Water Resources Development
US Arm y Corps in Indiana 1995 of Engineers River Basins in Indiana
This publication is authorized by Cover Photo the Secretary of the Army Patoka Lake as required by PL 99-662 CEORL-PD-E SUBJECT: Water Resources Development in Indiana 1995
DISTRIBUTION: COPIES CDR USAGE, ATTN: CEPA-C 2 CDR USACE. ATTN: CECW-AL 2 CDR USACE, ATTN: CEIM-IV 4 CDR USACE, ATTN: CECW-MP 10 CDR USACE. ATTN: CEWRC-NDC 1 CDR Lower Mississippi Valley Division 2 CDR New England Division 2 CDR North Atlantic Division 2 CDR North Central Division • 0 CDR North Pacific Division 2 CDR Ohio River Division 20 CDR Pacific Ocean Division 2 CDR South Atlantic Division 2
CDR South Pacific Division - CDR Southwestern Division 2 CDR US Army Engineer District ALASKA 2 CDR US Army Engineer District ALBUQUERQUE 2 CDR US Army Engineer District BALTIMORE ' 2 CDR US Army Engineer District BUFFALO 2 CDR US Army Engineer District CHARLESTON 2 CDR US Army Engineer District CHICAGO 20 CDR US Army Engineer District DETROIT 20 CDR US Army Engineer District FORT WORTH 2 CDR US Army Engineer District GALVESTON 2 CDR US Army Engineer District HUNTINGTON 2 CDR US Army Engineer District JACKSONVILLE 2 CDR US Army Engineer District LITTLE ROCK ATTN: CESWL-PL-S 2 CDR US Army Engineer District LOS ANGELES 2 CDR US Army Engineer District MEMPHIS ATTN: CELMM-PD-F 2 CDR US Army Engineer District MOBILE 2 CDR US Army Engineer District NASHVILLE 2 CDR US Army Engineer District NEW ORLEANS 2 CDR US Army Engineer District NEW YORK 2 CDR US Army Engineer District NORFOLK 2 CDR US Army Engineer District OMAHA ATTN: CEMRO-PD-F 2 CDR US Army Engineer District PHILADELPHIA 2 CDR US Army Engineer District PITTSBURGH 2 CDR US Army Engineer District PORTLAND 2 CDR US Army Engineer District ROCK ISLAND ATTN: CENCR-PA 2 CDR US Army Engineer District SACRAMENTO 2 CDR US Army Engineer District SAN FRANCISCO 2 CDR US Army Engineer District SAVANNAH 2 CDR US Armv Engineer District SEATTLE 2 CDR US Army Engineer District ST. LOUIS ATTN: CELMS-PM-M 2 CDR US Army Engineer District ST. PAUL 2 CDR US Army Engineer District TULSA 2 CDR US Army Engineer District VICKSBURG 2 CDR US Army Engineer District WALLA WALLA 2 CDR US Army Engineer District WILMINGTON 2 CDR US Army Engineer School Library Fort Leonard Wood 2
2 Water Resources Development IN By the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 'T ) in Indiana
Within the boundaries of the State of Indiana, two Divisions and three Districts are responsible for the projects and activities of the Corps of Engineers described in this booklet. These projects and activities are defined by river basins rather than by political boundaries. Thus, the work within the State may be under the jurisdiction of more than one District and Division as shown on the map on the opposite page. Additional information on particular projects and activities discussed herein may be obtained by addressing the appropriate office listed below:
Division Engineer Division Engineer U.S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River U.S. Army Engineer Division North Central Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1159 111 N. Canal Street, 12th Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-1159 Chicago, Illinois 60606-7205
District Engineer District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville U.S. Army Engineer District, Chicago Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 59 111 N. Canal Street, Suite 600 Louisville, Kentucky 40201-0059 Chicago, Illinois 60606-7206
District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231-1027
i Letter from the Chief of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was founded some 220 years ago to be respon sive to the needs of a young nation. While the nature of our work has changed with time, our basic purpose remains — to be responsive to America’s needs. Clearly the Nation’s concern for the environment has permeated the Corps. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, environmental considerations are part of the plan ning of every Corps project, and under the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, environmental stewardship was made a primary Corps mission along with navigation and flood control. Response to natural disasters offers opportunities for some of the most direct Corps assistance to local communities. From flood fighting, recovery and levee rehabilitation in response to the Midwest Flood of 1993, to emergency water, electrical power, construction and building inspections after the Northridge Earthquake, Corps people have shown courage, commitment and tenacity. We have continued to enhance our responsiveness to customer needs. For example, the Corps achieved a major cultural shift by instituting a project management system, which assigns one manager to stay with a project from planning through design and construction and to serve as the single point of contact for that project. It has achieved greater account ability to our non-Federal partners and, ultimately, projects which better reflect the needs of the community. Partnering represents another positive shift in Corps business practices, particularly in civil works construction. A local sponsorship kit walks customers through the complexi ties of Corps projects. A technique related to partnering, alternative dispute resolution, cre ates an atmosphere in which the clash of differing viewpoints can transform into creative solutions and prevent costly legal disputes. Pioneered by the Corps, alternative dispute reso lution is gaining acceptance throughout the Federal government. We are active participants in two major interagency efforts. The Interagency Flood Plain Management Review Committee is looking at ways the Federal government can most effectively reduce the risk of flood damage and provide economic benefits and environmen tal enhancement in flood plains. The Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process, meanwhile, is establishing better ways to handle the nearly 300 million cubic yards of soil the Corps moves each year from its navigation projects. And, of course, we still respond to the needs of American families. As one of the Nation’s largest providers of outdoor recreation, the Corps welcomes citizens to its 461 lakes and other water resource projects. At 82 shore protection projects, the Corps has pro vided 226 miles of stable beaches. Recreation and natural resource management are respon sibilities we take seriously, and we use the opportunity of a visit to a Corps project to help others appreciate our Nation’s valuable and delicate natural resources. This booklet is one of a series detailing Corps of Engineers water resources pro grams and projects in the 50 states and in U.S. territories. I hope you will find it interesting and feel pride in ownership of the projects.
Arthur E. Williams Lieutentant General, USA ii Chief of Engineers Letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a long and proud history of applying its expertise in engineering and related disciplines to meet the Nation’s needs. Over the years, its activities have evolved; however, since 1824, the central focus of its civil mission has been the development of the Nation’s water resources. With an annual program of over $3 billion for civil projects, the Corps is the Federal Government’s largest water resources development agency. The Corps develops projects that have proven to be wise invest ments. These projects have reduced flood damages; provided safe, low cost waterborne transportation; generated hydroelectric power; provided water for the public, industry and agriculture; offered opportunities for recreation; and helped the environment. They return to the public benefits that far outweigh their costs. Corps civil works activities reflect partnership. All Corps projects begin when non- Federal interests see a water-related problem and petition Congress for a solution. Under provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, once the Corps conducts a reconnaissance study to determine whether a feasible project is likely, these sponsors pro vide a share of the funding for the feasibility study upon which a project will be based. They also provide a share of the cost of the project’s design and construction once Congress has authorized the project and provided construction funds. During the period 1986-1994, non-Federal sponsors signed 286 cooperative agreements with the Department of the Army for cost sharing of project construction. The Corps engineering expertise and responsiveness has stood the Nation in good stead during times of natural disaster. During 1994, the Corps continued to rehabilitate levees damaged by the Midwest Flood of 1993 and responded to the Northridge, California, Earthquake and the floods that ravaged the Southeast. Whatever challenges arise in the decades ahead, I have no doubt the Army Corps of Engineers will be equal to the task.
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
iii Foreword C. The Wabash River Basin includes a drainage area of 33,100 square miles, of which 24,218 are in Indiana comprising two-thirds of This booklet contains information on the scope of the state. water-resource projects and studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the State of 1) The Upper Wabash River Basin Indiana. It describes briefly the role of the Corps includes the drainage area of the Wabash of Engineers in the planning, construction, and River from its headwaters to above the operation of water-resource improvements, and mouth of the White River, and is located in includes an explanation of the procedure for the north-central portion of the state. initiating studies leading to authorization of projects. Information is given on the status of 2) The Lower Wabash River Basin projects, whether the construction has been includes the drainage area of the two completed, is underway, or not started, together major tributaries, the White and Patoka with data on the purpose and schedule of studies. Rivers, and is located in the south-central portion of the state. In arranging the material in the booklet, the State has been divided into 13 sections, three major a) The White River Subbasin drainage basins, and six subdivisions of these includes the drainage area of the major basins. Because of its size, the Wabash White River, excluding that of the River Basin has been further divided into two parts East Fork White River. with the lower portion subdivided into three sections. The projects located within each of the b) The East Fork White River basins are described beginning with projects Subbasin includes the drainage area located in the headwaters so that the cumulative of the East Fork White River, and is in effects of sedimentation and flood control on the mid-portion of the Lower Wabash projects above any given location can be readily River Basin. apparent. Maps for each section are included. c) The Patoka River Subbasin lies The 13 sections of the State, as defined for this in the southernmost portion of the booklet, are: Wabash River Basin, and includes both the drainage area of the Patoka 1. The Ohio River Basin includes the tributary River, and the left bank portion of the area of the Ohio River, which flows 981 miles from Wabash River to below New Harmony. the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to the 2. The Great Lakes Basin within the United Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois. The Indiana States is defined as the drainage areas of Lakes portion of the basin consists of the watersheds of Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, Ontario, and the right bank tributaries between River Mile 491.3, those streams entering the St. Lawrence River. the Indiana—Ohio state line, and the confluence of the Wabash River with the Ohio River. A section A. The Lake Erie Subbasin includes the on Ohio River navigation is given specific drainage area of Lake Erie, and is located in treatment following the basin treatise. northeastern Indiana.
A. The Ohio River and Minor Tributaries B. The Lake Michigan Subbasin includes include the area along the main stem of the the drainage area of Lake Michigan, and is Ohio River, and all minor right bank tributaries located in northwestern Indiana. within the limits of Indiana. 3. The Upper Mississippi River Basin includes B. The Whitewater River Basin includes the the Kankakee River, which rises near South Bend drainage area of the Whitewater River, which and flows southwest, draining 3,125 square miles is located in southeastern Indiana. in Indiana.
iv Contents Projects 18 Markland Locks and Dam, Louisville District...... 18 F o rew ord ...... *v McAlpine Locks and Dam, Civil Works Overview ...... 1 Louisville District...... 19
Introduction...... 1 Falls of the Ohio National Wildlife Conservation Area, Louisville District...... 20 Authorization and Planning of Water Resources Projects...... 1 Cannelton Locks and Dam, Louisville District...... 20 Navigation...... 2 Newburgh Locks and Dam, Flood Control and Flood Plain Louisville District...... 20 Management...... 2 Uniontown Locks and Dam, Shore and Hurricane Protection...... 3 Louisville District...... 21
Hydropower...... 3 Newburgh Bank Protection, Louisville District...... 21 Water Supply...... 4
Recreation...... 4 Ohio River and Minor Tributaries ...... 23
Environmental Quality...... 4 Introduction ...... 25
Regulatory Programs...... 4 Projects...... 25
Emergency Response and Recovery...... 5 Lawrenceburg Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 25 In d ian a...... 7 Jeffersonville—Clarksville Local Protection State Summary...... 7 Project, Louisville District...... 25
Ohio River Basin ...... 9 New Albany Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 26 Introduction...... 11 Cannelton Local Protection Project, Operations and Emergency Flood Control.... 11 Louisville District...... 26
Regulatory Functions Program...... 11 Tell City Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 27 Work in Waters of the United States (Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Evansville Local Protection Project, Act of 1899)...... 12 Louisville District...... 27
Permits for Dredged or Fill Material Continuing Authorities...... 27 (Section 404, Clean Water Act of 1972)...... 12 Emergency Bank Protection Projects...... 27 Emergency Repairs and Operations...... 12 Madison, Louisville District...... 28 Planning Assistance to States...... 13 Madison City Garage, Louisville District...... 28 Inactive Authorized Projects...... 13 Madison, City Park, Louisville District...... 28 Deauthorized Projects...... 14 Troy, Louisville District...... 28 Ohio River N a v ig a tio n ...... 15 Rockport, Louisville District...... 28 Introduction...... 17 Newburgh, Louisville District...... 28 Ohio River Dredging Maintenance...... 18
v Evansville, Ohio Street, Louisville District ...28 Big Pine Lake (Authorized), Louisville District...... 43 Mount Vernon Water Works, Louisville District...... 28 Cecil M. Harden (Mansfield) Lake, Louisville District...... 44 Rockport Landing, Louisville District...... 29 Delphi Local Protection Project, Cannelton, State Road 66, Louisville District...... 44 Louisville District...... 29 Lyford Levee Local Protection Project, Sellersburg, Louisville District...... 29 Louisville District...... 44 Vanderburgh County, Louisville District.....29 Terre Haute (Conover Levee) Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 45 Small Flood Control Projects...... 29 West Terre Haute Local Protection Lancassange Creek, Clark County, Project, Louisville District...... 45 Louisville District...... 29
Corydon, Louisville District...... 29 Greenfield Bayou Levee (Authorized), Louisville District...... 45 English, Louisville District...... 29 Island Levee (Authorized), Surveys...... 30 Louisville District...... 45
Whitewater River Basin...... 31 Gill Township Levee Local Protection Project, Introduction...... 33 Louisville District...... 46 Projects...... 33 Mason J. Niblack Levee, Brookville Lake, Louisville District...... 33 Louisville District...... 46
Continuing Authorities...... 33 Vincennes Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 47 Emergency Bank Protection Projects...... 33 Brevoort Levee Local Protection Project, Whitewater River, Levee Road, Louisville District...... 47 Louisville District...... 33 Small Flood Control Projects...... 34 Continuing Authorities...... 47 Hagerstown, Louisville District...... 34 Snagging and Clearing Projects...... 47
Studies...... 34 Wabash River Logjam (Adams County), Louisville District...... 48 Wabash River Basin...... 35 Salamonie Logjams, Louisville District...... 48 Introduction...... 37 Salamonie River (Jay and Blackford Surveys...... 37 Counties), Louisville District...... 48 Upper Wabash River Basin...... 39 Hartford City, Louisville District...... 48 Introduction...... 41 Emergency Bank Protection Projects...... 48 Projects...... 41 Merom Caving Bank, Louisville District...... 48 Huntington Lake, Louisville District...... 41 Terre Haute, Wabash River, Louisville District...... 48 Salamonie Lake, Louisville District...... 41 Vigo County, County Road 83W, Louisville District...... 49 Mississinewa Lake, Louisville District...... 42 Vigo County, Little Road, Louisville District...... 49 Lafayette Lake (Authorized), Louisville District...... 43 vi Southfork Wildcat Creek, Tippecanoe Continuing Authorities...... 57 County, Louisville District...... 49 Small Flood Control Projects...... 57 Nameless Creek, Warren County, Indiana, Louisville District...... 49 Grassy Creek, Louisville District...... 57
Small Flood Control Projects...... 49 Emergency Bank Protection Project...... 57 Portland, Louisville District...... 49 Brownstown, White River, Louisville District...... 58 Lower Wabash River Basin...... 51 Pike County, White River, Introduction...... 53 Louisville District...... 58
White River Subbasin...... 53 Snagging and Clearing Projects...... 58 Introduction...... 53 Muscatatuck River, Louisville District...... 58 Projects...... 53 Patoka River Subbasin...... 58 Cagles Mill Lake, Louisville District...... 53 Introduction...... 58 Big Walnut Lake (Authorized) Louisville District...... 54 Projects...... 58
Muncie Local Protection Project, Patoka Lake, Louisville District...... 58 Louisville District...... 54 Levee Unit 5, Wabash River, Indianapolis Local Protection Project, Louisville District...... 59 Louisville District...... 54 New Harmony Bridge Levee Unit 8, White River, Local Protection Bank Stabilization Project, Project, Louisville District...... 55 Louisville District...... 59 Continuing Authorities...... 55 Continuing Authorities...... 59 Snagging and Clearing Projects...... 55 Emergency Bank Protection Project...... 59 Eel River, Clay County, Louisville District ...55 Jasper, Louisville District...... 60 Edwardsport, Louisville District...... 55 Winslow, Patoka River, Louisville District....60 Emergency Bank Protection Projects...... 56 Brazil Water Supply Facilities, Great Lakes Basin ...... 61 Louisville District...... 56 Introduction...... 63 Morgan County, Blue Bluff Road, White River, Louisville District...... 56 Great Lakes Region...... 63
Morgan County, Blue Bluff Road, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study White River, Louisville District...... 56 Comprehensive Study, North Central Division...... 63 Morgan County, Henderson-Ford Road, White River, Louisville District...... 56 Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Commercial Navigation Study, Morgan County, Bottom Road, Detroit District...... 63 White River, Louisville District...... 56 International Water Studies Petersburg, Louisville District...... 56 (General Investigations), North Central Division...... 64 East Fork White River Subbasin...... 56 Projects...... 65 Introduction...... 56
Projects...... 57 Fort Wayne Metro Area, Detroit District...... 65 Monroe Lake, Louisville District...... 57
vii Continuing Authorities...... 65 Illinois Waterway 9-Foot Navigation Project, Chicago District...... 70 Emergency Streambank Protection Project, Section 14...... 65 The Channel from Grafton to Chicago, Chicago District...... 71 Elkhart River, Elkhart, Detroit District...... 65 The Calumet-Sag Modification, Small Flood Control Projects...... 66 Chicago District...... 71
LaPorte - Pine Lake Flood Control Study, Further Investigation...... 71 Section 205, Detroit District...... 66 Michigan City Harbor, Chicago District...... 71 Cedar Creek, Auburn Flood Control Study, Section 205, Detroit District...... 66 Indiana Dunes Lake Shore Bank Protection, Beverly Shores, Lake Erie Subbasin...... 66 Chicago District...... 72
Introduction...... 66 Burns Waterway Small-Boat Harbor, Chicago District...... 72 Emergency Repairs and Operations...... 66 Lake George, Hobart, Lake Restoration, Fort Wayne - Mechanic Street Dike, Chicago District...... 72 Detroit District...... 66 Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Surveys...... 67 Chicago District...... 72 Lake Michigan Subbasin...... 69 Little Calumet (Flood Control Introduction...... 69 and Recreation), Chicago District...... 73
Projects...... 69 Duneland Beach, Chicago District...... 73
Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, Continuing Authorities...... 73 Chicago District...... 69 Emergency Bank Protection Project...... 73 Calumet Harbor and River, Illinois Dune Acres, Chicago District...... 73 and Indiana, Chicago District...... 69 Surveys...... 74 Indiana Harbor, Chicago District...... 69 Upper Mississippi River Basin...... 75 Completion Status...... 70 Introduction...... 77 Project Costs for the Illinois Waterway Chicago District...... 70 Emergency Repairs and Operations...... 77
Traffic...... 70 Kankakee River Levees, Chicago District...... 77 Mt. Baldy, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Chicago District...... 70 Glossary...... 79
viii Today's Corps of Engineers carries out missions in Civil Works Overview three broad areas: military construction and engineering support to military installations; Introduction reimbursable support to other federal agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency's "Superfund" program to clean up hazardous and From 1775 to the present, the U.S. Army Corps toxic waste sites); and the Civil Works mission, of Engineers has served the nation in peace and centered around navigation, flood control and - war. The Corps traces its history to June 1775, under the Water Resources Development Acts of when the Continental Congress appointed Colonel 1986,1988,1990 and 1992 - a growing role in Richard Gridley as Chief of Engineers of the environmental restoration. Continental Army, under General George Washington. The original Corps was the Army's engineering and construction arm until it Authorization and Planning of mustered out of service at the close of the Water Resources Projects Revolutionary War. Corps of Engineers water resources activities are In 1802, Congress reestablished a separate normally initiated by non-federal interests, Corps of Engineers within the Army. At the same authorized by Congress, funded by a combination time, it established the U.S. Military Academy at of federal and non-federal sources, constructed by West Point, the country's first - and for 20 years the Corps under the Civil Works Program, and its only - engineering school. With the Army operated and maintained either by the Corps or by having the nation's most readily available a non-federal sponsoring agency. engineering talent, successive Congresses and administrations established a role for the Corps The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as an organization to carry out both military made numerous changes in the way potential new construction and works "of a civil nature." water resources projects are studied, evaluated and funded. The major change is that the law now Throughout the nineteenth century, the Corps specifies greater non-Federal cost sharing for most supervised the construction of coastal Corps water resources projects. fortifications, lighthouses, several early railroads, and many of the public buildings in Washington, When local interests feel that a need exists for D.C. and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Corps of improved navigation, flood protection, or other Topographical Engineers, which enjoyed a water resources development, they may petition separate existence for 25 years (1838-1863) their representatives in Congress. A mapped much of the American West. Army Congressional committee resolution or an act of Engineers served with distinction in war, with Congress may then authorize the Corps of many engineer officers rising to prominence Engineers to investigate the problems and submit during the Civil War. a report. Water resources studies, except studies of the inland waterway navigation system, are In its civil role, the Corps of Engineers became conducted in partnership with a non-Federal increasingly involved with river and harbor sponsor, with the Corps and the sponsor jointly improvements, carrying out its first harbor and funding and managing the study. jetty work in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The Corps' ongoing responsibility for For inland navigation and waterway projects, which federal river and harbor improvements dates from are by their nature not "local," Congress, in the 1824, when Congress passed two acts Water Resources Development Act of 1986, authorizing the Corps to survey roads and canals established an Inland Waterway Users Board, and to remove obstacles on the Ohio and comprised of waterway transportation companies Mississippi Rivers. Over the years since, the and shippers of major commodities. This board expertise gained by the Crops in navigation advises the Secretary of the Army and makes projects led succeeding administrations and recommendations on priorities for new navigation Congresses to assign new water-related missions projects such as locks and dams. Such projects to the Corps in such areas as flood control, shore are funded in part from the Inland Waterway Trust and hurricane protection, hydropower, recreation, Fund, which in turn is funded by waterway fuel water supply and quality, and wetland protection. taxes.
1 Normally, the planning process for a water Navigation resource problem starts with a brief reconnaissance study to determine whether a Corps of Engineers involvement in navigation project falls within the Corps' statutory projects dates to the early days of the United authority and meet national priorities. Should States, when rivers and coastal harbors were the that be the case, the Corps districts where the primary paths of commerce in the new country. project is located will carry out a full feasibility Without its great rivers, the vast, thickly-forested, study to develop alternatives and select the region west of the Appalachians would have best possible solution. This process normally remained impenetrable to all but the most includes public meetings to determine the resourceful early pioneers. Consequently, western views of local interests on the extent and type politicians such as Henry Clay agitated for federal of improvements desired. The federal, state, assistance to improve the rivers. At the same and other agencies with interests in a project time, the War of 1812 showed the importance of a are partners in the planning process. reliable inland navigation system to national defense. In making recommendations to Congress for project authorization, the Corps determines There was, however, a question as to whether that the proposed project's benefits will transportation was, under the Constitution, a exceed costs, its engineering design is sound, legitimate federal activity. This question was the project best serves the needs of the resolved when the Supreme Court ruled that the people concerned, and that it makes the Commerce Clause of the Constitution granted the wisest possible use of the natural resources federal government the authority, not only to involved and adequately protects the regulate navigation and commerce, but also to environment. make necessary navigation improvements.
