DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army on Civil Works

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army on Civil Works BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is a continuing body created by section 3, River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902. The Board comprises 7 senior engineer officers: The Chairman isthe Deputy Chief of Engineers; 5 members are Division En- gineers (rotative basis) from continental U.S. divisions; the Seventh officer is assigned full time as Resident Member and di- rects the staff. Appointments are made by the Chief of Engineers for unspecified periods. The Board meets on call of the Chairman. Statutory duties of the Board as set forth in the act' of June 13, 1902, and subsequent acts and ammendments are: (a) to con- duct an independent review of survey reports covering projects for river and harbor, flood control, and multiple-purpose improve- Inents prepared by the Corps in response to an act of the Congress or a resolution of the House or Senate Public Works Committees; and to report its conclusions and recommendations thereon to the Chief of Engineers, who forwards the reports with his conclu- Sions and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army for transmission to the Congress; (b) to conduct an independent review of all special reports ordered by the Congress and report thereon in the same manner as for survey reports when directed by the Chief of Engineers; (c) to consider and approve general Plans for major modification and reconstruction of any lock, canal, canalized river or other work for the use and benefit of navigation. All functions of the former Beach Erosion Board pertaining to review of reports of investigations made concerning erosion of the shores of coastal and lake waters, and the protection of such Shores, were transferred to the Board under section 3, Public Law 88-172. Additional statutory duties were assigned the Board under terms of Merchant Marine Act and various River and Harbor Acts, particularly that of September 22, 1922. Under these acts, the Board: (a) in cooperation with Maritime Administration, collects, compiles, and publishes information on characteristics of U.S. ports: physical characteristics of the ports are the re- Splonsibility of the Corps, and administrative characteristics are the responsibility of the Maritime Administration; (b) provides Staff supervision over collection and compilation of statistics on the volume and nature of commerce on inland waterways, which include entrance channels for ocean ports of the United States. Statistics are published annually in two categories: "Waterborne Commerce of the United States" in five parts (7 volumes), show- ing nature and amount of commodity, passenger, and vessel move- tlents; and Transportation Series in three volumes, listing char- Rcteristics of registered and unregistered vessels comprising the U.S.-flag shipping fleets. In addition to its statutory duties, the following duties are the More significant among those assigned by the Chief of Engineers: Review of Corps policies and procedures as directed; review of reports of other Federal agencies pertaining to water resources levelopment; conduct of investigations and studies of economics )f ports and waterways; and to conduct a year-long program of 1579 1580 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1965 in-service training for planners at GS-12 level in all aspects of Federal water resources development to assist in meeting needs of the Corps for increased numbers of qualified personnel in this field. Also, the Resident Member is alternate for the Secretary of the Army on the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, and is ex officio secretary of the American Section, Permanent International As- sociation of Navigation Congresses, a quasi-official organization. (See separate section on PIANC). On June 30, 1965, the Board was composed of the following members: Maj. Gen. Robert G. MacDonnell, Deputy Chief of Engineers, Chairman; Maj. Gen. Alvin C. Welling, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic; lMaj. Gen. Ellsworth I. Davis, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley; Maj. Gen George H. Walker, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River; Brig. Gen. John C. Dalrymple, Division Engineer, U.S. ArmY Engineer Division, North Atlantic; Brig. Gen. Peter C. Hyzer, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific (was Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, until February 8, 1965); and Col. Edmund H. Lang, Resident Member. In addition to the foregoing, the following officers were also assigned for various periods during the year to membership on the Board: Maj. Gen. William W. Lapsley, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific; and Brig. Gen. Carroll H. Dunn, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Divi- sion, Southwestern. A summary of investigations authorized by the Congress from establishment of the Board in 1902 to the end of fiscal year 1965, the number of authorizations completed, the number of authori- zations remaining to be reported on, and the number of reports submitted under continuing authorizations are in the following table: Reports submitted Authorities Authorities Authorities Authorities Authorities this fiscal received received completed completed remaining year Authority for investigation triort this prior to this to be re- (under JulyI, 1964 fiscal year July 1, 1964 fiscal year ported on continuing, multiple and special authority) Flood Control and River and Harbor Acts, exclusive of 1909 River and Harbor Act. 5,111 3 4,784 13 317......... River and Harbor Act of 1909-Continuing authority for major modification...... 