FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF TINAU KHOLA WATERSHED, NEPAL

A DISSERTATION

FOR THE PARTIAL FULFI LLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMP LETION OF MASTERS DEGREE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

SUBMITTED TO CENTRAL DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE INTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY, KIRTIPUR KATHMANDU, NEPAL

SUBMITTED BY Uttam Paudel T.U. Regd. No. 5-2-37-655-2003

July, 2011

LETTER OF APPROVAL
Date: July, 2011 The dissertation entitled FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF TINAU KHOLA WATERSHED, NEPAL submitted by Mr. Uttam Paudel is accepted and duly approved as the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of Masters degree part II (Mountain Environment) in Environmental Science.

____________________________ Ananta Man Singh Pradhan Supervisor Department of Electricity Development (DOED) Ministry of Energy, Government of Nepal

____________________________ Kedar Rijal, Ph.D. Associate Prof. and Department Head Central Department of Environmental Science (CDES) Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

______________________________ Gyan Kumar Chippi Shrestha Co-Supervisor Central Department of Environmental Science (CDES) Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

___________________________ Suman Man Shrestha Internal Examiner Central Department of Environmental Science (CDES) Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

____________________________ Dr. Khada Nanda Dulal External Examiner Department Head, Kantipur Engineering College, Institute of Engineering (IOE) Tribhuvan University, Nepal

ii

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION
Date: July, 2011

This is to certify that Mr. Uttam Paudel has completed this dissertation work entitled FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF TINAU KHOLA WATERSHED, NEPAL for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of Masters degree part II (Mountain Environment) in Environmental Science and that the work was completed under our supervision and guidance. To my knowledge, this research reflects the researchers own effort and has not been submitted for any other degree, anywhere else. We therefore recommend the dissertation for acceptance and approval.

______________________________ Gyan Kumar Chippi Shrestha (Co-Supervisor) Central Department of Environmental Science (CDES) Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal

_____________________________ Ananta Man Singh Pradhan (Supervisor) Department of Electricity Development (DOED) Ministry of Energy, Government of Nepal

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I offer my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor, Mr. Ananta Man Singh Pradhan, whose propitious guidance and support alongside constant encouragement helped me throughout my dissertation work. I owe him a million thanks for his belief in me, for that gave me the confidence to achieve. I express my heartiest gratitude to the head of department, Central department of Environmental Science, Associate Prof. Kedar Rijal, Ph.D., for his incessant encouragement and support for the research work. Especial thanks to my co-supervisor Mr. Gyan Kumar Chippi Shrestha, for his valuable inputs and suggestions. I highly value the long cooperation and continuous encouragement of my friends Mr. Aavash Paudel, Mr. Rabin Raj Niraula, and Mr. Sajan Neupane whose help and support enabled me to accomplish my research. Thank you buddies. I am also obliged to all the teachers and staffs of Central Department of Environmental Science for their continuous help and support in one way or the other during the entire course of my study. My heartful appreciation goes to my father Mr. Pramod Kumar Paudel and my mother Sarala Devi Paudel, my sisters Mrs. Sunita Gautam, Mrs. Sangita Tripathee and Mrs. Ranjita Uprety. They deserve a special mentioning for their inseparable support, love and prayers that blessed my heart and supported me all these years for what I am today. In the end I would like to thank my wife Mrs. Neelam Niroula Paudel, for her love and support. Uttam Paudel

iv

DECLARATION

I, Uttam Paudel, hereby declare that this thesis entitled FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF TINAU KHOLA WATERSHED, NEPAL is my own work except wherever acknowledged. Errors if any are the sole responsibility of my own. I have not submitted the study or any of part of it for an academic degree anywhere else.

Uttam Paudel July, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF APPROVAL .........................................................................................................................................II LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................................................................III ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... IV DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................... IX ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... X CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 RATIONALE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 STEADY FLOW LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER II .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF FLOODS IN NEPAL .................................................................................................. 8 2.2 FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 TINAU RIVER FLOODING .................................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.5 TOOLS FOR FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS AND MAPPING ................................................................................................ 13 2.5.1 Geographical Information System (GIS)........................................................................................... 14 2.5.2 Details of Selected Flood Simulation Models ................................................................................... 14 2.6 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 18 3.1.1 Comparison BetweenFlood Frequency Methods ............................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Flood Flow Calculation ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Selection of Model/Tools for Analysis .............................................................................................. 22 3.1.4 Methods for Steady Flow Model ...................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 4. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 28 4.1 4.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SUB-BASINS ...................................................................................................................... 29 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION .......................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 5. RESULT..................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 33 LANDUSE/LAND COVER MAP, DEM,.................................................................................................................. 34 FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 35 FLOOD VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 39 FLOOD RISK ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER VI ....................................................................................................................................................... 45 6. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 45 6.1 6.2 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 45 FLOOD VULNERABILITY AND RISK ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER VII ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER VIII ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 8. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 50

REFRENCES........................................................................................................................................................ 51 ANNEX .............................................................................................................................................................. 57 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 ONE DIMENSIONAL FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS USING HEC-RAS, ARCGIS AND HEC-GEORAS. .......................................... 25 FIGURE 2STUDY AREA - TINAU RIVER BASIN ....................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 3 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF TINAU RIVER ............................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 4 TINAU WATERSHED SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS........................................ 31 FIGURE 5 LAND HOLDING PATTERN IN TINAU WATERSHED ................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 6 MAXIMUM INSTANTANEOUS ANNUAL FLOOD DISCHARGE DATA AT TINAU RIVER, DHM STATION NO. 390 ....................... 33 FIGURE 7LANDUSE/ LAND COVER MAP OF THE TINAU BASIN ................................................................................................. 34 FIGURE 8PIE-CHART SHOWING AREA UNDER VARIOUS LANDUSE CLASS, ................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 9DEM OF THE STUDY AREA................................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 10 RETURN PERIODS AND AREA INUNDATION RELATIONSHIP ..................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 11 FLOOD HAZARD MAP FOR THE 1 IN 5 YEARS FLOOD ............................................................................................. 36 FIGURE 12 FLOOD HAZARD MAP FOR THE 1 IN 10 YEARS FLOOD ........................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 13 FLOOD HAZARD MAP FOR THE 1 IN 50 YEARS FLOOD ........................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 14 FLOOD HAZARD MAP FOR THE 1 IN 100 YEARS FLOOD ......................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 15FLOOD HAZARD MAP FOR THE 1 IN 200 YEARS FLOOD .......................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 16VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF LANDUSE TO FLOOD HAZARD OF VARIOUS RETURN PERIODS ..................................... 39 FIGURE 17VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTANT LANDUSE TO FLOOD HAZARD OF VARIOUS RETURN PERIODS .................... 40 FIGURE 18 CHANGE IN INUNDATED AREA WITHIN SETTLEMENT AREA ALONG VARIOUS RETURN PERIODS ........................................ 40 FIGURE 19 CHART SHOWING DEPTH OF INUNDATIONAND THE RESPECTIVE INUNDATED AREA ALONG THE DEFINED RETURN PERIOD. .... 41 FIGURE 20 RISK CLASSIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT LANDUSE TYPE............................................................................................ 42 FIGURE 21 RISK CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND..................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 22 FLOOD RISK MAP OF BUTWAL MUNICIPALITY ..................................................................................................... 43

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1FLOOD DISCHARGE ESTIMATION (LOG PEARSON TYPE III METHOD) ............................................................................ 19 TABLE 2 FLOOD DISCHARGE ESTIMATION (GUMBEL'S EV1 METHOD) .................................................................................... 20 TABLE 3 VALUES OF STANDARD NORMAL VARIATE S USED IN WECS/ DHM ............................................................................. 22 TABLE 4MANNING'S ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT FOR DIFFERENT LANDUSE (CHOW, 1959) ......................................................... 24 TABLE 5 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TINAU RIVER ........................................................................................................ 30 TABLE 6SUB-BASIN CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TINAU WATERSHED ............................................................................................ 30 TABLE 7 MAXIMUM INSTANTANEOUS ANNUAL FLOOD DISCHARGE DATA OF THE TINAU RIVER AT DHM STATION NO. 390 ............... 31 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED PEAK DISCHARGE AT TINAU RIVER ........................................................................................................ 33 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED PEAK DISCHARGE OF THE UPPER REACHES OF TINAU RIVER ......................................................................... 34

TABLE 12 VDC WISE FLOOD HAZARD AT VARIOUS RETURN PERIODS ........................................................................................ 43 TABLE 13 FLOOD IMPACT TO THE BUILDING UNITS ............................................................................................................. 44

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CRED DEM DHM DoI DPTC DWIDP EM-DAT ESRI EV1 GIS ha. HEC-RAS HFT HMG ICIMOD IPCC JICA km. km2 m m3 mcum MRE msl MW NOAA NRCS OFDA SAARC TIN UNDP VDC WECS Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters Digital Elevation Model Department of Hydrology and Meteorology Department of Irrigation Disaster Prevention Technical Centre Department of Water-Induced Disaster Prevention The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database Environmental System Research Institute Extreme Value Type 1 Geographic Information System Hectare Hydraulic Engineering Centres River Analysis System Himalayan Frontal Thrust Then His Majestys Government, Nepal International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Japan International Co-Operation Agency Kilometre Square kilometre Metre Cubic metre million cubic meters Mountain Risk Engineering Mean sea level Mega-watt National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nepal Red Cross Society The Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Triangulated Irregular Network United Nations Development Programme Village Development Committee Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

ix

ABSTRACT
Floods are the most common destructive natural hazards that occur regularly across the world. It is one of the serious common and costly natural disasters that hit the poorest nation the hardest. Terai, the southern part of the country occupying about 17% of the total area is most vulnerable to flooding every year. This study is focused in accessing the risk and vulnerability of Tinau Khola watershed. The study area is located in parts of Palpa and Rupandehi districts covering an area of approximately 562 km2. Flood estimates for various return periods in the current study was made by a comparison of flood discharge calculated using; the generalised Extreme Value 1 (EV1), log Pearson Type III and the WECS/DHM method. The flood hazard analysis of the floodplain was done using the one dimensional steady flow model HEC-RAS. ArcGIS and HEC-GeoRAS were used for the preparation of flood hazard maps. Vulnerability to flood hazard was accessed in consideration with landuse type, affected VDC/ Municipality and building points. The flood risk analysis was done by crossing of vulnerability classes with flood depth hazard class. The analysis of the flood hazard map indicated a considerable increase in inundated area with increase in discharge.The total inundated area of a flood with 5 year return period is 350.31 ha.and that of the flood with 200 years return period is 430.54 ha. The flood vulnerability analysis indicated that in each successive return period from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 200 years, the area of agricultural land inundated increased by 6.5%, 13.0%, 5.3%, 5.3% respectively while that of settlement area changed by 3.1%, 90.5%, 49.5%, 55.3%. The flood hazard in the Settlement area showed a gradual increase in all hazard class in all return periods. The flood risk classification of Butwal Municipality shows a gradual lowering in the area under low hazard (< 2 m) after the 1 in 10 year flood while the area under moderate flood hazard (2-5 m) shows a continuous increase.The analysis of a 5 year and 200 year flood shows that 111 building units and up to 215 building units will be flooded respectively. The findings of the study may help in planning and management of floodplain area of Tinau Khola to mitigate future probable disaster through technical approach

Keywords: Flood, Tinau Khola, Flood Frequency, Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk, HEC-RAS, ArcGIS. x

