------....------....------~ PHASE II
REVISED REPORT ON GREAT LAKES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS
Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Detroit, Michigan April 1988 ..
PHASE II REVISED REPORT ON GREAT LAKES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS
PREPARED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DETROIT, MICHIGAN APRIL 1988 • PHASE II .. REVISED REPORT ON GREAT LAKES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • ...... • iii INT RODU CT ION ...... 1 FLOOD LEVELS OF THE CONNECTING CHANNELS ...... 4 METHODS OF DETERMINING FLOOD LEVELS • FOR AREAS EXCLUDED IN PHASE I •••• ...... 9 GLOSSARY • ...... 24 REFERENCES • ...... 26
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 PHASE II AREAS • • • • • ...... 3 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS APPLIED TO CONNECTING CHANNEL GAGES ...... 8
• i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) •
LIST OF PLATES
Number Page
1 ST. MARYS RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS • • Ill • 18
2 ST. CLAIR RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS •. . ~ . . . . 19 3 DETROIT RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS • ...... 2(1 4 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS ••••• - 21
5 LOWER NIAGARA RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS • • . • • • 22 6 ST. LAWRENCE RIVER REVISED FLOOD LEVELS ...... 23 •
11 • • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The people involved in the preparation of the Revised Report on .. Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels as of December, 1987 were:
N. Schwartz, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V S. Tamulionis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCD M. Todd, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCD C. Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCD J. Wanielista, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit R. Wilshaw, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit E. Megerian, U.S. Army Cprps of Engineers, Detroit R. Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit D. H. Lee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit T. Pieczynski, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo A. Coniglio, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo C. Hessel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago H. Kubik, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC E. Thompson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES •
• iii • PHASE II REVISED REPORT ON
GREAT LAKES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Insurance Administration has adopted the 100-year flood as the standard for identification of flood hazard areas, in conjunction with
the National Flood Insurance Program. Often the 10, 50, and 500-year flood • levels are also of concern in dealing with flood control and sound flood plain management strategies. A two phase study was initially performed using water level information through 1974 to develop these flood levels for
the Great Lakes and was published in 1977 as three booklets; Phase I, Phase II, and Appendices A and B of the "Report on the Great Lakes Ope:n-Coast Flood Levels". In 1987, in consideration of the additional data collected since the original study was completed, and the extreme high water levels experienced in the Great Lakes since that time, FEMA requested an update of
the previous study. The new study is entitled "Revised Report on the Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels", and as in the past consists of Phase I and Phase II reports, and Appendices. The Phase I report presents the open- coast flood levels baaed on frequency curves of annual maximum instantaneous • water levels. The levels were recorded by gages on the lakes, and adjusted
1 to reflect present diversion and outlet conditions. The Appendices contain • the tables of adjustment factors, the frequency curves from which the various return period flood levels were derived, summary tables of the revised study results, copies of all correspondence pertaining to the developnent and review of the draft reports, and examples of flood level frequency determinations for Phase II areas.
In this document, the Phase II report, methods for determining the frequency of flood levels are presented for those locations not included in the Phase I Report. In general, these areas include the Connecting
Channels, bays, inlets, and shoreline protected by islands. These areas are indicated on Plates 1 through 5 in the Phase I report of "The Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels" and are listed here in Table 1. At • some of these locations, the open-coast levels developed in the Phase I
Report can be applied. At other locations, gage data with a short period of record are available, and separate flood level frequency determinations can be developed. Often, however, the short period of record is insufficient, and accurate determinations cannot be made without further develo1J11ent of the data. At the remaining locations, the open-coast flood levels cannot be applied, and there exists no systematic record of water level data. Given these conditions, the Phase II study presents:
a. an analysis of the gage data on the Connecting Channels, and general -guidelines for the application and interpolation of the results,
b. a general approach to be used in determining the flood level frequency for areas not included in the Phase I Report, • 2 •
TABLE 1 - PHASE II AREAS
Lake Superior Reach A - Whitefish Bay Reach B - Grand Island Reach B - Huron Island Reach B - Keweenaw Bay Reach C - Chequamegon Bay Reach C - Apostle Islands Lake Michigan Reach A - Little Traverse Bay Reach A - Grand Traverse Bay Reach J - Green Bay Reach K - Straits of Mackinac
Lake Huron Reach G - Saginaw Bay Reach G - Thunder Bay Reach H - Straits of Mackinac Reach H - Les Cheneaux Islands Reach H - Drummond Island Reach H - St. Joseph Island
Lake Erie Reach K - Erie Harbor Reach W - Sandusky Bay Reach Z - Maumee Bay Lake Ontario Reach B - Little Sodus Bay Reach C - Sodus Bay Reach C - Irondequoit Bay Connecting Channels St. Marys River St. Clair River Detroit River Niagara River St. Lawrence River • 3 c. methods of simulating or deriving flood level data for those gages having a short period of record, and • d. a suggested approach for developing flood level frequencies at locations where a systematic record of water level data is not available, and the open-coast levels cannot be applied.
