woodward clyde - phase ii sediment quantification design investigation hydrologic … ·...

DRAFT - SECTION 4.0

r I i,^-4 t

HYDROLOGIC AND

SCOUR ANALYSIS

MEMORANDUM

SEDIMENT

QUANTIFICATION

DESIGN

INVESTIGATION

PHASE H REPORT

Prepared forFields Brook PRP GroupAugust 1994

Woodward-Clyde

30775 Bainbridge Road, Suite 200Solon, Ohio 44139

86C3609P

DRAFT - SECTION 4.0

HYDROLOGIC AND

SCOUR ANALYSIS

MEMORANDUM

SEDIMENT

QUANTIFICATION

DESIGN

INVESTIGATION

PHASE n REPORT

Prepared forFields Brook PRP GroupAugust 1994

Woodward-Clyde

30775 Bainbridge Road, Suite 200Solon,0hio44139

86C3609P

Woodward-ClydeEngineering & sciences applied to the earth & its environment

August 31, 199486C3609P

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (HSRM-6J)Ohio/Minnesota Remedial Branch77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, Illinois 60604-3590

Attention: Mr. Edward J. Hanlon

Subject: Hydrologic and Scour AnalysisDraft Section 4.0, Sediment QuanitificationDesign Investigation, Phase II ReportFields Brook Site - Ashtabula, Ohio

Dear Mr. Hanlon:

On behalf of the FBPRPO, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) is transmitting threecopies of a draft of Section 4.0 of the Sediment Quantification Design Investigation,Phase II Report. The objective of Section 4.0 is to describe the methodology and resultsused to determine the 100-year frequency floodplain extents and scour depths.

The appendices for Section 4.0 are not included with this submittal but will be includedwith the final SQDI, Phase II Report. The appendices consist of notes, computations,and computer output files used to perform the analyses and are not included becauseof their size. The final SQDI Phase II Report will also include sediment characterizationdata.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contacteither Mr. Joseph Heimbuch of de maximis, inc. at (313) 261-0280 or Martin Schmidt at(216) 349-2708.

Sincerely,

Martin L. Schmidt, Ph.D.Senior Project Manager

cc: Laura Weyer CH2M Hill (1 copy)Regan Williams OEPA (2 copies)Steve Golyski USACE (2 copies)Ron Heath USACE (2 copies)Joseph Heimbuch de maximis, inc. (1 copy)

KK516/FB12/86C3609P/EPACVR.LTRWoodward -Clyde Consultants • A subsidiary of Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc.30775 Bainbridge Road, Suite 200 • Solon, Ohio 44139216-349-2708 • Fax 216-349-1514

Woodward-Clyde

Hydrologic and Scour Analysis MemorandumDraft Section 4.0, Sediment Quantification

Design Investigation, Phase II Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

4.0 HYDROLOGIC AND SCOUR ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14.3 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.3.1 Watershed Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24.3.2 Rainfall Depth and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44.3.3 Reservoir Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44.3.4 Routed Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54.3.5 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54.3.6 Estimated Peak Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.4 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74.4.1 Hydraulic Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84.4.2 Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-94.4.3 Floodplain Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.5 SCOUR ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114.5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114.5.2 Field Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-124.5.3 Parameter Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-144.5.4 Model Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-174.5.5 Model Calibration and Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-184.5.6 Reassessment of Scour Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.6 REFERENCES ...................................... 4-20

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 - 1 - 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4-1 SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICSTABLE 4-2 COMPUTED FLOW RATES FOR 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM

EVENTTABLE 4-3 MODEL CALIBRATION RESULTSTABLE 4-4 100-YEAR COMPUTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONSTABLE 4-5 FIELDS BROOK PHASE 2 SAMPLING 15TH STREET BRIDGETABLE 4-6 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIESTABLE 4-7 ESTIMATED DEPTH TO BEDROCKTABLE 4-8 TRIBUTARY FLOW LOCATIONSTABLE 4-9 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION FOR

THE 100-YR EVENT

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 4-1FIGURE 4-2

FIGURE 4-3

FIGURE 4-4

FIGURE 4-5FIGURE 4-6FIGURE 4-7FIGURE 4-8FIGURE 4-9

FIGURE 4-10

FIGURE 4-11

DRAINAGE MAP100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, FLOODPLAIN STATIONING, ANDCROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP (1 OF 3)100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, FLOODPLAIN STATIONING, ANDCROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP (2 OF 3)100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, FLOODPLAIN STATIONING, ANDCROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP (3 OF 3)FLOODPLAIN STUDY CROSS SECTIONS (1 OF 3)FLOODPLAIN STUDY CROSS SECTIONS (2 OF 3)FLOODPLAIN STUDY CROSS SECTIONS (3 OF 3)100-YEAR PROFILEFIELDS BROOK DISCHARGE RATING CURVE AT 15THSTREET BRIDGEFIELDS BROOK SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AT15TH STREET BRIDGEINSTANTANEOUS SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT TRANSPORTCURVES FOR INVENTORY NETWORK STATIONS ONSTREAMS TRIBUTARY TO LAKE ERIE FROM ANDINCLUDING THE BLACK RIVER TO CONNEAUT CREEK

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 - 11 - 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

FIGURE 4-12FIGURE 4-13FIGURE 4-14FIGURE 4-15FIGURE 4-16FIGURE 4-17FIGURE 4-18FIGURE 4-19FIGURE 4-20

PHOTO JOURNAL

GEOTECHNICAL SAMPLING LOCATIONHEC-2 VS HEC-6 2-YR PROFILE COMPARISONHEC-2 VS HEC-6 100-YR PROFILE COMPARISON100-YR, 24-HR HYDROGRAPH AT STATION 1100-YR, 24-HR HYDROGRAPH AT STATION 4985100-YR, 24-HR HYD.ROGRAPH AT STATION 9000100-YR, 24-HR HYDROGRAPH AT STATION 9740100-YR, 24-HR HYDROGRAPH AT STATION 12250100-YR, 24-HR HYDROGRAPH AT STATION 14270

LIST OF APPENDIXES

APPENDIX AAPPENDIX BAPPENDIX CAPPENDIX D

SKETCHES OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURESHYDROLOGIC SUPPORTING CALCULATIONSHYDRAULIC SUPPORTING CALCULATIONSSCOUR ANALYSIS SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 - Ill - 8-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



4.0HYDROLOGIC AND SCOUR ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This has been prepared as part of the Fields Brook Superfund project in Ashtabula,Ohio. The objective of the report is to estimate the extent of the 100-year floodplainand the scour associated with the 100-year frequency flood. The methodology,assumptions, and results of the hydrologic, hydraulic and scour analysis utilized in thisstudy are presented and discussed in the technical sections of the memorandum. Thestudy area encompasses the entire Fields Brook watershed as shown on Figure 4-1.

4.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Fields Brook watershed is located approximately three miles northeast of the Cityof Ashtabula, Ohio. Primary land uses of the watershed consist of a mix of residential,agricultural and industrial areas. The soils in the watershed have been classified by theUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) andrange from well drained gravelly soils to poorly drained silty and sandy soils. Theaverage annual rainfall for the watershed is 36.3 inches per year. The monthlyprecipitation distribution is relatively uniform throughout the year with the minimummean monthly precipitation of 2.22 inches in February and the maximum precipitationof 3.61 inches in May. The average daily temperatures range from 27 degreesFahrenheit in January, to 73 degrees Fahrenheit in July (U.S Department of Commerce1968).

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-1 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



4.3 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Flood Hydrograph Package, HEC-1computer model was used to simulate the rainfall-runoff process for the Fields Brookwatershed. Drainage area, runoff characteristics and rainfall amounts were input intothe model to estimate peak runoff rates at various locations for the 100-year frequencyevent. These runoff rates were then used .to estimate the 100-year flood elevations.

4.3.1 Watershed Characteristics

The Fields Brook watershed consists of industrial facilities and low density residentialareas with open areas of natural meadows and wooded grassland. Fields Brook is atributary of the Ashtabula River, which ultimately discharges to Lake Erie.

Overland slopes range from less than 0.3 percent to 10 percent. Runoff is conveyedpredominantly from the southeast to the northwest by several small tributaries andditches which collect and convey runoff to Fields Brook. The watershed was divided intotwenty three sub-basins to account for tributary flow as shown on Figure 4-1. Each sub-basin and design point was confirmed in the field on October 12 and 13 , 1993 by WCCpersonnel.

