Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola

FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND RISK
ASSESSMENT OF LOTHAR KHOLA
BIKRAM MANANDHAR
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
POKHARA, NEPAL
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
FEBRUARY, 2010
FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
OF LOTHAR KHOLA
RESEARCHER
BIKRAM MANANDHAR
M. Sc. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ADVISOR
MOHAN KRISHNA BALLA
PROFESSOR
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY, POKHARA
CO-ADVISORS
Dr. RIPENDRA AWAL BISHWOMBHER MAN PRADHAN

JSPS POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOW ASSOCIATE PORFESSOR
KYOTO UNIVERSITY, JAPAN INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY, POKHARA
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY, OFFICE OF THE DEAN
POKHARA, NEPAL
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
FEBRUARY, 2010
ii
© BIKRAM MANANDHAR, February, 2010
Email: manandharbikram@yahoomail.com
Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry, Office of the Dean
P.O. Box 203, Pokhara, Nepal
Website: www.iof.edu.np
Citation:
Manandhar, B., 2010. Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola. A
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Watershed Management, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry,
Pokhara, Nepal.
iii
TRIBHUVAN UNIVRSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
Office of the Dean
Hariyokharka,
Pokhara, Nepal
Ref. No.:
Date: 12 February, 2010
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE
The thesis entitled “Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola”
prepared and submitted by Mr. Bikram Manandhar in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Watershed Management under
our supervision is hereby accepted.
…….……………..
Mohan Krishna Balla

Professor
Institute of Forestry, Pokhara
Dr. Ripendra Awal

JSPS Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Kyoto University, Japan
……………………………….
Bishwombher Man Pradhan

Associate Professor
iv
DECLARATION
I, Bikram Manandhar, hereby declare that this thesis entitled “Flood Plain Analysis
and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola” is my own work except wherever
acknowledged. Errors if any are the responsibility of my own. I have not submitted it
or any of its part to any other academic institutions for any degree.
Date: …………………
…………………….
Bikram Manandhar
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indebted to my respected Advisor, Prof. Mohan Krishna Balla (Institute of
Forestry, Pokhara) and Co-advisors Dr. Ripendra Awal (Post doctoral Research
Fellow, Kyoto University, Japan), and Mr. Bishwombher Man Pradhan (Associate
Professor, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara) for their continuous guidance, advice and
expedience from the proposal preparation to thesis finalization. Their constructive
comments, untiring help, guidance and practical suggestions inspired me to
accomplish this work successfully.
I am especially grateful to WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for granting me

scholarship to pursue Master Degree at Institute of Forestry, Pokhara and also, NUFU
Project for providing Partial Fund to study and research grant to conduct above
mentioned project. My special gratitude goes to Dr. Keshab Datt Awasthi, Dean and
Faculties of IoF, Pokhara, for providing me permission and guidance to conduct this
thesis as partial fulfillment for the requirements of the Master Degree.
I remember Mr. Susheel Dangol (Planning Officer, MoLRM), Mr. Deo Raj Gurung
(GIS Specialist, ICIMOD) and Mr. Shakti P.C. (National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan) who gave me unrepayable ideas,
suggestions, and comments, since the time of proposal finalization and till up to date.
I am very thankful to Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention, Lalitpur for
providing necessary data to conduct this study.
Residents of the Lothar Khola Watershed, who gave me their precious time to discuss
about past disaster events and accommodation during field work, deserve thanks.
Mr. Manij Upadhya, Mr. Bishnu Singh Thakuri, Mr. Bishal Bharadwaj and Mr. Gokul
Rijal deserve thanks for their worthy moral and physical support throughout the entire
period of study. Similarly, I would like to thank Mr. Poorneshwor Subedi, Mr. Dol
Raj Thanet, Mr. Bishnu P. Shrestha, AFO, Salyan and Mr. Baburam Lamichhanae,
NTNC/BCC who helped me during my difficult time of GIS data analysis. Mr.
Bishnu P. Devkota is worthy of my thanks for providing me GPS for field work. I
would like to acknowledge all my senior & junior, colleagues, Mrs. Sushela Nepali,
Mr. Basanta Babu Shrestha and Newa Pasa Pucha for admiration and outstanding
company during my study period at IoF, Pokhara.
I remember all those who have contributed directly or indirectly to successfully

completing my study.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my family and Bipana for their constant care,
love and encouragement, till up to date. I owe much to them where I stand today.
Bikram Manandhar
M. Sc. Watershed Management
vi
ABSTRACT
Flood occurs repeatedly in Nepal and cause tremendous losses in terms of property
and life, particularly in the lowland areas. The majority of flood disasters’ victims are
poor people living in floodplain. Therefore, the study was carried out to perform
floodplain analysis and risk assessment of Lothar Khola.
The study describes the technical approach of probable flood risk, vulnerability and
hazard analysis. Lothar Khola with a catchment area of 170 sq. km., lies between
Chitwan and Makawanpur District, with average discharge (June – September) 10.17
m3/s. The average annual rainfall in the area is 1944 mm and the maximum rainfall of
24 hrs is 130.17 mm. Flood frequency analysis for 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-years return
period was done by 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. One dimensional hydraulic model HEC-RAS with HEC-
GeoRAS interface in co-ordination with ArcView was applied for the analysis.
Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) was prepared from contour and spot elevations
in ArcView GIS. Required data sets as stream centerline, banks, flow paths and cross
sections were prepared in HEC‐GeoRAS thus, creating import file and imported in
HEC‐RAS. In HEC‐RAS, boundary conditions for upstream and downstream were
defined. Similarly, flood discharges for different return periods were also inputted.
Steady flow analysis was done for the results. Approach developed by Gilard (1996)
was used for flood risk assessment.
The results of flood frequency analyzed by Log Pearson Type III method showed
discharges of 286, 647, 990, 1347 and 1284 m3/s for 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-years
return period floods, which were higher among the results obtained using different
methods and used in modeling. Area inundated by 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-years return
period floods were 230, 239, 246, 249 and 252 ha respectively. The classification of
flood depth area showed most of the flooding area had water depth greater than 3m.
The assessment of the flood inundated area showed that large percentage (> 40 %) of
vulnerable area lied in sand area followed by forest and cultivation area, which were
23% and 18% respectively. Also, flood area increased with flood intensity. Higher
flood depth increased and lower flood depth decreased with increase in flood
intensity. Flooding of cultivation land indicated potential damages in food production
and negative effects on the livelihoods.
Thus, finding of the study may help in planning and management of flood plain area
of Lothar Khola to mitigate future probable disaster through technical approach.
Keywords: Flood, Lothar Khola, Flood frequency, Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
DDC District Development Committee
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DHM Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
DOI Department of Irrigation
DPTC Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical Centre
DWIDP Department of Water-Induced Disaster Prevention
GIS Geographical Information System
GLOF Glacial Lake Outburst Flood
GPS Global Positioning System
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System
HKH Hindu-Kush Himalaya
HMG His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISWID International Seminar on Water Induced Disaster
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MREU Mountain Risk Engineering Unit
RAS River Analysis System
TIN Triangulated Irregular Network
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VDC Village Development Committee
WECS Water and Energy Commission Secretariat
WWAP World Water Assessment Programme
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ............................................................................................................ IV
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... VI
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ VII
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. XII
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER: ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY ................................................................................................................ 3
GENERAL OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................ 3

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 3
1.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER: TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 RIVER FLOODING ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 5
2.3 ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF FLOODS ........................................................................... 6
2.4 TOOLS FOR FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS AND MAPPING....................................................... 8
2.4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) ............................................... 9

2.4.2 REMOTE SENSING (RS)..................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)........................................................... 10
2.5 DETAILS OF SELECTED MODELS ......................................................................................... 10
2.5.1 HEC-RAS ....................................................................................................... 10

2.5.1.1 Components of HEC-RAS .............................................................................................. 11
2.5.1.2 Theoretical Basis for One-Dimensional Flow Calculations (HEC-RAS) .................... 12
2.5.1.2.1 Steady Flow Water Surface Profiles........................................................................................ 12
2.5.2 HEC-GEORAS ............................................................................................... 15
2.5.2.1 Pre-processing to Develop the RAS GIS Import File ................................................... 16
2.5.2.2 Post-Processing to Generate GIS Data form HEC-RAS Results ................................. 17
2.5.3 ARCVIEW GIS ................................................................................................ 17
2.5.3.1 Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) ......................................................................... 18
2.5.4 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 18
ix
CHAPTER: THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................ 20
3.1.1 HYDROLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................... 21

3.1.2 THE TRIBUTARIES OF LOTHAR KHOLA ......................................................... 21
3.1.3 SOILS ............................................................................................................... 22
3.1.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES ............................................................................ 22
3.1.5 GEOMORPHOLOGY ......................................................................................... 22
3.1.6 VEGETATION ................................................................................................... 23
3.1.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION ....................................................................... 23
3.2 DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................. 23
3.2.1 COLLECTION OF HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL DATA..................................... 23

3.2.2 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ........................................................................................ 23
3.2.3 WALKOVER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 24
3.2.4 OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA .................................................................... 24
3.2.5 SECONDARY DATA SOURCES .......................................................................... 24
3.3ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.1 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS....................................................................... 24

3.3.1.1 The Gumbel’s Method ..................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1.2 The Log Pearson Type III Method ................................................................................. 25
3.3.1.3 The Log Normal Method................................................................................................. 25
3.3.2 WATER AND ENERGY COMMISSION SECRETARIAT / DEPARTMENT OF
HYDROLOGY AND METEOROLOGY (WECS/DHM) METHOD. .............................. 25
3.3.3 SELECTION OF MODEL/TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS .............................................. 26
3.3.4 METHODS FOR STEADY FLOW MODEL .......................................................... 26
3.3.4.1 Application Procedure for Steady Flow Analysis ......................................................... 26
3.3.4.1.1 Preparation of TIN ................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.4.1.2 Pre GeoRAS application .......................................................................................................... 28
3.3.4.1.3 HEC RAS application............................................................................................................... 28
3.3.4.1.4 Post-processing of HEC-RAS Results and Floodplain Mapping .......................................... 29
3.3.4.1.5 Flood Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 29
3.4 DATA ENTRY ...................................................................................................... 30
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER: FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 RESULTS OF FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS..................................................... 32

4.2 PREPARATION OF LANDUSE/LANDCOVER MAP ................................................ 32
4.3 PREPARATION OF TIN IN ARCVIEW GIS.......................................................... 34
4.4 STEADY FLOW ANALYSIS AND FLOOD RISK ANALYSIS.................................... 34
4.4.1 Steady Flow Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35
4.4.2 Flood Hazard Analysis ....................................................................................................... 36
4.4.3 Flood Vulnerability Analysis ............................................................................................. 37
4.4.4 Flood Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................ 39
4.5 FLOODED AREA BY VDC ................................................................................... 41
x
4.6 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 42
4.7 APPLICATIONS.................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER: FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 44

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORKS ...................................................... 44
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 46
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................. 51
ANNEX A TABLES ............................................................................................... 52