FLOOD LEVELS OF THE CONNECTING CHANNELS
GENERAL
For the purposes of this report, the Connecting Channels of the Great
Lakes are the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers. Many different variables, either separately or through interaction, • can affect the water surface elevations of the Connecting Channels. These include the variability of flows in the Connecting Channels, the water surface elevations of the upstream and downstream bodies of water, and the extent of ice buildup. The effects of these variables are implicitly included in the flood level frequency analysis through the use of hourly instantaneous water level data collected at gages located on the
Connecting Channels.
DATA
Official monthly mean and hourly instantaneous water level data, published by the National Ocean Service of the U. S. Dei::artment of Canmeroe, • 4 • NOAA, as recorded at gaging stations on the Connecting Channels, were used to derive the maximum annual flood levels. The same gages as used in the
1977 study were used in the new analysis, except for the Black Rock Canal and American Falls gages on the Nia@1ira River. The Black Rock Canal gage is
no longer functional, and was excluded from the study. The American Falls
gage was also eliminated from the new study as the gage was relocated 400
feet upstream of the original site in 1976. Because of the steep slope of
the Nia@1ira River between the former and new location, the data could not be
used as a continuous record. Ten years of record are available at the new location, however, this is too short of a period to develop a frequency
curve. The American Falls gage can be included in future studies when the
period of record is greater •
• Over the period of record, the levels of the lakes have been significantly affected not only by nature, but by changes in the amount of
diversions into and out of the Great Lakes Basin, changes in the outflow
conditions resulting from regulation of Lakes Superior and Ontario, and dredging within the Connecting Channels. To account for the effects of
the artificial changes on the historical lake levels, the recorded levels
were adjusted to present conditions. Adjustments were derived from monthly
mean lake levels obtained by routing the 1900-1986 net basin supplies
through the Great Lakes under present diversion and outlet conditions. The
adjustment factors are shown in Appendix A of the "Appendices to the Revised
Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels". A more detailed description • of how the adjustment factors were derived is included in the Phase I 5 report of the revised study. The adjustment factors derived for the lake • gage data were applied to the Connecting Channels gage data using various methods. The adjustment factors for a lake were directly applied to channel gages which were close to and influenced by the lake, for example, Lake
Superior adjustments were directly applied to data from the Southwest Pier.
For the St. Clair River and the Detroit River gages, linear interpolations of the upstream and downstream lakes' adjustment factors were used, based on the distance the gages were from the downstream lake. No adjustments were applied to the gages located on the Niagara river, as all of the gages are located below the hydraulic control section of the outflow from Lake Erie.
Table 2 displays for each Connecting Channel gage, the lake from which adjustment factors were applied, and where applicable, the linear interpolation factor. • METHOD
To develop the flood level frequency curve at each gage, a Pearson Type
III frequency distribution was used in the analysis. The rationale for
selecting this distribution is presented in the Phase I docunent of the revised study. The regional skew values which were derived in the Phase I analysis were also applied to the Connecting Channels. Thus, the frequency analysis of the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, and Nia{9ira River gages employed a skew value of 0.2, while the frequency analysis of the St.
Lawrence River gages used a skew of o.4. • 6 • Water surface profiles for the Connecting Channels were also developed, to be used as an aid in interpolating the results for those reaches between
the gages. The profiles for each Connecting Channel are based on the 90%,
50%, and 10% frequency of occurrence of monthly nean flows determined from a
flow-duration curve. The flow-duration analyses were based on the open
water season (May through November) monthly mean flows, derived by routing
the 1900-1986 net basin supplies through the Great Lakes under present
diversion and outlet conditions.
RESULTS
The results of the flood level frequency analyses of data from the
gages along the Connecting Channels are presented in Plates 1-6. The flood
levels are referenced to International Great Lakes Datum, 1955, as we11- as
• ~~an Sea Level Datum (~an Sea Level Datum is equivalent to the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). When interpolating between the gages, the
profiles shown on Plates 1-6 can be used as guides. However, any
interpolated results should be verified as closely as possible by an on-site
inspection of high water marks and other collected data.