Once the Corps of Engineers district The system of harbors and waterways maintained completes its feasibility study, it submits a by the Corps of Engineers remains one of the most report, along with a final environmental impact important parts of the nation's transportation statement, to higher authority for review and system. The Corps maintains the nation's recommendations. After review and waterways as a safe, reliable and economically coordination with all interested federal efficient navigation system. The 12,000 miles of agencies and the governors of affected states, inland waterways maintained by the Corps carry the Chief of Engineers forwards the report and one sixth of the nation's intercity cargo. The environmental statement to the Secretary of importance of the Corps mission in maintaining the Army, who obtains the views of the Office depths at more than 500 harbors, meanwhile, is of Management and Budget before underscored by an estimated one job in five in the transmitting these documents to Congress. United States being dependent, to some extent, on the commerce handled by these ports. If Congress includes the project in an authorization bill, enactment of the ill Flood Control and Flood Plain constitutes authorization of the project. Before construction can get underway, Management however, both the federal government and the project sponsor must provide funds. A federal Federal interest in flood control began in the budget recommendation for a project is based alluvial valley of the Mississippi River in the mid- on evidence of support by the state and the 19th century. As the relationship of flood control ability and willingness of a non-federal sponsor and navigation became apparent, Congress called to provide its share of the project cost. on the Corps of Engineers to use its navigational expertise to devise solutions to flooding problems Appropriation of money to build a particular along the river. project is usually included in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation After a series of disastrous floods affecting wide Act, which must be passes by both Houses of areas in the 1920’s and 30’s, Congress Congress and signed by the President. determined, in the Flood Control Act of 1936, that the Federal government would participate in the
2 solution of flooding problems affecting the public when Congress directed the Corps to conduct interest that were too large or too complex to be investigations along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts handled by states or localities. Corps authority to identify problem areas and determine the for flood control work was thus extended to feasibility of protection. embrace the entire country. The Corps turns most of the flood control projects over to non- While each situation the Corps studies involves Federal authorities for operation and maintenance different considerations, Corps engineers once construction is completed. always consider engineering feasibility and economic efficiency along with the The purpose of flood control work is to prevent environmental and social impacts. Federal damage through regulation of the flow of water participation in a shore protection project varies, and other means. Prevention of flood-related depending on shore ownership, use and type damages can be accomplished with structural and frequency of benefits. (If there is no public measures, such as reservoirs, levees, channels, use or benefit, the Corps will not recommend and floodwalls that modify the characteristics of federal participation.) Once the project is floods; or non-structural measures, such as flood complete, non-Federal interests assume plain evacuation, floodproofing and floodway responsibility for its operation and maintenance. acquisition, that alter the way people use these areas and reduce the susceptibility of human One shore protection method popular in seaside activities to flood risk. communities is beach nourishment - the periodic replenishment of sand along the Corps flood control reservoirs are often designed shoreline to replace that lost to storms and and built for multiple-purpose uses, such as erosion. Authorized nourishment projects municipal and industrial water supply, navigation, usually have a nourishment period of 50 years. irrigation, hydroelectric power, conservation of In addition, Section 145 of the Water Resources fish and wildlife, and recreation. Development Act of 1976 authorizes placement of beach quality sand from Corps dredging The Corps fights the nation's flood problems not projects on nearby beaches. Under Section 933 only by constructing and maintaining structures, of the Water Resources Development Act of but also by providing detailed technical 1986, local sponsors pay the federal information on flood hazards. Under the Flood government 50 percent of the additional costs of Plain Management Services Program, the Corps this placement of sand. provides, on request, flood hazard information, technical assistance and planning guidance to Hydropower other federal agencies, states, local governments and private citizens. Once community officials The Corps has played a significant role in know the flood-prone areas in their communities meeting the nation's electric power generation and how often floods would be likely to occur, needs by building and operating hydropower they can take necessary action to prevent or plants in connection with its large multiple- minimize damages to existing and to new purpose dams. The Corps' involvement in buildings and facilities, such as adopting hydropower generation began with the Rivers enforcing zoning ordinances, building codes, and and Harbors Acts of 1890 and 1899, which subdivision regulations. The Flood Plain required the Secretary of War and the Corps of Management Services Program provides Engineers to approve the sites and plans for all assistance to other Federal and state agencies in dams and to issue permits for their construction. the same manner. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 directed the Corps to consider various water uses, Shore and Hurricane Protection including water power, when submitting preliminary reports on potential projects. Corps work in shore protection began in 1930, when Congress directed the Corps to study ways The Corps continues to consider the potential to reduce erosion along U.S. seacoasts and the for hydroelectric power development during the Great Lakes. Hurricane protection work was planning process for all water resources projects added to the erosion control mission in 1955, involving dams and reservoirs. In most
3 instances today, it is non-Federal interests who Environmental Quality develop hydropower facilities at Corps projects without Federal assistance. The Corps, The Corps carries out the Civil Works Program in however, can plan, build and operate hydropower consistency with many environmental laws, projects when it is impractical for non-Federal executive orders and regulations. Perhaps interests to do so. Today, the more than 20,000 primary among these is the National megawatts of capacity at Corps-operated power Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This plants provide approximately 30 percent of the law requires Federal agencies to study and nation's hydroelectric power, or three percent of consider the environmental impacts of their its total electric energy supply. proposed actions. Consideration of the environmental impact of a Corps project begins in Water Supply the early stages, and continues through design, construction and operation of the project. The Corps involvement in water supply dates back to Corps must also comply with these environmental 1853, when it began building the Washington laws and regulations in conducting its regulatory Aqueduct, which provides water to the nation's programs. capital city and some of its suburbs to this day. NEPA procedures ensure that public officials and Elsewhere in the nation, the Water Supply Act of private citizens may obtain and provide 1958 authorized the Corps to provide additional environmental information before federal agencies storage in its reservoirs for municipal and make decisions concerning the environment. In industrial water supply use. The Corps also selecting alternative project designs, the Corps supplies water for irrigation, under terms of the strives to choose with minimum environmental Flood Control Act of 1944. This act provided impact. that the Secretary of War, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 could allow use of Corps reservoirs for irrigation, authorized the Corps to propose modifications of provided that users agree to repay the its existing projects, many of them built before government for the water. current environmental requirements were in effect, for environmental improvement. Proposals the Recreation Corps has made under this authority range from use of dredged material to create nesting sites for waterfowl to modification of water control The Flood Control Act of 1944, the Federal structures to improve downstream water quality for Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and fish. language in specific project authorization acts authorize the Corps to construct, maintain, and In recent years the Corps of Engineers has operate public park and recreational facilities at planned and recommended environmental its projects, and to permit others to build, restoration actions at federal projects to restore maintain, and operate such facilities. The water environmental conditions. areas of Corps projects are open to public use for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Regulatory Programs
The Corps of Engineers today is one of the The Corps of Engineers regulates construction and federal government's largest providers of outdoor other work in navigable waterways under Section recreational opportunities, operating more than 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and has 4,300 sites at its lakes and other water resource authority over the discharge of dredged or fill projects. More than 400 million visits per year material into the "waters of the United States" - a are recorded at these sites. State and local park term which includes wetlands and all other aquatic authorities and private interests operate nearly areas - under Section 404 of the Federal Water 2,000 areas at Corps projects. Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-
4 500, the "Clean Water Act"). Under these laws, Emergency Response and those who seek to carry out such work must first receive a permit from the Corps. Recovery
The "Section 404" program is the principal way The Corps provides emergency response to by which the federal government protects natural disasters under Public Law 84-99, which wetlands and other aquatic environments. The covers flood control and coastal emergencies. It program's goal is to ensure protection of the also provides emergency support to other aquatic environment while allowing for necessary agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency economic development. Management Agency (FEMA), under Public Law 93-288 (the Stafford Act) as amended. The permit evaluation process includes a public notice and a public comment period. Under P.L. 84-99, the Chief of Engineers, acting Applications for complex projects may also for the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to require a public hearing before the Corps makes a carry out disaster preparedness work; advance permit decision. In its evaluation of applications, measures; emergency operations such as flood the Corps is required by law to consider all fighting, rescue and emergency relief activities; factors involving the public interest. These may rehabilitation of flood control works threatened or include economics, environmental concerns, destroyed by flood; and protection or repair of historic values, fish and wildlife, aesthetics, flood federally authorized shore protection works damage prevention, land use classifications, threatened or damaged by coastal storms. This navigations, recreation, water supply, water act also authorized the Corps to provide quality, energy needs, food productions and the emergency supplies of clean water in cases of general welfare of the public. drought or contaminated water supply. After the immediate flooding has passed, the Corps The Corps of Engineers has issued a number of provides temporary construction and repairs to nationwide general permits, mostly for minor essential public utilities and facilities and activities which have little or not environmental emergency access for a 10-day period, at the impact. Individual Corps districts have also request of the governor. issued regional permits for certain types of minor work in specific areas. Individuals who propose Under the Stafford Act and the Federal Disaster work that falls under one of these general or Response Plan, the Corps of Engineers has a regional permits need not go through the permit standing mission assignment to provide public process. Corps districts have also issued State works and engineering support in response to a Program General Permits for work in states that major disaster or catastrophic earthquake. Under have comprehensive wetland protection this plan, the Corps will work directly with state programs. These permits allow applicants to do authorities in providing temporary repair and work for which they have received a permit under construction of roads, bridges, and utilities, the state program. These general permits reduce temporary shelter, debris removal and demolition, delays and paperwork for applicants and allow the water supply, etc.. The Corps is one of the Corps to devote its resources to the most federal agencies tasked by FEMA to provide significant cases while maintaining the engineering, design, construction and contract environmental safeguards of the Clean Water management in support of recovery operations. Act.
5
aspects of resource development. The earliest Indiana efforts to develop and utilize water resources date back to 1808 when landowners built private State Summary levees to protect farms from the floodwaters of the Wabash River and its tributaries. During the 1830’s the states of Indiana and Ohio joined The drainage pattern in Indiana is dominated by together to build one of the most ambitious water the Wabash River, which drains about two-thirds resources projects in the midwest, the Wabash of the state. The northern part of the state drains and Erie Canal. The waterway, completed in into Lakes Michigan and Erie, the Wabash River 1853, was 469 miles long and connected Toledo, drains the entire central section into the Ohio Ohio, on the shores of Lake Erie with Evansville, River, and small tributaries of the Ohio drain the Indiana, on the Ohio River. The canal was used southern part. The Kankakee River drains a for commerce until 1865 when railroads proved to portion of Indiana into the Illinois River which be a much more efficient means of transporting empties into the Mississippi River. The St. freight, and the canal venture fell into financial Joseph River, which flows into Lake Michigan, ruin. and the Maumee River which flows into Lake Erie, are the other principal rivers in northern Indiana. The Federal Government’s early responsibilities Major tributaries entering the Wabash River along in water resources development were concerned its 475 mile length are the Salamonie, with navigation, primarily on the Ohio River along Mississinewa, Eel, Tippecanoe, White and the southern border of the state. The first broad Patoka Rivers in Indiana. The Wabash River is Federal approach to flood control came in 1927, the principal tributaries entering the Ohio River in when the Corps of Engineers was authorized to southern Indiana. The Whitewater River Basin survey the rivers of the Nation. One of the drains a significant portion of southeast Indiana. resulting reports, popularly referred to as “308 The Whitewater River enters the Miami River near Reports,” was made on the Wabash River in 1932 its confluence with the Ohio River in southwest and provided the stepping stone to present water Ohio. resources development efforts.
Although the topography of Indiana is not severe, Between 1910 and 1929, the Corps of Engineers it is diverse. In the north, there are sand dunes, completed a navigation system on the Ohio River numerous lakes, and the streambeds have consisting of 50 locks and dams, 10 of which lay relatively little slope and shallow banks. The in the 350-mile reach forming the southern central portion has a flat to a generally rolling boundary of Indiana. A modernization program character with slightly more streambed was started in 1952, and five new locks and entrenchment. Many portions of the Wabash dams have been completed replacing ten original River and its tributaries flow through flat country structures along the Indiana boundary. At the with poor natural drainage. The southern part is northern end of the state, five harbor projects on generally hilly and drains very rapidly. The Lake Michigan have been completed. Along the central and northern parts of the state are shore of Lake Michigan, there are two completed primarily agricultural while the southern part is bank protection projects maintained by the Corps extensively forested. of Engineers.
Indiana is heavily industrialized, yet it also ranks In Indiana there are numerous projects. These high among the states in agricultural output and include multi-purpose lake projects, local flood ranks near the top in production of both steel and control projects and Continuing Authority corn. It quarries much of the building limestone Projects. Some of the Continuing Authority used in the United States and is a large producer Projects are small flood control projects (Section of coal. It is criss-crossed by railroads, airlines, 205), snagging and clearing projects (Section highways, and numerous energy supply lines. 208), and erosion protection projects (Section 14).
The interest of Indiana people in water and land Many planning studies are authorized and some resources is long-standing. In the past, many are underway. These studies deal with a wide studies and projects have been completed by range of water and related land resource both Federal and non-Federal entities in various problems.
7
Cannelton Locks and Dam Ohio River Mile 720.8 Ohio River Basin Ohio River Drainage Basins
Legend CD Wabash River Basin Big Sandy & Guyandotte River Basin I 2 [ Miami & Little Miami River Basin | n | Licking River Basin
I 3 I Scioto River Basin Minor Tributaries in the Ohio River Basin CD Muskingum River Basin Kentucky River Basin Beaver River Basin Salt River Basin
10 adjacent developed project lands attract millions of Ohio River Basin recreation visitors each year.
Introduction The Ohio River Basin Commission was established in 1971 to coordinate the activities of Federal, state, interstate, local, and The Ohio River Basin has a drainage area of nongovernmental agencies in the planning and 204.000 square miles extending over parts of 14 development of water and related land resources in states in the middle eastern portion of the United the Ohio River Basin, exclusive of the Tennessee States. The topography of the basin varies from River Basin. The present Ohio River Basin rugged mountains to flat plains. The eastern Commission was formed in October 1981 as a portion is dominated by the rugged terrain of the states’ organization to replace the state/Federal Appalachian Mountains which extends from Title II Commission. The commission provides a southwestern New York to North Carolina. West forum for representatives of member states to of the Appalachian Mountains and south of the discuss, study, and seek solutions to problems Ohio River there is considerable local relief which related to water resources development and gradually modifies to rolling plains through central management. and western Kentucky and Tennessee. North of the Ohio River there are broad valleys with minor All of central and southern Indiana is in the Ohio relief in central and southwestern Ohio, central River Basin. There are many multiple-purpose and and southern Indiana and southeastern Illinois. local protection projects completed, underway, and authorized, but not yet started, in this part of the The climate is temperate. Summers are warm and state. Navigation structures are located in humid and winters range from moderately cold in southern Indiana along the Ohio River. While the the southwest to severe in the extreme northeast. completed projects contribute many benefits to Precipitation averages about 45 inches annually this part of the state, there are also multiple and is usually greatest in June and July and least purpose projects on Ohio River tributaries which in October. Runoff varies considerably; benefit Indiana by reducing flood heights and nevertheless, flood flows may occur during any increasing low flows on streams in and adjacent to season. Major basin-wide floods have generally Indiana. Storage projects in Indiana have similar occurred between January and March, but the beneficial effects on downstream areas in other maximum runoff from small drainage areas has states. Detailed descriptions of Corps projects often resulted from intense thunderstorms during and activities in the Ohio River Basin of Indiana the spring and summer. Often during late are contained in this publication. summer and early fall, stream flow from precipitation is negligible. Operations and A system of reservoirs and local protection projects throughout the basin is capable of Emergency Flood reducing natural average annual flood damages more than 50 percent. During the drought of 1988 Control there was sufficient reservoir storage to substantially increase the Ohio River flows. Storage is also available in some projects for Regulatory Functions Program water supply. The Corps of Engineers has 914.000 kilowatts of hydroelectric generating The Corps of Engineers Districts with jurisdictional capacity in operation in the basin, and private responsibility in Indiana receive and process powercompanies produce additional power at applications for all work in navigable waters and for several projects by license agreements discharges of dredged or fill material into waters administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory within the state. The proposed work includes, but Commission. Commercial navigation on is not limited to: docks (both commercial and canalized basin streams amounts to about one- private), pipelines, aerial transmission lines, quarter of the total inland waterway freight dredging, and fill. Public notices are issued which tonnage in the United States. Water surfaces and allow 30 days for comment and are mailed to all
11 known interested parties. A field inspection is water of the United States, except as relates to made of the proposed work site for the purpose of plans contained in a permit that has been issued determining the possible effects on the by the Corps of Engineers. environment. It is also illegal to excavate fill, or in any manner to On routine work, the impact on the environment alter or modify the course, location, condition, or and the public interest is assessed and capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, documented for review by the public and higher canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within authority. For more complex projects, the limits of any breakwater, or the channel of any environmental data is requested of the applicant navigable water of the United States, unless a which could ultimately lead to the preparation of permit for work has been issued by the Army an Environmental Impact Statement. Corps of Engineers.
When a determination is made that the overall Permits for Dredged or Fill project is in the public interest, and the applicant accepts the permit with the terms and conditions Material (Section 404, Clean set forth by the Federal and state agencies Water Act of 1972). involved, the permit is issued. Inspection of the work is made during and after construction to This Act states that the Secretary of the Army, ensure compliance with the terms and conditions through the Army Corps of Engineers, may issue of the permit. permits to allow the discharge of dredged or fill materials into rivers and streams. Districts monitor the waters of the state to ensure compliance with the law by means of field crews The discharge of dredged or fill material means any on the land and water, aerial photography, and addition of dredged or fill materials into waters of reports from other agencies and concerned the United States. This includes, without citizens. Investigations of violations of Federal limitation, the addition of dredged material to a laws are coordinated with appropriate Federal, specified disposal site located in waters of United state and local agencies. Penalties and remedial States, and the runoff or overflow from a land or actions are determined by the nature and severity water disposal area into waters of the United of the violation. The Districts also review pending States. The term generally includes, without permit actions from the Federal or state limitation, the following activities: Placement of fill Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that necessary for the construction of any structure in a the proposed discharges of effluent or liquid water of the United States; the building of any wastes will not impair anchorage and navigation structure or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, on the navigable waters within the state. Water or other material necessary for its construction; quality violations created by existing discharges causeways or road fills; dams and dikes; property are inspected and the investigation report is protection and/or reclamation devices such as forwarded to the appropriate Federal or state riprap, revetments, and levees. agency for action. Emergency Repairs and Work in Waters of the United Operations States (Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899) As provided by Public Law 99, 84th Congress, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to assist local This Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to interests in fighting floods and the repair and issue permits for work in navigable waters and the restoration of flood control works threatened or tributaries of navigable waters of the United destroyed by floods. States. Flood fights are undertaken as the need develops. In accordance with Section 10, it is illegal to build Personnel, boats, construction equipment, a wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, sandbags, and pumps are typical of the type of bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in a navigable assistance rendered. In addition, local interests are provided technical advice concerning actions to
12 be taken. In recent years, flood fights were waged authorizes the Chief of Engineers to cooperate in cooperation with other agencies in 1960 and with states (Commonwealths, territories, etc.) in 1969, at and below the confluence of the White and the preparation of plans for the development, Wabash Rivers; in 1961,1969, and 1983, in middle utilization, and conservation of water and and lower reaches of the Wabash; in March and related land resources of drainage basins April 1964,1969,1991, and March 1993 at many located within the boundaries of the state. points in the Wabash Basin. Damages prevented Assistance is provided on the basis of state by such action greatly exceed the cost of flood requests. The Louisville District has been fights. assigned the lead role in the development of Section 22 studies for Indiana. During the past 30 years, the Corps of Engineers has completed restoration and repair of many The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 agricultural levees and other flood control works mandated that this program be cost shared. which had been damaged by floods. Most of this Therefore, FY91 required 10 percent, FY92 30 work has been done in the Wabash River Basin. percent, and FY93 and beyond, 50 percent non- Federal contribution.
Planning Assistance There is one active Section 22 study underway in Indiana. This consists of development of a to States dam breach analysis/dam safety plan for Hardy Dam in Scott County. The non-Federal sponsor This program is carried out in accordance with the is the Indiana Department of Natural provisions of Section 22, PL 93-251. The law Resources.
Inactive Authorized Projects
The following tabulation lists the authorized water resource projects that have been placed in the “inactive”category by the Chief of Engineers.
Estimated Cost
Type of Date of Location Construction Federal Non-Federal Total Estimate
Louisville District Big Pine Lake Multipurpose $46,201,000 $4,999,000 $46,688,000 (1976) Big Walnut Lake Multipurpose 81,800,000 45,069,000 126,869,000 (1979) Greenfield Bayou Levee 4,600,000 1,087,000 5,687,000 (1978) Island Levee Levee 4,630,000 528,000 5,158,000 (1978) Lafayette Lake Multipurpose 104,968,000 13,565,000 118,533,000 (1976)
13 Deauthorized Projects
The following tabulation lists the water resource projects that have been deauthorized by Congress. Estimated Cost
Type of Date of Location Construction Federal Non-Federal Total Estimate
Louisville District Adams (Wabash River)*** Levee $292,000 $14,000 $306,000 (1960) Alton* Levee 255,000 40,000 295,000 (1954) Anderson++ Levee 554,000 24,000 578,000 (1954) Aurora** Wall & Levee 4,300,000 1,190,000 5,490,000 (1954) Big Blue Lake**** Multipurpose 87,200,000 53,836,000 141,036,000 (1979) Clifty Creek Lake**** Multipurpose 40,961,000 4,833,000 45,794,000 (1978) Clinton (Wabash River)* Levee 77,000 9,000 86,000 (1954) Deer Creek Prairie* Levee 213,000 10,000 223,000 (1960) Derby* Wall & Levee 553,000 67,000 620,000 (1954) Downeyville Lake+ Multipurpose 74,200,000 64,448,000 138,648,000 (1984) Evansville, Howell Unit 2+ Wall & Levee 8,300,000 Not Available 8,300,000 (1977) Fletcher and Sunshine Levee 548,000 26,000 574,000 (1960) Garden* Grandview* Levee 580,000 133,000 713,000 (1954) Honey Creek Levee 653,000 32,000 685,000 (1954) (Wabash River)* Leavenworth* Wall & Levee 1,470,000 266,000 1,736,000 (1954) Levee Unit 1, Eel River* Levee 204,000 40,000 244,000 (1954) Levee Unit 2, Eel River* Levee 2,090,000 715,000 2,805,000 (1954) Levee Unit 2, East Fork Levee 724,000 73,000 797,000 (1961) White River* Levee Unit 3, East Fork Levee 3,660,000 180,000 3,840,000 (1961) White River* Levee Unit 2, Wabash Levee 2,020,000 99,000 2,119,000 (1968) and Ohio Rivers* Levee Unit 1, White River* Levee 2,180,000 116,000 2,296,000 (1961) Levee Unit 7, White River* Levee 1,490,000 88,000 1,578,000 (1961) Levee Unit 9, White River* Levee 27,000 8,000 35,000 (1957) Levee Unit 10, White River* Levee 182,000 19,000 201,000 (1957) Levee Unit 17, Wabash River* Levee 1,580,000 118,000 1,698,000 • (1973) Madison* Wall & Levee 3,820,000 360,000 4,180,000 (1954) Marion+ Levee 3,900,000 854,000 4,754,000 (1977) Mauckport* Levee 506,000 105,000 611,000 (1954) Metamora Lake* Multipurpose 35,300,000 -- 35,300,000 (1954) McGinnis* Levee 1,820,000 104,000 1,924,000 (1954) New Amsterdam* Levee 476,000 13,000 489,000 (1954) New Harmony* Levee 616,000 25,000 641,000 (1954) Orleans* Channel 270,000 395,000 665,000 (1970) Patriot* Levee 753,000 372,000 1,125,000 (1954) Raccoon Creek* Levee 426,000 37,000 463,000 (1960) Rising Sun* Wall & Levee 896,000 280,000 1,176,000 (1954) Rockport* Wall & Levee 466,000 133,000 599,000 (1954) Rome* Levee 359,000 67,000 426,000 (1954) Shoals* Levee 543,000 29,000 572,000 (1954) Shufflebarger* Levee 2,380,000 90,000 2,470,000 (1954) Sugar Creek Levee 418,000 29,000 447,000 (1960) (Wabash River)* Troy* Wall & Levee 502,000 133,000 635,000 (1954) Utica*** Levee 1,570,000 120,000 1,690,000 (1954) Vevay* Levee 1,170,000 146,000 1,316,000 (1954) Vincennes++ Levee 3,340,000 - 3,340,000 (1973)
*Projects deauthorized by Congress under Section 12, Public Law 93-251, as amended, effective dates of *5 August 1977, **6 November 1977, ***3 October 1978, ****29 December 1981. +Projects deauthorized by Congress under Section 1001 (B)(2) of Public Law 99-662, effective 19 July 1992. -H-Uncompleted portion deauthorized by Congress under Section 1002 of Public Law 99-662, effective 17 Nov 1986.
