Browsing by Subject "Taking Stock - Floods/Flooding"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2012 Northeast and Central Minnesota Flooding
    (2015) Curtice, Brian
    This three-page pdf is a FEMA proclamation issued on July 6 2012 concerning the June 14-21 2012 floods in the Duluth area. All of Minnesota's coastal counties and communities were included in the declaration, along with the Fond du Lac, Mille Lacs and Grand Portage bands of Ojibwe. The declaration includes public assistance and disaster mitigation in the affected areas totaling $44.7 million. Also noted is emergency legislation totaling $167 million passed by a special session of the Minnesota Legislature and signed by Governor Mark Dayton.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Duluth Residential Stormwater Reduction Demonstration Project for Lake Superior Tributaries
    (2011-07-30) Kleist, Chris; Brady, Valerie; Johnson, Lucinda B; Schomberg, Jesse
    We used paired 2‐block street sections in the Amity Creek watershed (Duluth, MN) to demonstrate the effectiveness of homeowner BMPs to reduce residential stormwater flow to storm sewers in an older neighborhood in a cold climate on clay and bedrock geology. Runoff from each street was measured before and after installation of stormwater BMPs. In addition, the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of residents were measured before and after BMP installation. BMPs were installed on properties of willing residents of one street (“treatment”). Most residents (22 of 25 properties) willingly participated. 250 trees and shrubs were planted; 22 rain barrels were installed; 5 rain gardens, 12 rock‐sump storage basins, and 2 swales were constructed; and a stormwater ditch was re‐dug and had 5 ditch checks installed in it. The post‐project survey indicated an increase in understanding by treatment‐street residents of where stormwater flowed to and what it affected, and an increase in willingness to accept at least some responsibility for stormwater runoff. Residents who received BMPs were generally satisfied with them and would recommend them to others. Runoff reduction proved more difficult to quantify due to high and inconsistent runoff variability between the paired streets, very few pre‐BMP installation rain events, and loss of one control street due to re‐paving mid‐project. Capacity of installed BMPs is approximately 2.5% of the measured stormwater runoff. There is about a 20% greater reduction in runoff for the treatment street after BMPs were installed than for the control street for small to moderate storm events; while we would like to attribute this completely to our BMPs, we cannot prove that other factors weren’t also at work. Peak flows also appear to have been reduced for 1 inch and smaller rainstorms, but we were unable to accurately measure this reduction. The results are available on an existing stream education website and are used to educate neighborhood, city of Duluth, and regional residents on stormwater issues, individual responsibility, and BMP options.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Floods of June 2012 in Northeastern Minnesota
    (2012) Czuba, Christiana R; Fallon, James D; Kessler, Eric W
    This report is a summary description of the 2012 flooding in the Fond du Lac region of Lake Superior from a meteorological and hydrologic perspective. The report notes that the extent and depth of flooding in communities can be used for flood recovery efforts. Key points are reproduced below. Abstract: “During June 19–20, 2012, heavy rainfall, as much as 10 inches locally reported, caused severe flooding across northeastern Minnesota. The floods were exacerbated by wet antecedent conditions from a relatively rainy spring, with May 2012 as one of the wettest Mays on record in Duluth. The June 19–20, 2012, rainfall event set new records in Duluth, including greatest 2-day precipitation with 7.25 inches of rain. The heavy rains fell on three major watersheds: the Mississippi Headwaters; the St. Croix, which drains to the Mississippi River; and Western Lake Superior, which includes the St. Louis River and other tributaries to Lake Superior. Widespread flash and river flooding that resulted from the heavy rainfall caused evacuations of residents, and damages to residences, businesses, and infrastructure. In all, nine counties in northeastern Minnesota were declared Federal disaster areas as a result of the flooding. Peak-of-record streamflows were recorded at 13 U.S. Geological Survey stream gages as a result of the heavy rainfall. Flood-peak gage heights, peak streamflows, and annual exceedance probabilities were tabulated for 35 U.S. Geological Survey stream gages. Flood-peak streamflows in June 2012 had annual exceedance probabilities estimated to be less than 0.002 (0.2 percent; recurrence interval greater than 500 years) for five stream gages, and between 0.002 and 0.01 (1 percent; recurrence interval greater than 100 years) for four stream gages. High-water marks were identified and tabulated for the most severely affected communities of Barnum (Moose Horn River), Carlton (Otter Creek), Duluth Heights neighborhood of Duluth (Miller Creek), Fond du Lac neighborhood of Duluth (St. Louis River), Moose Lake (Moose Horn River and Moosehead Lake), and Thomson (Thomson Reservoir outflow near the St. Louis River). Flood-peak inundation maps and water-surface profiles were produced for these six severely affected communities. The inundation maps were constructed in a geographic information system by combining high-water-mark data with high-resolution digital elevation model data. The flood maps and profiles show the extent and depth of flooding through the communities and can be used for flood response and recovery efforts by local, county, State, and Federal agencies.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Hazards of Living on the Edge of Water: The Case of Minnesota Point, Duluth, Minnesota