As previously described, the profiles shown are for ice free
conditions. If the area under study is susceptible to flooding caused by
ice jams, the given water surface profiles may not provide a true guide for
interpolation of results. During an ice jam, the normal flow in a channel
is significantly reduced, raising the water surface elevation upstream of • the ice jam, and lowering the elevation downstream. The change in the water 7 •
TABLE 2 - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS APPLIED TO CONNECTING CHANNEL GAGES
Connecting Channel Interpolation and Gage Factor Lake Adjustment Factors St. Marys River Southwest Pier none Lake Superior U. S. Slip ' none Lakes Michigan-Huron
St. Clair River Dunn Paper none Lakes Michigan-Huron Mouth of Black River 0.93 Lakes Michigan-Huron and Lake St. Clair Dry Dock 0.86 Lakes Michigan-Huron and Lake St. Clair Marysville 0.75 Lakes Michigan-Huron and Lake St. Clair St. Clair 0.50 Lakes Michigan-Huron and Lake St. Clair Algonac none Lake St. Clair • Detroit River Windmill Point none Lake St. Clair Fort Wayne 0.62 Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie Wyandotte 0.33 Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie Nias;;i.ra River Niagara In take none none Ashland Avenue none none St. Lawrence River Ogdensburg none Lake Ontario
• 8 • surface profile depends on the severity of the ice jam and its location. Ice jams can occur where there is a sudden change in the river slope, at
sharp bends, and locations where the river channel narl"Ows. Under present channel conditions, the Connecting Channels most susceptible to flooding caused by ice jams are the St. Marys, St. Clair and the Niagara Rivers. Ice jams have occurred in the Little Rapids Cut of the St. Marys River, resulting in raised water levels in the Soo Harbor. On the St. Clair River, flooding due to ice jams can occur at various points from south of Harsen' s Island upstream to Port Huron. On the Upper Niagara River, flooding due to ice jams has been reported along the East (Tonawanda) Channel. Some • flooding has also been reported on the Lower Niagara River, upstream of the Ashland Avenue gage, in the Maid-of-the-Mist Pool. Ice jams have also
formed from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Queenston-Lewiston. The other Connecting • Channels, the Detroit and the St. Lawrence Rivers, are less pl"One to flooding caused by ice jams under the present channel conditions and plans of regulation.
METHODS FOR DETERMINING FLOOD LEVELS FOR AREAS EXCLUDED IN PHASE I
GENERAL This section contains a discussion of the general steps to be taken in determining flood level frequencies at bays, inlets, and shorelines • protected by islands not included in the Phase I report. Knowledge and 9 doc1.m1entation of all relevant data, including previous reports, documents, • and studies is a necessary first step.
The following is a list of basic data that should be obtained to
determine flood level frequencies in Phase II areas:
a. open-coast flood levels (Published in the "Revised Report on Great
Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Phase I", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Detroit District, April 1988.),
b. recorded water level gage data, if available,
c. adjustments to present conditions for monthly lake levels (Published
in the "Appendices to the Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood
Levels"),
d. recorded historical high water marks, e. informal flood data from resident interviews, newspaper files, • aerial photos, etc., and
f. hydrographic charts and meteorologic data.
After the above data have been collected, the investigator must determine which of the methods listed below is applicable to the situation at the
particular area under study.
DIRECT TRANSFER OF OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS
An initial determination I!llSt be made as to the applicability of directly transferring the open-coast flood levels into the shore area under study. This transfer can be made when a thorough study of hydrographic • 10 • charts a,,.d high water marks indicates that the physical characteristics of the shore and lake bottom are such that additional wind setup above the
open-coast flood level is not possible. Wind setup is defined in Phase I of
the "Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels". A comparison
of the high water mark elevations, to the data from the nearest water level
gage, would provide an indication as to the degree of wind setup. A site
ins~ction by the investigator is also recommended, to verify the chart data
and to check for special or changed conditions that may not be api;:arent from
observing the charts.
FLOOD LEVEL FREQUENCY DETERMINATION USING LONG PERIOD GAGE RECORDS
If long period recording gage data are available for the Phase II area
under study, the methods described in Phase I of the "Revised Report on • Open-Coast Flood Levels" should be used to determine the flood level frequencies. Tables of adjustments are available in the "Appendices to the
Revised Report on Open-Coast Flood Levels", to convert recorded gage data to
present conditions for each lake. Judgement is required to determine what
constitutes a long period of record for a given gage. Leo R. Beard includes
a good discussion of the significance of a period of record in his
"Statistical Methods of Hydrology". Through experience, twenty (20) years
of recorded annual instantaneous peaks have come to be considered, in most
cases, the minimum period of record acceptable for a frequency analysis.
Factors to be considered include:
a. the gage location, with regard to shoreline configurations, • offshore tathymetry, maximum fetch length exposure, etc., 11 b. the variation found in the recorded data as compared to gages in • similar or neighboring locations,
c. the quality of the gage records with regard to the frequency of
IOOasurement, breaks or gaps in the record, etc.,
d. and the results of any frequency analysis as compared to those performed in similar or neighboring locations.
