Skip to main content

Oregon State Flag An official website of the State of Oregon »

Oregon.gov Homepage

Potential solutions



Flood mitigation concepts

We're studying several ways to reduce flooding on U.S. 101. Each option takes a different approach to moving or blocking floodwater. More than one option may need to be used to best prevent flooding in the study area.

Learn more about the potential solutions by clicking on the options below or the "+"




Photos showing past floods on U.S. 101 in the study area

This option would construct berms between Doo​ley Bridge and Beerman Creek Road. Berms are raised mounds of dirt, gravel or other materials used to create a barrier to help direct water. ​The berms would be constructed on one or both sides of the road. The height of the berms would be approximately three feet above the existing road surface.

​Graphic showing Option 1: Beerman/Dooley Berms

Note: This is a rendering generated using AI. These images are for illustrative purposes only and don't represent actual project locations, dimensions, ODOT engineering standards or designs. They are intended to help explain the types of flood mitigation treatments being considered to a general audience and are not meant to show exactly how any improvement may look if built.

​​

✅ Potential advantages:

  • May be relatively low-cost and straightforward to construct.
  • Uses conventional materials and construction methods.
  • Could provide continuous flood protection along both sides of the road.
  • Can be designed to protect other businesses, like the RV park.

❌ Potential disadvantages:

  • Requires substantial space for the earthen embankments.
  • Could restrict floodwater movement and increase water levels or redirect flooding.
  • Requires inspection and maintenance for erosion, settlement and damage.
    ​

This option would install precast concrete sections with gaskets​ b​etween Dooley Bridge and Beerman Creek Road. The concrete sections are ready-made and can be brought in, and the gaskets between sections help to make the wall waterproof. The concrete would be approximately 12” thick and would follow the same length and alignment as Option 1.

​​Graphic showing Option 2: Beerman/Dooley Floodwall

Note: This is a rendering generated using AI. These images are for illustrative purposes only and don't represent actual project locations, dimensions, ODOT engineering standards or designs. They are intended to help explain the types of flood mitigation treatments being considered to a general audience and are not meant to show exactly how any improvement may look if built.

​​​​​

✅ Potential advantages:

  • Requires less space than the berms in Option 1.
  • Could provide continuous flood protection along the highway.
  • Precast construction may allow faster installation and less disruption to traffic than cast in-place.
  • Can be designed to protect other businesses or properties. 

❌ Potential disadvantages:​

  • More expensive than a berm.
  • Requires suitable foundations and properly sealed joints, which could mean more ongoing maintenance.
  • Could redirect floodwater or increase water levels on the opposite side.
  • Damage, leakage or settlement could compromise protection.

This option would raise approximately 5,000 feet of U.S. 101 near the​ U.S. 26 junction and could be designed to eliminate all or nearly all future flooding​. Culverts would be installed under the raised highway to allow water to pass through the area. This option is significantly more expensive than berms or floodwalls.​

Graphic showing Option 3: Junction Road Raise with Culverts

Note: This is a rendering generated using AI. These images are for illustrative purposes only and don't represent actual project locations, dimensions, ODOT engineering standards or designs. They are intended to help explain the types of flood mitigation treatments being considered to a general audience and are not meant to show exactly how any improvement may look if built.

​​​

​

✅ Potential advantages:

  • Maintains the highway at a higher elevation above floodwaters, allowing floodwater to pass beneath the road.
  • Would reduce the number of flood-related closures.

❌ Potential disadvantages:

  • Elevating approximately 5,000 feet of U.S. 101 requires substantial resources and reconstruction.
  • Culverts could become blocked by debris or sediment and require regular maintenance.
  • Costly. The number and size of culverts and the amou​nt of road reconstruction required is significant.
  • Only protects U.S. 101 from flooding, not adjacent properties.

This option would raise thi​s ​section of U.S. 101 to allow floodwaters to flow under the highway.​ This option could be designed to eliminate almost all future flood-related road closures, but it's significantly more expensive than berms or floodwalls.

​Graphic showing Option 4: Full Highway Trestle

Note: This is a rendering generated using AI. These images are for illustrative purposes only and don't represent actual project locations, dimensions, ODOT engineering standards or designs. They are intended to help explain the types of flood mitigation treatments being considered to a general audience and are not meant to show exactly how any improvement may look if built.

​​​

✅ Potential advantages:

  • Allows floodwater to flow under the highway with fewer obstructions.
  • Could provide the greatest reliability during major flood events, reducing flood-related highway closures.
  • Allows water to flow the most natural path while eliminating road flooding.

❌ Potential disadvantages:

  • Requires extensive structural design, foundations and construction. Meaning this option will take more time and effort to design and build.
  • May require more complex long-term structural inspection and maintenance.
  • Only protects U.S. 101 from flooding.
​​​

⬅️ Go to last page

Go to next page ➡️