UPPER COSUMNES RIVER FLOOD MAPPING

Similar documents
LOMR SUBMITTAL LOWER NEHALEM RIVER TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

LOMR SUBMITTAL LOWER NESTUCCA RIVER TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

YELLOWSTONE RIVER FLOOD STUDY REPORT TEXT

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3-0

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROLOGY The Electronic Journal of the International Association for Environmental Hydrology VOLUME

ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA

Design Hydraulic Study. Bridge 09C-0134, Blairsden-Graeagle Road over Middle Fork Feather River. Plumas County. Prepared for:

DRAFT Design Hydraulic Study. Bridge 04C-0055, Mattole Road Bridge over Mattole River at Honeydew. Humboldt County. Prepared for:

Field Observations and One-Dimensional Flow Modeling of Summit Creek in Mack Park, Smithfield, Utah

Beaver Creek Corridor Design and Analysis. By: Alex Previte

TOWN OF FORT KENT, MAINE AROOSTOOK COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 6-0 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REPORT. for SR 3062, SECTION 29S STRASBURG ROAD.

Dealing with Zone A Flood Zones. Topics of Discussion. What is a Zone A Floodplain?

GREENE COUNTY, PA. Revised Preliminary DFIRM Mapping FEMA. Kevin Donnelly, P.E., CFM GG3, Greenhorne & O Mara, Inc. April 10, 2013

LOCATED IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PREPARED FOR S.J.R.W.M.D. AND F.W.C.D. DECEMBER, 2003 Updated 2007 Updated May 2014 PREPARED BY

Summary of Hydraulic and Sediment-transport. Analysis of Residual Sediment: Alternatives for the San Clemente Dam Removal/Retrofit Project,

Section 4: Model Development and Application

VOLUME 3 OF 3 FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER

Low Low Water in Puget Sound vs. Mean Sea Level. What do the flood event gauge readings at Sedro Woolley really mean?

Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Modeling Strategy

Embarras River Watershed Digital Floodplain Mapping, Champaign County, Illinois

APPENDIX A M&T/Llano Seco Long-Term Water Reliability Study These photos are examples of rock spurs in use throughout the United States

Analysis of Hydraulic Impacts on the Schuylkill River

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR SR. 0522, SECTION 5BN ALONG BLACKLOG CREEK CROMWELL TOWNSHIP HUNTINGDON COUNTY. Prepared for:

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT YATES ASH POND 2 (AP-2) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Pequabuck River Flooding Study and Flood Mitigation Plan The City of Bristol and Towns of Plainville and Plymouth, CT

MORGAN COUNTY COLORADO, AND INCORPORATED AREAS

The last three sections of the main body of this report consist of:

Breaking the 5 Mile per Hour Barrier: Automated Mapping Using a Normal Depth Calculation

Two-Dimensional. Modeling and Analysis of Spawning Bed Mobilization Lower American River. October 2001

PRELIMINARY CULVERT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR CULVERT NO. 008-C OREGON AVENUE OVER PINEHURST CREEK

Appendix E Guidance for Shallow Flooding Analyses and Mapping

YANKTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

Appendix B2 Hydraulics

Discovery Data Questionnaire

Appendix I. Dredged Volume Estimates. Draft Contractor Document: Subject to Continuing Agency Review

Technical Memorandum No

Nebraska. Large Area Mapping Initiative. The Nebraska. Introduction. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

Mount St. Helens Project Cowlitz River Levee Systems 2009 Level of Flood Protection Update Summary

ASFPM - Rapid Floodplain Mapping

Riverine Modeling Proof of Concept

CLAY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

L OWER N OOKSACK R IVER P ROJECT: A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS A PPENDIX A: H YDRAULIC M ODELING. PREPARED BY: LandC, etc, LLC

Out with the Old, In with the New: Implementing the Results of the Iowa Rapid Floodplain Modeling Project

Community Discovery Data Questionnaire

Corps Involvement in FEMA s Map Modernization Program

Base Level Engineering FEMA Region 6

4.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Juneau Jokulhlaup Inundation Report

CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA

REDWOOD VALLEY SUBAREA

Chapter 5 CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION

Chapter 10 - Sacramento Method Examples

Issue 44: Phase II & III H&H Issues Date: 07/03/2006 Page 1

USGS Flood Inundation Mapping of the Suncook River in Chichester, Epsom, Pembroke and Allenstown, New Hampshire

Stop 1: Marmot Dam Stop 1: Marmot Dam

District-Wide Approach to Water Resource Modeling

!"#$%&&'()*+#$%(,-./0*)%(!

Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan (SCSMAP)

3.11 Floodplains Existing Conditions

Local Flood Hazards. Click here for Real-time River Information

JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 2

North Carolina Simplified Inundation Maps For Emergency Action Plans December 2010; revised September 2014; revised April 2015

Flood Inundation Mapping

MASON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Las Colonias Subdivision September 2010 Flood Study

Phillips Ditch Drainage Study

Appendix C Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction Memorandum

Bushkill Creek 3 rd Street Dam Removal Analysis

Two-Dimensional Simulation of Truckee River Hydrodynamics

JACINTO. Sediment Transport and Scour Analysis San Jacinto River, Stage 4 North and South Levees SAN ENGINEERING STUDY. Prepared for: Prepared by:

NYE COUNTY, NEVADA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Nye County

Pompton Lakes Dam Downstream Effects of the Floodgate Facility. Joseph Ruggeri Brian Cahill Michael Mak Andy Bonner

PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

STABILIZATION OF THE H&CT RAILWAY STONE DAM WALTER E. SKIPWITH, PE, JOYCE CRUM, AIA AND JOHN BAUMGARTNER, PE. Introduction.

LIBERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA

Zone A Modeling (What Makes A Equal Approximate, Adequate, or Awesome)

Modified Level II Streambed-Scour Analysis for Structure Crossing Little Eagle Creek and I-65 in Marion County, Indiana

Ground Water Protection Council 2017 Annual Forum Boston, Massachusetts. Ben Binder (303)

MEANDER MIGRATION MODEL ASSESSMENT FOR THE JANUARY 2005 STORM, WHITMAN PROPERTY, SAN ANTONIO CREEK, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

HEC-RAS Reservoir Transport Simulation of Three Reservoirs in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. Mike Langland and Ed Koerkle

APPENDIX B Hydraulic Considerations for Pipeline Crossings of Stream Channels


To: Olivia Dorothy March 9, 2018 Associate Director Upper Mississippi River Basin American Rivers

STREAM RESTORATION AWRA Summer Specialty Conference, GIS and Water Resources IX

Vegetation effects on river hydraulics. Johannes J. (Joe) DeVries David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sacramento, CA

Implementing a Project with 319 Funds: The Spring Brook Meander Project. Leslie A. Berns

Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Tata Pond Dam

PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

CR AAO Bridge. Dead River Flood & Natural Channel Design. Mitch Koetje Water Resources Division UP District

9. PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION AND PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD

via via CCTA File /6 Train Avenue West and 70 Yonge Street South, Springwater Natural Hazard Study

Stormwater Capacity Analysis for Westover Branch Watershed

Real-Time Flood Forecasting Modeling in Nashville, TN utilizing HEC-RTS

Sacramento River Bank Protection Project

YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

Chapter A-3 SURVEYING, MAPPING, AND OTHER GEOSPATIAL DATA REQUIREMENTS

60 PERCENT DESIGN REPORT HABITAT RESTORATION OF THE CHELAN RIVER REACH 4 AND TAILRACE

Background on the March 13-14, 2007 Flooding in Browns Valley (Traverse County), Minnesota

GEOMORPHIC CHANGES IN LOWER CACHE CREEK 2012

Transcription:

UPPER COSUMNES RIVER FLOOD MAPPING DRAFT BASIC DATA NARRATIVE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY SACRAMENTO COUTY, CALIFORNIA Community No. 060262 November 2008 Prepared By: CIVIL ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC. 1325 Howe Avenue Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 563-7300

DRAFT BASIC DATA NARRATIVE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY SACRAMENTO COUTY, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study/Letter of Map Revision for Cosumnes River is to update and revise the existing Zone A of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Sacramento County Unincorporated Areas Panel Number 275D and 400D dated July 1998. Community Name - Sacramento County (Community Number 060262) State - California 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements The hydraulic analysis for this study is prepared by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., the Study Contractor for the Sacramento County. The study was completed in November 2008. 1.3 Coordination In July of 2008, an initial Consultation and Coordination Meeting was held with representative of the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources and the Study Contractor. The stream to be studied and limits of the study were identified at the meeting. Available mapping and other data identified at a subsequent meeting between the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources and the Study Contractor. During the conduct of the study, meetings, telephones and e-mail discussions have been held between the Study Contractor and representative of the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources. The Sacramento County Department of Water Resources has provided the funding for this study and all relevant data such as hydrologic data, field survey and topographic mapping.

2.0 AREA STUDIED 2.1 The stream studied by detailed methods in this study is the Cosumnes River located within the easterly portion of the Sacramento County and flows from northeast to southwest. See attached vicinity map. The downstream study limit begins at Dillard Road and ends approximately one (1) mile upstream of Michigan Barr Road. The total study reach is approximately 9.8 miles. This reach of the Cosumnes River is studied by Approximate Method and shown as Zone A on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for Sacramento County Panel Number 275D and 400D dated July 1998 (reference 1). 2.2 Community Description The community description is presented in the Flood Insurance Study for the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. 2.3 Principal flood problems There are documented significant flood problems along the Cosumnes River in the study area. 2.4 Flood protection Measures The Cosumnes River within the study reach is in natural conditions and no major channelization or other flood protection measures exists along the study reach. There is water diversion dam constructed across the Cosumnes River channel approximately --- feet upstream of State Highway 16 Bridge. The dam is a concrete structure about 10 feet high and 3 feet wide and diverts irrigation water during low flow periods. There are four (4) bridges crossing Cosumnes River along the study reach.

