More Papio creek channelization/trail extension underway

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:00 am

Noticed on my daily commute to Papillion that a significant stretch of the West Papillion Creek is undergoing channelization (and along with it trail 'paving') between approximately 86th Street and Giles Road in Papillion... slowly working northwest 'towards' realization of my being able to ride my bike to and from work from west Omaha... literally a straight shot for me! (although talking to an NRD official... sounds like it will be a few more years yet before the 'golden spike' is nailed somewhere up in Millard).

Link to the Papio NRD website for your enjoyment... learn more about dam site lake projects too.

http://www.papionrd.org

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:04 am

That is good news. I was also glad to hear Omaha By Design outline linking the Field Club Trail with the Keystone Trail (There needs to be more east-west links).

I was also gald to see that the NRD FINALLY updated their site![/u]

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:23 pm

I'm all for these trails, but must they destroy every mature tree within a mile to do this? This just makes me sick! Thousands of trees are being cut down for seemingly no reason...I guess because the NRD never met a tree over 20 feet tall they didn't want to buldoze! They're as bad as the state roads department. J. Sterling Morton must be rolling over in his grave.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:29 pm

Yeah, that sucks. They have to take the trees out in order to build up a levy for the projects primary function... flood control.

If it's any consolation... the metro has seen FAR more trees added to the area ... than have been torn out (I realize there are people here who think that neighborhoods like Dundee (for example) had these enormous trees since before the 'white man' came along). Yes... Omaha was a barren, treeless wasteland when it was first settled.

Looking west from 14th and Dodge... 1868

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:34 pm

Hummm. So they say. I don't buy it. Why not just widen one side and build the trail through the woods on the other side, where riders/hikers might actually have some shade. Using the trails mid-day in the summer is a recipe for heat stroke with absolutely no shade. We go from woods filled with wildlife to what resembles the surface of the moon.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:44 pm

It's more a matter of raising the banks of both sides... than widening it.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:05 am

jhuston wrote:It's more a matter of raising the banks of both sides... than widening it.

To me it's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:12 am

jhuston wrote:Yeah, that sucks. They have to take the trees out in order to build up a levy for the projects primary function... flood control.

If it's any consolation... the metro has seen FAR more trees added to the area ... than have been torn out (I realize there are people here who think that neighborhoods like Dundee (for example) had these enormous trees since before the 'white man' came along). Yes... Omaha was a barren, treeless wasteland when it was first settled.

Looking west from 14th and Dodge... 1868

Um, when did the white man "plant" Fontenelle Forest, or Hummel Park, or the vast loess hills?

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:39 am

Okay... not quite a barren wasteland, I exaggerate ... but on this side of the river the vegetation was almost entirely limited to those areas along the creeks/river. I'm referring most specifically to Omaha's oldest tree lined neighborhoods (which once looked no different than the average suburb in west Omaha). Heck, even the areas I grew up in around the western portions of District 66 are looking now like they always sat under a canopy of trees. In a few short decades... the same thing will 'happen' to even those most remote, seemingly treeless subdivisions from 370 to West Maple.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:46 am

nativeomahan wrote:Um, when did the white man "plant" Fontenelle Forest, or Hummel Park, or the vast loess hills?

"Plant" would be a poor choice of words, "intervention" would be a better word. The area around here was mainly prairie (although people that know better than me refer to it as a savanna) before the "European settlement", as frequent prairie fires (some of which may have been anthropogenic in nature) kept the hills and plains free of trees, save for the occasional burr oak, which was more fire resistant. About the only other trees around were ones along the streams and rivers.

Although I haven't seen the construction along the stretch of West Papio mentioned, the trees come out in the name of flood control and maintaining the integrity of the flood control project. This is fairly standard practice for this type of flood control project (especially 20 or more years ago), although they could possibly leave some trees, but that would require much more intensive maintainance - and likely increase your NRD levy on property taxes.