FLOOD LEVEL FR~UENCY DETERMINATION USING SHORT PERIOD GAGE RECORDS
The following three techniques have teen suggested to extend the period of record at a gage, or to derive frequency curves at a gage by comparing the short period of record rises IOOasured by the gage to the known long period of record monthly levels of the lake. Long period monthly levels are shown in "Great Lakes Water Levels, 186 0-1985 11 published by the U.S. • Department of ComIOOrce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, or directly available from the National Ocean Service upon request. Technique 1 uses simulation to extend the short period of record at the gage of interest. This technique can be used when a strong correlation exists tetween the long period of record, annual maximum monthly mean lake levels and the annual maximum instantaneous levels at the short period of record gage. Technique
2 can be used to determine flood level frequencies without extending the short period of record data through simulation. This method can be used when a poor correlation is found using Technique 1. Technique 3 can be used when a short period of record gage has m:>nthly mean water levels which are correlated with those of a nearby gage with a long period of record. •
12 • a. TECHNIQUE 1. This method uses a regression analysis to develop a relationship between the annual maximum instantaneous water level recorded
at a gage and the corresponding annual maximum monthly mean recorded at the
corresponding lake. This relationship is then used to simulate the annual
flood levels for that gage site from the annual maximum monthly mean lake
levels adjusted to present conditions. Frequencies of simulated levels are
then determined as described in the April 1988 "Revised Report on Great
Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Phase I".
This procedure may not be applicable to all gage sites. The
correlation between the annual maximum instantaneous water level of the gage
of interest and the annual maximum monthly mean of the lake is dependent
upon local hydrographic and meteorological conditions at the gage site. • Often, a correlation cannot be determined or the correlation is very weak. Correlation techniques and examples are presented in "Statistical Methods in
Hydrology" by Leo R. Beard.
b. TECHNIQUE 2. This method, called coincident frequency analysis, was
proposed by H. E. Kubik, of the Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis,
California. It derives the annual maximum flood level frequency curve by
combining the frequency curves of long period of record IIDnthly mean lake
levels with the frequency of annual maxiIID.llD. rises recorded at the short
period of record station. In E!13neral, the procedure is as follows.
(1) Determination of a wind setup frequency curve at the station • of interest • 13 (2) D(!termination of a lake-stage quration curve based on monthly • mean lake levels.
(3) Cc•mputation of a total level frequency curve for several selected mean monthly lake levels.
(4) Computation of the frequency for a given maximum level by weighting the exc~edence frequency by the percent of the time the monthly mean level is expected to be at the selected monthly mean level.
Complete docunentation of this method and an example is contained in
"Procedure for Computing Frequency of Maximum Lake Levels", by H. E. Kubik,
H-39, December 1974. This paper is available from the Hydrologic
Engineering Center upon request and is included in Appendix E of the "Appendices to the Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels"·· •
c. TECHNIQUE 3. This method was developed by the firm of Johnson and
Anderson, Pontiac, Michigan, for use in their Flood Insurance Studies. The detailed step-wise procedure of the method is shown below.
( 1) Determine monthly mean lake levels and short duration water level rises (wind setup) for each month from observed records of the short period of record gage at the site of interest.
(2) Compare monthly mean recorded levels between the long period of record and short period of record gages to establish a linear regression equation.
(3) Generate adjusted. monthly mean lake levels for the short period of record gage by inputting the adjusted m:>nthly mean levels at the •
14 • long period of record gage into the regression equation for the entire period.
(4) Calculate the mean and the standard deviation of the simulated
monthly mean lake levels for the entire period of record.
(5) Determine the frequency curve of the simulated monthly mean
levels for the short period of record gage from the equation of the normal
distribution function.
(6) Pick out the maximum short duration water level rise for each
year (one event per year).
(7) Determine mean and standard deviation of the yearly short
duration water level rise for the short period of record gage.
(8) Calculate parameters of the gamma distribution function for
the short period of record gage. • (9) Use the equation of the the gamma distribution function to calculate the frequency curve for the yearly short duration water level
rises.
(10) Combine probabilities of mean lake levels and short duration
water level rises to determine the annual frequency distribution.
(11) Determine the ci.imulative probability distribution for all
lake elevations at the short period of record gage.
(12) Determine lake.elevations at the short period record gage for
the desired return periods by interpolation of the calculated values • • 15 Documentation of this method and an example of its application can be • found in Appendix E of the "Appendices to the Revised Report on Great Lakes
Open-Coast Flood Levels".
ARE.AS WHERE NO SYSTEMATIC RECORD OF WATER LEVEL IS AVAILABLE
In areas where no systematic water level record is available, and the open-coast flood levels cannot be applied, determining the water surface elevation associated with a given frequency is largely a matter of judgement. DeveloJlllent of flood levels at selected frequencies for these areas must first start with the collection of all data available. These data should include high water mark elevations, the dates and tines that the high water occurred, the stages recorded at all gages in the area during the same storm event, the prevailing weather patterns, the oi;:en-coast flood levels, etc. An informal history of the water levels in the area of • int,erest should be developed from interviews with residents, newspaper files, aerial photos, etc. The flood levels for various frequency floods at similar or neighboring gages should be tabulated and compared to the recorded high water mark elevations. From this set of data it may be possible to assign frequencies to various flood levels with some confidence.
