Highland Park Dam Mitigation Project Appendix C - Partners for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1 10-year Flood Event Comparison 10 year - Recreated v. Existing v. Original Output Recreated Existing Original Thalweg 620 Elevation, ft 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 River Miles from Maumee Figure 2 50-year Flood Event Comparison 50 year - Recreated v. Existing v. Original Output Recreated Existing Original Thalweg Elevation, ft 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 River Miles from Maumee 6
Figure 3 100-year Flood Event Comparison 100 year - Calibrated v. Existing v. Original Output Recreated Existing Original Thalweg Elevation, ft 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 River Miles from Maumee Existing Conditions Low Flow Analysis JFNew staff observed in November 2007 low flow conditions. Their observations included an edge-ofwater elevation measurement of 574.44 ft at the dam, cross-section 3. Based on this elevation, the theoretical flow rate over the existing dam would be approximately 22 cfs assuming a spillway coefficient, C, of 3.33, a weir length, b, of 59 feet, and an average water depth, H, of 0.23 feet (Q = CbH (3/2) ). The flow rate in the model was adjusted to match the observed elevation measurement. The corresponding model flow rate was determined to be 30 cfs. In addition to adjusting the flow rate, the HEC-2 model was truncated to just the portion through <strong>Highland</strong> <strong>Park</strong>. This was done due to a downstream control in the original model which controls the flow so that the water level is approximately 10 feet higher than observed levels. Table 2 shows the results of simulating 30 cfs through the model as compared to the observed water surface elevations at a perceived low flow. The greatest difference between the observed and modeled data is 0.12 feet. Figure 4 shows this comparison graphically. SECTIO N NO. Table 2 Comparison of WSE at 30 cfs to Observed Data CROSS- MODEL SECTION RIVER WSE OBSERVED DIFFERENCE (Nov. 2007) MILES (30 cfs) WSE (M-0) 24.318 18 4.03 571.76 571.76 0 24.327 17 4.09 571.78 571.77 0.01 24.336 16 4.11 571.78 571.76 0.02 24.345 15 4.14 571.8 571.84 -0.04 24.354 14 4.18 571.81 571.81 0 24.363 13 4.21 571.81 571.81 0 7
Page 1 and 2: TETRA TECH, INC. TECHNICAL MEMORAND
Page 3 and 4: “Original” - The results of the
Page 5: “Original” - The results of the
Page 9 and 10: * Note: Q = CbH 3/ 2 ft 0.5 C = 3.3
Page 11 and 12: Figure 6 Rock Dam 1 Cross-Section C
Page 13 and 14: 30 cfs SECTIO N NO. CROSS-SECTION R
Page 15 and 16: Velocity (ft/sec) Cross-Section (No
Page 17 and 18: BASE SECTION NO. BASE RIVER MILES P
Page 19: ATTACHMENT A 1. Recreated HEC-2 Cod
Page 22 and 23: ORIGINAL * SHEET 2 BT 20 0 594 594
Page 24 and 25: ORIGINAL BT 270 599.6 592.4 270 599
Page 26 and 27: ORIGINAL GR 596 900 600 910 604 910
Page 28 and 29: ORIGINAL GR 588.7 680 588.4 700 590
Page 30 and 31: ORIGINAL GR 604 602 10 596 20 592 3
Page 32 and 33: ORIGINAL BT 736 604.8 596.2 740 604
Page 34 and 35: ORIGINAL NC 0.07 0.055 0.04 0.1 0.3
Page 69:
ATTACHMENT B HEC-2 Code with Existi
Page 72 and 73:
Existing Cross-Sections Model GR 58
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Existing Cross-Sections Model X3 10
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Existing Cross-Sections Model SB 1.
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Existing Cross-Sections Model J1 -1
Page 95 and 96:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model T1 Ty
Page 97 and 98:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model GR 56
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model X1 19
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model GR575
Page 109 and 110:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model BT 52
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117:
Proposed Cross-Sections Model NC 0.
show all

Highland Park Dam Mitigation Project Appendix C - Partners for ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?