1 .................... 1 2 Congressional resolutions ex- clusive of Great Lakes Har- bors............... ..... 3,960 94 2,742 90 1,222 ......... Congressional resolutions mul- tiple Great Lakes Harbors studies. .. 2 ............... ....... 2 1 Public Law 71-84, authority. .......... for multiple hurricane studies.... .... ............ .... ........... 1 16 River and Harbor Act, July 3,1930, cooperative beach erosionstudies ............. 1 .................. .... ............ 1 5 Total................. 9,076 97 7,526 103 1,544 24 BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS 1581 From 1902 through June 30, 1965, the Board took final action on 7,678 reports, recommending favorably on 3,379 and unfav- orably on 4,299. By Public Law 85-500, Congress eliminated Preliminary examinations. During fiscal year 1965 the Board held five 2-day meetings in Washington. No public hearings Were held. The Board considered 143 reports, acted favorably on 54, unfavorably on 69, deferred action on 8, and returned 12. The Board recommended construction of projects totaling $800,- 943,200, of which $674,982,300 was estimated U.S. cost, and $125,960,900 the cost to local interests for work and cash con- tributions. Of the 69 unfavorable reports acted on by the Board, 22 involved construction costs estimated at $94,594,140, consist- ing of $91,166,640 Federal, and $3,427,500 non-Federal. The remaining 47 reports contained no cost estimates as they dealt with improvements that were obviously unfavorable or no longer necessary. The Board's staff submitted reports or comments on reports as follows: 11 reports by other Federal agencies on water resources development; 78 reports prepared under special, con- tinuing authorities for beach erosion control, small flood control and small navigation construction projects; and 51 special reports on civil works planning, including the review and sub- mission of comments on revisions to procedures published or to be published in Engineer Regulations. Studies prescribed by various River and Harbor Acts and sec- tion 8, Merchant Marine Act of 1920, continued, and the results were published in three series of reports titled Port Series, Trans- portation Series, and Waterborne Commerce of the United States. The following reports were published during the year: Port series No. 1 -The Ports of Portland and Searsport, Maine, and Portsmouth, N.H. No. 6 -The Port of Albany, N.Y. No. 14-The Port of Savannah, Ga. No. 33-The Ports of Coos Bay, Oreg., and Longview and Vancouver, Wash. No. 35-The Ports of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, and Olympia, Wash. No. 36-The Port of Seattle, Wash. Transportation series No. 4 -Transportation Lines on the Mississippi River Sys- tem and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 1964 No. 5 -Transportation Lines on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pa- cific Coasts, 1964 Waterborne Commerce Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries, 1963 Supplement 1 to Part 5-Domestic Inland Traffic, Areas of Origin and Destination of Principal Commodities Supplement 2 to Part 5-Water Carriage Ton-Miles 1582 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1965 At the end of the year the following reports were in progress: Port series No. 5 -Port of New York, N.Y. and N.J. No. 16--Ports on South Atlantic Coast (Morehead City, N.C., Georgetown, S.C., Brunswick, Ga., and Fernandina, Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Miami, Fla.) Transportation series No. 4 -Transportation Lines on the Mississippi River Sys- tem and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 1965 No. 5 -Transportation Lines on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, 1965 At the end of the year the following reports were being printed: Port series No. 4 -Ports of Southern New England (Providence, R.I., Fall River, Mass., and New London, New Haven, and Bridgeport, Conn.) No. 37-The Ports of Port Angeles, Anacortes, Everett, and Bellingham, Wash. No. 38-The Port of Ketchikan, Alaska Transportationseries No. 3 -Transportation Lines on the Great Lakes System, 1965 MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION Mississippi River Commission consisting of three officers of the Corps of Engineers, one from the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and three members from civil life, two of whom are civil engi- neers, was created by an act of Congress on June 28, 1879. All members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent ' of the Senate. During the fiscal year the Commissioners were: Maj. Gen. Ellsworth I. Davis, U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 4-6 Hydrology, Water Quality and Hazardous Materials
