1 / 19

Advances in Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation & Modeling

Advances in Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation & Modeling. A Call For Action ASFPM Arid Regions Committee May 2010. Overview. Ancient History Recent History Present Near Future. Ancient History (1970’s) Southern California Alluvial Fan Floods

Ava
Télécharger la présentation

Advances in Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation & Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Advances in Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation & Modeling A Call For Action ASFPM Arid Regions Committee May 2010

  2. Overview • Ancient History • Recent History • Present • Near Future

  3. Ancient History (1970’s) • Southern California Alluvial Fan Floods • Aha! Alluvial Fan Floods ≠ Riverine Floods • Flow Path Uncertainty • Sediment & Debris Flows • Dawdy (1979): Probablistic Model • FAN Model • FEMA Adopts Fan Mapping Procedures

  4. Slightly Less Ancient History (1980-90’s) • Fan Delineations using FAN Model • ASFPM Communities Raise Concerns • FEMA Responds With NRC Committee • NRC Report “Alluvial Fan Flooding” (1996) • Not All Fans are Created Equal • Active/Inactive Distinction (Process v. Landform) • Importance of Geologic Evaluation • 3 Stage Delineation Procedure • Maricopa County PFHAM Methodology (1998)

  5. Recent History (1996-2010) • FEMA Appendix G: Alluvial Fans (2002) • Application of Appendix G Procedures • New Delineations (Not many) • CLOMR/LOMR Review (More)

  6. Is it Still History if it’s Last Week? • Maricopa County, Arizona (May 14th) • PFHAM Revision • State of California (DWR) • Alluvial Fan Task Force Report (May ~1st) • AFFED Program (On-going)

  7. Present • Maricopa County PFHAM Revisions • Objectives: • Provide Engineering Data for Structure Design • Delineation is not enough • Supplement Qualitative Geomorphic Approach with Quantitative Engineering Analyses • Composite Methodology • Apply New Tools & Procedures • Provide More Detailed Guidance

  8. Maricopa County PFHAM Revisions • Key Findings (Active Fans): • Fluvial Fans ≠ Debris Flow Fans • Hazard level is not the same • Two-Dimensional Modeling Needed & Useful • 2d or not 2d, that is the question no longer • Flow Attenuation is Important Process • Apex discharge is overly conservative • Sheet Flooding Dominates Fan Surface

  9. Maricopa County • Key Findings • Hazard Not Same Everywhere On Fan Surface • High Hazard vs. Low Hazard • Debris Flow vs. Water Floods • Avulsion vs. Non-Avulsion • High vs. Low Depth & Velocity • Avulsion Frequency (Risk) Not Well Known • Composite Methodology Preferred

  10. Maricopa County PFHAM Revisions • Key Findings (Con’t) • Methodology for Flow Path Uncertainty • Virtual Levee Scenario • Shameless plug for my Talk @ 11:30 Thursday in MR2-3 • Methodology for Avulsion Assessment • Methodology for Debris Flow Assessment • Methodology for Surficial Dating • Methodology for Defining High vs. Low Hazard Zones • Methodology for Identifying Sheet Flooding Zones • Methodology for Hydraulic Modeling • Recommended Design Guidelines

  11. Maricopa County PFHAM Revisions • Findings (Con’t) • Need for Improved Sediment Modeling Method • Need for Avulsion Frequency Analysis • Need for Improved Design Guidelines • Need for Updated FEMA Appendix G

  12. California Alluvial Fan Task Force • CA-DWR Funded • 10 Southern CA Counties • Draft Report Published May 2010 • Available for Review & Comment Now • Multi-Objective Format • Not Just Alluvial Fan Hazard Delineation • Planning, Environmental, Etc. • Draft Model Ordinance for Fans

  13. California Alluvial Fan Task Force • Fan Floodplain Delineation • Geomorphology-Based • Three Stage Process • CDWR AFFED • Flood Awareness Zones – Alluvial Fans • FLO2D & Geomorphology Tool • Not FEMA Delineations

  14. Near Future • ASFPM Arid Regions • White Paper: Need for Updating Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation Guidelines (Draft) • FEMA Appendix G…Ultimately • Maricopa County…Certainly • Other Communities…Maybe • 1st Step: Other ASFPM Committees • 2nd Step: ASFPM Executive Committee

  15. What This White Paper Is Not: • (Big print means this is important) • NOT: FEMA Bashing • NOT: Appendix G Bashing • NOT: Just Maricopa County • Why Update the Methodology? • Time…14 years since NRC Report • Experience…we’ve learned a bit since then • New Tools…technology changes fast • All methodologies need periodic review • RiskMAP: Better tools, better management • ASFPM Policies in Review (2007)…fan delineation

  16. ASFPM Arid Regions White Paper • Recommendations • #1: Recognize different types of active alluvial fans • Debris flow vs. fluvial fans • Channelized flooding vs. sheet flooding • #2: Distinguish high & low hazard zones on fans • Debris flow • High depth & velocity • Avulsion • Shallow sheet flooding

  17. Arid Regions White Paper • Recommendations • #3: Clarify Appendix G terminology • Active vs. elevation on fill • Active vs. sheet flooding • Active vs. upstream flow uncertainty • #4: Improve technical guidance for delineation • Composite method vs. prohibition on hydraulic models • CLOMR/LOMR allowed approaches, tools • #5: Recognize key process on active fans • Flow attenuation • Sheet flooding

  18. Arid Regions White Paper • Recommendations • #6: Conduct regular training • #7: Evaluate review process for consistency • #8: Investigate alluvial fan avulsion frequency • #9: Explore linkages between: • Improved delineation vs. flood insurance • Improved delineation vs. assignment of risk • Improved delineation vs. better management of hazard

  19. Questions & Comments

More Related