The soil types, hydrologic condition, land use and vegetative cover of the different sub-basins were identified to evaluate infiltration characteristics. The Soil ConservationService (SCS) "Soil Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio" was used to identify major soiltypes and hydrologic classifications of the watershed. Three (3) major soil groupassociations were identified in the Fields Brook watershed:

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-2 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



• Elnora-Colonie-Kingsville associationHydrologic Soil Group B

• Otisville-Chenango associationHydrologic Soil Group A

• Conneaut-Swanton-Claverack associationHydrologic Soil Group C

Land use and vegetative cover as well as sub-basin drainage areas were estimated fromUnited States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. The USGS 7.5minute quadrangle maps used in the analysis were: (1) Ashtabula North, Ohio 1960,photo-revised 1970, photo-inspected 1988, (2) Ashtabula South, Ohio, 1960, photo-revised 1970, (3) Gageville, Ohio, 1960, photo-revised 1979, and (4) North Kingsville,Ohio, 1960 photo-revised 1979.

An SCS runoff curve number was estimated to quantify infiltration potentials for eachsub-basin based on the soil type, percent of a particular land use per sub-basin,hydrologic condition and vegetative cover. The curve numbers were selected from atable presented in "Applied Engineering Hydrology" (Ponce 1986). Estimated curvenumbers range from 58 to 89 for the different sub-basins.

The time of concentration (Tc) for each sub-basin was estimated using the KirpichMethod (Chow 1988) for channel flow and the SCS methods outlined in TR-55 (SCS1986) for overland and shallow concentrated flow. Overland flow is sheet flow beforegully type of flow or shallow concentrated flow occurs. It usually occurs at the upstreamend of a drainage area. The time of concentration is defined as the time for water totravel from the most hydraulically remote point of each sub-basin to the outlet. Theslope and length of flow paths are necessary to estimate the time of concentration using

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-3 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



both the Kirpich and the SCS methods. Slopes and lengths were estimated from theUSGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps, 2-foot interval topographic maps of thestudy area produced by Kucera in 1987, and the project survey data obtained in the fallof 1993. The drainage area, Curve Number (CN), time of concentration (Tc) and lagtime (T^ estimated for each sub-basin are given on Table 4.1. The lag time is definedas the lag between the center of mass of rainfall excess and the peak of the unithydrograph.

4.3.2 Rainfall Depth and Distribution

Rainfall depths for the 100-year, 24-hour, 12-hour and 6-hour duration storms wereestimated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper 40(TP-40). Total rainfall depths were then distributed using the SCS Type II temporalrainfall distribution curve. The 100-year, 24-hour, 12-hour and 6-hour precipitationdepths were estimated to be 4.8 inches, 4.3 inches and 3.6 inches respectively for theFields Brook watershed.

4.3.3 Reservoir Areas

In order to simulate floodplain storage naturally occurring in the watershed, threefloodplain storage areas were included in the HEC-1 model. Two storage areas werelocated upstream of Perm Central Railroad above SCM Plant No. 1, as shown on Figure4-1. The other area is located on the upstream side of Highway 11. All three areas areplaces where ponding naturally occurs during storm events. In the HEC-1 model, theseareas were described with storage vs. elevation curves and outflow rating curves throughthe existing outlets (i.e., bridge culverts). The potential for overtopping of the bridgesis included in the model by including the height and flow length of each bridge.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECT1ON.4 4-4 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



The storage curves were developed using the 7.5 minute USGS topographic mapsdescribed above and the 2 foot topographic maps of the study area produced by Kucerain 1987. The details for the bridges and culverts were obtained from the recent surveydata obtained by WCC in 1993. The rating curves for the culverts were developed usingthe Hydrocalc Hydraulics computer program produced by Dodson and Associates.

4.3.4 Routed Flow

The flow from various upper watersheds was routed through lower watersheds to aspecific design point. For example, the runoff from drainage area T (upstream ofHighway 20) is routed through drainage area S (upstream of Perm Central Railroad) todesign point 2 (culvert beneath Penn Central Railroad near Cook Road). The runofffor drainage area S is then added to the routed flow and becomes the inflow into thefloodplain storage area upstream of Bridge 10 (area above the culvert beneath PennCentral Railroad near Cook Road). The cross section data used for the routing routineswas obtained from the survey conducted by WCC from October through November 1993,the 7.5 minute USGS topographic maps described above and the 2-foot intervaltopographic maps of the study area produced by Kucera in 1987. The Manning's 'n'values used to describe the roughness of the channel sections and overbank areas werefield verified on October 12 and 13,1993 by WCC personnel. Sketches and photographsof cross sections and hydraulic structures are provided in Appendix A.

4.3.5 Calibration

A large rainfall event that occurred on September 6 and 7, 1990 was used to calibratethe HEC-1 model. The rainfall event started on September 6, 1990 at 2:40 p.m. andlasted for approximately 18 hours. The rainfall gage used to measure the event islocated at the WCC trailer at the RMI Sodium facility. The storm measured 2.25 inchesin the first hour, and a total of 3.95 inches after 18 hours. This rainfall event has been

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-5 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



estimated to be approximately a 35-year storm event. Because additional hourlyprecipitation data is not available for the rainfall event, an assumption was maderegarding the distribution of the precipitation. The storm was distributed in 18 one-hourincrements with the 2.25 inches of rainfall occurring in the first hour and 0.1 inches ofrain per hour thereafter.

High water levels were taken from staff gage readings at several locations along FieldsBrook and are shown in Table 4-3. The staff gage readings were taken approximately2 hours after the beginning of the storm event and have been assumed to represent thehighest water levels produced by the storm.

In order to simulate the floodplain storage that occurred during the event, the HEC-1model was revised to include the two beaver dams and the large swamp area that existson the Elkem property. The two beaver dams remained intact during the September 6and 7, 1990 event. The two beaver dams were assumed to wash out during the 100-yearevent. To simulate this floodplain storage area, assumptions had to be made including:height and length of the dams and outflow beneath the dams (the estimated baseflowof 15 cfs).

The discharge results from the HEC-1 model were input into the HEC-2 model for theSeptember 6 and 7, 1990 event. The results of the calibration for the HEC-2 model arediscussed in Section 4.4 of this memorandum. Back-up calculations are included inAppendix B.

4.3.6 Estimated Peak Flows

The hydrograph for each sub-basin area was calculated by HEC-1 and either addeddirectly to the main Fields Brook hydrograph or routed to another point in thewatershed and added to the hydrograph of another sub-basin. This flow hydrograph then

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-6 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



either became the inflow into a floodplain storage area or was added to hydrographsfrom sub-basin areas further downstream until the confluence with the Ashtabula Riverwas reached. An estimated baseflow of 15 cfs was added into the HEC-1 model belowMiddle Road downstream of the Plasticolors plant to account for base flow in FieldsBrook. The baseflow within Fields Brook is not completely natural flow and issignificantly effected by the industrial outflow discharges which vary with time.

Results of the HEC-1 analysis indicates that the 24-hour event results in the largest peakdischarge and is therefore the critical duration event. The estimated peak flows (Q10o-yr,24_hr) for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event (in cubic feet per second) estimated from theHEC-1 model for each sub-basin area (including routed flow and floodplain storageareas) and combined hydrographs from the watershed are given in Table 4-2.

4.4 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Hydraulic analysis was performed using the results of the hydrologic analysis and theU.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Water Surface Profiles computer program, HEC-2. Crosssectional data were obtained from field surveyed floodplain cross sections and from 2-foot contour maps. The field survey was performed by WCC. The 2-foot contour mapswere produced by Kucera in 1987 and are based on aerial photography. All elevationsare based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Culverts and bridgeswere modelled using the Special Culvert and Special Bridge options of HEC-2.Descriptions and measurements of the bridges and culverts were completed in the field.Manning's 'n' values for the cross sections were estimated in the field.

The HEC-2 computer program was used to estimate the extent of the 100-yearfloodplain. Results also were used to estimate average stream velocities in the channeland in the overbank areas for the 100-year event. Results of the hydrologic analysis

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-7 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde

Hydroiogic and Scour Analysis MemorandumDraft Section 4.0, Sediment Quantification


indicate that peak flows for a 100-year storm event occur during a 24-hour durationstorm.