CHAPTER I 1.
1.1

INTRODUCTION
Background

Destructive natural events occur regularly across the world, although most do not cause enough damage to be considered natural disasters. Among those that do, floods are the most common (Ferreira, 2011). Dilley et al. (2005) estimated that more than one-third of the worlds land area is flood prone affecting some 82 percent of the worlds population. About 196 million people in more than 90 countries are exposed to catastrophic flooding, and that some 170,000 deaths were associated with floods worldwide between 1980 and 2000(UNDP, 2004).Between 1985 and 2009, floods accounted for 40 percent of the natural disasters recorded by EM-DAT (OFDA/CRED 2010), (Ferreira, 2011). Those figures show that flooding is a major concern in many regions of the world. Flooding is one of the serious, common, and costly natural disasters that affect the communities around the world. Globally, the economic cost of extreme weather and flood catastrophes is severe, and if it rises owing to climate change, it will hit poorest nations the hardest. Nepal is situated at the center of the 2,400 km long Hindu-Kush Himalayan belt and extends for about 800 km from the high Himalayas to the plains of Terai. The flat Terai to the southern part of the country occupying about 17% of the area is most vulnerable to flooding every year. As the rivers emerge into the plain from steep and narrow mountain gorges, they spread out with an abrupt gradient decrease that has three major consequences: deposition of the bed load, changes in river course, and frequent floods(Jollinger, 1979). Each year, floods of varying magnitudes occur due to intense, localized storms during the monsoon months (June to September) in Nepals numerous streams and rivers. These natural events can wipe out development gains and accumulated wealth in hazard prone areas. Most of the rivers in Nepal are snow and glacier fed and promotes sustained flows during dry seasons to fulfill the water requirements of hydropower plants, irrigation canals and water supply schemes downstream. According to Baidya et al. (2007), In the context of recent global warming phenomena and a consequent increase in the intensity

of extreme precipitation events (i.e. 100 mm/day), the dynamics of glacial lakes in high mountain areas and the probability of occurrence of potentially damaging floods is likely to increase. Accelerated retreat of glaciers and increased intensity of monsoon precipitation observed during recent years have, most probably, contributed to increased frequency of floods (Agrawalaet al., 2003). Some of the physical features sensitive to climate change are agriculture and livestock, regions with seasonal precipitation or snowmelt and topography and land use patterns that promote soil erosion and flash floods (IPCC, 2001).The encroachment of areas susceptible to floods to establish human settlements and to carry out infrastructural development in the recent past has increased the exposure of these areas to flood hazards (Khanalet al., 2007),and increased the risk, the expected degree of loss, from flood hazard. In Nepal, between 1983 and 2008, flood and landslides caused 57.89% of the total loss of properties from different types of disasters. On an average yearly, 290 people lost their lives accounting to over 33.8% of those who died due to different types of disasters (DWIDP, 2008). The Terai, regarded as the granary of Nepal is the region of utmost concern. In recent years, between 1987 and 1998, three events of extreme precipitation with extensive damage have been reported (Chalise and Khanal, 2002). Chaulagain (2006) found that the number of rainy days in Langtang Basin was increasing. And the rate of increase in rainy days with heavier precipitation was much higher than that with lighter precipitation for period 1988-2000. Also, IPCC (2001) pointed out that there was some evidence of increases in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events like intense rainfall, prolonged dry spells etc in Asia throughout the 20th century. Therefore, both the findings give an evidence of intense floods in the years to come, particularly in Asia. For Nepal, the normal hydrological system brings an average annual precipitation of 1600 mm (Alford, 1992). About 80% of this falls between June and September, during the monsoon season. Within the monsoon itself, the total amount of rain comes within just 20% of its duration and exhibits considerable macro, meso and micro-scale variations.Global Circulation Model project a wide range of precipitation changes within Koshi basin, especially in the monsoon: 14 less to 40% more by the 2030s and 52 less to 135% more by the 2090s (Dixit etal., 2009). The monsoon precipitation pattern is changing too; with fewer days of rain and more high-intensity rainfall events. Floodplain analysis and flood risk assessment of the Babai Khola, using GIS and numerical tools (HEC-RAS & AV-RAS) was carried out by 2

Shrestha et al., (2000). Similarly, GIS was applied for flood risk zoning in the Khando Khola in eastern Terai of Nepal by Sharma et al. (2003). Awal etal. (2003, 2005 and 2007) used hydraulic model and GIS for floodplain analysis and risk mapping of Lakhandei River. After the disastrous climatologic event of 1993, hazard maps were prepared for the severely affected areas of Central Nepal (Miyajima and Thapa, 1995). Various definitions of vulnerability have been provided in the context of natural hazards and climate change (Varnes, 1984; Blaikieet al., 1994; Twigg, 1998; Kumar, 1999; Kasperson, 2001). From these definitions, vulnerability can be viewed from the perspective of the physical, spatial or locational, and socioeconomic characteristics of a region. Physical vulnerability could be referred to as a set of physical conditions or phenomena, such as geology, topography, climate, land use and land cover, and so forth, which renders a place and the people living there susceptible to disaster. Spatial vulnerability is closely related to physical vulnerability. The degree of danger or threat and the levels of exposure and resilience to threat are closely associated with location. Hence, spatial vulnerability is a function of location, exposure to hazards, and the physical performance of a structure, whereas socioeconomic vulnerability refers to the socioeconomic and political conditions in which people exposed to disaster are living. In recent years, a number of studies have recognized the importance of estimating peoples vulnerability to natural hazards, rather than retaining a narrow focus on the physical processes of the hazard itself (Hewitt, 1997; Varley, 1994; Mitchell, 1999). Cannon (2000) argued that natural disaster is a function of both natural hazard and vulnerable people. He emphasized the need to understand the interaction between hazard and peoples vulnerability. Nepals vulnerability to climate-related disasters is likely to be exacerbated by the increase in the intensity and frequency of weather hazards induced by anthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2007). Vulnerability to flood hazards is likely to increase unless effective flood mitigation and management activities are implemented. An important prerequisite for developing management strategies for the mitigation of extreme flood events is to identify areas of potentially high risk to such events, thus accurate information on the extent of floods is essential for flood monitoring, and relief (Smith, 1997). Hazard may be defined as, a source of potential harm. 3

a threat or condition that may cause loss of life or initiate any failure to the natural, modified or human systems.

The initiating causes of a hazard may be either an external (e.g. earthquake, flood or human agency) or an internal (defective element of the system e.g. an embankment breach) with the potential to initiate a failure mode. Hazards are also classified as either of natural origin (e.g. excessive rainfalls, floods) or of man-made and technological nature (e.g. sabotage, deforestation, industrial site of chemical waste). Concentrating on the flood hazard, it can be supported that the capture of the natural phenomenon requires the frequency of the flood events as well as their magnitudes (and thus their anticipated flood damages) (Alexander, 1991). Since the magnitudes of flood events can be modeled by a probability density function, flood hazard can be estimated by the probability that the flood damage that occurs in any one year. In general, risk as a concept incorporates the concepts of hazard {H} (initiating event of failure modes) and vulnerability {V} (specific space/time conditions). It is customary to express risk (R) as a functional relationship of hazard (H) and vulnerability (V). (R) = (H) (V) Vulnerability to flood disasters is great. Nepal is a least-developed, landlocked, and mountainous country with limited access to socioeconomic infrastructure and service facilities. Inaccessibility, a low level of human development, and mass poverty are prominent reasons for the poor capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from and adapt to different types of hazards, floods being among them (Khanalet al., 2007). 1.2 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to integrate flood simulation model, remotely sensed data with topographic and socio-economic data in a GIS environment for flood risk mapping in the flood plain of Tinau River in Nepal. Identification and mapping of flood prone areas are valuable for risk reduction. Flood risk mapping consists of modeling the complex interaction of river flow hydraulics with the topographical and land use characteristics of the floodplains. Integrating hydraulic models with geographic information systems (GIS) technology is particularly effective.

One dimensional hydraulic model HEC-RAS, ArcGIS and HEC-GeoRAS to inference between HEC-RAS and ArcGIS were used to analyze the flood hazard and related vulnerabilities in the Tinau river floodplain. The specific objectives of study are as follows: i. ii. iii. 1.3 To analyze the floodplain using the one dimensional steady flow model. To prepare flood hazard map of the study area at various return periods. To analyze the vulnerability and risk to flood hazard in the basin. Rationale

Global warming will induce higher temperature differences between land and sea surfaces, causing an increased transport of perceptible water to the continents and an increase in frequency of intense rainfall. Nepals 83% land mass is mountainous terrain. The wide range in altitudinal variation along its width gives rise to a steep and rugged topography and extreme relief. Steep and unstable slopes, rugged terrain, active geodynamic processes and intense monsoon rains make the Himalaya an active and fragile mountain range. As the nature of the Himalaya suggests, landslides and debris flows and floods are the main types of waterinduced hazards in the region and in Nepal. These hazards wipe out entire villages, wash out roads, bridges, canals and hydropower plants and damage hectares of valuable agricultural land during the monsoon season. Besides substantial economic losses, more than 320 people on average lose their lives in the Nepal Himalaya alone. Other losses from these hazards are on a rise every year. Many factors trigger debris mass movement or debris flows. Among the most common triggers in the Himalaya are prolonged or heavy monsoon rains (Chhetri, 2010). The assets at risk from flooding can be enormous and include private housing, transport and public service infrastructure, commercial and industrial enterprises, and agricultural land. In addition to economic and social damage, floods can have severe consequences, where cultural sites of significant archaeological value are inundated or where protected wetland areas are destroyed. As a result, vulnerability to flood hazards is likely to increase unless effective flood mitigation and management activities are implemented. An understanding of the types, frequency, and magnitude of flood events causing harm to life and property; the extent 5

of loss and damage from such events; and their spatial concentration is necessary in order to develop appropriate mitigation and management strategies to reduce risk and vulnerability to flood hazards. 1.4 Steady Flow Limitations

The following assumptions are implicit in the analytical expressions used in the current version of the program. (Source: HEC-RAS Manual) i. ii. Flow is steady. Flow is gradually varied. (Except at hydraulic structures such as: bridges; culvert; and weirs. At these locations, where the flow can be rapidly varied, the momentum equation or other empirical equations are used.) iii. Flow is one dimensional (i.e., velocity components in directions other than the direction of flow are not accounted for). iv. River channels have small slopes, say less than 1:10

CHAPTER II 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Freeman et al.(2003)suggested that the growth in hydrological disasters has two causes: increased populations in flood plains and other high-risk areas and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. This second development is associated with climate change and is expected to become more pronounced over this century. Wetherald and Manabe(2002) linked the positive growth in hydrological disasters with climate change saying that a warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts Ferreira (2011) found that population exposure affects the number of deaths both directly and indirectly. We obtain estimates of the population exposed to a flood event by overlying maps of the areas affected by floods with global population maps using GIS. Higher population exposure is associated with more deaths once the flood has occurred. However, precisely because more people increase the potential for damage and deaths, this increases the payoffs of investments in flood mitigation and management, resulting in smaller floods. In developing countries more population exposure is also associated with fewer floods. Ferreira(2011) also found that income also has a negative impact on flood magnitude (a one percent increase in income is associated with around 0.2 percentage points lower flood magnitude) possibly reflecting more resources available for flood control. Interestingly, the indices of corruption and ethnic tensions exhibit a positive sign. A reduction in the obstacles for collective action and efficient provision of public services associated with an increase in the magnitude of the flood. Stevens et al.(2010) indicated that government policies intended to reduce flood losses can increase the potential for catastrophe by stimulating development inside the floodplain, a phenomenon referred to as the safe development paradox. and hence recommended changes in New Urbanist design codes and local government floodplain management to increasingly direct new development away from the floodplain into the watershed.