14 S r;Ä Dam Ohio River Navigation
15 OHIO
* MARKLAND ELEVATION ELEVATION IN FEET (M S L)
RIVER MILES BELOW PITTSBURGH
LEGEND Ohio River Navigation Project Existing Structure and Pool Plan and Profile
Replaced Structure In Indiana
16 flung inland navigation system, as well as Ohio River Navigation connection with the Great Lakes system and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In conjunction with Introduction tributaries improved for navigation, the Ohio River is an important part of the Mississippi River navigation system. The Ohio River flows 981 miles from the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at Approximately 64 percent of the freight traffic is Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to the Mississippi River bulk forms of energy: coal, crude oil, and near Cairo, lilinois. The entire river has been petroleum products. Other major commodities improved by construction of locks and dams to transported are sand and gravel, iron and steel, provide a minimum channel depth of 9 feet, and by chemicals, and grain. Annual traffic on the Ohio open channel work to remove obstructions and River in 1993 (the latest available) was 228.4 assure adequate channel widths. million tons.
The Ohio River navigation project began in 1825 The Ohio River also provides a 981 -mile long with channel improvements, followed in 1830 by a recreational pool. The stable summer pools above canal with a set of three locks to pass the “Falls of the dams provide substantial private shorefront the Ohio” at Louisville, Kentucky. Until 1885, recreational development. Federally developed when the first dam and lock was built near water access points attract several million Pittsburgh, river improvement consisted of clearing recreational visitors annually. A bridge across wrecks and snags, channel dredging and building Markland Dam, linking Indiana State Highway 156 training dikes and jetties. with U.S. Highway 42 in Kentucky, was completed in August 1978. Because the Ohio was too shallow almost every summer and fall for navigation, Congress Development of hydroelectric power under Federal authorized construction of a series of locks and license has been investigated at several locations, dams. Twelve were built before 1910 and and power is now being produced at two dams. canalization of the river was completed in 1929. By then, 50 lock and dam structures had been The Ohio River carries an ever-increasing amount constructed to assure a year-round depth of 9 feet of freight. During the period 1935-1990, annual from the Mississippi River to Pittsburgh. The tonnage increased from 22 million tons to 226 dams were built with wooden wickets that were million tons. The annual ton-mile figure increased raised to hold back water during periods of low flow 25 times its 1935 value of 2.25 billion to 56.4 and dropped to the river bottom during high water, billion recorded for 1991 (latest available). There permitting open river navigation without need of has also been a rapid development in towing locking. By 1937, the partially reconstructed and equipment making tows and barges larger and improved Montgomery and Gallipolis units were in longer. To gain efficiency, meet new needs, and operation, reducing the system to 46 locks and allow additional growth, a navigation replacement dams. With a few exceptions, the dams were of and modernization program was started in the the movable type, with a navigable pass varying early 1950’s. The modern high dams each from 600 to 1,248 feet and one or more regulating eliminated two to five of the older structures so weirs. At each dam, a lock with usable that tows have longer distances between dimensions of 110 feet by 600 feet was provided. lockages. Since the modernization program began in 1955, the number of dams in operation has been The open channel work originally provided reduced from 46 to 20. channels for steamboats, 400 to 600 feet wide at shallow points and crossing bars, and ice piers for The benefits achieved by the new system are shelter from ice floes. A 300-foot wide minimum numerous. The 1,200-foot long lock chambers width channel is now maintained for the more enable tows to pass in one operation instead of powerful modern towboats. having to break up and pass through the old 600- foot locks in two sections. Faster lockages are About 350 miles of the improvement (five lock and also achieved because the new locks have floating dam projects) are contiguous to the southern mooring bits and can be filled and emptied quicker. boundary of Indiana and afford direct access for Reduced travel time results because of faster shipment and receipt of commodities over the far- lockages and fewer number of lockages required.
17 Annual costs for operation and maintenance are Principal operations of the survey boats, after the reduced because of fewer structures and the dredging season, include hydrographic surveys channel maintenance dredging required in the above and below each of the high-lift dam deeper navigation pools is significantly less. The structures to determine foundation conditions and wider, deeper, more stable pools allow greater bottom scour, pool-length hydrographic surveys maneuverability and more efficient operation of for revising pool reach maps, and limited surveys towboats, thereby also enhancing the efficiency for the purpose of revising navigation charts. of terminal operations. Total cost of the Ohio River navigation project to 1994 is $1 million for new construction, excluding $88 million for old Projects structures which have been replaced, and $764 million for operation, maintenance, and Markland Locks and Dam, rehabilitation. Louisville District The Ohio River navigation system has been a major factor in the industrial and urban The replacement plan for Ohio River Locks and development of many areas in Indiana. Dams No. 35 through 39 by the Markland Locks Continuing modernization of navigation structures and Dam was approved in March 1953 in to facilitate the ever-increasing freight movement accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of will enhance the future economic vitality of the March 1909. state. Markland Locks and Dam is on the Ohio River Ohio River Dredging near Markland, Indiana, and replaced five obsolete locks and dams. The dam provides a pool with a Maintenance minimum channel depth of 9 feet, extending about 95 miles upstream to the Captain Anthony Meldahl Maintenance dredging on the Ohio River Locks and Dam near Chilo, Ohio. The project navigation system is performed by contract provides a deeper and more stable pool in the dredge. An average of 1.5 million cubic yards of important metropolitan Cincinnati harborarea. material is removed annually, providing a Navigation through this busy reach of the river is minimum 9-foot channel depth for commercial now possible with only one lockage instead of the navigation. five formerly required. A substantial saving in transportation costs results, as well as a reduction The Corps of Engineers uses survey boats to in the cost of operating and maintaining the conduct channel condition surveys and navigation facilities. In FY95, 58.9 million tons of hydrographic surveys for a variety of purposes commerce transported through the locks. and official inspections of the Ohio River and improved navigable tributaries. Markland Dam is a non-navigable gated structure. There are two parallel lock chambers, one 110 by Each spring, toward the end of the annual 1,200 feet and the other 110 by 600 feet, located highwater season, a reconnaissance survey is on the Kentucky side of the river. The lift of the made, taking lines of soundings at all critical locks between the normal upper and lower pools is bars and lock approaches. Soundings, 35 feet. converted to depths at normal pool stage, foretell future trouble spots and establish priorities for Construction started at Markland in March 1956, the start of the channel maintenance dredging and traffic movement through the new locks began season. However, additional scouring and in May 1959. The upper pool was raised in stages deposition continue until the river approaches and reached the new normal level in 1963. The pool stage. For this reason and because of the dam was completed in June 1964. effects of wheel wash of the many high horsepower towboats, the bar conditions and The actual Federal cost of the Markland project dredging priorities are subject to change. As through 1995 is $63,019,000. In addition, $33,000 channel and river conditions change and the was contributed by the States of Indiana and the dredging work progresses, additional sounding Commonwealth of Kentucky for modification to the trips are made. dam to permit construction of a highway bridge.
18 Construction of the bridge began in 1976 and was Further improvements were made from 1911 to completed in August 1978. The Public Service 1930. The existing 110-foot by 600-foot lock was Company of Indiana, which received a license completed in 1921, and the old two-flight lock was from the Federal Power Commission (nor the modified in 1930, resulting in the existing single Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to build lift 56-foot by 360-foot lock. Between 1925 and a hydroelectric power plant at the site, contributed 1927, a movable weir dam with a navigable pass $162,000 for work done to facilitate construction was built in conjunction with a hydroelectric power of the plant. Construction of the 81,000 KVA project of the Louisville Gas and Electric power plant was completed in January 1967. Company. This dam raised the normal pool Construction of nine boat launching ramps and elevation from 412.0 to 420.0 and provided a two overlook areas along the 95-mile pool reach minimum channel depth of 9.0 feet from Louisville was completed in 1966. Four of the boat ramps to Markland, Indiana, eliminating the need for lie along the Indiana boundary. In FY95,296,500 construction of the proposed Dam No. 40 at visits and 752,100 visitor hours were recorded at Madison. the project facilities. In June 1958, a program of reconstruction and McAlpine Locks and Dam, modernization of Lock and Dam No. 41 began. On 24 May 1960 Locks and Dam 41 was renamed Louisville District McAlpine Locks and Dam in honor of W.H. McAlpine, District Engineer in 1917-1918. The Structural improvement on the Ohio River began new 1,200-foot lock was placed in operation in at the present site of the McAlpine Locks and November 1961, and the entire modernization Dam in 1825 where the falls in the river hindered work was completed in October 1965. A major navigation during low water. The Falls of the Ohio portion of the old dam was retained and modified at Louisville is the result of a rock reef which as fixed weir, and new fainter gate sections were extends across the river and formed rapids 3 added at the upper and lower ends of the dam. miles long. The river dropped 26 feet through the The two existing locks, one 56 by 360 feet and course of the rapids. Navigation was dangerous the other 110 by 600 feet, were retained and at high water stages, and impossible at low stage. renovated. The 56-foot by 360-foot auxiliary lock has been inoperative since the failure of the The first navigation improvement was a canal and downstream lock gates in December 1972. The lock built by a private stock company, with lift of the locks between normal upper and lower Federal government investment, which opened in pools is 37 feet. The Louisville and Portland December 1830. The canal was 1.9 miles long Canal, which is 2 miles long and forms the upper with a minimum depth of 3 feet. At the lower end approach to the locks, was widened to provide an was a three-flight lock, each chamber having a lift unrestricted approach, in FY95, 58.9 million tons of 8-2/3 feet, width of 50 feet, and available length of commerce moved through the project and there of 185 feet. By 1854, the United States had were 346,900 visits and 258,400 visitor hours acquired practically all stock in the company and recorded at the project. from 1868 to 1872 widened the canal and replaced the old lock with a larger two-flight lock. Construction of five boat ramps and public The Corps of Engineers assumed supervision of access facilities along the McAlpine pool was navigation in June 1874. In 1879, a timber dam started in August 1967 and has been completed. was built, increasing depth in the canal to about 6 The total Federal cost through 1 October 1995 of feet at low water but allowing navigation through the McAlpine project is $53,276,000. The Water an open pass when sufficient depth existed in the Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized Indiana Chute. In 1909, a movable weir dam was the removal of the existing 360-foot and 600-foot built, impounding a pool at elevation 412.0 and lock chambers. Replacement of these two older providing a minimum channel depth of 9.0 feet locks with a new 1,200-foot by 110-foot single lift from Louisville to Madison, Indiana, and a lock is scheduled for completion in the year 2001. minimum depth of 6.0 feet on the lower gate sill of The result of this modernization effort will provide Lock No. 1, Kentucky River. The project at two parallel 1,200-foot locks along with navigation Louisville was designated Lock and Dam No. 41 improvements at the upstream and downstream in 1914. approaches. This project is being jointly funded
19 by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the U.S. The locks at this project consist of two parallel Government. The current lock replacement effort is lock chambers on the Indiana side of the river anticipated to reduce bottlenecks in the channel, with the main chamber 110-feet by 1,200-feet, and improve lock-through safety, and handle anticipated the auxiliary chamber 110-feet by 600-feet in commercial barge traffic through 2050. Estimated usable dimensions. The larger lock new project cost is currently authorized at $255 accommodates in one lockage a large Ohio River million. tow, which under previous conditions required breaking at the old locks and reassembling after Falls of the Ohio National Wildlife locking through. The dam is a non-navigable gated structure. The total Federal project cost Conservation Area, Louisville through 1 October 1995 is $99,033,000. District Construction of the locks was started in June 1963 and completed in April 1967. Traffic movement through the new locks began in The Wildlife Conservation Area, authorized by Title December 1966. Construction of the dam started II of Public Law 97-137 (December 1981), is located in 1965 and was completed in 1974. In FY95, on the Ohio River at Louisville, Kentucky, adjacent 61.5 tons of traffic moved through the locks. to McAlpine Locks and Dam. Its purposes are protection of wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, conservation of fish The Cannelton dam creates a pool 114 miles long, populations, assurance of water quality within the stretching from Cannelton, Indiana, to Louisville, area, protection of a fossilized coral reef, and Kentucky. This uninterrupted stretch of water provision of opportunities for scientific, provides some of the most beautiful scenery along the Ohio River. Construction of seven boat environmental and recreational uses within the conservation area. The project involves ramps and public access facilities along the approximately 1,400 acres of land and water area Cannelton pool has been completed. An overlook and operational structures. The original master and picnicking facilities at the lock and dam on plan and real estate plan were completed in 1984. the Indiana side are also complete. In FY95, The actual Federal cost through 1 October 1995 is 74,500 visits and 99,200 visitor hours were $2,354,000. recorded at the project.
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has Newburgh Locks and Dam, leased 60.14 acres of the project to operate as the Louisville District Falls of the Ohio State Park. Facilities include an interpretive center, parking, overlook, hiking trails, Newburgh Locks and Dam was authorized as a and boat launching ramp. The interpretive center, replacement for Locks and Dams 46 and 47 in located in Clarksville, Indiana, was completed in April 1962 under authority of Section 6 of the 1993 and opened in early 1994. The launching Rivers and Harbors Act, March 1909. This project ramp is complete and in operation. is located on the Ohio River near Newburgh, Indiana, and provides a minimum channel depth Cannelton Locks and Dam, of 9 feet, extending from its site 55 miles Louisville District upstream to the Cannelton Locks and Dam. It allows navigation through this reach of the river with only one lockage in lieu of the two formerly Located on the Ohio River near Cannelton, Indiana, required, and has resulted in substantial savings this project replaced obsolete Locks and Dams No. in transportation costs as well as reduction in the 43,44, and 45, and provides a minimum channel cost of maintaining and operating the facilities. depth of 9 feet, extending 114 miles upstream to McAlpine Locks and Dam. Navigation through this reach of the river requires one lockage in lieu of the The locks at this project consist of two parallel three formerly required. The project was approved lock chambers on the Indiana side of the river in January 1960, under authority of Section 6 of the with the main chamber 110-feet by 1,200-feet, and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909. A substantial the auxiliary chamber 110-feet by 600-feet. The savings in transportation costs has resulted, and a larger lock accommodates, in one lockage, a reduction in the cost of maintaining and operating large Ohio River tow that is commonly used on the existing facilities has been realized. the river. In FY95, a total of 70.8 million tons of
20 commerce moved through the locks. The dam 1,200-feet, and the auxiliary chamber 110-feet by consists of a non-navigable gated section and a 600-feet. A total of 83.9 million tons of fixed weir section over which navigation can pass commerce moved through the locks in FY95. when the locks are closed during high water. The The dam consists of non-navigable gated section actual Federal cost through 1 October 1995 is and a fixed weir section over which navigation $104,497,000. Construction was initiated April can pass when the locks are closed because of 1965. The locks were completed in June 1969, high water. The actual project cost through 1 and construction of the dam was completed in October 1995 is $100,326,529. Construction 1977. In FY95, there were 429,700 visits and was started in 1965 and completed in 1975. In 595,200 visitor hours recorded at the project. FY95,187,800 visits and 249,500 visitor hours were recorded at the project facilities. Uniontown Locks and Dam, Louisville District Newburgh Bank Protection, Louisville District The Uniontown Locks and Dam was authorized as a replacement for Locks and Dams 48 and 49 The authorized (Flood Control Act of 1970, under authority of Section 6 of the Rivers and Public Law 91 -611) Newburgh Bank Protection Harbors Act, March 1909. The project is located project has been consolidated with the Newburgh on the Ohio River about 3 miles downstream from Locks and Dam project in accordance with the Uniontown, Kentucky, just upstream of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974. The confluence of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers. It problem area is located on the right bank of the provides a minimum channel depth of 9 feet, Ohio River at Newburgh in Warrick County about extending upstream 70 miles to the Newburgh 2 miles downstream from the dam. Public and Locks and Dam. It provides for navigation private property and facilities were threatened by through this reach of the river with only one bank caving and erosion along 1.1 miles of the lockage in lieu of the two formerly required, and river. Construction of bank revetment to provide has resulted in a substantial savings in a permanent solution to the problem was started transportation costs, as well as a reduction in the in July 1975 and completed in July 1976. The cost of maintaining and operating the existing cost of the work was $1,612,000, including facilities. $1,000 cost to local interests for relocation assistance. Lands and rights-of-way required for The locks at the project consist of two parallel construction were donated by the owners. lock chambers on the Indiana side of the river, Maintenance of the completed work is the with the main chamber measuring 110-feet by responsibility of the town of Newburgh.
Surveys
Name of Investigation Purpose Status Ohio River Main Stem The study will evaluate the entire Ohio River Feasibility study scheduled Systems Study Navigation System, from Pittsburgh to Cairo. for completion in 2000. (Louisville District) Components of the study include long-range Operations and Maintenance policies, the needs for lock or channel improvements, and environmental studies.
One promising improvement under consideration is the use of pre-fabricated, float-in lock walls to extend existing 600’ locks to 1200’ length. Timetables, locations, and cost-schedules for such improvements will be included in the final report.
21
Jeffersonville Waterfront, On The Ohio River Ohio River and Minor Tributaries
23 Ohio River and Minor Tributaries
Indiana
PROJECT LEGEND
1 - Lock and Dam Projects A Continuing Authority Projects
600 Cannelton Locks and Dam (Completed) 901 Corydon (Completed) 601 Markland Locks and Dam (Completed) 905 English (Completed) 602 McAlpine Locks and Dam (Completed) 909 Mt. Vernon (Completed) 603 Newburgh Locks and Dam (Completed) 911 Newburgh (Completed) 604 Uniontown Locks and Dam (Completed) 914 Rockport (Completed) 916 Troy (Completed) / V y Local Protection Projects 917 Evansville Ohio Street (Completed) 918 Madison (Completed) 801 Cannelton (Completed) 921 Rockport Landing (Completed) 802 Clarksville (Completed) 922 S.R. 6 6 , Cannelton (Completed) 806 Jeffersonville (Completed) 923 Sellersburg (Completed) 807 Lawrenceburg (Completed) 924 Vanderburgh County (Completed) 812 New Albany (Completed) 932 Lancassange Creek (Completed) 815 Tell City (Completed) 935 Madison, City Gagage (Completed) 819 Evansville (Completed) 936 Madison, City Park (Completed)
24 The project comprises a system of earth levee and Ohio River and Minor concrete wall, with pumping facilities to dispose of sewage and drainage from the protected area Tributaries during floods. It also includes an extensive system of relief wells and collector drains which Introduction relieve the pressure of underground seepage water in the protected area during floods and collect and carry the excess seepage to the pumps for This portion of the Ohio River Basin includes the disposal. The project contains ramps and area along the main stem of the River, and all openings to permit traffic movement during right bank tributaries within the limits of Indiana. nonflood periods; openings are closed by The topography of the southern boundary of movable gate structures during floods. The Indiana, lying adjacent to the Ohio River, ranges protected area contains about 460 acres, and the from gently undulating land forms with little relief project was completed in 1944. in the west, through areas of rugged, angular terrain characterized by narrow flat divides Local interests fulfilled the requirements of local bordered by steep valley slopes in the central cooperation and have maintained and operated area, to nearly level, rolling lowland physiography, the project since its completion. Operation of the giving way to a dissected upland on a glacial drift protection works during the 1945 and 1948 floods to the east. The major urban areas are indicated the necessity for modifying and Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Evansville. The augmenting the relief well and collector drain water resource development system in this area system. This work was completed by the United consists of seven local protection projects,«and States in June 1952. Cost of the completed fifteen continuing authorities projects. Flows of project, including the additional relief well and the Ohio River, along its 350-mile traverse of the collector drain work, was $2,758,000, of which southern Indiana boundary, are substantially $285,000 was the share of local interests. modulated by controls afforded by the upstream system of reservoirs. These controls reduce The project affords protection to the City of flood flows and augment natural flows during Lawrenceburg against a flood equal in magnitude periods of drought. to that of January 1937, the maximum flood of record. Projects for storage of flood flows Projects constructed on Ohio River tributaries above Lawrenceburg, enhance the protection provided by the local project. It is estimated that flood Lawrenceburg Local Protection damages amounting to $109.4 million have been Project, Louisville District prevented (through FY95) by the Lawrenceburg project since its completion in 1944.
