rouge river at wayne road geomorphic assessment 516(e ... · a detailed longitudinal profile of the...

Rouge River at Wayne Road Geomorphic

Assessment 516(e) Sediment Study – Phase I

March 2011

Prepared By: Great Lakes Hydraulics and Hydrology Office

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................. 3 1.2 Wayne Road Dam Site Characteristics ............................................................... 8 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 10

2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS ................................................ 11 2.1 General Site Conditions .................................................................................... 11 2.2 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Longitudinal Profile .......................................................................................... 15 2.4 Cross Sections ................................................................................................... 17 2.5 Sediment Characteristics ................................................................................... 21 2.6 Stream Classification ........................................................................................ 21 2.7 Sediment Entrainment ....................................................................................... 24 2.8 Sediment Volumes ............................................................................................ 27

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 28 3.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 28

4.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 30 Appendix A – Flood Frequency Analysis Appendix B – Longitudinal Profile Data Appendix C – Cross Section Data

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to study sediment yield impacts and develop tools or models to mitigate sediment loadings in Federal navigation channels, harbors, and Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC). Authorization to perform these sediment studies is provided under Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This project investigates the probable sediment impacts associated with a proposed dam removal in the Rouge River at Wayne Road in the City of Wayne, Michigan. The Rouge River watershed is home to approximately 1.5 million people in Southeast Michigan and contains portions of Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw Counties (fig. 1.1). The watershed is approximately 438 square miles and landuses are characteristic of a highly urbanized metropolitan area with residential, commercial, and industrial landuses making up over 50% of the watershed (fig. 1.2). The Rouge River outlets to the Detroit River through a federally maintained navigation channel in the City of Detroit (fig. 1.3). The Rouge River in southeast Michigan is designated an AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Specifically, the limits of the AOC includes the entire length of the five major reaches of the Rouge; namely the Rouge River, Lower Rouge River, Middle Rouge River, Upper Rouge River, and Main Rouge River (fig. 1.4). There are nine Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency that persist in the watershed, and are identified as:

Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption Eutrophication or undesirable algae Degradation of fish and wildlife populations Beach closings Fish tumors or other deformities Degradation of aesthetics Degradation of benthos Restriction on dredging activities Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

6

Fig

ure

1.3

– L

ocat

ion

of F

eder

al N

avig

atio

n C

hann

el a

t Rou

ge R

iver

Out

let

7

Fig

ure

1.4

– L

imit

s of

Rou

ge R

iver

AO

C (

Sou

rce:

US

Env

iron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y)

8

The Rouge River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has identified numerous recommendations in the pursuit of delisting several of the BUIs. One recommendation associated with degradation of fish and wildlife populations and loss of fish and wildlife habitat involves removal of the low-head dam on the Lower Rouge River at Wayne Road in the City of Wayne. The US Environmental Protection Agency – Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA-GLNPO) has initiated a feasibility study involving the removal of the dam. 1.2 Wayne Road Dam Site Characteristics The Wayne Road dam is located at in the City of Wayne, north of Michigan Avenue, and just south of Ash Street (42°17’06” N, 83°23’00” W). The dam impounds flow from the Lower 2 segment of the Lower Rouge River, where the watershed drainage area is 63.2 square miles. According to the Rouge River Watershed Assessment (Beam & Braunscheidel, 1998) the dam was originally constructed as a mill dam in the late 1800s (estimated), but has not been used for its original purpose for numerous decades. This dam is specifically identified in the Rouge Assessment report as one of the two most significant causes of habitat fragmentation in the Rouge River; the other dam being a 12 foot head dam at the Henry Ford Estate in Dearborn. The Wayne Road Bridge was constructed in 1983, and elevations from these plans show the top of the dam at an elevation of 631.46 (datum unknown). Under baseflow conditions the height of the dam from its top to the channel bottom at the downstream side is approximately 4.5 feet high, and the head of water impounded upstream is approximately 2.2 feet above the downstream water surface elevation. Figure 1.5 includes a profile of the dam from the 1983 Wayne Road construction plans and Figures 1.6 & 1.7 include pictures of the dam taken by USACE.

Figure 1.5 – 1983 Construction Plans Profile of Wayne Road Dam

9

Figure 1.6 – Photo of Wayne Road Dam Looking Upstream

Figure 1.7 – Photo of Wayne Road Dam from Left Bank

10

1.3 Project Goals and Objectives This 516(e) study supplements the USEPA-GLNPO feasibility study by addressing potential impacts to sediment mobilization at and near the existing dam as well as downstream sedimentation impacts following the potential dam removal. The main objectives of this study are to:

1. Characterize the Lower Rouge River by performing a geomorphic assessment in the vicinity of the dam. This assessment can be used by local stakeholders and USACE following the potential dam removal in order to compare pre- and post-dam removal sediment conditions and river morphology. This is considered the primary objective of this study.

2. Determine if sufficient data exists in order to estimate sediment volumes that are

susceptible to mobilization should the dam be removed.