ANNEX B FIGURE ............................................................................................... 56
ANNEX C MAPS .................................................................................................. 57
ANNEX D PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................... 64
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Morphometric Characteristic of Lothar Khola and Tributaries (ERMC&
FBC, 2006) ................................................................................................................... 21
Table 2: Value of Standard Normal Variate ................................................................ 26
Table 3: Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Different Landuse (Chow, 1959) ...... 29
Table 4: Peak Discharge for Various Return Periods at Lothar Khola ........................ 32
Table 5: Peak Discharge for Various Return Periods by WECS/DHM Method ......... 32
Table 6: Landuse/landcover of Lothar Khola .............................................................. 33
Table 7: Calculation of Flood Area according to Flood Hazard .................................. 36
Table 8: Classification of Flood Area according to Landuse Vulnerability ................ 38
Table 9: Flood Risk Classifications ............................................................................. 40
Table 10: Flooded Area by VDC for 2-Year Return Period Flood.............................. 41
Table 11: Flooded Area by VDC for 200-Year Return Period Flood.......................... 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic of HECRAS Component............................................................. 12
Figure 2: Representation of Terms in the Energy Equation ........................................ 13
Figure 3: HECRAS Conveyance Sub-division Method............................................... 14
Figure 4: Mean Energy Head Calculation ................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Interface Method of GIS Linkage by HEC-GeoRAS ................................... 16
Figure 6: Location Map of Lothar Khola ..................................................................... 20
Figure 7: One Dimensional Floodplain Analysis Using HEC-RAS, GIS and
HECGeoRAS ............................................................................................................... 27
Figure 8: Landuse/landcover Map of Lothar Khola .................................................... 33
Figure 9: TIN of Lothar Khola..................................................................................... 34
Figure 10: Return Periods and Area Inundation Relationship ..................................... 35
Figure 11: Discharge versus Flow Area Relationship ................................................. 35
Figure 12: Return Period-Flood Depth Relationship ................................................... 37
Figure 13: Depth-Flooded Area Relationship .............................................................. 37
Figure 14: Vulnerability Classification for Different Year Return Period Flood ........ 38
Figure 15: Landuse-Flood Depth Relationship for 2-Years Return Period Flood ....... 39
Figure 16: Landuse-Flood Depth Relationship for 200-Years Return Period Flood ... 41
xii
CHAPTER: ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
River and river systems are very important to man. In the historical times, the entire
civilization grew around or near the rivers. River and their adjacent floodplain corridors
fulfill a variety of functions both as part of the natural ecosystem and for a variety of
human uses. The rivers and river systems also have negative values; they often cause great
damage and death due to flood. Flood hazard is the probability of occurrence of a
potentially damaging flood event of a certain magnitude within a given time period and
area (Brooks, 2003). River flooding represents the most common global hazard causing
phenomenal losses. Throughout human history, swelling rivers and floods have taken a
heavy toll on properties and lives and caused more economic losses than any other hazard.
Asia continent is much affected by floods and the countries like India, China, Philippines,
Iran, Bangladesh and Nepal are extremely vulnerable (WWAP, 2006). It indicates that the
majority of flood disasters’ victims are poor people of developing countries, who suffer
most and are the first casualty of such incidents.
High relief, steep slopes, complex geological structures with active tectonic processes and
continued seismic activities, and a climate characterized by great seasonality in rainfall, all
combine to make Nepal natural disasters prone area, mainly earthquake, water induced
disaster such as flood, landslides, glacier lake outburst flood (GLOF), etc. About 6000
rivers and rivulets drain Nepal, with a combined total length exceeds 45,000 km, having a
total drainage area of 191,000 sq. km. They discharge more than 200 billion m3 of water
annually. As the river emerge into plain from steep and narrow mountains gorges, they
spread out with an abrupt gradient decrease that has three major consequences; deposition
of bed load, changes in river course, and frequent floods (Jollinger, 1979). The main cause
of river flooding in the Himalayan Region is the occurrence of heavy rainfall during the
monsoon, mostly southern slopes of Churia and Mahabharat receive more rainfall.
Flooding, discharge of excessive water exceeding the channel capacity, and Flash floods,
originating from thunderstorms are the most pervasive and costly natural hazards faced by
the Nepalese people. The problem of flood hazard is particularly prominent in the
southern plains of Nepal where the gradient of the river channel is very low. Apart from
hydrological phenomenon, the presence of natural or man-made obstructions in the flood
path such as bridge piers, floating debris, weirs, barrage, outburst of landslide dam, glacial
lake, failure of different structures, etc. causes flooding. Some of the rivers are dry during
the winter season, while in the monsoon they become active and cause immense damage
(Dixit, 1999).Therefore, it is not uncommon to have floods in a country having such large
rivers and monsoon.
1
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).
Nepal is known all over the world as a hot spot for disasters. According to Dilley et al.
(2005), Nepal falls in 11th position on disaster venerability in the world and half of its
population is under the threat of four types of disaster at a time including flood. The
problem of flood in certain plain areas in Nepal is a chronic problem. The majority of
flood disasters’ victims are poor people living in the flood plain. The deteriorating
consequences of flood disasters are exacerbating through self-exited poverty-cycle
phenomenon (Osti, 2004). The expansion of urban areas and economic activities in flood
plain is placing additional people and infrastructures at risk. Thus, resulting in changes in
natural slope, river morphology and the drainage system, land use/land cover; the
frequency in the occurrence of landslide and flood hazards, exacerbating the water
induced disasters.
Lothar Khola is located almost at the midway between Narayanghat and Hetauda section
of the East-West Highway. There is a 120 m long bridge across the Lothar Khola; where
the bed level has been rising in an unprecedented rate. It was learnt that the bed level of
this Khola rose by seven meters in four years. Therefore, it is important to consider the
appropriate mitigation measures timely since, the Lothar Khola Bridge is at risk and the
people around are vulnerable. Lothar riverbanks are prone to the erosion every year. The
river has been eroding its banks at a rate of 0.5 m/annum on an average (ERMC & FBC,
2006). The floods of 1993 and 2002 have caused severe inundation.
In 1993: Damaged land and houses in various VDCs. About 1000 ha of paddy land
inundated, 17 households shifted for three months, killed two people and a large
numbers of cattle in this area.
In 2000: Paddy crops were damaged along the river banks of the Lothar Khola and
around 20-50 HHs inundated in all the affected VDCs.
In 2002: Approximately 20 houses, one primary school, 32 bigas of paddy land

were completely damaged and two people and large number of cattle were killed.
Approximately one km of blacktop road of East West highway was washed away.
In 2007: Loss of three lives in Chitwan in monsoon, among them two persons were
dead of floods, drowned by Lothar Khola. (Disaster Watch - Nepal, 2007).
2
This particular vulnerability of local people underlines the urgent need to promote
relatively fast and socially accepted cost effective structural as well as non-structural
counter-measures that should be planned and implemented by community according to
their real needs and affordability. Thus, this study provides non structural counter
measures to beware from certain frequencies of flood hazard and identify areas susceptible
to living, agricultural practices, etc in floodplain.
1.2 Objective of study
General objective
The main objective of the study is to conduct floodplain analysis and risk assessment of
Lothar Khola using one dimensional hydraulic model HEC-RAS, ArcView GIS and Hec-
GeoRAS to inference between HEC-RAS and ArcView. The specific objectives of study
are as follows:
Specific objectives
1. To assess the flood frequency for the quantitative assessment of flood problem in
the area.
2. To analyze the floodplain by using one dimensional steady flow model.
3. To prepare flood risk, vulnerability and hazard map.
1.3 Limitations of the study
The main limitation during the course of this research was the lack of different data. The
limitations are sub divided into data related and model related limitations.
Data Related Limitations

• The cross-section data, which is one of the major layer for the model is extracted
by the software on the basis of generated TIN which may not represent the river
geometry properly.
• TIN was generated from Digital contour data provided by Department of Survey,
as the topography is irregular, TIN, thus, prepared only represents approximate
terrain
Model Related Limitations

• The HEC-RAS model assumes that the canal geometry has a fixed boundary
during the runoff event to be modeled.
3
• Steady, one-dimensional model was used in this study; the results are also affected
by the limitations of assumptions used in such a model. The assumption of one-
dimensional flow may not be always a valid assumption. The divided flow pattern
within a cross-section produces multiple water surface elevations and multiple
flow paths. One-dimensional model like HEC-RAS cannot take account of such a
flow pattern.
4
CHAPTER: TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 River Flooding
River flood has been defined as "a general and temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from the usual and rapid runoff of surface waters
from rainfall". Flood is used in a broader sense to cover several river activities that causes
damage, i.e., inundation of floodplains and adjacent terraces, bank cutting, river channel
shifting, and debris torrents during normally high discharge (UNDRO 1991).
2.2 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. The knowledge of magnitude and probable
frequency of such recurrence is also required for proper design and location of hydraulic
structures and for other allied studies. After a detailed study of the gauge data and its
descriptive parameters such as mean and standard deviation, etc. and applying probability
theory, one can reasonably predict the probability of occurrence of any major flood events
in terms of discharge or water level for a specified return period (Singh, 2004). 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). Actually, there is no methodology
available that can determine the exact amount of flood. Various methods available are
either based on probability or empirical.
Methods based on Probability Theory are Gumbel’s, Log Normal and Log Pearson III
type, etc. Sharma et. al. (2003), studied flood risk zoning of Khando river and Osti (2008)
conducted feasibility study on Integrated Community Based Flood Disaster Management
of Banke, District using these formulas. Various empirical approaches such as Creager's
formula, WECS/DHM Method, Modified Dicken's Method, B.D. Richard's Method,
Synder's 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, the WECS/DHM Method
seems to be reasonable (Ranjit, 2006). Gautam and Kharbujha (2006) studied about the
flood hazard of Bagmati River using WECS/DHM Method.
5
Nowadays, Satellite Rainfall Estimation is used in hydrological models to predict runoff
and river discharge, and subsequent likelihood of floods and flash floods; area at risk of
drought; and other rainfall related events. Satellite based rainfall estimates and products
derived from them are accessible through the internet, and are being used for many diverse
meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and/ other applications throughout the world
(Shrestha, 2008).
2.3 Assessment and Analysis of Floods
Flood, is common phenomenon in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) region.

