Floods on the SusquehannaA Comparative Analysis of Flood Mitigation Policies

in Ten River Towns of the Susquehanna River HeartlandRyan P. Murphy*; Ellen M. Kalnins*; L. Donald Duke, Ph.D., P.E.**

*Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg PA**Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers FL

Introduction

Floods on the central Susquehanna River have caused damage and taken lives since the area was first settled by European immigrants in the 1750s. Continuing land use development in the flood plains was the subject of protective actions by federal, state, and local agencies since about the 1930s, producing a complex web of interacting structural and non-structural measures intended to control, reduce, or limit the impacts of frequent high water events and infrequent extreme floods on the river and on the network of rapidly-responding creeks and tributaries that drain storm water from the towns into the river. Multiple autonomous boroughs and townships in the seven-county Heartland region have not only received interventions from federal and state agencies, but also responded individually to federal and state funding options, agency guidelines, and policy priorities, generating a wide range of approaches - some that effectively complement one another and others that conflict or interfere with other priorities within municipalities and among nearby municipalities that are linked by high water but divided by political borders.

This research investigates the overall approach to flood control by ten selected municipalities in the Susquehanna Heartland region, identifying the approaches and the specific instruments implemented by each municipality; integrated solutions that address multiple problems; the advantages and disadvantages of the approach and the instruments for the circumstances of each; the institutional driving forces and geographic conditions that led to those choices; and institutional and other barriers to improved flood mitigation.

Findings: Main Features by MunicipalityWalls and Levees: Evolution of the Institutional Approach1. Works Progress Administration projects, 1930s. Example: Sunbury

Limited engineering design. Subsumed in later structures or dismantled.

2. US Army Corps of Engineers projects, 1940s-1950s. Examples: Williamsport region; Sunbury

Federal funded construction, strong engineering design, limited public input; municipality assumes funding for maintenance/operation.

3. PA Department of Environmental Protection projects with local participation, 1950s – present. Example: Danville

Constructed piecemeal per local priorities as funding acquired.

4. USACE collaborative projects, 1990s. Example: Lock HavenFederal action required collaboration by municipalities; structure funded on condition of land use changes by municipal partners.

5. Public/private partnerships, 2010s. Example: Bloomsburg (begun 2013)Levee protecting limited acreage, sensitive land uses ; funding from State agency grants, matched by municipality and corporations.

Acquisition of At-Risk Properties in Flood Plains1. HUD Disaster Redevelopment Programs of 1970s deeply altered the towns.

2. FEMA and PEMA Repetitive Loss programs support acquisition by municipalities – pays property owner 75% of assessed value.Includes special one-time funding for Tropical Storm Lee damages, 2011.

Some municipalities embrace (Bloomsburg , Lycoming Co., Milton past) • Permanently eliminates hazard and insurance damages.• Property must be owned, maintained by municipality. Open space only!• Can be used as recreational areas, civic improvement.• Works best with sparsely populated areas or where municipality can

strategically target neighborhoods.• Post-disasters, some towns received PA DCED grants to acquire, 12.5% or

more; remainder paid by property owner and/or municipal general funds.

Some municipalities reject or discourage (Selinsgrove, Milton present)• Removes property from tax rolls; usually a relocated homeowner exits the

borough, as many are largely built out within borough limits. • Requires indefinite ownership and maintenance by municipality.• How many ball parks do we need? Land use sharply limited.• If prioritized by financial loss (most readily accepted by owners),

leaves ‘patchwork’ of vacant / occupied properties.

BLOOMSBURG DANVILLE LEWISBURG LOCK HAVENMILTONNORTHUMBERLANDSELINSGROVESOUTH WILLIAMSPORTSUNBURYWILLIAMSPORT

One Municipality’s Adaptation over Time:Danville Builds its Levee System over 70 Years

We are grateful for the cooperation, time and effort, and thoughtful discussion provided by a myriad of public agency personnel and non-government agency analysts in the Susquehanna Heartland region, including: William Lowthern, Town of Bloomsburg; William Frantz, Clinton County EMA; Tom Graham, Borough of Danville; Chad Smith, Borough of Lewisburg; Gary Ferree, City of Lock Haven; John LaVelle, Lycoming County Hazard Mitigation; Janice Bowman, Borough of Northumberland; Jake Kernoschak, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Janet Powers, Borough of Selinsgove; Mike Miller, Borough of South Williamsport; Jeffery Lewis, City of Sunbury; William Wright, City of Williamsport; William Siegel, SEDA-COG; Trish Carothers and Brian Auman, Susquehanna Greenways Partnership; Heather Ross and Helen Sheehy, Penn State University Library.