In addition to the collection of historic data, wind setup may be calculated for si;:ecific areas through the use of mathematical models.
For example, if a windspeed frequency curve can be developed at a nearby gage, and transferred to the area under study, through the use of a model, a wind setup freqrency curve may be ~nerated. This curve can then be used in •
16 • conjunction with one of the techniques presented in the previous section, to determine a flood water level frequency curve. The developroont of these
models are too detailed to be presented here, but the "Shore Protection
Manual" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contains a discussion of these
models and provides references to some which have been developed for the
Great Lakes •
•
• 17 St. Marys River • CA NADA
ST JOSEPH l°')L A'llO
PHASE lI - REVJSED REPORT 0-N C REAT LAKES OPEN'- COA.S T F l.001} LEV~ LS
LOWER E:NTRAJiC! Fre-quency Curve FloO
~OTE: fa TRES'E P'fllOF [ t £5 A.RE ro"R I ITATU11 Of' EN 'WA t ER CO~'Ol TI O:'ilS 0."'ILY. CE'RT.AI~ AR.D.S 1 0 2 6 I A.LO;:i,iC THIS CH.~\'.:4EL M>.Y I I I E3 El I BF. susn.ntur To I FLOOD[~ CAlSE!li l!l'f I ADVERSE 1C£ co:irn1no;:i.1s • OU ll:l ~C •HE I.JI '.llTE R <-IE Sllf'rlttO/I c H GA N Sf~S0."11. THF.Sf. P.ROF llES- ,, R£ S IJ!J :C:CT T('I 01A~r.r • I I I 00 R UC TOIOS [ P [lt 10'1-S .
582 ;;; -"'0 c 581 g I ~---..t ... _ I - MIDCLE NEEISISH CH .. NNEL ... 1 IU 1 "'- IU ~n·~-r ... 580 I IT'JLE RAPIDS CUT I ~ LAKE NICOLET I I z 0 ------ti~~-11"~~--t__;;M~E~A~N~F~L~O~W~i--~~4-~~-4~!~~ NEEBl8H CHANNEL I ~ c 578 I "'-- ---... i-...__ I ~ ..... - ..~ Ill I , LAKE ~ UNUSCONG 578 -- I I I I ... ___ ...... ~ I l ----- ,_ I I ' l i ' 1 I ! I ( I ' I I I 1 I I L--...!.~.'.l-----1-----+-+----11------1-----1----.J....-----l,.....J----+-+-+---+---·~-+----f----f----f--ll-----+----+------f----+------Jf------+-----rr----t------jf-----+---t--t----fI ST. JIAaY'S UVERllATEll SU&PN::I PIOPILES I 018TANCE IN Mii IEs FROltl SLIP GAGE KICK !'LOil • l 12t000 CFS "JO ::1 ! llL\M rt.Oii • 81,0DO CPS I~ .. "' ~rs. I.Oil rt.Oii • 51 .ODO CPS ~1· 0 gl 0 -"' -- !I .. ' .. PLATE 1 .. -l. .:..
~":"'~7_fAPER GRATIOT ,' < St. Clair River .... ~ ' .,.. 'I- . \, D'RY DOCK GAGf:-. :J ..... MARYSVILLE • 0 GAGE • ... ..+ 0 ... >'\-. ,..... ' '\. .. '.'<,• ....,_ '· G ~ ,/ ST. ci.AIR ~ I ....<:..- ..."P GAGE "- PHA.SE I J - REVISED REPORT "'-:,,-'lo \ .. O:N t: RE.ltT i.A~ ES OE-'E"N- COAST FLOOD i.E\/ELS .. /~' ~·" < Freq ue nc:: y Curve Flood l.£'\lel:s ...,_ ~~ 'ft"ar-s .,. J, , ·<)., Gaging St ;Hi rm ol lil YEAR S.0 YEAR l-OD YEAR S.~Q__Y~ -:,..'\. ,.... ~ ... ~ N.ame Rie-cord IGLD MSL !GLD MSL Jf.lD MSL [(;LD ~SL \\ \ "'_,. ~~~dt··., .;;.,,~- . - " '"., ,., c Har-bor fl.each 84 s..s l. ~4 582" .44 ,, 5SJ."l2 -sa2.01 S.8J.. 9Z 583.47 584.77 \ . "< Fot"t Gratiot 48 S..Sl.93 583.18 13 Sa.4.J! 5i!D.'5'9 S.84.84 584. 57 585.82 .. ~ \ '"~ ~ ~ ...... "' )7 ~·'"HAN '. Dunn Paper .60 582.86 ).82.-84 Sa.4.10 5B-J.J2 5-.Sli. 58 5-84. 585.0] ~... ~ ·- " '"' ~"""~ ... ~:i- ...... ,.. u.xi: 0 ' Moruth of ll-lack ltivcr '80 9S. 582. 18 582.14 '531. J7 582.fiO S.83 . .S) 583 . .f:iO 584.8] ST~ CLAIR ~-; " LIGHT ,' Dry Dock S..80.0ob 581.34 581.-0] '562. 11 5B-l .J9 S.82".67 582. L7 583. 4~ LOW1'R E
573 ; st, CJ.All l.IYEI WATEI SUlfACI P&O.FlLIS HIGH. .FLOW • 22:0 000 CFS -- 1. 1 • MILES CLAIR LIGHT MUii now • 196, 000 CPS ~ IFROM LOW n.ow • ll4. ooo en --- SJ" ...... , ., ., .. 572 0 .. ------., -...... ' PLATE 2 PHASE I l - REVl SEO REPORT M I ON C REAT LAll:ES OPEN-COAST FLOOD- LE-V'ELS c ]f I Year1 G Fu~ quency Curve F loo.d Leve 1.s L Gaging Station Name