3. Perform sediment entrainment calculations to determine the mobility of the impounded sediments.

11

2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS A geomorphic assessment was carried out on the Rouge River near Wayne Road on September 15-17, 2009. General site and sediment conditions were characterized according to a Rosgen Level II classification (Rosgen, 1996). A longitudinal profile of the thalweg elevation upstream and downstream of the dam was performed to assess riffle pool sequences and record baseline elevations. Moreover, four cross sections with permanent benchmarks were established in order to compare pre- and post-dam removal channel geometries. The data has been recorded in RiverMorph, which is a proprietary software package that is used for recording geomorphologic data. The RiverMorph file associated with this project is available through USACE, Detroit District. 2.1 General Site Conditions The reach investigated by USACE is defined as the Lower Rouge River between Elizabeth Street (upstream) and Second Street (downstream). The total length of this reach is approximately 2,120 feet and the stream is approximately 80-100 feet wide throughout the reach. There is thick brush and tree cover throughout the majority of the reach, except through areas adjacent to municipally owned property where vegetation is primarily grass. Streambank erosion is present in some areas downstream of the dam, and bank erosion measures (primarily riprap and other stone) are present in this location (fig. 2.1). The impoundment associated with the dam extends at least 1,500 feet upstream to Elizabeth Street, and bank erosion is minimal in the impounded area despite the steep banks, and persists primarily adjacent to manicured grass areas. There is a substantial transverse bar located downstream of the dam where very large trees are present. Significant woody debris blocks recreational navigation via kayaks or canoes in the impoundment (fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.1 – Streambank Erosion Control Measures on Both Sides of Bank d/s of Dam

12

Figure 2.2 – Woody Debris Near Station 5+11 (left) and Near Station 12+00 (right) Valley slopes in the Lower Rouge River are very flat (approximately 0.0011 ft/ft according to current USGS maps) and the valley is alluvial in nature, consistent with an X valley in the Rosgen classification system (1996). The sinuosity of the river is calculated by the following equation:

valley

channel

L

L

where Ω is the Sinuosity L is the length of the channel or valley The sinuosity (Ω) for the Lower Rouge River at the Wayne Road dam is approximately 1.1. The river slope is approximately the valley slope divided by the sinuosity, or about 0.001 ft/ft. The current Feasibility Study – Wayne Road Dam Removal (Draft) by URS, funded by USEPA-GLNPO includes additional descriptions of the vegetation, biota, hydrology and other details of the Lower Rouge River within the project area.

13

2.2 Hydrology The watershed catchment area of the studied reach is 63.2 square miles of predominantly medium to high intensity urban landuses in the vicinity of the studied reach, and forested and agricultural landuses in the catchment headwaters. There is not a USGS flow gage within the studied reach; however, there is a USGS gage both upstream and downstream of the project site. The gage metadata is summarized in Table 2.1, and gage locations are shown in Figure 2.3.

Table 2.1 – USGS Gage Information near Project Site

USGS Gage

Name Drainage Area

Latitude Longitude Year Begin

Year End

04167625 Lower River

Rouge at Wayne

54.5 sq. miles

42°17’04”N 83°25’39”W 2001 2006

04168000 Lower River

Rouge at Inkster

83.2 sq. miles

42°18’02”N 83°18’01”W 1948 Present

The Wayne gage is located approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the dam at Hannan Road and was operational for less than 6 years. The Inkster gage is a real-time gage and is located 5 miles downstream of the dam at John Daly Street. This gage is currently operational and has been in operation for over 60 years. A flood frequency analysis has been performed on each of these gages (fig. 2.3, and Appendix A) to estimate bankfull flows at the project reach. Although there is not enough peak flow data from the Wayne gage to be statistically significant, the outcome from the flood frequency analysis shows flowrates lower than the Inkster gage, as expected. Bankfull flows are generally considered to occur near the 1.5 year return interval, however, this value can range significantly. The USGS found that for stable, gaged sites in the Lower Michigan Ecoregion, bankfull recurrence intervals range from <1.005 to 10 years, with an average value of 2.05 years, and a standard deviation of 2.38 years (Rachol & Boley-Morse, 2009). Most sites (20 out of 28) had bankfull recurrence intervals less than 1.5 years. Combined with the potential flashiness of the Lower River Rouge at Wayne Road, the recurrence interval of the bankfull flow is likely less than 1.5 years for this project reach. Assuming a recurrence interval of 1.2 years, and interpolating between the two gages in Figure 2.4, the estimated bankfull flow at the dam is 600 cfs.

15

Flood Frequency Analysis

100

1000

10000

1 10 100

Return Interval (years)

Dis

char

ge

(cfs

)Inkster Gage Wayne Gage

1.2 1.5 1.8

Figure 2.4 – Flood Frequency Analysis on Inkster Gage (04168000) and

Wayne Gage (04167625) 2.3 Longitudinal Profile A detailed longitudinal profile of the river thalweg was collected from 282 feet downstream of the dam to 280 feet upstream of the dam (fig. 2.5). Thalweg elevations were collected approximately every four feet and water surface elevations at base flow were collected every ten feet, on average. Water surface elevation and thalweg data from cross sections 5+11 and 10+00 were also tied into the longitudinal profile and are included in the RiverMorph file generated for this project and the data in Appendix B.