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:35 am

I would be willing to pay more for keeping trees. I also think the NRD is behind on flood control engineering. I find it ridiculous that these streams are turned into channels with 20-foot drop-offs acting as their "banks." I know most of this is from older engineering project and I believe some of the channel widening projects are trying to rectify this but biking on the Keystone Trail or many of the other trails will demonstrate this. Many of our streams have turned into open gutters. Compare this to the West Papio Trail where the creek remains more natural and free flowing and the trail is built further away from the creek (and trees remain). I believe they are finished with improvement to the creek through Meadow Lane Park (114th-120th between Farnam and Westover Road). They put down rip-rap while maintaining a broad creek bed and kept a more natural setting. If any of the Omaha By Design concepts for north 90th Street are to be realized, the Little Papillion Creek needs to flow again. Omaha By Design stresses making our creeks more natural (see illustration on pg.5 (15 of 74) in the Urban Design Element of the Omaha Master Plan).

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:35 pm

Finn - I think a lot of the design of these flood control projects has to do with attitudes. I see you are in DC, and a lot more importance is placed on maintaining (or reverting back to) more green space along streams out east than what you see around here. The public there places more importance to recreation that what you find here, especially when it involves the use of tax money (just see the opposition to the pedestrian bridge for an example of that attitude).

I think the Papio streams, for the most part, are well past a "natural" setting. A friend of mine that works for UP was showing me a copy of a construction document for the bridge over the Big Papio, just south of I-80, and the creek was only a few feet deep 100 years ago at this point. All the increased runoff from urban development has really deepened and widened all these streams in the metro.

I'm a little curious about your comment on the Little Papio needs to flow again. What's up?

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:30 pm

I agree that there is more emphasis on recreation, green space out here, but I think a few key projects could/should change that. I think the NRD has done a great job with Zorinsky Lake and it is very popular. There just needs to be more attitude adjustment!

As far as the Little Papio -

Omaha By Design has pretty ambitious plans for the 90th and Maple area (you can find it on their web site) that include a more natural setting for the Little Papio. The plans show a park area with a widened creek bed and a small lake/retention area. It also plans on freeing a branch from culverts. A small branch runs from the northwest (near 96th Ave. and Ames Ave. through Swigart Golf Course, Laura Dodge School area, etc.) and is confined to a culvert as it crosses under 90th Street (behind Blockbuster) and then dumps into the main branch of the Little Papio. The plans show opening up the creek and buffering it from commercial uses.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:45 pm

icejammer wrote:
nativeomahan wrote:Um, when did the white man "plant" Fontenelle Forest, or Hummel Park, or the vast loess hills?
"Plant" would be a poor choice of words, "intervention" would be a better word. The area around here was mainly prairie (although people that know better than me refer to it as a savanna) before the "European settlement", as frequent prairie fires (some of which may have been anthropogenic in nature) kept the hills and plains free of trees, save for the occasional burr oak, which was more fire resistant. About the only other trees around were ones along the streams and rivers.

Although I haven't seen the construction along the stretch of West Papio mentioned, the trees come out in the name of flood control and maintaining the integrity of the flood control project. This is fairly standard practice for this type of flood control project (especially 20 or more years ago), although they could possibly leave some trees, but that would require much more intensive maintainance - and likely increase your NRD levy on property taxes.

I would be more than happy to pay it.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:43 pm

Dams facilitate preservation of those tree lined creek beds down stream. But as the run off area becomes expansive... in the absence of a dam... channelization/levies must be implemented (ie the West Papio in Sarpy). That's why you see the ugly channels predominantly in the south part of the metro (you can't very well put a lake in the middle of it).

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:45 pm

jhuston wrote:

you can't very well put a lake in the middle of it

You can easily put in small detention ponds with new developments. Channelization/levees are antiquated engineering practices. Detention ponds are a common practice on the east coast that has not caught on there. Office parks, industrial development and residential projects implement them. There are not very large and they are attractive, provide water storage from impervious areas, control runoff into waterways/sewers and attract wildlife. (I believe I saw a small detention pond in the corner of the Papillion Promenade rendering). There are other engineering practices such as spillways and wetlands that can easily be implemented around new construction. As I said, I know most of the ugly, restricted channels are old, but please no more of this practice because we are going to spend future money to open the channles back up and let the water flow again (a la Omaha By Design visioning!).

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:12 pm

Good point... and they're being employed in about every new development in west Omaha... from Western Springs at 180th and West Center to big box heck at 132nd and Industrial ('pond' is on east end of the development) to Village Pointe as you pointed out.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm

Over the last few years, the trail has been torn up both sides of Dodge street more than it hasn't. I see no reason they can't get the trail opened, even given the W Dodge construction.

Finn: You're familiar with the Meadow Lane Park area. Are you maybe a current or former resident of the area?