3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses The 10-, 50-, 100- and 500-year peak discharges used in this study were determined by U. S. geological Survey (reference 2). The U. S. geological Survey has operated a stream flow gauging station (No.11335000) on Cosumnes River from 19907 to 2007. The gauging station is located on the downstream side of the Michigan Barr Road Bridge. The peak discharges are summarized on Table 1. TABLE 1 Summary of Peak Discharges Flooding Source & Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi) 10-Year (cfs) 50-Year (cfs) 100-Year (cfs) 500-Year (cfs) Cosumnes River at Michigan Barr 536 34,200 66,800 82,900 125,000 3.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSES Water surface elevations were computed utilizing the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) HEC-RAS computer program (reference 3). The following parameters were used: The geometry of the Cosumnes River channel and overbank floodplain areas were primarily derived from topographic mapping based on the Sacramento County latest LIDR data. The areas within the channel banks were field surveyed to verify the accuracy of the topographic mapping and to get a better definition of the channel invert elevations. As a part of the reconnaissance effort, a field inventory and measurement process was completed to determine the location, size and characteristics of all existing bridges and other hydraulic structures. The Manning s roughness coefficient n values were established based on field observations and the USGS publication (reference 4). The channel roughness varies between 0.022 and 0.022 for earthen natural channel and overbank roughness values ranges from 0.03 to 0.069. The Manning s n values were calibrated to the USGS Rating Curve published flow and stage values. The following graph shows that an exact calibration was not obtained, but a best fit was.

192 Cosumnes With Levees Oct 4-08 Plan: rating curves 10/16/2008 RS = 949 BR Michigan bar bridge Legend W.S. Elev Obs WS 190 188 Obs WS (ft), W.S. Elev (ft) 186 184 182 180 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 Q Total (cfs) Contraction and expansion coefficients for open channel sections of 0.1and 0.3 were used in accordance with the COE guidelines. Contraction coefficients of 0.3 and expansion coefficients of 0.5 were used at bridges. The downstream starting water surface elevations for 10-year through 500-year are based on known water surface elevations as determined by U.S. geological Survey (reference 2) at the Dillard Road Bridge (upstream side), which was the upper limit of their study reach. The U. S. geological Survey has performed a detailed hydraulic analysis of Cosumnes River using WSPRO computer model to determine water surface elevations for 5-year through 500-year and100-year floodplain limits under several conditions. The U. S. geological Survey study started at State Highway 99 (at the downstream) and ended at Dillard Road. This study begins at Dillard Road and continues upstream to the Sacramento County limit line. The U. S. geological Survey study is included in the appendix of this report. Supercritical flow conditions can occur in some channel reaches. In accordance with FEMA s guidelines, subcritical analyses were conducted to determined base flood elevations for Cosumnes River.

Calibration of the model is the process used to insure that the model predicts actual system behavior as closely as possible. The HEC-RAS model for Cosumnes River was calibrated with stream gauge data (water surface elevations) for different storm events at Michigan Barr Bridge. Parameters in the HEC-RAS model such as Manning s roughness coefficient n values are then adjusted until the model output (water surface elevations) matched closely the historical gauge data for a specific storm event. Surveys and Datums: The Sacramento County Base LiDAR obtained for the limits of this Study, and other County areas, was obtained in 1997. We considered this LiDAR to be recent and accurate enough to establish base topography for this study. We verified the LiDAR data, by obtaining spot shots near the channel bank full locations of the stream. Supplemental surveys were also performed to obtain THALWEG elevations at the cross section locations. All Data included in these studies was prepared using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), and the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83) for horizontal measurements. 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATION The floodplain and floodway boundaries as determined by the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses have been delineated on Sacramento County one inch equal 300 foot horizontal scale topographic mapping with 1 foot contour interval. 4.1 Flood Boundaries In accordance with the FEMA guideline, floodplain boundaries have been defined based on base flood elevations as determined by subcritical flow analyses. In channel reaches where supercritical flow conditions could occur, the base flood elevations are based on critical depth. In this study two analyses were performed, one With Levees and the other Without Levees. Two base flood elevations are shown on the work maps representing the With Levees and Without Levees conditions 4.2 Floodway The floodway presented in this study is initially computed on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplains. Where flows are contained within the channel, the floodway boundaries coincidence with the100- year floodplain limits. The results of these computations were tabulated at selected cross sections and presented here as Table 2.

4.3 An annotated copy of the effected FEMA FIRM is attached in appendix. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERRNCES Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Sacramento Count, California (unincorporated Areas), Washington, DC, -- U. S. Geological Survey, Flood Inundation Map and Water Surface Profiles for Floods of Selected Recurrence Intervals, Cosumnes River and Deer Creek, Sacramento County, California, 1998. U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Hydrological Engineering center, HEC-RAS River System Analysis, Version 3.1 November 2002. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1849, Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, Washington, DC, 1967.

FEMA FORMS

TABLE 2 FLOODWAY TABLE

HEC-RAS HYDRAULIC SUMMARY TABLE

WATER SURFACE PROFILES

FLOODPLAIN and FLOODWAY BOUNDARY MAPS (WORK MAPS)

ANNOTATED FEMA FIRM

HEC-RAS FILES DISKETTE