Approximate Bankfull Discharge at Wayne

Road is 600 cfs

16

Fig

ure

2.5

– L

ongi

tudi

nal P

rofi

le o

f L

ower

Rou

ge R

iver

nea

r W

ayne

Roa

d D

am

17

The longitudinal profile shows a small riffle section near Cross Section -0+80 on the downstream side of the dam, however, this is the only riffle identified within the reach. The impoundment of the dam extends to at least Elizabeth Road (Station 14+00). Typically, the longitudinal profile information may be used to determine riffle-pool spacing, channel slopes, tie in bankfull elevations, etc. Many of these geomorphic features were absent from the reach being investigated. Specifically, bankfull could not be identified accurately due to lack of riffle sections and lack of point bars and other bankfull indicators caused by the incised state of the channel. In this instance, the longitudinal profile will primarily be used as a record of baseline conditions. Following dam removal, it is expected that a new longitudinal profile will be recorded to assess the changes in river morphology. 2.4 Cross Sections A total of four cross sections were collected and permanent benchmarks were collected for each. These cross sections are located at:

Cross Section #1: 93 feet upstream of dam (Station 0+93) Cross Section #2: 80 feet downstream of dam (Station -0+80) Cross Section #3: 511 feet upstream of dam (Station 5+11) Cross Section #4: 1000 feet (approximately) upstream of dam (Station 10+00)

Benchmarks, consisting of rebar driven into the floodplain, were established on each side of the cross sections. Using a mapping grade GPS unit, the coordinates of the benchmarks are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 – Approximate Coordinates of Permanent Benchmarks

Location Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Cross Section #1 (Right) 42°17’4.98” 83°23’1.5” Cross Section #1 (Left) 42°17’5.88” 83°23’1.68” Cross Section #2 (Right) 42°17’5.58” 83°22’58.74” Cross Section #2 (Left) Not Available Not Available Cross Section #3 (Right) 42°17’4.32” 83°23’7.14” Cross Section #3 (Left) 42°17’4.98” 83°23’6.96” Cross Section #4 (Right) 42°17’6.24” 83°23’16.68” Cross Section #4 (Left) 42°17’6.36” 83°23’17.04” Cross sections may be used to compare morphologic changes pre- and post-dam removal. Following dam removal the hydraulic regime will be significantly different along the reach. Due to the lowering of the water surface elevation in the incised reach following the dam removal, it is expected that the channel will be further disconnected from the

18

existing floodplain, which will concentrate shear stresses within the channel at flood elevations, potentially leading to an increase in bank erosion. Few impacts are expected downstream of the dam following dam removal, except for possible sedimentation of mobilized sediments, which originate from upstream of the dam. Bankfull elevations are typically plotted on surveyed cross sections. Due to lack of bankfull indicators, the bankfull elevation at the single riffle section (Station -0+80) was estimated based on two surrogate methods. USGS has developed bankfull regional curves that investigate bankfull areas, widths, depths, and discharge at morphologically stable sites. An initial bankfull elevation for each cross section based on the predicted area was established. This elevation was investigated to determine if weak bankfull indicators such as breaks in slope were present, and adjusted accordingly. The second method consists of calculating the cross sectional area (and thus the corresponding elevation) required to transport the bankfull flow obtained from the flood frequency analysis using Manning’s Equation. The bankfull area predicted by the Michigan regional curve is:

Abkf = 4.38 x DA0.74; R2 = 0.59

where Abkf is the Area of bankfull in square feet DA is the drainage area in square miles R2 is the coefficient of determination Based on a watershed drainage area of 63.2 square miles, the predicted bankfull area is 94.5 square feet. This corresponds to an elevation of approximately 629.10 on the downstream side of the dam (fig. 2.6). The bankfull area of this cross section corresponds to the top of the transverse bar downstream of the dam at the cross section and is approximately 1.25 feet above the baseflow water surface elevation. This difference between water surface elevation and bankfull elevation could not be extrapolated upstream of the dam due to the differences in river morphology between the upstream and downstream side of the dam. Assuming a bankfull flow of 600 cfs (from the flood frequency analysis), a cross sectional area can be iterated from the surveyed cross section. RiverMorph allows for direct calculation of Hydraulic Radius, Wetted Perimeter, Area, and Flowrate (using Manning’s Equation), and was used to manually iterate the cross sectional area associated with a flowrate of 600 cfs. Assumed data include: Q = 600 cfs (from flood frequency) S = 0.001 ft/ft (from valley slope and sinuosity) n = 0.032 (using the Cowan equation)

19

Based on these data, the cross sectional area was determined to be 233 square feet, with a corresponding elevation of 630.55 feet (fig. 2.7). This value is significantly higher than the elevation calculated using the Michigan regional curve information.

Figure 2.6 – Riffle Cross Section at Station -0+80

Bankfull elevation based on Michigan Regional Curve prediction shown in solid blue line; floodprone elevation in dashed blue line

20

Figure 2.7 – Riffle Cross Section at Station -0+80

Bankfull elevation based on Flood Frequency Analysis shown in solid blue line; floodprone elevation in dashed blue line

Therefore, due to the lack of corroboration between these methods to calculate bankfull elevations and due to lack of bankfull indicators, lack of significant riffles, and the incised nature of the channel, bankfull elevations and bankfull discharges cannot be determined within an acceptable level of certainty. As a result, the cross section and longitudinal profile data can only be used to compare baseline conditions to the morphology of the river following dam removal, and cannot be used to determine stable channel geometries or predict the amount of bank erosion following dam removal. Cross section data and additional cross section figures are included in Appendix C of this report.