Nepal lies in middle portion of the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. In the higher reaches,
the problem is mainly confined to landslides, debris flows and river bank undercutting,
whereas in the low lying areas like the Terai, the inner Terai, and the valleys, the floods
generally overflow the bank and cause bank erosion, inundation and fields are filled with
sediments every year during the monsoon (June- September) in the numerous streams and
rivers.
There is a consensus that risks resulting from hydrological extremes are on the increase.
This point of view is fuelled by evidence both from recent changes in the frequency and
severity of floods as well as droughts and outputs from climate models which predict
increases in hydrological variability (IPCC, 2007). One of the non-structural measures for
risk reduction is the delineation of flood-prone areas, it involves modeling the complex
interaction of river flow hydraulics with topographical and land use features of the
floodplains.
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. Most of the flood
protection works are carried out at the local level without preplanning and without
considering the problems at the river basin scale. 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. Similarly, hazard map of
severely affected areas from the high intensity precipitation event in 1993 in Sarlahi
district (Lama, 1995) were prepared. Hazardous sites in the Agra, Belkhu, and Malekhu
Khola watersheds were mapped (DPTC and CDG, 1994).
6
Samarakon et. 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 Mahato et. 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.
Hazard maps have been prepared for the Sun Koshi and Bhote Koshi 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.
Studies on water induced disaster control measures have been reported from some
problematic regions of Nepal (Bhandari, 1996). The maps show the zone vulnerable to
flood hazards. Flood risk was zoned for the return periods of 10 & 50-years. Similarly,
mitigation and management of floods in Nepal was mentioned comprehensively with well
assembled information and data by Chettri and Bhattari (2001).
The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology 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 cross-sections 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 couldn’t represent the actual flood water levels. These maps
also don’t show a relationship of the hazard to the return period of flooding and to the
flood water depth (JICA/DOI, 1999).
7
Awal et. 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 (2000). Similarly,
GIS was applied for flood risk zoning in the Khando Khola in eastern Terai of Nepal by
Shrama et. 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.
In 2003, the UNDP Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDP/OCHA)

carried out one mapping and assessment exercise entitled Mutli-hazard mapping and
vulnerability assessment of Chitwan district. The study attempted to identify settlements
located in disaster areas, estimates the number of households and populations in those
settlements; assess the risk, discuss the major causes of disasters; and prepare maps
showing different types and levels of hazard in the district.
Mapping and Assessing Hazard in the Ratu watershed was done by Ghimire et. 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).
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
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.
2.4 Tools for Floodplain Analysis and Mapping
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 distribution
of flow across a cross section the models can be further divided into one-dimensional and
two-dimensional model.
8
Descriptions of some of the available software tools are presented below.
2.4.1 Geographical Information System (GIS)
A Geographic Information System is a rapidly developing tool with a range of

applications. GIS is defined as computer systems capable of assembling, storing,
manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced information (USGS, 1998). The
power of GIS lies in its tremendous clarity of presentation and analysis. It has the ability
to take scattered, confusing data and to represent its spatial relationships in such a way
that researchers can realize new levels of understanding. In the 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 (Noah
Raford, 1999 as cited in Awal, 2003). GIS, thus, provides a powerful and versatile tool to
facilitate a fast and transparent decision-making.
There are a number of GIS software, which include ArcView, Arc/Info, ILWIS, GRASS,
MapInfo, etc. ArcView, ArcGIS, GIS developed by ESRI is a powerful, 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 as maps, tables and charts. These provide the tools to query
and analyze the data and present the results as presentation-quality maps. All the activities
in ArcView/ArcGIS, GIS are organized in a project, which may consist of views, tables,
charts, layouts, and scripts. Using Avenue, we can customize ArcView's menus, buttons,
and tools for specific applications. Different extensions, add-on programs, can provide
advanced functionality in ArcView GIS (ESRI, 1996).
2.4.2 Remote Sensing (RS)
Remote Sensing (RS) technique is one of the valuable tools for assessing the water
induced hazard and risk. RS techniques are used for extracting the information from the
data obtained from sensors onboard remote platforms generally satellites and aircraft.
With the improvements in the resolutions of imageries and possibility of stereo capability
and digital image processing method, the use of satellite imageries has become
increasingly important for hazard and risk assessment. The emerging trend of researches
on natural hazards by applying modern remote sensing techniques is a testimony of this.
For planning the flood control and related works, reliable and timely information about
flooded areas, river behavior and configuration prior to floods, during the floods and after
the floods is required, such information is very difficult to acquire through conventional
ground surveys. Advent of satellite remote sensing technology has helped in solving the
problems of mapping, monitoring and management of floods/flood prone areas.
9
2.4.3 Global Positioning System (GPS)
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite-based navigation system made up of a

network of 24 satellites (NAVSTAR Series) placed into orbit by the U.S. Department of
Defense to determine the position of a feature on the earth's surface. GPS was originally
intended for military applications, but in the 1980s, the government made the system
available for civilian use (Naik, 2009). GPS works in any weather conditions, anywhere in
the world, 24 hours a day. GPS satellites circle the earth twice a day in a very precise orbit
and transmit signal information to earth. GPS receivers take this information and use
triangulation to calculate the user's exact location. Essentially, the GPS receiver compares
the time a signal was transmitted by a satellite with the time it was received. The time
difference tells the GPS receiver how far away the satellite is. Now, with distance
measurements from a few more satellites, the receiver can determine the user's position
and display it on the unit's electronic map. Certain atmospheric factors and other sources
of error can affect the accuracy of GPS receivers.
A GPS receiver must be locked on to the signal of at least three satellites to calculate a 2D
position (latitude and longitude) and track movement. With four or more satellites in view,
the receiver can determine the user's 3D position (latitude, longitude and altitude). Once
the user's position has been determined, the GPS unit can calculate other information, such
as speed, bearing, track, trip distance, distance to destination, sunrise and sunset time and
more. Therefore, GPS offers opportunity for easier and reasonably accurate location of
features on the earth's surface at a low cost. Combined with GIS, the GPS offers a rapid
means of presenting field information as thematic maps, tailored to individual needs. GPS
can provide accurate coordinates sufficient to meet the requirements of the locational data
policy.
2.5 Details of Selected Models

2.5.1 HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS is an integrated system of software, designed for interactive use in a

multitasking, multi-user network environment. The system is comprised of a graphical
user interface (GUI), separate hydraulic analysis components, data storage and
management capabilities, graphics and reporting facilities (USACE, 2002). The HEC-
RAS software supersedes the HEC-2 river hydraulics package, which was a one
dimensional, steady flow water surface profiles program. The first version of HEC-RAS
was released in July of 1995. Since that time, there have been several releases of this
software package, including versions: 1.1; 1.2; 2.0; 2.1; 2.2; 2.21; 3.0; 3.1; and now
version 4.0 in March of 2008.
10
HEC-RAS is designed to perform one-dimensional hydraulic calculations for a full
network of natural and constructed channels. The current version of HEC-RAS supports
Steady and Unsteady Flow Water Surface Profile calculations, perform sediment transport
simulation and perform water quality simulation.
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. The steady
flow component is capable of modeling subcritical, supercritical, and mixed flow regime
water surface profiles. The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the
one-dimensional energy equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction (Manning's
equation) and contraction/expansion (coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity
head). The momentum equation is utilized in situations where the water surface profile is
rapidly varied.
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 HEC-
RAS. Based on the comparative study of steady and unsteady flow analysis, it was
observed that the water surface elevation computed by unsteady model was less than
steady flow analysis and the flooded area was about 2.84% more in case of steady
analysis.
Osti (2008) prepared flood inundation map based on the gradually varied steady flow
analysis using HEC-RAS of different year return periods flood and also, mapped the
settlements area under high hazard zones.
Dangol (2008) assessed the flood inundation problem in Blakhu 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.
2.5.1.1 Components of HEC-RAS

HEC-RAS consists of several individual components that are linked to one another
through the graphical user interface RAS.EXE. HEC-RAS employs the concept of a
project to describe a stream system. The graphical user interface is used to create, edit and
manage project files. Projects are created and edited within the graphical interface. Steady-
state hydraulic simulations are conducted using the steady-state flow model SNET.EXE.
11
Unsteady flow computations are carried out by the UNET.EXE model. The user interface
will prepare the data for use with the appropriate steady or unsteady flow model, which
then performs numerical computations. The hydraulic results are stored in an output file,
which is then read by the user interface. Using tabular and graphical reporting features
available within the user interface, the results of the hydraulic simulation can be
examined. Fig. 1 provides a schematic of the HEC-RAS system.
Project Creating and Results Presentation

Editing RAS.EXE
Project File Program output
- Geometric data Steady Flow Model

- Steady Flow data (SNET.EXE)
- Plan
Figure 1: Schematic of HECRAS Component

(Source: USACE, 2002)
It is not necessary to execute the numerical models in order to graphically view data.
Cross-section and profile plots can be viewed without conducting a simulation. Viewing
the cross-sectional or profile geometry prior to conducting a simulation, it is usually easier
to spot major geometric errors using a graphic image than examining the contents of a
table but no hydraulic information (water surface elevations, energy grade lines, etc.) will
be shown on the graphic plot unless the hydraulic analysis is first carried out.
2.5.1.2 Theoretical Basis for One-Dimensional Flow Calculations (HEC-RAS)
In steady-state modeling, the flows are prescribed by the user and the model calculates
water levels at discrete cross-sections. There is essentially one unknown variable (stage)
and therefore, one equation is needed - the energy equation. In unsteady modeling, two
variables are calculated (stage and flow), so two equations are needed. Unsteady modeling
is also, concerned with how these parameters change with time and distance downstream.
This is reflected in the partial differential terms in the equations.
2.5.1.2.1 Steady Flow Water Surface Profiles

Different fundamental equations used for HEC-RAS algorithm to compute water surface
elevations using the standard step method for steady flow analysis are:
12
Energy Equations
Water surface profiles are computed from one cross-section to the next by solving the
Energy Equation with an iterative procedure. Energy equation is based on Principle of
conservation of the energy and it states that the sum of the kinetic energy and potential
energy at a particular cross-section is equal to the sum of the potential and kinetic energy
at any other cross section plus or minus energy loss or gains between the sections. The
energy equation can be written as follows:
……… (i)
Where Z1, Z2 = elevation of the main channel inverts

Y1, Y2 = depth of water at cross sections
V1, V2 = average velocities
α1, α2 = velocity weighing coefficients
g = gravitational acceleration
he = energy head loss
A diagram showing the terms of the energy equation is shown in following Figure:2
Figure 2: Representation of Terms in the Energy Equation

The energy head loss (he) is expressed as
………. (ii)
Where: L = discharge weighted reach length

S f = representative friction slope between two sections
13
C = expansion or contraction loss coefficient
The distance weighted reach length, L, is calculated as:
……… (iii)
Where: L lob, L ch, L rob = x-section reach length specified for flow in the left
overbank, main channel and right overbank
respectively
Qlob, Qch, Qrob = arithmetic average of the flows between sections for
the left overbank, main channel and right overbank
respectively
Calculation of Conveyance
The determination of total conveyance and the velocity coefficient for a cross-section
requires that flow be sub-divided into units for which the velocity is uniformly distributed.
The approach used in HEC-RAS is to sub-divide flow in the overbank areas using the
input cross-section n-value break points (location where n-values change) as the basis for
sub-division. Conveyance is calculated within each sub-division forms the following form
of Manning's equation:
……. (iv)
AR2/3……… (v)
Where: K = conveyance for sub-division
n = Manning's roughness coefficient for sub-division
A = flow area for sub-division
R = hydraulic radius for sub-division
Figure 3: HECRAS Conveyance Sub-division Method

14
All the incremental conveyances in the overbank are summed to obtain a conveyance for
the left and the right overbank and the total conveyance for the cross-section is obtained
by summing the three subdivision conveyances (left, channel and right).
Calculation of Mean Kinetic Energy Head

Mean kinetic energy head for each cross-section is obtained by computing the flow
weighted kinetic energy heads for three sub-sections of the cross-sections (Left Overbank,
Channel, and Right Overbank). Fig.4 illustrates the mean kinetic energy calculation
process for a cross-section with a main channel and right overbank.
Figure 4: Mean Energy Head Calculation

