro t ute Description. Flatwater, Class I-II rapids 104 Commission Scenery. Urban, Forested Offices Thundermist Portages . None treet Dam in S !CAUTION! BVTC Tour Ma Rapids R o Boat Dock u A trip past historic mills and wooded banks. C t o e ur 1 Market t S 2 This is probably the most challenging of our beginner tours. t 6 Square 0 miles R ou This segment travels through the heart of downtown Woonsocket in the B te Woonsocket e 1 r 2 first half, and then through forested city-owned land in the western part of n 2 High School River Island o River n the city. After putting in at River Island Park, go under the Bernon Street Park S Access t Bridge and you enter a section of the river lined with historic mills on both Ha mlet Ave sides. On the right just after the bridge is the Bernon Mills complex. The oldest building in the complex, the 1827 stone mill in the center, is the earliest known example of slow-burning mill construction in America that used noncombustible walls, heavy timber posts and beams and double plank floors to resist burning if it caught fire. d a Starting before the Court Street truss bridge (1895) is a stretch of about o r l WOONSOCKET i 1000 feet of Class I and II rapids, with plenty of rocks that require skillful a R 6 maneuvering.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flood Control
    Chapter 4 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flood Control Chapter 4 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flood Control This chapter discusses the effects the MIAD Modification Project alternatives may have on hydrology, water quality, and flood control. Impacts associated with groundwater are addressed in Chapter 5, Groundwater. Impacts associated with wetlands are addressed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources. 4.1 Affected Environment/Environmental Setting Existing hydrologic conditions and water resources potentially affected by the alternatives are identified in this section, along with regulatory settings and regional information pertaining to hydrologic resources in the area of analysis. 4.1.1 Area of Analysis The area of analysis for this section includes MIAD site and the Mississippi Bar mitigation site. Lake Natoma is the receiving body of water in regards to water quality impacts generated at both sites 4.1.1.1 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam The MIAD area of analysis includes the MIAD facility, the adjacent Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area, and Humbug Creek as it will receive discharged groundwater generated by dewatering activities. 4.1.1.2 Mississippi Bar The Mississippi Bar mitigation site includes 80 acres of land on the western shore of Lake Natoma, near the intersection of Sunset Avenue and Main Avenue and south of the community of Orangevale. All proposed mitigation would occur on land parcels currently owned by DPR and Reclamation and managed by DPR as part of the FLSRA. Surface water at this site includes Lake Natoma and various lagoons along the Lake Natoma shoreline. 4.1.2 Regulatory Setting 4.1.2.1 Federal The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control Channels Made with Shotcrete
    Flood Control Channels Made with Shotcrete By Raúl Bracamontes looding is a temporary overflow of water onto land FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS that is normally dry. Floods are the most common Flood control structures such as arch culverts and concrete- F natural disaster in the United States. This year, we lined channels are built to control the flow of water from have seen severe flooding in the Midwest that has cost flooding events to prevent or minimize damage to struc- countless millions of dollars in damage to property or tures and infrastructure. Flood control channels are large, restriction of use of our waterways. Floods may: open-topped canals that direct the excessive water flow • Result from rain, snow, coastal storms, storm surges, during flood conditions. They commonly are empty or and overflows of dams and other water systems; have a minimal flow of water in normal service. In large • Develop slowly or quickly and can occur with no warning; metropolitan areas, we have seen underground tunnels or • Cause outages, disrupt transportation, damage buildings, conduits to collect the excess water and eventually drain and create landslides; and into a stormwater containment structure, river, or other • In the worst case, kill people. body of water. There is a distinct trend away from letting stormwater just run into our oceans, rivers, or wetlands as it is often loaded with contaminants that reduce water quality. These structures are usually built with reinforced concrete. They may also contain grade-control sills or weirs to prevent erosion and maintain a level water level in the streambed. BENEFITS OF SHOTCRETE Shotcrete is becoming more popular among contractors and builders as it is extremely economical and flexible.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control in the Missouri Valley 109
    Nebraska History posts materials online for your personal use. Please remember that the contents of Nebraska History are copyrighted by the Nebraska State Historical Society (except for materials credited to other institutions). The NSHS retains its copyrights even to materials it posts on the web. For permission to re-use materials or for photo ordering information, please see: http://www.nebraskahistory.org/magazine/permission.htm Nebraska State Historical Society members receive four issues of Nebraska History and four issues of Nebraska History News annually. For membership information, see: http://nebraskahistory.org/admin/members/index.htm Article Title: Flood Control and the Corps of Engineers in the Missouri Valley, 1902-1973 Full Citation: Edward C Cass, “Flood Control and the Corps of Engineers in the Missouri Valley, 1902-1973,” Nebraska History 63 (1982): 108-122 URL of article: http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/publicat/history/full-text/NH1982Flood.pdf Date: 4/23/2014 Article Summary: Periodic floods and droughts have always affected those living in the Missouri Valley. Comprehensive water resources planning involving many agencies began in the early twentieth century. Cataloging Information: Names: Hiram Chittenden, Francis Newlands, Edgar Jadwin, Lewis Pick, William Sloan, John Gage, Samuel Sturgis Place Names: Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Kansas; Kansas City, Missouri Agencies Involved in Flood Control: Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Commission (1894-1902), Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Reclamation, Missouri