The studies and views suggest the watershed approach for flood control and importance of people participation to achieve the bigger goal of disaster risk reduction in a climate that is changing and offering an increased frequency and intensity of extreme events. 2.1 Assessment and Analysis of Floods in Nepal

Natural hazard assessment in Nepal is still in an early stage and no serious concern on comprehensive flood risk assessment and hazard mapping was shown until the disaster of 1993. Flood risk assessment in Nepal is still in a very rudimentary stage. A few relevant literatures pertaining to hazard assessment carried out in Nepal is being reviewed here. After the disastrous climatologic event of 1993, hazard maps were prepared for the severely affected areas of Central Nepal (Miyajima and Thapa, 1995). Preliminary hazard assessment for the region was carried out by delineation of areas with rock and soil slopes. The hazard was calculated with respect to different rating. Samarakonet al.(1996) attempted to identify the changes of river channel in the floodplain of Ratu Khola that originates from the Siwalik Hills in Central Nepal, using satellite data covering 20-year period. Reason for change was examined with field observation and the present trend in the channel plain form change was established in predicting flood prone areas in the future flood events. Sah (2009) conducted an inundation analysis for Tinau River basin excluding as well as including dam breach simulation; Inundation analysis of natural dam breach at 20 m shows that Bhairahawa city will be inundated up to 3.08 m in case of dam breach. Hazard maps have been prepared for the Sun Koshi and BhoteKoshi catchments in Central Nepal (ITECO, 1996). The conclusion of this mapping exercise was that development of human settlements in hazardous areas increases the risk of floods and landslides. Measures to reduce the impact of natural disasters in these catchments have also been suggested. Shakyaet al.(2002) in an study for the estimation of 2002 B.S extreme flood over Balkhu River,used NOAA Based Satellite rainfall and HEC-HMS hydrological model, and assessment of flood education of people living near the flood risk zone of Balkhu River. River gets flooded from the control bank at least every 10 years. Urban flood 8

disaster is not only due to extreme rainfall but equally from human activities at flood plains and improper government policy. Mapping and Assessing Hazard in the Ratu watershed was done by Ghimireet al. (2007), the study begins with impact of flood disaster and resilience of the people at the national level and then to watershed level at meso-scale and village development committee/municipality at micro level. Hazard and risk mapping was done in watershed level using GIS and RS and the numerical model (HEC-RAS & AV-RAS). Karkiet al.(2011) conducted flood hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment in the flood plain of Kankai River in Nepal by integrating flood simulation model, remotely sensed data with topographic and socio-economic data in a GIS environment. He found that a total of 59.3 km2 and 59.8 km2 of the study area would be under flooding in a 25year return period flood and 50-year-return period flood respectively. Also, the hazard prone area would be considerably increased from 25-yearreturn period flood to 50yearreturn period flood. Level of hazard showed that high hazard area would be increased and more settlement would be under the high hazard zone. Vulnerability assessment regarding flooding and climate change depicted that peoples' livelihood are worsening each year. Manandhar(2010) conducted a research on floodplain analysis and risk assessment of Lothar Khola which lies between Makwanpur and Chitwan district. The study describes the technical approach of probable flood risk, vulnerability and hazard analysis. He applied Flood frequency analysis for 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-years return period using Gumbel, Log Pearson Type III, and Log Normal method based on maximum instantaneous flow recorded at Lothar Khola station and also by WECS/DHM method. Also, one dimensional hydraulic model HEC-RAS with HEC-GeoRAS interface in coordination with ArcView was applied for the analysis. Samarakonet al.(1996) attempted to identify the changes of river channel in the floodplain of Ratu Khola that originates from the Siwalik hills in Central Nepal, using satellite data covering 20-year period. Reason for change was examined with field observation and the present trend in the channel plain form change was established in predicting flood prone areas in the future flood events.

Hazard map covering about 665 km2 of the upper reach of the Kamala River was prepared by Mahatoet al. (1996) based on modified Mountain Risk

Engineering/ICIMOD rating method. Ministry of Water Resources, Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical Center (DPTC) prepared longitudinal profiles and cross section in the Lagdaha Khola to assess the damage condition at Sindhulimadi, and the work was followed by a detailed study on debris flows and landslides occurred during the disaster in July 1993 and Aug 1995 in the Kamala river watershed. The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Nepal (DHM), in 1998 prepared a preliminary flood risk of the Tinau Khola, downstream of Butwal and the Lakhandehi Khola. One dimensional IDA's method was used to determine flood levels using just seven river cross-section in 42.5 km river length. The study considers insufficient crosssections and no longitudinal section were surveyed. The result was also not verified with past flood. Under the study on Flood Mitigation Plan for selected rivers in the Terai plain in Nepal, prepared a flood hazard map of the Lakhandehi Khola based on field study after 1993 flood. The study made flood flow analysis by using an unsteady flow simulation model. The simulated results shows that in many cross-sections the water levels go far beyond the river cross-sections that they couldnt represent the actual flood water levels. These maps also dont show a relationship of the hazard to the return period of flooding and to the flood water depth (JICA/DOI, 1999). Awalet al. (2003, 2005 and 2007) used hydraulic model and GIS for floodplain analysis and risk mapping of Lakhandei River. Most of the previous studies used steady flow model however this study used both steady and unsteady flow model for floodplain analysis. This study also assessed change in river course using satellite image. Floodplain analysis and flood risk assessment of the Babai Khola, using GIS and numerical tools (HEC-RAS & AV-RAS) was carried out by Shrestha et al.(2000). Similarly, GIS was applied for flood risk zoning in the Khando Khola in eastern Terai of Nepal by Shramaet al. (2003). Government of Nepal, DWIDP & Mountain Risk Engineering (MRE) Unit 2003 prepared water induced hazard maps of part of Rupandehi district on the basis of field study and numerical modeling. Dangol (2008) prepared Flood Hazard Map of Balkhu Khola using GIS and Remote Sensing, found huge area of barren land area affected by flood and few percentage of 10

settlement area indicating the damages to the human lives. Apart from such piecemeal approaches on a limited scale, no pragmatic efforts at comprehensive flood vulnerability assessment and hazard mapping have materialized as yet. Ghanbarpour (2000) used the HEC-RAS model integrated with HEC-GeoRAS in GIS for floodplain analysis to delineate flood extents and depths within an urban area of the Neka River plain in Iran. He aimed to present a methodological framework to map flood hazard zones for evaluating spatial urban development options for adapting to extreme storm events and sustainable planning in this urban area. The results of the study indicate that integration of HEC-RAS with HEC-GeoRAS in GIS provides an effective platform for both flood hazard mapping and urban planning purposes. Patel (2009) applied GIS in watershed modeling with fast processors and interfaces such as ArcHydro, HEC-GeoHMS, and HEC-GeoRAS linking hydrologic and hydraulic models to the ArcGIS environment in Wreck Pond Brook Watershed, a new coastal New Jersey area. 2.2 Flood control structure

A Regional study on the causes and consequences of natural disasters and the protection
and preservation of the environment by, SAARC in 1992 highlighted the importance of reservoir type dams to check the flooding in the region (Ganges floodplain). Nepalwith a net storage potential of 61,000 mcum(million cubic meters), except for a small reservoir of 73 mcum net storage on the Kulekhani, none of the other reservoirs have been built primarily due to the lack of funding. (SAARC, 1992) A small hydroelectric dam 65 m long (across the river) 8 m in height and 4 meter wide is located in the waterway between Dobhan (confluence of Tinau river with its Tributary Dobhankhola) and Butwal Municipality. One tenth of the river flow is diverted into the tunnel for Tinau Hydropower Project (1 MW), Butwal, which is true for most part of the year. There is a small impoundment area the average width and depth were 30.0 m and 0.54m (max. depth 1.0 m ) with average velocity of 0.67 m/s (max. 1.4 m/s) (Sharma, 2003). The volume of the impoundment is hence negligible primarily due to the siltation of the reservoir in a watershed with large mass wasting phenomenon. A study by Paudel, 2004, shows that 54.3% of the watershed falls in the class of moderate to high landslide hazard zone. The reduced impoundment volume 11

hence cannot be considered substantial to check the flooding in the region as suggested by SAARC (1992). SAARC (1992) highlighted that selective treatment of watersheds undertaken for Tinau and Kulekhani has been implemented as topsoil conservation measure than as a flood protection measure. It implied the importance of hazard maps to improve flood forecasting systems. The study concluded that though there are separate agencies working on the different aspects of floods ranging from hydrology to relief and rehabilitation, there is still a conspicuous absence of a national flood management plan DPTC (1993) prepared a flood hazard map of the Bagmati River in the Sarlahi and Rautahat districts. thenHMG Nepal, UNDP, and ICIMOD (2001) carried out flood hazard mapping in two VDCs of the Chitwan and two VDCs of the Bardiya districts using geographic information system and remote sensing techniques coupled with field verifications 2.3 1981 A huge flood in Tinau River in 1981 destroyed parts of the intake, 2 suspension bridges & powerhouse shaft (Himal Hydro, 2011) 2007 Rupendehi district witnessed worst disaster hit after decades as locals said. At least 500 households in ward numbers 8, 11 and 13 of the Butwal municipality were displaced due to the flooding in Tinau River. Incessant rainfall disrupted life at Sundarnagar, Pabitranagar, Durganagar, Pragatinagar, Ekatanagar, Hattisud, Budhhanagar and Majhauwa areas of Butwal. The flooding is assumed to be the worst disaster to hit the area after devastating flood of 1981. The flood was of the similar scale flooding as experienced in 1981 when the whole of DaureTole, now a bus park, was swept away. River water flooded into the settlements because of weak embankment. The flood has also destroyed the embankment built by the people. Almost half of 600 squatters sheds at Sundarnagar of Khayardhari area at ward no. 8 were flooded. The displaced sheltered at nearby bus stops, temples, sports hall and the building of Chamber of Commerce and Industries. Others have been forced to stay under the open sky.(www.nepaldisaster.org, 2007) 12 Tinau River Flooding

2008 The year 2008 is unforgettable in the history of disaster of Nepal. Especially the outburst of Koshi embankment and humanitarian crisis. As per the preliminary assessment of the Home Ministry, a total of 40,378 people and 7,102 households were completely displaced because of the collapse of Koshi embankment. (Gorkhapatra, 2008). A flood event at Tinau Kholaon 19th August, 2008, affected 200 to 250 households with 500 to 600 individuals of Hattisud, Butwal Municipality. Two people were reported missing in the event. (NRCS, 2008). 2.4 Flood Frequency Analysis

The flood frequency analysis is one of the important studies of river hydrology. It is essential to interpret the past record of flood events in order to evaluate future possibilities of such occurrences. The estimation of the frequencies of flood is essential for the quantitative assessment of the flood problem. However, for reliable estimates for extreme floods, long data series is required; the use of historical data in the estimation of large flood events has increased in recent years (Archer, 1999; Black & Burns, 2002; Williams & Archer, 2002). Various empirical approaches such as Creager's formula, WECS/DHM Method, Modified Dicken's Method, B.D. Richard's Method, Synder' Method, etc. are also used for determining discharge for un-gauged basin. In WECS/DHM Method, the most significant independent variable is the area of the basin below 3000m elevations. In most of the flood analysis cases in Nepal, the WECS/DHM Method seems to be reasonable (Ranjit, 2006) 2.5 Tools for Floodplain Analysis and Mapping

Various studies have indicated that GIS is an effective environment for floodplain mapping and analysis that can be included in plans to reduce the vulnerability to flood and associated risk. There are a number of commercial and non-commercial software, tools available for numerical modeling and analysis in GIS. Based on information on the lateral 13

distribution of flow across a cross section the models can be further divided into onedimensional and two-dimensional model. Descriptions of some of the software tools are presented below. 2.5.1 Geographical Information System (GIS)

A geographic information system (GIS), geographical information system, or geospatial information system is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage and present all types of geographically referenced data(Redlands, 1990). In context of flood hazard management, GIS can be used to create interactive map overlays, which clearly and quickly illustrate which areas of a community are in danger of flooding. Such maps can then be used to coordinate mitigation efforts before an event and recovery after (Raford, 1999). GIS, thus, provides a powerful and versatile tool to facilitate a fast and transparent decision-making. There are number of GIS software;ArcGIS is one of the most recommended. ArcGIS is a suite consisting of a group of geographic information system (GIS) software products produced by ESRI.It has easy to use, point and click graphical user interface that makes easy loading of spatial and tabular data so that it can be display the data layers as maps, tables and charts. ArcGIS ver.9.3 was used in the present study. 2.5.2 Details of Selected Flood Simulation Models

HEC-RAS HEC-RAS is a computer program that models the hydraulics of water flow through natural rivers and other channels. The program is one-dimensional, meaning that there is no direct modeling of the hydraulic effect of cross section shape changes, bends, and other two- and three-dimensional aspects of flow. The program was developed by the US Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers in order to manage the rivers, harbors, and other public works under their jurisdiction; it has found wide acceptance by many others since its public release in 1995. The current version of HEC-RAS supports Steady and Unsteady Flow Water Surface Profile calculations, perform sediment transport simulation and perform water quality simulation.