- Wind:•Ul Point 34 116.67 578. 75 577 .Bl 579.1' 578.24 579. 53 579.19 580.48 I Fort Wayne n • :. 57>. 45 576. ll 576 .41 5 77. 47 576. 77 5 77.83 577. 54 578. 60 \.. Wy.1ndot te 26 576.09 577 .50 577.41 578.8 577 ,93 579. 34 579.06 580.47 \ Ci.bra l tar .ti& .5il .5. 14 576~ 58 5-76. 22 5-77. 6~ .H&. 63 S75. 07 S77. 50 578 • 94 ELEVA TI QNS lN FEE:T lGLD (19 55) AND MEAN SU. LEVEL OF 1929
R V £ R \ Detroit River
N 7' I 0
ITAT\ITI! M1LI.• DETROIT il RIV EB 0 2 LIGHT
~OTE: THESE P .ROFI LES ARE FOR OPE;:i.I -;IAtER COMDITlO'.liS ONLY. CERT A 1 N A.REAS ALONG TH.1 S CRA.'=~El ~.\ Y BE SU'SCEPH:SlE TO FLOOD lNC C,lr,US E-D :SY ADVERSE. lCE cc:.onto::i.is DUR.ING ";'ti~ ..... mu It SEASrnL TilE.S'E PFOHU.S ARE SUDJ EC 1 Tri rnA.W. [ DU RING THOSE p ER cons . ·I T I I ! l ! I I I ! i i • I I I' I ' I I I r I i I I i I ' I i i i I I I l i I T I I ~ I i I I > - I i ! iC a i ' i I I I i j ~ I > l a: 0 I ! ~.... I .... I Clz w 0 I < Cl a: > ! ... I 1· .... I 0 "7A i al: i I I ~78 I I ; Cl I I . I I I I : Ii I - ~~ D:r:ROIT •nu WATER su1r.;.c::e: PllOFILES- .. .. , --- LOW FLOW L--- A¥1UGI. rt.OW • 196 ~ -000 CPS ---L--- LOW rt.QI • !74, 000 CPS ~ POR TU llVD IN UISTIIOG ( 1970) COllOITIOll • Ml ES FROM LAKE ERIE OE TROil R VER LIGHT 1-..--i--+--r-r~- I I 0 0 .. :;!j .. I i i .. "' I I - PLATE 3 Upper Niagara River I --iiciiF-z :::z:z:s:: • I NEW YORK GRAN 0 ISLAND PHASE I I - RE:Vl SED REPORT ON' GREAT LAKES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS NIAGARA RI VER llATER SURF ACE PRO FILES HEVATI~S IN FHT IGLO 09SS) ANO MEAN SEA LEVEL Of 1929 RICH YLOll - 235,000 els THE.SE Pl.OFILES ARE FOR MUii YLOll - 2P s , 000 cf e OPEN WATER CON'DITION"S LIN FLOW' :- 174, 000 cfo ONLY • CE-1.T Al~ AREAS TO!IAWAJfDA CRANNEL ALONG THIS CHANNEL HA 'I CHIPPE\IA CHANNEL SE SUSCEP'TIBLE TO nooDlMG CAUSED BY "' ADVERSE I CE COMDITI ON S DURING THE WIHTE'R SEASON. 'TH ESE PROF ILES .... RE SUBJECT TO CHANCE DURING THOSE P:EltIOD.'i. . 5Hi 15715 w w (!! (!! :::;) :::;) < < • (!! (!! "'_, w ; < "'<.... IO ... z .. z < < 0 a: c_, iC < Cl w (!! :: 570 :::E < < z 570 t- Ill Ill... ! z Q t- < Ill> j Ill 5115 ------DISTANCE F BUFFALO GAUGE TitOUSANDS OF FEET Ill Ill ,110 ~ C!) 0 Ill Ill Ill C!) C!) j: z :) 0 Cl c Ill a: :Ii 0 :c"' a: Cl 0 • 0 "'< Ill j ~ 0 z 0 w <"' w c ~ • IL. j a: Ill ...... !!:: • CL :) :c ~ 0 i I ~ :'J ·O PLATE 4 PHASE 1 I - "REVIS ED REPORT ON GREAT LAKES OPE:N--COAS T FLOOD LE \l':ELS Years Caging Stat ion Name Ashland .Avenue 29 • flEVATIONS JN ~HT JGlD ( 1955) AND MEAN S£A LEVH OF 1929 Lower Niagara River w N E NIAGARA RIVER WATER SURFACE PROFILES HIGH FLOW 235,000 cfs MEAN FLOW 205,000 cfs LOW FLOW 174,000 cfs '' NOTEr THE SI P'ROT l US ARE 'FO'R OPEN WATER CO'N'OtTIONS OlrfL f . CERT.AIN AREAS A.Lmu;: TRI s CRA.N'N'EL MAr u SUSCEPT nu TO STATUTE MILES P'LOODI NC CAUS!'O U 0 \ 2 ADVERSE lCE COHDITlONS E=3 ! I IJURl'N'G TH.I. W'IHTER SEASON • THESE PJ.OFIU:S ARE SL!BJECT TO CHAMCE • DlTRING TI!OSE l'I.RlODS • 320 320 --+--- LOW FLOW -lI 310 310 i 300 300 -+-- ' 290' 290 ;; +I "' 0 280 280 g i 1- w ~ 270 270 z 0 a: ;:: w ~ 260 ~ 260 ... 0 w "'a: "'0 250 ~ 250 w :r ...... • 240 240 23-0 ...... 0 230 PLATE 5 PHAS!i I I - REVJ SED REPORT ON GREAT L.~KES OPEN-COAST FLOOD LEVELS •' St. Lawrence River I Ye-a rs Frequency Curve Flood Levels {;aging St.at ion of 10 YEAR 50 YEAR 100 YEAR 500 YEAR Name Re co rd !GLD MSL IGLD MSL IGLD HSL !GLD HSL I • Cap(' Vic.ent 52 ,247.25 248. 36 24 7. 97 249 .08 248.25 249.36 248. 87 249. 98 I Ogdc-nsbur.j: 52 246.BJ 24 7. 6] 247 .49 248. 29 247.75 248.55 248. 