4.4.1 Hydraulic Modelling

In the floodplain model, 9 hydraulic crossings were described using the Special Bridgeoption and 2 hydraulic crossings were described using the Special Culvert option.Manning's Jn' values and expansion and contraction loss coefficients were estimated foreach bridge, culvert and cross section modelled. The bridges and culverts were modelledin HEC-2 based on observations and measurements made in the field. Sketches whichdescribe the structures were completed in the field and are included in Appendix F.Photographs of the structures are included as Photographs 1 through 14. Cross sectionslocated at the upstream face of the bridges and culverts were surveyed. Cross sectionslocated at the downstream face of the bridges were developed based on the surveyedupstream cross sections and information from topographic maps. The surveyed crosssections are shown in Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7.

Cross sections not associated with bridges were either surveyed or developed fromtopographic maps. Manning's 'n' values for the channel, left bank, and right bank wereestimated in the field.

Several assumptions were made to more accurately reflect conditions at Fields Brookwhich include:

• Station 00+00 (Reach 1) - The water level elevation for startingconditions was set at 572.0 ft. This value was based on previouslyrecorded elevations of the Ashtabula River and Fields Brook at theConrail bridge (BR 1).

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-8 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



• Station 16 + 30 (Reach 1) - Manning's 'n' values were set to 0.20 for thiscross section to model the effects of the sharp bend in the channel.

• Station 20+60 (Reach 2-1) - Sediment in the culvert is washed out duringthe peak flow event,

• Station 104 + 55 (Reach 6) - A concrete wall blocks a significant portionof the flow going underneath bridge 6.

• Station 142+00 (Reach 8-1) - Beaver dams blocking the channel and thetributary wash out during the 100-year event. The effect of the beaverdams is included in the model of the September 1990 event.

• Bridge 13 - Sediments in the bottom of the double culverts reduce thecapacity of the culverts.

• Station 170+00 (Reach 8-3) - Due to the close proximity of bridge 9 andbridge 13, the head loss due to expansion of flows downstream of bridge 9is affected by the head loss due to contraction of flow upstream ofbridge 13.

• Station 172 + 00 (Reach 8-3) - Manning's 'n' values were set to 0.20 for thiscross section to model the effects of the sharp bend in the channel.

4.4.2 Model Calibration

In order to calibrate the HEC-2 model, computed surface water elevations werecompared to water surface elevations observed during a flood event. Rainfall of 2.25inches of rain was recorded in 50 minutes on September 6 at the WCC trailer located

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-9 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



at the RMI Sodium facility. A total rainfall of 3.95 inches was recorded within an 18-hour span from September 6 and 7, 1990. The observed event was estimated to beapproximately the 35-year event. The observed event was modelled in order to calibratethe HEC-1 and HEC-2 models. As stated previously, peak flows for the 18-hour eventwere estimated with HEC-1. These estimated peak flows were used in the HEC-2 modelto compute water surface elevations.

In order to model the event, several assumptions were made. Because hourly rainfalldata were unavailable, the 1.7 inches of rainfall that fell after the first hour wasdistributed evenly for the remaining 17 hours of the event. A dam was constructed inthe HEC-1 model at station 142 + 00 to model the effects of two beaver dams. It isbelieved that beaver dams located near this cross section significantly affecteddownstream peak flows during the September 6 and 7, 1990 event. The observed highwater elevations were based on staff gauge readings collected within two hours of thefifty minute storm and again within four hours of the full 18-hour event. It is assumedthat the peak elevations of the flood were observed at each staff gage. The staff gaugelocated at station 122 + 50 was located on the upstream side of a bridge pier. The effectof the bridge pier on the estimated water surface elevation cannot be modelledaccurately with HEC-2. The results of the calibration are summarized in Table 4-3. Thecalibration HEC-2 runs are included in Appendix C.

4.4.3 Floodplain Estimation

Computed water surface elevations (CWSEL) for the surveyed cross sections aresummarized in Table 4-4. The estimated 100-year floodplain extent is shown onFigures 4-2,4-3, and 4-4. The 100-yr floodplain extent is based on the HEC-2 computedwater surface elevations, actual survey data, and the available topographic maps. Atseveral cross sections, floodplain extents are estimated due to discrepancies between the

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-10 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



actual survey data and the topographic maps. Water surface profiles are included onFigure 4-8. The 100-yr floodplain simulation run is included in Appendix C.

4.5 SCOUR ANALYSIS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested on February 2, 1994during a telephone conference call that the FBPRPO reassess the potential for scourfrom the 100-year flood. The method discussed for estimating scour was the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineer's (USAGE) 'Tidal Hydraulics Manual" #EM 1110-2-1607. Themethodology and references to be used were outlined in the letter to Joseph Heimbuch,de maximis, inc. dated February 11, 1994. This methodology is the same as the cohesivesediment scour calculations used in the USACE HEC-6 Computer Program. Due to thevolume of computational analysis to be calculated for each of the cross sections alongFields Brook, the HEC-6 Computer Program was used to aid in the scour computations.The "Cohesive Material Erosion by Unidirectional Current" by Kamphius and Hall citedin the February 11, 1994 letter for estimating erosion rates was used as a basis forestimating input parameters for the HEC-6 model.

4.5.1 Methodology

HEC-6 is a one-dimensional movable boundary open channel flow numerical modeldesigned to simulate and predict changes in river profiles resulting from scour and/ordeposition over moderate time periods. The model requires a continuous flow recordpartitioned into a series of steady flows of variable discharges and durations. For eachflow, a water surface profile is calculated thereby providing energy slope, velocity, depth,etc. at each cross section. Potential sediment transport rates are then computed at eachsection. These rates, combined with the duration of the flow, permit a volumetricaccounting of sediment within each reach. The amount of scour or deposition at eachsection is then computed and the cross section adjusted accordingly. The computations

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECT10N.4 4-11 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



then proceed to the next flow in the sequence and the cycle is repeated with the updatedgeometry. The sediment calculations are performed by grain size fraction therebyallowing the simulation of hydraulic sorting and armoring (USAGE 1993).

HEC-6 implements the concept of an active and an inactive bed layer. The active layeris assumed to be continually mixed by the flow, but it can have a surface of slow movingparticles that shield the finer particles from being entrained in the flow. Two differentprocesses are simulated: (1) Mixing that occurs between the bed sediment particles andthe fluid-sediment mixture due to the energy in the moving fluid and, (2) Mixing thatoccurs between the active layer and inactive layer due to the movement of the bedsurface. The mixing mechanisms are attributed to large scale turbulence and bed shearstress from the moving water. The mixing depth (termed "equilibrium depth") isexpressed as a function of flow intensity (unit discharge), energy slope, and particle size(USAGE 1993).

4.5.2 Field Sampling

Sediment sampling and stream gaging were performed on Fields Brook near the 15thStreet Bridge in the Fall of 1993 as part of the SQDI Phase 2 field sampling plan. Fielddata collected included pH, water temperature, and specific conductance. Velocity-discharge measurements were made using a Price pygmy current meter. A staff gage wasset approximately 200 feet upstream of the 15th Street bridge in an area of Fields Brookthat is relatively straight and free of debris. All sampling was performed at this locationwhen the stream was wadable (ie. depth less than 2.5 feet). If the stream was notwadable, sediment sampling and stream gaging were performed from the 15th Streetbridge. Suspended sediment samples were collected using a USGS DH-48 depthintegrated sampler and bed load samples were collected using a Helley-Smith bed loadsampler. All samples were collected and stored following the appropriate quality controlprocedures.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-12 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



Samples were collected on October 13, November 15 and November 17 of 1993. Resultsof the sampling are shown on Table 4-5. The SQDI Phase 1 Report predicted that theprimary mode of sediment transport was by suspended sediment load. This wasconfirmed during the SQDI Phase 2 sampling events because there was no appreciableamount of bed load collected during any of the events sampled. From these data, astage-discharge rating curve for Fields Brook was developed as shown on the attachedFigure 4-9. Also, a relationship between the instantaneous suspended sedimentdischarge and the instantaneous water discharge was developed from the collected dataas shown in Figure 4-10.

Precipitation data collected at the site and at the Ashtabula airport on the samplingdates were compared to the U.S. Department of Commerce Technical Paper 40 dated1963 to estimate the frequency of the rainfall events. This analysis indicates that theOctober 13 flow was a baseflow, the November 15 flow was approximately a 1-1/2 yrrainfall event at the site and less than a 1-year rainfall event at the Ashtabula airportand the November 17 flow was less than a 1-year event, however, because of theprecipitation which occurred prior to the November 17 precipitation and the antecedentmoisture conditions of the surface soils added to the cumulative flow in the brook.Based on a design storm approach the November 17 event of 90 cubic feet/second wasestimated to be approximately a 2-year runoff event.