21

2.5 Sediment Characteristics The sediment characteristics downstream of the dam consist of significant sand and gravel content. Just upstream of the dam there is a layer of silt on the order of a few inches over armored construction material (crushed concrete and riprap) which extends just upstream of the bridge. Further upstream, the sediment is silt and sand with an undetermined depth. Due to the depth of the impoundment and the general silty and sandy nature of the sediments a pebble count was not feasible within the impounded area. The reach’s average sediment type is qualitatively characterized as a fine sand due to the high amounts of silt and sand present behind the existing dam. 2.6 Stream Classification Rosgen (1996) developed a classification system for natural rivers based on the river morphology and sediment characteristics. A total of 94 distinct river types have been classified in the Rosgen Level II stream classification and the requisite data for the Lower Rouge River at the Wayne Road dam is presented in Worksheet 5-3 found in Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply (WARSSS) by Rosgen (2006). The classification must be applied to a riffle cross section, and therefore Worksheet 5-3 applies to the cross section surveyed at Station -0+80 on the downstream side of the dam. The classification was determined using morphological data from both the bankfull elevation associated with the Michigan Regional Curve (fig. 2.8), and the flood frequency analysis bankfull elevation (fig. 2.9). Despite variances in entrenchment ratios and width/depth ratios, both methods classify the channel as an F5 streamtype, which is a wide incised, sandy channel that is primarily disconnected from its floodplain. This is also the likely river classification upstream of the dam, although there are not any riffle sections or strong bankfull indicators within the studied reach upstream of the dam to confirm this classification.

22

Figure 2.8 – Rosgen Level II Classification based on Bankfull from Regional Curve

23

Figure 2.9 – Rosgen Level II Classification based on Bankfull from Flood Frequency

Analysis

24

2.7 Sediment Entrainment The primary driving force causing sediment entrainment (i.e., mobilization) is due to hydraulic shear stresses along the boundary of the wetted perimeter of a channel. The shear stress is a hydraulic variable, increasing as flowrates increase, and therefore to determine sediment entrainment the flowrate of interest must be defined. For the purposes of this study, it is important to determine if the sediment stored behind the dam will mobilize post-dam removal. Due to the silty nature of the sediments, it is expected that the sediments will be mobilized, even under low return interval flowrates, such as the bankfull flow rate. The Michigan Regional curve predicts a lower value for the bankfull elevation (and lower flowrate) than the flood frequency analysis, and therefore using the data from the regional curve method will conservatively predict sediment mobilization (i.e., will predict that only small particles will be mobilized). Thus, if the calculated shear stresses predicts that the sediment behind the dam will mobilize using this method, then the sediment would certainly also be mobilized using the higher elevations and larger flows. Following dam removal, the water surface upstream of the dam will be drawn-down to match a natural flow regime. The bankfull water surface at a location upstream can be estimated by assuming the bankfull slope is equivalent to the channel slope of 0.001 ft/ft. For example at Cross Section 3 (station 5+11) the calculated bankfull elevation is 529.69 feet (a value lower than the current baseflow elevation). The cross sectional area of the channel at this elevation is 94 square feet, a value consistent with the Michigan regional curve. Therefore, a calculation of shear stresses upstream of the dam following dam removal is performed using data from this cross section (fig. 2.11). Assuming uniform flow, the shear stress along the channel boundary may be calculated using the following:

RS 0

where τ0 is the shear stress along the boundary (lbs/ft2) γ is the unit weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft3) R is the hydraulic radius (ft)

S is the friction slope, assumed to be equivalent to channel slope in uniform channels (ft/ft)

Hydraulic data associated with station 5+11 under the dam removal scenario are listed in Table 2.3. Using this data, the shear stress at the boundary is calculated as follows:

230 /12.0001.092.1/4.62 ftlbsftftlbs

25

Figure 2.10 – Approximate Bankfull Elevation at Cross Section 5+11 following Dam

Removal (using Regional Curve predicted Bankfull Elevations)

Table 2.3 – Probable Hydraulic Parameters of Station 5+11 Post-Dam Removal

Floodprone Elevation (ft) 633.24 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 629.69 Floodprone Width (ft) 53.71

Bankfull Width (ft) 47.98 Entrenchment Ratio 1.12

Mean Depth (ft) 1.97 Maximum Depth (ft) 3.55 Width/Depth Ratio 24.36

Bankfull Area (sq ft) 94.51 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 49.34 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.92

26

Using Shield’s relation of grain size to Critical Shear Stress (fig. 2.10), the estimated grain size that will be mobilized under the bankfull flow is approximately 7mm. This calculated grain size is much greater than the silt grain size present behind the dam, and therefore it is expected that the entire wedge of sediment behind the dam is susceptible to mobilization.

Figure 2.11 – Shield’s Critical Shear Stress and Grain Size Relation (Figure Source: Rosgen 2008)

Bankfull Shear Stress at Station 5+11 Following Dam Removal = 0.12 lb/ft2

7

27

2.8 Sediment Volumes Rivers are dynamic systems and continually transport and deposit sediments. In addition to the silt and clay, much of the sandy sediment and some gravel will be mobilized within the reach; however, this transported material will be replaced via sedimentation processes during the recession of the flood waters following a storm event. The silt and clay, however, is not likely to deposit in this reach following dam removal due to the removal of the deep pools in the dam impoundment. Therefore, a pulse of silt and clay will be introduced into the downstream reaches unless these sediments are removed or capped prior to dam removal, and thus the volume of sediment of interest is only the silt and clay fraction behind the dam. The sediment conditions immediately behind the dam and under the bridge consist of a layer of silt and clay over construction material, such as crushed concrete and rip rap. Silt and clays persist along the stations surveyed in the longitudinal profile, and progressively become more sandy near the deep pool at station 1+80 (although still within the vicinity of the dam backwater). Depth to refusal in the silt and clay layers is generally very shallow, ranging from 0 to 15 inches, with average values around 3-4 inches along the channel bottom. Sufficient sediment data is not available to accurately determine the sediment volume of silt and clay particles, and therefore an approximation based on average channel widths, fine sediment depths, and channel length is provided. The channel is approximately 60-80 feet wide upstream of the bridge (Cross Section #1 is 66.5 feet wide). Combined with a length of 180 feet where the silt and clay are most prevalent and an average depth of 4 inches, the estimated volume of sediment is 4800 cubic feet (or 178 cubic yards). Due to the manageable quantity of sediment, and the significant amount of public land along the reach, it is feasible to remove the silt/clay sediments stored behind the dam to prevent a pulse of sediment that will need to be dredged from downstream reaches in the future.