14

Steady Flow Surface Profiles: This component of the modeling system is used for calculation of water surface profiles for steady gradually varied flow. The system can handle a single river reach, a dendritic system, or a full network of channels. Unsteady Flow Simulation: This component of the HEC-RAS modeling system is capable of simulating one-dimensional unsteady flow through a full network of open channels. The unsteady flow component was developed primarily for subcritical flow regime calculations. Awal (2003) made comparison between steady and unsteady flow analysis using HECRAS. Dangol (2008) assessed the flood inundation problem in Balkhu Khola using Steady flow analysis which shows barren area near the river is susceptible to flood hazard, which indicates future human lives are more prone to disasters as those lands have gone through planning for future settlement. HEC-GeoRAS HEC-GeoRAS is an ArcGIS extension specifically designed to process geo-spatial data for use with the Hydrologic Engineering Center River's Analysis System (HEC-RAS). The extension allows users to create an HEC-RAS import file containing geometric attribute data form an existing Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and complementary data sets. Water surface profile results may also be processed to visualize inundation depths and boundaries. HEC-GeoRAS extension for ArcGIS used an interface method to provide a direct link to transfer information between the ArGIS and the HEC-RAS.

Pre-processing to Develop the RAS GIS Import File

To create the import file, the digital terrain model (DTM) of the river system in a TIN format is required. The other data required for the re-processing includes series of line themes; Stream Centerlines, Flow Path Centerlines, Main Channel Banks, and Cross Section Cut Lines referred as the RAS Themes. Using 2D RAS Themes and TIN, the 3D Streamline and the 3D Cut Lines themes can be generated. The RAS GIS Import File consists of geometric attribute data necessary to perform hydraulic computations in HECRAS. The cross-sectional geometric data is 15

developed from DTM of the channel and surrounding land surface, while the crosssectional attributes are derived from points of inter-section of RAS Themes. Additional RAS Themes may be created / used to extract additional geometric data for import in HEC-RAS. These themes include Land Use, Levee Alignment, Ineffective Flow Areas, and Storage Areas. Expansion/contraction coefficients, hydraulic structure data such as bridges and culverts are not written to the RAS GIS Import File and need to be added to the model through the RAS interface.

Post-Processing to Generate GIS Data form HEC-RAS Results

Post-Processing (postRAS) facilitates the automated floodplain delineation based on the data contained in the RAS GIS output file and the original terrain TIN. Based on the RASGIS export file, cross-sections theme (with water levels for each modeled profile as attributes) and bounding polygon (to the edge of the modeled cross-sections) can be generated. The water surface Tin is generated using these cross-sections and bounding polygon themes. With the water surface TIN and the original terrain TIN, inundated depth grids and floodplain polygons can be automatically generated. Apart from this, HEC-GeoRAS can also generate the velocity TIN and grid (ESRI, 1999). 2.6 Flood Risk Assessment

Flood risk is a complex interaction of hydrology and hydraulics of the river flow with the potential of damage to the surrounding floodplains. The element of risk has both the spatial and the temporal domain and is also, a function of the level of human intervention of the surrounding floodplains. Plate (2000) described the flood risk assessment requires a clear understanding of the causes of a potential disaster, which includes both the natural hazard of a flood, and the vulnerability of the elements at risk, which are people and their properties. Flood risk assessment therefore consists of understanding and quantifying this complex phenomenon. Correia, F.N. et al. (1998) submitted report on flood hazard assessment and management: Interface with the Public. This focus on the understanding of how people evaluate and respond to natural hazards in an urban area, and how this knowledge can 16

be integrated in the planning and management process, are becoming very important elements of a comprehensive and participatory approach to flood hazard management. Such an approach demands a clear comprehension of the processes of the risks perception, causal attribution, possible solutions for the problem and patterns of behavior developed during hazard situations. The willingness of the public to participate in flood management, and the attitudes to previous initiatives also need to be addressed.

17

CHAPTER III 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is primarily based on data obtained from secondary sources. The methodologies outlined below are the approaches used for their analysis. 3.1 Hydrological Analysis

Comparative maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data, calculated using various distribution methods (Log-Pearson III , Gumbels Extreme Value Type I, WECS/ DHM) were used in the flood mapping of gauged river (Tinau river from Dobhan to Butwal Municipality), while methodology suggested by Water and Energy Commission Secretariat/ Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (WECS/DHM) of Nepal, was used to estimate instantaneous annual flood discharge of the un-gauged tributaries in the upper reach. 3.1.1 Comparison BetweenFlood Frequency Methods

Various studies for the selection of a suitable method of flood frequency analysis that included various two parameter; log normal,gamma, log gamma and Gumbel (EV1), and three-parameter distributions; Pearson Type III, log Pearson III, Hazen, GEV, log Gumbel (EV2), pointed out that the three-parameter log Pearson III method is far better than the other two-parameter methods but that the latter should not be completely discarded (Ponce, 1989). In another study, Patrick, 2011, points out that Hydrologic events such as flood peak and flood volume usually are positively skewed and may follow the lognormal distribution and since lognormal is a special case of the log Pearson III, the latter is the most appropriate for flood frequency analysis. Flood estimates for various return periods in the current study was made by a comparison of flood discharge calculated using the three best suited methods; the generalised Extreme Value 1 (EV1), log Pearson Type III and the WECS/DHM method. Maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data at Tinau River, DHM station no. 390, was used for the analysis. The maximum value of flood discharge predicted in the respective return period, by any of the above listed methods, was adopted for flood hazard mapping.

18

3.1.2

Flood Flow Calculation

The Log Pearson III Method In this method the variate is first transformed into logarithmic form (base 10) and the transformed data is then analyzed (Subramanya, 1994). If X is the variate of a random hydrological or meteorological series, then the series of Z variate where, = .(a) Are first obtained for this Z series, for any recurrence interval T. = + ...(b) Where Zavg = arithmetic mean of Z values KZ is a frequency factor which is a function of recurrence interval T and the coefficient of skew CS, For N = number of sample = n number of years of record. SZ = Standard deviation of Z variate sample CS = Coefficient of skew of variate Z = Corresponding value of X= antilog (ZT)
Table 1Flood Discharge Estimation (Log Pearson Type III Method) S.No. Return period T Probability P Frequency (yr) (percent) factor K 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 50 20 10 4 2 1 0.5 -0.049 0.823 1.309 1.849 2.21 2.543 2.856 y = log (Q) Flood discharge (m3/s) 561 1141 1693 2627 3523 4620 5957 Q
1
3 2

1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.749 3.057 3.229 3.419 3.547 3.665 3.775

Skew coefficient of the logarithms Cs = 0.3

Gumbels Extreme Value Type I Method The Gumbel distribution is one of most frequently adopted distribution types for modeling hydrological extreme events such as floods and storms widely used throughout the world. (Gumbel 1958; Todorovic 1978; Castillo 1988; Stedingeret al., 1993). Ponce(1989), presented the methodology as follows, 19

The cumulative density function F(x) of the Gumbel method is the double exponential function (F(x), Where, =

....(a)

in which F(x) is the probability of nonexceedence. In flood frequency analysis, the probability of interest is the probability of exceedence, i.e. the complementary probability to F(x): () = 1 (). (b) The return period T is the reciprocal of the probability of exceedence. Therefore,
1

= 1

(c)

= . 1 ..(d) In the Gumbel method, value of flood discharge are obtained from the frequency formula, = + ..(e) The frequency factor K is evaluated with the frequency formula: = + .. (f) In which y- Gumbel (reduced variate, a function of return period; and and are the mean and standard deviation of the Gumbel variate, respectively. These values are a function of record length n. From above equations (e) and (f); = +

(g)

Combining equations (d) and (g) = +

.
1

Table 2 Flood Discharge Estimation (Gumbel's EV1 Method)

20

S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Return period T Probability (yr) (percent) 2 5 10 25 50 100 200

P Gumbel variate Flood discharge Q y (m3/s) 50 20 10 4 2 1 0.5 0.367 1.5 2.25 3.199 3.902 4.6 5.296 701 1472 1983 2627 3106 3581 4054

Water and Energy Commission Secretariat/ Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (WECS/DHM) Method As per the recommendation of the Water and Energy Commission Secretariat/ Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (WECS/DHM) of Nepal, the flood flow of any river of catchment area A km2 lying below 3000 m elevation are given by the equation developed by WECS and DHM (Sharma, et al., 2003) for 2year and 100year floods is adopted for the study. Here, Q2 = 2.29(A<3K) 0.86 Q100 = 20.7(A<3K) 0.72 Where, Q is the flood discharge in m3/sec and A is basin area in km2. Subscript 2 and 100 indicate 2year and 100 year flood respectively Similarly, subscript 3k indicates area below 3000m altitude. Further following relationship (WECS and DHM, 1990) is used to estimate floods at other return periods. QT = exp(lnQ2+s), Where, = ln(Q100/Q2)/2.326

21

s = standard normal variant for particular return period below.

Table 3Values of standard normal variate s used in WECS/ DHM

(T)

given in table

S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.1.3

Return period (T) in years 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

Standard normal variate (s) 0 0.842 1.282 1.645 2.054 2.326 2.576 2.878 3.09

Selection of Model/Tools for Analysis

In this study, HEC-RAS version 4.0 was used to calculate water surface profiles and ArcGIS ver. 9.3 was used for the GIS data processing. HEC-GeoRAS 4.3.93 for ArcGIS is used to provide the interface between the systems. These software tools HEC-RAS, and HEC-GeorRAS were used in this research mainly because of the free availability of the systems. ArcGIS was used as it is most commonly used and recommended package for GIS data processing. 3.1.4 Methods for Steady Flow Model

Application Procedure for Steady Flow Analysis The general method adopted for floodplain analysis and flood risk assessment in this study basically consists of five steps: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Preparation of TIN in ArcGIS. HEC-GeoRAS Pre-processing to generate HEC-RAS Import file. Running of HEC-RAS to calculate water surface profiles. Post-processing of HEC-RAS results and floodplain mapping. Flood risk assessment.

The approach used for floodplain analysis and risk assessment using one-dimensional model, HEC-RAS, ArcGIS and HEC-GeoRAS is depicted in the flow chart below. 22

Preparation of TIN The topographic data from Department of Survey, Government of Nepal, spot elevation generated from Google Earth using KMLer in ArcGIS environment, Survey data obtained from DWIDP, was used for Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) generation. ArcGIS ver. 9.3 was used to generate TIN which was used as Digital Elevation Model (DEM) required in HEC-GeoRAS environment in order to prepare data sets required as input to the HEC-RAS simulation. Preparation Landuse/ Land Cover Map The landuse/land cover map of the Tinau Khola was derived from the 1992 topo-sheet along with field verification. Model Application PreRAS, postRAS and GeoRAS_Util menus of HEC-GeoRAS extension in ArcGIS environment were used to create data sets, making import file for model simulation in HEC-RAS. Pre GeoRAS Application The preRAS menu option was used for creating required data sets for creating import file to HEC-RAS. Stream centerline, main channel banks (left and right), flow paths, and cross sections were created. 3D layer of stream centerline and cross section was also created. Land use manning table containing land use type of the study area and Manning roughness coefficient, n value was created from GeoRAS_Util menu for different land uses. Thus, Mannings n value was assigned as taken from HEC-RAS hydraulic reference manual (2002) for different land use types within the study area. Thus, after creating and editing required themes, RAS GIS import file was created. HEC RAS Application This is the major part of the model where simulation is done. The import file created by HEC-GeoRAS was imported in Geometric Data Editor interface within HEC-RAS. All the required modification, editing was done at this stage. The flood discharge for different return periods were entered in steady flow data. Reach boundary conditions were also entered in this window. Then, water surface profiles were calculated in steady 23

flow analysis window. After the simulation, RAS GIS export file was created. Water surface profiles were computed from one cross section to the next by solving the energy equations with an iterative procedure. The flow data were entered in the steady flow data editor for five return periods as 2-year 10-year, 50-year, 100-year and 200-year. Similarly, upper most cross section was taken as upper stream boundary. Boundary condition was defined as critical depth for both upstream and downstream. Sub critical analysis was done in steady flow analysis. Then after, water surface profiles were computed. The resulted was exported creating the RAS GIS export file.
Table 4Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Different Landuse (Chow, 1959) Land use type Barren Land Bush Cultivation Area Cutting Area Forest Grass land Orchard River Sand Mannings n Value 0.030 0.050 0.035 0.040 0.100 0.035 0.055 0.040 0.030

Post-processing of HEC-RAS Results and Floodplain Mapping After the development of a GIS import file form HEC-RAS, post-processing steps starts. Different steps involved in this process are: i. Stream Network, Cross Section and Bounding Polygon Generation: After completing "Theme Setup" and "Read RAS GIS Export File", this will read the results from the export file and create initial data sets. The stream network, cross section data, bank station data and bounding polygon data will be read and shape files will automatically be generated. ii. Water Surface TIN Generation: Based on water surface elevations of the cross-sectional cut lines and bounding polygon theme, water surface TIN was generated for each water surface profiles. 24

iii.