Ideally, to develop a sediment rating curve for extreme events for Fields Brook, therewould have been larger events sampled such as a 50-year or 100-year frequency event.However, the largest event sampled was approximately a 2-year event which isreasonable for a limited sampling time period. The sediment data was plotted onFigure 4-11 and the data was extrapolated for higher flow events. This plot wascompared to data collected and presented by the U. S. Geologic Survey (USGS) inWater Supply Paper No. 2045, "Fluvial Sediment in Ohio". The differences arecompared on Figure 4-11.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-13 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



Field sampling of the sediment within Fields Brook was performed during the Spring,1994. For this analysis, to be consistent with the terminology used in previous reportsthe less dense, weaker shear strength upper layer of the bed material is called sediments,or the active layer, for HEC-6 purposes. The lacustrine bed material which is foundbelow the sediment and has more shear strength and density is called soil, or the inactivelayer, for HEC-6 purposes. The sediment and soil layers are collectively called bedmaterial. Core samples of the soil within .the channel were taken at specific locationsusing Vibracore sampling techniques. The sample locations are shown on Figure 4-12.In addition, a grab sample of sediment was also taken at some of the locations. Apocket vane shear test was performed in the field on the bottom of each core sample.

The core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for wet and dry density, Atterberglimits, and gradation analysis. A gradation analysis was also performed on the grabsamples. Table 4-6 shows a summary of the laboratory analysis of the samples collected.

4.5.3 Parameter Selection

Sediment transport parameters which are required for the input into HEC-6 include:inflow versus sediment curves, cohesive sediment properties, sediment and soilgradations, width of the moveable bed and the available depth of bed material for scour.The inflow sediment curve was estimated from the data collected during the SQDIPhase 2 sampling, and was subsequently extrapolated for the higher flows. Inflows fromtributaries were estimated at approximately 10 percent of the values used at the upperend of the watershed.

Properties of cohesive sediments were estimated from the laboratory analysis results andfrom information presented in the references cited by the USEPA and the paper entitled"Cohesive Material Erosion by Unidirectional Current" (Kamphius 1983). Based on the

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-14 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



gradation analyses the majority of the sediment and soil within Fields Brook is classifiedas cohesive.

The vane shear strength of the samples estimated ranged from 300 to 1,400pounds/square foot. The critical shear stress of cohesive sediments was estimated torange from 0.25 to 0.59 pounds/square foot (based on the relationship between vaneshear strength and critical shear strength presented in the "Cohesive Material Erosionby Unidirectional Current") (Kamphius 1983). From the USEPA letter dated February11, 1994, the erosion rate constant was assumed to be 0.3687 pounds/square foot/hour.

The HEC-6 model assumes two layers of sediment available for transport, the active andinactive layers. The depth of the active layer is estimated by HEC-6 and is a functionof the flow intensity of the reach. The active layer is defined in the HEC-6 Manual asthe zone of mixing that occurs between the bed sediment particles and the fluid-sedimentmixture due to the energy in the moving fluid and the mixing that occurs between theactive layer and the inactive layer due to the movement of the bed surface. For thisanalysis, it was assumed that the sediment properties would represent the active layerand the soil properties would represent the inactive layer.

The HEC-6 program requires the following properties for the active and inactive layers:1) shear stress threshold for deposition, 2) shear stress threshold for particle erosion,3) shear stress threshold for mass erosion, 4) erosion rate at mass erosion limit, and5) slope of mass erosion curve. These properties were not directly measured for thisinvestigation. A reasonable range of each of these properties was estimated from theAtterberg limits and vane shear data, the "Cohesive Material Erosion by UnidirectionalCurrent" (Kamphius 1983) and from experience with cohesive sediment transport. Thefollowing parameters were selected based on calibration of the model with collecteddata.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-15 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde

Active Layer:

Inactive Layer:



Shear stress threshold for deposition = 0.2 pounds/square footShear stress for particle erosion = 0.05 pounds/square footShear stress threshold for mass erosion = 0.15 pounds/square footErosion rate at mass erosion limit = 1.5 pounds/square foot/hourSlope of mass erosion curve = 30

Shear stress threshold for deposition = 0.2 pounds/square footShear stress for particle erosion = 0.4 pounds/square footShear stress threshold for mass erosion = 0.6 pounds/square footErosion rate at mass erosion limit = 1.8 pounds/square foot/hourSlope of mass erosion curve = 18

The gradation from the samples collected during the Spring 1994 Field Samplingprogram were input into the HEC-6 model for the respective reaches. Gradationspreviously collected during the SQDI Phase 1 Field Sampling program were also usedto supplement data gaps. These locations are shown on Figure 4-12. The averagesubmerged density of the sediment was estimated to be 124 pounds/cubic foot and thespecific gravity was estimated to be 2.68 based on the lab results from the soil samples.

The Meyer-Peter and Muller equation for non-cohesive sediment transport was used inthe HEC-6 model to estimate the portion of the non-cohesive sediments which may bemoving. This formula is one of the most frequently used formulas for bed loadtransport. However, it is believed that very little of the total sediment transport withinFields Brook is from bed load.

The depth of available bed material within Fields Brook was estimated from a fieldreview and probing depths performed during SQDI Phase 1 Field sampling. In general,the lower reaches have very shallow bed material depths overlaying bedrock while the

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-16 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



upper reaches have deeper sediment depths. Table 4-7 lists the estimated depth tobedrock for each model reach.

Cross sections used in the HEC-2 analysis were used in the HEC-6 analysis. The HEC-2model includes both channel cross sections, as well as bridges and culverts. The HEC-6model is a more simplified hydraulic model and does not allow for the input of bridgesand culverts. Therefore, the model does not implicitly account for the head lossesassociated with these structures. The restrictive cross sections upstream and downstreamof the culverts were included in the HEC-6 model.

4.5.4 Model Assumptions

Due to the highly vegetated overbank areas, this analysis assumes that erosion or scourassociated with a large flood will be confined to the channel. Research in open channelhydraulics suggests that vegetation can withstand flow velocities ranging from 5 to 8 feetper second without eroding (Chow 1959). Photographs of the overbank areas areincluded in Appendix A.

The State Road Bridge appears to be a complicated hydraulic section of Fields Brook.An old dam exists upstream from the State Road Bridge and one section of the dam(approximately one-half of the width of the stream) has been broken out, however, thefooting and rubble from the washed out section remains in the bed of Fields Brook. Assuch, the bed of the brook was assumed to be armored in the HEC-6 model for thesecross sections.

The HEC-6 model is limited to 10 inflow points where flow can be increased ordecreased due to the hydrology and hydraulics of Fields Brook. For the purposes of thisanalysis, the HEC-6 model was limited to the downstream boundary condition and 5

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-17 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



locations where the flow significantly changes and may affect the sediment transportcalculations. These locations are shown on Table 4-8.

The HEC-6 model solves the sediment transport equations for each cross section foreach time step. To improve the computational efficiency and not sacrifice the relativeaccuracy of the sediment transport calculations, the simulated hydrographs weresimplified into one hour increments. The 100-year simplified and simulated HEC-1hydrographs are shown on Figures 4-15 through 4-20. The true peak of the simulatedhydrograph for each of the cross sections may not fall on the one-hour time stepsselected to simplify the hydrographs. To preserve the peak flow at each of the crosssections, the simulated peak was shifted to the closest simplified one hour time step.

The HEC-2 model was used to develop a downstream rating curve for the HEC-6 model.The normal water level of the Ashtabula River near Lake Erie is approximately 570.0.The HEC-2 model was run for a series of flows with the starting condition of the HEC-2model set for critical depth. The critical depth for a particular flow was used for thestarting conditions of the HEC-6 model unless the critical depth was less than 570.0.