    Section 4-6 Hydrology, Water Quality and Hazardous Materials This section addresses potential impacts related to hydrology, water quality, and hazardous materials resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Impacts on surface water and groundwater resources that may result from the Proposed Project are identified, and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate for potentially significant impacts on surface water and groundwater resources are described. The potential impacts related to hazardous materials that may exist as a result of the prior farmstead and agricultural use on the Alamo site will also be described. The Proposed Project contains existing agricultural water supply lines. No additional water supply would be required as a result of Project implementation, therefore this issue is not discussed in this section. 4-6.1 STUDY METHODS Methods used to identify and evaluate hydrological resources in the study area consisted of a review of existing documentation. Hazardous materials discussion is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update and Phase II investigation for the Alamo Creek Detention Basin (Dunn Environmental 2010). 4-6.1.1 Regional Setting Vacaville is located in the southern Sacramento Valley at the eastern foot of the Vaca Mountains on east- sloping alluvial fan surfaces that drain to the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River Basin encompasses approximately 26,500 square miles and is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Cascade Range and Trinity Mountains to the north, and the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to the south. Five creeks (Alamo, Ulatis, Gibson Canyon, Sweeney, and Horst Creek) pass through and provide drainage for the Vacaville area.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft
    Chapter 11 Geology and Soils This chapter describes the affected environment for geology and soils, as well as potential environmental consequences and associated mitigation measures, as they pertain to implementing the alternatives. This chapter presents information on the primary study area (area of project features, the Temperance Flat Reservoir Area, and Millerton Lake below RM 274). It also discusses the extended study area (San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the Merced River, the San Joaquin River from the Merced River to the Delta, the Delta, and the CVP and SWP water service areas). Affected Environment This section describes the affected environment related to geology, geologic hazards, erosion and sedimentation, geomorphology, mineral resources, soils, and salts. Where appropriate, geology and soils characteristics are described in a regional context, including geologic provinces, physiographic regions, or other large-scale areas, with some area-specific geologic maps and descriptions of specific soil associations. Geology This section describes the geology of the primary and extended study areas. Primary Study Area A description of the surficial geologic units encountered in the primary study area is presented in Table 11-1. Geologic maps of the primary study area and the area of project features are presented in Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2, respectively. Draft – August 2014 – 11-1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Environmental Impact Statement Table 11-1. Description of Surficial Geologic Units of the Primary Study Area Geologic Map of Millerton Lake Quadrangle, West-Central Sierra Nevada, California1 Formation Surficial Deposits General Features Abbreviation Plutonic rocks characterized by undeformed blocky hornblende prisms as long as 1 cm and by biotite books as Tonalite of Blue Canyon much as 5 mm across.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Updated: December, 2017 CURRICULUM VITAE Jeffrey A. Nittrouer Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences Rice University [email protected] sedimentology.rice.edu +1 (713) 348-4886 (office); +1 (206) 251-2444 (mobile) Education 2010 PhD, Geological Sciences, University of Texas 2006 M.S., Earth and Environmental Sciences, Tulane University 2003 B.S., Geology, University of Washington Employment Assistant Professor 2012- Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Rice University NSF Earth Sciences Post-doctoral Fellow and assistant instructor 2010-2012 Department of Geology and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois Research and Teaching Assistantships 2006-2010 Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas 2003-2006 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Tulane University Laboratory Assistant 2001-2003 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington References Dr. Gary Parker Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Dept. of Geology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Dr. Michael Lamb Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology Dr. David Mohrig Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas Dr. James Best Depts. of Geology, Geography, Mechanical Science and Engineering, and Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois 1 Publications (published & in review) *indicates supervised student and/or post-doc studies [32] *Demet, B. P., Nittrouer, J. A., Anderson, J. A, and L. M. Simkins, “Sedimentary processes at ice sheet grounding-zone wedges: comparing planform morphology from the western Ross Sea (Antarctica) to internal stratigraphy from outcrops of the Puget Lowlands (Washington State, U.S. A.)”, in review at Earth Surface Processes and Landforms [31] *Stokes, M., Nittrouer, J.