Floodplain Delineation: After the generation of Water surface TIN, the next step is the delineation of the floodplain. The floodplain delineation will create a poly-line theme identifying the floodplain and a depth grid. The water depth grid is created by the subtraction of the rasterized water surface TIN from the Terrain TIN.

Figure 1 One dimensional floodplain analysis using HEC-RAS, ArcGIS and HECGeoRAS.

25

Flood Risk Assessment The methodology adopted for flood risk assessment follows the approach developed by Gilard (1996). The flood risk is divided into the hazard component and the vulnerability component. The vulnerability assessment is facilitated by the use of the binary model, based on the presence or absence of a flood of particular intensity in a particular land use type. The spatial coexistence model is used for the hazard assessment, reclassifying the floodwater depth. The results of these two analyses are combined for the flood risk assessment. This risk assessment process is automated by the use of customized graphical user interface in the ArcGIS. Flood Hazard Analysis, Gilard (1996) The hazard aspect of the flood risk is related to the hydraulic and the hydrological parameters. This implies that the same flood will affect a particular area with the same hydraulic properties regardless of the land use. Hazard level may be defined by the parameters like flood depth and exceedence probability of a particular flood event. For the quantification of the flood hazard and potential of damage, water depth is a determining parameter. For this the weighted spatial coexistence model facilitates the analysis by ranking the hazard level in terms of water depth. In this study, the hazard level is determined by reclassifying the flood grids flood depths polygons bounding the water depth at the intervals of < 2 , 2-5, 5-10 and >10. The areas bounded by the flood polygons were calculated to make an assessment of the flood hazard level. Flood Vulnerability Analysis, Gilard (1996) The flood vulnerability is affected by the land use characteristics of the areas under the influence of flood. That is to say, a flood of same exceedence probability will have different levels of vulnerability according to the landuse characteristics and potential for damage. The vulnerability analysis, therefore, consists of identifying the land use areas under the potential influence of a flood of particular return period. For this, vulnerability maps are prepared by clipping the land use themes of the floodplains with the flood area polygons for each of the flood events being modeled. This depicts the vulnerability aspect of the flood risk in the particular area in terms of the presence or the absence of flooding of a particular return period as a binary model. The land use areas under the

26

influence of each of flooding events are reclassified for the calculation of the total vulnerable areas. Flood Risk Analysis, Gilard (1996) The flood risk analysis includes the combination of the results of the both the vulnerability analysis and the hazard analysis. This is defined by the relationship between the land use vulnerability classes and the flood depth hazard classes in a particular area. For this, the flood risk maps are prepared by overlaying the flood depth grids with the land use map. The flood depth polygons prepared during the hazard analysis are intersected with the land use vulnerability polygons. The resulting attribute tables are reclassified to develop the land use - flood depth relationship. This hence depicts potential flood areas in terms of both the land use vulnerability classes and water depth hazard classes (Shrestha, et al., 2002). Data analysis/ Applications and Platforms used The primary data analysis and presentation was carried out using Microsoft Office 2010. Topographic maps, survey points and spot elevation generated from Google Earth using KMLer as an extension of ArcGIS was used for the preparation of the terrain profile (TIN). KMLer returns Z values for current feature class from Google Earth Terrain. HEC-GeoRAS was used in ArcGIS ver. 9.3 environment to generate various data sets which were then fed to HECRAS 4.0 for the one dimensional steady flow modeling. Floodplain delineation is the postRAS application of ArcGIS using the RAS import file. Remote Sensing was primarily limited to floodplain delineation and verification of landuse. ENVI was used for the re-classification of LANSAT images.

27

CHAPTER IV 4. STUDY AREA

The Project area is the Tinau River basin up to the EastWest Highway. The watershed spans over two districts from mountains and hills of Mahabharat and Siwaliks at Palpa to plains of Terai at Rupandehi. Those included are 27 VDCs and Tansen Municipality of Palpa district and Butwal Municipality of Rupandehi district. The total area of the Tinau watershed is about562 km2. The Tinau watershed lies in the Terai, Siwaliks, and the Mahabharat Range of western Nepal as shown in Figure 2. The area exhibits diverse physiographic and climatic conditions due to the elevation differences from the EastWest Highway in the Terai to the mountain summits of the Mahabharat Range. The upper part of the watershed lies mainly in the Mahabharat Range whereas the middle portion is the Madi valley of the Tinau River, one of the most fertile lands in the watershed. The Lesser Himalayan rocks comprise most of the watershed whereas the Siwaliks are found only in its south belt. The project area covers the following nine digital topographic maps: 2783 03A, 03C, 03D, 02C, 02D, 06A, 06B, 07A, and 07B.

Figure 2Study area - Tinau River basin

28

4.1

Physiography and Sub-Basins

The project area of the Tinau watershed lies essentially in two major physiographic regions, namely the Siwaliks and the Mahabharat Range. The watershed is elongated in the eastwest direction and acquires an oval shape. The total area of the Tinau basin is about 562 km 2. The Tinau River is the main watercourse and the Dobhan Khola and Jhumsa Khola are other two main tributaries. The Tinau River is a rain-fed stream and its discharge depends on the groundwater and surface runoff. The Dobhan Khola starts from the western part of the watershed and the Jhumsa Khola originates from the east end. Both of them join with the Tinau River near the Dobhan village and finally, the Tinau River enters into the Terai passing through a Siwalik gorge. Most of seasonal streams originating from the north slopes of the Siwalik Hills flow towards the north and join with the main streams. The longitudinal profile of the Tinau River is given in Figure 3 and its physiographic characteristics are summarized in Table 5. The drainage pattern in the watershed is controlled primarily by faults, joints, and rock types. The main drainage patterns observed are dendritic, trellis, centripetal, sub-parallel, and parallel. The upper reach of the Tinau River in the Madi valley and the upper reach of the Jhumsa Khola at the Godadi villages exhibit centripetal drainage patterns. A dendritic drainage pattern is observed in the Kusum Khola, at Anpchaur, at the Porakni village, whereas trellis and sub-parallel to parallel patterns are noticed mostly in the Siwalik region.

Figure 3 Longitudinal Profile of Tinau River

29

Table 5Basin characteristics of the Tinau River

1 2 3 4 Gauging Station No. Name of the stream Relevant rainfall and climatological Stations Location details Name of the place Latitude, longitude, elevation Physiographic details Elevation (m) Lowest Highest Area details Altitude (m) 1,000 3,000 Total area of basin Perimeter (km) Basin shape factor Main Channel profile data Total length of mainstream channel L=43.995 km Total elevation difference (H) =1728 m Average channel slope= 2.580% Time of concentration tc= 5 hrs Basin shape information Length Maximum width 390 Tinau River 71185, 70285, 70385, 81085 Butwal 27o42'10" E; 83o27'50" N, 195 m

165 m 1893 m Area below the given altitude (km2) 300.76 561.42 561.42 135.32 1.599

38 km 19 km

Table 6Sub-basin characteristic of the Tinau watershed

Attributes Main river Origin of river Districts traversed Easting (m) Northing (m) Area of sub-basin (km2) Predominant rocks Tinau Tinau Lesser Himalaya Palpa and Rupandehi 431284447727 30683413084325 561.41 limestone, slate, phyllite, quartzite, shale Dobhan sub basin Dobhan Lesser Himalaya Palpa 443655469922 30656933084121 176.31 mudstones, sandstone, siltstone Jhumsa sub basin Jhumsa Lesser Himalaya Palpa 451341469667 30666613074398 96.42 mudstones, sandstone, siltstone, limestone Butwal-Tansen Road Tinau, Jhumsa and Dobhan Lesser Himalaya Palpa and Rupandehi 445640462541 30.637593083918 (not applicable) mudstones, sandstone, siltstone, limestone, phyllite, quartzite

Geographical co-ordinates

Hydro-Meteorological Characteristics The rainfall, temperature and data at hydrological and meteorological stations in the vicinity of the Tinau watershed, collected from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology. The discharge data of the Tinau River at DHM station No. 390 (latitude: 2742'10"; longitude: 8327'50") were used for estimating different return periods of 30

flood. The annual maximum instantaneous flood discharges of the Tinau River for the period from 1964 to 1969 and from 1984 to 1992 were available from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM), and they are presented below. The river flow data after 1992 was not available.

Table 7 Maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data of the Tinau River at DHM Station No. 390 Year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1984 1985 Discharge (m3/s) 417 2220 1180 1950 2000 600 390 325 Year 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Discharge (m3/s) 644 580 565 457 260 288 134

Source: DHM (2011)

Figure 4 Tinau Watershed Showing the Location of the Nearest Meteorological Stations

31

4.2

Socio-economic condition

The main source of income of the local people is agriculture. About 92% households are engaged in agriculture as a main source of income. However the landholding pattern is not even. About 6% households are landless and 24% households are marginal having up to 0.25ha land (Paudel, 2004).

>2 ha, 4% 1-2 ha, 13%

Landless, 6% 0-0.25 ha, 24%

0.51-1 ha, 27%

0.26-0.5 ha, 26%

Figure 5 Land Holding pattern in Tinau Watershed

32

CHAPTER V 5. RESULT 5.1 Flood Frequency Analysis

Flood estimates for various return periods in the current study was made by a comparison of flood discharge calculated using, the generalised Extreme Value 1 (EV1), log Pearson Type III and the WECS/DHM method. Maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data at Tinau River, DHM station no. 390, was used for the analysis.
Maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data of the Tinau River at DHM Station No. 39 (m3/s)

2500 2000 1500

1000
500 0

Year
Figure 6 Maximum instantaneous annual flood discharge data at Tinau River, DHM station no. 390

The maximum value of flood discharge predicted in the respective return period, by any of the above listed methods, was adopted for flood hazard mapping.
Table 8Estimated peak discharge at Tinau River

Flood flow (m3/s)

Return Period (yrs.) 5 10 50 100 200

Generalized EV1 1472 1983 3106 3581 4054

Log Pearson Type III 1141 1693 3523 4620 5957

WECS/ DHM 738.175 916.017 1337.77 1528.74 1728.21

Adopted 1472 1983 3523 4620 5957

33

The maximum value amongst the discharge calculated using above mentioned methods was used for the hazard mapping.The flood discharge with return period of 5 years and 10 years, 1472 m3/s and 1983m3/s respectively was calculated using Generalized EV1 and that of the return period of 50 years, 100 years and 200 years was calculated using Log Pearson Type III. In case of upper un-gauged reaches, WECS/ DHM methodology was used to obtain the maximum instantaneous discharge as tabulated below.
Table 9 Estimated peak discharge of the upper reaches of Tinau river

Upper un-gauged Reaches

Return Period

Flood flow (m3/s)

Dobhan 5 10 50 100 200 284.446 364.259 562.167 655.035 753.863

Tinau Upper 541.012 678.272 1008.546 1159.843 1318.843

5.2

Landuse/land cover Map, DEM,

The landuse/ land cover map of the Tinau Khola watershed was prepared using the topographic map (1992) from Department of Survey, Government of Nepal. The attributes of the landuse map were analyzed, summarized below. The TIN was created using 3D Analyst in ArcGIS environment using various spatial details

Figure 7Landuse/ Land cover map of the Tinau basin

34

Forest 61% Agriculture 33%

Bush Swamp 5% 0% Barren 0% Other 2% Settlement 0%

River/ Stream 0%

Pond/ Lake 0%

Sand 1%

Figure 8Pie-Chart showing area under various landuse class,

Analysis of the landuse map showed that the forest landuse class has the highest value of 61% followed by Agriculture 33% and Bush 5%, the others (Settlement, Barren, Water bodies, Sand) occupying 1% of the total area. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) generated from TIN (Triangulated Irregular Network) using elevation data is presented as Figure 9. The vertical profile of the watershed ranges 165m to 1940m asl.