To compute the mean kinetic energy it is necessary to obtain the velocity head weighting
coefficient alpha. Alpha can be calculated by using following equation.
………(vi)
Where:
At = total flow area of cross-section
Alob, Ach, Arob = flow areas of left overbank, main channel right overbank respectively
Kt = total conveyance of cross-section
Klob, Kch, Krob = conveyance of left overbank, main channel and right over bank,
respectively
2.5.2 HEC-GeoRAS
HEC-GeoRAS is an ArcView GIS extension specifically designed to process geo-spatial

data for use with the Hydrologic Engineering Center River's Analysis System (HECRAS).
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.
15
Water surface profile results may also be processed to visualize inundation depths and
boundaries. HEC-GeoRAS extension for ArcView GIS used an interface method to
provide a direct link to transfer information between the ArcView GIS and the HEC-RAS
as shown in Fig. 5.
HEC-GeoRAS 3.1 requires Arc View GIS 3.2, or higher, with 3D Analyst 1.0 extension.
While not required, the availability of the Spatial Analyst extension significantly speeds
up post-processing. The full functionality of HEC-GeoRAS 3.1 requires HEC-RAS 3.1.
Older versions of HEC-RAS may be used, however, with limitations on importing
roughness coefficients, ineffective flow data, levee data, and storage area data; exporting
velocities; and filtering cross-section data points. HEC-GeoRAS 3.1, extension provides
the user with a set of procedures, tools, and utilities for the preparation of GIS data for
import into RAS and generation of GIS data form RAS output. These tasks are organized
as pre-processing (preRAS) and post-processing (postRAS) facilitated by menu and
buttons.
Figure 5: Interface Method of GIS Linkage by HEC-GeoRAS

(Source: Awal, 2003)
2.5.2.1 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
16
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 developed from DTM of the channel and
surrounding land surface, while the cross-sectional 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.
2.5.2.2 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 RAS-
GIS 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,
HECGeoRAS can also generate the velocity TIN and grid (ESRI, 1999).
2.5.3 ArcView GIS
ArcView GIS developed by ESRI (1996) is a powerful, easy to use tool that brings GIS to
desktop. ArcView GIS is equipped with excellent graphical user interface (GUI), which
enables visualization, exploring and the analysis of spatial data. All the activities in
ArcView GIS are organized in a project, which may consist of views, tables, charts,
layouts, and scripts. ArcView GIS also facilities customization with its object oriented
programming language called AVENUE. With AVENUE, it is possible to create a new
interface and customize the existing one and automate the repetitive tasks (ESRI, 1996).
The stand-alone ArcView GIS is capable of displaying, viewing, editing vector dataset
called shape files. It has also the facility to display tables, charts, layouts associated with
the shape files. Like ARC/INFO, ArcView GIS also consists of a number of extensions,
designed to perform a particular task. The processing, modeling, visualization and
interpretation of grid based raster data can be performed using the spatial analyst
extension. Similarly, the three dimensional surface creation, visualization and analysis can
be done using 3D analyst extension. ArcView Image Analysis facilities the advanced
image integration, display, and analysis. Similarly ArcView GIS consists of a number of
extensions, designed to perform special tasks. Some of these extensions are bundled with
ArcView GIS and others optional ones. HEC-GeoRAS is used to interface between GIS
and HEC-RAS.
17
2.5.3.1 Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN)
Triangulated irregular network is a surface representation derived from interconnected and
non-overlapping triangles. The vertices of the triangles are formed by irregularly spaced
sample points. Each point has x, y coordinate and a surface or z-value (ESRI, 1997). Any
floodplain model needs information about the elevation of the ground points inside the
flood prone areas. Since the TIN model is the three dimensional presentation to the terrain,
they become very important information to floodplain modeling. Thus the TIN model can
be considered as the backbone of the flood predictions. These kinds of models enable
computer processing to solve problems faster and better than dealing with the natural
ground.
2.5.4 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) as cited in Awal (2003) 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.
Several researches have defined methodologies for the flood risk assessment. Gilard
(1996) presented an approach that divides the flood risk into the factors of vulnerability
and hazard. He described the vulnerability as the sensitivity of land use to the flood
phenomenon, which depends only on land use type and social perception of the risk. The
second factor, hazard, depends only on the flow regime of the river and is independent of
the land use of the flood plains. Consequently, the same flow will flood the same area with
the same physical parameters; whatever should be the real land use.
Boyle et al (1998) as cited in Awal (2003) discussed the assessment of the expected
damage due to the flood in terms of four primary steps. These include: (1) hydrological
frequency analysis; (2) hazard assessment; (3) hazard exposure analysis; and (4) damage
assessment. In this methodology, the hydrological frequency analysis is based upon the
historical records and provides an estimate of exceedance probability or recurrence
interval of the flood of a particular magnitude. The hazard assessment includes the
assessment of risks posed by a flood event in terms of tangible and intangible damages.
After identifying the potential hazards, the next step in the assessment process includes the
estimation of extent and severity of the damages in terms of hazard exposure analysis,
18
usually defined by floodwater depth and the velocity. The damage assessment involves
estimating the impact of the likely exposure in terms of the costs of replacing and
restoring the affected areas.
The flood hazard and exposure assessment can be undertaken as outlined in the three
approaches by Rejeski (1993) as cited in Awal (2003). In the first approach, a simple
binary model, describes the hazard as either present or absent. The second approach,
spatial coexistence model is represented by a weighted model, which involves ranking
locations within the hazard area according to the severity of the hazard. The third
approach is the quantitative interval ratio model that assigns numbers to locations that
quantify the unit hazard factor.
19
CHAPTER: THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
The Lothar Khola watershed lies in Narayani Zone of Central Region of Nepal. It extends
between 270 33’ N to 270 35’ N Latitude and 84041’ E to 84050’ E longitude (Fig.6). The
watershed partially includes two districts Chitwan and Makawanpur. It has a catchment
area of 170 sq. km. Out of which 78.04 sq. km lies in Chitwan district and 91.96 sq. km
lies in Makawanpur district. Manahari and Kakada VDCs of Makawanpur district are
located in the eastern part of Lothar Khola. Meanwhile, Lothar, Korak, Piple VDCs are
located in the western part of Lothar Khola. The watershed is covered with undeveloped
hills, forestlands and cultivated lands and consists of steep rocky hills and valleys sloping
towards south. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 2080 m to 220 m.
Figure 6: Location Map of Lothar Khola
Lothar Khola originates from Mahabharat ranges, flows North to South, has a steep
gradient and ultimately drains into Rapti River about 2 km south of Lothar Bazar. Major
tributaries of the river are Kali Khola, Reuti Khola and Panthali Khola. The mean monthly
20
dry season discharge (May) is 2.05 m3/sec and average discharge during monsoon (June -
September) is 10.17 m3/sec (DHM, 2006). Four irrigation systems draw water from this
river; the volume of water diminishes significantly during the dry season.
3.1.1 Hydrological and Meteorological Characteristics
Climate of the area varies from sub-tropical at lower altitude to temperate at higher
altitudes. Average annual rainfall of study area is 1944 mm at Jhawani Station and annual
minimum and maximum temperature is between 180C and 300C Record for the Maximum
rainfall within 24 hrs is 130.17 mm at Rampur station. More than 80% of total rain occurs
between June to September i.e. during monsoon period and these months are the
catastrophic months in terms of flooding (DHM, 2006).
3.1.2 The Tributaries of Lothar Khola
Table 1 shows the tributaries of Lothar Khola (ERMC& FBC, 2006). Of the major rivers
in the Lothar Khola watershed, the overall gradient is the highest in Kali Khola and lowest
in Reuti Khola. The gradient, however, is uniform in none of the rivers. Lothar Khola is
flowing at a gradient of 40 m/km. Kali Khola is flowing at a gradient of 203 m/km.
Bangsiling Khola flows at a gradient of 161 m/km. Reuti Khola has a gradient of 70 m/km
for a distance of 12 km. The gradient breakage roughly coincides with the
Mahabharat/Siwaliks boundary. Sankar Khola flows at a gradient of 192 m/km. The Imiti
Khola flows at a gradient of 214 m/km. Panthali Khola flows at a gradient of 116 m/km.
Table 1: Morphometric Characteristic of Lothar Khola and Tributaries (ERMC& FBC, 2006)
Streams Stream Bed elevation Length Average Height Catchment
km gradient Elevation, m area (sq km)
Head, m Base, m
Lothar 1310.64 243.80 26.80 0.004 1935.48 170.00
Kali 1524.00 609.60 4.50 0.203 1935.48 9.50
Bangsiling 1371.60 487.70 5.50 0.161 1905.00 13.11
Reuti 1280.16 441.96 12.0 0.070 1828.80 39.69
Sankar 1828.80 772.40 5.50 0.192 1935.48 19.10
Imti 1676.40 472.44 5.63 0.214 1897.38 11.20
Panthali 1524.00 365.80 10.00 0.116 1927.86 32.87
21
3.1.3 Soils
The soils found in the study area are mainly three types:
(1) Alluvial (2) Colluvial and (3) Residual (ERMC& FBC, 2006).
1. Alluvial soils
These types of soils are found sporadically in the study area. They are observed along the
middle reaches of the Lothar Khola and its main tributary. The alluvial soils form
alternating layers of gravel, sand and fines, and their thickness generally does not exceed
10 m.
2. Colluvial soils
Colluvial soils are found mainly in the upper reaches of the Kali Khola and Imti Khola
and at Dihitar. Generally, the colluvial soils are thinner on the upper slopes and thicker
near the foothills.
3. Residual soils
These types of soils occupy an extensive area. They are found along the upper reaches of
the Lothar Khola, Bangsiling Khola, Reuti Khola and Imti Khola as well as in cultivated
land in Karase, Sillingi, Silladhani and Dhusabagar. The residual soils are derived mainly
from phyllites, calc. schists and mica schists. They are red to light brown in color.
3.1.4 Geological Structures
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Mahabharat Thrust (MT) are major tectonic structures
in the study area. MBT, which marks the contact between the Siwaliks and the Lesser
Himalayan Rocks. It lies in the study area and passes north of Panthali Khola and south of
the Silingi village. The thrust is dipping at moderate to high angle towards north and
expanding east-west. Besides these thrusts, the study area is characterized by number of
small folds (syncline and anticline). Mahabharat Thrust (MT) separates the rocks between
Katmandu Complex and Nawakot Complex which lies in the study area. It runs through
Imti Khola and South of Bangshiling Khola and passes through the about 5 km upstream
from the confluence of Sankar Khola and Reuti Khola (DWIDP, 2007).
3.1.5 Geomorphology
Most of the study area is occupied by hills with jungles and cultivated lands. There are
several river valleys in between these hills. The relief of the area decreases and increases
repeatedly from south to north due to the repetition of lithological units. The areas where
weak rocks like mudstone, slate, phyllite and schist are exposed generally constitute lower
relief, whereas the massive thick bedded sandstone and quartzite from high hills with
steep slopes. Relief of the area is maximum towards the north and minimum towards the
south. Most of the ridges follow east-west trend. The slope of the hills also, increases from
south to north. However, The Mahabharat range and Siwalik Foothills are the two major
geomorphologic zones. Within these zones, there are various other secondary landforms
22
such as intramontane valleys, channel bars over bank deposits, point bars, alluvial fans
and river terraces (DWIDP, 2007).
3.1.6 Vegetation
In most of the area of the subtropical low land as well as hilly terrain of the study area, the
vegetation found are sub tropical type. Major forest species found are Shorea robusta,
(Sal), Dalbergia Sissoo (Sissoo), Acacia catechu (Khayer), Bombax ceiba (Simal),
Lagerstroemia parviflora (Dhayero), Melia azederach (Bakaina), Cedrella toona (Tooni)
etc. Major agricultural crops produced were Zea mays (maize), Eleusine coracana
(millet), Oriza sativa (paddy), Triticum aestivum (wheat), etc.
3.1.7 Socio-economic condition
Major occupation of the area is subsistence agriculture followed by wage labour and
business. In the upstream of the Lothar Khola, shifting agriculture or slash and burn
agriculture is prevalent, which is one of the major causes of water-induced disaster. The
transport and communication facilities of Manahari and Piple VDCs are very good. The
East-west Highway is running in the middle of the VDC, communication facility like
telephone is available to the local people. Lothar, Korak and Kakada lack both types of
facilities. In terms of ethnicity, majority are Chepang, followed by Tamang and Newar in
the upstream of the river. Moreover, heterogeneous ethnic groups are residing in Manahari
and Piple VDCs along the east-west highway.
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Collection of Hydro-Meteorological Data
Meteorological data, particularly rainfall and temperature of the nearest stations Rampur
Station (Index 0902), Beluwa Station and Jhawan Station and similarly, the hydrological
data of river system, Lothar Khola Station (470) was collected from the Department of
Hydrology and Meteorology.
3.2.2 Topographic Map
Digital copy of Topographical Map of study area sheet number 2784 08C, 08A, 07B, 07D
(Scale 1:25,000) of year 1992 was collected from the Department of Survey, Kathmandu.
23
3.2.3 Walkover Survey
A walkover survey was carried out in the months of July and Nov 2009 to get the general
understanding of the land use/land cover status, previous disaster history of the study area,
etc. Photographs and GPS points of the area were taken for the visual interpretation of the
Landuse/landcover of the study area.
3.2.4 Other Socio-economic Data
Data of total population was collected from the secondary sources, like DDC, VDC and
census data of Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS, 2003).
3.2.5 Secondary Data Sources
Related publications, reports, books, literatures were consulted from different sources, like
IoF library, IoE library, ICIMOD library, Nepal Red Cross Society of Chitwan, Central
Bureau of Statistics, Department of Survey, Department of Water Induced Disaster
Prevention Centre and the World Wide Web through Internet.
3.3Analysis Methods
3.3.1 Flood Frequency Analysis
The flood frequency analysis is one of the important studies of river hydrology which was
conducted based on maximum instantaneous flow (Yadav, 2002) by Gumbel’s method,
Log Normal and Log Pearson III Type method and also by WECS/DHM method (Sharma,
et al., 2003).
3.3.1.1 The Gumbel’s Method

