The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project



Similar documents
The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project

Estimating Potential Reduction Flood Benefits of Restored Wetlands

US Army Corps of Engineers. New Orleans District 2011 Flood Response

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

5.14 Floodplains and Drainage/Hydrology

PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION

Hydrologic Modeling using HEC-HMS

Prattsville Berm Removal Project. 1.0 Project Location

The AIR Inland Flood Model for the United States In Spring 2011, heavy rainfall and snowmelt produced massive flooding along the Mississippi River,

CHAPTER 2 HYDRAULICS OF SEWERS

Reservoir Simulations for the Delaware River Basin Flood of June, 2006

Methods for Determination of Safe Yield and Compensation Water from Storage Reservoirs

Swannanoa River Flood Risk Management Study

Kansas City s Overflow Control Program

Hydrologic Engineering Techniques for Regional Water Resources Planning

Flooding Hazards, Prediction & Human Intervention

Earth Science. River Systems and Landforms GEOGRAPHY The Hydrologic Cycle. Introduction. Running Water. Chapter 14.

Computing Stormwater Runoff Rates and Volumes

FLOOD FORECASTING PRACTICE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Frequently-Asked Questions about Floodplains and Flood Insurance FLOOD INSURANCE

Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS)

URBAN DRAINAGE CRITERIA

PART 2 NEW ORLEANS DRAINAGE CANALS

Greater Los Angeles County Region

Flash Flood Science. Chapter 2. What Is in This Chapter? Flash Flood Processes

Emergency Management THERE WHEN YOU NEED US

Stormwater Control Measures for Tokyo

BINGHAMTON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT

The Rational Method. David B. Thompson Civil Engineering Deptartment Texas Tech University. Draft: 20 September 2006

2011 HYDRAULICS MANUAL

Micromanagement of Stormwater in a Combined Sewer Community for Wet Weather Control The Skokie Experience

DISTRICT VALUES STATEMENTS, GOALS, ACTION ITEMS, AND ONGOING TASKS FOR 2015 Adopted by the Board of Directors December 10, Values Statements.

Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Stormwater & Flooding Subcommittee Strategy Worksheet LRSW-S3C1

Using probability to understand 100-year storms

Training session for the. Firm Yield Estimator. Version 1.0. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Flood After Fire Fact Sheet

Post-Flood Assessment

Comprehensive Recommendations Supporting the Use of the Multiple Lines of Defense Strategy to Sustain Coastal Louisiana 2008 Report (Version I)

Flooding in the Middle Koyukuk River Basin, Alaska August 1994

CASE STUDY. City of Grand Rapids Stormwater Asset Management Program. City of Grand Rapids. By the Numbers

CHAPTER 17: STORM SEWER STANDARDS Introduction Administration Standards 17.1

HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC MODELING OF WESTMINSTER WATERSHED ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Burnt River Black River and Gull River Flood Contingency Plan

GRADY COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PLAN SUMMARY

Development of Technical Data For Long Term Flood Solutions For the Red River Basin

Components of a Basement Flooding Protection Plan: Sewer System Improvements. November 2000

Des Moines River Regulated Flow Frequency Study

Chapter 4. Flood Risk Assessment

APPENDIX B DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR APPROVED TREATMENT METHODS

Appendix F Benefit-Cost Analysis of Flood Protection Measures

5.0 OVERVIEW OF FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION MEASURES

Bolton s Flood Risk Management Strategy

Colorado Water Bar December 13, 2012

INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATED EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR ANNOTTO BAY

The Hydrologic Engineering Center Training Course on

Report on FY2013 JICA Training Program: Capacity Development for Flood Risk Management with IFAS

Land Disturbance, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Checklist. Walworth County Land Conservation Department

The City of Ottawa Flood Hazards

USGS StreamStats Web Application for Kentucky

Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System

CHAPTER 3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

A CASE-STUDY OF CUA_DAT CFRD IN VIETNAM

BANGKOK FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA)


Evolution of the Levee System Along the Lower Mississippi River

A Flood Warning System for City of Findlay, Ohio

Outlet stabilization structure

ARkStorm: California s Other Big One!

Flood Risk Management

Flood Risk Management

Building Olive s Flood Resiliency

SIMULATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY CHANGE IN LARGE RIVER SYSTEMS. Stephen H. Scott 1 and Yafei Jia 2

GREEN ROOFS. Location. Design SMALL COMMERCIAL GUIDE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FEMA Flood Zone Designations

A disaster occurs at the point of contact between social activities and a natural phenomenon of unusual scale.