Figure 9DEM of the Study Area

5.3

Flood Hazard Analysis

The hazard aspect of the flooding is related to the hydraulic and the hydrological parameters. The analysis of the flood hazard map indicated a considerable increase in

35

inundated area with increasing discharge from a flood with 5 year to 50 year return period. The change was less visual in subsequent return period after 50-year return period. The total inundated area of the flood with 5 years return period is 350.31 ha. and that of the flood with 200 years return period is 430.535 ha. The percentile increase amongst the successive return period was 5.05%, 8.71%, 3.55%, 3.92%. 450
Inundated Area ( Hectares)

425 400 375 350 325 0 50 100 150

Return Period (Years)

200

250

Figure 10 Return Periods and Area Inundation Relationship

Figure 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, represent Flood hazard Maps with the probable occurrence return period of 1 in 5 years, 1 in 10 years, 1 in 50 years, 1 in 100 years, 1 in 200 years, respectively.

Figure 11 Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 5 years flood

36

Figure 12 Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 10 years flood

Figure 13 Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 50 years flood

37

Figure 14 Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 100 years flood

Figure 15Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 200 years flood

38

5.4

Flood Vulnerability Analysis

The vulnerability maps for the flood areas were prepared by intersecting the land use map of the floodplains with the flood area polygon for each of the flood event being modeled. This depicts the vulnerability aspect of the flood risk in the particular area in terms of the presence or the absence of flooding of a particular return period as a binary model.
700

600

500

400 Area in Hectares

300

200

100

0 Cliff 200 yrs. 100 yrs. 50 yrs. 10 yrs. 5 yrs. 0.92 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.87 Barren 2.41 2.31 2.17 1.88 1.72

Settlemen ts 14.96 9.63 6.44 3.38 2.54

Bush 49.36 47.81 46.98 43.66 40.97

Forest 67.16 64.04 60.62 53.93 50.48

Stream 69.48 68.95 68.49 65.91 64.04

Agricultur e 91.8 87.21 82.79 73.26 68.77

Sand 134.45 133.42 131.68 125.11 120.94

Figure 16Vulnerability classification of landuse to flood hazard of various return periods

The analysis indicated that there will only be negligible change limited under 6% in the inundated area in successive return periods in sand type land use. The flood hazard mapping indicated that in each successive return period from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 200 years, the area of agricultural land inundated increased by 6.5%, 13.0%, 5.3%, 5.3% respectively.

39

The results revealed only slight increase in the vulnerability due to inundation on fields other than settlement. However, the results were striking in the case of Vulnerability due to inundation in settlement areas. In each successive return period from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 200 years, the area of settlement inundated increased by 33.1%, 90.5%, 49.5%, 55.3% of the previous return period respectively (Figure 17, 18).
350 300 250

Area in Hectares

200 150 100 50 0 5 yrs. 2.54 50.48 68.77 120.94 10 yrs. 3.38 53.93 73.26 125.11 50 yrs. 6.44 60.62 82.79 131.68 100 yrs. 9.63 64.04 87.21 133.42 200 yrs. 14.96 67.16 91.8 134.45

Settlements Forest Agriculture Sand

Figure 17Vulnerability classification of important landuse to flood hazard of various return periods

The settlement area inundated for a 1 in 5 years flood is 2.54 ha, similarly the inundated area gradually increases over successive return periods and the total inundated area for a 1 in 200 year flood is 14.96 ha.
16 14 Area in Hectares 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. 100 yrs. 200 yrs. 2.54 3.38 6.44 9.63 14.96

Figure 18 Change in inundated area within settlement area along various return periods

40

5.5

Flood Risk Analysis

The flood risk analysis includes the combination of the results of the both the vulnerability assessment and the hazard assessment. This is defined by the relationship between the vulnerability classes and the flood depth hazard classes in any particular area. For this, the flood risk maps are prepared by overlaying the flood depth grids with the land use map, of different year return period flood. The flood depth polygons prepared during the hazard analysis were intersected with the land use vulnerability polygons. The resulting attribute tables were reclassified to develop the land use-flood depth relationship. This, hence, depicts potential flood areas in terms of both the land use vulnerability classes and water depth hazard classes. The analysis of the flood hazard map with the class value allocated for the study indicated a gradual decrease in the area under low hazard (< 2 m), while there was a positive increase in all other hazard class (Figure 11).
500 Inundated Area in Hectares 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Very High (> 10 m) High (5 - 10 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) Low (<2 m) 5 yrs. 1.39 32.18 117.5 199.29 10 yrs. 3.11 43.17 123.54 198.19 50 yrs. 10.6 56.41 164.17 168.89 100 yrs. 15.98 62.75 185.88 149.72 200 yrs. 21.6 70.56 207.89 130.54

Figure 19 Chart showing depth of inundationand the respective inundated area along the defined return period.

41

The analysis of the relationship between the Flood hazard and Settlement area indicated a gradual increase in all hazard class in all return periods. The settlement area under Low hazard class (< 2 m) is 1.67, 2.29, 4.45, 6.66, 10.28 hectares for return periods 5 to 200 years and that of the High hazard class (>10 m) is 0, 0, 0.08, 0.49, 0.66 hectares for return periods 5 to 200 years. Settlement
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. Return Period Low (<2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) 100 yrs. 200 yrs. Area in Hectares

Figure 20 Risk classification of settlement Landuse type

The analysis of the relationship between the Flood hazard and agricultural area show that the area under low hazard class (< 2 m) is in a decreasing trend over the successive return periods while agricultural area in all other hazard class show a gradual increase in values. The agricultural area under Low hazard class (< 2 m) is 42.34, 42.94, 41.5, 40.35, 38.24 hectares for return periods 5 to 200 years and that of the High hazard class (>10 m) is 0, 0, 0.08, 0.49, 0.66 hectares for return periods 5 to 200 years. Agriculture
50 Area in Hectares 40 30 20 10 0 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. Return Period Low (<2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) 100 yrs. 200 yrs.

Figure 21 Risk classification of Agricultural land

42

A detailed flood risk classification table for various landuse types is attached as Annex5. The VDCs and Municipality affected due to the flooding were selected and a risk classification in terms of depth of inundation was carried out, the resulting table 12 is presented below.
120.00 100.00 Area in Hectares 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. 100 yrs. 200 yrs. very High ( >10 m) Low (<2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 10 m )

Butwal Municipality Flood Risk Classification

Figure 22 Flood Risk Map of Butwal Municipality

The flood risk classification of Butwal Municipality shows a gradual lowering in the area under low hazard (< 2 m) after the 1 in 10 year flood while the area under moderate flood hazard (2-5 m) shows a continued increase. The area inundated in an event of a flood with reoccurrence period of 5 years will be 141.1 ha, similarly area inundated in an event of a flood with reoccurrence period of 200 years will be 182.11ha.
Table 10 VDC wise flood hazard at various return periods

Affected Area

Flood Hazard 5 yrs. Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m)
109.46 21.34 10.30 0.00 141.10 62.69 67.42 19.12 1.39

Return Period 10 50 100 yrs. yrs. yrs.

112.40 23.91 12.87 0.36 149.53 59.66 68.22 26.56 2.74 97.49 48.99 15.62 3.15 165.25 48.43 79.88 33.50 7.46 83.19 67.09 16.34 5.54 172.14 44.33 82.22 37.14 10.43

200 yrs.
69.48 87.73 16.67 8.24 182.11 40.11 83.12 42.07 13.36

Butwal Municipality

Dobhan

Area in Hectares

43

Juthapauwa

Kachal

Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m) Total

150.61 1.07 0.93 0.00 0.00 2.00 26.06 27.81 2.74 0.00 56.61

157.18 1.08 1.10 0.00 0.00 2.18 25.06 30.30 3.75 0.00 59.11

169.27 1.05 1.40 0.02 0.00 2.46 22.51 33.86 7.29 0.00 63.66

174.12 1.04 1.50 0.04 0.00 2.57 21.17 35.07 9.21 0.00 65.45

178.65 1.04 1.57 0.10 0.00 2.70 19.91 35.46 11.71 0.00 67.08

The flood risk in context of the building units provided by the topographic map of 1992 was analyzed; the analysis is tabulated as table 13. The classification in terms of flood hazard class grouped according to the depth of flood was made and numbers of building points hence affected were calculated using GIS. The analysis showed that in an event of a 5 year flood, 111 building units will be inundated. The number gradually increases to 215 building units in an event of a 200 year flood. A temple was also found inundated in an event of 1 in 10 year flood and thereafter.
Table 11 Flood Impact to the Building Units

Affected Units

Return Period Flood Hazard Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2- 5 m ) High (5 - 10 m ) very High ( >10 m) Total 5 yrs.
63 37 11

10 yrs.
61 46 13

50 yrs.
74 61 18

100 yrs.
89 67 24 2

200 yrs.
104 79 30 2

Building

111

120
1

153
1

182

215

Temple

Unit in numbers

44

CHAPTER VI 6. DISCUSSION
The applications of hydraulic model and GIS for floodplain analysis and risk analysis have been limited in countries like Nepal, where the availability of the river geometric, topographic and hydrological data are also very limited. The situation of river flooding in Nepal is also completely different, as there is much higher variation in the river flows and rivers are completely unregulated. There are very few flood control structures like spurs and dikes and the river banks and boundary lines are not clearly defined. Hence, the floodplain analysis and modeling are subjected to number of new sets of constraints. This study presents an approach of conducting a similar study, within these constraints. 6.1 Flood Frequency Analysis

Flood mapping of gauged river was made using Log-Pearson III, Gumbels Extreme Value Type I and WECS/ DHM, while methodology suggested by Water and Energy Commission Secretariat/ Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (WECS/DHM) of Nepal, was used to estimate instantaneous annual flood discharge of the un-gauged tributaries in the upper section of the watershed. The adopted flood discharge values with return period of 5 years and 10 yearscalculated using Generalized EV1 was found to be 1472 m3/s and 1983m3/s respectively. Similarly that of the return period of 50 years, 100 years and 200 years calculated using Log Pearson Type III3523m3/s, 4620m3/s, 5957m3/s. The discharge values calculated in this studyare comparable to several other studies with respect to the total watershed area. Manandhar (2010) used similar technique for flood frequency analysis of watershed of 170 km2and found the maximum discharge values for 2, 10 and 50 years return period with Generalized EV1 and for 100 and 200 years using Log Pearson Type III. 6.2 Flood vulnerability and Risk analysis

Flood simulation was conducted for the computed discharge values using HEC-RAS and ArcView GIS. HEC-GeoRAS extension facilitated the exchange of data between ArcView GIS and HEC-RAS.The model results suggest that there is considerable