The Gumbel’s method (Gumbel Distribution) is the most widely used probability
distribution function for extreme values in hydrologic and meteorological studies for
prediction of flood peaks and maximum rainfalls (Subramanya, 1994). In this method the
variate X (maximum rainfall or flood peak discharge) with a recurrence interval T is given
by
XT = Xavg + K sn-1……………….. (vii)
Where XT = maximum rainfall or flood peak discharge

Xave = average value of X
sn-1 = Standard deviation of sample size N =

∑ (x − x ave )2
N −1
24
yt − y n
K = frequency factor expressed as K =
Sn
 T 
yT = reduced variate, a function of T and is given by yT =  In.In
 T − 1
yN = reduced mean, a function of sample size N
SN = reduced standard deviation, a function of sample size N.
3.3.1.2 The Log Pearson Type 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
hydrologic or meteorologic series, then the series of Z variate where
Z = log X ……………. (viii)
are first obtained for this z series, for any recurrence interval T.
ZT = Zavg + Kzsz …………… (ix)
Where Zave = 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 = ∑(z − z ave )2

N −1
N ∑ ( z − zave )3
Cs = coefficient of skew of variate Z =
( N − 1)( N − 2)(σ s )3
Corresponding value of X = antilog (ZT).
3.3.1.3 The Log Normal Method

The method is basically same as the Log Pearson Type III method except the skewness
coefficient Cs is taken as zero. The log normal distribution plots as a straight line on
logarithmic probability paper (Subramanya, 1994).
3.3.2 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 2‐year and 100‐year floods is adopted for
the study.
Q2 = 2.29(A<3K) 0.86 …………………...(x)
Q100 = 20.7(A<3K) 0.72 ………………….. (xi)
Where Q is the flood discharge in m3/sec and A is basin area in km2.
Subscript 2 and 100 indicate 2‐year and 100 year flood respectively.
25
Similarly, subscript 3k indicates area below 3000m altitude.
Further following relationship (WECS and DHM, 1990) was use d to estimate floods at
other return periods.
Qf = exp (lnQ2+sσ1) ……………………….. (xii)
Where σ1= In (Q100/Q2)/2.326 and
s is the standard normal variate whose values are given in Table 2
Table 2: Value of Standard Normal Variate

Sn Return period (T) in years Standard normal variate (s)
1 2 0
2 5 0.842
3 10 1.282
4 20 1.645
5 50 2.054
6 100 2.326
7 200 2.576
8 500 2.878
3.3.3 Selection of Model/Tools for Analysis
In this study, HEC-RAS version 4.0 was used to calculate water surface profiles and
ArcGIS and ArcView GIS 3.2 were used for the GIS data processing. HEC-GeoRAS 3.1.1
for ArcView GIS 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 and ArcView GIS were used, as they are the most
commonly used packages for GIS data processing.
3.3.4 Methods for Steady Flow Model

3.3.4.1 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:
(a) Preparation of TIN in ArcView GIS
(b) GeoRAS Pre-processing to generate HEC-RAS Import file
(c) Running of HEC-RAS to calculate water surface profiles
(d) Post-processing of HEC-RAS results and floodplain mapping
(e) Flood risk assessment
The approach used for floodplain analysis and risk assessment using one-dimensional
model using HEC-RAS, GIS and HEC-GeoRAS is shown in Fig. 7 and process flow
diagram for using HEC-GeoRAS is shown in Annex B.1.
26
Figure 7: One Dimensional Floodplain Analysis Using HEC-RAS, GIS and
HECGeoRAS (Modified from Awal et. al. 2003)
27
3.3.4.1.1 Preparation of TIN
The contour data provided from Department of Survey was used for Triangulated Irregular
Network (TIN) generation. ArcView 3.2a was used to generate TIN which was used as
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) required in GeoRAS environment in order to prepare data
sets required as input to the HEC-RAS simulation.
Preparation Landuse/landcover Map

The landuse/landcover map of the Lothar 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 ArcView GIS
environment were used for the creating required data sets, making import file for model
simulation in HEC-RAS.
3.3.4.1.2 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.
3.3.4.1.3 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 flow
analysis window. After finished simulation, RAS GIS export file was created. Water
surface profiles were computed from one cross section to the next by solving the energy
equation as stated below.
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 RS 12975.61
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.
28
Table 3: Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Different Landuse (Chow, 1959)
Land use type Manning’s n Value
Barren Land 0.030
Bush 0.050
Cultivation Area 0.035
Cutting Area 0.040
Forest 0.100
Grass land 0.035
Orchard 0.055
River 0.040
Sand 0.030
3.3.4.1.4 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:
(a). 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.
(b). 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.
(c). 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
rasterised water surface TIN from the Terrain TIN.
3.3.4.1.5 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 ArcView GIS.
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
29
particular area with the same hydraulic properties regardless of the land use. Hazard level
may be defined by the parameters like flood depth and exceedance 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 <1, 1.0 -1.5, 1.5 - 2.0, 2 - 2.5, 2.5 - 3.0 and
>3.0 m. 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 exceedance 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 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).
3.4 Data Entry
Data collected from different sources was entered into different software. Secondary
socioeconomic data collected from CBS and DDC Chitwan and Makawanpur were
entered on Microsoft Excel 2007. Likewise climatic data collected from the Department of
Hydrology and Meteorology was also, entered in Microsoft Excel 2007 whereas Etrex
Garmin was used to download GPS data and entered in GIS software ArcView 3.2a.
30
3.5 Data analysis
Flood frequency analysis of 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-Years Return Period was calculated by
Gumbel’s , Log Normal and Log Pearson III type methods, using Rank Plot Software
developed by Water Resources and Environmental Studies, ITC, Netherland. This
program intended to assist in frequency analysis of rainfall or discharge data. The
procedures used are based on semi-graphical methods and on the Log Pearson III type
distribution. Similarly, floods of different return periods were calculated using
WECS/DHM method.
Software ARC GIS 9.3 and ArcView 3.2a were used for analysis and interpretation of GIS
data. All the statistical data was entered and analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2007.
31
CHAPTER: FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results of Flood Frequency Analysis
The result of 2, 10, 50, 100 and 200-years Return Period Flood Frequency Analysis based
on Maximum Instantaneous flow recorded at Lothar Khola (Station 470) from year 1964
– 2004 using Gumbel’s, Log Pearson Type III (LP III) and the Log Normal (LN) and also,
by WECS/DHM Method are summarized below in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.
It is observed that flood frequency analysis by Log Pearson Type III showed discharges of
286, 647, 990, 1137 and 1284 m3/sec for 2-years, 10-years, 50-years, 100-years and 200-
years return periods respectively, which were slightly higher as compared to the results
obtained by Gumbel’s, Log Normal and WECS/DHM method, which were used for
modeling.
Table 4: Peak Discharge for Various Return Periods at Lothar Khola

Station 470, Lothar Return Period
Khola
2 10 50 100 200
Gumbel (m3/s) 305 671 992 1128 1263
LN (m3/s) 339 648 834 900 960
LPIII (m3/s) 286 647 990 1137 1284
Table 5: Peak Discharge for Various Return Periods by WECS/DHM Method

Return Period Discharge (m3/s)
2 190
10 429
50 702
100 835
200 980
4.2 Preparation of Landuse/landcover Map
The land use/landcover map of the Lothar Khola Watershed derived from the 1992 topo-
sheet along with field verification is shown in Fig.8.
The land use and land cover statistics derived from the 1992 topo-sheet exhibits that
almost 60% of the Lothar Khola watershed is occupied by forests (Table 6 and Figure 8).
32
Next to the forests are cultivated lands, which cover about 35.45% of the total area. The
agricultural activities are confined mainly in the southern plains and in the river valleys
and the gentle slopes of the hilly region. A built-up area occupies an insignificant portion,
less than 0.05 %, of the total area.
Figure 8: Landuse/landcover Map of Lothar Khola
Table 6: Landuse/landcover of Lothar Khola

S.N. Type Sq km Percent
1 Forest 10323.28 60.956
2 Cultivation 6001.65 35.438
3 Sand area 278.92 1.647
4 Bush 230.29 1.360
5 Grassland 55.57 0.328
6 Cutting area 44.75 0.264
7 Barren land 0.89 0.005
8 Orchard 0.34 0.002
Total 169.36 100
(Cutting Area here means Deforestation Area)
33
4.3 Preparation of TIN in ArcView GIS
The contour and spot height along with the walkover survey data were used in Arc View
GIS to generate the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) of the study area. While
constructing TIN, elevation range was reclassified into nine classes from 260-462, 462-
664, 664-866, 866-1068, 1068-1271, 1271-1473, 1473-1675,1675-1877, 1877-2080m. It
was observed that Elevation of study area ranged from 260 to 2080m (Fig. 9).
Figure 9: TIN of Lothar Khola
4.4 Steady Flow Analysis and Flood Risk Analysis