    (1989) Rasid, Harun; Hufferd, James
    This peer-reviewed article summarizes an opinion survey of property owners on Minnesota Point and their views about the causes of water level fluctuation in Lake Superior. The study found that residents attributed lake level fluctuation on manipulation by the International Joint Commission, rather than other limnological, hydrologic or climate-related factors. Abstract: "Based on a systematic sample among the residents of Minnesota Point, a freshwater spit/baymouth bar on the southwest shore of Lake Superior, this study tests a number of hypotheses related to the perceived causes of lake level fluctuation and shore property hazards. The study found that despite significant differences in property setting and the nature of flood and erosion hazards between the lakeside and bayside of the spit, the majority of the residents perceived that their property hazards were induced by the manipulation of lake levels by the International Joint Commission (IJC). Consequently, one in every two respondents would like to lower the lake level by amounts ranging from 30cm to more than one m. The study points out the physical limitations of controlling water levels and recommends that greater attention should be given to shoreline management, which provide guidelines for protecting existing coastal structures and for developing minimum standards for future encroachment of the remaining unused sections of the shoreline. "The popular misperception of current levels of high water levels in the Great Lakes is an example of misplaced blame for natural phenomena. The regulation of lake levels by the IJC is postulated as the main cause of lake level fluctuation and very little attention is given to more important natural causes. Such an attitude is pervasive among coastal residents on the Great Lakes who tend to absolve themselves of any responsibility for occupying the hazardous edge of water by resorting to this explanation. “To cope with flood and erosion hazards, many property owners have made use of a range of protection measures, but most of them perceived lower lake levels as a higher priority than providing shore protection measures. Consequently, very few respondents would like to bear full responsibility for shore protection measures, despite the fact that they made the choice to live on the hazardous edge of water."
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan Annual Report 2013
    (2013) Minnesota Sea Grant
    This pdf summarizes progress made toward achieving the goals of the Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP). In 2013, LAMP will focus on invasive species, land use change, biodiversity, chemicals of concern and potential effects of climate change. The findings and recommendations included in the International Joint Commission’s March 2012 summary of findings and recommendations on regulation of water levels in Lake Superior will also be considered. The report lists seven specific sites were progress has been made on clean-ups of contamination in Areas of Concern (AoCs). The report lists ongoing challenges including stressors (contaminants, climate change, chemicals, and the need to monitor these stressors), including the 2012 floods on US and Canadian areas of Lake Superior. The report briefly lists next steps (implementing projects; prevention of invasive species; working with mining and power companies; protecting and restoring habitat, etc.).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Lakeside Stormwater Reduction Project (LSRP): Evaluating the Impacts of a Paired Watershed Experiment on Local Residents
    (2011) Eckman, Karlyn; Brady, Valerie; Schomberg, Jesse
    Scientists, city utilities staff, and local environmental engineers teamed up with homeowners to determine the best ways to reduce stormwater runoff from the Lakeside residential neighborhood in Duluth. The Lakeside Stormwater Reduction Project (LSRP) used a paired-watershed approach to assess the results of diverse stormwater treatments in the Lakeside neighborhood of Duluth on stormwater runoff into Amity Creek. The project investigated various installations that reduce runoff and can be easily maintained by homeowners. The goal was to identify effective methods to reduce runoff contributing to problems in Amity Creek and the Lester River. To complement extensive biophysical monitoring, a knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) study was done in April 2008. The purpose was to obtain baseline human dimensions data; assess residents’ willingness to participate in the project; and to identify possible barriers to adoption. Baseline information and residents’ views about stormwater issues were obtained in April 2008. The first-round KAP data was used to refine project design, and to identify possible barriers to participation. The study was repeated with the same sample in September 2010 to evaluate outcomes and impacts. Comparison of the pre and post KAP data shows a significant increase in respondent knowledge about stormwater, a positive shift in attitudes, and strong evidence of adoption of stormwater practices as a result of project efforts. The project successfully increased awareness among residents about the impacts of stormwater on Amity Creek and the Lester River, and fostered adoption of stormwater management practices by homeowners, even in the control sample.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Northeast Minnesota Flash Flood Disaster - Economic Development Impact Study
    (2013) Arrowhead Regional Development Commission