45

flooding in the area even at flood of 5-year return period. This implies that the channel capacity is small to carry the flood water discharge. The analysis of the relationship between the Flood hazard and agricultural area show that the area under low hazard class (< 2 m) is in a decreasing trend over the successive return periods while agricultural area in all other hazard class show a gradual increase in values. This might be because agricultural terraces along the river terraces are primarily flat plains along the river. In any case floodwaters of more than 1m are extensive for damage to agricultural land. The flood risk classification of Butwal Municipality shows a gradual lowering in the area under low hazard (< 2 m) after the 1 in 10 year flood while the area under moderate flood hazard (2-5 m) shows a continued increase. The area inundated in an event of a flood with reoccurrence period of 5 years will be 141.1 ha.Similarly, area inundated in an event of a flood with re-occurrence period of 200 years will be 182.11ha. This shows that about 2% of the Municipal area will be inundated every 5 years including the flood plain. The analysis also shows that in an event of a 5 year flood, 111 building units will be inundated. The number gradually increases to 215 building units in an event of a 200 year flood.A temple was also found inundated in an event of 1 in 10 year flood and thereafter. These records are based on the 1992 topographic map prepared by the Department of survey, Nepal. Municipal Records at present reveal that there are 20281 houses with a population of 150,000 at a growth rate of 6.1 %.At the same growth rate of 6.1 % per annum 342 households seem to be affected in case of a flood of five years return period and 662 households seem to be affected in case of a 1 in 200 year flood.The same view has been depicted in the map attached as annex prepared by overlaying the flood hazard map along with the 1992 building points over the current Google Earth Terrain. Several studies including Dhital et al. (2005) suggest that more than 56 % of the Tinau watershed area is in moderate (26%) to high (30%) landslide hazard category. Hence there is equally high chances of LDOF (Landslide DammingOutburst Flood). Also Sah (2009) conducted an inundation analysis for Tinau River basin excluding as well as including dam breach simulation; Inundation analysis of natural dam breach at 20 m shows that Bhairahawa city will be inundated up to 3.08 m in case of dam breach. 46

Mass poverty and low level of offfarm activities,illiteracy, and poor service facilities have contributedto the low response and recovery capacity to dealwith disasters. Unless the response and recoverycapacity of the local people is improved, the loss anddamage are likely to increase. Therefore, disasterreduction and preparedness strategies should includecomponents such as poverty reduction and women empowerment and that of other disadvantaged groups inthe community and overall development activities in a sustainable way.

47

CHAPTER VII 7. CONCLUSION

The flood hazard analysis of the floodplain was done using the one dimensional steady flow model HEC-RAS. ArcGIS and HEC-GeoRAS were used for the preparation of flood hazard maps. Flood hazard maps for floods with probable return period of 1 in 5 years, 1 in 10 years, 1 in 50 years, 1 in 100 years, and 1 in 200 years were prepared. Vulnerability to flood hazard was accessed in consideration with landuse type, affected VDC/ Municipality and building points. The flood risk analysis was done by crossing of vulnerability classes with flood depth hazard class. The flood depth analysis class used in this research were low hazard (< 2 m), moderate hazard (2-5 m), high hazard (5-10 m) and very high hazard (>10 m). i. The analysis of the flood hazard map indicated a considerable increase in inundated area with increase in discharge from a flood with 5 year return period to 50 year return period, while the increase was less pronounced in subsequent years. ii. The total inundated area of the flood with 5 year return period is 350.31 hectare and that of the flood with 200 years return period is 430.54 ha. iii. The flood vulnerability analysis indicated that in each successive return period from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 200 years, the area of agricultural land inundated increased by 6.5%, 13.0%, 5.3%, 5.3% respectively while that of settlement significantly changed by 3.1%, 90.5%, 49.5%, 55.3%. iv. The flood risk analysis revealed a gradual decrease in the area under low hazard (< 2 m), while there was a positive increase in all other hazard class. The analysis of the relationship between the Flood hazard and Settlement area indicated a gradual increase in all hazard class in all return periods. v. The flood risk classification of Butwal Municipality shows a gradual lowering in the area under low hazard (< 2 m) after the 1 in 10 year flood while the area under moderate flood hazard (2-5 m) shows a continued increase.

48

vi.

The analysis showed that in an event of a 5 year flood, 111 building units will be inundated. The number gradually increases to 215 building units in an event of a 200 year flood. A temple was also found inundated in an event of 1 in 10 year flood and thereafter.

49

CHAPTER VIII 8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Limited availability of data was the primary constraint of the study hence the results presented in this research reflects the data they represent. Therefore, the following recommendations are hence made for the further studies in the future. i. The accuracy of a flood hazard map largely depends on the topographical data used for the preparation of the hazard map. For the modeling of overbank flow, topographic data should be of high resolution so that the topography of the floodplains could be properly represented ii. Use of new technologies such as LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), which improves the quality of the digital terrain representations can hence be used for further study. iii. The major hydrologic parameter, the maximum instantaneous discharge recorded for a long duration is necessary for the estimation of flood flow inputs of various return periods calculated using statistical approach. iv. Turbulent flows are unsteady and natural river course are turbulent, hence unsteady flow simulation should also be considered for flood hazard mapping.

50

REFRENCES
Agrawala, S., Raksakulthai, V., Aalst, M. V., Larsen, P., Smith, J., and Reynolds, J., 2003: Development and Climate Change in Nepal: Focus on Water Resources and Hydropower. OECD, pp. 14-28. Alam, K., Hussain, F., Mohammad, K., 2007b: Drowning Sand and the Holy Banana Tree: The tale of people with disability and their neighbors coping with Sharbanasha floods in the Brahmaputra-Jamuna Chars of Bangladesh, Handicap International, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Alexander, D., 1991: Natural disasters: a framework for research and teaching. Disasters 15 (3), pp. 209226. Alford, D., 1992: Hydrological aspects of the Himalayan region, ICIMOD. Occasional Paper No.18. Kathmandu: ICIMOD. Awal, R., 2003: Application of Steady and Unsteady Flow Model and GIS for Floodplain Analysis and Risk Mapping: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal, M. Sc. Thesis, Water Resources Engineering, IOE, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu. Awal, R., 2007: Floodplain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lakhandei River. Applied Research Grants for Disaster Risk Reduction Rounds I and II (2003-2006), Innovative Initiatives in Disaster Risk Reduction - Applied Research by Young Practitioners in South, South East, and East Asia, pp.118-129. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Thailand. Awal, R.,Shakya, N. M., Jha, R. N., 2005: Application of Hydraulic Model and GIS for Floodplain Analysis and Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal Proceedings of International Conference on Monitoring, Prediction and Mitigation of Water-Related Disasters, MPMD 2005, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. pp. 335-341. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B., 1994: At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability, and Disasters. London and New York: Routledge. Baida, S.K., Regmi, R.K., Shrestha, M.L., 2007: Climate profile and observed climate change and climate variability in Nepal (final draft), Department of Hydrology and Meteorology Kathmandu, Nepal. Cannon, T., 2000: Vulnerability analysis and disasters. In Floods Vol I, Parker DJ (ed.). Routledge: New York; 4555. Hewitt K. 1997. Regions of risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Addison-Wesley Longman: Harlow, UK. Castillo, E., 1988: Extreme Value Theory in Engineering, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, USA. Chalise, S.R., Khanal, N.R., 2002: Recent Extreme Weather Events in the NepalHimalayas. In Snorasson, A.,Finnsdottir, H.P., Moss, M.E., (eds) The

Extremes of the Extremes: Extraordinary Floods, Publication 271, Reykjavik (Iceland): IAHS.pp. 141-146. Chaulagain, N. P., 2006: Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources of Nepal: The Physical and Socioeconomic Dimensions. Flensburg University, Germany. pp. 55. Chhetri, M. B. P., 2010: Effects of Climate Change: The Global Concern, 4th Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (AMCDRR), Republic of Korea, 25-28 October 2010. Chow, W., 1959: Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, USA. Christoplos, I., Mitchell, J., Liljelund, A., 2001: Re-framing risk: the changing context of disaster mitigation and preparedness. Disasters vol. 25 issue 3. pp. 185198. Correia, F.N., Fordham, M., Saravia, M.D.G., Bernardo, F., 1998: Flood Hazard Assessment and Management:Interface with the Public, Water Resources Management 12: 209227, 1998. Dangol. S., 2008: Flood Hazard Mapping of Balkhu River Using GIS and Remote Sensing, M.Sc. Thesis, Khwopa College, Tribhuvan University, Bhaktapur, Nepal. Dhital, MR., Shrestha, R., Ghimire, M., Shrestha, GB.,Tripathi, D., 2005 :Hydrological hazard mapping in Rupandehi district, west Nepal, Journal of NepalGeological society, vol. 31. pp. 59-66. DHM, 1998: Flood Risk Mapping of Lakhandehi River. Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal. Dilley, M., Chen, R.S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A.L., Arnold, M., 2005: Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. The World Bank Group, Washington DC, USA. Dixit. A., Upadhya, M., Dixit, K., Pokhrel, A., Rai, DR.,2009:Living with water stress in the hills of the Koshi Basin, Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD. pp. 5. DPTC, 1993: Flood hazard map of Bagmati River in Tarai. One-page leaflet published by DPTC, Ministry of Water Resources, Pulchowk, Lalitpur. DWIDP, 2008:Disaster Reviews from 1983-2008.DWIDP, Lalitpur, Nepal. Ferreira, S., 2011: Nature, socio-economics and flood-mortality. Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 11-13, at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Freeman, P.K., Keen, M., Mani, M., 2003: Dealing with Increased Risk of Natural Disasters: Challenges and Options, IMF Working Paper WP/03/197. Ghanbarpour, R. M., 2000: A Floodplain analysis using HEC-RAS and GIS: Implications for Sustainable Urban Development. Center for Urban and Global

Studies and Environmental Science Program, Connecticut, USA.

Trinity College,

Hartford,

Ghimire, M., Shrestha, M., Khanal, N.R., 2007: Preparing for Flood Disaster Mapping and Assessing Hazard in the Ratu Watershed, Nepal. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Gilard, O., 1996: Flood Risk Management: Risk Cartography for Objective Negotiations. Proc., 3rd IHP/IAHS George Kovacs colloquium, UNESCO, Paris. Gorkhapatra, 2008: Study: 40,378 completely displaced in Koshi floods, Gorkhapatra National Daily, GorkhapatraSansthan, Kathmandu, Nepal. http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/gopa.detail.php?article_id=5595&cat_id=14 (accessed: July 2011. Gumbel, E. J., 1958: Statistics of Extremes. Columbia University Press, New York, USA. Himal Hydro & General Construction Ltd., 2011: Tinau Hydropower Project (1 MW), Butwal, Kathmandu, Nepal. http://www.himalhydro.com.np/Tinau.html (accessed: 16th May, 2011). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of WG II to TAR of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, M.C., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge, pp. 212-543. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC, 2007: Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc.ch. JICA/DoI, 1999: The Study on Flood Mitigation Plan for Selected Rivers in the Terai Plain in the Kingdom of Nepal. Final Report Vol. 3 Supporting Report, A3: Flood Mitigation Plan/Lakhandei River, Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Water Resources, HMG/Nepal and Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA), Kathmandu, Nepal. Jollinger, F., 1979: Analysis of River Problems and Strategy for Flood Control in the Nepalese Terai,Nepal: Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Ministry of Forest, HMG, UNDP Kathmandu, Nepal. Karki, S., Shrestha, A., Bhattarai, M., Thapa, S., 2011: GIS based flood hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment of people due to climate change: A case study from Kankai watershed, East Nepal. A report submitted to National Adaptation Programme Action (NAPA), Ministry of Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Kasperson, R., 2001: Research and Assessment System for Sustainability, Framework for Vulnerability. Palo Alto (California) National Academy of Science and Stanford HighWire Press. Khanal, N. R., Shrestha, M., Ghimire. M., 2007: Preparing for Flood Disaster: Mapping and assessing hazard in the Ratu watershed, Nepal, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 2 Kumar, S., 1999: Disaster Management: Analyzing Vulnerability. In Proceedings of an International Conference on Disaster Management: Cooperative Networking in South Asia I:170-180. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Open University. Mahato, R.C., Higaki, D., Thapa, T. B., Paudyal, N. B., 1996: Hazard Mapping Based on the Few Case Studies in the Central Regions of Nepal, in Proceedings of International Seminar on Water Induced Disaster (ISWID-1996), HMG/Nepal, Ministry of Water Resources, Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical Centre (DPTC) in Corporation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Kathmandu, Nepal Manandhar, B., 2010: Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola, M.Sc. Thesis, Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal. Mitchell, J. K., (ed.). 1999: Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disaster in Transition. United Nations Publication: New York. Miyajima, S.,Thapa, T.B., 1995: Preliminary Hazard Map of Severely Affected Areas of 1993 Disaster.In Proceedings of an International Seminar on Water Induced Disaster (ISWID22 1995), pp177-185.Kathmandu. Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical Centre (DPTC), Ministry of Water Resources, HMG/Nepal and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Kathmandu. NRCS, 2008:Primary examination report of flood victims, Report, Nepal Red Cross Society, Siddhartha Nagar sub chapter, Rupandehi, Nepal. OFDA/CRED, 2010:EM-DAT, The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, UniversiteCatholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium (Data version: v12.07, 2010), (www.emdat.be), Patel, K. P., 2009: Watershed modeling using HEC-RAS, HEC-HMS and GIS models- A case study of the Wreck Pond Brook Watershed in Monmouth County, New Jersey. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School- New Brunswick Rugters, the State University of New Jersey, USA. Patrick, J., I., 2011: Reservoir Re-operation, Risk, and Levee Failure Analysis: Mokelumne River Case, (PhDDissertation), University of California, Davis, U.S.A. Paudel, K., P., 2004: Mapping and Assessing Risk and Vulnerability of Water induced Disaster in Tinahu Watershed, Western Nepal, in Global Symposium for Hazard Risk Reduction, Lessons Learned from the Applied Research Grants for Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Working Papers, The World Bank.