The project is located at Lawrenceburg on the right bank of the Ohio River in Dearborn County. Jeffersonville—Clarksville More than 50 years before a Federal project was Local Protection Project, authorized, local interests initiated a long range program of construction, maintenance, and Louisville District operation of protective works for the city. When these works were found to be inadequate during The project is located on the right bank of the the 1913 flood, local interests extended their Ohio River at the contiguous Cities of efforts to provide protection against recurrence of Jeffersonville and Clarksville, in Clark County. It a flood of that magnitude. In this latter effort, comprises a system of earth levee and concrete they were aided by Federal work relief agencies wall with pumping facilities to dispose of sewage during the depression years. and drainage from the protected area during floods. The protection works contain ramps and Following the 1937 flood, which overtopped the openings to permit flow of traffic during nonflood existing levees by about 8 feet, the Federal periods; openings are closed by movable gate project for local protection at Lawrenceburg fell structures during floods. The protected area under the general authorization for the Ohio River contains about 4,190 acres, and the project was Basin contained in the Flood Control Act of 1938. completed in May 1949 at a total cost of
25 $4,817,000, of which $4,226,000 was Federal cost. Local interests have maintained and operated the The remaining $591,000 was cost to local interests completed works since July 1954. who had met the requirements of local cooperation prescribed by existing laws, and who have The Federal cost of the completed work was maintained and operated the completed project. $5,375,000. Total cost of the project was $6,115,000, of which $740,000 was contributed by The project affords protection to the Cities of local interests. In addition, local interests Jeffersonville and Clarksville, the community of contributed $32,000 for modification of sewers in Claysburg and contiguous suburban and agricultural connection with floodwall construction, and $92,000 areas against a flood equal in magnitude to that of was paid by the Southern Railway Company for January 1937, the maximum flood of record. A provision of additional embankment along the system of projects for storage of flood flows on downstream portion of the levee for track Ohio River tributaries upstream from Jeffersonville relocation. This work was beyond the scope of the serves to reduce floods of even greater magnitude, authorized Federal project. thereby enhancing the protection provided by the local project. Completed portions of the protection The project protects the City of New Albany against work, combined with emergency measures, a flood equal in magnitude to that of January- provided partial protection for the Jeffersonville— February 1937, the maximum flood of record. Clarksville area during floods occurring prior to Completed projects for storage of flood flows on completion of the project in 1949. It is estimated Ohio River tributaries above New Albany enhance that flood deftnages amounting to about $32 million the protection. It is estimated that flood damages have been prevented by the project through FY95. amounting to $6.1 million have been prevented by the project through FY95. A project to repair a drainage pipe in the Jeffersonville-Clarksville Local Flood Protection Cannelton Local Protection Project was initiated in FY95. Repair to the pipe was authorized by Congressional Add in the 1995 Project, Louisville District Water Resources and Development Appropriations Act. The project is located on the Ohio River at Cannelton in Perry County, and consists of a The repair site is located on the protective works system of earth levee and concrete wall with and consists of the excavation of the levee pumping facilities to dispose of sewage and embankment, removal of the two 60-inch concrete drainage from the protected area during floods. drainage pipes and flapgate, removal of the inlet The protection works contain ramps and openings and outlet headwalls, placement of a new 84-inch to permit traffic movement during nonflood periods; concrete drainage pipe with a new flapgate, the openings are closed by movable gate construction of new inlet and outlet headwalls, and structures during floods. The protected area replacement and compaction of the levee contains about 400 acres, and the project was embankment. Estimated cost of this project is completed in January 1952. Total Federal cost approximately $750,000. Construction was initiated was about $2,067,000, plus $29,000 cost to local in FY95. Construction completion and turnover of interests. It was transferred to local interests for the repair project is scheduled for FY96, maintenance and operation in 1950, at which time it was sufficiently complete for use. New Albany Local Protection The project affords protection to the City of Project, Louisville District Cannelton against a flood equal in magnitude to that of January 1937, the maximum flood of record. The project is located on the right bank of the Ohio Projects for storage of flood flows on the Ohio River at New Albany in Floyd County. It comprises River tributaries above Cannelton enhance the a system of 2.8 miles of earth levee, 0.7 mile of protection provided by the local project. Although concrete walls, and six pumping plants to dispose the project was not fully completed until January of drainage from the protected area during floods. 1952, the partially completed project, supplemented Ramps and openings, which are closed by movable by emergency measures, afforded significant gate structures during floods, are provided to protection to Cannelton during the January 1950 maintain the flow of traffic during nonflood periods. flood. It is estimated that flood damages The area protected contains about 1,500 acres. amounting to about $3.2 million have been
26 prevented through FY95 by the protective works. construction of a combination highway and During the 1962 flood, a seepage problem floodwall for Pigeon Creek Unit 1, Dress Plaza developed under a section of the works, and area. This construction was completed in 1964. remedial work was completed. Construction of the remainder of Pigeon Creek Unit 1 floodwall by the Corps of Engineers was Tell City Local Protection Project, completed in October 1965. Construction of Sycamore Street and Ohio Street pumping Louisville District stations with related sewer alterations, which was started in October 1965, is complete. The project is located on the right bank of the Ohio Construction of Pigeon Creek Section Unit 2 Part 1 River at Tell City in Perry County. It comprises a (from Seventh Avenue and Pennsylvania Street to system of earth levee and a concrete wall with high ground at Cedar Street) was completed in pumping facilities to dispose of sewage and 1982. The levee/wall portion of Unit 2 Part 2 (from drainage from the protected area during floods. high ground at Keller Street to just east of Ramps and openings have been provided in the Stringtown Road) was completed in 1986. The protection works to permit traffic movement during three pumping stations were completed in 1992. normal nonflood periods. The openings are closed The levee portion of Unit 2 Part 3 (from just east of by movable gate structures during floods. The Stringtown Road to U.S. Highway 41) was protected area contains about 200 acres, and the completed in 1989 with the pumping plant project was completed in 1943. Local interests completed in 1991. The remaining portion of the have maintained and operated the project since local protection project, Unit 2 Part 4, (from U.S. completion. The total cost of the project was Highway 41 to Diamond Avenue) was completed in $965,000, of which $33,000 was the estimated May 1994. Howell Section Unit 2 was share of local interests. deauthorized by Congress under authority of Public Law 99-662, effective 19 July 1992. The project protects Tell City against a flood equal in magnitude to that of January-February 1937, The estimated cost, through 1 October 1995, of the maximum flood of record. Completed projects the Evansville project is $50,154,000, of which for storage of flood flows on Ohio River tributaries $44,654,000 will be Federal share and above Tell City enhance the protection provided $5,500,000 the estimated local share. by the local project. It is estimated that the project Maintenance and operation of the entire project is has prevented flood damages at Tell City in the the responsibility of local interests. The project amount of about $11.1 million since completion. affords protection to vulnerable sections of the City of Evansville, containing an area of about 6,470 acres against a flood equal in magnitude to Evansville Local Protection that of January and February 1937. Reservoirs on Project, Louisville District Ohio River tributaries above the project area will enhance the protection. Completed portions of the The project is located on the right bank of the Ohio project have prevented flood damages amounting River and both banks of Pigeon Creek in to about $22.0 million through FY95. Vanderburgh County. It includes a system of earth levee, concrete wall, pumping facilities, and ContinuingAuthorities provision for passing traffic during nonflood periods. For construction purposes, the project was divided into three sections, identified as the Emergency Bank Protection Knight Township Section, the Pigeon Creek Section (Unit 1 and 2), and the Howell Section Projects (Unit 1 and 2). The Knight Township Section and Unit 1 of the Howell Section have been completed Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 since 1948, and the responsibility for maintenance provides authority for construction of emergency and operation of these completed portions of the bank protection works to prevent flood damage to project has been assumed by local interests. highways, bridge approaches, and public works. Local interests are responsible for cost sharing in In June 1962, the State of Indiana, City of the project construction cost and for operation and Evansville, and the Corps of Engineers agreed on maintenance of the completed project.
27 Madison, Louisville District for repair of a segment of a city street which lies between a rock bluff and the river. After receipt of assurances of local cooperation on This streambank protection project was the project, the work was completed in constructed in December 1980 to protect two September 1960 at a Federal cost of $24,600. municipally owned water wells from erosion caused by the Ohio River. The project is located at River Mile 557.0 (right bank) and consists of quarry stone Newburgh, Louisville District placed over granular fill for a distance of 600 feet. The total Federal cost of the project was $73,000. Located on the right bank of the Ohio River at The completed project was transferred to the City Newburgh in Warrick County, the project of Madison. repaired a segment of caving riverbank which endangered Water Street near State Street. Subsequent to receipt of local cooperation, the Madison City Garage, remedial work was completed in July 1957 at a Louisville District Federal cost of $18,200. Additional work in May 1970 was limited to locations where inspection Located on the left bank of Crooked Creek at the indicated the bank condition was most critical. Madison City Garage property in Jefferson County, This work cost $49,000. In 1972, a 250-linear the project repaired a segment of the streambank foot section of caving bank near the intersection which endangered two small public building. The of Monroe and Water Streets was reshaped and project was completed in October 1993 at a total riprapped at a cost of $33,500. Federal construction cost of $6,000. Evansville, Ohio Street, Madison, City Park, Louisville District Louisville District This streambank protection project was Located on the left bank of Crooked Creek at John constructed in March 1981 to protect the Ohio Paul Park in Madison, Jefferson County, the Street Bridge over Pigeon Creek, and a section project repaired a segment of the stream bank of the street from erosion caused by the Ohio which endangered John Paul Park. The project River. The project is located at River Mile was completed in October 1993 at a total Federal 792.9 (right bank) and consists of quarry stone construction cost of $17,000. Additional work to placed over granular fill for a distance of 500 extend the project about 75 feet upstream at a total feet. Federal cost of the project was $140,000, Federal construction cost of $8,000 is pending. and the completed project was transferred to the City of Evansville. Troy, Louisville District Mount Vernon Water Works, This project protects the municipal water supply Louisville District wells at Troy, located on the right bank of the Ohio River in Perry County. A reconnaissance study Located on the right bank of the Ohio River at under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Mount Vernon in Posey County, the project Control Act was completed in 1975. The protection comprised revetment of the riverbank to protect work consists of crushed rock placed over the the local water works building. The work was riverbank in the area of the pumping station. This completed in 1952 at a total Federal cost of protects the wells and precludes any need to $6,800. relocate them further back on the bank. The work was completed in 1978 at a total Federal cost of The Mount Vernon Water Works protection was $63,600. subsequently removed by expansion of the water works site. The new site, nearby railroad Rockport, Louisville District embankment, and loading facilities are protected by a Corps of Engineers streambank Located on the right bank of the Ohio River at erosion control demonstration project. Rockport, in Spencer County, the project provides
28 Rockport Landing, Small Flood Control Projects Louisville District Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to This streambank protection project was develop and construct small flood control projects constructed in January 1984 to protect a portion of limitations prescribed by law, provided each project a public street from erosion caused by the Ohio is complete within itself and economically justified. River. The project is located at River Mile 747.2 Local interests are responsible for cost sharing in (right bank) and consists of quarry stone placed the construction feasibility study and for operation over granular fill for a distance of 240 feet. The and maintenance of the completed project. total cost of the project was $62,200, of which the Federal portion was $52,200. The completed project was transferred to the City of Rockport. Lancassange Creek, Clark County, Cannelton, State Road 66, Louisville District Louisville District This project provides flood damage reductions to This streambank protection project was Clark County, Indiana from flood stages along constructed in December 1983 to protect State Lancassange Creek. The project consists of 1.73 Highway 66 from erosion caused by the Ohio miles of channel improvement and 1.56 miles of River. The project is located at River Mile 719.0 channel clearing of debris and fallen trees on (right bank) and consists of quarry stone placed Lancassange Creek. The total estimated Federal over granular fill for a distance of 2,500 feet. The cost is $920,000. Construction, initiated in mid total cost of the project was $169,000, of which 1994, will be complete in the spring of 1996. the Federal portion was $112,000 The completed Construction is 99% complete and final inspection project was transferred to the Indiana State has been made. Highway Commission. Corydon, Louisville District Sellersburg, Louisville District The project is located in Harrison County and consists of channel improvement extending above This streambank protection project in Clark Corydon on Indian and Little Indian Creeks and County was constructed in January 1984 to below their junction some 2.5 miles. The work protect a water supply well from erosion caused provides for enlargement of about 3.3 miles of by the Ohio River. The project is located at River Indian Creek channel and about 1.1 mile of Little Mile 599.3 (right bank) and consists of quarry Indian Creek channel in areas at and in the vicinity stone placed over granular fill for a distance of 250 of Corydon. Replacement of a temporary bridge feet. The total cost of the project was $50,600, of over Indian Creek with a permanent structure and which the Federal portion was $30,700. The modifications of utilities, railroad bridges, and fords completed project was transferred to the Town of were also required. The work was begun in August Sellersburg. 1962 and completed in October 1963. The Federal cost was $300,000. Vanderburgh County, Louisville District English, Louisville District
This streambank protection project was A project for flood relief for the Town of English and constructed in January 1984 to protect Old Crawford County agricultural land in the vicinity was Henderson Road from erosion caused by the Ohio constructed between October 1963 and November River. The project is located at River Mile 799.5 1964. The Federal work consisted of improvement (right bank) and consists of quarry stone placed of 3.4 miles of the Little Blue River channel at and over granular fill for a distance of 360 feet. The downstream from English. The rights-of-way and total cost of the project was $57,400, of which the alterations to bridges and utilities were the Federal portion was $55,600. The completed responsibility of the Town of English. The Federal project was transferred to Vanderburgh County. cost of the work was $372,000.
29 Surveys
Name of Investigation Purpose Status
Pigeon Creek Watershed in Review of prior reports to The study is awaiting funding vicinity of Evansville, Indiana determine the advisability of (Louisville District) providing improvements for flood control and allied purposes in the Pigeon Watershed
Ohio River, Greenway Corridor, FY 93 Congressional add to study A conceptual Master Plan was Indiana (Louisville District) a Greenway Corridor parallel and completed in June 1994 and adjacent to the Ohio River on the includes vehicular and pedestrian shoreline of Jeffersonville, roadways and trails, scenic Clarksville, and New Albany, overlooks, passive recreation Indiana. areas, and other facilities which would promote access to the Ohio River Shoreline. A Phase II (A) HTRW investigation and schematic design for portions of the corridor were completed in 1995. FY96 funds are being used for design development and to prepare construction documents for two sites along the corridor.
Ohio River, Indiana Shoreline To investigate the condition of six Reconnaissance report completed Flood Protection Works Study existing Ohio River flood April 1995. Project authorized by protection projects built by the Energy and Water Development Corps of Engineers from 1943 to Appropriations Bill 1996. 1954, and operated and maintained by the cities of Evansville, Tell City, Cannelton, New Albany, Lawrenceburg and Jeffersonville-Clarksville, Indiana. The study will evaluate remedial measures to assure the continued functioning of these projects.
30 BrookvNieLake Whitewater River Basin
31 Whitewater River Basin
ndi ana
SCALE IN MILES PROJECT LEGEND 10 0 10 20 Multiple-Purpose Projects
700 Brookville Lake (Completed)
A Continuing Authority Projects
925 Levee Road (Completed) 931 Hagerstown (Completed)
32 seasonal pool for recreation and flow regulation. Whitewater River The State of Indiana contracted for the inclusion of storage for water supply as a purpose of the Basin project. The actual cost of Brookville Lake through 1 October 1995 is $45,403,000, of which Introduction $7,497,000 is the non-Federal contribution for water supply storage. The Whitewater River, a tributary of the Miami Brookville Lake is operated for flood control in the River, drains 1,493 square miles in southeastern Whitewater Valley and also contributes to the Indiana and southwestern Ohio, with the majority reduction of flood flows in the Ohio River. In in Indiana. It is formed by the confluence of the addition, the lake was developed for general and East and West Forks of the Whitewater River, at fish and wildlife recreational use and for municipal Brookville, Indiana. The East Fork drains 340 and industrial water supply. Advanced square miles and the West Fork drains 840 square engineering and design for the project began in miles in Indiana. Topography in the basin ranges 1963. Construction was started in November 1965 from gently rolling to hilly, and the land use is and completed in January 1974. Completed predominantly rural. recreation facilities include boat launching ramps, camping, picnic units, a swimming beach, a The major water project in the basin is the change house, a tailwater fishing area, and multipurpose Brookville Lake on the East Fork of associated roads and parking areas. These Whitewater River in Franklin and Union Counties. facilities were completed for use during the It controls runoff from a drainage area of 379 summer of 1975. In FY95, there were 1,284,200 square miles, reduces flood stages at agricultural visits and 5,683,100 visitor hours recorded at the lands below the dam, at the Towns of Brookville, project. Flood damages prevented since project Cedar Grove, and West Harrison, and contributes completion are estimated to be $4.8 million to a reduction of flood damages along the Ohio through FY95. River. There are two continuing authority projects in the basin authorized under Section 205. ContinuingAuthorities
Projects Emergency Bank Protection Projects Brookville Lake, Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 Louisville District provides authority for construction of emergency bank protection works to prevent flood damage to Brookville Lake was authorized under the general highways, bridge approaches, and public works. authorization for the Ohio River Basin contained in Local interests are responsible for cost sharing in the Flood Control Act approved 28 June 1938 the project construction cost and for operation and (Public Law 761,75th Congress, 3rd Session). maintenance of the completed project. This lake is located in Franklin and Union Counties on the East Fork of the Whitewater Whitewater River, Levee Road, River. The dam is about 0.5 miles above Brookville and controls the runoff from a drainage Louisville District area of 379 square miles. The dam is an earth and rock fill structure, 181 feet in height and This streambank protection project was 2,900 feet long, with gate controlled outlet works constructed in November 1984 to protect a county and an uncontrolled open cut spillway around the road from erosion caused by the West Fork right abutment. At full flood-control pool level, Whitewater River. The project is located at River elevation 775, the lake has a surface area of Mile 32.9 (right bank) and consists of quarry stone 7,790 acres and a flood control storage capacity placed over granular fill for a distance of 850 feet. of 214,700 acre-feet. In addition to storage for The total Federal cost of the project was flood control, allocations of storage are made for $103,000. The completed project was transferred siltation reserve and conservation and for a higher to Franklin County.
33 Small Flood Control Projects Hagerstown, Louisville District
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as This project affords flood damage reductions to the amended, provides authority for the Chief of City of Hagerstown from flood stages along the Engineers to develop and construct small flood Whitewater River. The project is composed of 0.3 control projects, within cost limitations prescribed mile of channel diversion, 1.0 mile of channel by law, provided each project is complete itself improvement, 0.9 mile of clearing and snagging, and economically justified. Local interests are and construction of 530 linear feet of earth levee. responsible for cost sharing in the construction The total project cost was estimated at $567,000, cost and feasibility study costs and for operation of which $525,000 was the Federal cost. The and maintenance of the completed project. project was completed in 1994.
Studies
Name of Investigation Purpose Status
Whitewater River and Tributaries, Review of Prior reports to This study has been placed in Indiana and Ohio determine whether an inactive category. (Louisville District) improvements for flood control and allied purposes are advisable.
34 m sm t: W H Indianapolis on the White Rive, W a b a s h R Í V C f B a S Ì l I
35 Wabash River Basin
KENTUCKY
UPPER WABASH RIVER BASIN
LOWER WABASH RIVER BASIN
WHITE RIVER SUB-BASIN
EAST FORK WHITE RIVER SUB-BASIN
PATOKA RIVER SUB-BASIN
36 lying flat lands along the main stem of the Wabash Wabash River Basin River in the southwest. Major floods generally occur in the winter and spring, sometimes causing devastating economic losses and human Introduction suffering. Some of the Wabash Basin above the mouth of the Patoka River consists of broad flat The Wabash River has played an important role in lowlands; consequently, annual flooding is a the history of the nation. It was used extensively perennial problem. The major tributaries of the as a trade route by native Americans; by the Wabash River are the Salamonie, Mississinewa, French and English explorers and traders; by the Eel, Tippecanoe, White, and Patoka Rivers. early settlers of the area; and today, it still is a vital resource. The headwaters of the Wabash Traditionally, the economy of Indiana has been River begin in Mercer County, Ohio, and the river oriented around agriculture because of the rich flows 475 miles to its confluence with the Ohio soils, abundant water, and favorable climate; but River. The Wabash is the second largest tributary there is considerable industrialization in the major of the Ohio River with a total drainage area of urban centers of Indianapolis, Muncie, Anderson, 33,100 square miles, of which 24,218 are in and Terre Haute. Indiana—about two-thirds of the entire state. Hence, the water resource development in the For the purpose of this publication, the Wabash basin is as important to the heart of the state as is River Basin has been divided into two parts, the that of the Ohio River to the southern area. The Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The Lower topography of the basin is extremely diverse with Basin has been further divided into three a relief of flat to generally rolling character in the subbasins, the White River, the East Fork of north, hilly to rugged terrain in the south, and low White River, and the Patoka River.
SURVEYS
Name of Investigation Purpose Status Wabash River Basin To determine the advisability of The reconnaissance report was Comprehensive-Middle Reaches providing flood protection for about completed in March 1991 and Interim Study 10,000 acres of agricultural land in recommended further study for an southern Vigo County, Indiana and to agricultural levee and determine the advisability of environmental restoration in the implementing an environmental Greenfield Bayou area of southern restoration project for the area. Vigo Vigo County. The cost-shared County and Indiana Department of feasibility study was initiated in April Natural Resources are partners with 1993. The study was suspended in the Corps on this feasibility study January 1995, due to the sponsors effort. evaluating their support for the study.
Wabash River Basin To provide detailed mapping, surveys The study was initiated in FY 1990 Comprehensive Study, and design work to assist the state with emphasis on mapping and Wabash Scenic Corridor and area planning agencies in plans for a scenic corridor in the developing a scenic corridor along Lafayette area. The study area has the Wabash River in Tippecanoe and been expanded to include West Fountain Counties, Indiana. Lafayette and the river corridor through Fountain County.
Flood control feasibility study Indianapolis, Marion County Study was initiated in March 1993 investigating flood problems and North, Indiana with a scheduled completion in solutions along the White River in May 1996. The city is currently northern Indianapolis. Solutions being considering alternative plans considered include rehabilitating and/ particularly in the area of Rocky or improving existing levees as well as Ripple. new levees in Rock Ripple and Warfleigh areas. The study is being cost shared by the City of Indianapolis.
37 SURVEYS (Continued)
Name of Investigation Purpose Status
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Reconnaissance study completed The concept master plan was White River, Indiana. in October 1994 investigated completed in February 1994. traditional flood control Ten nodes, or areas of interest, improvements along the White were identified. Detailed design River in central improvements of Capitol City Landing node will along the White River in central be completed in 2nd quarter of Indianapolis, while also FY96, for the upper canal developing a conceptual master extension in 3rd quarter of FY96, plan for waterfront improvements and the edge improvements for in central Indianapolis. With the the White River urban reach in exception of additional studies 2nd quarter of FY97. recommended for lower Pogues Run the flood control findings were negative.
A cost-shared feasibility study was Wabash River, New Harmony, To investigate the feasibility and initiated in May 1995, and is Indiana Streambank Erosion the extent of Federal interest in scheduled for completion in Study. providing a solution to the streambank erosion problem August 1996. The Indiana occurring along the Wabash River Department of Natural Resources at New Harmony, Indiana. is the sponsor for the study.
Upper Tippecanoe River Basin To determine whether flood Reconnaissance study was control measures in Koscuisko, completed in June 1995. The Whitely and Noble counties are report recommended further study advisable at this time. Flooding under Section 205; however, no occurs along the Upper non-Federal sponsor has been Tippecanoe River, tributary identified. streams and to properties located adjacent to several lakes in the area.
38 Huntington Lake Upper Wabash River Basin
39 Upper Wabash River Basin
Continuing Authority Projects
Merom (Completed) Portland (Completed) Salamonie River Logjams (Completed) Wabash River Logjams (Completed) Hartford City, Licking Creek (Completed) Salamonie River, Jay & Blackford Counties (Completed) Local Protection Project Wabash River, Tippecanoe Creek (Completed) /fT 8 2 0 \ Nameless Creek, Warren County (Completed) 800 Brevoort (Completed) South Fork Wildcat Creek, Tippecanoe V \ 803 Delphi (Completed) County (Completed) 804 Gill Township (Completed) Terre Haute, Wabash River (Completed) 821 ( 810 Lyford (Completed) Vigo County, Co. Rd. 83W, Wabash River \A 9 0 8 X 814 Niblack (Completed) (Completed) 816 Terre Haute (Conover v ii04 ( Vigo County, Little Rd., Wabash River Levee) (Completed) (Completed) 817 Vincennes (Partially Completed) £ 8 1 4 / 818 West Terre Haute (Completed) 820 Greenfield Bayou (Authorized-Inactive) 821 Island levee (Authorized-Inactive)
SCALE IN MILES
40 by 35-foot high tainter gates. The outlet works Upper Wabash River consists of six 6-by 6-foot vertical lift sluice gates and one 30-inch low flow bypass valve Basin discharging to a 155-by 154-foot stilling basin.