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Development in an Engineered Setting
    EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 34, 291–304 (2009) Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published online 9 December 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.1725 FloodplainJohnChichester,ESPEarthEARTHThe0197-93371096-9837Copyright20069999ESP1725Research Journal Wiley Surf.ScienceSurface SURFACE ArticleArticles ©Process. &UK of2006 Sons, Processes the PROCESSES JohnBritish Ltd.Landforms Wiley and Geomorphological Landforms AND & Sons, LANDFORMS Ltd. Research Group development in an engineered setting Floodplain development in an engineered setting Michael Bliss Singer1,2* and Rolf Aalto3,4 1 School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, UK 2 Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA 3 Department of Geography, Archaeology, and Earth Resources, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 4 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Received 25 February 2008; Revised 20 May 2008; Accepted 2 June 2008 * Correspondence to: Michael Bliss Singer, Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Engineered flood bypasses, or simplified conveyance floodplains, are natural laboratories in which to observe floodplain development and therefore present an opportunity to assess delivery to and sedimentation within a specific class of floodplain. The effects of floods in the Sacramento River basin were investigated by analyzing hydrograph characteristics, estimating event-based sediment discharges and reach erosion/deposition through its bypass system and observing sedimentation patterns with field data. Sediment routing for a large, iconic flood suggests high rates of sedimentation in major bypasses, which is corroborated by data for one bypass area from sedimentation pads, floodplain cores and sediment removal reporting from a government agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Resiliency of Our Nation's Water Resources
    CONCEPTS FOR THE NEXT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: PROMOTING RESILIENCY OF OUR NATION’S WATER RESOURCES INFRA- STRUCTURE (116–44) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 41–989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:32 Oct 27, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\HEARINGS\116\WRE\11-19-~1\TRANSC~1\41989.TXT JEAN TRANSPC154 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chair ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia ROB WOODALL, Georgia ANDRE´ CARSON, Indiana JOHN KATKO, New York DINA TITUS, Nevada BRIAN BABIN, Texas SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana JARED HUFFMAN, California DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California MIKE BOST, Illinois FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey DOUG LAMALFA, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas MARK DESAULNIER, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania STACEY E.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnecting Rivers to Floodplains
    FPR Program Resource DRAFT I Reconnecting Rivers to Floodplains Returning natural functions to restore rivers and benefit communities River Restoration Program Spring 2016 Reconnecting Rivers to Floodplains About American Rivers American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature. Since 1973, American Rivers has protected and restored more than 150,000 miles of rivers through advocacy efforts, on-the-ground projects, and an annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers® campaign. Headquartered in Washington, DC, American Rivers has offices across the country and more than 200,000 members, supporters, and volunteers. Rivers connect us to each other, nature, and future generations. Find your connections at www.AmericanRivers.org, www.facebook.com/americanrivers, and www.twitter.com/americanrivers. Flooding on commercial parking lots built along Ribary creek in North Bend, WA. Photo credit Jonathon Loos. Acknowledgments Written by Jonathon Loos and Eileen Shader This work is generously supported by the Lapham Family whose financial contributions provide the Anthony A. Lapham Fellowship, an opportunity to carry out a research-based project to advance the mission and objectives of American Rivers. This document is owed to the guidance of Eileen Shader, and detailed review by herself and other members of the American Rivers Restoration team; John Cain, Laura Craig and Brian Graber. We would like to thank our Science and Technical Advisory Committee and external reviewers for their time and thoughtful review of this work. This document truly reflects knowledge and expertise of individuals from across the spectrum of floodplain practitioners and scientists. Cover Photo credit Jonathon Loos, Yakima River, Washington 1 Reconnecting Rivers to Floodplains Executive Summary Riverine floodplains are dynamic systems that play an important role in the function and ecology of rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Background Information and Flood Control Alternatives for Easkoot Creek, Stinson Beach CA