Plate, 2000. cited in Awal, R., 2003: Application of Steady and Unsteady Flow Model and GIS for Floodplain Analysis and Risk Mapping: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal, M. Sc. Thesis, Water Resources Engineering, IOE, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. Ponce, V., M., 1989: Engineering Hydrology, Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall, pp. 217-227. Ranjit, R., 2006: Flood Hazards in Kathmandu Valley with Detail Study of 2002Extreme Flood in Balkhu River, M. Sc. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Central Department of Environment Science, Kathmandu, Nepal. Raford, N., 1998:cited in Awal, R., 2003: Application of Steady and Unsteady Flow Model and GIS for Floodplain Analysis and Risk Mapping: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal, M. Sc. Thesis, Water Resources Engineering, IOE, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. Redlands, CA., 1990:Understanding GIS: The ARC/INFO Method, Environmental System Research Institute, ESRI,pp. 1.2 Sah, M.K., 2009: Water-Related Disaster Management Course of Disaster Management Policy Program, M.Sc. Thesis, International Centre for Water and Risk Management under the suspices of UNESCO (ICHARM), Japan. Samarakon, L., Honda, K., Ishibashi, A., Mabuchi, Y., Miyajima, S., 1996: Remote Sensing and GIS Technologies for Denudation Estimation in a Siwalik Watershed of Nepal. GIS Development, (http://tiny.cc/b5do5) Sharma, C. M., 2003: Biological Impacts and Local Perceptions of Tinau River Dam, Nepal, M.Sc. Thesis, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Agricultural University of Norway (NORAGRIC), Norway. Sharma, K. P., Adhikari, N.R., Ghimire, P. K., Chapagain, P.S., 2003:GIS Based Flood Risk Zoning of the Khando River Basin in the Terai Region of East Nepal. Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 1 (2): 103-106. Sheng, J., 2006: GIS-based flood risk analysis across large metropolitan areas. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. Shrestha, R., R., Theobald, S., Nestmann, F., 2000: Flood Risk Modeling of Babai River in Nepal. International Conference on Flood Estimation, International Commission for the Hydrology of Rhine Basin, Berne. Smith, L. C., 1997: Satellite remote sensing of river inundation area, stage, and discharge: A review. Hydrol Process 11:14271439 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), 1992: Regional study on the causes and consequences of natural disasters and the protection and preservation of the environment (CCNDPPE), SAARC secretariat, Kathmandu Nepal, pp. 142 (http://tiny.cc/rkyl7).

Stedinger, J. R., Vogel, R. M., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., 1993: Chap. 18: Frequency analysis of extreme events. In: Maidment DR (Ed.) Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Inc., USA. Stevens, M. R., Song, Y., Berke, P. R., 2010: New Urbanist developments in floodprone areas: safe development, or safe development paradox? Natural Hazards vol. 53, pp. 605629. Subramanya, K., 1994: Engineering Hydrology. 2nd Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India. Tate, E.C., 1999: Floodplain mapping using HEC-RAS and Arc View GIS, Center for research in Water Resources (CRWR), Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas, Austin, USA. Todorovic, P., 1978: Stochastic models of floods, Water Resources Research,14 (2): pp. 345356. Twigg, J., 1998.Understanding Vulnerability: An Introduction. In Twigg, J., Bhatt, M.R., (eds) Understanding Vulnerability South Asia Perspectives, pp. 1-11. London:International Technology Publications Ltd. United Nation Development Programme-UNDP, 2004: United Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York, pp.146 Varley, P., (ed.), 1994: Disaster, Development and the Environment. Wiley: Chichester, UK. Varnes, D. J., 1984: Landslide Hazard Zonation: A Review of Principles and Practices. In Natural Hazards: An IAEG monograph. Paris: UNESCO Wetherald and Manabe, 2002: in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Table SPM2 Wiltox, B., 2007. Photo. Google Earth. 2011 www.napaldisaster.org, 2007: http://www.nepaldisaster.org/download/Issue45.pdf www.PreventionWeb.net, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat (UNISDR), 19th June, 2011. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/countries/statistics/risk.php?cid=121 Yue, S., Wang, C. Y., 2004: A comparison of two bivariate extreme value distributions, stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 2004, volume 18, Number 2, pp. 61 66

ANNEX
Annex 1 Percentage of land vulnerable to flooding along various return periods Percentage of land vulnerable to flooding along various return periods 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. 100 yrs. 200 yrs. Settlements 1.29% 1.72% 3.28% 4.90% 7.61% Agriculture 0.38% 0.40% 0.45% 0.48% 0.50% Forest 0.15% 0.16% 0.18% 0.19% 0.20% Bush 1.49% 1.59% 1.71% 1.74% 1.79% Sand 43.81% 45.32% 47.70% 48.33% 48.71% Barren 0.97% 1.06% 1.22% 1.30% 1.36% Stream 37.47% 38.56% 40.07% 40.34% 40.65%

Annex 2 Inundated Area with successive return periods Inundated Area with successive return periods Return Period 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 50 yrs. 100 yrs. 200 yrs. Sand 120.94 125.11 131.68 133.42 134.45 Change 0 3.4% 5.3% 1.3% 0.8% Agriculture 68.77 73.26 82.79 87.21 91.8 Change 0 6.5% 13.0% 5.3% 5.3% Forest 50.48 53.93 60.62 64.04 67.16 Change 0 6.8% 12.4% 5.6% 4.9% Settlements 2.54 3.38 6.44 9.63 14.96 Change 0 33.1% 90.5% 49.5% 55.3%

Annex 3 Area under various Landuse type in the Tinau watershed S.No. Landuse type 1 Settlement 2 Cutting 3 Agriculture 4 Forest 5 Bush 6 Swamp 7 Sand Area in Hectares 196.5374 135.2362 18329.4147 34191.9519 2753.7455 8.8201 276.0464

8 Barren 9 River/ Stream 10 Pond/ Lake Annex 4 List of VDCs and Municipality in the Tinau watershed
S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Name Baldengadhi Bandipokhara Bhairabsthan Chhahara Chidipani Chirtungdhara Devinagar Dobhan Gothadi Humin Jhadewa Juthapauwa Kachal Kaseni Khasyauli Koldanda Kusumkhola Madanpokhara Masyam Nayarnamtales Palungmainadi Phek Pokharathok Rahabas Rupse Tansen Municipality Telgha Timure Butwal municipality District

177.508 170.9136 5.6727

RUPANDEHI

Annex 5 Flood Risk Classification table for Various Landuse type Inundated Area in Hectares Return Period 10 yrs. 50 yrs. 100 yrs. 1.67 0.41 0.46 2.29 0.50 0.59 4.45 1.07 0.84 6.66 1.77 0.72

Landuse Settlements

Flood Hazard Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m)

5 yrs.

PALPA

200 yrs. 10.28 2.87 1.16

Very High (> 10 m) Total Cliff Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Low (< 2 m) Moderate (2 - 5 m) High (5 - 10 m) Very High (> 10 m) Total Grand Total

0.00 2.54 0.09 0.73 0.05 0.00 0.87 42.34 23.12 3.32 0.00 68.77 21.24 22.79 5.88 0.56 50.48 36.12 4.72 0.14 0.00 40.97 70.54 40.01 10.12 0.27 120.94 1.06 0.62 0.05 0.00 1.72 26.23 25.10 12.16 0.56 64.04 350.32

0.00 3.38 0.08 0.75 0.05 0.00 0.88 42.94 25.04 5.27 0.01 73.26 21.29 23.55 8.09 1.00 53.93 37.23 6.23 0.21 0.00 43.66 68.50 41.98 14.10 0.53 125.11 1.03 0.78 0.06 0.00 1.88 24.83 24.71 14.80 1.57 65.91 368.00

0.08 6.44 0.07 0.62 0.21 0.00 0.90 41.50 33.91 7.13 0.24 82.79 18.90 27.63 10.54 3.55 60.62 31.74 14.88 0.36 0.00 46.98 52.69 56.65 20.57 1.77 131.68 0.85 1.23 0.10 0.00 2.17 18.69 28.18 16.66 4.96 68.49 400.07

0.49 9.63 0.07 0.57 0.27 0.00 0.92 40.35 37.81 8.70 0.37 87.21 18.43 27.96 12.61 5.04 64.04 25.87 21.53 0.41 0.00 47.81 42.22 65.37 22.76 3.08 133.42 0.85 1.33 0.14 0.00 2.31 15.27 29.54 17.14 7.00 68.95 414.28

0.66 14.96 0.06 0.50 0.36 0.00 0.92 38.24 42.22 10.79 0.56 91.80 18.07 26.39 16.23 6.48 67.16 19.47 29.43 0.46 0.00 49.36 31.43 73.96 24.47 4.59 134.45 0.82 1.42 0.18 0.00 2.41 12.17 31.10 16.91 9.31 69.48 430.54

Agriculture

Forest

Bush

Sand

Barren

Stream

Annex 6 Primary Examination Report of Flood victims Nepal Red Cross Society, Rupandehi referring to the flood incident at Tinau on 3rdBhadra, 2065 (August 19, 2008).

Annex 7 Cross section at river station 519.6874 showing plot profile of a 1 in 200 years flood at Dobhankhola near the confluence with Tinau River.

Annex 8 Cross section at river station 7474.066 showing plot profile of 1 in 200 year flood at Upper reach of Tinau river near the confluence with Dobhan Khola.

Annex 9 Cross section at river station 1140.882 showing water surface of 1 in 200 year flood

Annex 11 Tinau river profile at 1 in 5 years flood

Annex 10 Tinau river profile at 1 in 200 years flood

Annex 12 Geometric data of the floodplain with 1 in 200 year flood and river stations

Annex 14 Present scenario of the Flood risk at Tinau Watershed (Focused over Butwal Municipality)

Figure : 1 in 5 years Flood High quality image available at http://tiny.cc/u346o

Figure : 1 in 10 years Flood High quality image available at http://tiny.cc/ljwvx

Figure : 1 in 50 years Flood High quality image available at http://tiny.cc/j7gll

Figure : 1 in 100 years Flood High quality image available at http://tiny.cc/z19zm

Figure : 1 in 200 years Flood High quality image available at http://tiny.cc/fv0mq Annex 13 Tinau River from East-West highway viewing upstream, the point where the gradient breaks from the Siwaliks into the flat Terai.

Photo courtesy: Witlox, 2007