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:26 am

Finn wrote:You can easily put in small detention ponds with new developments. . .There are not very large and they are attractive, provide water storage from impervious areas, control runoff into waterways/sewers and attract wildlife.

Finn - This is true, but most "small" detention ponds are just that - "small". A lot of the detention pond construction you see out east is to meet non-point pollution criteria set by EPA for smaller, more frequent storms, as much as it is to meet stormwater management regulations in reducing flow from the impervious areas. Even with a lot of detention ponds, you'll not see a large reduction in the floods these large channels are being made to accomodate (i.e. the 100-year flood that sets flood insurance rates), especially in a heavily developed urban area that becomes more developed every day.

That said, the NRD could do a little better with their design, but I'm not familiar with all the constraints they may be facing.

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:39 am

The size of the development and the area of impervious structure determine the size of the detention pond. The non-point pollution criteria is directly related to stormwater management and flow from impervious areas (pollutants entering the stream from vehicular pollutant runoff, etc.). More will have to be done to protect against 100-year floods, etc. such as the spillways and wetlands previously mentioned. However,these ponds and other engineering practices can be used as a substitute for the gutter-like channelization of streamways and can also prevent the dangerous flow rates/volume that increase during floods due to such channelization.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:23 pm

Finn wrote:However,these ponds and other engineering practices can be used as a substitute for the gutter-like channelization of streamways and can also prevent the dangerous flow rates/volume that increase during floods due to such channelization.

Not to be disagreeable, because I think we both would like to see more of the same thing, but detention ponds can, and do, increase flow rates as well, particularly in larger flood events if improperly sited. Omaha, and this whole area in general, have been slow to develop comprehensive stormwater management regulations, and we're left with the situation we have now, where the areas that contribute the most to the flood peak in the stretch being channelized have been fully developed, leaving no room for other flood reduction strategies (that's not entirely true, but underground storage is a foreign concept to many around here). I think that if the City is more proactive in the developing areas, this will greatly reduce the need for channelization work further upstream, nearer the developing areas. Sadly, we're paying the price of lack of foresight from 30 (or more) years ago in this particular stretch of stream.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:49 pm

icejammer wrote:I think that if the City is more proactive in the developing areas, this will greatly reduce the need for channelization work further upstream, nearer the developing areas. Sadly, we're paying the price of lack of foresight from 30 (or more) years ago in this particular stretch of stream.

You got that right, and we're not just talking flood control there. Omaha could look so much better than it does. Worst of all, the scarring continues!

There has been and continues to be a lack of imagination and foresight in planning in this town. Look at the mess developing out on W. Center Rd, where there is strip mall after strip mall. The same goes for Maple Rd. This leads to visual clutter, traffic gridlock and other problems. Does the Omaha city planning department have any forsight, or clout, or do they just roll over and play dead when developers tell them to?

Retention ponds are still viable options for the creek basin west of Papillion. But the NRD seems stuck in a mindset that has proved disasterous when implemented along rivers such as the Missouri south of Sioux City by the Corps of Engineers. Natural beauty and wildlife be damned (no pun intended)!

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:40 pm

but detention ponds can, and do, increase flow rates as well, particularly in larger flood events if improperly sited.

Detention ponds hold/retain water until a certain level is reached, allowing only the water above said level to enter into the streamway. This controls the amount entering the streamway and reduces flow rates as compared to water discharge directly into the streamway from impervious surfaces.

if improperly sited

Then, site them properly!

I think that if the City is more proactive in the developing areas, this will greatly reduce the need for channelization work further upstream, nearer the developing areas. Sadly, we're paying the price of lack of foresight from 30 (or more) years ago in this particular stretch of stream.

That is precisely what I was getting at:

As I said, I know most of the ugly, restricted channels are old, but please no more of this practice because we are going to spend future money to open the channels back up and let the water flow again

I agree that we would like to see the same thing so let's hope an initiative or group such as Omaha By Design can help bring better practices to fruition. Otherwise, we will pay for it down the road as we are with the NRD/FEMA buyout of homes along Cole Creek (roughly 76th between Blondo and Cass). The NRD is buying out willing homeowners along the creek due to recurring flooding, bank erosion and a death a few years ago. They are demolishing the purchased homes, widening and reinforcing the banks and implementing building setbacks from the creek.