Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan Iroquois - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan Iroquois County Summary

Public Information Meeting February 13, 2020

Siavash Beik and Robert Barr

Kankakee River Flood & Sediment Management Work Plan

– Diagnose the Root Causes of Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flooding through Detailed Field and Desktop Assessment – Communicate the Extent of Existing Risks and Expected Trends (Changing Climate) – Identify Strategies for Addressing the Issues in a System-wide Approach – Develop a Work Plan for Implementing Various Strategies Specific to Each Area Within the Watershed (Main Stem Reaches, Laterals, Urban Areas, Ag Areas)

A Joint Indiana – Illinois Effort to Address a Legacy Problem Facing Both States!

What we heard in Illinois:

• Sand load is increasing
• More sand bars are developing
• Channel in Momence area is shifting
• Flooding is increasing in Momence, Aroma Park, and Watseka
• Dredging and tree removal in Indiana are concerns because of

their potential for increasing flows and sediment

RIVER HISTORY

Iroquois River upstream from Rensselaer, IN

Iroquois River upstream from Rensselaer, IN

Iroquois River downstream from Rensselaer to downstream from Brook, IN

Iroquois River downstream from Rensselaer

Iroquois River downstream from Brook, IN to Watseka, IL

Iroquois River downstream from Brook, IN to Watseka, IL

Iroquois River downstream from Watseka to Aroma Park, IL

Iroquois River downstream from Watseka, IL

KEY FINDINGS

Discharge comparison, Kankakee River and Iroquois River

Sediment Budget for Kankakee River System

Year Sediment Load (tons) Davis Oak Grove Knox Brems Shelby Momence Foresman Chebanse 542 mi2 377 mi2 435 mi2 438 mi2 1,779 mi2 2,294 mi2 449 mi2 2,091 mi2 2013

• 22,700

73,600 89,900

• 2014

23,700 15,300 37,700 17,800

• 2015

23,700 20,200 45,900 34,600 122,300

• 31,800
• 2016

27,000 17,200 41,800 36,800 105,000

• 25,000
• 2017

27,800 21,800 56,700 63,200 91,000

• 32,100
• 2018

29,100 29,200 102,900 114,400 117,600

• 36,200
• AVG

26,300 21,100 59,800 59,400 109,000 204,000 31,300 391,100

Changes at In-channel Islands near Aroma Park

Rill development and headward erosion, Newton County, IN

Rill development and headward erosion near Watseka, Iroquois County, IL

EXTENT OF EXISTING FLOOD RISKS AND TRENDS

EXTENT OF EXISTING FLOOD RISKS AND TRENDS

Source: USGRP, 2018, Fourth National Climate Assessment. Observed % Change in Total Annual Precipitation Falling in the Heaviest 1% of Events (1958 – 2016) Observed Decadal Trend of Heavy Precipitation (2-day, 5-year RI) in Midwest (1901-2012 compared with 1901-1960) Source: USGRP, 2014, Third National Climate Assessment (adapted from Kunkel et al. 2013)

Recorded Peak Annual Discharges at Iroquois River at Iroquois, IL USGS Gage (88% Increase!)

Recorded Peak Annual Discharges at Sugar Creek at Milford, IL USGS Gage (20% Increase!)

Recorded Peak Annual Discharges at Iroquois River at Chebanse, IL USGS Gage (81% Increase!)

Recorded Peak Annual Discharges at Kankakee River at Wilmington, IL USGS Gage (122% Increase!)

Why are Peak flows and Average daily Flow Volumes Increasing?

• Increased rainfall depths

and intensities due to climate change

• Uncompensated Impacts
• f urban development
• Increased agricultural

tiling and surface draining projects (some in response to increasing rainfalls!)

Observed % Change in Total Annual Precipitation Falling in the Heaviest 1% of Events (1958 – 2016)

Extensive tile drainage

How Do These Increasing Trends Affect Management Strategies?

• “Controlling” flooding by traditional structural alternatives is no

longer feasible or prudent (moving target)

• Strategies have to be cognizant of continued increase and

fluctuations in flows (management versus elimination of hazards)

• Nature-based solutions can better cope with changing climate

and fluctuations in flow

• Minimizing impacts of agricultural and urban development has

been and will become even more crucial

RECOMMENDATIONS

• 1. Adaptation

 Recognizing that flooding is going to occur and taking steps to reduce existing and future vulnerabilities to reduce pain and suffering

• 2. Mitigation

 Reducing the stressors to the system and the Flooding and Sedimentation sources to the extent possible through common sense and feasible actions without adverse impact to others

Addressing Systemic Flooding and Sedimentation in the Face of a Changing Climate

What is No-Adverse-Impact (NAI)

• No-Adverse-Impact Floodplain

Management

– ASFPM Defines NAI as: “… an approach that ensures the action

• f any property owner, public or private,

does not adversely impact the property and rights of others.” – NAI broadens property rights by protecting the property rights of those that would be adversely impacted by the actions of others. – The 2019 Kankakee Work Plan recommendations are consistent with NAI principles

• Adopt NAI Development Standards for Urban Areas
• Adopt NAI Standards for New Farm Drainage & Regulated Drain

Projects

• Develop and Implement Community-Specific Flood response Plans
• Develop and Implement Community-Specific Flood Resilience plans
• Incentivize Soil Health and cover crop use within the watershed
• Conduct a Detailed System Assessment and Develop a Work Plan for

the Entirety of Iroquois River (including Indiana)

• Conduct a Detailed System Assessment along Sugar Creek

Recommended Adaptation Strategies for the Iroquois River Watershed

Recommended Adaptation Strategies (cont.)

