Prepared for: City Of Jeffersonville March 2012 Prepared by CBBEL Project … · 2018. 12. 1. ·...

Prepared for:

City Of Jeffersonville

Indianapolis, IN

March 2012

Prepared by

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. 115 W. Washington St., Suite 1368-South

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

CBBEL Project Number 11-021

Jeffersonville Regional Hydrologic Analysis Clark County, Indiana

March 2012 Jeffersonville Regional Hydrologic Analysis

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................... ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 HEC-HMS COMPUTER MODEL ............................................................................... 2 2.1 WATERSHED DELINEATIONS ........................................................................... 2 2.2 LAND USE DATA ................................................................................................ 3 2.3 SOIL DATA .......................................................................................................... 3 2.4 CURVE NUMBERS ............................................................................................. 3 2.5 TIME OF CONCENTRATION .............................................................................. 3 2.6 REACH ROUTING ............................................................................................... 3 2.7 PRECIPITATION DATA ....................................................................................... 3 2.8 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH ................................................................................... 4 2.9 HEC-HMS RESULTS ........................................................................................... 4 3.0 PURDUE REGRESSION ........................................................................................... 6 4.0 COMPARISON TO SIMILAR STREAMS .................................................................. 7 5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 9 6.0 SOURCES ............................................................................................................... 11


Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. ii

LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Watershed Boundaries 2. Land Use Map 3. Hydrologic Soil Groups

4. Unit Peak Flow Rates

LIST OF HYDROLOGY APPENDICES 1. Curve Number Calculations 2. Time of Concentration Calculations 3. Precipitation Data 4. HEC-HMS Output 5. StreamStats Output

6. Similar Streams USGS Gage Data


Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology and results of the hydrologic analysis of several streams located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Jeffersonville, Clark County Indiana. The watersheds included in the analysis are shown in Hydrology Exhibit 1. The purpose of this analysis was to determine existing runoff rates for use as recommended post development release rates to prevent increases in stormwater runoff due to development. For the hydrologic analysis, a HEC-HMS model was developed and calibrated based on the results of a 1984 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers report on Lancassange Creek. Purdue Regression equation results (StreamStats), and USGS stream gage data B17B analysis results were used for comparison and validation of the calibrated HEC-HMS results as the streams do not currently have stream gages. This report outlines the data as developed for the determination of the 100-year peak discharge and the pre- and post-development release rates for each basin. The 2- and 10-year discharges were determined in a similar fashion and are outlined in the summary of runoff rates section only.



2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS (HEC-HMS COMPUTER MODEL) 2.1 WATERSHED DELINEATIONS The watershed delineation for the study watersheds were derived from a combination of detailed 2-foot contours provided by Jeffersonville and 10-foot USGS quad contours. The drainage area for each basin outlined in Hydrology Exhibit 1 is listed in Table 1. Due to the shapes of some of the basins, the entire drainage area would not be applicable for the calculated parameters. The drainage area used in the HEC-HMS model is only the applicable drainage area in these cases.

Table 1 Summary of Hydrologic Parameters for Jeffersonville Regional Watersheds

Basin No DA (mi2) DA(ac) CN Tc (hr) Storage Coeff. (hr)

BACR 2.01 1286 63 1.73 0.09

CANAL 2.26* 1446 76 4.23 0.22 HPT 1.24 791 71 1.14 0.06

JLRU 3.80 2431 60 2.91 0.15 LANC1 1.26 810 70 1.37 0.07 LANC2 0.99 636 68 1.22 0.06

LANCT1 1.23 786 65 2.51 0.13 LANCT2 0.95 607 66 1.35 0.07 LANCT3 1.43 915 70 1.99 0.10

LBCR 1.40 894 63 1.17 0.06 LENZ1 1.39 889 74 1.39 0.07 LENZ2 2.01 1287 66 2.85 0.15

LENZT1 1.54 987 64 1.44 0.08 LENZT2 0.61 393 67 1.3 0.07 LENZT3 2.82 1808 65 2.44 0.13

LICK 3.24 2073 77 2.62 0.14 LICKT1 1.11 708 69 2.34 0.12 LICKT2 0.82 527 74 1.72 0.09

LICKT3 2.05 1310 69 1.57 0.08 MILL 3.70 2371 75 1.94 0.10

OHIO1 1.92 1229 NA NA NA

OHIO2 0.67 429 NA NA NA

PLRU 4.62 2960 65 2.0 0.11 SILV 0.91 585 72 1.52 0.08

SILV2 0.05* 422 65 0.5 0.03 WCT 0.78 501 68 1.45 0.08

*Drainage area used in HEC-HMS analysis, not the total drainage area of the basin