4.5.5 Model Calibration and Runs

The first run made with the HEC-6 model was a fixed bed run. The intent of this runwas to check if the simplified hydraulics of the HEC-6 model reasonably represented theflood profiles produced by the HEC-2 model. The fixed bed run assumes there is nosediment transport or scour which affects the hydraulics of the stream. This is the sameassumption used in the HEC-2 model. The simplified hydraulics of the HEC-6 modelreasonably predicts the flood profiles for the 100-year and the 2-year events as shownon Figures 4-13 and 4-14.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-18 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



The second run was with the 15 cubic feet/second estimated baseflow, the sediment dataand a moveable bed. The run was made to check if the inflow sediment curve for theupstream boundaries appeared reasonable. The inflow sediment volume was comparedagainst the outflow sediment volume. The baseflow case is assumed to be a stablesediment transport run such that the inflow sediment volume should approximate theoutflow sediment volume. In general, any aggradation or degradation predicted by themodel at cross sections is where the cross sections where shifted from their surveyedlocations to a location where there is no surveyed data. Shifting the cross sections is amodelling technique used to supplement limited cross sectional survey data. The crosssection reasonably approximated the hydraulics of Fields Brook but may not be trulyrepresentative if there are changes in the cross sections due to aggradation ordegradation for that particular area. Thus, the sediment transport equation may showaggradation or degradation for these sections. This run is included in Appendix D.

The third run was to compare the two year design runoff event to the November 17,1993 field sampling event of approximately 90 cubic feet/second. The instantaneousmeasured sediment discharge was estimated to be approximately 19 tons/day for the 90cubic feet/second flow. There are no records indicating if the measurement was thepeak of the storm or if the measurement occurred on the rising or falling limb of thehydrograph. The total discharge of sediment under the two year event estimated by theHEC-6 model was approximately 80 tons/day. This appeared to be a reasonable resultfor calibrating a measured instantaneous discharge to an estimated volume of sedimenttransported by the 2-year event. This run is included in Appendix D.

The fourth run was to simulate the aggradation/degradation for the 100-year event. Thesimplified hydrographs for selected tributary inflow points for the 100-year event wasinserted into the calibrated model. This run is included in Appendix D.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-19 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



4.5.6 Reassessment of Scour Potential

As a result of reassessing the scour potential within Fields Brook, the maximumdegradation occurs as contraction scour near bridges or in the case of the HEC-6 model,at the constrictive cross-sections in the Fields Brook floodplain. This scour appears tobe very limited upstream and downstream from the constrictions. Table 4-9 shows theestimated maximum aggradation/degradation of the peak flood by cross-section. Thesecond column of Table 4-9 shows the bridge cross-sections and the cross-sectionslocated within 50 ft of the bridge. A complete description of sediment depths,characterization, and analytical results from Phase II sampling will be provided in thePhase II SQDI Report. Based on the HEC-6 model and the model input assumptions,the potential for the resuspension of sediment below a depth of 2.0 ft of the existingchannel appears to be limited to the areas upstream and downstream of bridges. Inother areas of the Fields Brook floodplain that were modeled, the results indicated therewas minor potential for scour of sediments greater than 2.0 ft for the 100-year event.

4.6 REFERENCES

Brater & King. 1976. "Handbook of Hydraulics." McGraw-Hill.

Chow, Maidment and Mays. 1988. "Applied Hydrology", McGraw-Hill.

Chow, Venta. 1959. "Open Channel Hydraulics." McGraw Hill.

Dodson and Associates, "Hydrocalc, Hydraulics Manual", 1989.

Kamphuis, William and Kevin Hall. 1983. "Cohesive Material Erosion byUnidirectional Current." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 1.January.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-20 08-31-94

Woodward-Clyde



Ponce, Miguel V. 1986. "Applied Hydrology." May.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. "HEC-1, Flood Hydrograph Package, User'sManual," Hydrologic Engineering Center. September

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "HEC-2, Water Surface Profiles, User's Manual",Hydrologic Engineering Center, September, 1990.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. "HEC-6 Scour and Deposition in Rivers andReservoirs, Users Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Center. August.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. 'Tidal Hydraulics." EMU 10-2 1607. March.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Soil Survey for Ashtabula County, Ohio," Soilconservation Service, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with OhioDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil, AgriculturalResearch and Development Center.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,Technical Release 55", Soil Conservation Service. June.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1968. "Climate Atlas of the United States,"Environmental Data Service Environmental Science Services Administration.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1961. "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States,Technical Paper No. 40." U.S. Weather Bureau. May.

U.S. Geologic Survey. 1978. "Fluvial Sediments in Ohio." Water Supply PaperNo. 2045.

KK515/FB12/86C3609P/SECTION.4 4-21 08-31-94

Tables

TABLE 4-1

SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS

Basin I.D.ABCDEFGHIJK

L

MNOP

QRSTUVw

Area(sq. miles)

0.170.090.090.2

0.280.160.120.190.030.250.17

0.03

0.060.130.030.040.120.370.891.230.54

0.190.77

CN

89747380757674

777284

76

7474

58725887617462696561

Tc(hrs.)

1.61.00.51.21.61.61.31.31.02.32.2

0.90.72.31.11.20.73.11.61.11.0

1.62.3

T,(hrs.)

1.00.60.30.70.91.00.80.80.61.41.3

0.60.41.40.6

0.80.41.81.0

0.70.61.01.4

86C3609UR1T.4-1 08-17-94(3:14pm)/MlSC/Nl Sheet 1 of 1

TABLE 4-2

COMPUTED FLOW RATES FOR 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM EVENT

Design Point/Basin I.D.

TT-2S

S + TBR 10

2-3R

R + 33-63-63-6N

N + 6UV

V-lu+vBR 12

QQ + 44-5P

P+5O

O+55 + 6M

M+7L

L+8

QlOO-yr, 24-hr (CfS)

433

28946874433633662396378374374213823006361

3321681612021972521819

2275325153722539

86C3609L/R1T.4-2 08-16-94(4:01pm)/MlSC/Nl Sheet 1 of 2

TABLE 4-2(Concluded)

Design Point/Basin I.D.

KK+99-109-109-10

JJ+10

I1+11

GH

G + H+12FW

W-13F + W+12

BR.5E

14 + ECD

C+D+1515-1615-1615-16

B16 + B16-1716-17

AA+17

QlOO-yr, 24-hr (C^)

795785785775771466692067371132742891561419328731569288616

93993693593563945945945148987

86C3609L/R1T.4-2 08-16-94(4:01pm)/MISC/Nl Sheet 2 of 2

TABLE 4-3

MODEL CALIBRATION RESULTS

Station NumberObserved 35-Year Peak

Elevation (ft)Estimated 35-Year Peak

Elevation (ft)

22 + 8071 + 00

77 + 50105 + 00122 + 50137 + 80

580.97605.41608.21

618.71625.02630.60

581.34605.86

608.93619.05624.87631.41


TABLE 4-4

100-YEAR COMPUTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS

Cross Section I.D.

3 + 604 + 2517 + 4018 + 0020 + 6021 + 0022 + 8031 + 3043 + 5049 + 8550 + 4057 + 8074 + 7077 + 5090 + 0097 + 40104 + 40104 + 55105 + 00109 + 70120 + 40122 + 50123 + 20127 + 20127 + 60130 + 80137 + 80142 + 70162+10170 + 20170 + 73171+00194 + 45194 + 90

100- Year CWSEL

576.5577.0583.1584.8585.4586.3586.4586.7592.0600.1603.1603.4612.5613.6615.1615.8618.8620.0623.2623.3

. 624.2626.4627.3627.9628.7630.5633.2633.5637.0639.2639.7639.8646.86496


TABLE 4-5

FIELDS BROOK PHASE 2 SAMPLING15TH STREET BRIDGE

Analytical Data

Date

10/13/94

11/15/93

11/17/93

Sample ID

HASSS1

HASSS2

HASSS3

TDS(mg/0

1040

1905

1195

TSS(mg/1)

7.3

28

79

Staff GageHeight (ft)

0.65

1.14

2.5

Field Data

WaterDischarge (cfs)

10.4

25.9

90.4

pH

7.58

7.39

7.22

SpecificConductance

1840

3570

2330

WaterTemp (C)

13

13

13

SuspendedSed. Transport

(tons/days)

0.21

1.96

19.28

Site 24-hourPrecip.

(inches)

0

2.8'

0

Airport24-hour Precip.

(inches)

0

1.36(1.76')

0.20 (1.76')

86C3609L/R1T.4 5 OM7-94(3:14pm)/MlSC/NI Sheet 1 of 1

TABLE 4-6

GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

Identification Tests

WaterSample Content Liquid Plastic Plas.No. Specimen (%) Limit Limit Ind.