As discussed in previous chapter, the risk analysis was carried out in terms of the
Vulnerability and the Hazard. A series of vulnerability and hazard maps were prepared, in
terms of land use type and water depth associated with a flooding event. Further, these
results were combined to assess the depth of flooding in a particular land use. The results
of these assessments are discussed in the following sub-sections.
34
4.4.1 Steady Flow Analysis
It is observed that the flood inundation areas were 230, 240, 247, 250 and 253 ha for 2-
year, 10-year, 50-year, 100-year and 200-year return periods respectively, which showed
moderate increase after 50-year return period (Fig. 10).
260
Innundated Area (Hectares) .
255
250
245
240
235
230
225
0 50 100 150 200
Return Period (Years)
Figure 10: Return Periods and Area Inundation Relationship
Steady Flow Analysis performed in HEC-RAS showed discharges of 286, 647, 990, 1137
and 1284 m3/sec which inundated 230, 240, 246, 249 and 252 ha area respectively. Area
inundated with respect to discharge showed that there was just slight increase in inundated
area (Fig. 11).
Figure 11: Discharge versus Flow Area Relationship
35
4.4.2 Flood Hazard Analysis
The hazard aspect of the flooding is related to the hydraulic and the hydrological
parameters. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table 7 and Fig.12 & 13.
The classification of flood depth areas indicated that 52 to 84 % of the total flooded areas
had water depths greater than 3 m. The total area under the water depth of 1-1.5 m was
quite small. Flood hazard maps of the study areas for 2-year, 10-year, 50-years, 100-year
and 200-year return periods was prepared by overlaying flood grid depths with the TIN
(Annex C: Map 1 - 4).
Table 7: Calculation of Flood Area according to Flood Hazard

Water Total Flood Area (ha)
Depth
2 Year Flood 10 Year Flood 50 Year Flood 100 Year Flood 200 Year Flood
(m)
Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
<1 18.92 8.249 14.77 6.168 12.23 4.956 11.63 4.660 10.83 4.293
1 - 1.5 10.59 4.615 8.70 3.634 5.80 2.349 7.80 3.126 7.63 3.024
1.5 - 2 12.04 5.249 7.94 3.315 7.69 3.114 7.33 2.938 7.71 3.056
2 - 2.5 28.04 12.223 6.74 2.814 6.59 2.669 6.26 2.510 5.80 2.301
2.5 - 3 39.40 17.173 15.21 6.353 8.71 3.529 6.64 2.661 7.04 2.793
>3 120.42 52.490 186.03 77.716 205.75 83.383 209.86 84.104 213.14 84.533
Total 229.41 100 239.37 100 246.75 100 249.53 100 252.14 100
The figures below show that the total areas under the water depth of more than 3.0 m
increased considerably with the increase in the intensity of flooding. For 2-year flood, it is
observed that, inundated area with water depth >3, 2.5-3, 2-2.5, 1.5-2, 1-1.5, <1 meter
were 120, 39, 28, 12, 10, 19 ha respectively and for 200-year flood were 213, 7, 6, 8, 8,
11ha respectively, which showed flood water depth >3 increased with increase in the
intensity of flooding and flood water depth <1 decreased with the increase in the intensity
of flooding (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13).
36
Figure 12: Return Period-Flood Depth Relationship
Figure 13: Depth-Flooded Area Relationship
4.4.3 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. The
assessment of the flood areas indicated that a large percentage (more than 40 %) of
vulnerable area lied in flood plain area i.e. sand area followed by forest and cultivation
area comprising 23% and 18% respectively.
37
Table 8: Classification of Flood Area according to Landuse Vulnerability
Land use Total Vulnerable Area (ha)
type (ha) 2 year flood 10 year flood 50 year flood 100 year flood 200 year
flood
Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
Barren Land 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04
Cultivation 41.93 18.28 45.04 18.82 47.49 19.24 48.48 19.43 49.44 19.61
Cutting Area 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02
Forest 52.43 22.85 56.40 23.56 59.36 24.06 60.46 24.23 61.46 24.37
Orchard 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.04
River 26.08 11.37 26.52 11.08 26.85 10.88 26.97 10.81 27.10 10.75
Sand Area 108.93 47.48 111.23 46.47 112.85 45.73 113.40 45.45 113.90 45.17
Total 229.42 100.00 239.37 100.00 246.75 100.00 249.53 100.00 252.14 100.00
The land use area under the influence of modeled flood is summarized in Table 8 and Fig.
14. The table showed that 42, 53, 26, 108 ha of cultivation area, forest, river and sand area
are respectively inundated by 2-year flood. Similarly, 50, 62, 27, 114 ha of cultivation
area, forest, river and sand area are respectively inundated by 200-year flood, which
showed flooded area increased with increase in flooding intensity, mostly sand area was
inundated by different year floods, which was followed by forest and cultivation area.
Figure 14: Vulnerability Classification for Different Year Return Period Flood
The result of the vulnerability map prepared of different year return period floods by
overlaying flooded area polygon with landuse theme is shown in Annex C: Map 5-8.
38
4.4.4 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
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 of different year return period flood (Annex C: Map 9 - 12). 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 (Fig. 15 and 16). This, hence, depicts potential flood areas in
terms of both the land use vulnerability classes and water depth hazard classes.
The assessment of flood area indicated areas under forest and cultivated land which had
the flood water depth of more than 3.0 m was very high. This indicated potential damages
in food production and negative effects on the livelihoods.
It is observed that for 2-year flood, water depth wise inundated areas were as follows; for
cultivation area with water depth of >3, 2.5-3, 2-2.5, 1.5-2, 1-1.5, >1meter were 12.37,
9.28, 7.64, 3.56, 4.45, 4.63 ha, for forest area were 34.69, 4.69, 4.76, 3.21, 1.49, 3.60 ha,
for River were 18.13, 3.14, 1.74,1.12, 1.05, 0.90 ha and for Sand area were 55.11, 22.29,
13.99, 4.15, 3.61, 9.78 ha respectively (Fig. 15).
Figure 15: Landuse-Flood Depth Relationship for 2-Years Return Period Flood
39
Table 9: Flood Risk Classifications
Landuse Water depth (m) Total Flooded Area (ha) in Return Periods (Years)
Barren land 2 10 50 100 200
>3 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Subtotal 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Cultivation 2 10 50 100 200
<1 4.63 3.61 3.29 3.29 3.30
1-1.5 4.45 2.79 2.33 1.94 1.74
1.5 -2 3.56 3.41 2.50 2.64 2.61
2 - 2.5 7.64 2.35 3.31 2.61 2.38
2.5 -3 9.28 4.01 1.92 2.53 2.91
>3 12.37 28.87 34.15 35.47 36.51
Subtotal 41.93 45.04 47.49 48.48 49.44
CuttingArea
>3 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Subtotal 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Forest
<1 3.60 3.16 2.96 2.90 2.78
1-1.5 1.49 1.52 1.41 1.25 1.12
1.5 -2 3.21 1.26 1.27 1.41 1.49
2 - 2.5 4.76 1.15 1.33 1.13 1.11
2.5 -3 4.69 3.83 1.00 1.19 1.27
>3 34.69 45.48 51.40 52.59 53.69
Subtotal 52.43 56.40 59.36 60.46 61.46
Orchard
<1 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.09
Subtotal 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.09
River
<1 0.90 0.75 0.65 0.63 0.60
1-1.5 1.05 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.37
1.5 -2 1.12 0.70 0.37 0.36 0.37
2 - 2.5 1.74 0.74 0.66 0.47 0.40
2.5 -3 3.14 1.19 0.67 0.71 0.68
>3 18.13 22.77 24.12 24.46 24.70
Subtotal 26.08 26.52 26.85 26.97 27.10
Sandarea
<1 9.78 7.22 5.27 4.74 4.06
1-1.5 3.61 3.99 4.59 4.27 4.40
1.5 -2 4.15 2.56 2.45 2.92 3.25
2 - 2.5 13.99 2.50 2.39 2.06 1.92
2.5 -3 22.29 6.18 2.21 2.21 2.18
>3 55.11 88.78 95.94 97.21 98.10
Subtotal 108.93 111.23 112.85 113.40 113.90
40
However, it is observed that inundated sand area, forest, cultivation area and river for 200-
years flood mostly had water depth >3m (Fig. 16).
Figure 16: Landuse-Flood Depth Relationship for 200-Years Return Period Flood
4.5 Flooded area by VDC
The spatial coverage of the different magnitude of flood risk varied in different VDCs of
the watershed. The details of extent of spatial coverage are shown in Table 10 and 11 for
the flood of 2-year and 200-year return periods flood. The study found that the extent of
spatial coverage of 2-year flood were 52, 60, 41, 19 and 56 ha and of 200-years flood were
58, 64, 45, 22 and 61 ha in Kakada, Korak, Lothar, Manahari and Piple VDCs
respectively. The populations to be affected by a 2-year return period flood was assessed
to be 322 individuals (approx. 59 HHs) and by a 200-year return period flood, 354
individuals (approx. 65 HHs) on the basis of average population density of different
VDCs. Map of Flood prone area by VDCs for 2 and 200-years flood are shown in Annex
C (Map 13 & 14).
Table 10: Flooded Area by VDC for 2-Year Return Period Flood
41
Table 11: Flooded Area by VDC for 200-Year Return Period Flood
4.6 Discussion
The applications of hydraulic model and GIS for floodplain analysis and risk mapping
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 subject to number of new sets of constraints. This
study presents an approach of conducting a similar study, within these constraints.
• HEC-RAS and ArcView GIS were the primary software packages used for this
analysis. HEC-GeoRAS extension facilitated the exchange of data between
ArcView GIS and HEC-RAS.
• The spot elevations and contour line are used to prepare the digital terrain model of
the study area so that it can represent the river channel and floodplains adequately.
• The flood discharge of different return period is derived by different method. For
safe side the maximum of different methods are taken as flood discharge for the
analysis.
• During the model run in HEC-RAS, several aspects required were careful
considered.
• Risk assessment identified the flood prone areas, also the vulnerability in terms of
the type of land use affected and hazard related to the return period of flooding and
flood water depths.
• According to the model results, there is considerable flooding in the area even at
flood discharge of 2-year flood. This implies that the channel capacity is small to
carry the flood water discharge.
• The flood risk maps prepared indicate a high risk to the sand area, forest,
cultivated land with water depth greater than three meter of the study area. These
areas are the most flood prone areas in the river floodplains and need further
considerations for flood protection.
42
4.7 Applications
The methodology described in this study offers several practical applications; some
derived from the fact of using an automated floodplain modeling process and some
associated with the resulting floodplain maps. Floodplain evaluations are of substantial
interests to planners, land developers, design engineers and general public alike. This can
also provide the basis for floodplain management programs. The following are some of
the potential applications.
• Design of flood control structures: Floodplain modeling can be used to
determine suitability of building flood control structures for prevention purposes
(i.e. embankment, detention ponds).
• Design of other structures: The result of this study can provide valuable
information for the design of hydraulic structures like weirs and bridges and
culverts.
• Non-structural measure to risk reduction strategy: This study can provide the
basis for the planning of non-structural measures for flood protection. Measures
like floodplain zoning, demarcation of the river boundary lines can be planned
based on the findings of this study. This can also help in the planning of the
evacuation and relief routes and storing of the emergency flood relief materials and
equipments.
43
CHAPTER: FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
This study presents a systematic approach in the preparation of hazard, vulnerability and
risk maps with the application of steady flow models and GIS. The major tools/models
used in this method is one-dimensional numerical model HEC-RAS and Arc View GIS for
spatial data processing and HEC-GeoRAS for interfacing between HEC-RAS and
ArcView GIS.
• The automated floodplain mapping and analysis using these tools provide more
efficient, effective and standardized results and saves time and resources.
• The presentation of results in GIS provide a new perspective to the modeled data
and this approach can facilitated a transition from a flood hazard model based on
the field investigation to a knowledge-based model that can be related to flood
intensity.
• The assessment of the risks has provided a new perspective to the modeled data.
The visualization and the quantification of the flood risks as facilitated by this
approach can help the decision-makers to better understand the problem.
• The assessment of the vulnerability due to the flooding was made with regard to
the land use pattern in the flood areas. The assessment of the flood area indicates
that a large percentage (more than 40 %) of vulnerable area lies in flood plain area
i.e. sand area and followed by forest and cultivation area, comprising 23% and
18% respectively.
• The study also made the assessment of flood hazards with relation to the return
period of floods and their water depth. The relationship between the flood area and
discharge indicates that there is a medium rate of increase of the flood area with
the increase in discharge. The examination of the flood water depth shows that
most of the areas under flooding have water depth greater than 3.0m.
• The flood risk assessment was made by combining the results of vulnerability and
hazard assessment. Based on the assessment, the area under cultivation that has
flood hazard of more than 3.0 m is very high, implying to a significant impact on
agriculture due to the flooding and livelihood.
• The study also made the assessment of flood hazards with relation to VDC and
their water depth. Based on the average population density of different VDC, the
populations that will be affected by 2 year and 200 year flood is assessed to be 59
households and 65 households respectively.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Works