31 p49. l l [LfVAT!ONS IN HE! !GLD (l 955) AND MEAN SEA LE~El OF 1929 N T A R I 0 M" ltANO 81HJC~._.llll --:------Ml HHol 1::., [ tiWN ------/" - ---- T A T E 0 F N y 0 K w :STATUTE MILES NClT[: TUC:SE PROrl I.ES Ali:[ FOR OP~ WA IER c..:rnrn I Tl ON'S ONLY. f.'ERTAt N AREAS Al.~C TH 1 S CHAtfKF.I. MAY IJ.E .S LFSCEPT ! BU: TO \ FLOOD t ~ CAU S Elli BY ADVERSE l CE C01ID1 T [~S CUEffNC. Tl!E WlNTF.R S.EASON. THESE PROF] LES ARE Sllf..l'ECT TO C~GE- • OUR l NG T!iOS'E E' [R l OOS • 0 ,_ Cl .... 2 z a: o( < a: ... ::J z I 0 • ,_o( u m c ! z HIGH FLOW 246 246 - ,I .,.."' - 245 MEANli:-1 ,...., 245 ....0 '\ i !:! '· - I ,_ 244 w 244 "'I".. ~ IW l IL ""l---UW FLOW z ~~ ' z " 243 243 In - I"- ~ ;:: o( ~~ --...... > r-.... w ~ .... ~~ w 242 I"---- I"--...... __ 242 241 241 I - +-~~+-~~-+-1~~~--41-~~~--1--1--1--~~-1--,, --~+-~~~t--~~--+~~-----+ ST. LAWRENCE RIV ER • DISTAJo!CE IN "ILES FR< M LAKE !ONTARIO WATER SURFACE PROFILES I HIGH FLOW - 30 7 , 000 CFS HEAN FLOW - 2 5 5 , 000 CFS 0 0 ... ;; 0 IO I? .. ... LOW FLO\ol - 209 000 CFS PLATE 6 • GLOSSARY Annual Maximum Instantaneous Water Level: The highest water level that was recorded during a year by a gage with a sampling frequency of an hour or less. Annual Maximum Monthly Mean Water Level: The highest monthly average water ·level that occurred at a gage during a year. Diversion: The transfer of water from one drainage basin to another. Flood Frequency Curve: A graph relating flood water elevation and the probability of occurrence in any year. Flow Duration Curve: A function describing the percent of time on average a given flow will be equalled or exceeded. Frequency Distribution: A function describing the relative frequency with which events of various magnitudes occur. International Great Lakes Datum {IGLD): Common reference datum for the Great Lakes area based on mean water level in the St. Lawrence River at Father Point, Quebec and established in 1955. • International Joint Commission: A single unit commission between the U.S. and Canada, created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, seeking solutions to the comIOOn problems in the joint interest of both countries. Lake-Stage Duration Cur\re: A function describing the percent. of tiioo on average a given lake water level will be equalled or exceeded. Master Gage: A lake level gage situated as to give an overall· representative level of a lake, and usually having a long period of record. Mean Sea Level (MSL): The datum referenced to the average h(deht of the surface of the sea, found by averaging all stages of the tide over a 19-year period, at 26 stations along the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico. The establishment of the National Geodetic Vertical Datum .. included the 26 stations, thus referencing NGVD to MSL {See National Geodetic Vertical Datum). Mean Monthly Level: The average water level for a month. • 24 GLOSSARY (Cont'd.) • National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): The nationwide reference surface for elevations throughout the United States. It was established by the National Geodetic Survey in 1929. Molan Sea Level datum is equivalent to NGVD of 1929 (See Mean Sea Level). · One Hundred Year Flood: A flood level that would be equalled or exceeded once in 1 00 years on average. Open-Coast: Shoreline which is unprotected by the presence of islands and which is uninterrupted by bays. Period of Record: The tine interval in which data have been collected. Regional Skew: A geographic area which displays similar skewing characteristics (see Skew Coefficient). Rises above Mean ~nthly Level: The difference in elevation between a maximum instantaneous water level and the mean monthly level (See Wind