hydrologic analysis for nps 319 and cmi grants

Hydrologic Analysis for NPS 319 and CMI Grants

Dave Fongers, HSU, MDEQ, 517-373-0210, fongersd@michigan.gov

Hydrologic Analysis for NPS 319 and CMI Grants

DefinitionsHydrology: the occurrence, distribution, and

movement of water both on and under the earth's surface.

Stream Morphology: the form and structure of a stream (sinuosity, profile, and cross-sectional dimensions).

Morphologic Stability: no net change in channel shape, which occurs only if the channel-forming flow is also stable. A stable stream will have natural erosion.

Hydrologic changes can cause a stream to be unstable for 60 years or more.

Channel-Forming Flow is the flood discharge that causes the channel to assume its existing shape.

Extreme flood flows generally have little effect on channel morphology because they are so rare. More frequent flows, those that recur about every 1.5 to 2-years, are generally the dominant channel-forming flows in stable, natural streams (Schueler, 1987 and Rosgen, 1996).

Increase Flow or SlopeIncrease Sediment, Erosion

Water can carry 64 times larger particles if the velocity is doubled.

Hager Creek

Instability is indicated by extensive, excessive erosion, especially along straight reaches.

Down-cuts are good indicators of instability.

Hager Creek

A more typical down-cut.

Hager Creek

A. Help identify the cause(s) of streambank erosion

B. Facilitate the selection and design of suitable stabilization BMPs

C. Understand and plan for future hydrologic change

D. Help define critical areas for the Watershed Management Plan

Goals of NPS Hydrologic Analysis

A. Help identify the cause(s) of streambank erosion

B. Facilitate the selection and design of suitable stabilization BMPs

C. Understand and plan for future hydrologic change

D. Help define critical areas for the Watershed Management Plan

Goals of NPS Hydrologic Analysis

A. ID erosion causes Blakeslee Creek

Land Use

Change

Predicted 50 percent chance (2-year) flow from calibrated model.

Pre-development Post-development

Blakeslee CreekA. ID erosion causes

70% increase in peak flow,

170% increase in runoff volume,

former instantaneous peak flow now lasts ~4 hours

Blakeslee Creek

Instability is indicated by extensive, excessive erosion, especially along straight reaches.

Gage AnalysisA. ID erosion causes

4712 cfs 67% (1.5-year), 6368 cfs 50% (2-year), 10397 cfs 10% (10-year)

Muskegon River near Newago

4712

5712

6712

7712

8712

9712

10712

11712

12712

8/30

/30

8/29

/32

8/29

/34

8/28

/36

8/28

/38

8/27

/40

8/27

/42

8/26

/44

8/26

/46

8/25

/48

8/25

/50

8/24

/52

8/24

/54

8/23

/56

8/23

/58

8/22

/60

8/22

/62

8/21

/64

8/21

/66

8/20

/68

8/20

/70

8/19

/72

8/19

/74

8/18

/76

8/18

/78

8/17

/80

8/17

/82

8/16

/84

8/16

/86

8/15

/88

8/15

/90

8/14

/92

Date

Dis

char

ge

(cfs

)

Gage Analysis

Gage AnalysisA. ID erosion causes

Sometimes the cause of the erosion is obvious.

Pine River

Cause Cause

Cause

Cause Cause Cause Cause

A. ID erosion causes

Livestock

A. ID erosion causesFoot Traffic

This erosion may be caused by flow diverting around debris or ice piling against the former bridge supports. Nearby streambanks are stable.

Bear CreekA. ID erosion causes

Flow Obstructions

A. ID erosion causes

Natural Erosion

A. Help identify the cause(s) of streambank erosion

B. Facilitate the selection and design of suitable stabilization BMPs

C. Understand and plan for future hydrologic change

D. Help define critical areas for the Watershed Management Plan

Goals of NPS Hydrologic Analysis

Fleming’s/River Rouge

This CMI-funded detention pond’s drainage area is nearly fully developed. Based on the grantee’s hydrologic analysis, the 2-year event release rate is 0.018 cfs/acre.

B. BMP design

This erosion started 80 years ago when fourteen miles of natural stream was diverted to a three-mile long, straight channel. The hydrologic study provided design flows.

East Branch AuGres RiverA. ID erosion causes

Hager Creek

Hydrologic analysis provided design flows. Hydraulic analysis verified the effect of the proposed channel changes.

B. BMP design

A. Help identify the cause(s) of streambank erosion

B. Facilitate the selection and design of suitable stabilization BMPs

C. Understand and plan for future hydrologic change

D. Help define critical areas for the Watershed Management Plan

Goals of NPS Hydrologic Analysis

Black RiverC. Plan for future changes

Black River, 4% stormC. Plan for future changes

Sand CreekC. Plan for future changes

Sand CreekC. Plan for future changes

Sand CreekC. Plan for future changes

Sand CreekC. Plan for future changes

Sand CreekC. Plan for future changes

Watershed

Yield, area-weighted

average (cfs/acre)

2-year 25-year

Cedar Creek 0.004 0.03

Black River 0.006 0.03

Gun River 0.009 0.04

Pigeon River 0.010 0.05

Bear Creek, Muskegon

0.010 0.07

Coldwater River 0.015 0.05

Sand Creek 0.021 0.09

Mitchell Creek 0.022 0.14

Ryerson Creek 0.029 NA

Bear Creek, Kent 0.037 0.15

0.13

0.05

C. Plan for future changes

From Gun River Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study, Appendix 6C. Plan for future changes

From Gun River Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study, Appendix 6C. Plan for future changes

Soil Group

Detention Requirements

Release Rate (cfs per impervious acre)

Volume (cubic feet per impervious acre)

A 0.026 3,000

B 0.034 4,000

C 0.051 5,800

D 0.059 5,800

A or B soil infltrate

C or D soil0.05 cfs per impervious acre release rate5,800 cubic feet of detention storage per impervious acre

A. Help identify the cause(s) of streambank erosion

B. Facilitate the selection and design of suitable stabilization BMPs

C. Understand and plan for future hydrologic change

D. Help define critical areas for the Watershed Management Plan

Goals of NPS Hydrologic Analysis

D. Define critical areas

SubbasinWetland

RankAgricultural

Rank

Yield (cfs/acre)

Rank

% Change Runoff Volume

Rank

Total Runoff Volume

Rank

Total Ranking

BC1 1 1 4 2 1 9

BC2 2 3 4 4 1 14

BC2T 3 4 3 3 2 15

BC3 3 3 2 3 4 15

BC4 4 3 3 2 6 18

BC4Tn 4 3 2 1 2 12

BC4Ts 3 3 2 2 3 13

CR1 1 1 1 1 3 7

CR2 2 1 2 2 4 11

Excerpt from Coldwater River Watershed Management Plan, Tables 13 & 14

Total Rank 5-10 11-13 14-15 16+

Priority Very Low Low High Very High