2.2 LAND USE DATA Land use data was obtained from the USGS National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD 2006). Land use coverage is shown on Hydrology Exhibit 2. 2.3 SOIL DATA Soil data was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for the watershed, as shown on Hydrology Exhibit 3. CBBEL staff assigned the proper hydrologic soil groups to individual soil types. 2.4 CURVE NUMBERS Curve number calculations were assisted by GIS tools that combined soil and land use parameters to determine individual curve numbers which were then “lumped” for the basin. The curve number “look-up table” was based on TR-55 and NLCD 2006 definitions. A copy of the computation sheet for the study watersheds is provided in Hydrology Appendix 1. The curve number for each basin is listed in Table 1. 2.5 TIME OF CONCENTRATION CBBEL completed time of concentration calculations using NRCS TR-55 methodology. The maximum length of the sheet flow component was 100 feet based upon current NRCS guidelines. Transition of shallow concentrated flow to channel flow was defined by high resolution aerial photography, topography or the engineer’s judgment. The time of concentration flow path for each basin is shown on Exhibit 1. The computation sheets for each basin are provided in Hydrology Appendix 2. The Time of concentration is listed in Table 1. 2.6 REACH ROUTING Reach routing was performed to carry upstream basins to the main stream trunk outlet. Routing was performed using the Lag method in which a velocity is assumed for the distance between the basin end and the stream outlet. This distance is then divided by the velocity to determine the length of time it takes for the runoff to reach the outlet from the upstream basin. Reach lengths and Lag times are included in Table 2. 2.7 PRECIPITATION DATA Precipitation depths were taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 for the 100-year return interval, 24-hour duration storm events. NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation data can be used with several distributions. However, research into which distribution is most appropriate for modeling the 100-year floods in Indiana has not yet been conducted. For the purposes of this report, SCS Type II distribution was used with the NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation depths based on prior modeling experience in southern



Indiana. The NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation data plots for the study basins are provided in Hydrology Appendix 3. Precipitation data for the watershed is listed in Table 3.

Table 3 100-year Return Interval Rainfall Data

Atlas 14 Rainfall Data

Duration 24-Hours

2-Year 3.09 inches 10-Year 4.46 inches 100-Year 6.90 inches

2.8 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH The Clark unit hydrograph transformation was used. The Clark unit hydrograph uses the Time of Concentration and a storage factor (R, Hrs) to create a synthetic hydrograph. The R values used for the watersheds are included in Table 1. The ratio of (R/TC+R) was found to be 0.05 based on calibration to the discharges reported in the 1984 USACE Lancassange Creek Local Flood Protection report. Pertinent results from the USACE Lancassange Creek report are compared to CBBEL results below in Table 4.

Table 4 Pertinent Data from USACE Lancassange Creek Report

* Uses CBBEL basin names ** At closest point to CBBEL node location

2.9 RESULTS OF HEC-HMS ANALYSIS Results of the analysis for various locations within each watershed are presented in Table 5. Copies of the HEC-HMS output tables for the watersheds are provided in Hydrology Appendix 4. A schematic showing the location of each of the output locations is also provided in Appendix 4.

Location * USACE Drainage Area

( mi2) **

USACE Discharges

(cfs)

CBBEL Drainage Area

( mi2)

CBBEL Discharges

(cfs) Lanc1 1.5 1,700 1.26 1,495

Lanc2 and Lanct1 5.1 3,400 5.38 3,504 Lanc Mouth 5.19 3,700 6.64 3,730



Table 5 Summary of HEC-HMS Results

Basin or Location on Stream 100-Year Peak Discharge (cfs)

10-Year Peak Discharge (cfs)

2-Year Peak Discharge (cfs)

BACR 1562 587 190 CANAL* 1348 666 326 HPT 1736 792 342 JLRU 1744 606 180 LANC1 1495 668 279 LANC2 1200 515 201 Lancassange Creek – Downstream of unnamed tributary (LANCT1) 3504 1454 565 Lancassange Creek - Mouth 3731 1564 618 LANCT1 777 309 111 LANCT2 996 407 147 LANCT3 1282 571 239 LBCR 1458 550 173 LENZ1 1835 882 413 LENZ2 1195 487 182 Lentzier Creek -mouth 3671 1485 557 LENZT1 1426 553 184 LENZT2 681 285 107 LENZT3 1819 723 259 LENZT and LENZ2 3351 1316 468 LICK 2868 1442 721 LICK and Tribs 6305 2974 1362 LICKT1 851 372 151 LICKT2 923 443 207 LICKT3 2128 931 376 MILL 3909 1907 913 Mill Creek – Downstream of confluence with unnamed tributary (HPT) 5645 2700 1254 PLRU 3467 1379 488 SILV 1061 492 218 SILV2* 100 40 14 WCT 830 356 139

* Peak discharge is for modeled area, not the entire basin

3.0 PURDUE REGRESSION EQUATION (STREAM STATS) A regional discharge determination based on regression equation was made for the stream based on the Purdue University regression equation (Purdue University, 2004). The Purdue regression equation, correlating various selected parameters, was developed by Purdue



University for eight areas within Indiana. These equations have been adopted into the USGS StreamStats program available on the internet. The result of the StreamStats analysis is listed in Table 6. A copy of the calculations is included in Hydrology Appendix 5.