28

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Conclusions Phase I of this study investigated the pre-dam removal morphology of the Lower River Rouge at Wayne Road and provided data for local stakeholders to use for sediment mitigation measures associated with the removal of the dam. This study found that the river morphology is highly influenced by the existing dam, and that the backwater impoundment extends significantly upstream (over 1400 feet). This backwater condition masked many of the bankfull indicators that are used to develop natural channel design recommendations, and therefore, specific design recommendations to promote channel stability are beyond the scope of this study. It is anticipated that without mitigation measures, the dam removal will have two specific consequences associated with sediment delivery to downstream reaches; namely:

1. A pulse of silt and clay sediment will be transported downstream. It was found that these sediment volumes are relatively small (178 cubic yards) and that mitigation measures such as removal or capping are feasible in order to address this volume.

2. The dam removal will draw down the water surface elevation upstream of the

dam, which will concentrate flows at lower elevations and increase shear stresses due to an increase in velocity gradients along the bank. This will likely cause erosion of the banks, which in many areas are currently absent of vegetation and are susceptible to erosion. The volume of this sediment load is undetermined, although since the backwater extends over 1400 feet within an incised channel with tall banks, it is expected that even small bank erosion rates along the channel will cause significantly more sediment loads to downstream reaches than the amount of silt and clay stored behind the dam.

In both cases, the sediment may reach either the Henry Ford Dam or transport to the Federal Navigation channel, where dredging of this additional load may become necessary. USACE has therefore developed recommendations for further study in order to prevent significant transport to downstream reaches. 3.2 Recommendations Specific recommendations associated with this phase of the study include:

1. Sediment volumes stored behind the dam should be measured to reduce uncertainty in the volume of fines that will be mobilized post-dam removal.

29

2. Bank stabilization measures or channel modification based on natural channel design concepts should be investigated as an option to minimize sediment erosion.

3. It is recommended that a similar baseline geomorphic assessment be developed for the Henry Ford dam if dam removal is considered at that location.

4. As part of the post-dam removal, it is recommended that a Phase II of this 516(e) study be developed. Phase II of the project is recommended to consist of:

a. Monitoring morphological changes in the river longitudinal profile by repeating the geomorphic assessment on a yearly basis for a period of 5 years, or until the river has reached a point of “dynamic equilibrium”

b. Perform Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) on the channel for the same duration as (a).

c. Install bank pins at several locations along the stream just prior to dam-removal to measure bank erosion rates for the same duration as (a).

d. Develop a monitoring summary report of the post-dam morphologic changes.

Alternatively to a Phase II of this study, the baseline (current) conditions of the river morphology will be made available in the form of a RiverMorph file that local stakeholders may use to perform post-dam monitoring of sediment loads and morphologic changes. It is the intent of USACE that the baseline conditions developed as part of this work will assist in understanding the dynamics of this and other dam removal projects. Ultimately, by addressing the sediment issues caused by the dam removal, particularly associated with bank erosion of the incised channel, there will be a reduction in dredging requirements in the federal navigation channel, and this will promote a stable channel within the vicinity of the Lower River Rouge.

30

4.0 REFERENCES Beam JD, and Braunscheidel JJ. 1998. Rouge River Assessment. Michigan Department

of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 22. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Rachol CM, Boley-Morse K. 2009. Estimated Bankfull Discharge for Selected Michigan

Rivers and Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves for Estimating Bankfull Characteristics in Southern Michigan Rivers. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5133.

Rosgen DL. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Spring, CO: Wildland Hydrology

Books. Rosgen DL. 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply

(WARSSS). Fort Collins, CO: Wildland Hydrology.