This study was conducted under major constraint of limited data availability. Therefore,
the following recommendations are made for the further studies in the future.
44
• Topographical Data: For modeling flows in overbanks, topographic data should
be of high resolution so that the topography of the floodplains could be properly
represented.
• Flow data: The major hydrologic parameter, flow data of long time duration is
necessary for the calibration and validation of the model.
• Use of new technology to generate TIN: TINs obtained using new technologies
such as LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), which improves the quality of the
digital terrain representations can be used for further study.
• River cross section should be measured from topographic survey.
45
REFERENCES
Archer, D., 1999. Practical Application of Historical Flood Information to Flood

Estimation. In; Gottchalk L., Olivry J. C., Reed D., Rosjberg D., Hydrological Extremes:
Understanding, Predicting, Mitigating, IAHS Pub. No. 255, UK, pp 209-215.
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. and 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.
Bhandari, H.M., 1996. Water Induced Disaster Control Measures Adapted in Kaski
District through Community Participation (with Special Reference to Community
Development and Forest Watershed Conservation Project). 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.
Black, A. R. and Burns J. C., 2002. Re-assessing Flood Risk in Scotland. Science of the
Total Environment, 294: pp 169-184.
Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework. Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich.
CBS, 2003. Population Census 2001. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.
Chhetri, M.B.; Bhattarai, D., 2001. Mitigation and Management of Floods in Nepal.
Ministry of Home Affairs, HMG/Nepal, Kathmandu.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill Inc., Singapore.
Dangol. S., 2008. Flood Hazard Mapping of Balkhu River Using GIS and Remote
Sensing. (M. Sc. Thesis), Khwopa College, Tribhuvan University, Bhaktapur, Nepal.
DHM, 1998. Flood Risk Mapping of Lakhandehi River. Department of Hydrology and
Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
DHM, 2006. Climatological Records of Nepal (1964-2004). Department of Hydrology
and Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
46
Dilley, M., Chen, R.S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A.L. and Arnold, M. 2005.
Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. The World Bank Group, Washington,
DC.
Disaster Watch-Nepal, 2007. MCN-Disaster Newsletter. Media Consultancy Nepal,
Chitwan, Nepal.
Dixit, A., 1999. Reconeptualising Mitigation. Seminar the Monthly Symposium, 478;
Malvika Singh F-46 Malhotra Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 11001.
DPTC and CDG., 1994. Preliminary Survey of Debris Flow and Landslides in
Agrakhola, Belkhu Khola and Malekhu Khola, Kathmandu. Water Induced Disaster
Prevention Technical Centre (DPTC) and Central Department of Geology, Tribhuvan
University, Nepal.
DWIDP, 2007. Disaster Reviews from 1983-2007. DWIDP, Lalitpur, Nepal.
DWIDP, 2008. Disaster Reviews from 1983-2008. DWIDP, Lalitpur, Nepal.
ERMC and FBC, 2006. Study and Investigation Survey of Lothar River Basin and
Adjoining Rivulets for Water Induced Disaster (Central Development Region). Submitted
to Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), Lalitpur, Nepal.
ESRI, 1996. Introducing ArcView: The Geographic Information System for Everyone.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Inc., Redlands, California.
ESRI, 1997. Using ArcView 3D Analyst. Environmental Systems Research Institute.
Redlands, California.
Gautam, D. K. and R. G. Kharbuja, 2006. Flood Hazard Mapping of Bagmati River in
Kathmandu Valley Using Geo-informatics Tools. Journal of Hydrology and Meteorology,
volume 3 No. 1, March 2006 pg 1.
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.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report – An Assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ITC, -------. RANK PLOT. Water Resources and Environmental Studies, ITC,
Netherland.
ITECO, 1996. Hazard Mitigation in Northern Sunkoshi and Bhotekoshi Water Catchment
Areas (HMWA), Central-Eastern Nepal: Final Report,. Nepal- Switzerland Cooperation
Project, ITECO Engineering Ltd., Switzerland, ITECO Kathmandu, Nepal.
47
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.
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.
Lama, N.B., 1995. Flood Hazard in Sarlahi District, July 1993, Nepal. In Proceedings of
an International Seminar on Water Induced Disaster (ISWID-1995), pp 211-219.
Kathmandu. Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical Centre (DPTC), Ministry of
Water Resources, HMG/Nepal and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),
Kathmandu.
Mahato, R.C.; Higaki, D.; Thapa, T. B., and 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), Kathamndu.
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
(ISWID-1995), pp177-185. Kathmandu. Water Induced Disaster Prevention Technical
Centre (DPTC), Ministry of Water Resources, HMG/Nepal and Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), Kathmandu.
Mountain Risk Engineering Unit, T.U., 2003. Final Report on Preparation of Water
Induced Hazard Maps of Part of Rupendehi District, Nepal. Department of Water Induced
Disaster Prevention, Lalitpur, Nepal, 56p.
Naik, A., 2009. History of GPS. Assessed on http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-
gps.html on dated 05/15/2009.
Osti, R., 2004. Community Participation and Agencies Role for the Implication of Water
Induced Disaster Management. Protecting and Enhancing the Poor, Disaster Prevention
and Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-12. Proc., 3rd IHP/IAHS George Kovacs
colloquium, UNESCO, Paris.
Ranjit, R., 2006. Flood Hazards in Kathmandu Valley with Detail Study of 2002 Extreme
Flood in Balkhu River. M. Sc. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Central Department of
Environment Science, Kathmandu.
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, assessed on
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/1996/ts2/ts2002.asp on dated 04/10/2009.
48
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 Jouranl of Sciences, 1 (2):103-106.
Shrestha, M., 2008. Satellite Rainfall Estimation in HinduKush-Himalayan Region-
Validation. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
Shrestha, R. R., Theobald, S., and Nestmann, F. 2002. Flood Risk Modeling of Babai
River in Nepal. International Conference on Flood Estimation, International Commission
for the Hydrology of Rhine Basin, Berne.
Singh, S. K., 2004. Analysis of Uncertainties in Digital Elevation Models in Flood
(Hydraulic) Modeling. (M Sc Thesis), ITC, Netherland & IIRS, India.
Subramanya, K., 1994. Engineering Hydrology. 2nd Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Internet site, http://www.usgs.gov/research/gis/title.html
on dated 04/12/2009.
UNDP/OCHA, 2003. Multi-hazard Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment of Chitwan
District. Kathmandu, Nepal.
UNDRO, 1991. Mitigation of Natural Disasters: Phenomena, Effects and Options (A
Manual for Policy Makers and Planners). Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief
Coordinator, United Nations, New York.
USACE, 2002. HEC-GeoRAS an Extension for Support of HEC-RAS Using ArcView,
User's Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Hydrological Engineering Centre,
Davis, California.
USACE, 2002. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Hydraulic Reference Manual, US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Hydrological Engineering Center, Davis, California.
USACE, 2002. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, User's Manual, US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Hydrological Engineering Center, Davis, California.
WECS/DHM, 1990. Methodologies for Estimating Hydrological Characteristics for
Ungauged Location in Nepal. Department of Hydrology and Meteorology and Water and
Energy Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu.
Williams A., and Archer D., 2002. The Use of Historical Flood Information in the
English Midlands to Improve Risk Assessment. Hydrological Science Journal, 47(1): pp
67-76.
WWAP, 2006. UN World Water Development Report. World Water Assessment
Programme WWAP, Paris.
49
Yadav, S. K., 2002. Hydrological Analysis for Bheri-babai Hydropower Project Nepal.
M.Sc. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of
Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Norway.
50
ANNEXES
51
Annex A Tables
1.1 Loss of Lives by Disasters in Nepal (1983-2008) (MoHA, 2009).
Loss of Lives by Disasters in Nepal (1983-2008)
Types of 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Disasters
Flood & 293 363 420 315 391 328 680 307 93 71 1336 49 203 258
Landslides
Earthquake 0 0 0 0 0 721 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
Wind storm, NA NA NA NA 2 NA 28 57 63 20 45 47 34 75
Hailstorm &
Thunderbolt
Avalanches 0 0 0 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 0 0 43 4
Fire 69 57 52 96 62 23 109 46 90 97 43 43 73 61
Epidemic 217 521 915 1101 426 427 879 503 725 128 100 626 520 494
Stampede 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 579 941 1387 1512 881 1584 1716 913 971 318 1524 765 873 895
Types of 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Disasters
Flood & 83 273 193 173 196 441 232 131 141 114 216 134
Landslides
Earthquake 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wind storm, 49 23 22 26 38 6 62 10 18 15 40 16
Hailstorm &
Thunderbolt
Avalanches 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 21 NA 6 0
Fire 65 54 39 37 26 11 16 10 28 3 9 11
Epidemic 951 840 1207 141 154 0 0 41 34 0 3 10
Stampede 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
Total 1160 1190 1466 377 415 458 310 192 242 132 274 171
1.2 Summary of Disasters in Nepal in the Year 2008 (MoHA, 2009).
SN Disaster People Affected Animal House destroyed Shed Land Estimated