During most of the year a small pool, covering Introduction 500 acres, is maintained. However, at the end of each flood season, the pool level is raised to The Upper Wabash River Basin includes the cover 900 acres, thereby providing a seasonal drainage area of the river from its headwaters to recreation pool. During the flood season, 149,000 above the mouth of the White River, and is located acre-feet of storage is available for temporary in the north central portion of the state. The major retention of flood flows. At full flood control pool, tributaries of the Wabash River in the upper portion the lake has an area of 7,900 acres. The City of are the Eel, Mississinewa, Salamonie, and Markle, Indiana, is provided with local protection Tippecanoe Rivers, and Raccoon Creek in mid against encroachment by the flood water storage. basin. The general topography is gently rolling with The project consists of a diversion channel, shallow relief and many natural lakes in the north, levee, drainage facilities, and a pumping plant. to low-lying plains in the south where floods are common. Grain farming is an important sector of The lake operates for three purposes: as a unit the total economy because of the fertile plains with the Mississinewa and Salamonie Lakes to within the basin. The major urban centers in the reduce flood states in the Upper Wabash River basin are Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo, and Basin, and with other lakes downstream in Marion. reduction of Lower Wabash and Ohio River floods; to supplement low flows during dry The water resources development system in this seasons; and to provide recreational area consists of six lakes, two of which are opportunities. Recreation facilities are located at authorized, but inactive, ten local protection the Kilsoquah camping area, the Little Turtle projects, and eleven continuing authority projects. State Recreation area, the Arrowhead fishing Thousands of acres of bottom land are protected area, and three boat launching ramps. The against flooding along the Wabash River. recreation facilities are maintained and operated by the State of Indiana, Department of Natural Resources, under a lease agreement with the Projects Corps of Engineers. In FY95, Huntington Lake had 415,000 visits and 1,910,700 visitor hours. Huntington Lake, The project was authorized by the Flood Control Louisville District Act of 1958. Construction began in June 1963 and was completed in October 1968. The actual Huntington Dam is located in the headwaters of the project cost through 1 October 1995 is Wabash River in Huntington County about 2 miles $19,622,000, of which $349,000 is non-Federal south of the Town of Huntington. It is share contributed by the State of Indiana. It is approximately 60 air miles northeast of estimated that the project has prevented flood Indianapolis. The dam is on the Wabash River, damages amounting to $78.8 million through 411.4 miles above the mouth. The lake controls FY95. runoff from a drainage area of 707 square miles and extends into Wells County. Salamonie Lake,
The Huntington Lake dam consists of a Louisville District combination 4,800-foot long earth filled embankment with a height of 104 feet, and a 532- Salamonie Lake is located in Wabash County, foot long concrete gravity outlet section (including a about 10 miles east of Wabash, 15 miles north of 155-foot wide grated spillway) in the center of the Marion, and approximately 50 air miles northeast dam. The dam embankment consists of of Indianapolis. The dam is at mile 3.1 on the compacted impervious and random earth fill. The Salamonie River, a tributary of the Wabash River. concrete overflow spillway has three 45-foot wide The lake, which controls runoff from a drainage
41 area of 553 square miles, extends into Huntington Department of Natural Resources, under a lease County. The dam is 133 feet high, 6,100 feet long arrangement with the Corps of Engineers. In and constructed with impervious and random earth addition, the Salamonie River State Forest, the fill. The spillway is an uncontrolled earth channel Dora Covered Bridge, and the Hanging Rock are 575 feet wide and approximately 3,600 feet places of interest located near the dam. In FY95, upstream through the right abutment. Salamonie Lake recorded 573,700 visits and 6,456,700 visitor hours. The gate controlled outlet works provide a flexible regulation of flows into a 16-foot diameter circular Mississinewa Lake, concrete conduit which augments the spillway in passing the maximum probable flow. Operational Louisville District flexibility is achieved using three service gates and two bypass valves provided in the outlet Mississinewa Lake is located in north central works. The bypass valves are used to pass small Indiana in Miami County about 7 miles southeast flows when maintaining pool elevations. The of Peru, about 19 miles northwest of Marion, and service gates are used to regulate releases of approximately 65 air miles north and east of stored floodwater and to pass releases that are Indianapolis. The dam is at mile 7.1 on the greater than the capacity of the bypasses. Mississinewa River, a tributary of the Wabash River. The lake, which controls runoff from a The lake is operated for three purposes: as a unit drainage area of 809 square miles, lies in Wabash, with Huntington and Mississinewa Lakes to reduce Miami, and Grant Counties. The dam is 140 feet flood stages in the Upper Wabash River Basin, high, 8,000 feet long, and is constructed of earth with other lakes downstream in reduction of Lower fill. Wabash and Ohio River floods; to increase low streamflows on the Salamonie River; and to The spillway is an uncontrolled earth channel increase recreational opportunities. 1,550 feet wide and approximately 7,500 feet long through the right abutment. The gate controlled For seasonal flow regulation a storage capacity of outlet works provide a flexible regulation of flows 47,600 acre-feet provided between elevations 730 Into a 16-foot diameter circular concrete conduit and 755. At elevation 755, the lake has an area of which augments the spillway in passing the 2,665 acres. A storage capacity of 250,500 acre- maximum probable flow. Operational flexibility is feet between elevations 730 and 793 is available achieved using three service gates and two for temporary retention of flood flows. At full flood bypass valves provided in the outlet works. The control pool, the lake has a surface area of 9,340 bypass valves are used to pass small flows when acres with a total storage capacity of 263,600 maintaining pool elevations. The service gates acre-feet. are used to regulate releases of stored floodwater and to pass releases that are greater than the The project was authorized by the Flood Control capacity of the bypasses. Act of July 1958. Construction began in December 1961 and the project was completed in The lake is operated for three purposes: as a unit September 1966. The actual project total cost with Huntington and Salamonie Lakes to reduce through 1 October 1995 is $17,039,000, of which flood stages in the Upper Wabash River Basin and $479,000 is the non-Federal share contributed by with other lakes downstream in reduction of Lower the State of Indiana. It is estimated that the Wabash and Ohio River floods; to increase low project has prevented flood damages in the streamflows on the Mississinewa River; and to amount of $120.6 million through FY95. provide recreation opportunities. In FY95, Mississinewa Lake recorded 635,500 visits and Project lands and waters have been leased to the 5,490,300 visitor hours. State of Indiana for operation and administration. Recreation facilities at six sites include picnic For seasonal flow regulation, a storage capacity of tables, shelter houses, parking areas, water 51,900 acre-feet is provided between elevations fountains, nature trail, boat ramps, restrooms, 712 and 737. At elevation 737, the lake has an beach, marina, boat rentals, and modern, primitive area of 3,180 acres. The lake is maintained at and group camping areas. The facilities are elevation 737 except when drawdown is necessary maintained and operated by the State of Indiana, to meet downstream flow requirements. A storage
42 capacity of 345,100 acre-feet between elevations were started in 1966 and were nearing completion 712 and 779 is available for temporary retention of in 1976 when the Governor of Indiana withdrew flood flows during the winter. At full flood control state support of the project. All work on the pool, the lake has a surface area of 12,830 acres project was stopped at that time. Federal costs with a total storage capacity of 368,400 acre-feet. through 1979 were$1,201,000 foradvanced engineering and design. The project was placed in The project was authorized by the Flood Control the inactive category in January 1977. Act of July 1958. Construction began in April 1962 and was completed in October 1967. The actual Big Pine Lake (Authorized), project cost through 1 October 1995 is $24,380,000 of which $414,000 is non-Federal Louisville District share contributed by the State of Indiana. It is estimated that the project has prevented flood The lake would be located in Warren County on damages along the Wabash and Ohio Rivers Big Pine Creek, a tributary of Wabash River, with downstream from the dam in the amount of about the dam located 2.7 miles upstream from the $166.5 million through FY95. junction of the two streams. It would control runoff from a 326-square-mile drainage area above the Lafayette Lake (Authorized), dam. The dam would consist of a concrete section 670 feet long with rolled earth fill sections Louisville District of 30-foot top width on each abutment. The dam would have a maximum height of 154 feet and a The lake would be located in Tippecanoe, Clinton, total length of 6,500 feet at top elevation 462 feet and Carroll Counties on Wildcat Creek, a tributary mean sea level. The concrete gravity spillway of Wabash River, with the dam located 7.2 miles with a crest elevation of 629 feet mean sea level above the mouth of the stream. It would control would be equipped with three tainter gates 40 feet runoff from a 791 square mile drainage area above wide by 40 feet high with a crest at elevation 636, the dam. The dam would be an earth embankment top of flood control pool. Non-overflow concrete having a length of 3,540 feet, a maximum height of sections flank the spillway and tie into the earth fill 130 feet, and top elevation of 645 feet above mean of each abutment. Four sluices through the sea level. The spillway would be an uncontrolled spillway section, 4 feet by 7 feet with a slide gate open channel with a 530-foot bottom width through near the upstream end of each would provide the right abutment. The outlet works would consist means for regulation of normal outflows from the of a control tower with two gates discharging into lake. To enhance fishing, two small multiple flow an oblong concrete conduit along the right outlets with reoxygenating facilities would be abutment leading to the stilling basin. Two small provided downstream of the dam. multiple stage outlets with facilities for reoxygenation would be provided for low flow The lake would serve the purposes of flood control. An earth levee about 2,000 feet long with control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife pumping and drainage facilities would provide flood recreation. A seasonal pool covering 1,422 acres protection to the low portion of the cemetery at would be maintained at elevation 570. The lake Dayton by the lake storage. would have a storage capacity of 29,000 acre-feet and would form a pool about 8 miles long. Above The lake would serve the purposes of flood control, the minimum pool (elevation 543), a storage general recreation, and fish and wildlife recreation. capacity of 199,400 acre-feet would be reserved A permanent pool covering 3,220 acres would be for the temporary storage of flood flows. At full maintained at elevation 600. It would have a pool, elevation 629, the lake would have an area of storage capacity of 64,520 acre-feet and form a 4,070 acres. The October 1976 estimated cost of pool 11 miles long. Above this permanent pool, a the project is $51,200,000 which includes a non- storage capacity of 267,360 acre-feet would be Federal contribution of $4,999,000. Funds reserved for the temporary storage of flood flows. appropriated foradvanced engineering and design At full pool, elevation 645, the lake would have an total $1,270,600 through 1979. Advanced area of 9,580 acres. The October 1976 estimated engineering and design studies indicated total cost of the project is $118,533,000, which questionable feasibility of the project and all work includes a non-Federal contribution of $13,565,000. has been stopped. The project was placed in the Detailed advanced engineering and design studies inactive category in April 1977.
43 Cecil M. Harden $61.8 million through FY95. Originally named Mansfield Lake, the project was renamed by the (Mansfield) Lake, U.S. Congress in 1974 in recognition of Mrs. Louisville District Cecil Murray Harden for her role in obtaining funds for the project. Mrs. Harden was This lake is in Parke and Putnam Counties on recognized as one of the most active members Raccoon Creek, a tributary of the Wabash River. of the community, serving in positions on the The dam is near Ferndale, some 33 miles above local, state, and national levels. Mrs. Harden the mouth of the creek. The project controls served five terms in the U.S. Congress beginning runoff from a drainage area of 216 square miles in 1949. by means of an earth dam 1,960 feet long and 119 feet in maximum height and a 1600 foot Delphi Local Protection Project, long, 18 foot high earth dike. An uncontrolled Louisville District spillway through the left abutment prevents overtopping the dam structure. The minimum The project is located on the Wabash River at pool in the lake is not constant, as it is Delphi in Carroll County. It comprises a system established at elevation 640 during flood season of earth levees and drainage structures. The and at elevation 661 during the dry season. project includes four separated short lengths of Thus, the lake storage capacity varies between earth levee having an aggregate length of about 33,100 acre-feet for temporary storage of flood flows during the summer season to 116,600 0.6 mile, manholes and gates for two highway drainage structures, and the provision of acre-feet during the season when floods are additional drainage facilities. The protected area most likely to occur. Near the close of the flood season, the pool is raised to elevation 661 which contains about 310 acres. provides a surface area of 2,060 acres. Water stored in this pool is available for release during The project was completed in January 1952 at a the dry summer months to augment low flows in cost of $163,000 of which $145,000 was provided the Wabash River. This lake project was by the Federal Government. It was transferred to selected for construction under the general local interests for maintenance and operation in authorization for the Ohio River Basin contained 1951, at which time the project could be operated in an act of Congress (Public Law No. 761,75th effectively for flood control. It was approved Congress, 3rd Session) approved in 1938 under the authorization for the Ohio River Basin (generally referred to as the Flood Control Act of contained in the Flood Control Act of 1946. 1938). The project affords protection for Delphi against a Construction was started in October 1956 and flood equal in magnitude to that of March 1913, the project has been in operation for flood control the maximum flood of record in that area. To since August 1960. Actual cost of the project is some extent, operation of upstream storage $6,988,000, of which $354,000 was the non- projects enhances protection. It is estimated Federal cost. The lake is being operated for that the project has prevented flood damages flood control and seasonal flow regulation in the amounting to $418,000 through FY95. Raccoon Creek and Wabash River Valleys and as a unit of the coordinated lake system for flood Lyford Levee protection in the Ohio River Basin. To the extent Local Protection Project, consistent with primary purposes of the project, the lake area is being developed for the Louisville District beneficial use of agricultural lands, forests, and fish and wildlife resources and for recreational The Lyford Levee project is located on the left activities. The State of Indiana has undertaken bank of the Wabash River in Parke County. the development and management of recreation Local interests constructed the original levee in facilities under a lease granted by the Secretary 1889 to afford protection to the area. The levee of the Army. In FY95, Cecil M. Harden Lake was overtopped and breached in the 1913 and recorded 1,135,800 visits and 7,511,700 visitor 1922 floods, and was repaired and restored after hours. Flood damages prevented since the lake each flood. Successive failures, repairs, or has been in operation are estimated to be about restorations occurred again in 1930 and 1933.
44 The Flood Control Act of June 1936 authorized Completed in October 1964, the modified project a Federal project for the Lyford area. However, protects 110 acres of land against a Wabash before the work could be accomplished, the River flood having an expected frequency of once original levee was breached again during the in 100 years. It is estimated that the project has flood of 1939. Construction of the Federal prevented flood damages at Terre Haute in the project was initiated following that flood. The amount of about $115,000 since completion. project comprised complete reconstruction of the original levee to a higher grade and with a West Terre Haute heavier levee section, with outlets to dispose of drainage from the protected area, and with Local Protection Project, ramps over the levee to permit traffic flow during Louisville District non-flood periods. The project was essentially completed in 1941. The flood of May 1943 The project was contained in the general again overtopped the levee causing failures, and authorization for the Ohio River Basin contained in was restored by the United States. the Flood Control Act of June 1938. It is located on the right bank of the Wabash River in Vigo The total cost of the completed Federal project, County, and affords protection to the City of West including the cost of repairs following the 1943 Terre Haute against a flood that may be expected flood, was $291,000, of which $267,000 was to occur on an average of once in 100 years. It Federal cost. Local interests have maintained consists of about 2.8 miles of protection works, and operated the project since November 1943. primarily earth levee, with traffic ramps, highway and railroad closures, and internal drainage The Lyford Levee project affords protection to disposal facilities. about 3,500 acres of agricultural land against a flood equal in magnitude to one which can be The total project cost was $1,245,000, of which expected to occur on an average of seven times $1,096,000 was cost to the United States. Local during a 100-year period. It is estimated that assurances were received, all rights-of-way were the project has prevented flood damages in the acquired, and construction started in 1970. amount of about $8.4 million through FY95. Construction was completed in January 1972. It Operation of the completed Cecil M. Harden is estimated that the project has prevented flood Lake as well as other upstream lakes in the damages totaling $7.4 million since completion. Wabash River Basin above the project enhances the protection afforded by the Lyford Greenfield Bayou Levee project. (Authorized), Louisville District Terre Haute (Conover Levee) The project was authorized by the Flood control Local Protection Project, Act of July 1946. Improvement and extension of Louisville District an existing levee and provision of internal drainage and traffic facilities constitute the The Terre Haute project was authorized by the authorized project which would be located on the Flood Control Act of 1936 and originally left bank of the Wabash River in southern Vigo consisted of raising and enlarging Conover County, downstream from Terre Haute. It would Levee, which protected about 130 acres of afford protection to an agricultural area on about partially developed land at the northern edge of 11,400 acres against a flood which would be the city. The cost of this project was estimated expected to occur on an average of seven times in 1954 to be $199,000. Before the work was in 100 years. The total project cost is estimated undertaken, U.S. Highway 41 was relocated on (October 1978) to be $5,687,000. It is estimated a high fill slightly landward of the levee. Since the total cost would be $4.6 million to the United the roadway was higher than the grade proposed States and $1,087,000 to local interests. Detailed for the levee, the highway fill was used as a advanced engineering and design studies are levee. At a Federal cost of $14,900 a concrete complete. Due to the failure of local interests to headwall and floodgates were added to the 36- provide updated assurances, the project was inch culvert under the highway. placed in the inactive category in June 1979.
45 Island Levee (Authorized), 1941. Protection afforded by this project is Louisville District enhanced somewhat by operation of the Cecil M. Harden Lake as well as the other upstream lakes in the Wabash River Basin. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 1946. It would protect about 5,300 The Federal project provided enlargement of the acres of agricultural land in Sullivan County, levee in section and height, increased pumping across the Wabash River from York and facilities, and appurtenant works. However, the Hutsonville, Illinois. The area is between the left flood of May 1943 damaged the levee, although no bank of the Wabash River and the right bank of failure occurred, and indicated the need for Truman Creek, a tributary. The project would additional drainage measures. Repairs of the include enlargement, realignment, reconstruction damaged areas and additional drainage facilities and extension of the existing levee system, and were completed following the 1943 flood. The necessary traffic ramps and interior drainage Federal project was completed in June 1946 at a outlets. Protection would be provided against a total cost of $581,200, of which $561,200 was Wabash River flood which can be expected to cost to the United States and $20,000 to others. occur on an average of seven times in a 100-year Local interests have met the requirements period. The cost of this project was estimated in prescribed by law, including maintenance and October 1978 to be $5,158,000, of which the operation of the project since its completion. Federal share would be $4,630,000 and $528,000 would be the cost to local interests. Advanced engineering and design studies indicated the Mason J. Niblack Levee, project was not economically feasible. The project Louisville District was placed in the inactive category in July 1979. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Gill Township Levee Act of July 1946. The Niblack Levee project is Local Protection Project, located on the left bank of the Wabash River in Knox and Sullivan Counties in southwestern Louisville District Indiana. The original levee was erected in 1909 and improved in 1930 by local interests. The The Gill Township project is located on the left levee was damaged by floods occurring in 1942 bank of the Wabash River in Sullivan County. It and 1944 and was subsequently repaired by the comprises a system of earth levees with pumps to Federal Government in 1943 and 1944. Damages dispose of drainage from the protected area during caused by floods of 1949 and 1950 were repaired flood periods. The protective works contain ramps by the Federal Government in 1950 and 1951, and one opening to permit passage of traffic during respectively. non-flood periods. The opening is closed by a movable gate structure. Construction of 18 miles of earth levee consisting of 5.8 miles of new levee, 1.3 miles of levee Prior to authorization of a Federal project for this enlargement, 7.2 miles of levee setback, 3.7 miles area by the Flood Control Act of June 1936, local of levee enlargement, 7.2 miles of levee setback, interests had developed the basic levee system 3.7 miles of levee turn-over, and appurtenant and drainage disposal facilities. This was found to drainage structures, was started in March 1962. be inadequate to withstand the 1913 flood which This work was completed in April 1965 and overtopped the levee. Local interests restored the transferred to local interests for operation and project following that flood. At the time the maintenance. Construction of pumping facilities Federal project was authorized, local interests had authorized by Section 211 of the 1968 Flood expended $172,600 on the protection works. Control Act was started in 1975 and completed in 1976. The Federal cost of the project was The Gill Township project affords protection to an $4,338,000 and the cost to local interests was agricultural area of about 12,000 acres and the $109,000. small community of Riverton; however, it does not afford protection from a flood of 1913 magnitude. The Niblack Levee project affords protection to It is estimated that the project has prevented flood approximately 15,900 acres of agricultural land damages amounting to about $49.3 million since against a flood equal in magnitude to one which
46 can be expected to occur on an average of seven constructed a levee system with drainage times in 100 years with 1 foot of freeboard. It is facilities. However, the protective works were estimated that the project has prevented flood inadequate to provide the degree of protection damages amounting to about $28.7 million through desired. The Federal project comprises FY95. construction or reconstruction of 8.2 miles of levee, enlargement of 28.9 miles of existing levee, Vincennes modification and enlargement of interior drainage facilities, and construction of other necessary Local Protection Project, appurtenances, including alteration of a railroad Louisville District bridge affected by the project. Ramps and openings which are closed by sandbag barriers The project is located on the left bank of the during floods permit normal flow of traffic during Wabash River at Vincennes in Knox County. Be non-flood periods. tween 1929 and 1940 local interests, with Federal Emergency Relief Administration assistance, pro The project was completed for beneficial use in vided a protective system to alleviate the city’s 1947 and has been maintained and operated by flood problem. However, this system did not af local interests since 1949. A portion of the levee ford the degree of protection desired. failed during the flood of May 1943 and the protected area was partially inundated. The levee The Federal project, authorized by the Flood was restored by the United States. The project has not been fully completed; certain features to Control Act of July 1946, comprises a system of the levee section along the Wabash River have levees and concrete walls, including new been deferred until the need is demonstrated, and construction and enlargement of some existing alteration of the railroad bridge has not been works, alteration of three railroad bridges, and scheduled. The estimated cost (October 1978) of necessary facilities. Ramps and openings are the authorized project is $3,785,000, of which provided in the works to permit unobstructed traffic $3.51 million is Federal and $275,000 local. movement during non-flood periods. Construction Federal costs to date total $1.24 million. of the Federal project (Section A and part of Section B) was completed in June 1962. Work on the remaining sections of levee had been placed in The Brevoort project affords protection to about an inactive category and was deauthorized by PL 50,000 acres of agricultural land and the 99-662 in November 1986. The estimated total Communities of Cathlinette, Zigville, St. Thomas, cost (October 1978) of the entire authorized project and Brevoort against a flood equal in magnitude to is $7,034,000, of which $285,000 is the estimated one which could be expected to occur on the share of local interests. The degree of protection average of about seven times in 100 years. The at the present time is limited to that provided by degree of protection afforded by the project is the adjoining Brevoort Levee. Flood damages enhanced by operation of flood control lakes in the prevented by the partially completed project Wabash River Basin upstream from the project approximate $262.1 million through FY95. area. It is estimated that from 1943 to 1995 the project has prevented flood damages amounting to Brevoort Levee about $147.1 million. Local Protection Project, ContinuingAuthorities Louisville District
The Brevoort Levee project is located in Knox Snagging and Clearing Projects County, between the Wabash and White Rivers at their confluence. The project includes a system of Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945 and earth levees extending from Vincennes Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 downstream along the east bank of the Wabash provide authority for the Chief of Engineers to and upstream along the west bank of the White snag and clear streams in the interest of River. Pumping facilities are provided to dispose navigation and flood control. Local interests are of drainage from the protected area. Prior to responsible for cost sharing in the construction authorization of the Federal project by the Flood costs and for operation and maintenance of the Control Act of June 1936, local interests had completed project.