    ARDC conducted a study to determine economic development impacts of the 2012 flood. ARDC collected information from all levels of government and held small group interviews to analyze gaps in data and identify lessons learned. Recommendations are paraphrased and summarized below. “A. Develop and Mobilize Micro Loans and Micro Grants for Disaster Response and Recovery. Micro loans and micro grants have been identified as a best practice for providing quick assistance to small businesses. The Northland Foundation’s Business Flood Recovery Fund has been cited as one of the most successful local response efforts following the 2012 floods. The program should be evaluated to learn how the region can keep the basic infrastructure of this program in place and how other groups can duplicate it or enhance it so that it can be remobilized even quicker in the aftermath of a future disaster. Micro loans should be explored as a source of assistance immediately following a disaster. Regional economic development funds, revolving loan funds and additional commercial lenders should examine their capacity and adopt disaster recovery lending programs that could be enacted immediately after future disasters. B. Maximize Planning and Zoning for Disaster Mitigation, Response, Recovery and Resiliency. 1. Land Use Planning: Decisions made before and after a disaster affect the resiliency and recovery of a community in the event of a disaster. Communities that integrate disaster resiliency into land use planning and development decisions can mitigate potential disaster impacts by: a. Integrating a hazard element into Comprehensive Plans, either as a stand-alone section or in discussion of other plan sections such as housing, infrastructure, and economic development. b. Assessing disaster vulnerability of sites in development plans. c. Encouraging development in less hazardous areas. d. Minimizing or mitigating vulnerable types of development in hazardous areas. e. Reducing disaster vulnerability through land use and zoning regulations. 2. Economic Development Planning. Recovery dictates long term success. The return of jobs, tourism, and capital investments are dependent on housing recovery, infrastructure restoration, environmental restoration, and social service provision. Communities should integrate disaster resiliency into economic development planning by: a. Assessing the unique needs and challenges for small businesses, large employers, economic diversification, and workforce/residents in the face of a disaster. b. Prioritizing economic development projects that are disaster resilient and fill a need in the post disaster community. c. Encouraging all physical projects to address disaster resiliency in the planning stage. 3. Infrastructure and Public Facilities: Restoration of infrastructure and public facilities is a prerequisite for recovery. Communities should prioritize long term infrastructure needs to take advantage of opportunity to upgrade, mitigate, or relocate infrastructure following a disaster. In the rush to rebuild, communities should be prepared to avoid repeating mistakes or missing opportunities to develop systems that will serve their residents and businesses better in the future. A disaster resiliency factor should be added to routine capital project planning. 4. Planning and Recovery Facilitation: To support community planning for and recovery from disasters, ARDC is available to work with communities on a project basis to: a. Offer a forum to convene diverse stakeholders and facilitate discussion and planning initiatives around the issues of economic resiliency and preparedness. b. Provide communities and businesses with regional demographic and economic data, hazard vulnerability and mitigation data, and disaster impact data. c. Establish familiarity with economic and community recovery funding sources and programs. d. Explore how ARDC’s revolving loan fund can be used to assist disaster impacted businesses. C. Improve information cataloging for long - term recovery and resiliency ARDC found that a lack of a one - stop portal for information on the evolving economic impact of the disaster is a challenge to long term planning and recovery efforts. A one - stop data repository may be best set up at the county and state levels. An up – to - date data repository can be useful for: • Developing and securing funding for recovery and resiliency programs and assessing the effectiveness of mitigation programs. (TIF districts, redevelopment programs, business continuity planning) • Establishing baseline to assess the long -term issues presented by future disasters in the region or elsewhere in the state. • Developing new local, regional, and state policies and programs. • Developing disaster profiles for use in community planning. • Developing tools and metrics for evaluating progress against set goals, objectives and milestones.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Urban Flooding in the Great Lakes States: A Municipality/Utility Survey Report
    (2012-07) Center for Neighborhood Technology
    As part of our Smart Water for Smart Regions initiative, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is working with communities across Great Lakes states to alleviate urban flooding. The purpose of this survey is to develop an understanding of the effect of flooding on Great Lakes cities and to identify strategies to manage the problem. By providing a baseline of practices and policies among municipal stormwater/sewer utilities, the survey results are intended to support collaborative initiatives for dealing with flooding. Our survey, the first of its kind in the Great Lakes, found that municipalities and stormwater utilities face significant challenges. The 30 survey respondents serve 330 municipalities with a population of approximately 19.7 million people—nearly 23 percent of the total population of the Great Lakes states and province.4 All 30 respondents received flooding complaints, with 80 percent characterizing the annual number of complaints as medium or large. Stormwater is flooding into people’s backyards, streets, and parking lots (90 percent of respondents said), into the interior of buildings through sewer backups (83.3 percent), and through the walls of homes and buildings (46.7 percent).