type family loss Destroyed loss Losses (in
Rs.)
Death Missing Injured Compl. Partly
1 Floods & 134 4 16 20831 6895 13489 1144 9 NA 1538042550
Landslides
2 Fire 11 0 0 652 152 347 29 249 0 80322029
3 Wind storm 2 0 0 107 7 27 52 2 0 3681400
4 Thunderbolt 14 2 32 10 12 1 3 0 0 11236500
5 Hailstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Earthquake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Epidemic 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Avalanches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 171 6 55 21600 7066 13864 1228 260 NA 1633282479
52
1.3 Summary and Comparison of the Disasters of 2008 with past Disasters (MoHA, 2009).
Year People Livestock Houses Affected Land Public Estimated

loss Destroyed Family Affected Infrastructure Loss
Death Injured (Nos.) (Nos.) (Nos.) (Ha.) (Million
NRs.)
1983 579 NA 248 12 NA NA NA 240
1984 941 NA 3547 10597 NA 1242 869 49
1985 1387 NA 3399 7166 NA 1355 436 23
1986 1512 NA 6566 3370 NA 1315 436 23
1987 881 162 1852 36220 97036 18858 421 2005
1988 1584 12538 2788 108801 70197 NA 4365 6099
1989 1716 3014 4240 7648 NA NA NA 4172
1990 913 196 867 6352 8462 1132 NA 139
1991 971 43 642 5510 6426 283 39 43
1992 1318 17 1586 13997 11535 135 66 52
1993 1524 246 NA 21911 90911 NA NA 5189
1994 765 155 1329 3234 11701 392 NA 184
1995 873 1937 2053 10275 134216 41867.3 NA 1933
1996 895 1527 2480 30014 58329 6063.4 NA 1579
1997 1160 1120 1191 4825 46054 6063.4 NA 410
1998 1190 117 1179 15082 36987 326.89 NA 1230
1999 1466 146 650 4304 17842 182.4 NA 509
2000 377 162 1017 6886 24900 888.9 NA 1141.5
2001 415 132 665 6103 15908 NA NA 526.56
2002 458 287 2126 19856 40935 10077.5 NA 525.56
2003 310 160 1125 6819 11730 2360 NA 989.93
2004 192 220 888 4818 16997 0 NA 341.09
2005 242 153 955 3169 4315 0 NA 387.21
2006 132 88 10098 3765 19023 3396.84 NA 392.55
2007 274 144 21861 37984 117203 513.65 NA 1928.55
2008 171 55 7066 260 21600 21315 NA 1633.28
53
1.4 Flood, Landslide and Avalanches (MoHA, 2009).
Year People Livestock Houses Affected Land Public Estimated

Loss Destroyed Family Affected Infrastructure Loss
(Nos.) (Nos.) (Nos.) (Ha) (Million
NRs.)
Death Injured
1983 293 NA 248 NA NA NA NA 240
1984 363 NA 3114 7566 NA 1242 869 37
1985 420 NA 3058 4620 NA 1355 173 58
1986 315 NA 1886 3035 NA 1315 436 16
1987 391 162 1434 33721 96151 18858 421 2000
1988 342 197 873 2481 4197 NA NA 1087
1989 700 4 297 6203 NA NA NA 29
1990 307 26 314 3060 5165 1132 NA 44
1991 93 12 36 817 1621 283 25 21
1992 71 17 179 88 545 135 44 11
1993 1336 163 25425 17113 85254 5584 NA 4904
1994 49 34 284 569 3697 392 NA 59
1995 246 58 1535 5162 128540 41867.3 NA 1419
1996 262 73 1548 14037 36824 6093.4 NA 1186
1997 87 69 317 1017 5833 6093.4 NA 104
1998 273 80 982 13990 33549 326.89 NA 969
1999 209 92 309 2538 9768 182.4 NA 365
2000 173 100 822 5417 15617 888.9 NA 932
2001 196 88 377 3934 7901 NA NA 251.1
2002 441 265 2024 18181 39309 10077.5 NA 418.91
2003 232 76 865 3017 7167 NA NA 234.78
2004 131 24 495 3684 14238 321.82 NA 219.28
2005 141 31 360 1102 2088 NA 130.56
2006 114 39 9980 3334 18385 3396.84 NA 288.63
2007 222 45 21553 37281 114668 513.65 NA 1821.08
2008 134 16 6895 13489 20831 21315 NA 1538.04
54
1.5 Maximum and Minimum Instantaneous Discharge at Station 470, Lothar Khola. (DHM, 2006)
Station number 470

Location Lothar Latitude: 27 35 40
River: Lothar Khola Longitude: 84 43 00
EXTREME DISCHARGES
==================
MAXIMUM INSTANTANOUS MINIMUM INSTANTANEOUS

Year Discharge Gauge height Date Discharge Gauge height Date
(m3/s (m) (m3/s) (m)
1964 155 3.55 9/9/1964 0.72 1.18 13/06/64
1965 491 5.55 7/8/1965 0.9 1.18 14/06/65
1966 437 5.25 27/08/66 0.7 0.9 20/05/66
1967 370 4.88 18/08/67 1 1.2 13/04/67
1968 430 5.21 27/08/68 0.64 0.92 22/04/68
1969 304 4.51 25/08/69 1.1 1.07 1/4/1969
1970 132 3.3 15/07/70 0.6 0.8 2/6/1970
1971 430 5.4 13/06/71 0.58 2.13 14/04/71
1972 291 4.44 24/07/72 0.73 2.07 14/07/72
1973 158 3.7 17/06/73 0.85 1.87 22/04/73
1974 626 6.3 30/08/74 1.24 1.94 1/6/1974
1975 400 5.4 28/07/75 0.73 2.87 13/06/75
1976 312 5.05 2/7/1976 0.9 2.88 23/06/76
1977 340 5.1 16/08/77 0.98 2.58 26/03/77
1978 605 6.22 16/07/78 1.02 2.44 12/4/1978
1979 280 4.8 14/08/79 0.82 2.36 21/03/79
1980 120 4 13/08/80 1.05 2.45 26/04/80
1981 390 5.2 29/09/81 1.16 2.32 16/06/81
1982 382 5.16 23/08/82 0.65 2.23 28/05/82
1983 326 5.03 29/07/83 0.62 2.26 13/04/83
1984 750 6.8 17/09/84 0.62 2.26 28/05/84
1985 350 5.26 26/08/85 0.5 2.9 6/6/1985
1986 320 5 27/08/86 ... ...
1987 150 4 30/07/87 1.1 2.22 16/05/87
1988 110 3.8 23/07/88 0.76 2.16 18/04/88
1989 419 5.15 5/9/1989 0.5 1.9 26/04/89
1990 320 5 27/08/90 0.9 2.4 2/2/1990
1991 65 3.5 7/9/1991 0.78 2.34 4/6/1991
1992 150 4 3/9/1992 1.16 2.32 17/04/92
1993 1170 8 22/07/93 0.7 2.24 4/4/1993
1994 392 5 10/9/1994 1.32 2.34 10/6/1994
1995 77 3.2 22/07/95 0.46 2.04 10/5/1995
1996 74.7 3.1 23/08/96 0.64 2.06 12/5/1996
1997 219 3.9 1/7/1997 0.82 2.08 19/05/97
1998 142 3.52 18/08/98 0.64 2.06 18/04/98
1999 787 5.62 27/07/99 0.75 1.74 5/4/1999
2000 245 4 1/8/2000 1.39 1.8 11/4/2000
2001 539 5 31/07/01 0.26 1.84 8/4/2001
2002 69.2 3 21/06/02 0.03 5.8 29/07/02
2003 245 8 31/07/03 0.15 5.82 8/3/2003
2004 .. ... ... ...
55
Annex B Figure
1. Process Flow Diagram for Using HEC-GeoRAS (Source: USACE, 2002)
56
Annex C Maps
Map 1: Hazard Map of 2-Years Return Period Flood
57
58
Map 5: Vulnerability Map of 2-Years Return Period Flood
59
60
Map 9: Risk Map of 2-Years Return Period Flood
61
62
Map 13: Flood Prone Area by VDC for 2-Years Return Period Flood
Map 14: Flood Prone Area by VDC for 200-Years Return Period Flood
63
Annex D Photographs
Upstream of Lothar Khola
Lothar Khola Bridge
64
Observation with GPS
Embankment
65

Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS AND RISK

ASSESSMENT OF LOTHAR KHOLA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

M. Sc. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

MOHAN KRISHNA BALLA

INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY, POKHARA

Dr. RIPENDRA AWAL BISHWOMBHER MAN PRADHAN

KYOTO UNIVERSITY, JAPAN INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY, POKHARA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

Institute of Forestry, Office of the Dean

P.O. Box 203, Pokhara, Nepal

Mohan Krishna Balla

Dr. Ripendra Awal

Bishwombher Man Pradhan

I am especially grateful to WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for granting me

I remember all those who have contributed directly or indirectly to successfully

Keywords: Flood, Lothar Khola, Flood frequency, Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................ 3

2.4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) ............................................... 9

2.5.1 HEC-RAS ....................................................................................................... 10

3.1.1 HYDROLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................... 21

3.2.1 COLLECTION OF HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL DATA..................................... 23

3.3.1 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS....................................................................... 24

4.1 RESULTS OF FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS..................................................... 32

5.1 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 44

ANNEX A TABLES ............................................................................................... 52

In 2002: Approximately 20 houses, one primary school, 32 bigas of paddy land

1.2 Objective of study

2. To analyze the floodplain by using one dimensional steady flow model.

3. To prepare flood risk, vulnerability and hazard map.

1.3 Limitations of the study

Data Related Limitations

Model Related Limitations

2.1 River Flooding

2.2 Flood Frequency Analysis

2.3 Assessment and Analysis of Floods

Flood, is common phenomenon in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) region.

In 2003, the UNDP Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDP/OCHA)

Apart from such piecemeal approaches on a limited scale, no pragmatic efforts at

2.4 Tools for Floodplain Analysis and Mapping

2.4.1 Geographical Information System (GIS)

A Geographic Information System is a rapidly developing tool with a range of

2.4.2 Remote Sensing (RS)

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite-based navigation system made up of a

2.5 Details of Selected Models

HEC-RAS is an integrated system of software, designed for interactive use in a

Unsteady Flow Simulation: This component of the HEC-RAS modeling system is

2.5.1.1 Components of HEC-RAS

Project Creating and Results Presentation

Project File Program output

- Geometric data Steady Flow Model

Figure 1: Schematic of HECRAS Component

2.5.1.2 Theoretical Basis for One-Dimensional Flow Calculations (HEC-RAS)

2.5.1.2.1 Steady Flow Water Surface Profiles

Where Z1, Z2 = elevation of the main channel inverts

Figure 2: Representation of Terms in the Energy Equation

Where: L = discharge weighted reach length

The distance weighted reach length, L, is calculated as:

Figure 3: HECRAS Conveyance Sub-division Method

Calculation of Mean Kinetic Energy Head

Figure 4: Mean Energy Head Calculation

HEC-GeoRAS is an ArcView GIS extension specifically designed to process geo-spatial

Figure 5: Interface Method of GIS Linkage by HEC-GeoRAS