    [Show full text]
  • National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification
    EPA 841-B-07-002 July 2007 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification Full document available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/hydromod/index.htm Assessment and Watershed Protection Division Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification Channelization and channel modification describe river and stream channel engineering undertaken for flood control, navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel migration potential. Activities that fall into this category include straightening, widening, deepening, or relocating existing stream channels and clearing or snagging operations. These forms of hydromodification typically result in more uniform channel cross-sections, steeper stream gradients, and reduced average pool depths. Channelization and channel modification also refer to the excavation of borrow pits, canals, underwater mining, or other practices that change the depth, width, or location of waterways, or embayments within waterways. Channelization and channel modification activities can play a critical role in nonpoint source pollution by increasing the downstream delivery of pollutants and sediment that enter the water. Some channelization and channel modification activities can also cause higher flows, which increase the risk of downstream flooding. Channelization and channel modification can: • Disturb stream equilibrium • Disrupt riffle and pool habitats • Create changes in stream velocities • Eliminate the function of floods to control channel-forming properties • Alter the base level of a stream (streambed elevation) • Increase erosion and sediment load Many of these impacts are related. For example, straightening a stream channel can increase stream velocities and destroy downstream pool and riffle habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control PRODUCT BROCHURE
    THE NEXT GENERATION IN FLOOD PROTECTION TM Flood Control PRODUCT BROCHURE Control & Divert Water Contain Fluids Protect Your Property Finally, a solution to these situations: What is the cost? Protect your property Property & Equipment Damage $$$ with Quick Dam's Loss of Sales & Income $$$ complete line of Downtime & Restoration Cost $$$ indoor & outdoor Preventing Costly flood protection Flood Damage PRICELESS 1 CONTROL FLUIDS Indoor Flood Control Water Activated Flood Protection Protect Against: Ideal for: • Overflowing appliances • Condensation build up & equipment • Water based spills • Leaking equipment & water tanks • Floor cleaning applications • Broken sprinkler heads • Wrap around leaky equipment • A/C Condensation overflow • Prevent water from entering doorways, • Spills, leaks, floods, drips & more windows & more! 2 | Quick Dam Flood Control Product Brochure CONTROL FLUIDS Water Dams Insta-Dam • Absorbs water on contact • Instant flexible dam controls & diverts fluid & swells to create a dam • Deploy, rinse, store & reuse as needed 10xSize increase when • Lays flat until activated exposed to water • 2in x 2in square shape seals to surfaces with water & grows 2.5in high in just 5 minutes • 4ft length provides continuous protection • Durable Hi-Vis Orange • Ships & stores in hi-vis Fluid Control tubing knit stretches as they grow • Polyurethane material is chemical resistant • Compact, lightweight, • Block entryways to redirect flow and easy to store Before After • Use with water, oil, chemicals & more Hi-vis Fluid ITEM# DESCRIPTION
    [Show full text]
  • Floods and Human Interactions
    Missouri Highway and Transportation Department. FLOODS AND HUMAN INTERACTIONS The material that is contained on the following pages was reprinted from the text entitled Natural Hazards and Disasters by Donald Hyndman and David Hyndman. In their book the focus is on Earth and atmospheric hazards that appear rapidly, often without signifi- cant warning. With each topic they emphasize the interrelationships between hazards, such as the fact that building dams on rivers often leads to greater coastal erosion and wildfires generally make slopes more susceptible to floods, landslides, and mudflows. By learning about the dynamic Earth processes that affect our lives, the reader should be able to make educated choices about where to live, build houses, business offices, or engineering projects. People do not often make poor choices willfully but through their lack of awareness of natural processes. Effects of Development on Floodplains Long before Europeans arrived in North America, Native Americans built their houses on high ground or, lacking that, built mounds to which they could retreat in times of flood. European descendants, however, built levees to hold back the river. In spite of extensive high levees, more than 70,000 homes in the Mississippi River basin flooded in 1993, pre- dominantly those of poor people living on the floodplains where the land is less expensive. Outside the area covered by the floodwaters, life went on almost untouched, but those nearby worried about flooding if the levees failed. 4 FIGURE 1-1. Levees that constrict the flow of a stream cause water to flow faster and deeper past levees. This causes flooding both upstream and downstream.
    [Show full text]