Significance of the Pakistan Floods of 2010 to America Could it happen here? Michele Seib, CFM Zachary Baccala, CFM 1 Index of Analysis • • • • • Background of floods along Indus River Hydrology of the Pakistan flood of 2010 Similarities in U.S. Watersheds Hazus Analysis of the Missouri River Impact Study – Could a similar catastrophe happen here? 2 Background – Indus River Facts • Primary source of agricultural water supply • Provides 45% of electricity for Pakistan • Majority of population live in the watershed http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photos/01/24/f8/5e/indus-river-and-fields.jpg obtained 5/15/2011 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/2YKQLSdquC0/TaGEbBL0NfI/AAAAAAAAEbk/RUTiBuswuSU/s1600/Indus +River+Pakistan+by+all+about+pakistran+%252819%2529.jpg obtained 5/15/2011 3 Background – 2010 Flood Facts According to the United Nations OCHA, • • • • • • 17.2 million people directly affected 1,539 lives claimed 1.2 million homes damaged or destroyed 3.2 million hectares of farmland destroyed Damaged 7,820 schools Massive infrastructure damage Photo of flooding in Muzaffargarh (AFP/Getty Images) 4 Background – Planning Factors Location of Development Lack of maintenance Flood warning system Lack of storage FLOODING http://www.floodrelief.us/wpcontent/uploads/2010/08/pakistan-flood-2009-817-12-41-15.jpg obtained 05/15/2011 5 Background – Flood Distribution based on: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,711885,00.html, Google Earth and Times Atlas, flooding zones as of 2010-8-26 Hydrology – Indus River • Precipitation and temperature primary contributors • Links Himalayans and groundwater from Indus alluvium fans • Large number of dams and barrages • Total Drainage area = 450,000 square miles 7 Hydrology – Flood Disaster Factors Duration of monsoon season Higher than normal precipitation Lack of maintenance Design Criteria of structures http://www.inmysense.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/flood-pakistan.jpg 8 Hydrology – Indus River Tarbela Kalabaugh Chashma Guddu Taunsa Sukkur Kotri http://ancien.riob.org/ag2000/pakistan.htm 9 Hydrology – Historical Peaks Site Design cfs MaximumQ cfs Date 2010 Q cfs Tarbela 1,500,000 832,000 July 30 2010 833,000 Kalabagh 950,000 937,453 July 30 2010 937,453 Chashma 950,000 1,038,873 August 1 2010 1,038,873 Taunsa 1,100,000 959,991 August 2 2010 959,991 Guddu 1,200,000 1,199,672 August 15 1976 1,148,738 Sukkur 1,500,000 1,166,574 August 15 1986 1,130,995 Kotri 875,000 980,329 August 14 1986 964,897 Data obtain from the Pakistan Meteorology Department 10 Hydrology – Study Locations Tarbela Taunsa Guddu 65,000 sq miles 180,000 sq miles 293,300 sq miles 833,000 cfs 959,991 cfs 1,130,000 cfs 11 Similarities – US Watersheds Missouri River Basin •Average discharge 86,340 cfs •529,350 square miles •Sourced by several springs http://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/rcc/images/mrr_map_1.jpg 12 Similarities – US Watersheds Fort Peck Dam, MT Sioux City, IA Bismark, ND Hermann, MO 13 Similarities – Gage Pairs Fort Peck Dam Montana Tarbela 65,000 sq miles 833,000 cfs 57,566 sq miles Q100 = 45,620 cfs Q500= 58,770 cfs Historical Peak= 51,000 cfs (1946) Bismark North Dakota Taunsa 180,000 sq miles 959,991 cfs 186,400 sq miles Q100 = 325,200 cfs Q500=548,500 cfs Historical Peak= 500,000 cfs (1952) Sioux City Iowa Guddu 293,300 sq miles 1,130,000cfs 314,600 sq miles Q100 = 445,600 cfs Q500=571,100 cfs Historical Peak= 441,000 cfs (1952) 14 Similarities – Gage Pair Hermann Missouri Kotri *450,000 sq miles 964,000 cfs 573,566 sq miles Q100 = 703,900 cfs Q500= 862,100 cfs Historical Peak= 750,000 cfs (1993) 15 Hydrologically speaking, could an event happen along the Missouri River? 16 Hazus Modelled Losses 17 •Hazus MR5 Hazus •DEMs from USGS Seamless •DEMs for Canada from SRTM 90mtr data •Resampled to 30mtr •20 sq mile drainage area used for stream network creation •Single Discharge Methodology •Section 1: 833,000 •Section 2: 959,991 •Section 3: 1,140,000 18 Hazus – Selected Communities • Bismarck, North Dakota • 1952 Floods •27.9 feet, 200 homes destroyed •300 head of cattle •Modeled Flood (Section 2) •31 feet •7,124 homes impacted •3,788 substantially damage •$1,232,086,000 Total Loss •Mandan, ND also heavily impacted 19 Hazus – Selected Communities • Sioux City, Iowa • 1952 Floods •24.3 feet •$3,264,000 in damages •Modeled Flood (Section 3) •33 feet •5,240 homes impacted •3,246 substantially damage •$1,694,734,000 Total Loss •Dakota County, NE also heavily impacted 20 Hazus – Selected Communities • Omaha, Nebraska • 1952 Flood •30.25 feet •$445,018,700 in damages •414,000 cfs •5 miles wide •Altered course of river •Modeled Flood (Section 3) •33 feet •9,463 homes impacted •7,665 substantially damage •$2,742,164,000 Total Loss •Almost 7 miles wide •1,140,000 cfs 21 Hazus Agricultural Analysis •Parameter and Losses •Agriculture Parameter: May 1st •Agricultural Losses Totaling $352,450,000 •Majority Corn, Soybeans, Wheat and Oats Corn $45,927,074 $45,489,204 Soybeans Wheat Oats $42,089,290 $6,464,674 22 Hazus •General Building Stock •$7,070,296,000 Total Losses Nebraska MT Iowa Stanley Hughes Yankton Union Clay Morton Burleigh Monona Pottawattamie Fremont Richland Cedar Boyd Thurston Douglas Dakota • Schools •59 schools •$216,594,290 Building Damage 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Burt •Shelters •Displaced Population: 106,845 •Short Term Needs: 93,088 Building Loss Ratio South Dakota 23 Other Impacts •Transportation Systems •Airports •4 large airports, including Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Nebraska and Sioux Gateway Airport (Colonel Bud Day Field) in Sioux City, Iowa •Roads •235 Major Highway segments •32 of Highway crossings •Rails •1,085 miles inundated •8 rail crossings 24 Environmental Hazards •Over 7500 Public Water Source wells •TRI Sites •173 Sites •Agricultural, Fuel Depots, Industrial chemicals •Waste Water Treatment Facilities •Over 40 •16 Classified as Major 25 Environmental Hazards •Over 7500 Public Water Source wells •TRI Sites •173 Sites •Agricultural, Fuel Depots, Industrial chemicals •Waste Water Treatment Facilities •Over 40 •16 Classified as Major 26 Could such an event happen in the US? •From an engineering perspective •Yes, but only at the mouth •From a economic perspective •Relief Aid •Income/Educational differences •Government Organizations •From a quality of life perspective 27 Questions • Michele Seib: [email protected] •Zachary Baccala: [email protected] 28