Table 6

Purdue Regression Equation Results

Basin Drainage Area, mi.2

StreamStats 100-Year

Discharge (cfs) BACR 1.955 1250 HPT 1.291 574 JLRU 3.936 2,280

LANC1 6.362 3,310 LANCT1 0.197 77 LANCT2 0.986 560 LANCT3 1.118 1,210

LBCR 0.933 784 LENZ1 8.889 2,840

LENZT1 1.53 947 LENZT2 0.608 460 LENZT3 2.803 1,280

LICK and TRIBS 6.889 1,830 LICKT1 1.225 632 LICKT2 0.723 473 LICKT3 2.026 1,010

MILL 4.845 1,760 PLRU 13.247 4,220 SILV 0.536 313 SILV2 0.103 115 WCT 1.276 682

4.0 COMPARISON WITH GAGE DATA FOR NEARBY WATERSHEDS The hydrologic parameters of each stream system at the mouth were compared with pertinent parameters of several gaged watersheds in the region. The pertinent parameters for these gaged streams were taken from “Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Streams in Indiana” (USGS, 1984). Based on these comparisons,



three gauged streams in the region were chosen that had an adequate number of years of record and for which a valid comparison could be made to the streams in the Jefferson municipal boundary. Annual peak instantaneous discharge series for the period of record were obtained from the IDNR, which they calculated based on peak flow data obtained from the USGS. IDNR used HEC-WRC, a frequency flood analysis program, to estimate the peak 100-year instantaneous discharge at each gaged location. HEC-WRC utilizes the Log-Pearson Type III distribution and procedures established by the U.S. Water Resources Council to fit a flood frequency curve to the observed annual peak flood discharges. For comparison purposes, the frequency analysis result at each gaged location was adjusted to a drainage area equivalent to the primary watersheds (Lancassange, Lentzier and Lick Creeks) using the formula Q1/Q2 = (DA1/DA2)0.6. This formula is commonly used by the IDNR to determine an estimate of the peak discharge at a location based on data available, or previously determined, at another site in the vicinity, or with similar drainage characteristics. Table 7 summarizes the pertinent data for each watershed and Table 8 summarizes the results of the noted analyses. For comparison purposes, pertinent watershed parameters for each gage site are also provided in the table when available. Gage data used for this analysis is included in Hydrology Appendix 6.



TABLE 7 Pertinent Data for Selected Stream Gaging Stations in Comparison to Jefferson

Regional Watersheds

Stream and/or Station Name

USGS Station Number

Number of

Years of

Record

100-Year Discharge Based on

Gage Analyses Results

(cfs)

Stream Characteristics Based on “Techniques for Estimation

Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Streams in Indiana”, USGS, 1984

DA* (mi

2)

Length (mi)

Chnl. Slope (ft/mi)

Stor-age

Runoff Coeffi-cient

Lancassange Creek N/A N/A N/A 6.64 6 12.9 X X

Lentzier Creek N/A N/A N/A 8.37 5.49 17 X X

Lick Creek N/A N/A N/A 7.22 5.14 10.5 X X Buck Creek Near New

Middletown 03-3022.20 41 21,600 37.1 14.4 18.6 0.458 0.7

Little Indiana Creek Near

Galena 03-3023.00 34 8,060 16.1 10.2 19 2.36 0.8

West Fork Blue River at

Salem 03-3026.80 40 11,700 19 9.1 36.8 1.18 0.7

*Except for Lancassange, Lentzier and Lick Creeks, the Drainage Area (DA) shown in this column is the drainage area reported for the gage in the USGS publication.