47 Wabash River Logjam Hartford City, (Adams County), Louisville District Louisville District This project concerns problems on Big and Little The project includes removal of approximately 20 Lick Creeks in Blackford County, where flood logjams of various sizes along an 8-mile reach of damages affect urban and agriculture areas. The the Wabash River in Adams County. It also study area extends from the mouth of Big Lick includes channel enlargement to remove small Creek to the Jefferson Street Bridge in Hartford trees and sediment in a 300-foot long section. City. The plan recommended in the detailed The project serves to reduce flooding on 3,600 project report consists of partially clearing the acres, reduce flood damage to crops, roads, and creek channel and removing a collapsed bridge property, eliminate health hazards associated with and significant logjams. The total project cost flooded sanitary facilities, and improve access to was estimated to be $202,000, of which $182,000 the Wabash River. An investigation of the was the Federal cost. Flood damages would be logjams and channel congestion affecting reduced by 41 percent over the life of the project streamflow of the Wabash River between New under the recommended plan. Blackford County Corydon and Geneva was completed in 1976. is the local sponsor. The project was completed Construction was completed in May 1981 at a in 1988. total Federal cost of $161,000. Emergency Bank Protection Salamonie Logjams, Projects Louisville District Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 The project is located at the 600 West Road provides authority for construction of emergency bridge over the Salamonie River in Wells County. bank protection works to prevent flood damage to Two separate logjams caused flooding of roads highways, bridge approaches, and public works. and farmland and threatened to wash out the Local interests are responsible for cost sharing in highway bridge. The logjam near the bridge was the construction costs and for operation and removed in December 1973; the other in 1975. maintenance of the completed project. Total cost of the project was $31,200 in Federal funds. Merom Caving Bank, Louisville District Salamonie River
(Jay and Blackford Counties), The problem was a caving and sliding area on the Louisville District left bank of the Wabash River at Merom in Sullivan County. A landslide had cut off roadway The Salamonie River causes flooding to access to the water well serving the town. The agricultural areas of Blackford and Jay Counties. project consisted of riprap protection along about The study area extends from the mouth of Stoney 300 feet of Wabash River bank. It was completed Creek in Blackford County to the mouth of Two in 1976 at a total cost of $28,500. Mile Creek in Jay County, total distance of 4.5 miles. The project constructed consists of Terre Haute, Wabash River, removing sandbars, logjams, and other debris. Louisville District The total project cost is $297,000, of which $216,000 is the Federal cost. Construction was completed in June 1990. The local sponsors are This streambank protection project was Blackford and Jay Counties. constructed in September 1993 to protect Terre Haute’s sanitary sewer outfall from erosion
48 caused by the Wabash River. The project is Nameless Creek, located at River Mile 209.5 (left bank) and consists of 205 pound maximum size stone over a Warren County, minimum thickness of 6 inches of bedding placed Louisville District on the bank for a distance of 150 feet. The total Federal cost of this project was $119,000. This streambank protection project is located in Warren County, Indiana approximately 5 miles Vigo County, County Road 83W, north of Carbondale. This project consists of placing 500 linear feet of stone bank protection Louisville District along the right bank of Nameless Creek at two locations to protect County Road 850 North. The project consists of placement of quarry run Site 1 is 0.3 mile west and site 2 is 0.9 mile stone along a 450-foot reach of the left bank along west of U.S. Flighway 41. The total Federal the Wabash River in south-central Vigo County. cost of the project was $71,600. The project The project was completed in July 1990 at a cost was completed in August 1993. of $127,278 of which $103,000 was the Federal share. The project was turned over to the Vigo Small Flood Control Projects County Commissioners for operation and maintenance. Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to Vigo County, Little Road, develop and construct small flood control Louisville District projects within cost limitations prescribed by law, provided each project is complete within The project consists of placement of protective itself and economically justified. stone along a 410-foot reach of the left bank of the Wabash River in south-central Vigo County. The Portland, project was completed in July 1990 at a cost of Louisville District $110,000 of which $89,300 was the Federal share. The project was turned over to the Vigo County The project is located in the headwaters of the Commissioners for operation and maintenance. Salamonie River in Jay County and comprises channel improvement along 4.35 miles of the South Fork Wildcat Creek, River at and downstream from Portland. The Tippecanoe County, work, consisting of channel enlargement and necessary modifications of existing utilities and Louisville District bridges, was completed in August 1961. The Federal cost of the completed work was This streambank erosion project was constructed $238,000. Local interests have accepted the in 1991 to protect County Road 7E located about 5 specified requirements of operation and miles east of Dayton. The project consists of maintenance. placing about 2000 cubic yards of riprap for a distance of 310 feet. The total cost was $64,500 of which $46,800 was Federal cost. The completed project was transferred to Tippecanoe County.
49 cagies Min Lake Lower Wabash River Basin
51 Lower Wabash River Basin
PROJECT LEGEND
Multiple-Purpose Projects
701 Cagles Mill Lake (Completed) 705 Monroe Lake (Completed) 707 Patoka Lake (Completed) 710 Big Walnut Lake (Authorized-Inactive)
Local Protection Projects
805 Indianapolis (Completed) 808 Levee Unit 5 (Completed) 809 Levee Unit 8 (Completed) 811 Muncie (Completed) 813 New Harmony Bridge (Completed)
▲ Continuing Authority Projects
900 Brazil (Completed) 903 Ed ward sport (Completed) 904 Eel River (Completed) 906 Grassy Creek (Completed) 907 Jasper (Completed) 910 Mascatatuck (Completed) 912 Petersburg (Completed) 920 Brownstown (Completed) 926 Pike County (Completed) J 927 Winslow (Completed) / g( 34-937 Morgan Co. (Completed)
SCALt IN MUES 0 20 40
52 three local protection projects, and eight Lower Wabash River continuing authority projects. Cagles Mill Lake affords protection to communities and rural Basin areas along the Eel, White, and Wabash Rivers. The level of protection would be increased with Introduction construction of the authorized Big Walnut Lake.
The Lower Wabash River Basin includes the Projects drainage areas of two major tributaries, the White and Patoka Rivers, and is located in the south central portion of the state. There is a variety of Cagles Mill Lake, form and diversity of relief within the basin. The Louisville District White River and East Fork of the White River originate in flat upland plain areas, then flow Authorization for Cagles Mill project was generally southwest, traversing the unglaciated contained in the Flood Control Act of 1938. It is portion of south central Indiana through deeply located on Mill Creek in Putnam and Owen entrenched stream valleys, and then enters the Counties, and controls runoff from a 295 square broad, gently rolling lowlands near the junction mile drainage area. Mill Creek is a tributary of with the Wabash River. The Patoka River flows the Eel River in the White River Basin. The dam through a rugged terrain with short, irregular and is located about 2.8 miles above the mouth of broken slopes to generally rolling land with fairly the creek and 7 miles west of Cloverdale, long even slopes. The lower portion of the basin, Indiana. It is an earth and rock fill structure, 900 where the White and Patoka Rivers flow into the feet long and 150 feet high, with an uncontrolled Wabash River is typified by low flat bottom land spillway channel through the left abutment. The with annual flooding problems. For convenience project provides a permanent conservation pool in describing the projects located in this area, the with an area of 1,400 acres at elevation 636 feet Lower Wabash River Basin is further divided into above mean sea level. Above this pool to the three sections: the White River, East Fork White spillway crest elevation of 704 feet, a capacity River, and Patoka River. of 201,000 acre-feet is provided to store flood runoff. The area of the flood storage at spillway crest is about 4,840 acres. The project has White River Subbasin been in operation for flood control purposes since June 1953. The actual project cost of Cagles Mill Lake through 1 October 1995 is Introduction $4,370,000 which includes $113,000 non-Federal funds for construction of recreation facilities. This subbasin includes the drainage area of the White River, excluding that of the East Fork Cagles Mill Lake is operated to alleviate flood White River. The White River Subbasin is the damages in the Eel, White, and Wabash Rivers most populous of all the Wabash River valleys below the dam. It is also operated as an Subbasins, due to urban centers at Indianapolis, integral unit in the coordinated system of lakes Anderson, and Muncie . The total drainage area in the Ohio River Basin for flood reductions on is 6,503 square miles, and the major tributaries the Ohio River. The estimated flood damages are Eel River and Fall Creek. The topography of prevented since completion of the lake is $96.2 the area varies from broad, flat uplands, and high million, through FY95. hills with uneven ridges, and in the upstream part of the basin, canyon-like gorges, to flat-bottom The State of Indiana has undertaken the valleys in the central section, and to wide development and management of recreation meandering flood plain bottom lands in the lower facilities for use by the public in the lake area in section. Major contributors to the regional accordance with license granted by the economy are agriculture and industry. Secretary of the Army. In FY95, Cagles Mill Lake recorded 412,800 visits and 3,689,780 The water resources development system in this visitor hours. area consists of two multipurpose reservoirs,
53 Big Walnut Lake (Authorized) the devastating 1913 flood at Muncie, local interests undertook a protection project which Louisville District would confine the 1913 flood flow in an improved floodway channel between walls and levees. A Big Walnut Lake, authorized by the Flood Control major portion of the local project was completed Act of August 1968, would be located in Putnam prior to initiation of the Federal project, authorized County on Big Walnut Creek, a tributary of the Eel by the Flood Control Act of June 1936. The River, 22.4 miles above the mouth of Big Walnut Federal project consisted of construction of 3.6 Creek, northeast of Greencastle. The dam would miles of earth levee, 0.9 mile of earth levee control runoff from 210 square miles and the lake enlargement, 0.7 mile of concrete wall, 3.8 miles would be 12.5 miles long. The dam would be 112 of channel improvement, pumping facilities to feet high and 17,000 feet long. The spillway would dispose of sewage and drainage from the be a concrete gravity overflow section through the protected area during floods, and other dam. Operational flexibility would be achieved by appurtenances. The project also includes the using two service gates, 3.5 feet wide by 8 feet repair and rehabilitation of 0.22 mile of existing high, in the outlet works to augment the spillway in concrete wall. The protection work contains ramps passing the maximum probable flow. Two and openings to permit normal traffic movement multistage outlets with facilities for reoxygenation during non-flood periods. The openings are closed would be provided for low flow control. by movable gate structures during floods. The protected area contains about 580 acres. Channel The lake would operate primarily to reduce Eel improvement, levee, and wall construction were . River and White River flood stages and completed in 1942, but construction of pumping secondarily with other lakes in reduction of lower facilities and other work were deferred until after Wabash River floods. It would be multipurpose in World War II, and completed in 1950. use serving as a flood control recreation, water quality control, and water supply lake. Total The cost of the authorized project was $908,000 of storage capacity is 218,000 acre-feet. Flood which $888,000 was Federal cost. Requirements control capacity is 112,000 acre-feet with an area of local cooperation, including maintenance and of 6,300 acres. Conservation pool capacity is operation have be fulfilled by local authorities 105,000 acre-feet. since May 1950.
The cost of the project is estimated (October The Federal project affords protection to the City 1979) at $81.8 million Federal and $45,069,000 of Muncie against a flood equal in magnitude to non-Federal, for a total of $126,869,000. A special that of March 1913. Although pumping facilities study of alternatives to the authorized site and of were not available during the 1943 flood in the impacts on natural values in the upper regions of Wabash River Basin, the completed channel the lake was completed in February 1972. It improvement, levees, and walls afforded partial recommended an alternate site just upstream from protection for the city during that flood. It is Greencastle. Advanced engineering and design estimated that the project has prevented flood Phase I studies for the alternate site were damages at Muncie in the amount of about $9.6 completed in 1976. The project was placed in the million during the period 1943 through FY95. inactive category in May 1980 due to withdrawal of local support. Average annual benefits of the Big Indianapolis Walnut Lake project were estimated at $11,239,000 (October 1979) from flood control, Local Protection Project, general recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, Louisville District and water supply. The project is located on the White River and its Muncie tributary, Fall Creek, at Indianapolis in Marion County. Subsequent to the 1913 flood in the Local Protection Project, Wabash River Basin, local interests developed a Louisville District comprehensive plan of improvement to protect the City of Indianapolis against a flood similar in The project is located on both banks of the White magnitude. Implementation of the plan began in River at Muncie in Delaware County. Following 1915 by the city of Indianapolis and later by the
54 Works Progress Administration, and all work flood equal in magnitude to one which can be accomplished since has been in general expected to occur on an average of about seven accordance with the adopted plan, which included times in 100 years. During the period 1943 to channel improvement, reconstruction or alteration 1995, it is estimated that the project has of existing bridges, and construction of levees, prevented flood damages amounting to about walls and appurtenant works. Local interests had $25.4 million. Protection afforded by this project accomplished a considerable portion of the plan is enhanced to some extent by operation of by the time the Federal project was authorized. Cagles Mill Lake in the White River Basin The Flood Control Act of June 1936 authorized upstream from the project. Federal participation in accomplishing two integral parts of the city’s comprehensive plan, identified The total cost of the project was $816,000, of as the Fall Creek and Warfleigh Sections. which $701,000 was assumed by the United States, while $115,000 is the estimated local The Federal project included channel cost. Local interests have maintained and improvement with attendant earth levees and operated the project since January 1947. concrete walls and reconstruction or alteration of bridges as required for the improved channel. The portion of Fall Creek Section extending from ContinuingAuthorities Washington Street upstream to 10th Street has been completed. The Board of Flood Control Commissioners for the city of Indianapolis, which Snagging and Clearing Projects represents local interests, assumed responsibility for maintenance and operation of the completed Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945 portion of the Fall Creek Section. The estimated and Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 total cost of the Federal project is $13.63 million, provide authority for the Chief of Engineers to of which $11.6 million is Federal and $2,030,000 snag and clear streams in the interest of is non-Federal cost. The Federal cost of the navigation and flood control. Local interests are completed work was about $1.94 million. A responsible for cost sharing in the construction project of comprehensive scope affording a high costs and feasibility study costs and for operation degree of protection will be provided when the and maintenance of the completed project. city’s entire plan is completed. Further progress toward this end has been made by the city, which Eel River, Clay County, undertook much additional flood control Louisville District construction, using where available, planning work previously accomplished by the Corps of The project consists of removal of drift and snags Engineers. Unaccomplished portions of the in the Eel River at mile 14, southwest of Clay Federal project are in an inactive status. It is City. The work was designed to alleviate a estimated that the completed work has prevented recurring condition of driftwood accumulation at flood damages amounting to $13.1 million during the head of a small island. The project was the period of 1943 through 1995. completed in 1964 at a Federal cost of $3,000 and transferred to the Clay County Board of Levee Unit 8, White River, Commissioners. Local Protection Project, Louisville District Edwardsport, Louisville District This project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 1936, and is located on the left bank The project consists of construction of a pilot of White River in Daviess County, near Plainville. channel through a narrow neck in the West Fork The upper end of the project is located opposite White River so that diversion of the stream the lower end of the McGinnis Levee, which had isolates caving banks at Levee Unit 8 from previously been constructed by local interests on erosive current. After receipt of required the right bank of the river. Levee Unit 8 affords assurances of local cooperation in the project, the protection to an agricultural area of about 13,400 work was completed in June 1950 at a total acres and part of the Town of Plainville against a Federal cost of $10,300.
55 Emergency Bank Protection Morgan County, Henderson-Ford Projects Road, White River, Louisville District Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 provides authority for construction of This streambank protection project, located on the emergency bank protection works to prevent White River, was constructed in 1995 to protect flood damage to highways, bridge approaches, Henderson-Ford Road. The project consisted of and public works. Local interests are placing stone on the riverbank for a distance of 500 responsible for cost sharing in the construction feet. The total cost of the project was $84,000 of costs and for operation and maintenance of the which the non-Federal share was $121,000. The completed project. completed project was transferred to Morgan County. Brazil Water Supply Facilities, Louisville District Morgan County, Bottom Road, White River, This project is located on the Eel River in Putnam County. It consists of channel Louisville District realignment and bank stabilization measures to protect the City of Brazil water supply facilities This project was constructed in 1995 to protect from damage by caving banks. The project Bottom Road from streambank erosion. The project was constructed in 1962 at a Federal cost of consisted of placing stone on the riverbank for a $41,000. distance of 800 feet. The total cost of the project was $166,000 of which the non-Federal share was Morgan County, Blue Bluff $42,000. The completed project was transferred to Morgan County. Road, White River, Louisville District Petersburg, Louisville District This streambank protection project was constructed in 1991 to protect Blue Bluff Road This project is located on the left bank of the White located about four miles north of Martinsville. River downstream from State Route 61 bridge near The project consisted of placing about 5000 Petersburg. The project consisted of removal of cubic yards of riprap for a distance of 630 feet. car bodies and assorted junk, minimum shaping to The total cost of the project was $179,000 of the top of bank, and placement of riprap along 250 which the Federal share was $137,000. The linear feet of caving bank. It protects a county road completed project was transferred to Morgan and farmland lying lower than the bank. County. Construction was accomplished in September 1973 at a cost of $34,000, and the project was Morgan County, Blue Bluff transferred to the Pike County Commissioners. Road, White River, Louisville District East Fork White River
This streambank protection project was Subbasin constructed in 1995 to protect a portion of Blue Bluff Road located north of Martinsville. The project consisted of placing stone on the Introduction riverbank at a distance of 818 feet. The total cost of the project was $250,000 of which the This subbasin includes the drainage area of the non-Federal share was $62,000. The East Fork White River. The river is deeply completed project was transferred to Morgan entrenched amid rolling hills, and provides scenic County. beauty as it winds through the rugged Southern Indiana Knobs. Continuing westward, the river emerges from a deeply dissected plateau area, and
56 flows through the undulating Wabash lowlands to Federal contribution in-kind for recreational its juncture with White River near Petersburg. The facilities. (By agreement with the Federal basin area is drained by Driftwood and Flatrock government, the State of Indiana paid 54.1 percent Rivers, the two principal headwater tributaries of of the project cost.) Most of the project’s land and East Fork White River. Other major tributaries, water area has been leased to the State of Indiana Muscatatuck and Lost Rivers and Clifty and Salt for operation and administration of the recreational Creeks, also comprise the 5,746 square miles of opportunities. Some of the land has been drainage area. The main urban areas of the basin transferred to the U.S. Forest Service for use in are Bloomington and Columbus. connection with the Hoosier National Forest. In FY95, Monroe Lake recorded 1,434,546 visits and The water resources development in this area 15,814,151 visitor hours at the project. consists of one lake and four continuing authority projects, which have helped to satisfy regional Monroe Lake, though operated primarily for flood needs for flood control, water supply, water control and augmentation of low flows in the lower quality, and recreation. White and Wabash River Basins, also contributes to reduction of flood flows on the Ohio River. It is estimated that the project has prevented damages Projects amounting to $35.2 million through FY95.
Monroe Lake, Louisville District ContinuingAuthorities
Monroe Lake was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 1958, which modified the Small Flood Control Projects comprehensive plan for flood control in the Ohio River Basin contained in the Flood Control Act of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as June 1938. It is located in Monroe County, about amended, provides authority for the Chief of 3 miles east of Harrodsburg and 26 miles above Engineers to develop and construct small flood the mouth of Salt Creek, a tributary of the White control projects, within cost limitations prescribed River. The lake, which controls runoff from a by law, provided each project is complete within drainage area of 441 square miles, extends into itself and economically justified. Brown and Jackson Counties. The dam is 93 feet high and 1,350 feet long, and has an impervious Grassy Creek, earth core and rock shell. Louisville District Gate controlled outlet works regulate the lake and an uncontrolled open spillway through the left The project is located in Jackson County, Indiana, abutment prevents the dam from being and comprises channel improvement of the overtopped. The lake operates for the purposes of Muscatatuck River in the White River Basin. The recreation, flood control, water supply, and work, consisting of clearing, cleaning, and augmentation of low stream flows on the White straightening the channel over a length of 24,150 River. Capacity of the lake below elevation 515 is feet, with a resultant reduction of about 0.6 mile in reserved for siltation. A storage capacity of length of the creek channel, was completed in 159,900 acre-feet is provided between elevations February 1952. The Federal Cost of the 515 and 538 for low flow augmentation. At 538, completed work was $70,300. Local interests the lake has an area of 10,750 acres. A storage have accepted the specified requirements of local capacity of 258,800 acre-feet between elevations cooperation, including operation and maintenance. 538 and 556 is available for temporary retention of flood flows. At full flood control pool the lake has Emergency Bank Protection a surface area of 18,450 acres and a total storage Project capacity of 441,000 acre-feet.
Construction began in November 1960 and the Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 project was placed in operation in February 1965. provides authority for construction of emergency Actual project costs through 1 October 1996 is bank protection works to prevent flood damage to $16,571,000 which includes $8,668,000 in non- highways, bridge approaches, and public works.
57 completed in 1968 at a Federal cost of $29,900. Local interests are responsible for cost sharing The project was transferred to the Jennings in the construction costs and for the operation County and Scott County Boards of and maintenance of the completed project. Commissioners in January 1969. Brownstown, White River, Louisville District Patoka River Subbasin This streambank protection project was constructed in April 1982 to protect a county road from erosion caused by the East Fork Introduction White River. The project is located at Shields, Indiana (right bank) and consists of quarry The Patoka River Subbasin lies in the stone placed over granular fill for a distance of southernmost portion of the Wabash River Basin, 735 feet. The total cost of the project was and includes the drainage area of the Patoka $142,000, of which the Federal portion was River, and the left bank portion of the Wabash $140,000. The completed project was River to below New Harmony. The Patoka River transferred to Jackson County. flows almost due west throughout its course across southern Indiana. The topography of the Pike County, White River, watershed varies from rugged terrain with short, Louisville District irregular and broken slopes nearthe headwaters to a generally rolling area with fairly long even This streambank protection project was slopes in the western portion. construction in December 1983 to protect a county road from erosion caused by the East The water resources development system in this Fork White River. The project is located at area consists of one multipurpose reservoir, two River Mile 47.0 (left bank) and consists of completed local protection projects, and two quarry stone placed over granular fill for a continuing authority projects. Periodic flooding is distance of 250 feet. The total cost of the common in the basin, and substantial flood project was $56,400, of which the Federal protection has been provided with the completion portion was $55,300. The completed project of Patoka Lake. was transferred to Pike County. Projects Snagging and Clearing Projects Patoka Lake, Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of Louisville District 1945 and Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 provide authority for the Chief of Patoka Lake was authorized by the Flood Control Engineers to snag and clear streams in the Act of October 1965. It is located in Dubois, interest of navigation and flood control. Local Orange and Crawford Counties on Patoka River, interests are responsible for the operation and a tributary of the Wabash River. The dam is maintenance of the completed project. located 118.3 miles above the mouth and 0.75 mile northeast of Ellsworth, and controls runoff Muscatatuck River, from a drainage area of 168 square miles. The dam is'a rolled earth and rock fill structure with a Louisville District total length of 1,500 feet, and a maximum height of 85 feet. An earth and rock-fill dike about The project consisted of removal of drift and 1,500 feet long with a maximum height of 33 feet debris from a section of Muscatatuck River on is located across a low saddle in the left the border between Jennings and Scott abutment approximately 3,000 feet southwest of Counties near Tobias bridge. The work was the dam.