APPENDIX A Flood Frequency Analysis

Rank (m) DateGage Height

(feet)Streamflow

(cfs)Exceedence

Probability (P)Return Interval (RI)=(1/P)*100

1 6/26/1968 13.62 3600 1.59 63.002 4/4/1950 12.42 3120 3.17 31.503 5/11/1948 12.16 2920 4.76 21.004 3/26/1954 12.36 2790 6.35 15.755 4/14/1979 12.36 2700 7.94 12.606 2/18/1998 12.34 2500 9.52 10.507 4/30/1956 11.9 2460 11.11 9.008 2/10/2001 12.27 2340 12.70 7.889 4/26/1961 11.59 2330 14.29 7.0010 2/24/1985 12.13 2320 15.87 6.3011 2/23/1990 12.01 2230 17.46 5.7312 5/22/2004 12.07 2170 19.05 5.2513 2/15/1949 11.37 1980 20.63 4.8514 2/17/1976 11.5 1910 22.22 4.5015 1/5/1993 11.44 1880 23.81 4.2016 3/12/1962 11 1860 25.40 3.9417 12/30/1990 11.5 1850 26.98 3.7118 3/5/1965 10.95 1830 28.57 3.5019 2/22/1997 11.35 1820 30.16 3.3220 5/2/1983 12.18 1750 31.75 3.1521 12/25/1965 10.9 1720 33.33 3.0022 1/30/1969 10.87 1640 34.92 2.8623 1/20/1952 10.64 1630 36.51 2.7424 3/14/1982 12.71 1550 38.10 2.6325 3/22/1978 10.65 1540 39.68 2.5226 3/9/2009 11.11 1530 41.27 2.4227 9/12/2000 10.96 1510 42.86 2.3328 5/10/1996 10.73 1470 44.44 2.2529 2/23/1974 10.43 1420 46.03 2.1730 3/22/1984 10.67 1310 47.62 2.1031 12/8/1950 9.84 1290 49.21 2.0332 4/3/1959 10.05 1280 50.79 1.9733 4/5/1980 10.05 1260 52.38 1.9134 4/26/1977 9.95 1220 53.97 1.8535 4/24/1999 10.26 1220 55.56 1.8036 3/11/1986 10.14 1160 57.14 1.7537 1/14/2005 11.05 1150 58.73 1.7038 2/25/1975 9.64 1140 60.32 1.66

Flood Frequency AnalysisLower River Rouge At Inkster, MI (USGS Station #04168000)

Peak Streamflows and Flood Frequency Analysis

Wayne County, MichiganHydrologic Unit Code 04090004

Latitude 42°18'02", Longitude 83°18'01" NAD27Drainage Area 83.2 square miles

Gage datume 593.14 feet above sea level NGVD29

Years of Record (n) = 62

A-1


(feet)Streamflow

(cfs)Exceedence








39 2/7/2008 10.37 1140 61.90 1.6240 10/17/2001 9.98 1130 63.49 1.5841 6/29/1995 9.8 1120 65.08 1.5442 2/19/1981 9.58 1110 66.67 1.5043 1/6/1955 9.34 1020 68.25 1.4744 6/18/1960 9.24 1010 69.84 1.4345 2/20/1971 9.05 1010 71.43 1.4046 12/16/1987 9.42 977 73.02 1.3747 4/6/1957 9.18 964 74.60 1.3448 12/21/1957 9.13 949 76.19 1.3149 12/2/2006 10.15 935 77.78 1.2950 3/12/1973 8.66 865 79.37 1.2651 3/4/1953 8.69 840 80.95 1.2452 4/17/1972 8.46 838 82.54 1.2153 4/3/1967 8.54 830 84.13 1.1954 6/21/1987 8.8 798 85.71 1.1755 11/16/2005 9.37 781 87.30 1.1556 3/22/1994 8.31 774 88.89 1.1357 5/31/1989 8.13 687 90.48 1.1158 4/25/1992 7.88 682 92.06 1.0959 4/5/2003 7.85 648 93.65 1.0760 3/5/1970 7.72 646 95.24 1.0561 5/10/1963 7.33 612 96.83 1.0362 8/11/1964 7.24 590 98.41 1.02

A-2


(feet)Streamflow

(cfs)Exceedence


1 5/22/2004 11.62 1430 16.67 6.002 1/13/2005 10.46 989 33.33 3.003 5/11/2006 9.98 838 50.00 2.004 10/17/2001 10.54 666 66.67 1.505 4/5/2003 9.48 529 83.33 1.20







A-3

APPENDIX B Longitudinal Profile Data

SurveyData.txt RIVERMORPH SURVEY SUMMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: RougeReach Name: Reach 1Survey Name: Rouge River at Wayne Road

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Site ConditionsSurvey Date: 09/15/2009Weather: Partly CloudyTemperature: 72 F

PersonnelInstrument: CTCRod: AMBook: TADComputer: CTC

Sta BS HI FS EL Note---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 4.23 649.58 645.35 WCRCBM 0 649.58 16.39 633.19 Cross Section #2 Left Pin 0 649.58 12.79 636.79 Cross Section #1 Right Pin 0 649.58 11.33 638.25 Cross Section #1 Left Pin 0 1.49 643.06 8.01 641.57 TBM#20 0 2.99 644.66 1.39 641.67 TBM#21 0 644.66 6.23 638.43 TBM#23 - Corner of Concrete at Culvert 0 5.44 641.77 8.33 636.33 TBM#22 - Survey Nail in Path 0 641.77 4.95 636.82 Cross Section #3 Right Pin 0 8.73 650.4 641.67 TBM#21 0 7.18 656.06 1.52 648.88 TBM#24 0 4.78 657.87 2.97 653.09 TBM#25 0 3.94 656.53 5.28 652.59 TBM#11 - San Man at Elizabeth Street 0 656.53 23.01 633.52 TBM#14 - Concrete Cap on SSP Under Bridge 0 5.6 658.19 652.59 TBM#11 - San Man at Elizabeth Street 0 3.27 650.14 11.32 646.87 TBM#27 0 5.05 644.89 10.3 639.84 TBM#28 0 6.67 648.25 3.31 641.58 TBM#20 0 648.25 2.88 645.37 WCRCBM (0.02 feet off, within allowable error) 0 648.25 11.44 636.81 Cross Section #1 Right Pin (0.02 feet off, within allowable error)