PE1BSO

PII1DSO

PH1HSO

PE2LS2

PG1CSO

PF1AS1

PG2BSO

PE2LS2

PESLS2 C 24.2 29 20 9

PESLS2

PF1AS1

PF1AS1 A 21.8 34 21 13

PF1AS1

PG1CSO

PG1CSO B 27.1 29 19 10

PG1CSO

PlilBSO

TotalSieve Hydrometer Unit Dry Unit Vane

USCS Minus % Minus Weight Weight Specific Shear1

Symb.1 No. 200 2 um (%) (pcf) (pcf) Gravity (lbs/ft2) Remarks

OL-OH 63.4

CL 60.7

OH-MH 76.1

CL 71.7

CL 80.8

SM 43.2

GP-GM 10.4

118.0

CL 49.9 7 123.8 99.7 2.683

NC

rescaled

CL 82.8 21 130.6 107.2 2.697

1426

124.5

CL 72.3 15 120.9 95.1 2.693

509

129.1

t*C160»l..RlT * 6 08 16 *l|4 l l p m l MISC'Nl Sheet 1 of 2


Identification Tests

WaterSample Content Liquid Plastic Plas.No. Specimen (%) Limit Limit Ind.

PE1BSO B 18.8 22 15 7

PE1BSO

PH1HSO

PH1HSO B 25.5 27 21 6

PH1HSO

PH1DSO

PH1DSO A 16.4 25 17 8

PH1DSO

PG2BSO

PG2BSO B 39.4 44 30 14

PG2BSO

Sieve HydrometerUSCS Minus % MinusSymb.1 No. 200 2 urn (%)

CL-ML 69.1 11

CL-ML 61.2 12

,

CL 52.9 11

ML 66.8 12

TotalUnit Dry Unit VaneWeight Weight Specific Shear2

(pcf) (pcf) Gravity (Ibs/ft1) Remarks

131.4 110.7 2.688

611

125.3

125.7 100.1 2.683

306

133.2

135.8 116.7 2,677

713

113.0

108.9 78.1 2.627

NC

Plasticity of fines for USCS symbol based on visual observationNC - Non Cohesive

86C3609L/R1T.4-6 08-16-94(4:1 lpm)/MISC/Nl Sheet 2 of 2

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 4-7

ESTIMATED DEPTH TO BEDROCK

Reach12-12-234

5-15-2678-18-28-38-4

Depth (feet)233510101010

1010101010

KK525/FB12/86C3609P/TABLE.4-7 Sheet 1 Of 1

TABLE 4-8

TRIBUTARY FLOW LOCATIONS

HEC-1 ID Point HEC-2 Stationing 100-Yr Peak Flow____________________________________(cfs)

A+17 1 987

14+ E 4985 928G + H+12 9000 742

1+11 9740 673K+9 12250 578N + 6 14270 382

86C3609L/R1T.4-8 08-16-94(4:12pm)/MISC/Nl Sheet 1 Of 1

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 4-9

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGRADATION/DEGRADATIONFOR THE 100-YEAR EVENT

Reach Bridge Number

8-28-28-28-28-28-28-2

8-18-1 88-1 88-1 88-17-27-2 77-2 77-2 77-17-1666 66 66 6

MaximumAggradation/Degradation (-)

Cross Section ID (ft)17000164501621015800150001427013780130801276012720126961265612500123201225012234

12200120401160010970105001045510440

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0-0.1-0.1-0.8-0.10.20.00.0-0.80.10.00.00.00.0-1.6-0.1-0.1

KK526/FB12/86C3609P/TABLE.4-9 Sheet 1 of 3

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 4-9(Continued)

Reach Bridge Number6 6

5-25-25-14 54 5433

32-2 4

2-2 42-2 42-22-22-22-12-12-12-1

1 3

1 31 31


Cross Section ID (ft)

10400102009740900077507470724471006600578050404985493748504800460043503800343031302280210020602005

0.20.10.00.0-0.1-0.5-0.70.00.1-0.1-0.1-4.3-1.11.00.10.00.00.0-0.10.1-0.1-0.10.6-0.5

KK526/FB12/86C3609P/TABLE.4-9 Sheet 2 of 3

Woodward-Clyde


Reach Bridge Number

11 21 2111111 11 11 1111


Cross Section ID (ft)

1945180017401676

1655163016001050425380360348

3281

0.2-0.1-0.60.1

0.9-1.5-0.60.10.00.00.00.0

-1.0-0.4

KK526/FB12/86C3609P/TABLE.4-9 Sheet 3 Of 3

Figures

<<v>^'f~ yi*iS• o no^o

X:\-*- * *•«

•\Mf'::" /VM $ • /'$#&*•'t•^•:ir-u .'1:"K---- \ Hkr^-* :! >-\ • ' *" i\. • "X v\ ^ \-^

s

(T) DESIGN POINT

5-0 REACH IDENTIFICATION

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

— — SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY

SUB-WATERSHED IDENTIFICATION

: J^^ ^

.'™ '' r*rlp*jt\ ' 1" 'MM"* ' •

-;..-. «3 — M/ 1(/

D R A W N 8Y D A T E C H E C K E D BY D A T E

AS CONSTRUCTED - CORRECTIONS COMPLETE

BY DATF

R E V I S

NO

0 N S

DESCRIPTION DATE

1

3Y

FIELDS BROOK

DRAINAGE MAP

WOODWARD - CLYDE CONSULTANTSConsulting Engineers ^0 Denver, Colorado ;

. D R A W I N G NO , OF

4.1:

-V . . > i •

\' . _ ,

'

•Sv\Y•V

y

'I'-,---'H*;tV . '

H.V-iO.ri(V)

\ °A o\d

\ • ' ' ,' A\ • s— ->-/ / i

'. ^- X- fx^ • "rni.vwin • *\_ " HJ.HOM ° - ^'- - - - - - v7 - - - - - - ^\ ,

•v. • • ----* • ^• ^ _ ^ y- v -^ ^\

A. - ^ ' ^^ - V". . - . . . - ;-\

' -- '\ - • • ' • = • ' '^" /- .

\ v'_-..:•$- • '^')

\

\

^

\

\j\.>. \1 1• i- \ -

' '•• -•»•"«•

i- -f .-.-->r > \^\wp,- • - , . " ; ' • .--v- . ii;i !;!$',;:;v X • •$' " • ^ ' <*n' ' i1

-r-.i.j-iV^^^ jA-^saassaacTc-.-- _ — '--__ _ . . .'.W ' ,[

•7*^.... •^sSEff:-.".£'-".r.-" " * - V :!:A:'IL;I• • 'SK^'^tXtiiKN v

C^?-^--:™^^- -:-:§ -iisi- . ._- --- __r? x ... l _. : ^" '-^.

^

O • ! • ? ( • • , • ,. x, " » :i ij ;i [j :i==J

v v-H^"'r;^l S LJ\f -:^ ;! !i i .: r~1T\J1 ____! >s__ . ; •; 1 " :) I

0 100 200 •00

HFEET

Woodward-ClydeConsultants30775 Bolnbrfcty* Rood. Suit* 200Soton. Ohio 44139

CLIENT: Fit LOS BROOK

LOCATION: ASHTABULA, OHIO

RELD8 BROOK FLOODPLAM STUDY100- YR FLOOOPLAK FLOODPLAM8TATONMQ. AND CROSS SECTION

LOCATION MAP (1 OF 3)

I.U« S-22-V4

£ 24G80GO

——— LEGEND —————————————

CROSS SECTION I.D.

STRUCTURE I.D.

SURVEYED CROSS-SECTION

EXTRAPOLATED CROSS-SECTION

CHANNEL STATION

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY

LiMrrs OF DETAILED STUDY

NOTE: BASE MAP PREPARED BY KUCERA INTERNATIONALDATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 4-IB-87

00099*2 3

E 2463000

,J <i \ ^-y^^——————^^^

•H ———— f —

^C^— C \ J - ^ x-/v ->-, \ .> / -.\ /\ \\( / \X-J 648.6

\645.8 VN X^^-^'"^ \

f '-, 646.7 \7645.2 \.x ^^-x \, d

.x_>^-_ . . . - V j|, E 247200C E 24730n£

i ^t i

Woodward-Clyde ^Consultants&0M*i A I KM *ftrt to »t Mrtk k h Mfcmri30775 Boinbridg* Road. Suite 200Solcr. Ohio +4139

CLIENT: fICLDS BROOK

LOCATION; ASHTABULA. OHIO

FELD8 BROOK FLOODPLAIN STUDY10O-YR. FLOODPLAIN. FLOODPLAINSTATIONING. AND CROSS SECTION

LOCATION MAP (2 OF 3)OMWN IT-. CHCCKfD tTi jntDJCCT M>> UTti InOVW NOi

B.Uc BGK I 86C3609P fi-22-94 | 4.5

LEGEND

^ y CROSS SECTION I.D.