9.1. Adequacy of Available Data and Monitoring Efforts

Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety

Tookany Creek Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study Section 205 Continuing Authorities Program

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Climate of Illinois Narrative Jim Angel, state climatologist. Introduction. Climatic controls

Crop Insurance Plan Explanations and Review

Ruissellement du Bassin Précipitation Abstractions Hydrogramme Flux de Base. Superposition Routage

Dirk Nyland - Chief Engineer BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure NRCan - CCIAD Presentation 9 September 2014

Catchment and Lake Research

The Great Flood of 1993 on the Upper Mississippi River 10 Years Later

CONTROL FLOODING AT LOW AREAS OF MARGINAL EXPRESSWAY TIETÊ RIVER IN THE CITY OF SAO PAULO, BRAZIL

Transcription:

The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project The Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T) project was authorized by the 1928 Flood Control Act. Following the devastating 1927 flood, the nation was galvanized in its support for a comprehensive and unified system of public works within the lower Mississippi Valley that would provide enhanced protection from floods while maintaining a mutually compatible and efficient Mississippi River channel for navigation. Administered by the Mississippi River Commission under the supervision of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the resultant MR&T project employs a variety of engineering techniques, including an extensive levee system to prevent disastrous overflows on developed alluvial lands; floodways to safely divert excess flows past critical reaches so that the levee system will not be unduly stressed; channel improvements and stabilization features to protect the integrity of flood control measures and to ensure proper alignment and depth of the navigation channel; and tributary basin improvements, to include levees, headwater reservoirs, and pumping stations, that maximize the benefits realized on the main stem by expanding flood protection coverage and improving drainage into adjacent areas within the alluvial valley. Since its initiation, the MR&T program has brought an unprecedented degree of flood protection to the approximate four million people living in the 35,000 square-mile project area within the lower Mississippi Valley. The nation has contributed nearly $13 billion toward the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. To date the nation has received a 24 to 1 return on that investment, including $306 billion in flood damages prevented. The success of the MR&T flood control program can be traced to a change in engineering policy. Prior to that change the control of floods on the lower Mississippi was attempted by building levees high enough to withstand the last great flood of record. Since the inception of the MR&T project, however, the comprehensive flood control program is designed to control the project design or the maximum probable flood. 2

1928 Project Design Flood The project flood used in the original design of the MR&T project was a combination of separate analyses conducted by the U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) and the Mississippi River Commission. The discharges and flood stages predicted by the agencies were very similar, but because the Weather Bureau analyzed the maximum possible flood in comparison to the commission s analysis of the maximum probable flood, differences in the estimates did emerge. Where such differences did occur, the higher stage was used in putting together the final project flood design. The Weather Bureau determined that the maximum possible flood would produce a discharge of 2,400,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Cairo, Illinois, with a confined stage of 66 feet. (The project flood flowline at the Cairo gage was established at 59 feet because the Birds Point-New Madrid floodway on the west bank of the Mississippi River was designed to siphon off 550,000 cfs during the project flood.) Bureau meteorologists reached their discharge figures by combining the maximum flood on the Ohio River with the upper Mississippi, Cumberland and Tennessee rivers simultaneously contributing their maximum predicted flood crests to create the greatest possible effect at Cairo. The Mississippi River Commission, on the other hand, determined that the maximum probable flood would produce a discharge of 2,250,000 cfs at Cairo, a figure that was greater than confined discharge of the 1927 flood, but less than that same confined flood added to the maximum recorded discharge of the Ohio River as experienced in 1913. Both the Weather Bureau and the Mississippi River Commission took the discharge passing Cairo and combined that flow with the maximum predicted flood stages of the Arkansas and White rivers to produce a discharge of 2,850,000 cfs at Arkansas City, Arkansas, with a maximum predicted stage of 74 feet. At the latitude of Red River Landing, Louisiana, the Weather Bureau taking into account the additional storage capacity of the channel and the added flows from the Yazoo and Red rivers, estimated a project flood discharge measuring 3,000,000 cfs. 1941 Project Design Flood The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project Congress requested a review of the MR&T project following the record-breaking flood of 1937, in which flood stages at Cairo reached 59.51 feet despite a combined discharge of only 2,100,000 cfs from the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. In 1941, the Mississippi River Commission and the Weather Bureau completed a cooperative analysis of the flow frequencies at Columbus, Kentucky, Arkansas City and Vicksburg, Mississippi. The agencies based the review on a 40-year period from the 1900 to 1939 and incorporated all independent flood crests equaling or exceeding 900,000 cfs. The study made provisions to increase flows at Columbus to account for historical discharges that had bypassed the town through gaps in the levee system, crevasses and the operation of the Birds Point-New Madrid floodway. For Arkansas City it took into account the state of the channel and backwater storage under 1939 conditions involving various 3