58 The spillway is an uncontrolled open channel of Griffin, Skelton and Lyles, against a flood with a 370-foot bottom width through the left which could be expected to occur on an abutment. The outlet works located at the toe of average of seven times in a 100-year period. the right abutment includes a control tower with Construction was started in July 1963 and all two control gates 7 feet wide by 12 feet high, an sections were completed for beneficial use by 8-by-12 foot oblong concrete conduit and stilling 1970. Construction of the Emerson Ditch basin. Two small multistage outlets and pumping plant was completed in 1976. facilities for reoxgenation are provided for low Construction of the Coffee Bayou pumping flow control. plant was completed in 1985. Flood damages prevented through FY95 are $52.7 million. The lake serves the purposes of flood control, general recreation, fish and wildlife recreation, New Harmony Bridge water supply and water quality control. A permanent pool covering 2,010 acres is Bank Stabilization Project, maintained at elevation 506 and extends 11 Louisville District miles. Between elevations 506 and 536, there are 167,290 acre-feet of storage for water The Flood Control Act of May 1950 authorized supply. Above the water supply pool, a storage this project, located on the Wabash River at capacity of 121,100 acre-feet is reserved for and above the New Harmony Bridge in Posey temporary storage of flood flows. At full pool County, Indiana and White County, Illinois. elevation 548 the lake has an area of 11,300 The work consisted of enlarging the existing acres. The water supply/water quality pool at cutoff channel above the bridge along with elevation 536 provides 8,800 acres of surface construction of a dike to close the old river water. channel. This arrested the bank caving conditions which were endangering the bridge The actual project cost through 1 October 1995 structure and its western approach. Between is $73,317,000 which includes a non-Federal 1941, when the White County Bridge contribution of $20,227,000. Construction and Commission acquired the bridge, and 1955, impoundment were completed in February 1978. large expenditures were made on river The estimated flood damages prevented since maintenance by local interests and lesser the lake has been in operation is $34.3 million amounts by the Federal government to prevent through FY95. Visits to Patoka Lake in FY95 loss of this important river crossing. The totaled 1,054,012, with 9,402,700 in visitor bridge carries U.S. Highway 460 across the hours. Wabash River and provides the only highway crossing for a distance of 70 river miles below Levee Unit 5, Wabash River, Mount Carmel, Illinois. Federal cost of the Louisville District project was approximately $298,000. The project is bounded, generally, on the north Continuing by the Patoka River, a tributary of the Wabash River; on the west and south by the Wabash Authorities River; and on the east by the Black River, an other tributary of the Wabash. Levee Unit 5 is located opposite and below Mt. Carmel, Illinois, Emergency Bank Protection in Gibson and Posey Counties, Indiana. The project includes a system of earth levees with Project traffic ramps and internal drainage facilities with pumping plants, and alteration to a railroad Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 bridge. provides authority for construction of emergency bank protection works to prevent The estimated total project cost (October 1992) flood damages to highways, bridge is $8,446,000 with $7,541,000 as the Federal approaches, and public works. Local interests share. The project affords protection to 44,000 are responsible for cost sharing in the acres of agricultural area and the communities construction costs and for the operation and maintenance of the completed project.
59 Jasper, Louisville District Winslow, Patoka River, Louisville District A streambank protection project was constructed in 1979 to protect Clay Street from erosion caused by the Patoka River. The The streambank protection project was project is located in the southwestern portion of constructed in December 1983 to protect a county the community between stream miles 85.4 and road and appurtenances from erosion caused by 85.5, and consists of quarry stone placed over the Patoka River. The project is located at River granular fill a distance of about 700 feet. Mile 43.4 (left bank) and consists of quarry stone placed over granular fill for a distance of 900 feet. Construction was completed in December 1979 The total cost of the project was $58,900, of which at a Federal cost of $79,100. The completed the Federal portion was $57,100. The completed project was transferred to the City of Jasper. project was transferred to Pike County.
60 §1 Great Lakes Basin
1001 Indiana Harbor (Completed) A Continuing Authority Projects 1002 Michigan City Harbor (Completed) 902 Dune Acres (Com plete-I ana II) 1004 Burns Waterway Small-Boat Harbor (Completed) 928 Elkhart (Completed)
Local Protection Projects Other Improvement Projects 823 Mt. Baldy, Indiana Dunes National 1100 Calumet-Sag Channel (Completed) Lakeshore (Completed) 1101 Great Lakes Connecting Channels 824 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, (Completed) (Completed) Beverly Shores (Completed) 1102 Illinois Waterway
825 Fort Wayne Metro Area (Authorized)
SCALE IN MILES 20 0 20 40
62 created a gradually enlarging body of lake waters Great Lakes Basin at levels hundreds of feet above present lake levels, with overflow outlets across present Introduction watershed divides. As the ice border receded, the pattern and levels of the lakes repeatedly changed as new lower outlets were uncovered. The effect Great Lakes Region of these glacial lakes on present shorelines is illustrated by such features as the perched wave- The Great Lakes Region in the United States and cut cliffs of Mackinac Island, the lake-deposited Canada comprises 299,000 square miles, 95,000 clay flats of Chicago and Toledo, the variable in water surface area and 204,000 in land. It stratified sands and silts constituting or overlying covers northeastern Minnesota, essentially all of the bluffs along the shores of lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and parts of six other states, with 4,000 and Michigan, and the sand tracts of the dune miles of mainland shores and 1,500 miles of areas. island shores. Great Lakes Basin Framework The Great Lakes are connected by the following rivers and waterways: the St. Marys River, Lake Comprehensive Study, Superior to Lake Huron; the Straits of Mackinac, North Central Division Lake Michigan to Lake Huron; the St. Clair River, Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair; the Detroit River, Under Section 201 of the Water Resources Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie; the Niagara River and Planning Act of 1965, the President, by Executive the Welland Canal, Lake Erie to Lake Ontario; and Order 11345, established the Great Lakes Basin the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario to the Commission. The commission began a program Atlantic Ocean. Four of the five Great Lakes are of framework planning in 1968 which was United States—Canadian boundary waters; the completed in 1977, resulting in publication of a international boundary passes through these lakes Main Report, 25 Appendices, and an and their connecting channels. Lake Michigan, Environmental Impact Statement. however, lies wholly within the United States. The region was created largely by glaciation, and The study area, which includes that portion of the its formation, in terms of geologic time, was only drainage area within the continental United States, recently completed. The region has been free has a water and land area of approximately from the direct influence of glacial ice for 189,000 square miles. The international boundary approximately 9,500 years. The five Great Lakes, defines the region’s northern limit. The area with their outlets and approximate lake levels, as includes portions of eight states: Minnesota, they are today, probably date back less than Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, 3,000 years. The processes of stream and Pennsylvania, and New York. The eight states, shoreline erosion have made only slight changes eleven federal agencies, and the Great Lakes in the original topography. Commission participated in the planning. The completed report recommends actions to ensure The Great Lakes came into existence during the the conservation and wise use of water and related Pleistocene or Ice Age. At that time the area land resources in the Great Lakes region. contained well-drained valleys and divides of several large rivers. The continental ice cap then Great Lakes Connecting developed to a thickness of several thousand feet over much of Canada, and spread southward Channels and Harbors covering what is now the Great Lakes region, Commercial Navigation Study, drastically altering the topography. Parts of the preglacial valleys were deepened by scouring, Detroit District while other parts were filled by deposits, thus creating the basins of five lakes. The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System extends from the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the While the ice front was receding northward, Atlantic Ocean to the Western end of Lake gradual thawing left waters ponded between the Superior - steamer tract distance of 2,342 miles. ice and the exposed glacial deposits. This The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has maintained
63 its support of commercial navigation on the upper Michigan, provided a letter indicating that the four Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Lake Carriers’ Association is currently unable to Erie) and the connecting channels since the late provide financial support. As a result, further 1860’s. The current system, which provides a work on this project has been deferred until non- maximum safe vessel draft of 25.5 feet at lower Federal financial support is provided. water datum, was completed in the early 1960’s. The last major civil works project on the upper During the course of this study, system-wide system was the construction of the Poe Lock on deepening of connecting channels and harbors the St. Marys Falls Canal, Sault Ste. Marie, was determined to be economically infeasible. Michigan, in 1968. There are 60 public and 15 Modifications to serve vessels larger than those private commercial harbors. currently operating were also not warranted.
The Great Lakes Connecting Channel and International Water Studies Harbors Study was authorized by two resolutions of the Senate Committee on Public Works in (General Investigations), 1960 and 1976. The purpose of the study was to North Central Division determine the advisability of further improvements in the Great Lakes connecting As a result of the record high Great Lakes channels and the commercial harbors for present levels in 1985-86, and the prospects of even and prospective commerce, and to determiné the higher levels in 1987, the governments of the advisability of providing additional lockage U.S. and Canada issued the International Joint facilities and increased capacity at the St. Marys Commission (IJC) a Reference, on August 1, Falls Canal. 1986. Under this Reference, the IJC was asked to examine and report upon methods of Both an interim feasibility report and a final alleviating the adverse consequences of feasibility report have been completed under this fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes-St. study authority. Lawrence River Basin. The Corps of Engineers provided technical support to the IJC for this The recommended plan involves the deepening of study. navigation channels in the Upper St. Marys River and in Duluth Harbor to: a) permit a maximum The magnitude of the Water Level Reference safe vessel draft of 26.5 feet below low water Study requires that it be addressed in two datum for downbound vessels; b) dispose of an phases. Phase I, which was completed in May estimated 341,000 cubic yards of dredged 1989, identified the major types of measures material from the Upper St. Marys River in an which address the problems brought on by lake environmentally acceptable manner by creating level fluctuations and developed the basis for a an island in Izaak Walton Bay to provide habitat comprehensive framework for the systematic for the Federally endangered species, the Piping evaluation of these measures. The IJC issued Plover; c) deepening in the Cross and South their Phase I progress report, titled “Living With Channels, West and East Gate Basins, Duluth the Lakes: Challenges and Opportunities,” in Ship Canal; 6) construction of an upland disposal July 1989. Phase II will apply several area in the Lakehead area; and e) dispose of an evaluation procedures, including a further estimated 286,500 cubic yards of dredged development of the evaluation framework material in the Lakehead upland site. conceptualized in Phase I, to both structural and non-structural measures. The measures The Superior Harbor portion of the project has not evaluated in Phase II will include shoreline been authorized, since a local sponsor has not management and full and partial lake been determined. The Design Memorandum for regulations. the Upper St. Marys River was approved in June 1993 and the plans and specifications were The Phase II report was presented to the IJC on completed in September 1993. The total cost of March 31,1993. This report contains 42 the Upper St. Marys River portion is $8,848,000, recommendations for improving the response to with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7.0. In July 1994, fluctuating water levels. The IJC has yet to the Upper St. Marys sponsor, the State of provide its report to the Governments.
64 ContinuingAuthorities reconnaissance report was completed and approved. The findings of the report indicate that there is a Federal interest in participation in a Emergency Streambank flood control project and that there is a potential Protection, Section 14 solution (levees and floodwalls), which is both economically justified, and environmentally and socially feasible. A draft Feasibility Cost Elkhart River, Elkhart, Sharing Agreement (FCSA) was provided to the Detroit District local sponsor for review prior to negotiation and consummation of the agreement. However, by The emergency streambank protection is located letter dated January 15,1991, the local sponsor along the south bank of the Elkhart River adjacent declined to enter into the FCSA due to an to Waterfall Drive extending from Elkhart Avenue unavailability of funds. The Study was to the city’s fire station entrance within the City of terminated on July 9,1992 at a cost of $64,000 Elkhart. The project, which consisted of in Federal funds. placement of a 550-foot riprap stone revetment to protect municipal facilities and Waterfall Drive from adverse effects of shore erosion, was Lake Erie Subbasin completed in May 1985, at a cost of $243,000. Introduction Small Flood Control Projects The Lake Erie Subbasin includes the drainage LaPorte - Pine Lake Flood area of Lake Erie, and is located in northeastern Indiana. The St. Joseph’s and St. Marys Rivers Control Study, Section 205, are the headwaters of the major Lake Erie Detroit District tributary, the Maumee River. The confluence of these two rivers is within the limits of metropolitan Ft. Wayne. The general topography A reconnaissance report was completed in is smooth to irregular plains with gentle slopes in response to the City of LaPorte’s February 9, the west central area to gently rolling with 1988, letter requesting that the Corps reopen the shallow relief in the eastern section. Farming is Section 205 study terminated in October 1983, to important to the basin economy due to the fertile determine if there is Federal interest in a flood plains. damage reduction project for the LaPorte area. Several structural and non-structural alternatives were evaluated. The completed reconnaissance Projects report was approved on July 24,1991 and provided the basis for preparation of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) with an Initial Fort Wayne Metro Area, Project Management Plan (IPMP). The IPMP was Indiana, Detroit District furnished to the City of LaPorte on July 2, 1992 for review prior to initiating negotiations on the FCSA. The City of LaPorte withdrew from the study on The Fort Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana, Flood September 1,1992 due to unavailability of funds. Control Study was authorized by resolution of the The study was terminated on September 22,1992 Committee on Public Works, House of at a cost of $65,000 in Federal funds. Representatives on October 12,1972. The authorization requested that the Corps determine the advisability of providing improvements for Cedar Creek, Auburn Flood flood control and allied purposes at and in the Control Study, Section 205, vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The study Detroit District authorization resulted in completion of a Final Feasibility Report entitled For Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana, Flood Control Study, dated In response to a June 3,1985, request from the September 1987, and revised in April 1988, City of Auburn concerning the prevention of flood which identified and evaluated a number of damages on Cedar Creek, in Auburn, a
65 different alternatives to flood control in the Fort levee and concrete L-wall. The remaining length is Wayne area. The Final Feasibility Report also composed of various types of road closures contained the “Final Environmental Impact (stoplogs, clay dikes and high curbs), and 3,000 Statement” for this project. Preparation of the feet in several areas which do not require General Design Memorandum began in August improvements due to adequate existing surface 1989 and was approved in December 1993. grades. The fully funded total project cost Construction was authorized in Section 101 of the estimate is $44,738,000. Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Title 1, Public Law 101-640). The Federal cost is $33,859,000 and the non- Federal cost is $10,879,000. The non-Federal This project was a Congressionally added new sponsors for this project are the City of Fort construction start in FY94. The Project Wayne and Allen County. The project is Cooperative Agreement (PCA) was executed in scheduled for completion in October 1999. august 1994 and construction was initiated in September 1995. The project will provide a 100- Emergency Repairs and year level of flood protection to a large part of the Operations central area of the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, which has experienced numerous flooding events As provided by Public Law 99, 84th Congress, the in the past. Corps of Engineers is authorized to assist local interests in fighting floods and in the repair and The project is located along the north side of the restoration of flood control works threatened or St. Marys River, the east and west banks of the destroyed by floods. St. Joseph River, and the north bank of the Maumee River. Junk Ditch and Spy Rum Creek, which are tributaries to the St. Marys River, will Fort Wayne - Mechanic Street also have protection installed or improved along Dike, Detroit District their north and east banks, respectively. The project area has been broken into three segments Emergency repair work on damages caused by the which provide flood protection to various areas 1959 St. Marys flood consisted of restoration and within the project limits. The West Segment is repair of the Mechanic Street Dike in Fort Wayne, located along the St. Marys River, the Junk Ditch Indiana. The work was completed in 1960 at a a tributary to the St. Marys River, a short section Federal cost of $57,200. of the St. Marys River itself (at the confluence with the St. Joseph River), and along the west bank of the St. Joseph River. The East Segment Fort Wayne - Levee is located along the east bank of the St. Joseph Rehabilitation, Detroit District River and the north bank of the Maumee River. The total project length is approximately 54,000 The flood-damaged levees along the St. Joseph feet. River, the Maumee River, and the St. Marys River in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana, were The project consists of several types of flood rehabilitated in 1982 at a total cost of $288,000. protection improvements. The most common type The local contributed funds were $180,000 and the of flood protection improvements proposed are Federal cost was $108,000. earth levees. The levees proposed are to have turf or rock protected slopes depending on the available space for their construction. Levees Fort Wayne - Levee account for approximately 63 percent of the total Rehabilitation, Detroit District project length. Concrete floodwalls are proposed in those areas where insufficient space exists to The flood-damaged levees along the St. Joseph construct levees due to site constraints. Concrete River, Maumee River, Fairfield Ditch, and Spy Run flood walls account for 20 percent of the project Creek in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana, were length. An additional eight percent of the project rehabilitated in 1985 at a total cost of $234,000. length consists of a combination of half reduced
66 Surveys
Name of Investigation Purpose Status
St. Joseph River Basin, Michigan To investigate water resources A final Reconnaissance Report was and Indiana (Detroit District) problems of the basin, with completed in February 1989. Flood particular reference to the Elkhart damage reduction measures were River and tributaries. investigated but found to lack economic justification. As of September 1990, the report was under review by the Washington Level Review Center.
St. Joseph River Basin, To determine the feasibility of Indefinite. Further study deferred. Navigation, Michigan and providing navigation Future progress dependent upon Indiana (Detroit District) improvements below South Bend. availability of funds and expression of Presently, the study area is limited local support. to the lower (approximately) six miles of the river above Lake Michigan which is located entirely in the State of Michigan.
St. Joseph River, South Bend, To investigate flooding, erosion, A negative reconnaissance report Indiana (Detroit District) and environmental problems was completed in May 1994, with along the St. Joseph River in concurrence from North Central Divi South Bend, Indiana, and sion in September 1994. A Master determine the feasibility of Plan at Indiana University south Bend providing economically, was completed 30 September 1994. environmentally, and This plan integrated flood control engineering^ sound solutions to measures and Congressional Add di such problems. rected preparation of detailed designs and plans and specifications of cer tain elements of the master plan. As of September 1995, the detailed de sign of the flood protection, bank sta bilization, landscaping and floodplain development portions were essen tially complete, and plans and specifi cations were initiated.
67
Lake Michigan Calumet Harbor and River, Illinois and Indiana, Subbasin Chicago District
Introduction This project is located primarily within the corporate limits of the City of Chicago; however, most of the breakwaters, the entrance channel, the anchorage The entire Lake Michigan Basin lies wholly within area, and approach channel of Calumet Harbor and the United States. The limits of the Lake Michigan River are in Indiana. This project provides for a Subbasin for this report include the drainage area of stone filled timber crib breakwater 6,714 feet long; Lake Michigan for the portion located in a stone filled double row steel sheet pile detached northwestern Indiana and a portion of northeastern breakwater 5,007 feet long; and approach channel Illinois. The Little Calumet River is the major 29 feet deep and 3,200 feet wide; an outer harbor tributary of the subbasin. The general topography anchorage area 28 feet deep and 3,000 feet wide; varies from level plains to rolling low hills. The an entrance channel 27 feet deep and 230 to 290 economy of the area is based on the highly feet wide; a channel in the Calumet River 27 feet industrialized area located around the shoreline of deep and at least 200 feet wide to the north side of Lake Michigan. The major cities in the area are 130th street; three turning basins designated as Chicago, Hammond, Gary, and Michigan City. numbers 1,3, and 5; and a channel extending into Lake Calumet at a width of about 1,000 feet.
Projects The project also includes a 1.3 million cubic yard combined disposal facility (CDF) for polluted material dredged from the harbor. Located on the Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, Illinois side of the lllinois-lndiana state line, the Chicago District CDF was completed in 1984.
The Burns Waterway Harbor is located in Porter Of the 36 docks, wharves, and terminals available, County, Indiana, on the south shore of Lake the Chicago Regional Port District owns one dock, Michigan, 19 miles southeast of Calumet Harbor. four wharves, and one terminal. The United States The existing project provides for a rubblemound Government owns one stone dock. north breakwater 5,850 feet long; a rubblemound west bulkhead 1,200 feet long; a stone filled steel The total cost of the existing project to September sheet pile cell, west bulkhead shore connection 30,1995 was $60,246,000 of which $22,579,000 22,400 feet long; an approach channel 30 feet deep was for new work, $31,403,000 regular funds for and 400 feet wide; an outer harbor 28 feet deep; an maintenance, $837,000 non-Federal for east harbor arm 27 feet deep and 620 feet wide; and maintenance, and $5,428,000 regular funds for a west harbor arm 27 feet deep and 620 feet wide. rehabilitation.
Seven berths and docks are available; three on the Indiana Harbor, Chicago District west harbor arm; one on the harbor basin; and three on the east harbor arm. One dock on the west Indiana Harbor is located in Lake County, Indiana, harbor arm is used for shipment and receipt of steel on the southwest shore of Lake Michigan, 18 miles products. One dock on the east harbor arm is used southeast of Chicago Harbor. for receipt of iron ore pellets and limestone and shipment of steel products. Five facilities are The project consists of a northerly rubblemound administered by the Indiana Port Commission and breakwater 1,120 feet long; an easterly concrete are used for handling general cargo. capped concrete caisson breakwater 201 feet long with a rubblemound extension 2,324 feet long; a The total costs of the existing project to September lake approach channel 29 feet deep and 800 feet 30,1995, was $22,644,000 of which $13,600,000 wide; an anchorage and maneuver basin 28 feet was for new work ($13,504,000 Federal and $15,900 deep; a canal entrance channel 27 feet deep and non-Federal), and $9,044,000 for maintenance. 280 feet wide; a main canal 22 feet deep; a turning basin 22 feet deep; the forks turning basin 22 feet
69 deep; the Lake George Branch 22 feet deep; and Traffic the Calumet River Branch 22 feet deep.