    SENT VIA EMAIL Technical Memorandum DATE: July 17, 2009 To: Neal Conatser, Assistant Engineer, Marin County Department of Public Works From: Michael Love P.E., Principal Engineer, Michael Love & Associates [email protected] / ph: 707-476-8938 / fax: 707-476-8936 Subject: Review of Background Information and Flood Control Alternatives for Easkoot Creek, Stinson Beach CA. Project Background Easkoot Creek in Stinson Beach, California is a tributary to Bolinas Lagoon in western Marin County. The creek drains a watershed of approximately 1.59 square miles (FEMA, 1997) of steeply sloping hills that border the Pacific Ocean before flowing through the town of Stinson Beach and into Bolinas Lagoon. Due to a lack of channel capacity, the stream frequently overflows its banks between the Arenal Avenue and Calle de Arroyo crossings (Figure 1). Nearly half of this 2,000-foot channel reach is located within the National Park Service (NPS) Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and is adjacent to several parking lots. The current-day stream reach of Easkoot Creek downstream of the GGNRA parking lots crosses under a series of streets, collectively referred to as the “Calles”. The Calles from Calle del Pinos to Calle del Arroyo frequently experience flooding from Easkoot Creek, compounded by occasional flooding from wave overtopping to the west. Regular out-of-bank flooding also occurs upstream of the Calles within the GGNRA parking lots and in the area of the Parkside Restaurant. Currently, flooding within lower Easkoot Creek is exacerbated by sedimentation that reduces channel capacity. Sedimentation and the resulting decrease in channel capacity likely contributed to the out-of-bank flooding that occurred at the Park Entrance during a relatively small flow event on January 25, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Stinson Beach Watershed Program Flood Study and Alternatives Assessment
    Stinson Beach Watershed Program Flood Study and Alternatives Assessment Prepared for: Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Prepared by: O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg, California In Association with: Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California Robert Zlomke, PE, Napa, California Professor John Largier, University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory Edited by: Edward Molnar Chris Choo Final May 2014 Stinson Beach Watershed Program Flood Study and Alternatives Assessment Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... i ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... iii KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... vi NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................. vii 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Flood of Benefits
    A FLOOD OF BENEFITS USING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO REDUCE FLOOD RISKS 1 A Flood of Benefits Using Green Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risks The Nature Conservancy 2014 4245 North Fairfax Drive Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203 www.nature.org To cite: Jeffrey J. Opperman. 2014. A Flood of Benefits: Using Green Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risks. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Cover photo credits: Top photo— by Jonathan Eisen at the Yolo Bypass; Bottom photo— Mark Godfrey, 2005, of the Mississippi River valley looking west toward Iowa. 2 1. Overview “Green infrastructure” encompasses natural fea- Highlights tures, such as forests and wetlands, that provide The Mississippi Flood of 2011 had the greatest volume of floodwater ever similar or complementary flood-management recorded for that river. The flood- benefits as engineered infrastructure. While en- management system was able to safely gineered infrastructure can degrade rivers and convey that flood in large part the values they provide, green infrastructure because, in multiple locations, floodwaters were allowed to spread tends to support a diverse array of other bene- out onto the historic floodplain, fits. A sustainable and resilient approach to flood relieving pressure on levees and -risk management will deploy a mix of green and sparing cities like Baton Rouge and engineered infrastructure solutions, tailored to New Orleans. specific challenges and objectives. In several locations in California, flood managers have concluded that setting levees back from the river provided the Flooding is the most damaging natural disaster in the world, most effective method of reducing with average annual losses exceeding $40 billion (Cooley 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Its Application to Floodplain Restoration in the Sacramento Valley by Philip B