assumptions with regard to the levees in the White River backwater area. From this data, the agencies plotted probability curves to show the frequency at which various flood discharges might occur. The frequency curves indicated that a peak discharge 2,600,000 at Cairo had the same probability of occurrence as a peak discharge of 3,065,000 cfs at Arkansas City with the White River backwater area levee overtopped. The discharge of 3,000,000 cfs at the latitude of Red River Landing remained unchanged. Before adopting the new project flood flows, the Mississippi River Commission made one last adjustment. In designing the project flood adopted in 1928, consideration was given to the possible effects of reservoirs, but those effects were not ultimately used in determining the project design flood. Since then dozens of reservoirs on the Missouri, upper Mississippi, Ohio, White and Arkansas rivers had been authorized by Congress through the flood control acts of 1936, 1937 and 1938. As such, the commission reduced the design flow between Cairo and the mouth of the Arkansas River by 150,000 cfs, setting the project design flood at 2,450,000 cfs at Cairo. Current Project Design Flood The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project In 1954, the Senate Committee on Public Works requested another thorough examination of all components of the MR&T project that led to further revision of the project design flood. Pursuant to that request, the Mississippi River Commission and the Weather Bureau again conducted a cooperative study. This study incorporated previously unavailable data regarding the sequence, severity and distribution of past major storms and investigated 35 different hypothetical combinations of actual storms that produced significant amounts of precipitation and runoff. The Weather Bureau arranged the historical storms sequentially to mimic frontal movements and atmospheric situations that 4

were consistent with those occurring naturally to determine the most feasible pattern capable of producing the greatest amount of runoff on the lower Mississippi River. This included the consideration of storm transpositions, storm intensity adjustments, seasonal variations and storm mechanics. In simpler terms, the Weather Bureau developed the project design storm series from various combinations of storms and resultant floods referred to as hypo floods that had a reasonable probability of occurring from a meteorological viewpoint. The studies revealed that Hypo-Flood 58A had the most probable chance of producing the greatest discharge on the lower Mississippi River from Cairo to the Gulf of Mexico. Three severe storms comprised Hypo- Flood 58A. The first storm is the 1937 storm that struck the Ohio and lower Mississippi River basins, with runoff increased by 10 percent. It is followed three days later by the 1950 storm over the same general area. This storm is followed three days later by the 1938 storm, with its center transposed 90 miles to the north and the rainfall pattern rotated by 20 degrees to maximize its coverage over all the tributary basins on the lower Mississippi River. To convert Hypo-Flood 58A into the project design flood, the Mississippi River Commission developed the flood flows that would occur from the three storms and routed them through the tributary systems under three conditions: unregulated by reservoirs; regulated by reservoirs that existed in 1950; and The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project 5

The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project regulated by existing reservoirs, plus those proposed to be constructed in the near future (1960 timeframe). The flood flows were then routed down the Mississippi River to determine the peak discharges at key locations. The Mississippi River Commission selected the 58A flood with nearfuture reservoirs condition, referred to as 58A-EN (existing or near completion), as the basis for the project flood flowline and adopted it as the project design flood in 1956. The peak discharges for the revised project design flood were 2,360,000 cfs at Cairo; 2,890,000 cfs at Arkansas City, and 3,030,000 cfs at the latitude of Red River Landing. Following the 1973 flood, the Mississippi River Commission once again reviewed the adequacy of the project design flood. The review concluded that the thorough approach used in 1955 was based on sound technology that was still reliable by current standards. The project design flood peak discharges remained unchanged. (For a synopsis of how the MR&T project conveys the project design flood, please see, Mississippi River & Tributaries Project: Controlling the Project Design Flood. ) 6

7 Drainage basin for 41% of the United States Worlds 3rd Largest Watershed