Setup). Runup: The rush of water up a beach or structure, associated with the breaking of a wave. The amount of runup is measured according to the vertical height above still water level that the rush of water reaches. • Skew Coefficient A numerical measure or index of the lack of sym:aetry in a frequency distribution. Still Water Level: The elevation that the surface of the water would assune if all wave action were absent. Wind Setup: Vertical rise in the stillwater level on a body of water caused by piling up of water on the shore due to wind action. Wind Setup Frequency Curve: A function describing the relative frequency with which wind uetup of various magnitudes occur (See Frequency Distribution and Wind Setup). . . 25 • • REFERENCES 1. "Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Phase I", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, February 1977. 2. "Revised Re port on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Phase I", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, April, 19 88. 3. "Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Phase II", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, June 1978. 4. "Appendix to the Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, July 197 7. 5. "Appendices to the Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, April, 1988. 6. "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency", Bulletin #17B, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Revised September 1981. • 7. "Shore Protection Manual", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1984. 8. "Historical Water Levels Summary, Ontario - 1985", Inland Waters/Lands Directorate, Water Resources Branch, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1987. 9. "Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data (STATS), Users Manual (Preliminary)", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, May 1987. 10. Great Lakes Water Levels, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA/NOS, Rockville, Maryland. -· • 26 REFERENCES (Cont'd) • 11. "Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels - Review of Frequency Analysis Proc(dures", Project Report 88-1, H. E. Kubik, U.S. Armt Corps of Engireers, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, December 1987 (Draft). 12. "Proceedtre for Computing Frequency of Maximum Lake Levels", H-39, H. E. KDbik, U.S. Army Corps of Ehgineers, The Hydrologib Engineering CEnter, Davis, California, December 1974. 13. "Statistical Methods in Hydrology", Leo R. Beard, u.s. Army Corps of Engineers; Sacramento District, July 1977. 14. "Anchor Bay Flood Level Analysis", prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detr6it District by Johnson and Anderson, Inc., Pontiac, Michigan, April 1981. 15. "St. Marys River - Sao Harbor and Little Rapids Cut Ice Conditions and Ice Boom Operations, Winter of 1985- 1986", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, September 1986. 16. "After Action Report on the Implementation of the Great Lakes Connecting Channels Ice Management Program Plan for the • Winter of 1986-1987", U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Detroit District, December 1987. 17. "St. Clair River Ice Jam Report", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, July 1984. 18. "1985-1986 Operation of the Lake Erie-Niagara River Ice Boom", A report to the International Niagara Board of Control by the International Niagara Working Committee, September 1986. 19. "Report on the Upper Niagara River Ice Jam, January-Februar'.Y' 1985", U.S. Army Corps of Engirteers, Buffalo District, July 1985 • 27 •