The principal commodities moved on the Illinois Fifteen docks and wharves are available; six Waterway are bituminous coal, petroleum docks for handling iron ore and limestone; six products, grain, soybeans, sand and gravel, docks for handling petroleum products; and three sulphur and other chemicals. In 1933, the docks for handling gypsum, scrap metal and steel, commercial traffic on the waterway amounted to and bulk products. Total cost of existing project to 41.7 million ton-miles, but by 1970 it had climbed September 30,1995, was $16,607,000 of which progressively to a record-breaking 7.64 billion ton- $4,910,000 was for new work and $11,697,000 was miles. Tows now consist of as many as 14 or for maintenance. No dredging has taken place in more barges. As the seven locks from New recent years because of the presence of LaGrange to Lockport are capable of handling in a contaminated sediments. However, work is single lockage a tow of eight barges and a presently being done to address this issue. towboat, this means that the larger tows must be handled in time consuming double lockages. Completion Status Congress in 1962 authorized duplicate locks to provide the needed capacity. The project is essentially completed, except for the Calumet-Sag modification. Part I of the Mt. Baldy, Indiana Dunes Calumet-Sag is approximately 99 percent complete. The work completed on the Calumet- National Lakeshore, Sag modification includes 16.2 miles of channel Chicago District widening from Sag Junction through Blue Island, channel walls immediately east of that city, and The Mt. Baldy project is located on the widening of Acme Bend in the Little Calumet River. southeastern shore of Lake Michigan in LaPorte Fourteen railroad bridges have been altered and 15 County. It was constructed in 1973-1974 with a highway bridges have been constructed or transfer of funds from the National Park Service, modified. The former Blue Island Lock at the and with funds from the Energy and Water eastern end of the old canal has been removed Development Appropriation Act of 1981. The and has been replaced by the new Thomas J. 1973-1974 work cost $3.1 million; the 1981 work, O’Brien Lock and Dam in the Calumet River. $1.5 million. In 1973-1974, about 70,000 tons of Measuring 110 feet in width and 1,000 feet in stone of various size was placed along 13,000 length, the new lock permits the ready movement feet of Lake Michigan shoreline to protect Lake of barge tows comprising eight barges and Front Drive from Derby Avenue to 1900 feet east towboats without the necessity of rearrangement of Drake Avenue in Beverly Shores. About before entering the lock chamber. Together, the 340.000 tons of sand also was placed at the toe lock and dam are designed to prevent polluted of Mt. Baldy to protect the dune. In 1981, about water in the Little Calumet and Grand Rivers from 120.000 tons of sand-gravel was placed at Mt. flowing into Lake Michigan. This also permits Baldy for emergency bank protection. control of the water levels landward of the lock and dam. Illinois Waterway 9-Foot Project Cost for the Illinois Navigation Project, Waterway Chicago District
The Illinois Waterway comprises the Illinois River The total cost to both the Federal government and from its mouth at Grafton, the confluence of the the State of Illinois as of 30 September 1979 was Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers, and Des $278,313,000. Of this sum, $20 million was spent Plaines River to Lockport, the Chicago Sanitary for new work by the State of Illinois. The cost to and Ship Canal and the South Branch of Chicago the Federal government included $126,708,000 for River to Lake Street, Chicago, the Calumet-Sag new work, $140,039,000 for maintenance, Channel and the Little Calumet and Calumet operation, and care of locks and dams; and Rivers to turning basin five, near the entrance to $11,566,000 for rehabilitation by the United States. Lake Calumet, and the Grand Calumet River from
70 its meuth t© the deed ©f deep drift navigation in Part 1 ©alls for the construction of a channel 225 the Indiana Harder Canal and t© Clark Strait in feet wide and 9 feet deep in the Calumet-Sag dary, The waterway is the eonnaeting link Channel to Its junction with the Little Calumet between the ©raat Lake© and the Miaaiasippi River River; maintaining a channel 300 feet wide and 9 lyitam- feet deep in the Little Calumet and Calumet Rivers to Lake Calumet; construction of a lock The Federal gpvemment has been re§pen«ibla for and dam In the Calumet River and removal of the the entire lllineii Waterway §inee 1 iiO whan it ©Id Slue Island controlling lock; and the aaaumed feipemibiiity for the uneemplatad replacement or alteration of 14 railroad bridges ©analliatien ©f the Be§ Flainea and lllineii Rivers and 17 highway bridges crossing the Calumet-Sag fr©m L©§kp©rt t© Utlea, a prejeet In whieh the State Channel and Little Calumet and Calumet Rivers, ©f lllineii dad deen engaged sinea 1 i l l , and for and the removal of six small highway bridges maintenanee ©f the Ohieag© Sanitary and Ship without replacement, to conform to the horizontal ©anal and the §©uth iraneh of the Chicago River. and vertical requirements of the improved Frier tp Federal responsibility ©eniiited ©f ehannei, maintaining the ehannei from ©fatten t© LaSalle, The lllineii Waterway wa§ opened t© navigation for Part II authorized the construction of a lock and its entire length ef 327 mile§ |n 1993. The project controlling works, a channel, 225 feet wide and 9 adopted In 1110, together with §y psequent feet deep, along the general route of the Grand modifications, has provided a guaranteed depth of Calumet River from its junction with the Little 9 feet for barge traffic. Calumet River to the Indiana Harbor Canal, and thence 160 feet wide to a proposed terminal in The GalumeTSag Channel, originally only 60 feet Gary, Indiana; a channel 225 feet wide and 9 feet wide with many restrictive bridges, was a deep In the Indiana Harbor Canal from the Grand bottleneck f©r many years, Tows through this Calumet Rivgr to the head of deep draft channel were limited to two or three barges and navigation, and th© alteration and rebuilding of required §peeial towboats with telescoping pilot nine railroad and eight highway bridges to conform houses. The Calumet-Sag modifications will make to the new horizontal and vertical clearance it possible for full siied tows t© operate on this requirements. Planning on this portion was ©hannei, The prejeet as now authorized is initiated in Fiscal Year 1970. However, this dieeussed for oonvenienee in tw© sections which portion was deauthorized by the Water Resource ©emiit ©f the ehannei from Qrafton to Chicago Development Act of 1986. and the 6alumet=Sag modification. Further Investigation The Channel from Grafton to Chicago, Chicago District Further Investigation of the Illinois Waterway has been authorized, (See section on “Surveys.") The project provides for the construction of seven locks and six dams, with the locks to be 600 feet Michigan City Harbor, long and 110 feet wide, and dredging a navigation Chicago District channel te a minimum depth of 9 feet at widths of 300 feet from Qrafton to Lockport; 20Q to 3QQ feet to the controlling works; 1 §0 feet to the junction The Michigan City Harbor District project, located with the Calumet-iag Channel; and 17§ to 300 feet in LaPorte County on th© southeastern shore of to Lake Street in Chicago, The project also Lake Michigan, 38 miles southeast of Chicago, was completed in 1968. provides for the construction of a small boat harbor at Peoria, This section is essentially complete. Th© project consists of a stone filled timber crib detached breakwater 1,304 feet long; a pile and The Calumet-Sag Modification, steel sheeting west pier 835 feet long; and stone Chicago District filled timber crib, pile and steel sheeting east pier 2,276 feet long; a stone filled timber crib east Thi§ project was authorized by the River and breakwater 1,000 feet long; an entrance channel Harbor Act of 1946 and consists of three parts. 18 feet deep, and 425 feet wide; a turning basin
71 18 deep; a channel in Trail Creek 18 feet deep; an Harbor Act, as amended. The project was outer basin 12 feet deep; an outer basin 8 feet constructed as a recreational boating harbor and deep; and a channel in Trail Creek 6 feet deep and to provide a safe entrance for boaters to and 50 feet wide. from Lake Michigan and Burns Waterway. The total cost of existing project to September 30, There are several marinas in the lower mile of Trail 1995 was $4,901,000 of which $3,767,000 was Creek. The commodity handled from this harbor is for new work, ($2,000,000 Federal and fresh fish. $1,771,000 non-Federal), and $1,130,000 for maintenance. The existing project is complete. Total costs to September 30,1995 were $14,344,000 of which Lake George, Hobart, $1,544,000 was for new work, $11,096,000 for maintenance, and $1,619,000 for rehabilitation. Lake Restoration, Chicago District Indiana Dunes Lake Shore Bank Protection, Beverly The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized a project for Lake George located in Shores, Chicago District Hobart, Indiana and the parts of Deep River watershed upstream of the levee through Lake Located in northwestern Indiana, on the southeast Station, Indiana. shore of Lake Michigan in Porter County, Beverly Shores is approximately 35 miles southeast of The project consists of the removal of Chicago Harbor. approximately 500,000 cubic yards of silt, aquatic growth and other material and the Authorized under Section 14 of Public Law 79-526, construction of silt traps or other devices to the project provides for 13,000 feet of stone prevent and abate the deposition of sediment. revetment and periodic repair of riprap to maintain Estimated cost for new work is $7.56 million the full length of beach front. Federal and $1.89 million contributed by local interests. Project management cost associated with an FY 88 contract for emergency repairs of the existing Preconstruction planning is in progress. Total revetment was $1,679. Total costs of the existing costs of the existing project to September 30, project to September 30,1993 were $1,087,000, of 1993 were $400,000 for the preconstruction which $660,000 was for new work and $426,000 planning. was for maintenance. Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Burns Waterway Chicago District Small-Boat Harbor, Chicago District Indiana Shoreline is located on the south end of Lake Michigan along a two mile reach of shore west of Michigan City Harbor, Indiana. The Burns Waterway Small-Boat Harbor project is located in Porter County, Indiana, on the south The project consists of approximately two miles shore of Lake Michigan, 28 miles southeast of of beach nourishment between Michigan City Chicago Harbor. Harbor and Beverly Shores, Indiana requiring placement of 264,500 cubic yards of sand. It is The project provides for a rubblemound west designed to mitigate for erosion caused by a breakwater 1,003 feet long; a rubblemound north Federal harbor and would require replenishment breakwater 678 feet long; channel improvement of of 64,500 cubic yards of sand at five year 5,200 linear feet involving 145,000 cubic feet of intervals throughout the life of the project. dredge material used for beach nourishment. The project was authorized for construction by The project was authorized for construction under Section 501 of the Water Resources the authority of Section 107 of the 1960 River and Development Act of 1986. It was amended by
72 the 1988 WRDA which clarified the project as 100 roadway located along 1,275 linear feet of Lake percent Federally funded. Advance engineering Michigan shoreline. and design has been completed, at a cost of $318,000. Total project cost is estimated at $28.9 The project consists of riprap on plastic filter million at 1993 price levels. fabric along an existing bluff. A portion of the road was protected with steel sheet piling. Little Calumet (Flood Control Shaping of the bluff along with placing fill lakeside of the steel sheet piling was partially provided by and Recreation), Chicago the sponsor. District The project protects the existing shoreline and The Little Calumet River project, designed to bluff from further erosion which could result in protect over 9500 structures from flooding, is loss of roadway and damage to public water lines. located in northwest Indiana between Illinois- Construction was completed on December 30, Indiana state line and the Norfolk Southern 1988 at a cost of $255,000. Railroad in Gary, Indiana. The project was authorized by Section 401 of the 1986 WRDA and consists of replacing existing spoilbank levees ContinuingAuthorities with 10.2 miles of new levees and 1.4 miles of floodwalls between the lllinois-lndiana state line Emergency Bank Protection and Cline Avenue; constructing 9.7 miles of levees in Gary; a diversion structure at Hart Ditch; Project permanent evacuation of 29 structures in the Black Oak area of Gary; flood proofing 38 Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 residential structures in Gary; modifying 7 miles of provides authority for construction of emergency channel; modifying 4 highway bridges; bank protection works to prevent flood damage to constructing 17 miles of hiking trails and highways, bridge approaches, and public works. accompanying recreation support facilities, Local interests are responsible for operation and preserving 788 acres of wetlands with wildlife maintenance of the completed project. enhancement measures, rehabilitating 16 existing pump stations and constructing one new one. Dune Acres, Chicago District
Estimated Federal cost (1995) for new work is Dune Acres is located along the south shore of $151.0 million with $42.0 million to be contributed Lake Michigan at the Town of Dune Acres, Porter by local interests. Project construction is County, Indiana, approximately 29 miles of underway in several sections and preconstruction southeast of downtown Chicago 16 miles engineering and design progresses for other southwest of Michigan City, Indiana. sections. The project was authorized under Section 14 of Duneland Beach, Public Law 79-526 for the purpose of preventing Chicago District shore erosion at two noncontinuous sites along the shore of Lake Michigan. At site 1, the water intake structure consists of 220 feet of stone Duneland Beach is located along the south shore revetment placed on plastic filter fabric, bedding of Lake Michigan approximately 46 miles stone, and stone riprap along the shoreline and in southeast of downtown Chicago at the town of front of the steel sheet piling. Duneland Beach, LaPorte County, Indiana. It is bordered on the north by the Indiana-Michigan At site 2, Beach Drive consists of 120 feet of state line and on the south by the Community of stone revetment with a splash apron placed on Long Beach. filter fabric, bedding stone and stone riprap along the shoreline connecting with steel sheet piling. The Emergency Bank Protection project at Duneland Beach was authorized under Section 14 The project was operational upon completion of of Public Law 79-526 for the purpose of preventing construction in November 1988 at a cost of shore erosion threatening a continuous area of $93,900.
73 Surveys
Name of Investigation Purpose Status
Michigan City Harbor, Indiana Harbor for recreational craft. The study is inactive because of (Chicago District) lack of funding to continue feasibility phase studies.
Little Calumet River Basin, To determine the feasibility of A final feasibility report was Indiana-Cady Marsh Ditch providing flood control in Griffith, completed January 1984. The (Chicago District) Indiana recommended plan consists of a diversion structure estimated to cost $10.2 million and protect 2500 residential structures from flooding. The benefit/cost ratio is 1.3. The project was authorized by the 1986 WRDA but does not meet the 800 cfs criteria for Corps participation in urban flood control. However, PED work is continuing.
To determine the feasibility of Work on the reconnaissance study Little Calumet River Basin, flood control in the vicinity of will be initiated in FY 94. Dyer, Indiana Dyer, Indiana. (NCC)
74 Upper Mississippi River Basin
75 Upper Mississippi River Basin
SCALE IN MILES 10 0 10 20 There are no completed or active authorized Upper Mississippi projects located in the Indiana portion of this basin. However, there is one authorized project River Basin which is presently In an inactive category. It would consist of a flood control levee in the Introduction vicinity of Shelby Bridge and Baums Bridge over the Kankakee River. It would cost about The Kankakee River Basin in Indiana is part of $1,130,000 (1954 prices). The Upper the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The source of Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study the Kankakee River is near South Bend, Indiana. identified the following Kankakee River Basin The river flows southwesterly to Kankakee, problems: Water quality, flood and sediment Illinois, and then northwesterly to its confluence damage, recreational opportunity, and with the Des Plaines River, a total distance of 130 environmental preservation. miles. At the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers, the Illinois River is formed about nine miles from Morris, Illinois. Emergency Repairs Of the Illinois River Basin’s total drainage area of and Operations 29,559 square miles, 5,280 comprise the Kankakee River Basin. The Kankakee River drains 3,125 square miles in Indiana and 2,155 in Kankakee River Levees, Illinois. The Kankakee River, with an average discharge of 4,400 cubic feet per second, is the Chicago District largest contributor to the Lower Illinois River flow. Vast wetland areas along the Kankakee River Emergency repair work on the Kankakee River portion of the Illinois River Basin have been Levees consisted of restoration and repair of ditched and drained to allow agricultural use. the R. J. Reid Levee in the vicinity of Shelby, Little nesting cover remains and most waterfowl Indiana, and of the levee protecting Sumava are migrants. White-Tailed Deer are the only big Resorts, Indiana, both of which were damaged game species within the Kankakee River. by record floods on the Kankakee River in Pheasant, Hungarian Partridge, and Bobwhite 1950. These emergency repairs were Quail can be found in some areas. completed at a total cost of $28,000.
77
Glossary Confluence: The place where streams meet.
Acre-Foot: An area of one acre covered with water Control Dam: A dam or structure with gates to to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot is 43,560 cubic control the discharge from the upstream reservoir or feet or 325,951 gallons. lake.
Advance Engineering and Design Work: Work Crest Length: The length of a wave along its crest done by the Corps of Engineers offices in preparation of a project for construction. Dam: A barrier constructed across a valley for impounding water or creating a reservoir. Agricultural Levee: Aleveethatprotectsagricultural Damages Prevented: The difference between areas where the degree of protection is usually less damages that would occur without the project and than that of a flood control levee. the damages that occur with the project in place.
Air Bubbler: A device which uses air bubbles to Degree of Protection: The amount of protection entrain warmer bottom water and pump it to the that a flood control measure is designed for, as surface to retard ice formation. determined by engineering feasibility, economic criteria, social, environmental, and other Appropriation: The setting aside of money by considerations. Congress, through legislation, for specific use. Dike: An embankment to confine or control water. Authorization: House and Senate Public Works Committee resolutions or specific legislation which Diversion Channel: (1) An artificial channel provides the legal basis for conducting studies or constructed around a town or other point of high constructing projects. The money necessary for potential flood damages to divert flood water from accomplishing the work is not a part of the the main channel to minimize flood damages. (2) A authorization, but must come from an appropriation channel carrying water from a diversion dam. by Congress. Downstream: In the direction of the flow of a Bank and Channel Stabilization: The process of stream. preventing bank erosion and channel degradation. Draft: The vertical distance from the waterline to the Basin: (l)Drainageareaofalakeorstreamas: river bottom of a floating vessel. basin. (2) A naturally or artificially enclosed harborfor A closed culvert carrying small craft such as: yacht basin. Drainage Structure: water. Beam: The maximum port-to-starboard width of a Earth-Fill Dam: A dam the main section of which ship, boat, or other vessel. is composed principally of earth, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Biochemical Oxygen Demand: The amount of dissolved oxygen in parts per million required by Flank Levee: A levee constructed nearly organisms forthe aerobic biochemical decomposition perpendicular to the stream flow. of organic matter present in water. Flat Pool: The pool on the upstream side of a By-Channel: A channel formed around the side of a navigation lock and dam where the water surface reservoir past the end of the dam to convey flood level is nearly horizontal or has a very mild slope. discharge from the stream above the reservoir into the stream below the dam. Flood Capacity: The flow carried by a stream or floodway at bank full water level. Also, the storage Closure Structure: A structure built along low points capacity of the flood pool at a reservoir. of a levee or floodwall such as a street or railroad intersection to prevent flood waters from flooding the Flood Crest: The highest or peak elevation of the area protected by the levee or floodwall. water level during a flood in a stream.
79 Flood Plain: Valley land along the course of a Levee: A dike or embankment, generally stream which is subject to inundation during periods constructed close to the banks of the stream, lake, of high water that exceed normal bank full elevation. or other body of water, intended to protect the landside from inundation or to confine the stream Floodproofing: Techniques for preventing flood flow to its regular channel. damage to the structure and contents of buildings in a flood-hazard area. Lift: The difference in elevation between the upstream and downstream watersurface elevations Floodwall: Wall, usually built of reinforced concrete, in a lock and dam. to confine stream to prevent flooding.
Freeboard: (1) Vertical distance between the Lift Lock: A canal lock serving to lift a vessel from normal maximum level of the surface of the liquid in one reach of water to another such as from the a conduit, reservoir, tank, canal, etc., and the top of downstream side to the upstream side of a the sides of the conduit, reservoir, canal, etc. (2) An navigation lock and dam. allowance in protection above the design water surface level generally in reference to existing Life Span Bridge: A type of drawbridge; the levees or walls. movable span remains horizontal while being lifted vertically by cables at both ends. Gate Bay Walls: The gate bay walls include those portions of the lock in which the gate recesses, gate Lift Station: A small wastewater pumping station anchorages, gate machinery, and sometimes where that lifts the wastewaterto a higher elevation when culvert valves and dulvert bulkheads are located. the continuance of the sewer at reasonable slopes would involve excessive depths of trench. Gravity Drainage Outlets: (1) Outlets for gravity drains such as tiles, perforated conduits, etc., Light-Draft Craft: A small boat, usually recreational, serving an agricultural area and discharging to a having a draft of about 10 feet or less. drainage ditch. (2) Pipe, culvert, etc., used for dewatering pond water by gravity. Littoral Drift: Material such as sand that is swept along the littoral zone by waves and current. Guide Pier: A structure which extends from the entrance to a lock, used to guide vessels safely into Littoral Zone: The narrow area, including the land the lock. and water, bordering the shoreline.
Habitat: The total of the environmental conditions Lock: An enclosed part of a canal; waterway, etc., which affect the life of plants and animals. equipped with gates so that the level of the water can be changed to raise or lower boats from one Headwaters: (1) The upper reaches of a stream level to another. near its source. (2) The region where groundwaters emerge to form a surface stream. (3) The water Lock Operation: Locks fill and empty by gravity, upstream from a structure. with no pumps required to raise or lower the water level. To raise the water level, valves are opened Impoundment: The collection or confinement of above the upper gates and water flows into the lock water, as in a lake. through tunnels under both lock walls. This process is reversed to lower water in the lock. Valves are Intercepting Sewer: A sewer that receives dry- opened below the lower gates and water drains out weatherflowfrom a numberof transverse sewers or of the lock through the tunnels. Gates at both ends outlets and conducts such waters to a point for of the lock open and close electrically after the treatment or disposal. proper water level has been reached.
Left or Right Bank of River: The left hand or right Low Water Datum: Astandard reference elevation, hand bank of a stream when the observer faces unique for each Great Lake, to which all depths on downstream. hydrographic charts are referred.
80 Low Flow Augmentation: The increase of stream Revetment: (1) A facing of stone, concrete, flow. sandbags, etc., to protect a bank of earth from erosion. (2) A retaining wall. M iter Gates: The type of gate used to trap the water in a lock chamber. Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of randomly placed stones to prevent erosion, scour, or Mouth of River: The exit or point of discharge of a sloughing of a structure or embankment. Also the stream into another stream, a lake, or the sea. stone so used.
Navigable: A river deep enough and wide enough River Tow: An assemblage of one or more barges to afford passage to river traffic. propelled by a towboat in a riverine waterway.
Ox-Bow Lake: A lake formed in the meander of a Rock Dike: An embankment built principally of rock. stream, resulting from the abandonment of the meandering course due to the formation of a new Sandbag Closure: A closure structure consisting channel course. of sandbags. This closure may be found where a levee or a floodwall has a sudden break in grade such Pier: A structure which extends from the shore out as in a street crossing. Sandbags are used to close into the lake and serves primarily for mooring and the streets in times of high water to prevent flooding. landing of boats. Sedimentation Basin: A basin or tank in which Pile Dike: A dike constructed of posts or similar water or wastewater containing settleable solids is piling driven into the soil. retained for removal of a part of the suspended matter by gravity. Ponding Area: An area reserved for collecting excess runoff preparatory to being discharged either Sediment Load: The total sediment composed of by gravity or by pumping. suspended load and bed load transported by a stream. The suspended load is composed of fine Pool: A small and rather deep body of quiet water sediment transported in suspension while bed load is as: water behind a dam. composed of relatively coarse material trapped along or near the bottom. Preconstruction Planning: Planning before construction, usually done during the Self-Liquidating Facilities: Facilities provided by postauthorization stage. local interests at a project site in addition to facilities which are part of the Federally cost-shared project Reach: A length, distance, or leg of a channel or features. These features are considered to be self- otherwatercourse. liquidating in that they can be paid for through user fees charged the public. These facilities might Recurrence Interval: The average time interval include such things as a public wharf, mooring between actual occurrences of a flood of a given facilities, parking areas, etc. size. Shoal Area: Patches of sand, gravel, or other hard Rehabilitation: A major repair job. Usually involves bottom lying at shallow depths. considerable reconstruction of already existing structures. Sill: (1) A horizontal beam forming the bottom of the entrance to a lock. (2) Also, a low, submerged Reservoir: A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other damlike structure built to control riverbed scour and space, either natural or created in whole or in part, by current speeds. the building of a structure such as a dam, which is used for storage, regulation, and control of water. SlackwaterArea: (1) In tidal waters, the area where tidal current velocity is at a minimum; especially the Retarding Dam: A dam used to reduce the flood moment when a reversing current changes direction flows of a stream through temporary storage. and its velocity is zero. (2) I n streams, a place where there is very little current.
81 Slough: (1) A small muddy marshland or tidal Thalweg: The flow line of a channel following the waterway, which usually connects othertidal areas. lowest part of a stream. (2) A tideland or bottomland creek. A side channel or inlet, as from a river or bayou, may be connected Thermal Discharge: The heated water coming from at both ends to a parent body of water. nuclear plants.
Spillway: A waterway or a dam or other hydraulic Tributary: A stream or other body of water that structure used to discharge excess water to avoid contributes its water to another stream or body of overtopping of a dam. water.
Spoil material: The material removed in excavation Truss Span: A structure made up of a number of of dredging in access channels, boat or navigation bars, hinged together at their ends to form a rigid channels, drainage ditches, and lakes. framework.
Squat: The vertical downward displacement of a Turning Basin: A widened area in a navigation craft under power with respect to its position in the channel intended to allow vessels to turn around. water when not underway. Uncontrolled Spillway: An overflow spillway having Stage: The elevation of the water surface above or no control gates. below an arbitrary datum. Upstream: At or toward the source of a stream. Standard Project Flood: A flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of Vertical Lift Gate: A gate that moves vertically in meteorological and hydrological conditions that are slots formed in masonry piers and consists of a skin reasonably characteristic of the geographical region plate and horizontal girders which transmit the water involved, excluding extremely rare combinations. load into the piers.
Stop-Log Closure: Logs, plants, cut timber, or Watershed: The whole surface drainage area that steel or concrete beams fitting into end guides contributes water to the area. between walls or piers to close an opening in a dam or conduit to the passage of water. The logs are Wave-Absorbing Breakwater: A breakwater is a usually placed one at a time. structure protecting ashore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from waves. A wave-absorbing breakwater Streambed: A channel occupied or formerly protects by absorbing, not reflecting, the waves. occupied by a stream. Weir: A dam in a stream to raise the water level or Swale: (1) A light depression, often wet and divert its flow. covered with vegetation. (2) A wide, shallow ditch, usually grassed or paved. Wing Dam: A wall, crib, row of pilings, stone jetty, or other barrier projecting from the bank into a stream Swing Span Bridge: This is the span of a bridge for protecting the bank from erosion, arresting sand across a navigable stream that rotates to allow tall movement, or for concentrating the low flow of a ships to pass through the bridge. stream into a smaller channel.
82 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 752-497/49049