TABLE 8 Comparison of HEC-HMS results to Drainage Area Adjusted Gage Data

Stream Name Drainage Area (mi

2)

100-Year HEC-HMS Discharge

(cfs)

100-year Adjusted Gage Discharges (cfs)

Buck Creek

Little Indiana

WFK Blue River

Lancassange Creek at the

mouth 6.64 3,731 7,694 4,737 6,226

Lentzier Creek at the mouth 8.37 3,671 8,840 5,443 7,154

Lick Creek at the mouth 7.22 6,305 8,090 4,982 6,547

Streams with larger drainage areas, large land and channel slopes, urban land use, and low permeability soils are expected to have higher discharges. Conversely, streams with smaller drainage areas, smaller land and channel slopes, rural land use, high permeability



soils, and depressional storage are expected to have lower discharges. By comparing the stream characteristics of Lancassange, Lentzier and Lick Creeks to the selected streams, a range of expected 100-year discharges at the site can be estimated. Based on the pertinent data, it is anticipated that the peak discharge on Lancassange and Lentzier Creeks will be lower than that of Buck and Little Indiana Creeks and West Fork Blue River. Lick Creek is anticipated to have a higher peak discharge than Little Indiana, but lower than Buck Creek and West Fork Blue River. 5.0 SUMMARY CBBEL developed a HEC-HMS model of the watersheds located within the Jeffersonville municipal boundaries. The Lancassange Creek watershed had previously been studied by the USACE and documented in the Lancassange Creek Local Flood Protection Project, Final Detailed Project Report. Since the USACE had done some calibration of their models, the results of this USACE study were used to calibrate the new modeling. The remaining watersheds in the new HEC-HMS modeling were calibrated using the methodology used to calibrate the Lancassange Creek watershed. CBBEL utilized the StreamStats regression calculations and the analysis of data for applicable gages at selected locations to validate the calibrated HEC-HMS model throughout the Jeffersonville municipal boundaries. StreamStats regression calculated values were generally similar to the HEC-HMS results. Several of the main causes for variation between StreamStats results and a detailed analysis are; variations in drainage area caused by differences in topographic data, pipes and ponds are not accounted for in the StreamStats analysis, StreamStats uses regional regression methodology and does not take into account variations within regions. Based on past engineering experience, the StreamStats results neither entirely reinforce nor discredit the HEC-HMS results. The results of the gage analysis yielded a large range of potential discharges that created an expected maximum and minimum value for the peak discharge. The HEC-HMS was validated based on the model results falling within this range of discharges and physical reasoning in basin function to explain why results were outside the gage ranges. The model results are summarized in tabular form in Table 5 for the requested return periods. Table 9 summarizes the results in terms of unit peak flow rates for each watershed. The unit peak flow rates are also shown on Hydrology Exhibit 4. This study was completed using the best available data during the development cycle. However, given the large number of variables and uncertainties involved in determining discharge information and the limited data available to validate the resulting values, the calculated unit discharge rates may be greater or less than the actual unit rates. Therefore, the installation of stream gages at select locations along the study streams is recommended. A disk with digital copies of the HEC-HMS model and hydrology shapefiles is provided in the Hydrology Appendix on the master CD of the Jeffersonville Stormwater Master Plan.



Table 9 CBBEL Unit Peak Flow Rate

Location

100-Year Unit

Discharge Rates

(cfs per Acre)

10-Year Unit

Discharge Rates

(cfs per Acre)

2-Year Unit

Discharge Rates

(cfs per Acre) BACR 1.21 0.46 0.15 CANAL 0.93 0.46 0.23 HPT 2.19 1.00 0.43 JLRU 0.72 0.25 0.07 LANC1 1.85 0.83 0.35 LANC2 1.89 0.81 0.32 LANCT1 0.99 0.39 0.14 LANCT2 1.64 0.67 0.24 LANCT3 1.40 0.62 0.26 LBCR 1.63 0.61 0.19 LENZ1 2.06 0.99 0.46 LENZ2 0.93 0.38 0.14 LENZT1 1.45 0.56 0.19 LENZT2 1.74 0.73 0.27 LENZT3 1.01 0.40 0.14 LICK 1.38 0.70 0.35 LICKT1 1.20 0.52 0.21 LICKT2 1.76 0.84 0.39 LICKT3 1.62 0.71 0.29 MILL 1.65 0.81 0.39 OHIO1* 0.99 0.39 0.14 OHIO2** 1.45 0.56 0.19 PLRU 1.17 0.47 0.17 SILV 1.82 0.85 0.37 SILV2 3.12 1.26 0.44 WCT 1.66 0.71 0.28

*based on results of basin LANCT1 because of similar basin characteristics and proximity *Based on results of basin LENZT1 because of similar basin characteristics and proximity



6.0 DATA SOURCES 1. 2005 Indiana Orthophotography - IndianaMap Framework Data www.indianamap.org. 2. U.S. Geological Survey NLCD 2006 landuse data. 3. Jeffersonville 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping 4. USGS Quadrangle 10ft contours 5. U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats online utility. http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/ 6. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 17B Stream Gage Data. 7. Lancassange Creek Local Flood Protection Project, Final Detailed Project Report, September 1984, USACE Louisville District

http://www.indianamap.org/

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/

Date post:	18-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Prepared for: City Of Jeffersonville March 2012 Prepared by CBBEL Project … · 2018. 12. 1. ·...

Documents