    SEPTEMBER 2009 ERRATA: Quantifying Activated Floodplains on a Lowland Regulated River: Its Application to Floodplain Restoration in the Sacramento Valley by Philip B. Williams, Elizabeth Andrews, Jeff J. Opperman, Setenay Bozkurt, and Peter B. Moyle Published 2 Sep 2009 in San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Available from: http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/ sfews/vol7/iss1/art4 Page 3, third sentence of the caption of Figure 2: for “The years after regulation from Shasta Dam generally have much lower during the spring … ”, read “The years after regulation from Shasta Dam generally have much lower flow during the spring because the reservoir is refilling during this time.” Page 4, top of page: the first paragraph is a figure caption for Figure 2 and should not be repeated here. Sentence is omitted in corrected version. Page 13, under Results: for "Discharge and stage elevation values for the floodplain activation flow, the average spring flow, and the two-year peak flood (Q2) are summarized in Table 2. We also present data for the two-year peak flood for comparison." read "Discharge and stage elevation values for the floodplain activation flow, the average spring flow, and the two-year peak flood (Q2) are summarized in Table 2.” Page 6, The illustration in Figure 4 is incorrect. Figure 4 is accurately represented by the illustration Figure 4 An illustration of how river regulation affects nested to the right: floodplains SEPTEMBER 2009 Quantifying Activated Floodplains on a Lowland Regulated River: Its Application to Floodplain Restoration in the Sacramento Valley Philip B. Williams1, Elizabeth Andrews1, Jeff J.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Purpose Optimization for Reconciliation Ecology on an Engineered Floodplain : Yolo Bypass, California Robyn Suddeth Grimm*1 and Jay R
    MARCH 2016 RESEARCH Multi-Purpose Optimization for Reconciliation Ecology on an Engineered Floodplain : Yolo Bypass, California Robyn Suddeth Grimm*1 and Jay R. Lund2 uses. However, the reconciliation approach requires Volume 14, Issue 1 | Article 5 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss1art5 nuanced management of a complex system. Using the Yolo Basin flood bypass in California’s Central * Corresponding author: [email protected] Valley as an example, this study develops formal 1 CH2MHILL multi-objective optimization to help planners identify Sacramento, CA 95833 USA management options that best improve habitat 2 Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis quality for fish and birds with minimal costs to Davis, CA 95616 USA farmers or wetland managers. Models like the one developed here can integrate large amounts of data and knowledge, and offer an explicit accounting ABSTRACT of relationships and trade-offs between different objectives. This is especially useful in reconciliation Floodplains in California and elsewhere are planning, where many uses and variables interact on productive natural habitats with high levels of a landscape, and deliberate re-engineering requires biodiversity, yet today they are often permanently consideration of many decisions simultaneously. disconnected from rivers by urban or agricultural Initial results suggest that modest land-use changes development and flood management structures. This and inundation management strategies can disconnection poses a threat to many native fish, significantly improve seasonal bird and fish habitat bird and other species that evolved to take advantage quality at little cost to farmers or other human of seasonal floodplain inundation. The traditional land uses.
    [Show full text]
  • LSJ River Flood Bypass Presentation
    Susan Dell’Osso, River Islands John Cain, American Rivers Mike Archer, P.E., MBK Engineers Glenn Gephardt, P.E., City of Lathrop September 11, 2014 1 Rationale for Lower San Joaquin River Bypass Areas along the main river are planned for urban development Expanding Paradise Cut would divert water away from the urbanized reach Two Projects Proposed: Base Case and Southern Improvements Delta Communities from Delta Plan “Base Case” Improvements Levee set-back to the north on Stewart Tract 3 Southern Improvements Resulted from legal settlement between River Islands, State Reclamation Board, NRDC, and NHI. Builds on Base Case Improvements. 4 Modeling Benefits of Lower San Joaquin River Bypass Modeling predicts a 20 inch stage reduction for the 50 year flood event. Minimum stage increases downstream. Could provide rationale for needed levee improvements downstream. Could provide additional habitat depending on landowner willingness. Environmental Benefits Paradise Cut will provide flexibility for future flood management. Reduce long-term conflict between flood management and the environment. Protect and conserve agricultural land. Provide major habitat benefits for riparian rabbit and Swainson’s hawk Increase the area of floodplain habitat for fish. Planned Urbanization Proposed bypass Location Map compiled by UC Berkeley Delta initiative (2006) 7 State Plans and Legislation • SB 5 directed DWR and CVFPB to In the foreword to the 1998 addition evaluate “feasibility of potential of Battling the Inland Sea, David bypasses or floodways that would Kennedy, the longest serving significantly reduce flood stage in director of DWR wrote: the San Joaquin River Watershed, upstream and south of Paradise Cut.” “A latter-day version of the bypass debate is now unfolding on the San Joaquin River, after the 1997 • Delta Plan recommends flood .
    [Show full text]