• Develop Flood Response Plans

– Flooding, such as that observed in 2018, cannot be prevented – Flood Response Plans help emergency responders with forecasting, detecting, classifying severity, and warning & evacuation priorities associated with an event – In Indiana, IDHS & OCRA were be able to help fund these plans

• Develop Flood Resilience Plans

– Strategies are needed to curb increase in flood vulnerability – Most effective resilience plans offer geographical-specific resilience strategies – In Indiana, FEMA, IDHS, & OCRA were be able to help fund these plans

Recommended Adaptation Strategies (cont.)

• Adopt Specific Flood

Resilience Strategies for Watseka, IL

River Corridor Impact Areas To conserve land and prohibit development Vulnerable Developed Areas To protect people, buildings, and facilities in the vulnerable areas and reduce future flood risk Undeveloped High Hazard/Flood Storage Areas To conserve land and maintain the natural and beneficial function of the floodway fringe Moderate Flood Hazard Areas To identify areas that are subject to flooding during an extreme event and to discourage future development in these areas Safer Areas To plan for and promote development in areas that are less vulnerable to future floods Watershed To promote coordination and partnerships and implement practices to slow, spread and infiltrate flood water

Recommended Adaptation Strategies (cont.)

• Conduct a Detailed System Assessment and

Develop a Work Plan for the Entirety of Iroquois River & Sugar Creek – The Iroquois River contributes more water and sediment to the Kankakee River downstream from the confluence than the Kankakee but has been studied much less than the Kankakee – A detailed system assessment of the Iroquois River (both in Indiana and in Illinois) as well as along Sugar Creek is needed to address increased peak discharges and sediment contributions that impact Watseka, Aroma Park and downstream areas

Location DA (mi2)

Sediment Load (tons/year)

1% AEP Discharge (cfs) Sand Silt/Clay Total Kankakee River above Iroquois River 2,378 54,000 176,000 230,000 22,000 Iroquois River at mouth 2,137 17,000 402,000 419,000 37,000 Wilmington, IL 5,150 76,000 766,000 842,000 85,000

• Sediment Supply Reduction:
• Address rill/gully erosion within Iroquois River Watershed (both

in Indiana and Illinois)

• Reduce sediment supply from severely eroded Iroquois River

Banks

• Mitigate Increase in Flows Caused by Tiling and Surface Ditching
• Construct new storage areas along laterals to Iroquois River both in

Indiana and Illinois

• Implement soil health practices such as cover crops
• Selective Floodproofing
• Strategically protect of critical facilities, infrastructures, and roads from

flooding through structure-specific perimeter protection & raising roads

Recommended Mitigation Strategies for the Iroquois River Watershed

Addressing Gully/Rill Erosion along Iroquois River Small Tributaries

Recommended Mitigation Strategies (cont.)

Recommended Mitigation Strategies (cont.)

• Construct off-line Retention or

detention storage areas along Laterals

– Needed to offset increase in runoff due to past and ongoing land drainage activities in the watershed and/or increased rainfall – Future drainage improvements by farmers or Drainage Boards /Drainage Districts should incorporate detention storage as part of improvement

Summary of Work Plan Components (Plan Sheets)

Identified Rill Erosion Site Streambank Stabilization Site Identified Rill Erosion Site

OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Other Alternatives Considered, but Not Recommended Due to Potential Adverse Impacts or Feasibility

 Constructing levees along the river  Bypass channel around Watseka

• Price will be very high (~ $300 millions) due to topographic constraints
• Would increase flooding downstream

 Large flood control reservoirs upstream of Watseka

• Need to be prohibitively large and expensive
• Would take several thousand acres of prime agricultural land out of production

 Clearing trees from banks  Increased tile drainage to reduce farm flooding  Construction/Improvement of rivers and ditches to increase flood conveyance

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Implementation Considerations

Need for Sustainable Funding

• A sustainable Source of funding is needed for implementing the Illinois portion of Work

Plan recommendations – Establish Illinois Iroquois River Conservancy District

Need for Continued Education and Outreach

• Continue reminding stakeholders of the importance of adaptation and No-Adverse-

Impact mitigation approach

Need for Continued Participation and Representation at the Indiana Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission and the Indiana Iroquois River Conservancy District

• Ensure that the recommended Work Plan components in Indiana are implemented as

stipulated in the Work Plan (i.e., according to No-Adverse-Impact principles)

• Start/continue close cooperation and coordination with the Indiana Iroquois River

Conservancy District

• Learn about and weigh in against activities that may negatively impact the Illinois reach

A Few Take Away Notes

 Most of the problems we face along streams in Indiana and Illinois:

• Flooding
• Erosion and stream instability
• Sediment aggradation

 Often times, the root causes of these problems are:

• Stressors within the watershed
• Increase in flows due to climate change
• Increase in flow due to unwise urban development
• Increase in flow due to farmers/drainage boards response to increased

rainfall/runoff

• Mis-steps in attempts to fix problems in one location (dredging, tiling, berming,

armoring banks) without an understanding of the entire stream system  Given a changing climate we are facing, the only way out is embracing a system-wide , watershed-based approach of adaptation and mitigation that includes No-Adverse-Impact development decisions, Smart Growth resilience strategies, and Nature-based solutions.  Sustainable Funding is needed to successfully implement Work Plan recommendations

QUESTIONS?

Siavash Beik, PE, CFM, D.WRE

Vice President, Principal Engineer Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LLC 115 West Washington Street, Suite 1368 South Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.266.8000 (office) 317.509.1673 (mobile) Email: sbeik@cbbel-in.com

Robert Barr

Research Scientist Center for Earth and Environmental Science Department of Earth Sciences IUPUI 317.278.6911 (office) 317.332.5463 (mobile) e-mail: rcbarr@iupui.edu