Page 1

LongPro.txt RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: RougeReach Name: Reach 1Profile Name: Rouge Long ProSurvey Date: 09/15/2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey Data

DIST CH WS BKF P1 P2 P3 P4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------282 624.8 -278 624.74 628.8 -274 625.07 -271 625.53 628.8 -260 626.44 -256 626.43 -252 626.13 628.79 -248 626.18 -244 626.79 628.78 -240 627.07 -236 626.84 -232 626.93 628.81 -228 626.73 -224 626.41 -220 626.41 -216 626.48 -212 626.24 -206 626.26 -202 626.42 -198 626.17 -194 626.38 -190 626.63 -186 626.8 -182 626.95 -176 627.09 -172 627.25 -168 626.88 -164 626.83 -160 626.67 628.85 -155 627.01 -152 627.12 628.83 -148 627.19 -143 626.8 -139 627.13 628.88 -135 627.28 -131 627.27 628.91 -127 627.46 -123 627.37 628.87 -119 627.78 -115 627.69 -111 627.72 628.87 -107 627.93 -103 627.86 -99 627.89 628.96 -95 627.85 -92 627.85 -88 628.15 629.03

Page 1

LongPro.txt-85 628.16 -82 627.92 629 -78 627.59 -74 627.24 -70 627.26 629.02 -66 627.5 -62 627.13 629 -59 627.12 -55 627.37 629 -52 626.29 -48 626.9 -44 626.51 629.02 -41 626.4 -38 626.77 -34 626.65 629.03 -30 626.33 -26 626.53 629.04 -23 626.23 -19 626.64 -16 626.72 629.04 -13 627.22 -10 626.54 629.04 -8 626.56 -6 626.58 629.08 -4 626.68 0 631 631.22 1.3 628.51 631.26 4 628.82 7 628.59 10 628.62 631.27 13 628.76 16 628.88 19 628.65 631.27 22 628.34 25 628.22 28 628.25 631.26 31 628.26 34 628.37 37 628.48 40 628.5 631.25 43 628.73 46 628.51 49 628.45 52 628.32 631.26 55 628.05 631.25 58 627.76 62 627.69 65 627.67 631.26 68 627.75 71 628.4 75 628.99 80 629.02 84 628.41 88 627.33 631.25 94 627.58 98 627.73 106 627.48 631.26 112 627.23 116 627.27 123 627.22 131 627.2 631.27 136 627.57 144 627.37

Page 2

LongPro.txt148 626.77 631.27 151 626.53 631.28 155 626.57 631.29 160 627.01 170 626.57 631.24 180 626.24 190 626.7 200 627.25 631.29 210 627.39 220 628 631.3 230 627.31 240 627.19 250 626.95 631.25 260 626.95 270 626.67 631.32 280 626.78 631.28 511 626.14 631.32 1000 628.59 631.29

Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations

Name Type Profile Station----------------------------------------------------------------------CS1: 0+93 Pool XS 93 CS2: -0+80 Riffle XS -80 CS3: 5+11 Pool XS 511 CS4: 10+00 Pool XS 1000

Page 3

Rouge River Longitudinal Profile

CH

WS

BKF

P1

P2

P3

P4

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Distance along stream (ft)

620

625

630

635

-125-250-375 0 125 250 375 500 625 750 875 1000

CS

1: 0

+93

CS

2: -

0+80

CS

3: 5

+11

CS

4: 1

0+00

APPENDIX C Cross Section Data

CS1Data.txt RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: RougeReach Name: Reach 1Cross Section Name: CS1: 0+93Survey Date: 09/15/2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 645.35 ftBacksight Rod Reading: 3.44 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE----------------------------------------------------------------------0 10.87 637.92 2 11.52 637.27 4 12.31 636.48 6 13.06 635.73 6.7 13.39 635.4 LB9 16.15 632.64 11 17.52 631.27 LEW12 17.79 631 14.5 18.6 630.19 17 19.17 629.62 19 19.78 629.01 22.5 20.36 628.43 25 21.23 627.56 TW27 21.13 627.66 30 20.96 627.83 33 20.96 627.83 37 20.77 628.02 39 20.77 628.02 41 20.66 628.13 44 20.63 628.16 46 20.62 628.17 48 20.62 628.17 50 20.6 628.19 52 20.47 628.32 54 20.1 628.69 56 19.82 628.97 59 19.84 628.95 61 19.75 629.04 63 19.52 629.27 65 19.2 629.59 67 18.82 629.97 69 18.31 630.48 70.6 18 630.79 71.4 17.75 631.04 72 17.53 631.26 REW72.8 17.15 631.64 73.2 15.64 633.15 RB75 14.83 633.96 77 14.21 634.58 79 13.59 635.2 82 12.92 635.87 84 12.6 636.19

Page 1

CS1 - 0+93CS1: 0+93 Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Horizontal Distance (ft)

625

630

635

640

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

CS1: Elevation vs. AreaE

leva

tion

(ft)

Area (sq ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00

CS1: Elevation vs. Wetted PerimeterE

leva

tion

(ft)

Wetted Perimeter (ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0 20 40 60 80 100

CS1: Elevation vs. Mean DepthE

leva

tion

(ft)

Mean Depth (ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0 2 4 6 8


----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: RougeReach Name: Reach 1Cross Section Name: CS2: -0+80Survey Date: 09/15/2009