STRUCTURE I.D.



CHANNEL STATION


LIMITS OF DETAILED STUDY

NOTE: BASE MAP PREPARED BY KUCERA INTERNATIONALDATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 4-18-87

\ y

RMIREDUCTION

E 2468000

00z

Woodward-ClydeConsultants30775 Bornbridg* Rood. Surtt 200Solon. Ohio 44139

CLIENT: HCLDS BROOK

LOCATION: ASHTAMJLA. OHIO

FELDS BROOK FUOOOPLAW STUDYWO-YR. FLOODPLAIN. FLOODPLAW3TATIOMNQ. AND CROSS SECTION

LOCATION MAP (3 OF 3)neuter NO« uni TFWUM NCH

fl.uo | 9W 86CMMP t-22-94 I 4.4

I?r

———— LEGEND —————————————

CROSS SECTION I.D.

STRUCTURE I.D.



CHANNEL STATION


LIMITS OF DETAILED STUDY

NOTE: BASE MAP PREPARED BY KUCERA INTERNATIONALDATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 4-18-87

-fcsLi——44MS

-I

RKACB 2-1-r

^m Hm -\m H

- 1

——

, ———• H

i

\-

| ————————

—— -* *" ——

~~\

**"

——

1 tt/~f

i-\

r • --,

_ —— i __

I—-•-—

.\

fttACH

-Vui •

UfJO

r_ .1.—--1-4-

•s

—— - LEGEND

—— COMPUTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FORTHE 100 YEAR, 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

EXTRAPOLATED PORTION OF SURVEYEDCROSS SECTIONS

NOTES:

1. SURVEY PERFORMED BY WCC'SMADISON OFFICE.

2. CROSS SECTIONS ORIENTEDLOOKING DOWNSTREAM LEFTTO RIGHT.

Woodward-ClydeConsultants30775 Boinbridgi Rood, Suit* 200Sdon. Ohio 44139

CUENT: FIELDS BROOK

LOCATION: AS HT ABU LA. OHIO

FIELDS BROOKFLOODPLAIN STUDY

CROSS SECTIONS (1 OF 3)OCCKED ITi

BCKMTIi

a~22~«4

__..... ...L

J

BRIDCS 2

-eati>ee

UPSTRSAM - BRJKS t

M -JM -Jm -tm -i

\""—— ..._

r->f1 —\ -I

M

•m

BRIDCS f

• -1• -im -m -m •*

BROPEI

\

DGE-4ING A

i

-.n-irr— -

^__-

—— Ml

/_//

PJWa r

— '

*

M

r

UPSTREAM - BRIKX S

1X

V"

BRIDGE 3

i: 3BflOGE-

OP( NING

UPSTRSAil - BRIDGE 2

MWKS 7

—————— LEGEND

—— COMPUTED WATER SURFACE ELLVATIONS FORTHE 100 YEAR, 24 HOUR GluKM EVENT

EXTRAPOLA7F-U PORTION Oh SURVEYEDCROSS SECTIONS

NOTES:

1. SURVEY PERFORMED riY WCC'SMADISON OFFICE.

2. CROSS SECTIONS ORIRNTEUt COKING DOWNSTREAM LEFTTJ RIGHT.

Woodward-ClydeConsultants30775 Bofnbrid9« Hood. SuK« 200

n. Ohio 44139

CUtNT: FIELDS BROOK

LOCATION; ASHTABULA. OHIO

FIELDS BROOKFLOODPLAW STUDY

CROSS SECTIONS <2 OF 3)i»l TowcraHifi TP.We BGK MC3M9P 1-22-94

- -(•- —-4-—... ,__.

•&PST1UAM - BRIDGE 8

.-L--U

BRIDGE 8

14— .i

» HW H

1 — H» ^

•• H

-

'

_.

_. ————— 1

J 1»» • ! ' ! I ! T ! ' 1 "

! T T ! \ '. ' 1 i Tl

I -,..74- .t- -i— I- --f- ;. --t -4 - f-- 1 -i - -i\-^-/T^L|NG [ | ] , ! j 1 ; !u_I- 1. i 1 I i i -i- i-Tll -i-.i

UPSTRSAU - BRJDCS 7

-1 -4- w n M M

**•CMSS-SKJW

• -(H HM H• H

; • - ' - . •f^-^,

']w

a-«

•«i -•» , -

BRJOPO

— H

)GE->ING

t\^

(j

JNIJ•mf

• - • - » - • - » H » - « - H - « - » • , - • - • * • » 1

-'—

i • • jV • 1

•'

L i

••

•5L «r

Af^Cff 5-*-**

w

M

•»

•»•* -J•1 • -1• -J

A -— «L__J

-

-^ • ••

_ it U-

i ——f - - •

x'—— i

,^^..xi**

97440

m H H• 1• -4

N^

i — nilf-r-mur

—— -

S ^••^ , - - M «*- «

———— »^

,——-

*-

K***"*•

•I.0

r90^00

VMM 4-t-l

t/PSTRfA¥ - BAfOCf 5

NfM

r

"jT'f,: j t_

—N1

LEGEND

..——..._ COMPUTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FORTHE 100 YEAR. 24 HOUR SK)RM EVENT

FXTRAPOIATED PORTION OF SURVEYEDCHOSS SECTIONS

tr» HSTttf

Utfff 11-1-2

t- M -i

1 —— -M

... — — w , •1 • •

.--— ' . -— "/V

' i 1h T _ t _| . . ._.....L-.1 -

" n ii ir~r--r -B- ~L ..I--

.iMt Wf*

NOTES:

1. SURVEY PERFORMED BY WCC'SMADISON OFFICE.

2. CROSS SECTIONS ORIENTEDLOOKING DOWNSTREAM LEFTTO RIGHT.

Woodward-ClydeConsultants30775 BoinbrWg* Rood, Suit* 200Soton. Ohio 44139

CUCNT: HtLDS MOOK

LOCATION: ASHTABULA, WK)

FIELDS BROOKFLOODPLAW STUDY

CROSS SECTIONS (3 OF 3)PWJCCT ndi MTIISK3Wtf A-22-*4 4.7

UKTUAM -

IIIp. "

•*.-,Ill

' —

•I • H• H•

«••>tM +*>

_ . _ _ _ . - •

—— Jf_ "" TI ^•" " "

i _[- - -r -<- -t i~-:n:.::u:iir

NO DETAILED FLOODPLAIN STUDY WAS COMPLETED ON THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS

BR1KI 12

i"'I

L-

1

____4--— 4 —— .

[ ..... _._...-..

1

_... . 4 — — — -i - . -H

- -... . ..

/—

~\/. . . . .1 . . .

r~ -n

! . ...

. I _,_

r

i-

-^-J___

. . . -_. .... . . . _ .r

... I — .4. -,__j __ I _ . _ . . . . _ _ „

•9 -m -m -m -m -m -m -n ~» -m t m m n m m m m m m m tm tn* HMtl.

t ——4*

____].__BR DGE-

OPE flNG

T

-M -m -n

-__ _._,_ .-r^-i

VUDCStt

OPENING

uarai

a t m mtnb

riT"l~.ITT"TBQWHSTKSAM - BKIKX 11

... T _ _ - T _ . -T - - T T- ——j--i • f^t ~.T~f

ir-

tuiirm

f .-I .-l-f•r

aS

I -

i isJ S

a

E

•r

4- —

,4-i TJCD, j\ r n z jHM-'

1 4- 4- —

8 S Smarm

S I E

K£J£B 8-2-1

-M -m -m -m -m -t

f~ 1t r

!m m *

....... ———

. _j... ..

i.. -1 -• 01 •« i• i

————m t

————

• •137+K

-*» -m -« -m -m

-4.j._..