This research was funded by the Degenstein Foundation via the Susquehanna River Heartland Center for Environmental Studies, and by the Bucknell University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Observations and Conclusions

Cost,$ x 106 #

1958 Raised and improved 1300 feet of existing informal earth levees at upstream end of town: raises flood stage to 24 ft along Susquehanna River front

0.045

1968 • Constructed Susquehanna River levees: 5,900 feet, downtown river frontage;3,300 feet, downstream (high school, WWTP)

• Hospital tributaries: new levee, channel redesign, etc• Mahoning Creek: channel redesign, 400 ft

0.49

1970 Mahoning Creek: 4000 feet channel redesign; riprap armoring; concrete walls to raise flood stage further

0.42

1976 In-town drainage (Sechler Run, Blizzard Run): Channel redesign, culvert improvements, etc

1.8

1977 Susquehanna River upstream levee flood stage raised 4 ft (5,900 ft length); downtown drainage improvements, road closure improvements

0.34

1981 Susquehanna River downtown levees and Mahoning Creek levees raised 4 ft (7,800 ft length); further road closure improvements

1.2

1987 Pump station constructed (3 pumps) for in-town storm runoff drainage during high river flows

2.0

2003 Refurbished existing pumps 0.75

2005 Tributary levees: riprap armoring, closure improvements 1.1

2007 Mahoning Creek: 3,100 ft new earth levee; 490 ft. concrete wall at low points on levee; improved closure structures for roads, railroads

2.5

2013 Closed levee at Mahoning Creek by relocating Rt 11 and railroad: final gap in Danville system closed

1.5

# Nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation.Includes PA State funds only. 2013 project funded by PA DCED (“H2O grant”), all others by PDEP.

Structural Flood Barriers Private Property Demolition and Rehabilitation

1970Population

2010Population

Concrete Wall, Miles

Earth Levee, Miles

Cost (Initial Construction),

$ x 106 # Agency, YearCost,

$ x 106 #Properties

DemolishedPropertiesRehabbed

Selinsgrove 5,100 5,800 -.- -.- -.- PEMA 2011 ? 0 29

Sunbury 13,000 9,900 2.4 2.6 6.6 1951

-.- -.- 0 0

Northumberland 4,100 3,800 -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- 0 0

Danville 6,200 4,700 -.- 5.1 12.4##1958-2014

HUD 1973 5.4 ? ?

Bloomsburg 12,000 15,100 -.- 1.02.0

8.5 2012

30 2014

a. HUD 1973b. PEMA 2011

3.8?

4511

600pending

Lewisburg 5,700 5,800 -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- 3 0Milton 7,700 7,000 -.- -.- -.- HUD 1973 12.3 ? ?Williamsport 38,000 29,500 1.12 12.7 14.1

1954

-.- -.- 0 0

South Williamsport 7,200 6,400 -.- 2.3 Included in above -.- -.- 0 0Other Lycoming Co.

boroughs/townships

68,100 80,100 -.- -.- -.- a. HUD 1973b. PEMA 2011

6.9?

??

?420

Lock Haven 11,500 9,500 0.2 6.5 86 1994

a. HUD 1973b. PDEP 1990**

11?

??

??

# Federal portion only. Nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation, except Danville ## State portion only. Approximated in 2013 constant dollars• *One private project, two planned state/local ** Acquisitions in Woodward Township as partnership with USACE for levee construction

Acknowledgments

Union County comprehensive plan, A Plan for Development, 1975: Policy Statements, Land Utilization, “5. To use flood plains and steep lands as part of the open space of the county.”

1967 Wolfe Field, in Buffalo Creek flood plain, created from former 'town dump' site

1984 Hufnagel Park dedicated, Lewisburg: Borough acquired and cleared residential properties damaged by Tropical Storm Agnes

2005 Lewisburg Area Recreation Park opened, 22 acres wetland; planned by neighborhood assn.,funded by PA DCNR, local funds, donors.

2015 Pending

6th Street redevelopment to remove 10 residences in downtown Bull Run flood plain

Open space serves as 'spreading zones' to accommodate high flows on urban creeks

One Municipality’s Adaptation over Time:Lewisburg Acquires Flood-Risk Properties

Study Area

Sources for This Research

• Local municipalities’ Web sites and documents: agency operational plans; budgets; historical summaries

• Scholarly articles and texts

• Federal and State agencies’ Web sites and documents:— U.S. Army Corps of Engineers— U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development — U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency— PA Emergency Management Agency— PA Department of Environmental Protection— PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources— PA Department of Community and Economic Development

• Libraries: Bucknell University; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers archives; Penn State University government documents

• Local agency personnel: First-hand interviews and site tours

Bucknell University Environmental Center Susquehanna River Initiative

Future ResearchPreliminary findings raised many questions. At summer’s end we left copious notes, summaries, tables, bibliographies, and analyses to facilitate further work.