TAPE FS ELEV NOTE----------------------------------------------------------------------0 1.15 632.06 2.5 1.54 631.67 4.5 1.66 631.55 Top of Wall7.5 4.91 628.3 Bottom of Wall9 4.91 628.3 11 5.11 628.1 12.7 5.24 627.97 LEW14 5.38 627.83 16 5.6 627.61 18 5.91 627.3 20 6.02 627.19 22 6.09 627.12 24 6.07 627.14 26 6.15 627.06 TW28 6.07 627.14 30 6.04 627.17 32 6.05 627.16 34 6.1 627.11 36 5.94 627.27 38 5.81 627.4 40 5.68 627.53 42 5.43 627.78 43.8 5.29 627.92 REW46 5.2 628.01 48 4.64 628.57 50 4.46 628.75 52 4.55 628.66 54 4.73 628.48 56 5.02 628.19 58 5.25 627.96 60 5.45 627.76 62 5.46 627.75 64 5.26 627.95 66 4.97 628.24 68 4.84 628.37 70 4.3 628.91 72 4.12 629.09 74 4.08 629.13 76 3.6 629.61 80 4.34 628.87 82 4.08 629.13 84 4.22 628.99 86 4.29 628.92 88 4.54 628.67 90 4.78 628.43 94 4.71 628.5

Page 1

CS2Data.txt96 5.11 628.1 98 5.47 627.74 100 4.88 628.33 102.2 4.2 629.01 Bottom of wall103 1.58 631.63 Top of concrete block in wall

Page 2

CS2 - -0+80Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)


625

630

635

640

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


leva

tion

(ft)

Area (sq ft)

620

625

630

635

0 100 200 300 400


leva

tion

(ft)


620

625

630

635

0 50 100 150


leva

tion

(ft)

Mean Depth (ft)

620

625

630

635

0 1 2 3 4


----------------------------------------------------------------------




TAPE FS ELEV NOTE----------------------------------------------------------------------0 5.41 636.44 2 5.09 636.76 4 4.74 637.11 6 4.88 636.97 LB8 6.66 635.19 10.7 7.79 634.06 11.5 10.53 631.32 LEW11.9 11.56 630.29 12.9 11.99 629.86 Toe of bank14 12.3 629.55 16 12.86 628.99 18 13.26 628.59 20 13.79 628.06 22 13.88 627.97 24 13.18 628.67 26 13.1 628.75 28 13 628.85 30 13.18 628.67 32 13.64 628.21 34 13.92 627.93 36 14.35 627.5 38 15.38 626.47 40 15.62 626.23 42 15.71 626.14 TW44 15.54 626.31 46 15.5 626.35 48 15.61 626.24 50 15.56 626.29 52 15.49 626.36 54 14.74 627.11 56 13.67 628.18 58 13.16 628.69 60 12.79 629.06 62 11.94 629.91 64 11.19 630.66 Toe of bank64.1 10.54 631.31 REW65 7.38 634.47 66 6.38 635.47 69 4.82 637.03 RB72 4.53 637.32 74 4.49 637.36 76 4.63 637.22 78 4.67 637.18 80 4.95 636.9 82 4.82 637.03 HI lowered by 0.41 feet84 4.77 637.08

Page 1

CS3: 5+11Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)


625

630

635

640

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


leva

tion

(ft)

Area (sq ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00


leva

tion

(ft)


620

625

630

635

640

10 30 50 70 90


leva

tion

(ft)

Mean Depth (ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0 2 4 6 8


----------------------------------------------------------------------



BM Elevation: 636 ftBacksight Rod Reading: 4.92 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE----------------------------------------------------------------------0 5.18 635.74 2 4.89 636.03 4 4.72 636.2 6 4.76 636.16 8 4.94 635.98 9 5.31 635.61 LB11 9.63 631.29 LEW13 9.93 630.99 15 10.29 630.63 17 10.68 630.24 18 10.87 630.05 20 10.89 630.03 22 11.13 629.79 24 11.46 629.46 26 11.56 629.36 28 11.62 629.3 30 11.67 629.25 32 11.5 629.42 34 11.7 629.22 36 11.86 629.06 38 11.95 628.97 40 11.95 628.97 42 12 628.92 44 12.22 628.7 46 12.13 628.79 48 12.33 628.59 TW50 12.02 628.9 52 11.95 628.97 54 11.85 629.07 56 11.7 629.22 58 11.35 629.57 60 11.31 629.61 62 11.14 629.78 64 10.66 630.26 65.3 10.36 630.56 65.3 9.68 631.24 REW65.6 8.52 632.4 68 7.53 633.39 70 6.53 634.39 72 5.54 635.38 74 5.09 635.83 76 4.93 635.99 78 4.82 636.1 80 4.82 636.1 82 4.92 636 84 5.04 635.88

Page 1

CS4Data.txt86 5.11 635.81 88 5.25 635.67 90 5.4 635.52 92 5.44 635.48 94 5.45 635.47 96 5.47 635.45 98 5.48 635.44 100 5.42 635.5 102 5.42 635.5 104 5.55 635.37 106 5.88 635.04

Page 2

CS4: 10+00Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)


625

630

635

640

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

CS4: Elevation vs. Area

Ele

vatio

n (

ft)

Area (sq ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0 100 200 300 400


leva

tion

(ft)


620

625

630

635

640

0 50 100 150


leva

tion

(ft)

Mean Depth (ft)

620

625

630

635

640

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

rouge river at wayne road geomorphic assessment 516(e ... · a detailed longitudinal profile of the...

Documents