-n -••

NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NATIONALGEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD) ;

J

--I

1 .1- .I--a.--J.. _1 _. 1_. 4 - - - - L - - - 1 - - 1 - - L - --1- - i 1-- J i I

14000 16000 18000 20000

2i

Woodward-Clyde ^Consultants3077S faoinbridge Rood. Sjrt« 200Solon, Ohio 441 3B

CLIENT: FIELDS BHOOK

LOCATION: ASHTABULA, OHIO

FIELDS BROOK100- YEAR PROFILE

B.Ue i »CK | MCMOVP 9-22-94 4.8

660—— T

650

640

630

620

REACH 1 REACH 2-1REACH

I 2-2

ELEVATION610

REACH 3

REACH 4REACH5-2

REACH5-1

100-YEAR-COMPUTED WATER

SURFACE ELEVATION

BRIDGENo. 5

600

590

580

570-

BRIDGCNo. 2

4000 6000

CHANNEL INVERTELEVATION

j... . .1.

aooo roooq •* ^CHANNEL LENGTH STATIC

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —1

120-r

0.5 1,5

Staff Hage Hejght (feet)2.5

Job No, : 8603609

prepared by J.H.S.

Date :

FIELDS BROOKDISCHARGE RATING CURVEAT 15TH STREET BRIDGE

FIG 4-9

20.00-r

0.00

Woodward-Clyde Consultants «

10 20 30 40 50 60

Water Discharge (cfs)

70 80 90 100

Job No. : 86C3609

Prepared by : J.H.S.

Date : 8/3/94

FIELDS BROOKSUSPENDED SEDIMENT DISCHARGE

AT 15TH STREET BRIDGE

FIG. 4-10

Woodward-Clyde Consultants -.INSTANTANEOUS WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

0.1 1.0 10 100 10001,000,000 c

><QccLLJQ_

COZoZ

UJ

CC

ICO

ZLLJ

QLUCOQLUQZUJQ_CO

COCO

oLUZ<Z

Hco

100,000 -

10,000 r

1000

100,000

100

1.0 10 100 1000 10,000 1,000,000INSTANTANEOUS WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

>QQCUJD-COUJZZ:O

10,000 ?

XoCO

_ -1000 ?S

QLUCOQ

a.CODCOCO^)oLU

COzLEGEND

DATA COLLECTED

DATA EXTRAPOLATED

NOTE:FIGURE 14 "FLUVIAL SEDIMENT IN OHIO"U.S.G.S. WATER SUPPLY PAPER NO. 2045WITH WCC DATA PLOTTED ON GRAPH

Job No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94

INSTANTANEOUS SUSPENDED-SEDIMENTTRANSPORT CURVES FOR INVENTORY NETWORK

STATIONS ON STREAMS TRIBUTARY TOLAKE ERIE FROM AND INCLUDING THE

BLACK RIVER TO CONNEAUT CREEK

FIG 411

. Woodward-Clyde Consultants -.

0 500 1000 2000

I ISCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

CSE02203S^TT) PHASE 1 SAMPLE LOCATION

SPRING 1994 SAMPLE LOCATIONJob No,

Prepared by :

Dote 8/5/94

GEOTECHNICAL SAMPLELOCATIONS

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —.

530.0

LEGEND

——— HEC-6 SIMULATED 2-YR EVENT

--—- HEC-2 SIMULATED 2-YR EVENT

Job No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94

HEC2 vs HEC6-YR PROFILE COMPARISON

FIG. 4-13

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —,

640.0 T

630.0 -

550.0

540.0

Fields Brook Stationing

LEGEND

HEC-6 SIMULATED 100-YR EVENT

HK- - : r,:M!;iATro 100 YR LVFNI

Job No. : B6C3609


D a t e 8/3/94

HEC2 vs HEC6 100-YRPROFILE COMPARISON

FIG. 4-14

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —.

1000

900

800

700

^ 600o>w>is sooJ3u-2 400Q

300

200

100

0 t

-

•

•

•

.

-

-

-

•

-

> — -"2/10/940:00 2/10/94 6:00

LEGEND

——— HEC-1 SIMULATED HYDROGRAPH

——— HEC-6 SIMPLIFIED HYDROGRAPH

2/10/94 12:00 2/10/94 18:00

Date and Time2/11/940:00 2/11/946:00

Job No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94

100-YR 24-HOURHYDROGRAPH AT STATION 1

FIG 4 15

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —

<uDAU

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02/10/94 0:00 2/10/946:00 2/10/94 12:00 2/10/94 18:00

Date and Time2/11/940:00 2/11/946:00

LEGEND


——— HEC-6 SIMPLIFIED HYDROGRAPH

Job No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94


A______________________*i

FIG. 4-16

Woodward-Clyde Consultants —

u«ruos

800

700

600

500

400

S 300

200

100

0

2/10/940:00 2/10/94 6:00 2/10/94 12:00 2/10/94 18:00

- Date and Time2/11/940:00 2/11/946:00

LEGEND


——— HEC-6 SIMPLIFIED HYDROGRAPHJob No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94


A———————— «•

FIG. 4-17

CO

moen

~D

XmoI

GO

m mo o

oo oo

oo -*^7 O> O

SJ,-* N:

"^ Xzj o

to

O

mom

Discharge, cfs

s>o

ooo

oo oo oo-fc.oo oo oo oo

SJ

o

oo

oa.ngaHn

S3I—'o

OO

OO

OO

OO

OOa.aa.6

Oo

3r+8»

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ».

-C(J

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2/10/94 0:00 2/10/94 6:00 2/10/94 12:00 2/10/94 18:00

Date and Time

2/11/940:00 2/11/946:00

LEGEND


-—— HFC-6 SIMPLIFIED HYDROGRAPHJob No. : 86C3609


Date 8/3/94


FIG. 4-19

Woodward-Clyde Consultants _

400

350

300

g 250

M 200

S 15°

100

50

ed-Cu

0 6

2/10/94 0:00 2/10/946:00 2/10/94 12:00 2/10/94 18:00

Date and Time2/11/940:00 2/11/946:00

LEGEND


——— HEC-6 SIMPLIFIED HYDROGRAPHJob No. : 86C3609


Date : 8/3/94


FIG A 20

Photo Journal

PHOTO JOURNALFIELDS BROOK SITE - ASHTABULA, OHIO

Photo 1: Bridge #1. Looking upstream.

Photo 2: Bridge #2. Looking upstream. Note the sharp bend in Fields Brook.

Photo 3: Bridge #2, Looking downstream.

Photo 4: Bridge #3. Looking downstream.

Photo 7: Bridge #6. Looking downstream. Note the concrete wall blocking theleft side of the channel.

Photo 8: Bridge #6. Looking upstream, Note the concrete wall blocking thechannel.


Photo 12: Bridge #9 and Bridge #13. Looking east. Note the closeness of bridges.The backup is due to the beaver dams.


Photo 14: Bridge #13. The backup is due to the beaver dams.

Photo 15: Reach 5-2 - Looking upstream. Left overbank n - 0.07,channel n = 0.05, right overbank n = 0.07.

Photo 16: Reach 6 - Looking at downstream side. Left overbank nchannel n - 0.05, r ight overbank n = 0.075.

0.065.

Photo 17: Reach 6 - Looking at upstream side. Left overbank n = 0.09,channel n = 0.065. right overbank n = 0.09.

Photo 18: Reach 7-1 - Cross-section 7 - 1 , 7 looking upstream. Left overbankn - 0.04, channel n = 0.04, r i s h r overbank n = 0.04.

Photo 19: Reach 7-2 - Looking at downstream side. Left overbank n = 0.03,channel n - 0.05, r ight overbank n = 0.03.

Photo 20: Reach 8-1 - Looking at upstream side. Left overbank n = 0 . 1 2 ,channel n - 0.065, right overbank n = 0 ,12 .

Photo 21: Reach 8-2 - Cross-section 8-2/1 looking at downstream side. Leftoverbank n = 0.12, channel n = 0.065, r ight overbank n = 0.12.

Photo 22: Reach 13-2 - Cross-section 13-2/2 looking at upstream side.Left overbank n = 0 -12 , channel n = 0.065, r i°ht overbank n = 0 . 1 2 .

Photo 23: SCM #2 - 3 ft by 5 ft oval culvert , upstream side.

Photo 24: SCM #2 - 5 ft by 4 ft culvert under railroad, upstream side.

Photo 25: Ditch upstream of SCM #1 crossing.

woodward clyde - phase ii sediment quantification design investigation hydrologic … ·...

Documents